Tony Hayman

As far as I can tell from my research; The better the performance the greater the weight. If I want a long lens, say 240+, full frame, and something like 30 – 45 megapixels and walk around a city or the forest, then I may need a Sherpa to help.

I have a Nikon D750 and I am considering the D850… But the D750 is already too heavy for a long walk…

As far as I can tell the Nikon Z7 with the new 24 – 240 lens is the highest quality for the weight, but my first impression of the Z7 wasn’t good, and it’s ratings vs the D850 are not great.

I am open, any camera & lens, light weight, great quality… Suggestions?

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Sony A7Riii
Tamron 28-75 E mount
About 2.7 lbs

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Between comparative electronics among stereo systems the heavier units are usually better, more expensive.

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

Is it time to step down a little ?
30-45 mpx is wonderful if you really need it. My Leica V-Lux is 20 mpx with a built in lens 25mm-1600mm (best results are 25mm-1000mm).
How big are your prints ? What are the prints for; ad agencies clients, or personal display prints ? I would suggest that you consider the end-use, first.
You mention weight is an issue; my V-Lux is really light to carry anywhere ! Leica is known for its lenses !

SMPhotography Loc: Pawleys Island, SC

I have both a D500 and D850 with battery grips and my favorite wildlife lenses are my manual focus 600mm f/4, 300mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/2 ED IF AIS Nikkors. The 600mm is a beast at 14 pounds but the 300mm and 200mm are far from lightweights. I use a gimbal head with the 600mm and although I use a carbon fiber tripod, camera, lens, tripod and gimbal head pushes 24 pounds. At 62 it does get heavier each year but I am still in good shape physically and am just resigned to the fact that it is the price of having top tear equipment. The images I can get are definitely worth the weight so for right now at least I don't complain.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Stick withwhat you have and get the Nikon 200-500.
You can use my Sherpa any time.

Electric Gnome Loc: Norwich UK

I would stick with what you have. If you really want to drop the weight and have longer reach then you need to go crop sensor and mirrorless. Sony A6500 system for crop or Nikon Z50 2 lens kit would give you same as 24mm - 375mm in FF and is very light and compact.
I wouldn't rule out a good micro 4/3 system either without looking at them.

Tony Hayman

Since I have over 10 years on you, in my past life before I retired I often shot backplates and such for TV & Features. Today doing that is still possible, and once I can travel internationally I will still take shots that I will try and hock... So my wish is for a great camera that is ideally small, inconspicuous and with incredible resolution...

I do find it interesting that no-one has made any comments on the Nikon Z...

Tony Hayman

So as I am writing I see a comment about the Z

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Lens design is the same whether the camera it goes on has a mirror or not. In fact, as the flange distance gets shorter, the lens has to get slightly longer. All this means that as shooting focal lengths get longer, the size and weight advantage for a camera mostly evaporated, so you have to decide based on something else.

I agree that today's cameras without mirrors are mostly less robust than similar DSLRs. My observation is that they do not feel "substantial," and that my D850 will still be shooting long after a Z7 is worn out or broken. Perhaps some designs are coming that don't cause that feeling, but I've not seen or held anything like that yet.

I know that this suggestion will draw a lot of venom, but I have shot my D850 at 200mm, cropped to 400 or 500mm, and still had over 20MP left. That was because I have f2.8 at 200mm, but only f5.6 at 500mm. It was a very fair trade. So there can be alternatives to ever longer lenses.

I believe that there may come a time that even those of us who are resistant will have to buy a mirrorless camera if we want something new. But not yet. We can still choose based on all of the normal tradeoffs. The good news is that I haven't yet found any mirrorless cameras that will immediately give me better images than my D850. That may change tomorrow, but it is true today.

Tony Hayman

The ability to crop, and as long as the object is still in focus, is one of my main reasons for going for the D850. Upon hearing what you said on lenses, since I have spent my life with lenses for films it is something I should have thought about.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Yes and no as to size / quality. The Olympus E-M1X and E-M1 series can shoot in high res mode handheld at 50mp JPEG and 80mp RAW. There are advantages and disadvantages to each format (FF, APS-C, and 43rds). No sherpa needed for the O-MD series cameras. The Olympus 12-100 f4 Pro IS lens (24-200 in 35mm AOV) is a very sharp lens, system stabilized to 6.5 stops or 7.5 stops, and the system is very lightweight, with an E-M1 serie body (1.5 pounds total) or E-M1X body (2.3 pounds total), in comparison to either APS-C or FF cameras, mirror or mirrorless. Worth a look or even a rental.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

You know I’ve never contemplated weight vs image quality
I can tell you that for air travel I purchased Olympus with 2 lenses
When I got home I wasn’t expecting what I found
Sharp,crisp,quality, colorful images even made blow ups without “grainy” results
Than I did some of my own tests against my FF nikons - I sold my nikons and shoot Olympus

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I was on the fence between the D850 and the Z7. I went with the Z7 and I’m completely happy with it. I wasn’t surprised it was smaller and lighter than my D500, but was very surprised that a FF camera was no bigger than my M4/3 Panasonic G9. (Albeit the Z7’s lenses are much larger). I think there were a lot of naysayers when it was first released but current comparisons are very favorable. My existing Nikon glass works well with the FTZ adapter, although I haven’t really tried the 200-500mm. That pretty much lives on the D500 because I like the extra reach. I only have one native Z mount lens, the 24-70 f/4 and it’s fantastic. I really look forward to getting more native glass. I think the 85mm is next. Someone mentioned build quality. There’s an assumption that because the D850 is bigger and heavier that it’s more robust. I don’t have a D850, but my D500 is an equivalent build and I find the Z7 to be equally well built. All that being said, if you’re looking to really save weight, look into M4/3. Ive seen a few people commenting on Olympus. I have the Panasonic G9 that I got mainly to use kayaking and it’s become my travel camera too. The real weight saving is in lenses. I can shoot my Leica 100-400mm, (200-800 equivalent), handheld all day long. It’s a great camera. That being said I prefer my D500 for wildlife and there is a look you can get from full frame that’s hard to duplicate with smaller formats.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I doubt the 12 oz savings of a Z7 over a D850 will outweigh the overall performance losses.

Nikon does not make a 24-240 that I know of - they do make a 50-250 for DX format.

Selecting a full frame mirrorless to save a few ounces is not going to give you a significant overall weight advantage after you add lenses. If I were going to switch to mirrorless and was looking for the highest level of performance, I'd look at a Sony A7IV.

If I were feeling overwhelmed carrying around my D810 and a Sigma 150-600 Sport (about 8.4 lbs total), I'd take a serious look at a Sony RX10M4 - which I ended up buying after looking at all sorts of options. I don't think you can match the performance and image quality, not to mention an equivalent 24-600 F2.4-F4 lens, the fastest AF system on the planet, and outstanding video performance in a 2.5 lb package.