Totally agree, hope they start bringing more of them out.
Personally I have the 26 pancake (I really do value the small size, not just ranting here) and 40 SE, and those are the defaults on my Zf for grab and go.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Prospects for a smaller/lighter Nikon FX body (and lenses)?
- Thread starter greendave
- Start date
Personally I have the 26 pancake (I really do value the small size, not just ranting here) and 40 SE, and those are the defaults on my Zf for grab and go.
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
I'm not saying that staying in shape, including lifting some weights, isn't a good idea for people reaching their senior years. It's an excellent idea.
But I can't extend that to a requirement for photography. I'll hear objections here, but if you can't carry a Z6/7 around all day with let's say a 24-120 lens attached, I doubt you can actually walk around all day sightseeing either.
Of course I'm ignoring things like bad arthritis in your hands that make holding a camera difficult even though walking may not be an issue. I'm also not speaking to people that are in great shape but simply don't want to carry a large gear kit around. I fit into that category. I can easily carry gear around if I actually wanted to. But I don't anymore. I want to enjoy my travel trips and schlepping a backpack of gear around all day is not something that appeals to me any longer.
But Nikon has already made it clear that they are focused on the mid to high end market. Where does that leave small and light cameras and lenses? Again, I'd like to see a small camera like the A7C come out from Nikon. I don't know that I would buy one at the moment. Maybe in 10 years I would as my hands get more arthritic.
If you've already purchased a ton of Z gear then changing systems may not be something you want to do. All cameras take excellent photos these days. I don't buy the ergonomics argument for sticking with any particular brand. I've used Nikon, Fujifilm, Nikon and Leica film cameras, medium format cameras, etc. For me, it's about the image. If a company makes a cameras and lenses that are what you're looking for you should just buy it.
But I can't extend that to a requirement for photography. I'll hear objections here, but if you can't carry a Z6/7 around all day with let's say a 24-120 lens attached, I doubt you can actually walk around all day sightseeing either.
Of course I'm ignoring things like bad arthritis in your hands that make holding a camera difficult even though walking may not be an issue. I'm also not speaking to people that are in great shape but simply don't want to carry a large gear kit around. I fit into that category. I can easily carry gear around if I actually wanted to. But I don't anymore. I want to enjoy my travel trips and schlepping a backpack of gear around all day is not something that appeals to me any longer.
But Nikon has already made it clear that they are focused on the mid to high end market. Where does that leave small and light cameras and lenses? Again, I'd like to see a small camera like the A7C come out from Nikon. I don't know that I would buy one at the moment. Maybe in 10 years I would as my hands get more arthritic.
If you've already purchased a ton of Z gear then changing systems may not be something you want to do. All cameras take excellent photos these days. I don't buy the ergonomics argument for sticking with any particular brand. I've used Nikon, Fujifilm, Nikon and Leica film cameras, medium format cameras, etc. For me, it's about the image. If a company makes a cameras and lenses that are what you're looking for you should just buy it.
Seems like people are down on the A7C here, but there is a market for it and I think I even read that it's the best selling FX body in Japan.
I myself would love to see a Nikon equivalent. Yes, it would have compromises, but I wouldn't be buying one to use as my only body but rather as a smaller and lighter option and complement to a larger and more capable body.
I'd happily use it with the 24-50, 40, 28 and 26mm options from Nikon, and I'd consider an adapter to use some of the smaller lenses available for the E-mount. And I'd hope that Sigma would release some of its lenses for the Z mount, in particular the i-series primes.
I myself would love to see a Nikon equivalent. Yes, it would have compromises, but I wouldn't be buying one to use as my only body but rather as a smaller and lighter option and complement to a larger and more capable body.
I'd happily use it with the 24-50, 40, 28 and 26mm options from Nikon, and I'd consider an adapter to use some of the smaller lenses available for the E-mount. And I'd hope that Sigma would release some of its lenses for the Z mount, in particular the i-series primes.
The a7c's appeal is that it fits the "just enough" people. It's the same logic as the Panasonic S9. People in the west generally lambasted the S9 for in Japan the reception is a lot more warmer.
Here's a video talking about how Japan likes small things. The S9 was mentioned early to illustrate that point.
I really liked my Z5 but I found that it was too heavy for me now (old age!!) so I changed to a Z50.
When I found that Canon had bought out a lightweight full frame ie. R8 I decided to buy one (never thought that I would by a Canon.) I still keep the Z50 for use with the 12-28mm and 50-250mm but now use the R8 for everything else. Using it with either the 24-50mm lens or a small prime it is about the same weight as the Z50 but with better ability in low light situations.
Probably not the right forum to promote a Canon but there you go.
When I found that Canon had bought out a lightweight full frame ie. R8 I decided to buy one (never thought that I would by a Canon.) I still keep the Z50 for use with the 12-28mm and 50-250mm but now use the R8 for everything else. Using it with either the 24-50mm lens or a small prime it is about the same weight as the Z50 but with better ability in low light situations.
Probably not the right forum to promote a Canon but there you go.
No, your info is appreciated by most I believe.
UsherFellig
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,341
- Reaction score
- 1,597
No EVF, no deal in this quarter. But I daresay Nikon could whip up a Z30-ish FF rangefinder with either a decent onboard EVF, or a very nice available accessory EVF. I think IBIS is almost a necessary these days. But reduction of all kinds of other things could help with size and weight with no harm to my wish list or experience--articulated screen could go, video capabilities could be reduced, state-of-the-art super-power processing/AF features could be left to the other models. A lighter/more compact FF rangefinder body with a nice degree of resolution, IBIS, and onboard or accessory EVF? I believe that is possible.
It'd be really really sweet to do it with a tip of the hat design-wise to the Nikon SP cameras.
It'd be really really sweet to do it with a tip of the hat design-wise to the Nikon SP cameras.
Last edited:
They had an EVF accessory for their Nikon 1 system, definitely doable.
The Ricoh GRIII has an accessory OVF, and it's video capabilities are reduced to 1080p, no problem.
The Canon M system had an accessory EVF.
Basically, definitely not unprecedented and totally doable, I just doubt Nikon will do it, most of their lineup is prioritizing performance over size.
Last edited:
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
What exactly is smaller about the OM-1 or the X-T5 compared to the Z6/5/7?
I'm sorry but I don't see it. The EVF hump goes a bit higher but that's it. The X-T5 doesn't have a grip which gives it a smaller footprint... until you attach a lens on it.
weight wise, the OM-1 is about 80g lighter, and the X-T5 about 100g lighter. Not exactly ground breaking in terms of weight savings.
--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)
I'm sorry but I don't see it. The EVF hump goes a bit higher but that's it. The X-T5 doesn't have a grip which gives it a smaller footprint... until you attach a lens on it.
weight wise, the OM-1 is about 80g lighter, and the X-T5 about 100g lighter. Not exactly ground breaking in terms of weight savings.
--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)
hrx9331
Active member
- Messages
- 83
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 151
It's much clearer once you put a lens on it, at least for m43 (i don't have a Fujifilm).What exactly is smaller about the OM-1 or the X-T5 compared to the Z6/5/7?
I'm sorry but I don't see it. The EVF hump goes a bit higher but that's it. The X-T5 doesn't have a grip which gives it a smaller footprint... until you attach a lens on it.
weight wise, the OM-1 is about 80g lighter, and the X-T5 about 100g lighter. Not exactly ground breaking in terms of weight savings.
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
OP was referencing the bodies in his post.It's much clearer once you put a lens on it, at least for m43 (i don't have a Fujifilm).What exactly is smaller about the OM-1 or the X-T5 compared to the Z6/5/7?
I'm sorry but I don't see it. The EVF hump goes a bit higher but that's it. The X-T5 doesn't have a grip which gives it a smaller footprint... until you attach a lens on it.
weight wise, the OM-1 is about 80g lighter, and the X-T5 about 100g lighter. Not exactly ground breaking in terms of weight savings.
Not the same thing if we compare entire systems of course. Though my small 40 and 28mm lenses on my Z6 are pretty small, and compared to my Fuji kit, I don't see much of a difference.
I do see it with my Olympus E-M5.2 though
--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)
ray_burnimage
Senior Member
I've found this thread to be an interesting read, with all kinds of views, and of course they're all valid because we're all entitled to an opinion
For me personally, minimising system size and weight is a number one priority .. that's part of the reason why I sadly left Nikon and now shoot a pair of A1's.... Z9 performance in a Z6 sized body etc.
But, it's also very importantly about the lenses... There are tons of compact lenses for E mount, but virtually none for Z mount aside from a few "muffins"
Which makes me wonder, why a compact Z without suitable lenses? I dunno?
The last compact camera I owned from any brand was Z50, which is an ergonomic marvel. But not many lenses to mount on it. Plus a smaller EN-EL25 battery...not so complementary to a Nikon Z FF system?
That said, no reason a FF sensor wouldn't fit in a Z50 body, the lens mount is the biggest obstacle, already overcome. Just that darned different smaller battery!
So it strikes me a bit as square pegs in round holes.
Nikon is clear that it is going for top end, niche and profit.
Sony is clear that it is all about smaller and/or market share.
Sony have A1 and A7Rv in a Z6 sized body. Then they have the FF A7C series in smaller lighter bodies, plus the A6xxx series for APS-C.... ALL sharing the same NP-FZ100 battery!
To me, that's how to do a system!
Plus, there's compact lenses to suit, both in FF and APS-C.
So, we're back to square pegs in round holes.
Maybe Nikon will do a compact Z FF... but they need the lenses. The Sigma "i" series would be a start.... and a great complement to the ZF too, with their solid metal bodies and aperture rings etc.
Nikon is on a solid footing for its loyal user base and especially for sports/wildlife/BIF folks.
But as a system for compactness? I see the direction being the exact opposite of that so far....
Last edited:
I really doubt you're going to get something smaller than the Z5 which is smaller than the Z6 and even Zf (the Zf is more portable in some situations where you dismount the lens before putting it away tho). There's not much real estate that could be skipped for a smaller body. I do not personally think that an a7C-alike is possible, considering how anti-ergonomic that thing is, and for that we have the much better looking Zf.
APS-C cameras (pro or not) are obviously not directly comparable.
Obviously only select Nikon employees could realistically answer this question, but I'd be surprised if such a product were to be released in the next 5-6 years. A "pro" APS-C is a lot more likely (and it will probably be smaller than the Z5).
APS-C cameras (pro or not) are obviously not directly comparable.
Obviously only select Nikon employees could realistically answer this question, but I'd be surprised if such a product were to be released in the next 5-6 years. A "pro" APS-C is a lot more likely (and it will probably be smaller than the Z5).
StrugglingforLight
Leading Member
- Messages
- 623
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 357
As someone looking to make the opposite move, Canon (EF-M, their small aps-c) to Nikon Z this thread interests me and so does this perspective. The Nikon Zf is the one I lusted after but after renting it.....the size and weight could be an issue. I'm waiting and seeing on the Z50 successor. I find myself preferring Nikon's design/build though and sooc colors.
Last edited:
starbase218
Senior Member
Here’s where I don’t necessarily agree. I mentioned before that travel is when I predominantly do photography. I’d probably get the 24-120/4 for when I just carry a single lens (which is lighter than the Sony 24-105), the 14-30/4 for wide angle (the Sony 12-24 is heavier and less versatile), and with the Tamron 50-400 out for Z-mount, I’m saving weight compared to the Nikon lens too. I will say that the Sony 20-70/4 is interesting though. The question is if 70mm is enough in your main lens.I've found this thread to be an interesting read, with all kinds of views, and of course they're all valid because we're all entitled to an opinion
For me personally, minimising system size and weight is a number one priority .. that's part of the reason why I sadly left Nikon and now shoot a pair of A1's.... Z9 performance in a Z6 sized body etc.
But, it's also very importantly about the lenses... There are tons of compact lenses for E mount, but virtually none for Z mount aside from a few "muffins"
The only other caveat is that I’m not too familiar with all the other E-mount lenses from third parties.
I’m not really a prime shooter, so ymmv, but if anything, that’s my point.
Last edited:
ray_burnimage
Senior Member
The point is, there is no point! or, to be more accurate, there are no right or wrong answers. It always comes down to what you want, what you're invested in, and how deep your pockets are. Or, in my case, if your professional needs significantly change and it becomes clear you need to change. Which comes back to that "square pegs in round holes" thing.Here’s where I don’t necessarily agree. I mentioned before that travel is when I predominantly do photography. I’d probably get the 24-120/4 for when I just carry a single lens (which is lighter than the Sony 24-105), the 14-30/4 for wide angle (the Sony 12-24 is heavier and less versatile), and with the Tamron 50-400 out for Z-mount, I’m saving weight compared to the Nikon lens too. I will say that the Sony 20-70/4 is interesting though. The question is if 70mm is enough in your main lens.I've found this thread to be an interesting read, with all kinds of views, and of course they're all valid because we're all entitled to an opinion
For me personally, minimising system size and weight is a number one priority .. that's part of the reason why I sadly left Nikon and now shoot a pair of A1's.... Z9 performance in a Z6 sized body etc.
But, it's also very importantly about the lenses... There are tons of compact lenses for E mount, but virtually none for Z mount aside from a few "muffins"
The only other caveat is that I’m not too familiar with all the other E-mount lenses from third parties.
I’m not really a prime shooter, so ymmv, but if anything, that’s my point.
My last Nikon travel kit was Z7II, 24-120, 14-30 and 35mm 1.8. Superlative! No lie!
BUT, when I fell into movie sets stills I had a choice.... Z9's or A1's? I chose A1's because they are the same size as a Z7.... so suitable for travel too.
If I went with Z9's, or even the later Z8's, I'd still be looking for a "more compact travel kit". As do many folk on this forum.
Plus the 2.8 zooms are smaller in Sony, there are wonderful 1.4 primes, plus a ton of more compact first and third party primes and zooms too
Currently, with 2 x A1 bodies, I dont feel the need for anything smaller, but an upcoming trip to a dodgy third world country has me eyeing a more compact body, simply for discreetness.
I could choose an A7C used or one of the current bodies in 33mp or 61mp. Or maybe an A6700 APS-C, or a used A6600... all on the same mount ... WITH THE SAME BATTERY!
So, that's really my point. If you are using exotic telephotos then there's no relevance here.
BUT, if you are a jobbing photographer such as weddings and the like, but you also travel, then what I say might resonate.
ESPECIALLY given more and more strident airline carry on sizes and increasingly enforced 7kg limit.
Of course, one can always leave their heavy gear at home, or do what I do and use my bodies for everything, just adjusting the lens kit per trip......
Last edited:
starbase218
Senior Member
Somehow the Sony website didn’t list the 16-35/4 under UWA zooms when I checked it. That is actually significantly lighter, and enough to tip the balance into Sony’s favor, weight-wise. Though you would have 16-105/4 instead of 14-120/4.The point is, there is no point! or, to be more accurate, there are no right or wrong answers. It always comes down to what you want, what you're invested in, and how deep your pockets are. Or, in my case, if your professional needs significantly change and it becomes clear you need to change. Which comes back to that "square pegs in round holes" thing.Here’s where I don’t necessarily agree. I mentioned before that travel is when I predominantly do photography. I’d probably get the 24-120/4 for when I just carry a single lens (which is lighter than the Sony 24-105), the 14-30/4 for wide angle (the Sony 12-24 is heavier and less versatile), and with the Tamron 50-400 out for Z-mount, I’m saving weight compared to the Nikon lens too. I will say that the Sony 20-70/4 is interesting though. The question is if 70mm is enough in your main lens.I've found this thread to be an interesting read, with all kinds of views, and of course they're all valid because we're all entitled to an opinion
For me personally, minimising system size and weight is a number one priority .. that's part of the reason why I sadly left Nikon and now shoot a pair of A1's.... Z9 performance in a Z6 sized body etc.
But, it's also very importantly about the lenses... There are tons of compact lenses for E mount, but virtually none for Z mount aside from a few "muffins"
The only other caveat is that I’m not too familiar with all the other E-mount lenses from third parties.
I’m not really a prime shooter, so ymmv, but if anything, that’s my point.
My last Nikon travel kit was Z7II, 24-120, 14-30 and 35mm 1.8. Superlative! No lie!
I’d never travel with a Z9 anyway.
The Z8 is interesting. It’s heavier than my D750, BUT I use an L bracket with my D750, to protect the Foolography Unleashed bluetooth GPS dongle that sticks out the side. The Z8 has the accessory port on the front, so maybe I wouldn’t need that bracket anymore. In which case the Z8 would be a bit lighter and smaller (I think). I basically want geotagging for traveling.
But, I agree the Z8 isn’t as light as I’d like either.
Which is why I say ymmv: I’m not really a primes guy. Which IS a point. And f/2.8 zooms aren’t ideal either. I could go for the Tamron 28-75 G2 (which is very light too) but the range is a bit small. All f/2.8s have either that, or they are heavier than what I’d like.
Yes, you made this point, and I agree it is nice. Though I don’t see myself traveling with two bodies. Unless one is like a Nikon 1 that I take instead of my RX100 V.
You say “this is how you build a system”, but for me, every piece of gear I take, including my RX100 V, is part of the system. I can go out with my D750 and 100-400 for wildlife, and the RX100 V for everything else. That way I don’t have to change lenses either. And I can leave the RX100 set up for more environmental shots, and the D750 for wildlife. This is kind of what I did in Costa Rica (except my iPhone played the role if the RX100 V - which I found I did not like).
The only thing with the RX is - you guessed it - no geotagging. Oh, and the ergonomics are still sh*t. In this case, it’s actually too small. But it’s much better than an iPhone, and IQ is great too.
It’s just hobby for me.
Hmm, if that’s going to be enforced, I’ll have to pay anyway. I think my 37 liter backpack with clothes, toiletries, sandals, a compact camera, underwater housing, laptop, charger pouch, and a mini tripod on the side, and various small items, already weighs about as much, and maybe more. And that’s without any system camera or lenses.
I don’t have heavy or light gear. I just have gear, and I travel with it.
Last edited:
ray_burnimage
Senior Member
I didn't want to multi quote the whole thing... but I use a pair of A1's at home professionally with 24-70mm and 70-200mm GMII. Supplemented with 20mm 1.8G, 35mm 1.4GM and Sigma 85mm 1.4 DGDN. That's my work kit and it will ALL fit in an airline carry on, with 13" MacBook Air (if I wanted to)Somehow the Sony website didn’t list the 16-35/4 under UWA zooms when I checked it. That is actually significantly lighter, and enough to tip the balance into Sony’s favor, weight-wise. Though you would have 16-105/4 instead of 14-120/4.The point is, there is no point! or, to be more accurate, there are no right or wrong answers. It always comes down to what you want, what you're invested in, and how deep your pockets are. Or, in my case, if your professional needs significantly change and it becomes clear you need to change. Which comes back to that "square pegs in round holes" thing.Here’s where I don’t necessarily agree. I mentioned before that travel is when I predominantly do photography. I’d probably get the 24-120/4 for when I just carry a single lens (which is lighter than the Sony 24-105), the 14-30/4 for wide angle (the Sony 12-24 is heavier and less versatile), and with the Tamron 50-400 out for Z-mount, I’m saving weight compared to the Nikon lens too. I will say that the Sony 20-70/4 is interesting though. The question is if 70mm is enough in your main lens.I've found this thread to be an interesting read, with all kinds of views, and of course they're all valid because we're all entitled to an opinion
For me personally, minimising system size and weight is a number one priority .. that's part of the reason why I sadly left Nikon and now shoot a pair of A1's.... Z9 performance in a Z6 sized body etc.
But, it's also very importantly about the lenses... There are tons of compact lenses for E mount, but virtually none for Z mount aside from a few "muffins"
The only other caveat is that I’m not too familiar with all the other E-mount lenses from third parties.
I’m not really a prime shooter, so ymmv, but if anything, that’s my point.
My last Nikon travel kit was Z7II, 24-120, 14-30 and 35mm 1.8. Superlative! No lie!
I’d never travel with a Z9 anyway.
The Z8 is interesting. It’s heavier than my D750, BUT I use an L bracket with my D750, to protect the Foolography Unleashed bluetooth GPS dongle that sticks out the side. The Z8 has the accessory port on the front, so maybe I wouldn’t need that bracket anymore. In which case the Z8 would be a bit lighter and smaller (I think). I basically want geotagging for traveling.
But, I agree the Z8 isn’t as light as I’d like either.
Which is why I say ymmv: I’m not really a primes guy. Which IS a point. And f/2.8 zooms aren’t ideal either. I could go for the Tamron 28-75 G2 (which is very light too) but the range is a bit small. All f/2.8s have either that, or they are heavier than what I’d like.
Yes, you made this point, and I agree it is nice. Though I don’t see myself traveling with two bodies. Unless one is like a Nikon 1 that I take instead of my RX100 V.
You say “this is how you build a system”, but for me, every piece of gear I take, including my RX100 V, is part of the system. I can go out with my D750 and 100-400 for wildlife, and the RX100 V for everything else. That way I don’t have to change lenses either. And I can leave the RX100 set up for landscapes, and the D750 for wildlife. This is kind of what I did in Costa Rica (except my iPhone played the role if the RX100 V - which I found I did not like).
The only thing with the RX is - you guessed it - no geotagging.
It’s just hobby for me.
Hmm, if that’s going to be enforced, I’ll have to pay anyway. I think my 37 liter backpack with clothes, toiletries, sandals, a compact camera, underwater housing, laptop, charger pouch, and a mini tripod on the side, and various small items, already weighs about as much, and maybe more. And that’s without any system camera or lenses.
I don’t have heavy or light gear. I just have gear, and I travel with it.
But I don't want to do that
Instead I pack 1 x A1 and the 20-70mm f4 I purchased for street and travel photography... err that's it!
I MIGHT add a A6700 for stealth/discrete mode.... but no need yet....
When and if Nikon gives me that performance/size ratio I will be delighted..... but at the moment they are moving further away from my compact ideals.
Which is fine, if you like that sort of big and heavy thing.
starbase218
Senior Member
Wait a minute. I’m not criticizing you. But I am saying that you saying that there are virtually no small/light lenses for Z mount, depends on what you want. That’s why I named the zoom examples: 14-120/4 at 1125 grams versus 16-105/4 at 1016 grams.I didn't want to multi quote the whole thing... but I use a pair of A1's at home professionally with 24-70mm and 70-200mm GMII. Supplemented with 20mm 1.8G, 35mm 1.4GM and Sigma 85mm 1.4 DGDN. That's my work kit and it will ALL fit in an airline carry on, with 13" MacBook Air (if I wanted to)Somehow the Sony website didn’t list the 16-35/4 under UWA zooms when I checked it. That is actually significantly lighter, and enough to tip the balance into Sony’s favor, weight-wise. Though you would have 16-105/4 instead of 14-120/4.The point is, there is no point! or, to be more accurate, there are no right or wrong answers. It always comes down to what you want, what you're invested in, and how deep your pockets are. Or, in my case, if your professional needs significantly change and it becomes clear you need to change. Which comes back to that "square pegs in round holes" thing.Here’s where I don’t necessarily agree. I mentioned before that travel is when I predominantly do photography. I’d probably get the 24-120/4 for when I just carry a single lens (which is lighter than the Sony 24-105), the 14-30/4 for wide angle (the Sony 12-24 is heavier and less versatile), and with the Tamron 50-400 out for Z-mount, I’m saving weight compared to the Nikon lens too. I will say that the Sony 20-70/4 is interesting though. The question is if 70mm is enough in your main lens.I've found this thread to be an interesting read, with all kinds of views, and of course they're all valid because we're all entitled to an opinion
For me personally, minimising system size and weight is a number one priority .. that's part of the reason why I sadly left Nikon and now shoot a pair of A1's.... Z9 performance in a Z6 sized body etc.
But, it's also very importantly about the lenses... There are tons of compact lenses for E mount, but virtually none for Z mount aside from a few "muffins"
The only other caveat is that I’m not too familiar with all the other E-mount lenses from third parties.
I’m not really a prime shooter, so ymmv, but if anything, that’s my point.
My last Nikon travel kit was Z7II, 24-120, 14-30 and 35mm 1.8. Superlative! No lie!
I’d never travel with a Z9 anyway.
The Z8 is interesting. It’s heavier than my D750, BUT I use an L bracket with my D750, to protect the Foolography Unleashed bluetooth GPS dongle that sticks out the side. The Z8 has the accessory port on the front, so maybe I wouldn’t need that bracket anymore. In which case the Z8 would be a bit lighter and smaller (I think). I basically want geotagging for traveling.
But, I agree the Z8 isn’t as light as I’d like either.
Which is why I say ymmv: I’m not really a primes guy. Which IS a point. And f/2.8 zooms aren’t ideal either. I could go for the Tamron 28-75 G2 (which is very light too) but the range is a bit small. All f/2.8s have either that, or they are heavier than what I’d like.
Yes, you made this point, and I agree it is nice. Though I don’t see myself traveling with two bodies. Unless one is like a Nikon 1 that I take instead of my RX100 V.
You say “this is how you build a system”, but for me, every piece of gear I take, including my RX100 V, is part of the system. I can go out with my D750 and 100-400 for wildlife, and the RX100 V for everything else. That way I don’t have to change lenses either. And I can leave the RX100 set up for landscapes, and the D750 for wildlife. This is kind of what I did in Costa Rica (except my iPhone played the role if the RX100 V - which I found I did not like).
The only thing with the RX is - you guessed it - no geotagging.
It’s just hobby for me.
Hmm, if that’s going to be enforced, I’ll have to pay anyway. I think my 37 liter backpack with clothes, toiletries, sandals, a compact camera, underwater housing, laptop, charger pouch, and a mini tripod on the side, and various small items, already weighs about as much, and maybe more. And that’s without any system camera or lenses.
I don’t have heavy or light gear. I just have gear, and I travel with it.
But I don't want to do that
Instead I pack 1 x A1 and the 20-70mm f4 I purchased for street and travel photography... err that's it!
I MIGHT add a A6700 for stealth/discrete mode.... but no need yet....
When and if Nikon gives me that performance/size ratio I will be delighted..... but at the moment they are moving further away from my compact ideals.
Which is fine, if you like that sort of big and heavy thing.
You don’t need my validation for any lens or system choice you make. And of course you can tell why you did it. And I can respond to say “that’s great, and coming at it from a different angle, might lead to a different conclusion”.
If you just travel with a 20-70, that’s great. It is pretty versatile. For me, I like to go longer than that. And at least as wide. So that means at least two lenses.
Just different preferences, right?
Last edited:
jimdelves
Leading Member
- Messages
- 919
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,182
I love my Z8, but the Z7 is just a perfect size imo.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum