considering change to Sony
Sep 24, 2023 11:55:46 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
photoman43 wrote:
The only real way to get significant weight savings is to switch to a system that uses a smaller sensor like micro 4/3 cameras with matching lenses. And if you do the real weight savings are in the lenses-- a 300mm lens for such a camera has a 35mm equivalent focal length of 600mm for Canon, Nikon and Sony frame sensor cameras. One such system is by Olympus.
More weight savings take place if you use a camera with a 1 inch sensor.
More weight savings take place if you use a camera with a 1 inch sensor.
My wife shoots an OM-1 with the leica DG vario-Elmar 100-400. The combo is just about the same weight as what he has now, NO weight savings with the 4/3 camera, it is a myth.
Sep 24, 2023 11:57:13 #
I have the R5 and purchased the RF100-500 lens when it came out. My daughter, who also has an R5, called me and asked me was the RF100-500 worth $2000 more than the RF100-400. I looked at the specs and said if I was buying now I would buy the RF100-400. She bought it and when I saw her shortly after, I tried it on my camera and decided to sell my RF100-500. The RF100-500 weighs 3 lbs. The RF100-400 weighs 1.4 lbs. Even if you add the RF1.4 extender it adds less than 8 oz. and gives you a range of 140 to 560. I shoot mostly birds and air shows with this combination and have no trouble hand holding it. It feels noticeably lighter than the 100-500 did. My walk around lens is the 24-240 which weighs less than the 24-105. Those two lenses are used by me over 95% of the time. PS: I'm 85 years old.
Walt B
Walt B
Sep 24, 2023 12:02:13 #
kufengler
Loc: Meridian, Idaho 83646
gwilliams6 wrote:
You just need to do better research, then I wouldn't have to show you all the facts , LOL
And my provided links will give Zooman more specific hands-on info to view and study on these possible Sony camera choices, along with my photos providing relevant examples of the quality possible with these sensors and the very 200-600mm lens being considered.
Cheers and best to you.
And my provided links will give Zooman more specific hands-on info to view and study on these possible Sony camera choices, along with my photos providing relevant examples of the quality possible with these sensors and the very 200-600mm lens being considered.
Cheers and best to you.
You sound like you work for Sony, or have some investment in Sony!
;-)
Sep 24, 2023 12:06:00 #
Jason O'Dell shoots with a Nikon system and a Olympus 4/3 system. To see what he says about weight and size savings look at this link below. The video you can access at the link takes one hour, and is quite informative. If you want to watch just sections of it, you can do that too.
https://luminescentphoto.com/blog/tag/olympus-om-1/
I have many friends who shoot with two systems. And some shoot with three, where the third uses a small sensor like in the Nikon Coolpix 900, 950 and 1000.
https://luminescentphoto.com/blog/tag/olympus-om-1/
I have many friends who shoot with two systems. And some shoot with three, where the third uses a small sensor like in the Nikon Coolpix 900, 950 and 1000.
Sep 24, 2023 12:08:48 #
Canisdirus wrote:
As if he hasn't looked into it already... 
Well, if he’s considering a heavier lens to save weight, I wouldn’t bet on it.
Sep 24, 2023 12:10:51 #
Peteso wrote:
"Like very much" and "too heavy...to carry" are mutually exclusive. To lighten the load, there are other options which many on this forum like very much, as well.
Not at all, I like Ferraris very much, but they are too expensive for me to afford
Sep 24, 2023 12:19:32 #
dbrugger25
Loc: Raleigh, NC
Zooman 1 wrote:
As I have reached 80, I find my R5 and RF100-500mm, which I like very much are too heavy for me to carry, left and hold. I am thinking about Switching to Sony with the 200-600mm, not sure which camera. Any thoughts?
Since you have Canon RF lenses, why not switch to the Canon R7. It is far smaller and lighter, has a 1.6 crop factor and 30 megapixels. It s feature rich, not terribly expensive and rich with advanced features. It Works with smaller, lighter APS-C RF lenses.
I have an R5 and an R7. They are a fantastic combination of great cameras.
I have arthritis in my finger joints and the R7 works for me. Why don't you visit a camera store and check it out. With the Canon 18-150 APS-C zoom and the RF 24-240 zoom I have a very broad telephoto range. With your RF 100-500 you have the equivelant of a full frame 160-800 lens.
Sep 24, 2023 12:36:49 #
dbrugger25 wrote:
Since you have Canon RF lenses, why not switch to ... (show quote)
Exactly. And he can add the 100-400, which weighs 1.4 lbs, saving half the weight of his current FF setup, plus the control layout is similar so switching between bodies is seamless, and if he wants a really long reach very occasionally (750mm equivalent FF FL), he can mount the existing 100-500. Just such an obvious answer (at least to me).
Sep 24, 2023 12:56:59 #
All the brand squabbling is really silly and quite a distraction. Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras and lenses are all capable of producing fantastic images. What matters to the OP is weight. Sensor size is becoming less of an issue with the rise in APS-C quality, but FF obviously makes a difference for subject isolation if that matters to the OP.
Sep 24, 2023 13:10:30 #
Peteso
Loc: Blacks Hills
Admittedly, my question may be stupid…but, I keep seeing references to “OP.” What does OP stand for?
Sep 24, 2023 13:14:03 #
FACT: REAL weight savings with larger lenses >400mm equiv. FOV are not realized until you get to a 1" sensor ......and Sony has the highest quality locked up with the RX10m4........and, as a bonus you also get equiv. FOV's down to 24mm without carrying extra lenses !
Sep 24, 2023 13:31:05 #
Peteso wrote:
Original Post(er).Admittedly, my question may be stupid…but, I keep seeing references to “OP.” What does OP stand for?
Sep 24, 2023 13:31:14 #
Real weight savings mostly comes from reducing sensor size (as has been suggested above) regardless of camera brand. This is especially true for those who need /want long lenses.
If that is true, the best place to look is APS-c or m4/3.
If that is true, the best place to look is APS-c or m4/3.
Sep 24, 2023 13:41:49 #
MJPerini wrote:
Real weight savings mostly comes from reducing sensor size (as has been suggested above) regardless of camera brand. This is especially true for those who need /want long lenses.
If that is true, the best place to look is APS-c or m4/3.
If that is true, the best place to look is APS-c or m4/3.
NO significant weight savings with APSC OR M4/3 ....with LONG lenses that have decent f-stops for decent ISO's .....
The BEST place is 1" sensors - 600mm f4
Sep 24, 2023 13:46:38 #
Life is short and uncertain so eat your dessert first. All life on earth has an expiration date. Unfortunately, we are unable to read what it is on our barcode.😁
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.