Change to smaller lighter? (Page 2): That camera is absolutely phenomenal. I am still learning all the bells and whistles of the E-M1mkII and the E-M1X is above and beyond it. It is...

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

BebuLamar wrote:

Olympus OMD-EM-1X.

That camera is absolutely phenomenal. I am still learning all the bells and whistles of the E-M1mkII and the E-M1X is above and beyond it. It is designed for the consummate sport and wildlife pros that wants the ultimate in focus along with shooting in any conditions other than underwater in a size that is extremely easy to travel with. It automatically identifies helmets, cars, planes, and some other objects, focuses on them, and follows them across the viewfinder without help from the photographer. When the 150-400 f4.5 comes out next year, one will be able to shoot an equivalent angle of view from 14mm to 2000mm. People are going to find it very hard to match other systems against it in the future. For now, it is the only camera that can identify and differentiate between various objects.

BebuLamar

Gene51 wrote:

This weighs 2x what his current camera weighs.

Yes but the sensor is about 1/2 X the area of his current sensor

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

BebuLamar wrote:

Yes but the sensor is about 1/2 X the area of his current sensor

He can't go "lighter" without making some compromise. Besides, the Nikon has a sensor area of 419.17mm² compared to the OMD-EM-1X's 224.9mm² sensor, making the OMD's sensor almost half the size. The Sony's sensor is even smaller at 114.4 mm², nearly a quarter of what he has now. I agree the 1" sensor is tiny, but looking at posted images, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference between the three, other than the "wierd" aspect of the Oly. You "may" see a difference in some smaller printed images, or if you print large and pixel peep - like look at a 60x40 print at a distance of 12 inches, yes, you'd see a difference.

BebuLamar

Gene51 wrote:

He can't go "lighter" without making some compromise. I agree the sensor is definitely smaller in area, but looking at posted images, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference. You "may" see a difference in some smaller printed images, or if you print large and pixel peep - like look at a 60x40 print at a distance of 12 inches, yes, you'd see a difference.

I think he should go for the Sony RX-1 which is smaller and lighter and yet 2x larger in sensor area.

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

BebuLamar wrote:

I think he should go for the Sony RX-1 which is smaller and lighter and yet 2x larger in sensor area.

How is that lighter? It weighs .1 lb less if you just weigh the main unit. Then you have to add considerably heavier lenses. Methinks you have gone off the rails on this one . . . M4/3 is an option but only because while the cameras are only an ounce apart (not the 1X), the lenses are lighter and smaller. But still I consider that a lateral move.

If he wants to go REALLY light, he should consider the RX100VI with a 24-200 (equivalent) F2.4 to F4 lens and it really does fit in a pocket. It is smaller, and at 10.7 oz it is a fraction of the weight of his "brick" - and still capable of high quality images. I am not sure on this, but I think it has the same sensor tech as the RX10M3 and M4.

BebuLamar

Gene51 wrote:

How is that lighter? It weighs .1 lb less if you j... (show quote)

You do not have to put a lens on the RX-1. It has a 1 permanent lens.

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

BebuLamar wrote:

You do not have to put a lens on the RX-1. It has a 1 permanent lens.

You're right of course! But as an only camera, I am not sure it's a good choice.

BebuLamar

Gene51 wrote:

You're right of course! But as an only camera, I am not sure it's a good choice.

Actually what I meant is that there is really nothing smaller and lighter than what the OP has that can do the job.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Gene51 wrote:

D7500 weighs 1.1 lbs
Sony A6500 weighs 1 lb
Olympus OM-D-E M10 Mk III weighs .9 lbs

So you are willing to change a camera in order to lose 1-2 ounces in weight? Really?

Besides, all the weight is in the lens, as you will find out. The winner might be the Olympus system lenses because they are physically smaller than APS-C lenses for the Nikon or Sony.

BTW, I would hardly call a 1.1 lb camera a "brick"

You beat me to it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

schneiss wrote:

Considering changing brands from Nikon as Im upgrading to a new camera. I have only 2 lenses so im not tied to Nikon. D7500 is a heavy brick. Considering lighter and smaller mirrorless. Maybe Sony or Olympus? Any suggestions?

Sony will not save size or weight over what you have as their lenses more than make up for size and weight savings overall.
Olympus/ M4/3 is the way to got for real savings in size and weight.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

You are correct sir... Some of the new Canon Mirrorless lenses are both heavier and more expensive than the EF versions...I believe.

Gene51 wrote:

D7500 weighs 1.1 lbs
Sony A6500 weighs 1 lb
Olympus OM-D-E M10 Mk III weighs .9 lbs

So you are willing to change a camera in order to lose 1-2 ounces in weight? Really?

Besides, all the weight is in the lens, as you will find out. The winner might be the Olympus system lenses because they are physically smaller than APS-C lenses for the Nikon or Sony.

BTW, I would hardly call a 1.1 lb camera a "brick"

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

So this camera will be dominant at the 2020 Olympics... can we bet lunch on that...

wdross wrote:

That camera is absolutely phenomenal. I am still l... (show quote)

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

one inch sensor superzooms fit in a pocket, about 10 oz. Come in three flavors... Sony, Panasonic, Canon

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Gene51 wrote:

D7500 weighs 1.1 lbs
Sony A6500 weighs 1 lb
Olympus OM-D-E M10 Mk III weighs .9 lbs

So you are willing to change a camera in order to lose 1-2 ounces in weight? Really?

Besides, all the weight is in the lens, as you will find out. The winner might be the Olympus system lenses because they are physically smaller than APS-C lenses for the Nikon or Sony.

BTW, I would hardly call a 1.1 lb camera a "brick"

But that is the point - the D7500 (1.59lbs with batteries) plus heavier lens and the combo will surely be quite a bit heavier than, say, a Panasonic G9 (658 gms) with an equivalent MFT lens? I think size comes in to it as well. Both are very capable cameras.

domcomm Loc: Denver, CO

I agree with the Fuji XT-3 or XT-30 – not just for the size/weight factors, but also because of the non-Bayer processor, and the lack of the screen in front of the processor, which makes them sharper. Another thing is that Fuji has been making great films for a lot of years, so they put that knowledge into their processors for better color. I won't use 4/3 cameras for several reasons, even though they are slightly lighter weight.