To much lens weight.

[saltydogstudios]

Nikon's Z lenses (at least the DX ones) are super light compared to the AF-S versions of the same or very similar lenses. Huge difference in them - I don't know which Nikon lenses you are talking about.

The 40 2.0 that came with the Z F is incredibly light weight

What I mean is they seemed to go full Sigma - who was at the forefront of the trend of making giant glass, with the explanation I heard being “if the central portion of the imaging circle is the sharpest, just make the imaging circle bigger by throwing more glass into it”

I’m sure there are other lightweight lenses but as a portrait photographer their 1.2 lenses look ridiculously big and heavy. And I still don’t understand why their 50 1.2 is longer than their 85 1.2

The folks who used to do a little thing called DP Review TV literally use a Nikon lens as a unit of measurement

 

[Mika Y.]

ITS THE LENS SIZES AND WEIGHT. One lens ok. 2-3-4 lenses like some of these hunks posting is not. For me anyway.

It's rare for me to be called a hunk these days, being a middle-aged slightly overweight guy and all, so I'll happily take the compliment.

 

[guy_incognito1]

If I want deeper-DOF, I will use m4/3 (or even 1"-type or 1/2.3").

You do realize that FF cameras can close down the aperture and get an equally deep DOF right?

 

[Cherry_F]

What doesn't make sense is to post this weird whine blaming one poor decision to carry too much gear on a walk around town.

I think it's just m43 cheerleading. Especially if you read the OPs replies. Too many mentions of FF "hype" and how awesome m43 is.

Yes, the OP is definitely an M43 advocate. We don't see much advocacy on these forums anymore.

If you're correct, then that's a good thing. It's like clothing, one size doesn't fit all.

 

[WiltshireMoonraker59]

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.

That's why I love my Oly EM5ii, small lightweight with small and lightweight lenses

 

[PhotoTeach2]

If I want deeper-DOF, I will use m4/3 (or even 1"-type or 1/2.3").

You do realize that FF cameras can close down the aperture and get an equally deep DOF right?

Only by increasing ISO and/or longer-SS ... both of which have other complications and limitations.

Using 1/2.3" inch (CF 5.7) to better illustrate:

If I am shooting f/8 on a 1/2.3" camera, I cannot get an equivalent (deeper) DOF on FF or MF because most lenses do not have the necessary f/stop, (f/64 on FF).

And in lower light (requiring) f/2.8, the 1/2.3" will have deeper DOF.

BUT ... if I want/need shallow-DOF, I can use PP (aka Alien-Skin EXPOSE / BOKEH) to simulate shallow DOF, (selectively and controllably -- which can be an advantage in itself).

 

[J A C S]

If I want deeper-DOF, I will use m4/3 (or even 1"-type or 1/2.3").

You do realize that FF cameras can close down the aperture and get an equally deep DOF right?

Only by increasing ISO and/or longer-SS ... both of which have other complications and limitations.

Right, because ISO creates noise…

Using 1/2.3" inch (CF 5.7) to better illustrate:

If I am shooting f/8 on a 1/2.3" camera, I cannot get an equivalent (deeper) DOF on FF or MF because most lenses do not have the necessary f/stop, (f/64 on FF).

At f/64 eq., the diffraction blur gives you zero (empty) DOF. Besides, your /2.3" camera is not m43, and f/64 is wrong anyway, it is more like f/46. Most P&S that are not even made now could not do f/8. This is phone territory now, and they cannot do f/8 either.

And in lower light (requiring) f/2.8, the 1/2.3" will have deeper DOF.

Which you can match with FF. The crop factor is f/5.6.

BUT ... if I want/need shallow-DOF, I can use PP (aka Alien-Skin EXPOSE / BOKEH) to simulate shallow DOF, (selectively and controllably -- which can be an advantage in itself).

Is there a law against doing this with FF?

 

[JasonTheBirder]

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.

It's called getting old....nothing wrong with it but as you get older you have to make compromises.

 

[jxh]

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.

Everyone has their priorities, but that is a key reason why I use a P1000. Sure it's a small sensor (but a decent one--like phones) but I've got 24-3000mm range in a single unit that weighs a lot less than a Z9 with 400mm

 

[Starflash127]

. . beats the alternative. Like my grandpa said, "Old age is not for sissies." (In Russian)

 

[jrtrent]

If I want deeper-DOF, I will use m4/3 (or even 1"-type or 1/2.3").

You do realize that FF cameras can close down the aperture and get an equally deep DOF right?

Only by increasing ISO and/or longer-SS ... both of which have other complications and limitations.

Using 1/2.3" inch (CF 5.7) to better illustrate:

If I am shooting f/8 on a 1/2.3" camera, I cannot get an equivalent (deeper) DOF on FF or MF because most lenses do not have the necessary f/stop, (f/64 on FF).

F/8 is well into diffraction-induced softness for a 1/2.3" sensor. Most reviews suggest f/4 or wider for best results, with f/5.6 a possibly useful compromise for some macro shots. These apertures would be equivalent to about f/22 and f/32, respectively, on full frame; some primes stop at f/16, but zooms typically go at least to f/22 and macro lenses to f/32.

And in lower light (requiring) f/2.8, the 1/2.3" will have deeper DOF.

I don't have any full frame digital experience, but I continue to get a kick out of the fact that I can shoot at f/2.8 on my FZ300 and get the same depth of field I needed f/16 for on my 35mm SLR's. Also, I never found a slide film I liked faster than ISO 100, but the FZ300 still looks good to me at ISO 400, plus it has image stabilization for even better hand-held low-light performance. I know it's low-tech by some people's standards, but it still amazes me!

BUT ... if I want/need shallow-DOF, I can use PP (aka Alien-Skin EXPOSE / BOKEH) to simulate shallow DOF, (selectively and controllably -- which can be an advantage in itself).

 

[jxh]

Strongly agree. We all have different priorities, and this is not to criticize FF and large format fans, but sensor tech has enabled us to have tremendous flexibility with smaller formats.

The tradeoff works well for me.

 

[gary0319]

10 years ago I owned a Canon DSLR with some L lenses, and a Canon SX60 bridge camera for light grab and go shooting. All of my photo friends also owned some sort of full frame or crop DSLR. Then...one day I was visiting a friend who had just returned from a safari in Africa and was looking at her really striking images, I inquired about which of her lenses she was using for the images. She said 100-300, which was strange because I didn't think she had any Canon 100-300 lens. She informed me that she hadn't taken her Canon DSLR kit because of the weight limitations of the small planes that were to take them into the bush, and had purchased a Lumix GX7, 100-300 and 40-140 lens the week before the Safari.

I was so impressed with the images she had taken that I asked to borrow the GX7 and compare it, shot for shot against my SX60, which as it turns out was about the same weight as the Lumix. I then sold the SX60 and purchased my first M43 camera, the GX7. After about 6 months, the Canon DSLR was sitting on the shelf and I had added a small Olympus to the growing cadre of Panasonic m43 lenses. I had never intended to do a complete replacement of my Canon DSLR, but rather to just add the M43 kit as an adjunct for something smaller and lighter.

Another side note..... when my wife and I joined our camera club we were the only members shooting m43 (and mirrorless), all others were shooting Canon, Nikon, or Sony DSLR (FF or Crop). Today with everyone about a decade older, and all of us in our 70's (and some older) 20 of the 25 members of our club shoot mainly m43. We shoot a lot of birds here in Florida, and many members travel extensively. The smaller, lighter, and extra reach of the m43 seems to fit particularly well with our "middle age+" members. The great image stabilization helps with older twitchy hands, too.

 

[J A C S]

Yet, the m43 mount accounts for 2.2% of the lensrentals lenses rented in 2022:

Lens Rentals | Blog

Olympus, or whatever its name is now is not even in the top 20, and Panasonic (FF, m43 and video) has about 4.3% share of the cameras.

 

[DesertDrifter]

I love my GX9 and it's always in my vehicle with me. But if I'm going to take a walk more than about a quarter mile I take my Sony RX100M6. Weight matters. It's always about the right tool for the particular job.

You must have some serious health problems, I'm sorry. :-(

No health problems at all. But thank you.

 

[Bob A L]

I can understand that. Thus far, I have not seen any real evidence of saving much if any weight by going from APSC to M43. But have said for years that if I could not purchase a Nikon DX crop sensor camera and all mine died, I would head to the M43 store in an instant.

 

[Bob A L]

Absolutely great to hear. And also agree with the concept even without age or physical condition. I never liked or used heavy equipment even when I was fit and trim.

 

[gary0319]

Yet, the m43 mount accounts for 2.2% of the lensrentals lenses rented in 2022:

Lens Rentals | Blog

Olympus, or whatever its name is now is not even in the top 20, and Panasonic (FF, m43 and video) has about 4.3% share of the cameras.

Yes, no one disputes that the preponderance of cameras sold and rented are either Sony, Canon, or Nikon. If being part of the masses is somehow comforting, then m43 would certainly be a poor choice. In fact, I suspect that the majority of m43 camera sales, meager as it is, comes not from first time camera buyers (are there actually any first time buyers?), but from those “greying” photogs that were previously , or currently are, shooters of one of the market top three camera companies….. and even perhaps shoot multiple formats.

The issue seems to be that a lot of folks on this forum cannot get past an “either/or” mentality. They have yet to accept that there can be multiple winners, depending on the particular use case.

 

[dmartin92]

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.

Is that really the truth ? Theoretically, it's possible, but I find it very doubtful. That's a lot to do in one day. Maybe MPB or whatever makes it that easy, but I still have doubts.

If it's not true, then why bother saying it ? You could just as easily make your point without making up some story.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

If I want deeper-DOF, I will use m4/3 (or even 1"-type or 1/2.3").

You do realize that FF cameras can close down the aperture and get an equally deep DOF right?

Only by increasing ISO and/or longer-SS ... both of which have other complications and limitations.

Right, because ISO creates noise…

Yep .. sure does ... (because the RESULT of using higher ISO is LOWER-"EXPOSURE").

Using 1/2.3" inch (CF 5.7) to better illustrate:

If I am shooting f/8 on a 1/2.3" camera, I cannot get an equivalent (deeper) DOF on FF or MF because most lenses do not have the necessary f/stop, (f/64 on FF).

At f/64 eq., the diffraction blur gives you zero (empty) DOF.

You just proved my point ... not really any need to go further ...

Besides, your /2.3" camera is not m43, and f/64 is wrong anyway, it is more like f/46.

I accept that f/64 was a slight-exageration ... but I would suggest about f/58 would be closer.

But it is not worth arguing over minutia.

Most P&S that are not even made now could not do f/8.

Every 1/2.3" (that I have ever seen/used) has f/8.

And while I will admit that they indeed have diffraction-softening on resolution-charts, it is usually not noticeably-objectionable for typical photography, (and thus is commonly used).

Note that the (original) 1"-type FZ1000 had a f/8 limit to retain sharpness, the Sony RX10 went to f/16 and again was commonly used for typical photography, (and now the FZ1000-II allows f/11).

This is phone territory now, and they cannot do f/8 either.

And in lower light (requiring) f/2.8, the 1/2.3" will have deeper DOF.

Which you can match with FF. The crop factor is f/5.6.

Which do you prefer -- 6 stops of SS or ISO, (or 3 of each) -- how do you adapt for longer-SS (without tripod) and/or higher resulting noise ???

BUT ... if I want/need shallow-DOF, I can use PP (aka Alien-Skin EXPOSE / BOKEH) to simulate shallow DOF, (selectively and controllably -- which can be an advantage in itself).

Is there a law against doing this with FF?

Yes ... (a felony) ... You can't sharpen an (already soft/blurry) image -- but you can "soften" a sharp one, (selectively and controllably).