Went for a long akward walk today. Armed with a FULL FRAME nikon and 3 lenses. When i got home i then sold ALL my full frame stuff. Just keeping my Panasonic G9 and armada of SMALL but lovely lenses. The wieght of the full frame stuff over trees logs rocks etc was too much. It spoilt my day. Its not the bodies, but the huge weighty long lenses. What do other people think of lens sizes and weight.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
To much lens weight.
- Thread starter j tokarz
- Start date
- Status
Mike B USA
Forum Enthusiast
Sell your G9 with the armada of lovely lenses and just use your phone. Then you'll really be mobile.
Maoby
Veteran Member
The older we get, the more important the weight of our equipment becomes.
That's why I bought the Fujifilm X-T5 at the end of 2022. Outdoor walks are now much more pleasant.
Long live lightness ;-)
iPhone SE (2022) / Fujifilm X-T5 (2022)
--
That's why I bought the Fujifilm X-T5 at the end of 2022. Outdoor walks are now much more pleasant.
Long live lightness ;-)
iPhone SE (2022) / Fujifilm X-T5 (2022)
--
ajscullard
Senior Member
I'm finding it difficult to know how best to respond without sounding harsh. My apologies in advance.
You owned these weighty long lenses before you went on the walk. Presumably you have used these weighty long lenses before. You were fully aware of the weight of the lenses but did you somehow think that they would weigh less when you went for a walk?
I have many lenses, often quite heavy, and I choose which ones to take with me based on what I plan to shoot and whether I have have transport or if I need to walk some distance. If I have to walk long distances I limit the lenses that I carry with me to the minimum that I absolutely need. Simple basic planning. When I walk around an island photographing seabirds I'll take a 500mm f4 in a backpack and maybe one shorter lens. Using a backpack makes it a lot easier to carry a weighty long lens. I would not carry the lens in a shoulder bag.
Are the lenses the problem or your inability to plan properly? What did you expect?
You owned these weighty long lenses before you went on the walk. Presumably you have used these weighty long lenses before. You were fully aware of the weight of the lenses but did you somehow think that they would weigh less when you went for a walk?
I have many lenses, often quite heavy, and I choose which ones to take with me based on what I plan to shoot and whether I have have transport or if I need to walk some distance. If I have to walk long distances I limit the lenses that I carry with me to the minimum that I absolutely need. Simple basic planning. When I walk around an island photographing seabirds I'll take a 500mm f4 in a backpack and maybe one shorter lens. Using a backpack makes it a lot easier to carry a weighty long lens. I would not carry the lens in a shoulder bag.
Are the lenses the problem or your inability to plan properly? What did you expect?
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
When I'm out and about, it's much nicer to carry the cameras and lenses that are small and light. Serving that purpose is pretty much the reason why small and light gear exists. I still come back with photos that please me, which is what matters.
Last edited:
Redhenry
Senior Member
Oddly enough, a similar thing has happened to me three times! I have had a Nikon D40 and two D5100s. With each camera, I liked the image quality and the kit zoom wasn’t too bulky, but with each camera, I decided after a while that I should really have the 55-200mm lens. Each time, perhaps 4 or 5 years apart, I took a few pictures with the longer zoom then decided that it just made the camera too bulky, so sold the whole outfit and bought a compact. You would think I’d learn more quickly! The last time, in my defence, I was having quite a few pictures accepted by an agency, but I’ve stopped doing that now, since the returns are small and I have my state pension so don’t need the extra few dollars. I used a Nikon J1 till it expired, then the excellent Sony RX100 for a couple of years , but now I mainly use my iPhone. That takes a little adapting to but you learn to get the best out of it.
yardcoyote
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 18,130
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 18,310
I almost never carry more than one lens, and that on the camera. This saves a huge amount of weight and bulk right there. Just because you own something doesn't mean you have to take it everywhere with you. I have a bunch of lenses, but they don't get in my way at home in the cabinet. I use them to build the camera I want to use before I leave the house. Very rarely, I will carry a second camera with a street lens on it, but this is always chosen specifically to be very small and light--either one of the very small Fujis with the 27mm pancake on it, or my E-M10 with the 25mm f/1.8. Either of these weighs less than a big long FF lens. A lot of the time, when I am not planning to do anything specialized, that same small street camera is all I carry.
--
Instagram: @yardcoyote
--
Instagram: @yardcoyote
Last edited:
Yes, mobile with no camera. A M43 setup weights the same as a bottle of water or a smartphone with a portable battery pack.
Last edited:
Cherry_F
Senior Member
I abandoned full frame a long time ago when I got kids. No reason to carry toddlers and a 6-pound camera bag on mountain hikes.
So when kids grew up and I came back to photography it was m4/3.
So when kids grew up and I came back to photography it was m4/3.
Did you ever wonder why, whenever people on DPR or reviews recommend to buy the biggest and most expensive camera and lens yet they never discuss the weight issue?
The reality of the situation is that for many people a compact zoom camera or a M43 setup is way more beneficial than getting that FF mirrorless with a 100-400 monster of a lens.
But, there's not that much profit in those small light cameras, so the industry solves the issue but completely ignoring the weight and size factor.
OP is one of the many users who discovered that corporate propaganda is wrong and common sense says that smaller cameras are better.
I am a compact camera user for a decade now and I still enjoy using small cameras along with bigger cameras, which are no fun to carry.
M43 is the perfect balance between the two, which is why I'm investing more into the system as time goes on.
Last edited:
chipman02
Forum Enthusiast
I had a similar problem a few years ago. Retirement meant more time for motorcycle trips. Which meant limited space for extras.
I left my Canon and white lenses at home and bought a Pany FZ1000. Whole kit, camera, extra batteries, charger, and cards, fits in a 6x6x9 bag. Camera does everything I need on the road. And the last two prints I made money from came off the FZ.
If you're trying to pack light, why bother with multiple lenses?
I left my Canon and white lenses at home and bought a Pany FZ1000. Whole kit, camera, extra batteries, charger, and cards, fits in a 6x6x9 bag. Camera does everything I need on the road. And the last two prints I made money from came off the FZ.
If you're trying to pack light, why bother with multiple lenses?
tbcass
Forum Pro
Why not keep the Full Frame for times when the weight isn't a burden and use the G9 for hiking?
I guess I'm the odd one in this thread, but weight has never been much of a concern for me as far as gear is concerned. Something like a full-size tripod that I can't just put into a bag and free my hands is much more of a hindrance as far as I am concerned.
On vacation trips my go-to daily gear has been for years a wide-angle zoom, fast 50mm prime, 100-400 mm zoom and a full-frame body, and that works fine for me, including moderately long hikes in the nature.
But I'd say this is one of those highly personal things, as long as what you choose to carry works for you, it's all good.
On vacation trips my go-to daily gear has been for years a wide-angle zoom, fast 50mm prime, 100-400 mm zoom and a full-frame body, and that works fine for me, including moderately long hikes in the nature.
But I'd say this is one of those highly personal things, as long as what you choose to carry works for you, it's all good.
Agree completely. That's why I am a full fledged DX fan. I have no desire whatsoever for FF cameras. And if I was starting new today, would consider M43 for sure. Heck I even use my Olympus Stylus 1, Panasonic FL300 and Nikon P900 often.
On a flat walk, no problem. Floundering about over huge rocks and slippery paths with that heavy lot banging about. Had enough. Like I said. Camera bodies no problems. It’s the HUGE lenses that @@sed me off. Huge lens especially the monster Canon stuff. Just had enough. No fun with having sweat dripping off my chin. Each Ty hit own. This is just MY experience. Anyway, love the m43rds system.
I don't know the OP's situation but do know those big old lenses that I used to pack around all day long kept getting heavier and more bulky as I got older.
Brian Chichester
Senior Member
I'm surprised that one walk brought on this large-scale re-assessment of the gear line-up, but it's right. Unless you've got a porter carrying your gear and you are shooting a high-paid assignment, there's not much point in doing a long hike with FF gear and multiple lenses.
My equipment of choice for a long walk is the Oly XZ-1.
My equipment of choice for a long walk is the Oly XZ-1.
No. For me no benefit with full frame. I don’t and never have pixel peeped. Noise doesn’t bother me. I go for content not straight lines and no noise pictures. For me micro 43rds is KING. I love my G9 , all its small lenses and great picture quality. I also have a Fuji X-H2 for when I walk around cities. FULL FRAME for ME is all hype.
- Status
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum