Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Mackiesback
Mackiesback Senior Member • Posts: 6,840
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.

commiebiker wrote:

I don't understand "encourage a little more creativity". I carry the lenses that get the shots I need. When I'm out on a paying shoot I don't need "creativity" I need to produce the images my client(s) ask me to get. My experimenting days are over.

I thought we were talking about casual travel, not a paying job.

As an aside, if your experimenting days are over, how will you learn anything new?

We were. I am not sure where the "paying shoot" concept came around. It's a completely different subject and one would expect paid work would necessitate bringing everything but the kitchen sink.

Completely irrelevant to this conversation.

It was in reply to "toomanycanons", so you'll have to take it up with him

I understand. I was agreeing with you.

 Mackiesback's gear list:Mackiesback's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Nikon D50 Nikon D100 Nikon Df Nikon Z6 +17 more
commiebiker Senior Member • Posts: 2,268
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.

Mackiesback wrote:

commiebiker wrote:

I don't understand "encourage a little more creativity". I carry the lenses that get the shots I need. When I'm out on a paying shoot I don't need "creativity" I need to produce the images my client(s) ask me to get. My experimenting days are over.

I thought we were talking about casual travel, not a paying job.

As an aside, if your experimenting days are over, how will you learn anything new?

We were. I am not sure where the "paying shoot" concept came around. It's a completely different subject and one would expect paid work would necessitate bringing everything but the kitchen sink.

Completely irrelevant to this conversation.

It was in reply to "toomanycanons", so you'll have to take it up with him

I understand. I was agreeing with you.

Ah, got it,  thanks for the clarification

 commiebiker's gear list:commiebiker's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Sony a7S Sony a7R II +19 more
Fullframer Contributing Member • Posts: 815
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.
2

Mackiesback wrote:

James809 wrote:

This is what people keep missing with the "ML is lighter" argument; the lenses are just as heavy, and the only weight savings is (arguably) the less-important part of the kit. Though to be fair, 600 grams is over a pound.

But it can be lighter. My Z6 and 24-70 f4 is much lighter than the 810 and 24-70 2.8G I used to lug around. I know that f4 is not 2.8, but with IBIS and better low light capability, I am getting better results and a considerable weight savings.

But, you still aren't getting F2.8 DOF,  IBIS isn't going to help you there.   Try the Z6 with F2.8 lens, it's not a lot lighter than 810, and you have to carry a flash with Z6,  810 is built in.

To the OP, for the single use case you present, indeed you would not be saving weight. Most people who buy ML Nikons are using them in a variety of ways and weight savings may not be the only benefit they were seeking.

Different strokes for different folks....

PaulV Senior Member • Posts: 1,147
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.
3

It's when the original poster tries to assign a price-per-gram of gear that I get lost. Don't get me wrong, I understand what he's saying, but I don't operate that way.

First off, he has a good system. Nothing wrong with continuing to use it. Second, I have all of that gear. I no longer have the 24-120, but I did own it at one point. On the 14-24 vs the 14-30, there's a big difference in size and weight. Forget about googling specs, just hold one in each hand and you'll see what I mean. The same for the difference between the 24-70 Z-mount and the 24-120. If you just get an FTZ to use the 70-200, you're not adding a lot. The difference in-hand between the D800 and the Z6 or Z7 is also significant. You would save weight and room in your bag. Yes, it's a big spend. You could save money by selling what you have.

I am currently running two systems, with two Nikon DSLR's in one and two Z's in another. They all get used for work and I prefer the Z cameras for run-and-gun more and more.

That being said, we're living in the golden age of digital cameras. There are so many great choices. I actually love what Panasonic is doing. I love Fuji, and Canon is no slouch. I AM brand loyal. I buy into the lens system and that was a big draw for me with the Z cameras. Aside from my AIS lenses and my sole remaining D lens, I can use all of my F-mount glass on the Z cameras. I have also had good luck with Nikon gear for over 30 years now.

Do what you need to do and don't break the budget, but the Z outfit you describe will definitely feel lighter and more compact than what you're using. And, to get in to your apparent conundrum, is it worth 8000? Probably not unless you were planning to cut the  cord and just jump wholesale into the Z system.

Sorry to blab on for so long.

-- hide signature --

Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be lived.

Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 32,041
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.
1

Fullframer wrote:

Mackiesback wrote:

James809 wrote:

This is what people keep missing with the "ML is lighter" argument; the lenses are just as heavy, and the only weight savings is (arguably) the less-important part of the kit. Though to be fair, 600 grams is over a pound.

But it can be lighter. My Z6 and 24-70 f4 is much lighter than the 810 and 24-70 2.8G I used to lug around. I know that f4 is not 2.8, but with IBIS and better low light capability, I am getting better results and a considerable weight savings.

But, you still aren't getting F2.8 DOF, IBIS isn't going to help you there. Try the Z6 with F2.8 lens, it's not a lot lighter than 810, and you have to carry a flash with Z6, 810 is built in.

D810 = 980gms

24-70 f2.8E VR = 1070gms

Total = 2050gms

Z6/7 = 585gms

24-70 f2.8 = 805gms

Total = 1390gms.

660gms weight saving and much smaller in size. I guess it depends on what you call "not a lot lighter", but that is a 1/3rd saving in weight which I call significant.

Never take a flash on my travels. Never did when i took the D850 which doesn't have a flash either. In fact, I can't remember when I last used a flash.

To the OP, for the single use case you present, indeed you would not be saving weight. Most people who buy ML Nikons are using them in a variety of ways and weight savings may not be the only benefit they were seeking.

Different strokes for different folks....

 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +16 more
hikerdoc Senior Member • Posts: 2,385
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.
2

I agree with you. When one reads about the differences in size and weight between these systems it sounds very trivial, grams and millimeters. However, when you pick them up, in the hand the Z7 with a native lens clearly feels much smaller and much lighter than my D850 or D500. It is not subtle. This clear difference is obviously much less noticeable with an adapted lens.

bjn70 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,457
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.
1

When one reads about the differences in size and weight between these systems it sounds very trivial, grams and millimeters. However, when you pick them up, in the hand the Z7 with a native lens clearly feels much smaller and much lighter than my D850 or D500. It is not subtle.

I went from a D300 to a D7200 and the D7200 seemed like it was a lot lighter.  In reality I think there is 2 oz. difference.  Now I have a D750 and D810.  The D810 feels a lot heavier but I think it is really 5 oz. heavier.  It also feels a lot more solid.  I've been carrying the D810 without a strap and with a heavy lens like my Tamron 24-70 f2.8 that is a heavy combo and a bit hard to hold onto.  So there is an interesting quality to being lighter and I like it, but I wouldn't sell my current gear and spend real money to get lighter.  I don't mind carrying these heavy things in my bag and using them.

I suppose if a person wants lighter full frame, they have to go mirrorless and shop carefully.  If they want lighter and don't have to have full frame, Nikon's D3xxx and D5xxx series are good choices, even lighter than most mirrorless.  That's probably what I would do if I got concerned about weight.  I'll see how it goes on my next trip when I carry 2 heavy bodies plus lenses.

David Lal Forum Pro • Posts: 11,087
Real photographers use flash!
3

Lance B wrote:

Never take a flash on my travels. Never did when i took the D850 which doesn't have a flash either. In fact, I can't remember when I last used a flash.

Oh dear, how dreadful!

Sandeep Kumar Regular Member • Posts: 430
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.
2

I went for my first vacation with Z7 only (have several other DSLR bodies) - am writing this awaiting departure in Zurich for home - and will never go on family vacation with my D850 or any other DSLR.  Pretty much 95% of the shots were with Z7 + 24-70 f2.8S, and the balance with 28mm f1.4E (with F2Z).  Next time, for city trips, I will only take the 24-70mm, and if wildlife is a possibility, then either the 300mm PF or the 500mm PF.  I would say, sell your current gear and go for mirrorless.  Much more compact to carry and no loss of image quality.  In fact, what you get is a very good eye tracking AF.  All the best!

 Sandeep Kumar's gear list:Sandeep Kumar's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon D5 Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +11 more
Lance B Forum Pro • Posts: 32,041
Re: Real photographers use flash!
2

David Lal wrote:

Lance B wrote:

Never take a flash on my travels. Never did when i took the D850 which doesn't have a flash either. In fact, I can't remember when I last used a flash.

Oh dear, how dreadful!

Yes,,  even *you* may be able to progress to flashless photography if you're able to build up your skill levels significantly, but then, maybe we're asking too much. LOL.

 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +16 more
commiebiker Senior Member • Posts: 2,268
Re: Real photographers use flash!
3

Lance B wrote:

David Lal wrote:

Lance B wrote:

Never take a flash on my travels. Never did when i took the D850 which doesn't have a flash either. In fact, I can't remember when I last used a flash.

Oh dear, how dreadful!

Yes,, even *you* may be able to progress to flashless photography if you're able to build up your skill levels significantly, but then, maybe we're asking too much. LOL.

I wouldn't even think of walking around a new city without a couple flashes, at least two softboxes and a couple of C-stands

And a crew

And maybe a super model or two

Permits, or course

 commiebiker's gear list:commiebiker's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Sony a7S Sony a7R II +19 more
pekored
pekored Regular Member • Posts: 219
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.

Gorgeous shots!

-- hide signature --
 pekored's gear list:pekored's gear list
Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-80mm F2.8-4E ED VR
James809 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.
1

Lance B wrote:

Never take a flash on my travels. Never did when i took the D850 which doesn't have a flash either. In fact, I can't remember when I last used a flash.

I've seen the light on a fill flash vs raising the shadows later. Can't do it with street or many sports, but for staged/posed photos, I'm all in. And as always, YMMV.

 James809's gear list:James809's gear list
Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D4 Nikon D4S Nikon D750 Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D +6 more
James809 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: Real photographers use flash!

commiebiker wrote:

Lance B wrote:

David Lal wrote:

Lance B wrote:

Never take a flash on my travels. Never did when i took the D850 which doesn't have a flash either. In fact, I can't remember when I last used a flash.

Oh dear, how dreadful!

Yes,, even *you* may be able to progress to flashless photography if you're able to build up your skill levels significantly, but then, maybe we're asking too much. LOL.

I wouldn't even think of walking around a new city without a couple flashes, at least two softboxes and a couple of C-stands

And a crew

And maybe a super model or two

Permits, or course

Here in Colombia, you don't really need permits as long as you're not too disruptive and take care of any cops that may come along. Same in DR.

And supermodels in the US, are just random women walking down the street here in Medellin.

 James809's gear list:James809's gear list
Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D4 Nikon D4S Nikon D750 Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D +6 more
commiebiker Senior Member • Posts: 2,268
Re: Real photographers use flash!
1

Here in Colombia, you don't really need permits as long as you're not too disruptive and take care of any cops that may come along. Same in DR.

And supermodels in the US, are just random women walking down the street here in Medellin.

What's more expensive?  Getting a permit, or "taking care of the cops"?

 commiebiker's gear list:commiebiker's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Sony a7S Sony a7R II +19 more
MoreorLess Veteran Member • Posts: 4,670
Re: Try this to save some weight

toomanycanons wrote:

Don't change systems, keep your D800E, sell or leave at home your 24-120 f/4 and 14-24.

Buy an 18-35 G and an 85 f/1.8 G. Keep your 70-200. You'd drop 845 grams this way, almost two pounds.

No stressing about a new system and you'd still be getting great images from great lenses.

..or the 16-35mm F/4 and you gain VR which can be useful for leaving the tripod behind, that lens is much better than its rep in my experience, really only 35mm is weak.

Personally I tend to find that I need less variety of lenses the more I'm traveling. Part of the reason for having a large variety of focal lengths and apertures is that when I'm shooting in my local area I can get more variety from the same locations. When I'm traveling though time is much more limited and often you aren't going to have time to really exhaust the options with even one focal length.

I'm in the process of setting up a trekking trip in the himlayas this autumn and honestly I think I might limit myself to voigtlander 20mm and 40mm pancakes plus a 70-300mm VR, keep one pancake in a coat pocket whilst shooting the other and the tele zoom for long distance mountain and wildlife shots.

Camera wise I personally wouldn't want to go smaller than my D850 when I'm shooting seriously, I like the grip size(even with small lenses) and the controls(especially wearing gloves). A smaller body would need to be something pocketable for casual shooting. In terms of inconvenience as well I tend to think the issues issue with a camera around your neck is long and front heavy lenses.

Mackiesback
Mackiesback Senior Member • Posts: 6,840
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.

Fullframer wrote:

Mackiesback wrote:

James809 wrote:

This is what people keep missing with the "ML is lighter" argument; the lenses are just as heavy, and the only weight savings is (arguably) the less-important part of the kit. Though to be fair, 600 grams is over a pound.

But it can be lighter. My Z6 and 24-70 f4 is much lighter than the 810 and 24-70 2.8G I used to lug around. I know that f4 is not 2.8, but with IBIS and better low light capability, I am getting better results and a considerable weight savings.

But, you still aren't getting F2.8 DOF, IBIS isn't going to help you there. Try the Z6 with F2.8 lens, it's not a lot lighter than 810, and you have to carry a flash with Z6, 810 is built in.

No, but not everyone needs shallow depth of field. I know I don’t. I buy fast lenses for different reasons, but the quality of the Z kit kens is easily on par with my old 24-70 2.8 at half the size.

To the OP, for the single use case you present, indeed you would not be saving weight. Most people who buy ML Nikons are using them in a variety of ways and weight savings may not be the only benefit they were seeking.

Different strokes for different folks....

 Mackiesback's gear list:Mackiesback's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Nikon D50 Nikon D100 Nikon Df Nikon Z6 +17 more
MoreorLess Veteran Member • Posts: 4,670
Re: Some Data

raymondg wrote:

Definition: By 'travel' I mean the sort of travel you would do as a tourist, not serious hiking or landscape photography.

I did a review of the Exif from my past 5 trips (2000 'keepers' approximately and based on the definition above of travel and the kit outlined in my original post).

The majority of the of the photos (keepers) were taken with the 24 -120 f4. Not surprising given that this is my walk around lens and most likely on the camera the majority of the time. Laziness in changing the lens may also account for a high proportion. That said, the 24-120 was used for 95% of the shots. Why do I bother with the other 2 lenses for 5% of the shots?? (Rhetorical question)

Of the shots taken with the 24-120 f4, approximately 60% were taken at either 24mm or 120mm. The rest (40%) were fairly even divided across the range form 24mm to 85mm, but less so at the long end.

That leads me to believe that 24mm is not quite wide enough and 120mm is not quite long enough for my purposes, but I make do as that is what is on the camera at the time. In between it is a great range. The perfect lens for me might be 18-200 f4 VR with very good IQ. I can dream.

Will I discard the extra 2 lenses for my upcoming trip??? Probably not as a little voice in my head says.."but you might need them for that perfect shot". Most likely the 70-200 will remain in my room and the 14-24 f2.8 will rest in my bag for those 'interior' shots, while the 24-120 f4 will be firmly mounted on my camera.

Stats don't of course tell the whole story and it can be 1-2 shots from a trip that really make it worthwhile in a photographic sense be that having something framed on the wall or selling your work.

I do get your point about 24mm not being quite wide enough for "general" use. I mean there are some situations shooting internal architecture or certain landscapes were maximum UWA coverage is needed but besides that I do often find myself wanting a bit more.

One setup I'm testing at the moment is potentially using Voightlander 20mm and 40mm pancakes for travel as a "walkaround" setup with a tele zoom in the bag. That gives a bit of extra width as well as really cutting down on size, lens size especially is I find the big issue in terms of cameras becoming more inconvenient much more than body size. The pancakes are small enough that one can stay in a coat pocket so your not diving into a bag for lens changes.

A bit of cropping isn't THAT big an issue with modern resolution but actually being able to compose wider with a single shot definitely helps, especially when traveling were you maybe pressed for time.

calson Veteran Member • Posts: 9,791
Re: Travel, DSLR, Mirrorless, Weight and Cost = Conundrum.
2

I have the 14-24mm f/2.8 and it is an incredible lens but also very heavy and bulky and filter holders also add to the bulk. I bought the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5G zoom lens which takes the usual 77mm size filters and it is what I use when I need to lighten my load. This lens is sharper than the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 lens as well as lighter.

A lens that is surprisingly good but slow at f/5.6 is the Nikon 28-300mm lens. For an ultra light FX kit I take this lens along with the 18-35mm and the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 IS.

A lighter option to the Sigma is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 that sells new for only $499 and provides excellent IQ and autofocus performance. Unfortunately the Tamron takes a 67mm filter.

-- hide signature --

Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed. -- Herman Melville

James809 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: Real photographers use flash!

commiebiker wrote:

Here in Colombia, you don't really need permits as long as you're not too disruptive and take care of any cops that may come along. Same in DR.

And supermodels in the US, are just random women walking down the street here in Medellin.

What's more expensive? Getting a permit, or "taking care of the cops"?

Getting a permit; sometimes you still need to take care of the cops, even with a permit.

 James809's gear list:James809's gear list
Nikon 1 J1 Nikon D4 Nikon D4S Nikon D750 Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads