Downsize again... (Page 2): EdJ0307, You failed to see that my graceful blending of irony and humor is not a rant. Cambridge Dictionary: to speak or shout in a loud or angry way. I...

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

EdJ0307 wrote:

Really? You had to turn a post about camera sizes into your political rant?

EdJ0307, You failed to see that my graceful blending of irony and humor is not a rant. Cambridge Dictionary: to speak or shout in a loud or angry way. I look at today's political drama and stated it with a chuckle.

Speaking of the three anti-science presidents in a frivolous science-based discussion about using Helium balloons to lighten the load of a heavy camera is in keeping with the humor that Jerry put forth. Certainly, I was not being disrespectful of Jerry who I admire and am frequently amazed at the resources he provides on almost any photography/camera subject. Nor! ! am I seriously suggesting using Happy Birthday balloons to lighten heavy cameras.

By way of better tolerating the load of clunky old heavy DSLR like my Sony A-65 and Minolta AF lenses made of cast iron [no Ed not really] I ordered and just yesterday received a harness and believe it to be one solution. This $15 harness via Amazon will be used for my Sony. Those interested should search Amazon for "Camera Strap Chest Harness with Comfortable Neoprene and Accessory Pockets by USA GEAR."

HALF WEIGHT EACH SHOULDER
HALF WEIGHT EACH SHOULDER...

regularguy55

Take a look at the Canon G7X MK II. Excellent lens and very compact and durable. Comparable to many higher priced cameras. Great bang-for-the buck. Have had zero issues in the year I have owned one; seldom use my DSLR now.

EdJ0307 Loc: out west someplace

dpullum wrote:

EdJ0307, You failed to see that my graceful blending of irony and humor is not a rant. Cambridge Dictionary: to speak or shout in a loud or angry way. I look at today's political drama and stated it with a chuckle.

I didn't name any names. What made you think I was talking about you.
Oh, you saw yourself in my comment.

OK then it wasn't a rant. You just hijacked David Taylor's post by changing the subject to suit yourself.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

In all fairness, he did submit a reply to the original post. The 2nd was a humorous reply to Jerry. If everyone used "quote reply", threads would be more meaningful and specific.
Mark

EdJ0307 wrote:

Really? You had to turn a post about camera sizes into your political rant?

davidb1879

The panasonic fz300 weighs abou ta pound and a half. It has a 600mm (35mm equivalent) zoom lens with an f2.8 aperture that is constant throughout the zoom range. Although it has a tiny sensor, I think the image quality is pretty good. I have read that the sony RX 10 IV gets better results, but it costs $1,700 new. The Panasonic costs $400 new. Davidb 1879.

David Taylor

Dsrapa wrote:

Panasonic zs100. (And now200)

Does everything. Good low light. 10x zoom. Fits coat pocket. Looks like point and shoot.

Yes, looking at this right now. Thanks.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Dsrapa wrote:

Panasonic zs100. (And now200)

Does everything. Good low light. 10x zoom. Fits coat pocket. Looks like point and shoot.

Apparently, the DMC-ZS100 and the TZ100 are one and the same. I hate how manufacturers use different names in different countries.

David Taylor

jerryc41 wrote:

Someone has to develop a helium accessory that we can attach to these heavy cameras.

Something like the the balloon in the picture below would lighten the load and make you easier to find in a crowd.

Yes, or some sort of anti gravity case......

David Taylor

dpullum wrote:

As usual, Jerry is the source of all knowledge, fe... (show quote)

I do admire Jerry's ability to provide links for every occasion.

David Taylor

mikegreenwald wrote:

I've been using various iterations of the Sony Rx 100 series, and recommend them strongly. There are significant changes in different models, and one or another - not necessarily the latest, bay well suit your purposes.

Looking at the Mark 3 version. Is that one you've had hands on?

David Taylor

mizzee wrote:

I adore my Olympus OMD E-Mark 5 II. In-camera stabilization that’s best in show! Weatherproofing! Wide selection of lenses! I could go on! As to weight, camera plus 14-150 lens weighs less than my old Nikon 70-200 f/4 lens alone. Very liberating!

Looks good, but a bit heavy.....

David Taylor

markngolf wrote:

I had similar issue with my two Canon DSLR's & L lenses. Made the jump to a Sony RX10 IV for a recent river cruise. It's a phenomenal camera. Give it a look - expensive - but worth the money!!
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx10-iv
Mark

Mark, really good, certainly worth the price. Just too heavy.

David Taylor

rcarol wrote:

It's an amazing camera.

Thanks for the upvote. Looks like this or the RX100 m3.

David Taylor

regularguy55 wrote:

Take a look at the Canon G7X MK II. Excellent lens and very compact and durable. Comparable to many higher priced cameras. Great bang-for-the buck. Have had zero issues in the year I have owned one; seldom use my DSLR now.

Also looks good, but a bit heavier than what I have.

David Taylor

davidb1879 wrote:

The panasonic fz300 weighs abou ta pound and a half. It has a 600mm (35mm equivalent) zoom lens with an f2.8 aperture that is constant throughout the zoom range. Although it has a tiny sensor, I think the image quality is pretty good. I have read that the sony RX 10 IV gets better results, but it costs $1,700 new. The Panasonic costs $400 new. Davidb 1879.

Thanks. Nice, but heavy.