Mirrorless & DSLR Weight Comparison

Started Jul 9, 2014 | Discussions
peevee1 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,247
Re: JPEG-shooting on a DSLR?
1

pannumon wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

Simply much fewer headaches, especially for JPEG shooters who will not spend many days after the trip reprocessing all the thousands of their pictures from RAWs.

By the way, how do people actually shoot JPEG-only on a DSLR? I am sure it's possible but... It's not just you don't see the image on EVF as it would be directly BEFORE you take the image, but you don't see it automatically AFTERWARDS, either? I don't get what's the point of high burst rate (jpeg-only) if you have no idea how the images look like, e.g. if they are all blurred? On a bright light you remove your eye from the OVF and look the LCD and the histograms and try to see if the colors are right? Or do you always use a gray card?

Chimping all the time, like it's 1999.

peevee1 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,247
Re: You are not the norm

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

You can check out the sizes and prices of E-M5+12-50+40-150 vs, say, 70D+15-85+55-250, which will give you approximately the same abilities.

It will not.

Yes it will. Check out the sensor ratings, sure, Canon's sensor is a little bit wider and a tiny little bit higher, but it's outdated technology takes all the advantage back. Actually, at low ISO m43 sensors now destroy Canon APS-C and even better than Canon FF, and at high ISO m43 and Canon APS-C are practically the same.

NowHearThis
NowHearThis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,122
Re: Mirrorless & DSLR Weight Comparison

wombat661 wrote:

In almost every conversation, it is always brought up that Mirrorless is lighter than DSLR. You can save weight by going mirrorless. Quick search of the forum will show many such advise. I have always consider mirrorless to replace DSLR as well. With the fast focus Sony a6000, seems like the gap is closing.

I have been looking closely at a mirrorless APS-C system, and how much lighter they are. ...

For the camera, a light DSLR is not that much heavier than mirrorless APS-C.

A CanonT5i body  is 236g heavier than a Sony A6000, given that the Sony only weights 344g to begin with, that's a big difference.

Just get a D5300 instead and use the same lens.

A D5300 is still almost 6 oz heavier than some small mirrorless (E-M10, A6000, X-E2).

Mirrorless camera might be thinner making it hard to grip, but weight is about the same just looking at the numbers.

See numbers below.

Am I missing something or is something more to the weights comparison.

** Camera and a Fast Wide-Zoom Lens **

Olympus E-M10 + 12-40/2.8 • 782g
Sony A6000 + 16-70/4 • 652g
Fuji X-E2 + 18-55/2.8-4 • 660g

vs

Sony A65 + 16-50/2.8 • 1200g
Pentax K3 + 16-50/2.8 • 1365g
Nikon D5300 + 17-55/2.8 • 1235g
Nikon D7100 + 17-55/2.8 • 1520g
Canon 70D + 17-55/2.8 • 1400g

-- hide signature --

** Camera with step-up kit-type lens **

Olympus E-M10 + 12-50 • 611g
Sony A6000 + 18-105/4 • 826g
Fuji X-E2 + 18-135 • 840g

vs

Sony A65 + 18-135 • 1019g
Pentax K3 + 18-135 • 1221g
Nikon D5300 + 18-140 • 970g
Nikon D7100 + 18-140 • 1165g
Canon 70D + 18-135 • 1235g

------------------------------------------------------
** Camera and Kit Lens **

Olympus E-M10 + 14-42 II R • 513g
Sony A6000 + 16-50 • 460g
Fuji X-A1 + 16-50 • 525g

vs

Sony A65 + 18-55 • 844g
Nikon D5300 + 18-55 • 675g
Canon T5i + 18-55 • 730g
Pentax K50 + 18-55 • 905g
Canon 70D + 18-55 • 960g

-----------------------------------------------------
** Camera and All-in-one Lens **

Olympus E-M10 + 14-150 • 680g
Sony A6000 + SEL18-200 • 868g

vs

Sony A65 + 18-250 • 1062g
Pentax K50 + 18-270 • 1103g
Nikon D5300 + 18-200 • 1040g
Canon T5i + 18-200 • 1090g

------------------------------------------------------

People will see what they want to see in numbers, for some, if the weight difference isn't 3x then it's no big deal, for others, a tiny difference 20g could be life altering.  I've had 3 DSLRs and 2 Mirrorless ILC cameras.  I like the size of the ILCs better.  I know the DSLRs offer more lenses, accessories, etc, but I don't need most of that, YMMV.  I've never owned more than 3 lenses at time.  And pretty much every system out there has the ones I'd use anyway.  If you like the SLR look/feel then get one.  My E-M10 kit, to me, is tiny and weightless compared with my A65; it takes great photos and will now go with me more places because of it's smaller size/weight.

--
NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

 NowHearThis's gear list:NowHearThis's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH
NowHearThis
NowHearThis Veteran Member • Posts: 3,122
Re: You have some attractive apples and oranges there

Jim Salvas wrote:

...

http://camerasize.com/compact/#440.322,521.412,ha,t

The E-M10, with the excellent 12-40/2.8 lens on it weighs only 17 grams more than just the 17-55 Nikon lens. And, the 12-40 is stabilized on the E-M10.

This is exactly the setup I want for my E-M10.  I tried the combo out and really, really like it.

-- hide signature --

NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

 NowHearThis's gear list:NowHearThis's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH
The Incredible Hoke
The Incredible Hoke Contributing Member • Posts: 894
Re: Mirrorless & DSLR Weight Comparison
1

Richard wrote:

ShawnHoke wrote:

If you can afford it, I think it's nice to have both mirrorless and DSLR gear. I really like having that choice. But if you can only afford one or the other, it just depends on what kind of shooting you do, and what your priorities are. Eventually, I'd love to dump all my DSLR gear, and go exclusively mirrorless. But mirrorless isn't quite there yet. So until then, I use both. Each has its pros and cons.

^This explains my recent change of heart.

It's more than weight, it's size. This isn't meant as a definitive comparison since everyone is different, but it's the one comparison that matters to me.

If you are concerned with size or weight or both, take the grip off the nikon when not using it for work. It will be a lot smaller. When you do the size difference is not that big. if you want a sony a6000 because you need a new toy great. But the reality the size is not that different when you compare camera to camera and not a grip.

Size matters

Funny, I'm a DSLR user. Have been for years and years and wil continue to be. However, I'm not going to hide my head in the sand and pretend there isn't a difference in size compared to mirrorless. I can and will happily shoot both. I purchased the a6000 because I need occasional video for work. I don't buy toys or fall for the latest and greatest gear. If I did, I wouldn't still have a D700.

But to your point - sure if you take the grip off the D700 is smaller. But it's still much larger than the a6000.

D700 without grip compared to a6000.

It's even more lopsided when you consider thickness.

Top view

-- hide signature --
Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Senior Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: You are not the norm
3

peevee1 wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

peevee1 wrote:

You can check out the sizes and prices of E-M5+12-50+40-150 vs, say, 70D+15-85+55-250, which will give you approximately the same abilities.

It will not.

Yes it will. Check out the sensor ratings, sure, Canon's sensor is a little bit wider and a tiny little bit higher, but it's outdated technology takes all the advantage back. Actually, at low ISO m43 sensors now destroy Canon APS-C and even better than Canon FF, and at high ISO m43 and Canon APS-C are practically the same.

No, it will not. The Canon combo with the standard zoom is 136/9 eq. at the long end, the m43 is 80/12.6 (Yew!). The Canon has a wider aperture at the wide end as well but not by much. With the telephoto lenses, the Canon goes to 400/9 eq., while the m43 is 300/11 - both shorter and slower, not to mention resolution.

The new m43 sensors beat Canon's at low ISO in DR only, by 0.7 EV (yeah, that destroys it!) - and I really doubt that most m43 users know how to make use of that. In other metrics, they are close, sometimes Canon is better, sometimes the Oly but the difference is too small to worry about - and the format difference is small, as well.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
The Incredible Hoke
The Incredible Hoke Contributing Member • Posts: 894
Re: Mirrorless & DSLR Weight Comparison

TrickTheLight wrote:

ShawnHoke wrote:

When my wife and I used to go to the park, I wouldn't bring my DSLR, because it meant bringing my camera bag along with everything else on our 1.5 mile walk to the park. Now I just toss the a6000 in our blanket/beach towel bag and call it good.

That's not an advantage of the camera being different, that is the advantage of not bringing other stuff. This is part of the discussion that confuses me. People talk about how much lighter the mirrorless is, compared to their entire camera bag. You can just carry your DSLR, without the whole bag of lenses and other high quality stuff, and it will be lighter too. That's what I do. My camera bag usually makes it as far as the car, but when I arrive at where I am going, I leave the bag behind, bringing only the camera, and the lens mounted on it. On rare occasion I put a lens in a belt pouch.

Looking at the numbers, yes, there is a difference, and if you express it in percents, it looks like a lot. I don't intuitively grasp grams, so I convert, and the difference is a few ounces, maybe as much as seven ounces. I have a 16 ounce bottled water here, it's just not that much weight. A bag full of them would get heavy, but that's a different matter. Especially if you, like one of my friends, get MORE stuff to carry around, because it is lighter. It's funny, he complains about the weight of his stuff, often, despite having the mirrorless system, because he is lugging around that bag of stuff, and I don't complain about camera weight, despite having one of the heaviest camera bodies available. I try to tell him, he should get a full frame DSLR like mine, but he's not interested.

Here's the thing, I decide if it makes a difference to me. If I'm not working, I only carry one camera and one small prime lens, occasionally I will carry an alternate prime.

When I'm already carrying two bags of stuff to the park or the beach, I don't usually choose to carry my DSLR (either in a bag or hanging off my shoulder). It's just more stuff. But, when I can squeeze the little Sony in between our blanket and towels in a stuffed bag I already have to carry, it's a difference.

It's not necessarily the weight as I'll happily carry my Hasselblad all day or drag my huge 8x10 and heavy wooden tripod up and down subway steps. The small Sony just doesn't feel like anything extra when I'm already carrying a bunch of stuff. I can even toss it into my wife's bag or purse and she doesn't even notice it. Can't say that about my D700.

This doesn't affect my relationship with my FF DSLR. It's still one of my favorite cameras ever, but I don't have to carry it everywhere when the Sony gets the job done.

-- hide signature --
Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Senior Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Mirrorless & DSLR Weight Comparison

NowHearThis wrote:

** Camera and a Fast Wide-Zoom Lens **

Olympus E-M10 + 12-40/2.8 • 782g
Sony A6000 + 16-70/4 • 652g
Fuji X-E2 + 18-55/2.8-4 • 660g

vs

Sony A65 + 16-50/2.8 • 1200g
Pentax K3 + 16-50/2.8 • 1365g
Nikon D5300 + 17-55/2.8 • 1235g
Nikon D7100 + 17-55/2.8 • 1520g
Canon 70D + 17-55/2.8 • 1400g

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
** Camera with step-up kit-type lens **

Olympus E-M10 + 12-50 • 611g
Sony A6000 + 18-105/4 • 826g
Fuji X-E2 + 18-135 • 840g

vs

Sony A65 + 18-135 • 1019g
Pentax K3 + 18-135 • 1221g
Nikon D5300 + 18-140 • 970g
Nikon D7100 + 18-140 • 1165g
Canon 70D + 18-135 • 1235g

++++++++++++
** Camera and Kit Lens **

Olympus E-M10 + 14-42 II R • 513g
Sony A6000 + 16-50 • 460g
Fuji X-A1 + 16-50 • 525g

vs

Sony A65 + 18-55 • 844g
Nikon D5300 + 18-55 • 675g
Canon T5i + 18-55 • 730g
Pentax K50 + 18-55 • 905g
Canon 70D + 18-55 • 960g

+++++++++++++++++++++
** Camera and All-in-one Lens **

Olympus E-M10 + 14-150 • 680g
Sony A6000 + SEL18-200 • 868g

vs

Sony A65 + 18-250 • 1062g
Pentax K50 + 18-270 • 1103g
Nikon D5300 + 18-200 • 1040g
Canon T5i + 18-200 • 1090g

+++++++++++++++++++++

Samsung S3 (my camera): 133g, f/2.6 lens.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
brownie314
brownie314 Senior Member • Posts: 1,911
Re: Mirrorless & DSLR Weight Comparison

ShawnHoke wrote:

TrickTheLight wrote:

ShawnHoke wrote:

When my wife and I used to go to the park, I wouldn't bring my DSLR, because it meant bringing my camera bag along with everything else on our 1.5 mile walk to the park. Now I just toss the a6000 in our blanket/beach towel bag and call it good.

That's not an advantage of the camera being different, that is the advantage of not bringing other stuff. This is part of the discussion that confuses me. People talk about how much lighter the mirrorless is, compared to their entire camera bag. You can just carry your DSLR, without the whole bag of lenses and other high quality stuff, and it will be lighter too. That's what I do. My camera bag usually makes it as far as the car, but when I arrive at where I am going, I leave the bag behind, bringing only the camera, and the lens mounted on it. On rare occasion I put a lens in a belt pouch.

Looking at the numbers, yes, there is a difference, and if you express it in percents, it looks like a lot. I don't intuitively grasp grams, so I convert, and the difference is a few ounces, maybe as much as seven ounces. I have a 16 ounce bottled water here, it's just not that much weight. A bag full of them would get heavy, but that's a different matter. Especially if you, like one of my friends, get MORE stuff to carry around, because it is lighter. It's funny, he complains about the weight of his stuff, often, despite having the mirrorless system, because he is lugging around that bag of stuff, and I don't complain about camera weight, despite having one of the heaviest camera bodies available. I try to tell him, he should get a full frame DSLR like mine, but he's not interested.

Here's the thing, I decide if it makes a difference to me. If I'm not working, I only carry one camera and one small prime lens, occasionally I will carry an alternate prime.

When I'm already carrying two bags of stuff to the park or the beach, I don't usually choose to carry my DSLR (either in a bag or hanging off my shoulder). It's just more stuff. But, when I can squeeze the little Sony in between our blanket and towels in a stuffed bag I already have to carry, it's a difference.

It's not necessarily the weight as I'll happily carry my Hasselblad all day or drag my huge 8x10 and heavy wooden tripod up and down subway steps. The small Sony just doesn't feel like anything extra when I'm already carrying a bunch of stuff. I can even toss it into my wife's bag or purse and she doesn't even notice it. Can't say that about my D700.

This doesn't affect my relationship with my FF DSLR. It's still one of my favorite cameras ever, but I don't have to carry it everywhere when the Sony gets the job done.

-- hide signature --

Exactly.  I could care less if my EOS M weighted 2 lbs.  The fact is it goes in my pocket and I hardly notice it.

 brownie314's gear list:brownie314's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Nikon D7000 Canon EOS M
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 969
Mirrorless caught in the middle - smaller, but not small enough
2

Most people can carry a DSLR just as easy as an M43. The issue comes when you want a camera to put in your pocket. An M43 with lens just isn't small enough. A compact like an RX100iii is a much better complement to a DSLR. That's where I'll spend money for the next upgrade.

-- hide signature --

f8 and be there

TrickTheLight Regular Member • Posts: 193
Re: You are not the norm
1

peevee1 wrote:

Most people use their cameras when traveling. If I am on tour in Paris or St Petersburg, I WILL have the camera literally on me 8 hours a day or more, and the weight makes a difference after a day of touring.

I have an annual gaming convention coming up that I attend every year. Many people attend in costume, and it's a fun environment for photography. I tend to carry my camera 16-20 hours a day at this event, and a good carry system makes a world of difference. Leaving the extra stuff behind helps too.

 TrickTheLight's gear list:TrickTheLight's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM +3 more
brownie314
brownie314 Senior Member • Posts: 1,911
Re: Mirrorless caught in the middle - smaller, but not small enough
1

Greg A A wrote:

Most people can carry a DSLR just as easy as an M43. The issue comes when you want a camera to put in your pocket. An M43 with lens just isn't small enough. A compact like an RX100iii is a much better complement to a DSLR. That's where I'll spend money for the next upgrade.

-- hide signature --

f8 and be there

I don't know about m4/3 but if you are willing to go with a larger sensor, I had the EOS M and 22mm f/2 in pocket last night.

 brownie314's gear list:brownie314's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Nikon D7000 Canon EOS M
TrickTheLight Regular Member • Posts: 193
Re: You are not the norm
1

peevee1 wrote:

Yes it will. Check out the sensor ratings, sure, Canon's sensor is a little bit wider and a tiny little bit higher, but it's outdated technology takes all the advantage back.

Not interested in comparing sensor wangs. If canon's older tech results in lower image quality, that doesn't lead to the conclusion that smaller cameras in general are just as good. It would only show that a more recent smaller camera can be better than an outdated larger camera. At some point, that outdated sensor will be updated. The major brands tend to fall behind for a while, then take a big step forward. If you want to compare the latest mirrorless, it's only fair to compare it to a DSLR of similar vintage. Are nikon sensors actually up to date, or are they just somewhat less dated than canons sensors, with the mirrorless cameras having a substantial advantage in terms of updated technology? If the sensor in the mirrorless is that much better, the DSLR makers will use the same technology, when it makes business sense to upgrade their product lines. More likely, they have an advance of their own to utilize.

 TrickTheLight's gear list:TrickTheLight's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM +3 more
quezra Veteran Member • Posts: 3,915
Re: Mirrorless caught in the middle - smaller, but not small enough
5

Greg A A wrote:

Most people can carry a DSLR just as easy as an M43. The issue comes when you want a camera to put in your pocket. An M43 with lens just isn't small enough. A compact like an RX100iii is a much better complement to a DSLR. That's where I'll spend money for the next upgrade.

Exactly, there are some parameters you work around that give you a range of "acceptable" carry sizes rather than a strict linear scale (e.g. 300g might be better than 400g - but does anyone actually notice?).

  1. Is your camera in your pocket? Yes -> RX100 is the max size; No -> You need a bag
  2. How big is your bag? Pouch -> RX1, bridge camera, GM1, etc. all qualify; medium sized bag: All others
  3. What's your tolerance carrying a medium sized bag? <1kg -> Stick to small cameras; >1kg ok you aren't a sissy, DSLRs will be fine

But if you look only at absolute weights you might be missing something you traded off (usually light) even though it would have made no effective difference in your kit weight.  I went from an APS-C mirrorless to FF mirrorless without any change at all in my camera bag or even noticing any significant inconvenience.  Is it heavier?  Yes.  Is the extra weight inconsequential? Yes. Did I benefit a whole lot from the bigger sensor in other ways? Yes.  So why worry that my A7 was bigger than my NEX-5N (especially once you fitted on the EVF, the size advantage vanished).

The funniest are the MFT fanatics who insist on their tiny cameras and lenses, but then find they need to carry 3 primes around with their f/2.8 zoom and a flash (just in case) just to get what one FF body + zoom will achieve without any thought.  MFT has an advantage in tele reach no question about it, but in normal FL there is zero advantage, especially once you understand equivalence. Some of that thinking is clearly still present when they tout their f2.8 zooms as if those are just as versatile as FF kit lenses (they're actually slower).

 quezra's gear list:quezra's gear list
Sony Alpha a7 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Sony Alpha NEX-5N Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 +10 more
pannumon Senior Member • Posts: 1,371
Re: Mirrorless caught in the middle - smaller, but not small enough

Greg A A wrote:

Most people can carry a DSLR just as easy as an M43. The issue comes when you want a camera to put in your pocket. An M43 with lens just isn't small enough. A compact like an RX100iii is a much better complement to a DSLR. That's where I'll spend money for the next upgrade.

-- hide signature --

f8 and be there

Let's say you can carry DSLR just as easy as µ4/3, but with µ4/3 you carry two more lenses, with a bit less low-light-ability / less shallow depth-of field and EVF instead of OVF. Especially, you don't carry DSLR lenses in your pocket. You have a point there, if you want to keep your camera in pocket, m4/3 is not for you, unless you have GM1.

 pannumon's gear list:pannumon's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS +13 more
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 969
Re: Mirrorless caught in the middle - smaller, but not small enough
1

brownie314 wrote:

Greg A A wrote:

Most people can carry a DSLR just as easy as an M43. The issue comes when you want a camera to put in your pocket. An M43 with lens just isn't small enough. A compact like an RX100iii is a much better complement to a DSLR. That's where I'll spend money for the next upgrade.

-- hide signature --

f8 and be there

I don't know about m4/3 but if you are willing to go with a larger sensor, I had the EOS M and 22mm f/2 in pocket last night.

That EOS M is an interesting camera because it's actually small enough to fit in a pocket. At $495 (2 lens kit and flash) with a larger sensor the M just as good as the RX100iii in image quality and is less expensive. The savings in cost and size seems to be a benefit of omitting the EVF. The M2 is only sold in Asia. I see rumors of a new EOS M3 for later this year.

-- hide signature --

f8 and be there

pannumon Senior Member • Posts: 1,371
Re: Mirrorless caught in the middle - smaller, but not small enough

quezra wrote:

The funniest are the MFT fanatics who insist on their tiny cameras and lenses, but then find they need to carry 3 primes around with their f/2.8 zoom and a flash (just in case) just to get what one FF body + zoom will achieve without any thought. MFT has an advantage in tele reach no question about it, but in normal FL there is zero advantage, especially once you understand equivalence. Some of that thinking is clearly still present when they tout their f2.8 zooms as if those are just as versatile as FF kit lenses (they're actually slower).

Primes give you very nice IQ. Practically I never carry a flash, although I own one. This is absolutely against µ4/3 philosophy and I believe very seldom people actually do that. In general, either you carry primes or you carry a fast zoom. Anyway, the smallest pancakes are so small that you can carry 5 without noticing it.

I was surprised taking quite nice portraits in a candle light using a speed booster, a 50mm f/1.4 FD lens (speed booster makes the lens 35mm f1.0 (75mm f/2.0 full frame equivalent) and my friends E-M5 with IBIS (1/10 shutter speed was more than enough). I had was pushing it to ISO 3200, though.

 pannumon's gear list:pannumon's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS +13 more
Lab D Senior Member • Posts: 6,938
You too are cherry picking.
1

Jim Salvas wrote:

The E-M10, with the excellent 12-40/2.8 lens

Why did you pick the larger Olympus lens with close-up focusing and the manual focus feature?   Why not the Panasonic 12-35 F/2.8?

The Panasonic weighs about 80 grams LESS than the Olympus.

It really seems there is cherry picking on both sides here.

 Lab D's gear list:Lab D's gear list
Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D600 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4
Richard Veteran Member • Posts: 4,858
No sand to hide in.

ShawnHoke wrote:

the reality the size is not that different when you compare camera to camera and not a grip.

Size matters

Funny, I'm a DSLR user. Have been for years and years and wil continue to be. However, I'm not going to hide my head in the sand and pretend there isn't a difference in size compared to mirrorless. I can and will happily shoot both. I purchased the a6000 because I need occasional video for work. I don't buy toys or fall for the latest and greatest gear. If I did, I wouldn't still have a D700.

But to your point - sure if you take the grip off the D700 is smaller. But it's still much larger than the a6000.

Sure but in this picture can you suffer a 50mm at 5.6 and minimum 3.5 Fine if you can. But if you put a different lens on, the Sony would not fit in your pocket so there is little difference because you need a bag for either.

The  RX100ii has a faster lens. I guess I am not really for tween cameras. Either pocket or if not in pocked a bag and if in bag, might as well be dslr.

I am not saying smaller cameras don't have their place, but places between a phone, a rx100, and a dslr aps-c or ff, are going to be tweener and are going to struggle. A FF mirrorless like the sony may do well only time will tell because they have so few native lenses compared to aps-c or FF

D700 without grip compared to a6000.

It's even more lopsided when you consider thickness.

Top view

-- hide signature --
The Incredible Hoke
The Incredible Hoke Contributing Member • Posts: 894
Re: No sand to hide in.

Richard wrote:

ShawnHoke wrote:

the reality the size is not that different when you compare camera to camera and not a grip.

Funny, I'm a DSLR user. Have been for years and years and wil continue to be. However, I'm not going to hide my head in the sand and pretend there isn't a difference in size compared to mirrorless. I can and will happily shoot both. I purchased the a6000 because I need occasional video for work. I don't buy toys or fall for the latest and greatest gear. If I did, I wouldn't still have a D700.

But to your point - sure if you take the grip off the D700 is smaller. But it's still much larger than the a6000.

Sure but in this picture can you suffer a 50mm at 5.6 and minimum 3.5 Fine if you can. But if you put a different lens on, the Sony would not fit in your pocket so there is little difference because you need a bag for either.

The RX100ii has a faster lens. I guess I am not really for tween cameras. Either pocket or if not in pocked a bag and if in bag, might as well be dslr.

I am not saying smaller cameras don't have their place, but places between a phone, a rx100, and a dslr aps-c or ff, are going to be tweener and are going to struggle. A FF mirrorless like the sony may do well only time will tell because they have so few native lenses compared to aps-c or FF

D700 without grip compared to a6000.

It's even more lopsided when you consider thickness.

Top view

-- hide signature --

This pic is off of a comparison website. My a6000 actually has a 35mm f1.8 with stabilization that's smaller than the kit lens. I don't choose to "suffer" with a kit lens.

-- hide signature --
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads