btbg

If you change to Nikon mirrorless you can continue to use your lenses while you gradually replace them with smaller mirrorless lenses. That way you can make the transition slowly. Right now you have three models to choose from that will take your current lenses.

Canisdirus

It's all about sales.
4/3'ds are at the bottom. Oly doesn't even make the list. pan overtook them...barely.
The top three...which dominate the global market...don't bother with 4/3'ds.
Says it all.
Full frame cameras are driving market share. Why? They perform better. Better contrast, better dynamic range, more MP's (crop options galore).

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It’s not that simple. The market is very fragmented. There is room for medium format, full format, APS-C, and Micro 4/3.

There are dozens of attributes that are measures of better “quality” or “performance.” Suitability for use is generally a combination of many factors.

Why else did I abandon Canon AND Nikon after 45 years of using both?

In my lifetime experience of using technology, my one observation is that “most popular,” and “best selling,” are usually just the result of superior marketing and advertising. They have little or nothing to do with “best-suited to my needs.”

But then, I’m pretty careful and analytical about spending money. I get what matches my needs and intentions.

Canisdirus

Yes, it's fragmented, but the list shows 4/3'ds at the bottom of the market by a wide margin.
Pan has moved up by going full frame. Oly..well Oly could not turn a profit.
I'm sure 4/3ds can take great images as I said previously...and one could discuss which 4/3'ds camera company makes the best.
But it's a mistake to think they can compete with full frame bodies...the market shows they cannot.
The newer high MP FF does it all. Low light, fantastic dynamic range, and best of all if you want to crop...you still end up with large clean files. Best of all, you can reframe the crop any way needed...one is not limited.
If you start cropping a 20MP image...well...you hit a limitation right away.

Yes, there is a place for 4/3'ds ... so far.
But there is a reason the big three don't mess with them.
FF drives the market. The market decides who survives and/or thrives...just ask Oly.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I believe you are correct. The mirrorless market will over take the mirrors although mirror cameras will be around for a while. They are just not going to develop mirrored cameras and eventually they will stop making them just like they stopped making film cameras. And if you notice, some manufactures have downsized FF bodies. The only problem, if lightweight is a requirement, the bodies will be lighter weight, but the lenses, that match the same angle of view as APS-C and 4/3rds, will not be nearly as light weight as APS-C and 4/3rds. That is because they have collect and spread their light over the FF sensor size. One can reduce the size of the lens, but then the FF aperture shrinks too. No matter who wants what, in photography, one usually has to give something up to get what they want. For me, I trade size, weight, and cost against DOF and ISO. Others will trade just the opposite way. Hopefully they will upgrade the 4/3rds sensors soon, but they are more that adequate for now. Since the OP is in need of less weight, the OP may have to trade DOF and ISO for less size, weight, and cost (specifically weight).

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Put this number in your calculator - 5407708 - turn it upside down and read it.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The main loss for Olympus was the legal judgment in the fraud case involving the whole company, not just the camera division. Olympus did not market their cameras like they are now being advertised (probably because of JIP?). They have since been lowering their prices and advertising like I have never seen before. And many photographers, pros and others, are buying them for travel and/or backup cameras if nothing else. And where can I buy a camera body and lense combination that will cover 300mm to 2000mm in angle of view, weight 6.66 pounds total, and cost only $10.9K total? Where can I buy a camera system that will cover 14mm to 2000mm in angle of view, be weatherproof and dustproof, have 5 to 8 stops of IS, totally handholdable (no tripod required), and weight less than 15 pounds for traveling in the backcountry? I can do that only in 4/3rds, not FF, not APS-C. That kind of ability to travel and travel light, at less cost and size, and still come back with terrific photographs is the draw of 4/3rds. Bill at Burkphoto and myself are able to put our cameras under our airplane seats and still have room for our feet. I even carry mine on as my personal item because of its size. Coverage with that is either 14-100 or 14-200 in 35mm terms, no worst than f4, IS 5.5 stops or better, flash and filters, with lifesize macro capability. I know of no matching FF or APS-C that I could pack and put it all under my airline seat and have room for my feet. As far as cropping, one never has to crop more than 7% max to print any of the main print sizes. Size, weight, and cost with great image quality is why 4/3rds will not be going away anytime soon.

APSHEPPARD

I have the D500 aps-c and the Z7 mirrorless. The Z7 is definitely lighter and will shoot full and APS-C. The comment about lenses is absolutely the case. I just got the Z 70-200 f/2.8 and is is only a small amount lighter and more compact. The big advantage of the Z7 is the 45 megapixels which allows some serious cropping while maintaining quality. For pure weight I have two friends who have gone with the Olympus system. Much improved weight and size but lots of money to get a full system and the adjustment not only to 4:3 but to a crop factor of 2 where APS-C is only 1.5. Canon's announcement of the R5 and its lenses look attractive both performance and pricewise, but again a new learning curve. Good luck!

Flash Falasca Loc: Beverly Hills, Florida

I switched from Nikon FF's to Fujifilm X-e3 a brilliant rangefinder style camera. I am going to get a Fujifilm X-s10 Dslr style with in body stab. fully articulating screen 18 film simulations etc. !! this is the baby brother of their X-T4 their top aps body at around half the price !!

hankswan

I had the same problem with my D700, D750, and P900. When you pickup a DSLR with a long lens 300, 400, or 600 and a battery box on the bottom, it is a handful. I had shot using a Leica M3 and the results were always astounding. (The camera did it's job, but I did not always do mine. I am just changing from my Nikons to a Leica based system. I have a X2 fixed lens, Q2 fixed lens, TL2 interchangeable lens, 2 CLs interchangeable lens. I have a couple of TL lenses, can use the Leica S lens and an adapter so I can use the Leica M series lenses. Yes, it is pricey but size and features are very acceptable and the results from any of these cameras are unsurpassed in quality and color. By carefully looking for available used camera and lenses and trying what looks best for your needs. Read reviews and look on the Leica web site. You might even be able to rent the model(s) you are interested in. If I can try to answer any questions you have please PM me. You can also go on YouTube and find many videos of Leica cameras and lenses. Take a look.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The physics of full frame design do not favor lightweight lenses. Over 110 m43 lenses are available. THAT is one big appeal of using Micro 4/3.

For Lumix, that appeal includes the evolution of excellent hybrid (stills plus video with great audio) designs.

True, even Panasonic Lumix is making full frame gear, in partnerships with Leica and Sigma. But they deliberately ignored APS-C in favor of full frame plus Micro 4/3, for the same reason Fujifilm makes both APS-C and medium format cameras.

Canisdirus

I think you have a good understanding of the problem.
Micro shines with the smaller lenses...which was it's original niche.
Problem is cellphones took that market away from them...and did so faster than micro anticipated.
There was no where for them to go except long lenses...where the problems get amplified by a small sensor.
If that's all that was available...no problem.
But at the same time, FF's went into high gear...denying micro that market as well.
The market share numbers reflect that.
It's why Oly could not turn a profit for three years straight...and went belly up.
There are interesting software fixes going on in the market which helps micro..but everyone else can take advantage of that as well.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

First, as you probably already haver Nikon lenses, moving to one of the Z series, consider the Z7-II, makes more sense than starting over. I have two of the original Z7s and I use a few of my F-mount lenses with the FTZ adapter. All works well. I will keep these lenses as I am considering re-entering the IR aren and all the new lenses have many coatings that severely interfere with IR photography. So if this arena offers any interest to you, keep the F mounts.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Well, I don’t use Oly. Their video features are mediocre, the ergonomics don’t agree with me, and their menus, like Sony’s, need work.

No, I use the Lumix GHx series for its balance of video and stills. Even the new iPhones can’t do what the GH4, GH5, and GH5s can do, and full frame gear, while fantastic at many things, is still too bulky and heavy.

That’s why I’m optimistic. We don’t live in a 20th century world of “top 5” markets any more. The Long Tail marketing schemes of the Internet have made it possible for companies to serve niche markets without the need for shelf space, retail chains, lots of distributors...

Will there be some consolidation? Yes. Will brands evolve? Yes. Will Olympus die a gooey death? Jury still out...

There are more FILM brands sold today than before 1995... The volume is low, but manufacturers have scaled to the size of the niche. The same is true of vinyl LP records, reel-to-reel tape machines, tube (valve) hi-fi enthusiast audio...

Heck, even AM radio survives. All the frequencies in my metro area that were there 55 years ago are still actively modulated. They don’t pull in the massive revenues they once did, but they serve niche markets that, at the margins, pull in enough for their owners to keep them in their media portfolios.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

You are certainly an accomplished parrot - but I think you have been listening to the wrong people. Cellphones are fantastic communication devices - and have enabled a new visual dimension along with social media. However, they have not become serious photography tools - your arguments regarding sensor size comparisons certainly do not disappear when considering cellphones - they are multiplied. Yes - APS-C will - or has - happened in cellphone technology - but at twice the cost of a crop sensor camera. Their biggest advantage is portability - at which FF sucks. So we will still have M4/3 for great and compact photography.
Cellphone manufacturers have nowhere left to go with audio, and so are doing their best to enter the photography market - but their new products will not attract the multitude at which they are aimed - if only on price. The future of real photography? FF and M4/3.