Downsizing from Z8 - Advice Needed

[kc384]

Hello Folks,

I need some advice on possibly downsizing from my Z8.

I currently shoot with a Z8 and a 28-400mm + 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 on most days. I love the images I get—the quality and handling are great. However, the main issue is the weight and size of the camera and lenses. I travel a lot and always take my camera with me, but lately, I’ve been feeling the strain of carrying a full-frame setup. I also rented the 180-600mm but held off on buying it because, as much as I enjoy birding, the weight was too much for me. Instead, I shoot with the 28-400mm, crop as needed, and still get good results.

I’m a pure hobbyist, and I don’t print large, but I love viewing my photos and videos on a big TV and in a VR headset to appreciate the details.

Five months ago, I purchased a DJI Pocket 3 (a 1-inch handheld video camera with a built-in gimbal). Since then, I’ve barely used the Z8 for video—except when I need a telephoto lens. The Pocket 3 delivers incredible video quality, especially for travel, and its compact size, combined with the gimbal, allows me to shoot at low ISOs and get great footage anytime.

This got me thinking about possibly downsizing from the Z8 to something like the A6700 or the new OM-3. My wife has a Z50 II, and with the kit lenses, it’s a joy to handle—super lightweight. The image quality, after processing with DxO, was good enough for my needs. It’s definitely not on par with the Z8, but it wasn’t as bad as I had feared. However, the Z50 II lacks IBIS, which is a dealbreaker for me. Still, that’s roughly the size of the system I’d like to aim for.

Any thoughts on how I should approach this and what I should consider?

TL;DR: Over time, I’ve realized that compactness and weight matter more to me than absolute image quality. I’m considering downsizing to a more travel-friendly setup and need advice on my options.

 

[Razon]

The A6700 could be a good choice, but try it before buying due to the ergonomics.

Some good lenses

Sony 18-135mm for all around travel

Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 if you prefer constant aperture

Sony 70-350mm (525mm full frame) is nice for wildlife and pretty compact for a telephoto.

Alternatively, micro four thirds is still best for compactness and reach, just take a look at the 75-300mm (600mm full frame) olympus lens. Pair it with a om5 or om1 and you have a great kit. The 12-100mm f4 is praised as a travel lens.

 

[number_5]

The OM-1.2 and OM-3 have stacked sensors, same as Z8, so performances are comparable, up to a point mainly due to the sensor size and pixel count. The G9II, not stacked, is also an option, but I much prefer the OM-1. It did take me a bit of time to get comfortable with the OM-1.1.

For travel, the Panasonic 12-60 and 50-200 will cover 24-400 (FF). The f2.8 zoom are lighter than the FF's (not the same depth of field though). The f4's are still lighter, generally. Some lower end, kit lenses, are pretty good and again, are still lighter. The f1.8 primes are tiny, and their f1.2 counter parts are nice but much bigger and heavier, but nothing close to the FF's. The 12-100/4 could be the one lens solution, and the 12-200/3.5-6.3 is bit soft (but could be sharpened in post).

Sony's APSC works too, but I think Sony's relying on the FF lenses to cover some of the focal length, especially in the long tele end. There's nothing wrong, but you are back to FF lens weight. That being said, there are many third party APSC lens options.

FWIW, I'm a bird shooter, and I got into MFT due to the Sony FF weight. I'm moving back toward Sony for birding through, with the light weight 300/2.8. But, for non-birding trips, MFT will be my choice and they are more than good enough.

 

[ahaslett]

I'm a long term MFT and FE mount user as a hobbyist. Until recently, I used the Sonys for landscape (on a tripod) and intimate shots of family in good light.

I used the MFT stuff for everything handheld, including landscape where carrying a tripod was not practical.

My recent purchase of an A7CR with its decent IBIS and subject detection has changed that.

People get confused about the benefits of sensor size (resolution, DR at base ISO) vs lens size (DoF control, light capture ie noise). You also have the benefits of Quad Bayer PDAF vs typical PDAF points, fast sensor readout, and body functionality.

I'm not familiar with Nikon bodies and lenses. Only you can know how big a shooting envelope you need (resolution, DR, DoF, light capture, burst speed, subject detection, CAF speed and accuracy). I know zip about video.

I trust you are comfortable with equivalence? I am. The only thing to note is that low light AF is exposure dependent, ie f-stop rather than physical aperture. Also forget the nonsense that f2.8 = f2.8. The size of lenses designed to cover an image circle natively mostly depends on angle of view and physical aperture rather than FL and f-stop. That breaks down below about f1.8, where f-stop starts to make designs harder.

In terms of the smallest current MFT body, here is my small kit:

View attachment 1e8a55ba4b324d52be90141121187555.jpg
PL 25/1.4, OM5 + Laowa 10/2, OM 12-45/4


OM5 + 12-45/4

The 12-45/4 is a Pro lens, pretty good wide open and capable of CAF at 50fps, but clearly limited light gathering and subject isolation. The PL 25/1.4 in the mk ii version is weather sealed and has fast AF. There is an OM 40-150/4 which is also a Pro lens but again limited shooting envelope in return for small size.

A feature of Olympus bodies is excellent IBIS. I can shoot the OM5 at 10mm at 1s standing up unbraced repeatedly with confidence, and the OM1 at 1.5s.

My OM1 kit is 2.5kg without the bag and extra batteries etc. but including a tiny flash (FL-LM3)


From fisheye to 400mm FF equivalent (when using the TC14) or 300mm with excellent IQ

I have also looked at the A6700 and Sony have added some G level lenses in the last few years, but APSC for me gets squeezed out between the body and lens choices of MFT and FE.


You can see that resolution and DR are my main drivers for FE vs size, sensor readout and functionality for MFT

I'm inclined to believe that your best fit currently is an OM1 mk ii. The AF system of the OM5 might disappoint after your Z8, unless size is so important you can accept less. The OM3 currently has a fashion premium. If jpeg capability and look matter, then the OM3 is almost as good a body as the OM1 mk ii.



OK, the OM5 is 185g lighter than the OM1, but the OM1 is still only a fraction of the weight of your Z8. I have the OM5 and A7CR because the OM1 and A7Riv are bigger than I really like!

With an OM1 you get better performance vs the OM5, longer battery life, better menu structure and a grip that fits wrangling larger lenses. The OM3 is like a small OM1 with no grip and less buffer memory. That's probably fine unless you shoot wildlife.

There are big discounts from OM if you buy a body plus lens kit and most kits come with a Pro lens, not a "kit" one. There is lot of used MFT gear available from reputable dealers. As a private equity owned company, OM manage cash aggressively. That means they have frequent sales. It's worth signing up to their newsletter and keeping your eyes open. If they repeat the OM1 mk i and mk ii pattern, the OM3 will be 15% off for two weeks sometime in Q4 2025 / Q1 2026.

Not sure an A7CR with 20-70/4 and a couple of primes or maybe the Tamron 28-200mm suits you, but I have one. My little finger curls under the body due to inept grip design, but the A7CR comes with a grip extension that makes it very comfortable, taller and 75g heavier. Given the size of my lenses, not really an issue. Nothing beats the OM5 and I have a GM1.



Smaller is sort of a theme for me, unless I'm humping a big tripod, square filter set and lots of lenses. Even then, there are limits! I like cheaper too - why pay for shooting envelope you are not going to use.

If you want a camera that can go anywhere, is affordable, and produces reasonable images, the TG7 might be worth considering. I've been surprised by the image quality some people can produce with it, but it still falls below my cutoff, probably yours too.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

 

[ZilverHaylide]

Hello Folks,

I need some advice on possibly downsizing from my Z8.

I currently shoot with a Z8 and a 28-400mm + 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 on most days. I love the images I get—the quality and handling are great. However, the main issue is the weight and size of the camera and lenses. I travel a lot and always take my camera with me, but lately, I’ve been feeling the strain of carrying a full-frame setup. I also rented the 180-600mm but held off on buying it because, as much as I enjoy birding, the weight was too much for me. Instead, I shoot with the 28-400mm, crop as needed, and still get good results.

I’m a pure hobbyist, and I don’t print large, but I love viewing my photos and videos on a big TV and in a VR headset to appreciate the details.

Five months ago, I purchased a DJI Pocket 3 (a 1-inch handheld video camera with a built-in gimbal). Since then, I’ve barely used the Z8 for video—except when I need a telephoto lens. The Pocket 3 delivers incredible video quality, especially for travel, and its compact size, combined with the gimbal, allows me to shoot at low ISOs and get great footage anytime.

This got me thinking about possibly downsizing from the Z8 to something like the A6700 or the new OM-3. My wife has a Z50 II, and with the kit lenses, it’s a joy to handle—super lightweight. The image quality, after processing with DxO, was good enough for my needs. It’s definitely not on par with the Z8, but it wasn’t as bad as I had feared. However, the Z50 II lacks IBIS, which is a dealbreaker for me. Still, that’s roughly the size of the system I’d like to aim for.

Any thoughts on how I should approach this and what I should consider?

TL;DR: Over time, I’ve realized that compactness and weight matter more to me than absolute image quality. I’m considering downsizing to a more travel-friendly setup and need advice on my options.

If cropping into the results from the long end of a 28-400mm lens on the full-frame Z8 gave you enough reach to satisfy, then the long end of a 100-400mm on an OM-1 or OM-3 Micro Four-Thirds, with or without cropping, should also give you enough reach, and probably even more detail (assuming equal optical quality of the lens). Because, for instance, if on the 45.7 megapixel Z8 image, you cropped the 400mm result down to what would have been MFT dimensions, then, from that Z8 image, you'd be getting the same angle of view as with a 400mm mounted on a MFT camera, but with approximately 45.7 ÷ ~4 = ~11.4 megapixels, since the MFT sensor area is approximately 1/4 of the full-frame area. But the image from an OM-1 or OM-3 would provide 20 MP, considerably better. Actual detail realized from the MFT camera depends not only on the number of megapixels on the target but also on the lens quality, and in that regard, hard to know; on the one hand, the Z 28-400 is a much-newer design. On the other hand, a 100-400 on MFT is designed for that smaller sensor area and also doesn't have to cover as great a zoom range, so potentially better for those reasons.

Note that for most people using MFT to save size and weight, the 100-400 is probably as long as they will ever want to go. Because the Oly/OM 150-400, though supposedly very good optically, and capable of further reach via its switchable built-in teleconverter, is both heavy and very expensive. And the Oly/OM 150-600, though it does provide extra reach on MFT, is quite heavy because it's actually a rebadged Sigma full-frame in a MFT mount.

Will you be photographing fast-moving wildlife, such as birds in flight? If so, the Z7-series could be problematic, as its slow-readout sensor negatively impacts not just maximum frame rate, but also produces subject shape-distortion, the stills counterpart of "rolling shutter", with fast-moving subjects.

https://horshack-dpreview.github.io/RollingShutter/

The above sensor-readout speed database is not all that current, but of those listed it looks like the Z8 is the best bet for wildlife (or other fast action), because it has fast sensor readout speed (minimizing shape distortion), high resolution (allowing extra telephoto reach via cropping, while still retaining enough pixels for good results in the crop), and a more affordable price than any Sony camera with that combination of readout speed and resolution.

The OM-1 sensor readout is twice as long as the Z8, but still good. I think the sensor of the OM-3 is the same as on the OM-1, so presumably the same readout speed.

I don't know of any APS-C cameras with fast readout beyond the Fuji X-H2s. But that camera is not small, and Fuji cameras have had issues with AF and subject tracking. (Supposedly fixed via firmware update, but no personal experience). Not sure what long lenses are available, or their size and weights.

The Sony A6700 is relatively-small and supposedly has great AF and tracking, but I don't think its sensor has fast readout. Plus I think that of long E-mount zooms, only the Sony 70-350mm is designed for APS-C, any other long lens options would be full-frame optics, so no weight savings from the lens.

So if interested in birds in flight, not just ones on the ground or perched in trees, I think your sensible options are pretty-much the Z8 or OM-1 or OM-3.

Note, however, that the OM-3, old SLR body style with no grip, while smaller and lighter than the OM-1, might be difficult to hold and control with a long zoom attached. Not sure it's advisable to buy one without trying it out first, unless you're an old-timer with experience using an old gripless SLR with long lens and know what you're getting into. Not sure if any front-of-camera attachable grip extensions yet exist for the OM-3, from either OM-Systems or third-parties. I do think some Chinese ones will eventually appear, if they haven't already.

 

[ahaslett]

OM just launched a 100-400mm mk ii. Apart from full Dual IS, I’m not sure how else it differs from the mk I.

A

 

[kc384]

Thank you all for the wonderful detailed replies. It gave me a lot of thought.

Some updates:

Over the past week I have rented a couple of cameras and tried out different cameras in store to get an idea of the feel.

The a7cr was incredible in resolution and details, but I hated the grip and the evf position

A6700 - grip was too small for me

Canon r7 - apsc, felt great, compact but the RF lenses were too expensive

Fuji xh2s - loved the grip and handling and the samples I took in store, still felt a little big in size. Not as big as z8 but not compact enough to sell my z8 for.

Om-3 Super compact but barely any grip. Definitely didn't realize how flat it would be

OM1-II nice and compact, but the image quality and the smaller sensor make me hesitate. With z8 I happily shoot at 12800 and after dxo, I am super happy with the results.

Xt5 was out of stock at my local store, but It looks like is 550grams, so considerably lighter, 40mp so lots of cropping ability and a good mix of third party lenses are available for Fuji. I also love the retro look and dials

Can anyone with an XT5 share their thoughts on whether it would be a good replacement ?

With my z8 and 28-400, the detail is incredible. After processing the raw files with dxo, I love the images and how much I can crop. The autofocus is also really good . I heard Fuji had issues with this but pushed s firmware update to fix the issues this month. Not sure how good/bad it is relative to Nikon

Over the last 2 days , I have been doing birding, beach , street and landscapes near a local town and I feel very gram of the z8. I love the output, but not the size of the setup, and if the xt5 can get me a good trade off, I think that might be the path for me

 

[kc384]

Another aspect, with the z8 and the 28-400, this is my all round lens but, for low light I have to switch to other lenses. But the 28-400 is very sharp and I can crop heavily and retain a lot of detail.

Would I get a similar result with the Fuji 40mp sensor ?

With Fuji, I could get the sigma 18-50 and Fuji 70-300 as a compact setup.

With OM1-II, the 100-400 felt too heavy. I felt the z8 with DX mode and additional cropping gives me that range with a smaller lens but significantly heavier body

That's the reason behind considering the 40mp Fuji.

Let me know if my assumptions are incorrect or if I need to consider other aspects too

 

[luxborealis]

Two years ago, I downsized from FF Nikon to OM System and have never looked back. I now have every focal length from 16mm to 800mm FF equivalent covered by three sharp OM zooms: 8-25mm, 12-100mm and 100-400mm AND it all fits in a small LowPro AW sling pack (along with a 120mm equiv. ƒ2.8 Macro, + extra battery + POL) that weighs less than 5kg (~10lbs).

When flying, this bag counts as my ‘personal bag’ which means i still have a carry-on.—Perfect! And my ‘keeper rate’ has increased by at least 5x. I spent six weeks in Tanzania with this kit as well as trips to France and Iceland. IQ is amazing, especially processed through Lightroom (or any other editing app: DxO, ON1, Topaz—I’ve tested them all right up 12,800).

Do not judge IQ based on pixel-peeping at 100%. I took a critical look ant OM quality based on real world usage and found excellent results at any size from social media posts, 4K TV and up to 16x20 fine art prints. Pros regularly print up to 30” and larger with no trouble at all.





Hope this helps.

Terry
______________________________________
The essence of place — the art inherent in nature.
www.luxBorealis.com