considering change to Sony (Page 2): On UHH you will get: (1) Expert Advice (2) Strong conflicting opinions (3) Completely wrong answers (Generally in that order.) And it's up to the...

JD750 Loc: SoCal

On UHH you will get:
(1) Expert Advice
(2) Strong conflicting opinions
(3) Completely wrong answers

(Generally in that order.)

And it's up to the reader to sort them all out.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

JD750 wrote:

On UHH you will get:
(1) Expert Advice
(2) Strong conflicting opinions
(3) Completely wrong answers

(Generally in that order.)

And it's up to the reader to sort them all out.

How true.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

Due to the weight of my Sony gear aggravating a back and hip injury, I swapped to Olympus/OMS gear. I now own two OM Systems (AKA Olympus) OM1 bodies, a 300mm f4 + MC14/MC20 teleconverters, a 90mm f3.5 macro lens, 12 - 100mm f4 and 12 - 50mm f3.5- f6.3, plus three weaterproof Olympus flashguns. The cameras are simply brilliant and the lenses are fabulous and significanly lighter than FF lenses.

Capn_Dave

gwilliams6 wrote:

You have to understand the UHH Canon fanboys will ... (show quote)

Speaking of fanboys. Your Sony rhetoric and having to justify what you wrote about your experience, never really touched on the original post. He was looking for weight savings that is all. Just a little lighter camera. Paul already mentioned the weight difference

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

gwilliams6 wrote:

With tripod collar the RF 100-500mm is 54.0 oz. (1... (show quote)

So remove foot on both.
But even with the Sony foot removed and keeping the Canon foot the Sony lens is substantially heavier.
The OP has a weight issue ONLY. Sony will not solve that problem at all. You are going way off on a tangent.
Canon APSC R7 runs circles around all Sony INC'S and put the extremely light 100-400mm on and you have great savings.
The OP is not going to buy 300 lenses, they want an ILC and were looking at Sony and were under the totally false impression that Sony is magically lighter.
I as usual produced facts that you as a Canon hater didn't want to see.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

JD750 wrote:

On UHH you will get:
(1) Expert Advice
(2) Strong conflicting opinions
(3) Completely wrong answers

(Generally in that order.)

And it's up to the reader to sort them all out.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

There is no significant weight difference amongst any full-frame camera. You're talking a few ounces at best. Quoting grams or percentages just makes it seem larger. Do the math. Then pick up a Canon, Sony or Nikon with 180-600 lens attached. Can you even tell how many ounces you are holding without a spec sheet? Certainly not much help in real-time field experience.

Probably the only true way to lighten the load is M4/3 equipment. I considered all that. Realized I was too invested in my current system to start over and simply bought a good carbon mono-pod to help support the camera and take the weight off my aching back. Problem solved for around $129.

bkwaters

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?

The correct answer is to add the excellent and light RF100-400. The next best answer is to change to the R50 and the RF100-400. Other answers are wrong.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

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?

You are not going any lighter with the Sony 200-600. I own that lens and the nicest thing about it is that you can go from 200-600 with a quarter turn of the zoom collar. It is an internal zoom also. Very sharp.
I have added a battery grip to all my Sony bodies that helps balance the 200-600. I am 75 years old and have no issues hand holding the lens during shooting times for birds in flight, otherwise I carry it with both hands cradle it like a baby and holding it close to my body.
Now my main shooting lens is the Sony 600 f4, and actually since it is center weighted, it feels lighter in my hands than the 200-600.
MY ADVICE, get the 100-400 Sony and with Sony you can shoot in what is called, CLEAR IMAGE ZOOM, which allows you to double the focal length of your lens with no loss of aperture speed. In other words, your now shooting a 200-800 4.5-5.6. Really cool and no loss in Megapixels either. That is my suggestion. Now their is only one issue, with CLEAR IMAGE ZOOM you must shoot in Jpeg. I find no issues with this as the Sony delivers 50 megs with my a1 so no issues with sharpness or exposure.

ELNikkor

You mention the camera, and then the RF100-500 lens. The weights of FF mirror-less cameras with similar features from most camera companies are so close, it would not be worth changing for weight alone. Even their 100-500, 150-600, 200-600 big zooms are also close in weight. (The Canon 100-500 actually weighs LESS than the Sony 200-600.) If the weight of the camera + big lens is what makes photography difficult for you, the only choice you have for lighter weight, but still long telephoto would be to go to a smaller sensor. I've just seen favorable reviews on the new M4/3's Lumix G9II with comparisons to the Nikon FF mirrorless telephotos. (Hugh Brownstone on Youtube, etc.) Check out other options and let us know what you decide...

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

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?

Why not switch to the Sony RX10IV with only one lens that gives you better than 24-600? Just one lens that zooms out and incredible sharpness in m experience. Just a suggestion.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

larryepage wrote:

Why don't you just add Sony for your long shots and keep what you have and love for everything else?

Won't the 500mm part of the 200-500 work for long shots? Am I missing something?

Dennis

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

mikeroetex wrote:

There is no significant weight difference amongst ... (show quote)

My original post was a response that Sony being considered was far heavier than the current Canon rig. Which for some reason freaked out the Sony fanboys.
Yes, M4/3 would be a true savings in weight and still have an ILC. You are absolutely correct.

tcthome Loc: NJ

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?

I don't know about the weight of the Canon R5 but The 2 new Sony cameras that Sony just released (gwilliam mentions) might be easier for you to hold but once adding the 200-600mm lens it might not make that much of a difference as far as holding the set-up weight wise. I suggest you get to a camera store & hold some set-ups for a while & think about holding them for the amount of time you usually go on a shoot. I run into people shooting the 100-500 & it doesn't look like you will get much lighter than that for the focal length & is probably a little sharper than the 200-600. Have you thought about Canon's crop sensor cameras like the R7? I do think the Sony cameras would perform slightly better overall for wildlife photography talking to people I see shooting them. The AF accuracy on both brands would probably be too small to notice if any.
Once again, I suggest you get to a camera store & check them out (not just weight but functions/menus) or try Lens Rental & rent the system you are interested in trying first. Just my thoughts. Good luck with your choice & happy shooting.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

tcthome wrote:

I don't know about the weight of the Canon R5 but ... (show quote)

If weight is an issue a heavy, physically long lens is difficult to hold regardless of the camera. And most cameras of the same size sensor are pretty close in weight now and is pretty irrelevant in overall weight when discussing long heavy awkward lenses like the Sony 200-600mm.