Looking for a light alternative to 5D system

[seafan]

If you want light plus don't like the X-Pro2 or m43 then (err, sorry) I'm going with neither of your suggestions and:

A6300
16-70 f4 (=24-105)
10-18 f4 (=15-27)
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work)

As it's a smaller, lighter kit and gives you the focal lengths you want. Also it's half the weight of your current set-up. You will need a bunch of batteries though, but the price difference to an A7rII will still leave you quids-in, and the weight difference less worn out.

(Edit) Oh, sorry, left out:

Sony A6300 - 403g (with battery and card)
Five spare NP-FW50 batteries (42g ea) - 210g
16-70 f4 (=24-105, effectively longer if crop the 24MP down to 10-16MP) - 225g
10-18 f4 (=15-27) - 308g
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work) - 155g
=======
1301g

About a year ago, I came across this review of a6000 by a pro landscape photographer, who ditched his Canon system and went all in to Sony. That's it! I was so excited to read that I thought this would be the ultimate light system for hiking, like he said. The weight, the zoom ranges, would be perfect for me. As I started to look for deals of the camera and lens, I came across a review of the lens (can't find that link any more, I think it was the 10-18 zoom), to my surprise, this was one of the rare negative reviews I've ever read. as most of those "pro" reviews are sponsored by the manufacturers, it's very rare to read a real negative one. The reviewer got a copy that he thought was sub-par, so he went for an exchange. the second copy was no good either, so he went for the third one. when he found that the 3rd was still no good, he decided to tell the truth on his web site. As he concluded if he could get 3 bad copies in a row, there is some serious issues with QC. I very much appreciated his honesty, but also was SO Disappointed that my dream system turned out not to be.

I wonder if it was a bad batch and if people in the Sony world talked about it?

 

[davev8]

If you want light plus don't like the X-Pro2 or m43 then (err, sorry) I'm going with neither of your suggestions and:

A6300
16-70 f4 (=24-105)
10-18 f4 (=15-27)
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work)

As it's a smaller, lighter kit and gives you the focal lengths you want. Also it's half the weight of your current set-up. You will need a bunch of batteries though, but the price difference to an A7rII will still leave you quids-in, and the weight difference less worn out.

(Edit) Oh, sorry, left out:

Sony A6300 - 403g (with battery and card)
Five spare NP-FW50 batteries (42g ea) - 210g
16-70 f4 (=24-105, effectively longer if crop the 24MP down to 10-16MP) - 225g
10-18 f4 (=15-27) - 308g
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work) - 155g
=======
1301g

About a year ago, I came across this review of a6000 by a pro landscape photographer, who ditched his Canon system and went all in to Sony. That's it! I was so excited to read that I thought this would be the ultimate light system for hiking, like he said. The weight, the zoom ranges, would be perfect for me. As I started to look for deals of the camera and lens, I came across a review of the lens (can't find that link any more, I think it was the 10-18 zoom), to my surprise, this was one of the rare negative reviews I've ever read. as most of those "pro" reviews are sponsored by the manufacturers, it's very rare to read a real negative one. The reviewer got a copy that he thought was sub-par, so he went for an exchange. the second copy was no good either, so he went for the third one. when he found that the 3rd was still no good, he decided to tell the truth on his web site. As he concluded if he could get 3 bad copies in a row, there is some serious issues with QC. I very much appreciated his honesty, but also was SO Disappointed that my dream system turned out not to be.

I wonder if it was a bad batch and if people in the Sony world talked about it?

probably not......they would just delete the thread ...lens rentals when the test lenses they test 10 ..and find all 10 sony 55mm f1.8 had optical defects

 

[PWPhotography]

If you want light plus don't like the X-Pro2 or m43 then (err, sorry) I'm going with neither of your suggestions and:

A6300
16-70 f4 (=24-105)
10-18 f4 (=15-27)
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work)

As it's a smaller, lighter kit and gives you the focal lengths you want. Also it's half the weight of your current set-up. You will need a bunch of batteries though, but the price difference to an A7rII will still leave you quids-in, and the weight difference less worn out.

(Edit) Oh, sorry, left out:

Sony A6300 - 403g (with battery and card)
Five spare NP-FW50 batteries (42g ea) - 210g
16-70 f4 (=24-105, effectively longer if crop the 24MP down to 10-16MP) - 225g
10-18 f4 (=15-27) - 308g
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work) - 155g
=======
1301g

About a year ago, I came across this review of a6000 by a pro landscape photographer, who ditched his Canon system and went all in to Sony. That's it! I was so excited to read that I thought this would be the ultimate light system for hiking, like he said. The weight, the zoom ranges, would be perfect for me. As I started to look for deals of the camera and lens, I came across a review of the lens (can't find that link any more, I think it was the 10-18 zoom), to my surprise, this was one of the rare negative reviews I've ever read. as most of those "pro" reviews are sponsored by the manufacturers, it's very rare to read a real negative one. The reviewer got a copy that he thought was sub-par, so he went for an exchange. the second copy was no good either, so he went for the third one. when he found that the 3rd was still no good, he decided to tell the truth on his web site. As he concluded if he could get 3 bad copies in a row, there is some serious issues with QC. I very much appreciated his honesty, but also was SO Disappointed that my dream system turned out not to be.

I wonder if it was a bad batch and if people in the Sony world talked about it?

Owners' reviews seem pretty good on Sony E 10-18/4.0 OSS.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_e_10-18_4

probably not......they would just delete the thread ...lens rentals when the test lenses they test 10 ..and find all 10 sony 55mm f1.8 had optical defects

Actually I have not read many owners' complain on this wonderful FE 55/1.8 but all praises and excellent reviews. QC issue is not known on this lens from what I have read in Sony forum and on internet but on Sony much newer FE 35/1.4 and FE 90/2.8 macro. Sony seems much improved QC on the latest and also expensive GM lenses, FE 24-70/2.8 GM, 85/1.4 GM and probably FE 70-200.2.8 GM.

They call this FE 55, a mini Otus, and actually compete well.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

I love my copy of FE 55/1.8. Maybe I am lucky or maybe I am not so picky as all my FE lenses (four so far) are first copy ;-)

downtown Toronto, A7r with FE 55/1.8, 100% cropped, 7282 x 4875 pixels

St Patrick Cathedral, A7 II with FE 55/1.8 @F2.8, hand-held, 5000-pixel wide

I have no complaint on this lens. My lineup these days in trips is FE 16-35/4.0 OSS default on A7r, FE 70-200/4.0 OSS default on A7 II, FE 35/2.8 and FE 55/1.8 sit between. Add together they are much lighter and smaller than my two DSLR systems used to be, and no problem to carry entire day in a smaller bag.

--
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
...
emmm.....no way to win this discussion ......my favorite camera will look bad...what to do what to do.......DELETE THE THREAD.....again.......i win

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[Jon555]

About a year ago, I came across this review of a6000 by a pro landscape photographer, who ditched his Canon system and went all in to Sony. That's it! I was so excited to read that I thought this would be the ultimate light system for hiking, like he said. The weight, the zoom ranges, would be perfect for me. As I started to look for deals of the camera and lens, I came across a review of the lens (can't find that link any more, I think it was the 10-18 zoom), to my surprise, this was one of the rare negative reviews I've ever read. as most of those "pro" reviews are sponsored by the manufacturers, it's very rare to read a real negative one. The reviewer got a copy that he thought was sub-par, so he went for an exchange. the second copy was no good either, so he went for the third one. when he found that the 3rd was still no good, he decided to tell the truth on his web site. As he concluded if he could get 3 bad copies in a row, there is some serious issues with QC. I very much appreciated his honesty, but also was SO Disappointed that my dream system turned out not to be.

I wonder if it was a bad batch and if people in the Sony world talked about it?

If you want the best APS UWA that reaches 15mm you want the Fuji 10-24, or something big and heavy. The Sony lens is small, light and goes very wide. Stopped down it seems pretty reasonable (the low distortion is impressive):

Loading…

www.photozone.de

Sony SEL 10-18mm f/4 OSS Lens Review

Gary Wolstenholme reviews the Sony SEL 10-18mm f/4 OSS lens for Sony NEX cameras.

www.ephotozine.com

I think Sony have had a fair number of issues with sample variation, although they seem to be improving (although with newer designs, rather than the older stuff getting better):

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/05/sony-fe-50mm-f1-8-mtf-and-consistency/

I guess it really depends how many compromises you are willing to make to get small and light. I do think a sanity check is also worthwhile when you get to what you think your answer will be:
Is it all that much smaller/lighter than your current system?
Would the money be better spent on lenses for your current system?
Etc.

The only Sony camera I own is a RX100, I have no axe to grind for the FE/E cameras. But if you don't want m43 then your choice of systems to reach 15mm equiv is small (Canon only go to 16mm).

 

[Peak freak]

I have been through this process myself for very similar reasons.

I went with the SL1 as it was relatively inexpensive and had full compatibility with my EF lenses. The ef-s 10-18 makes for good wide angle images in a lightweight, familiar (dslr) package. You could also attach your 17-40 for a normal zoom with some weather proofing. When not hiking I like to leave my 16-35 on the 5D2, and 70-200 on the SL1 for ease of use and flexibility. Lots of options. - In reality I have problems with de-centered 18-55 and 17-40 lenses, and the SL1 front focuses so bad I only use live view for focus - something I can manage for landscape etc. So, it has the potential to be a good choice.

Based on your preferred needs; Wide angle, lightweight, weatherproof, and low light capabilities, I think the Sony A7 series with the FE 16-35 is unbeatable. Everything else comes with a compromise -

Canon 6D + (AMAZING) 16-35 f4 = heavy(ish).

Bombproof Olympus has smallish sensor.

Fuji X / Sony A6300 not weather sealed wide angle lens. This, however probably not that big a problem. If I have to shoot in the rain I use a cover of some sort. Water spots on the lens are the biggest problem.

Good luck!

 

[Jon555]

I have been through this process myself for very similar reasons.

I went with the SL1 as it was relatively inexpensive and had full compatibility with my EF lenses. The ef-s 10-18 makes for good wide angle images in a lightweight, familiar (dslr) package. You could also attach your 17-40 for a normal zoom with some weather proofing. When not hiking I like to leave my 16-35 on the 5D2, and 70-200 on the SL1 for ease of use and flexibility. Lots of options. - In reality I have problems with de-centered 18-55 and 17-40 lenses, and the SL1 front focuses so bad I only use live view for focus - something I can manage for landscape etc. So, it has the potential to be a good choice.

Based on your preferred needs; Wide angle, lightweight, weatherproof, and low light capabilities, I think the Sony A7 series with the FE 16-35 is unbeatable. Everything else comes with a compromise -

Canon 6D + (AMAZING) 16-35 f4 = heavy(ish).

Bombproof Olympus has smallish sensor.

Fuji X / Sony A6300 not weather sealed wide angle lens. This, however probably not that big a problem. If I have to shoot in the rain I use a cover of some sort. Water spots on the lens are the biggest problem.

Good luck!

I think the problem with the A7 series is once you add FF lenses it's getting big and heavy, plus the extra battery packs don't help...

6D = 766g (with battery, CIPA 1090 shots)
Extra LP-E6 Batteries (1 @ 80g ea) to reach 2000 shots: 80g
16-35 f4 IS = 520g
24-70 f4 = 600g (add 70g for 24-105)
=======
1966g

A7rII - 625g (with battery, CIPA 290 shots with EVF)
Extra NP-FW50 batteries (6 @ 42g ea) to reach 2000 shots: 252g
FE 16-35 f4 - 518g
24-70 f4 - 426g (no 24-105 equiv. option)
=======
1821g

I'd assume with less flash than CIPA specifies and not too much reviewing 2500 shots would be more likely than 2000, although the A7 eats a lot more power if the EVF is on, so you need to be careful how you carry it to avoid proximity to your body enabling the EVF.

I struggle to see how saving 145g is worth all the money? The size difference is what, 10-15mm? (The main issue he had seemed to be with how far the lens stuck out.)
http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.367,624.393,ha,t

If the OP wants the Sony FF system then I'm not arguing, go for it, but I don't see that much of a size/weight advantage over a 6D. Oh and charging 6 battery packs when you get somewhere with electricity will be a lot less fun than charging one! (Set an alarm for every 3-4 hours during the night?)

Other comparisons with batteries:

Canon 760D - 565g (inc battery and card, CIPA 440 shots)
Extra LP-E17 batteries (45g ea, 4 off) to reach 2000 shots - 180g
10-18 f4 - 240g (16-29 equiv)
15 - 85 - 575g (24-136 equiv)
=======
1560g

Canon 100D - 407g (inc battery and card, CIPA 380 shots, old sensor though)
Extra LP-E12 batteries (35g, 5 off) to reach 2000 shots - 135g
10-18 f4 - 240g (16-29 equiv)
15 - 85 - 575g (24-136 equiv)
=======
1357g

GH4 - 560g (inc battery and card, CIPA 530 shots, varies with lens)
Extra DMW-BLF19 batteries (c, 77g ea, 3 off) to reach 2000 shots - 231g
7-14 f4 - 300g (14-28 equiv, add 234g for Oly f2.8)
12-35 f2.8 - 305g (24-70 equiv)
=======
1396g

X-Pro2 - 495g (with battery, CIPA 325 shots with OVF 75%, EVF 25%)
Extra NP-W126 batteries (c. 47g ea, 5 off) to reach 2000 shots - 235g
10-24 - 410g (15-36 equiv)
18-55 f2.8-4 - 310g (27-82.5 equiv)
=======
1450g

Sony A6300 - 403g (with battery and card, CIPA 350 shots)
Extra NP-FW50 batteries (42g ea, 5 off) to reach 2000 shots - 210g
16-70 f4 (=24-105 equiv, effectively longer if crop the 24MP down to 10-16MP) - 225g
10-18 f4 (=15-27 equiv) - 308g
=======
1146g

Nikon D3300 - 460g (inc battery and card, CIPA 460 shots)
Extra EN-EL14a batteries (c. 47g, 4 off) to reach 2000 shots - 188g
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 - 440g (16-24 equiv)
16-80mm f/2.8-4E - 480g (24-120 equiv)
=======
1568g

Nikon D7200 - 764g (inc battery and card, CIPA 1110 shots)
Extra EN-EL15 batteries (88g, 1 off) to reach 2000 shots - 88g
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 - 440g (16-24 equiv)
16-80mm f/2.8-4E - 480g (24-120 equiv)
=======
1772g

That makes a total of three systems on this page needing no more than 4 batteries, the lightest being the GH4. Ho hum... I guess the question is partly what do you want to compromise to save size and weight?

Actually the 760D with the 10-18 and Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (non VC; or the 17-40L at an extra 66g) might be an idea, at 1419g. It'll take your existing lenses too and the controls work in a similar way. Plus you can crop to 12MP and get 40% extra reach (so 50mm -> 70mm).
http://camerasize.com/compact/#328.293,597.424,ha,t
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

BTW if people wonder why I'm spending some time on this, the answer is I'm considering what to do next for a holiday system, and the results are surprising me.

 

[Malikknows]

If you want light plus don't like the X-Pro2 or m43 then (err, sorry) I'm going with neither of your suggestions and:

A6300
16-70 f4 (=24-105)
10-18 f4 (=15-27)
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work)

As it's a smaller, lighter kit and gives you the focal lengths you want. Also it's half the weight of your current set-up. You will need a bunch of batteries though, but the price difference to an A7rII will still leave you quids-in, and the weight difference less worn out.

(Edit) Oh, sorry, left out:

Sony A6300 - 403g (with battery and card)
Five spare NP-FW50 batteries (42g ea) - 210g
16-70 f4 (=24-105, effectively longer if crop the 24MP down to 10-16MP) - 225g
10-18 f4 (=15-27) - 308g
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work) - 155g
=======
1301g

About a year ago, I came across this review of a6000 by a pro landscape photographer, who ditched his Canon system and went all in to Sony. That's it! I was so excited to read that I thought this would be the ultimate light system for hiking, like he said. The weight, the zoom ranges, would be perfect for me. As I started to look for deals of the camera and lens, I came across a review of the lens (can't find that link any more, I think it was the 10-18 zoom), to my surprise, this was one of the rare negative reviews I've ever read. as most of those "pro" reviews are sponsored by the manufacturers, it's very rare to read a real negative one. The reviewer got a copy that he thought was sub-par, so he went for an exchange. the second copy was no good either, so he went for the third one. when he found that the 3rd was still no good, he decided to tell the truth on his web site. As he concluded if he could get 3 bad copies in a row, there is some serious issues with QC. I very much appreciated his honesty, but also was SO Disappointed that my dream system turned out not to be.

I wonder if it was a bad batch and if people in the Sony world talked about it?

Wow, been following this thread and you've really spurred some solid advice. This is DPreview at its best, imho.

As a hiker, I'm still fixated on the weight thing and I think there are workarounds for the smaller-sized sensor cameras being suggested. Zooming in Lightroom and stitching photos together allow very, very high resolution shots with an APS-C or 4/3 camera, esp. if you are taking a tripod anyway. And how large will you print? I'm skeptical that an A6300 in skilled hands or an EM5 couldn't get large, publishable, first-class results for landscape. Could many differentiate the output of an A7 variant against these choices after some Lightroom? Unlikely I could.

On the A7, yes, less weight on the body but, for me, I'd find it hard to justify that money to save that weight when the lenses are all about the same size. And with spare batteries you'd be losing a bit of that weight disadvantage, as lots of folks have pointed out.

I'd also like to throw out the idea of a fixed focal length, manual focus lens for landscape. A good Voigtlander or Zeiss would be bullet-proof for the trail and offer great results. And such a kit would be very, very light and small. Manual focus for landscape photography is easy peasy. Once you say "zoom," you are guaranteeing several hundreds of grams in weight and much bulk. For most situations that trade-off is clearly worth it, but for a hiker I think there is a different calculation. Of course, if you are a pro, then it is work, and the compromise calculation is much, much different.

 

[Le_Kilt]

Have you considered :

EOS 80D
EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

This would give you everything except fast lenses, and not too heavy...
The 80D uses Canon's latest APS-C sensor, and includes some nice extras compared to the older Canons (Swivel Touch-screen for adjusting, focusing or shooting, Intervalometer...)

80D : 730g
10-18mm : 240g
18-135mm : 515g

Total : 1485g

 

[PWPhotography]

If you want light plus don't like the X-Pro2 or m43 then (err, sorry) I'm going with neither of your suggestions and:

A6300
16-70 f4 (=24-105)
10-18 f4 (=15-27)
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work)

As it's a smaller, lighter kit and gives you the focal lengths you want. Also it's half the weight of your current set-up. You will need a bunch of batteries though, but the price difference to an A7rII will still leave you quids-in, and the weight difference less worn out.

(Edit) Oh, sorry, left out:

Sony A6300 - 403g (with battery and card)
Five spare NP-FW50 batteries (42g ea) - 210g
16-70 f4 (=24-105, effectively longer if crop the 24MP down to 10-16MP) - 225g
10-18 f4 (=15-27) - 308g
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work) - 155g
=======
1301g

About a year ago, I came across this review of a6000 by a pro landscape photographer, who ditched his Canon system and went all in to Sony. That's it! I was so excited to read that I thought this would be the ultimate light system for hiking, like he said. The weight, the zoom ranges, would be perfect for me. As I started to look for deals of the camera and lens, I came across a review of the lens (can't find that link any more, I think it was the 10-18 zoom), to my surprise, this was one of the rare negative reviews I've ever read. as most of those "pro" reviews are sponsored by the manufacturers, it's very rare to read a real negative one. The reviewer got a copy that he thought was sub-par, so he went for an exchange. the second copy was no good either, so he went for the third one. when he found that the 3rd was still no good, he decided to tell the truth on his web site. As he concluded if he could get 3 bad copies in a row, there is some serious issues with QC. I very much appreciated his honesty, but also was SO Disappointed that my dream system turned out not to be.

I wonder if it was a bad batch and if people in the Sony world talked about it?

Wow, been following this thread and you've really spurred some solid advice. This is DPreview at its best, imho.

As a hiker, I'm still fixated on the weight thing and I think there are workarounds for the smaller-sized sensor cameras being suggested. Zooming in Lightroom and stitching photos together allow very, very high resolution shots with an APS-C or 4/3 camera, esp. if you are taking a tripod anyway. And how large will you print? I'm skeptical that an A6300 in skilled hands or an EM5 couldn't get large, publishable, first-class results for landscape. Could many differentiate the output of an A7 variant against these choices after some Lightroom? Unlikely I could.

On the A7, yes, less weight on the body but, for me, I'd find it hard to justify that money to save that weight when the lenses are all about the same size. And with spare batteries you'd be losing a bit of that weight disadvantage, as lots of folks have pointed out.

OP doesn't have to choose A7r II if he wants a FF mirrorless. Original A7 body weights only 474g that can rival many APS-C and mFT mirrorless bodies. Size is still much smaller than 6D as said in DPR A7 review , not really in width and height but in thickness that makes much easier to carry with and much more comfortable to against chest or hip on my experience. I found many who never experienced A7-series over-exaggerates its battery weakness to justify their points but once they start using they will have different opinion that really battery is not an issue. I turned off many unnecessary features that may consume battery a bit such as I set to airplane mode to turn off WIFI and NFC etc. Sony NP-FW50 CIPA rates 340 on A7 and 350 on A7 II while Canon LP-E6 rates 850 shots as I said about 2.5x more capacity than Sony's. But in reality we know you can shoot more than 850 with LP-E6 and I absolutely can shoot more with NP-FW50, at least 500-600. One problem but not show stopper is that Sony A7-bodies sleep mode is bad (due to over-sensitive EVF/LCD auto switch but you can set only to show on one display), so I just turn camera off when I finish shooting at one scene that greatly prolong battery life on my experience. I prepare total 3 NP-FW50 for one A7 body but in reality I only use 2 batteries in entire day shooting from A7r or A7 II, roughly 1000-1300 photos from two batteries, virtually I didn't have a chance to use 3rd battery. But they are so small and light so I just put in pocket.

Sony FE 16-35/4.0 OSS and FE 24-70/4.0 OSS are still noticeably lighter and smaller than Canon counterparts. Add together, it's much lighter and smaller system than Canon or Nikon FF DSLR counterparts. Then people like me carrying two cameras (and two FF cameras) in trips, total weight/size reduction is quite significant.

I'd also like to throw out the idea of a fixed focal length, manual focus lens for landscape. A good Voigtlander or Zeiss would be bullet-proof for the trail and offer great results. And such a kit would be very, very light and small. Manual focus for landscape photography is easy peasy. Once you say "zoom," you are guaranteeing several hundreds of grams in weight and much bulk. For most situations that trade-off is clearly worth it, but for a hiker I think there is a different calculation. Of course, if you are a pro, then it is work, and the compromise calculation is much, much different.

You're right that you don't have to use zoom. Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 (with MF) and Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 (with AF) are two excellent choices of UWA lenses on A7-series bodies. Both are very light and compact. Then with IBIS and EFC enabled A7 II (lighter than A7r II) and A7r II, in reality you can have much better IQ over Canon FF and whatever APS-C and mFT especially in low light hand-held, especially if you need to push up shadows with much cleaner photos.

If I were OP, I'd pickup A7 II with Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 or Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 and FE 24-70/4.0 OSS or just another fantastic prime FE 55/1.8. All these primes can enjoy IBIS on A7 II that translates 2-3 stops advantage over 6D or 5D3 with similar primes without 'IS', no mention much better DR or much cleaner shadow after pushing up at base ISO. Once I get used to FF IQ, no return to crop cameras until I am really too old to carry with

--
It's not the arrow, it's the Indian.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[RedFox88]

Have you considered :

EOS 80D
EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

That is a general zoom not really recommended for landscape photography. Lots if distortion and CA.

This would give you everything except fast lenses, and not too heavy...
The 80D uses Canon's latest APS-C sensor, and includes some nice extras compared to the older Canons (Swivel Touch-screen for adjusting, focusing or shooting, Intervalometer...)

80D : 730g
10-18mm : 240g
18-135mm : 515g

Total : 1485g

 

[Le_Kilt]

Le_Kilt, post: 57804611, member: 493187"]
Have you considered :

EOS 80D
EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

That is a general zoom not really recommended for landscape photography. Lots if distortion and CA.
[/QUOTE]
Do you mean the 10-18 or the 18-135?

CA can be corrected reasonably easily, correcting the distortion (not always necessary with landscapes) may lose a bit of resolution, but it could be a reasonable compromise for the OP - most solutions are going to be a compromise anyway, getting the UWA on anything but a FF is the tricky bit.

This would give you everything except fast lenses, and not too heavy...
The 80D uses Canon's latest APS-C sensor, and includes some nice extras compared to the older Canons (Swivel Touch-screen for adjusting, focusing or shooting, Intervalometer...)

80D : 730g
10-18mm : 240g
18-135mm : 515g

Total : 1485g

 

[Jon555]

He's saying the 18-135 is a not all that sharp consumer super-zoom, which it is. If you want a super-zoom then there are compromises, but no-one makes a zoom with a range over 3x - 4x (i.e. longest focal length / shortest) that's really good quality, as it's just not possible at a vaguely sensible price point (or probably at all, although some $100k+ TV zoom lenses are pretty reasonable).

 

[Le_Kilt]

He's saying the 18-135 is a not all that sharp consumer super-zoom, which it is. If you want a super-zoom then there are compromises, but no-one makes a zoom with a range over 3x - 4x (i.e. longest focal length / shortest) that's really good quality, as it's just not possible at a vaguely sensible price point (or probably at all, although some $100k+ TV zoom lenses are pretty reasonable).

The 10-18mm would be the one mostly used for the type of landscapes the OP showed us.

 

[Jon555]

He's saying the 18-135 is a not all that sharp consumer super-zoom, which it is. If you want a super-zoom then there are compromises, but no-one makes a zoom with a range over 3x - 4x (i.e. longest focal length / shortest) that's really good quality, as it's just not possible at a vaguely sensible price point (or probably at all, although some $100k+ TV zoom lenses are pretty reasonable).

The 10-18mm would be the one mostly used for the type of landscapes the OP showed us.

Fair comment, but it's still a very consumery quality lens. Also the OP said they wanted a 24mm (equiv) wide end for their standard zoom (full disclosure, I suggested a 27mm one at one point, although on a 3x zoom).

 

[whvick]

Could you get an SL1, not as weatherproof, but you could pack for that...and drop your widest angle....and stitch together the landscapes? I have done the stitching and am surprised at the good results.

whvick

 

[Malikknows]

If you want light plus don't like the X-Pro2 or m43 then (err, sorry) I'm going with neither of your suggestions and:

A6300
16-70 f4 (=24-105)
10-18 f4 (=15-27)
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work)

As it's a smaller, lighter kit and gives you the focal lengths you want. Also it's half the weight of your current set-up. You will need a bunch of batteries though, but the price difference to an A7rII will still leave you quids-in, and the weight difference less worn out.

(Edit) Oh, sorry, left out:

Sony A6300 - 403g (with battery and card)
Five spare NP-FW50 batteries (42g ea) - 210g
16-70 f4 (=24-105, effectively longer if crop the 24MP down to 10-16MP) - 225g
10-18 f4 (=15-27) - 308g
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work) - 155g
=======
1301g

Wow, been following this thread and you've really spurred some solid advice. This is DPreview at its best, imho.

As a hiker, I'm still fixated on the weight thing and I think there are workarounds for the smaller-sized sensor cameras being suggested. Zooming in Lightroom and stitching photos together allow very, very high resolution shots with an APS-C or 4/3 camera, esp. if you are taking a tripod anyway. And how large will you print? I'm skeptical that an A6300 in skilled hands or an EM5 couldn't get large, publishable, first-class results for landscape. Could many differentiate the output of an A7 variant against these choices after some Lightroom? Unlikely I could.

On the A7, yes, less weight on the body but, for me, I'd find it hard to justify that money to save that weight when the lenses are all about the same size. And with spare batteries you'd be losing a bit of that weight disadvantage, as lots of folks have pointed out.

OP doesn't have to choose A7r II if he wants a FF mirrorless. Original A7 body weights only 474g that can rival many APS-C and mFT mirrorless bodies. Size is still much smaller than 6D as said in DPR A7 review , not really in width and height but in thickness that makes much easier to carry with and much more comfortable to against chest or hip on my experience. I found many who never experienced A7-series over-exaggerates its battery weakness to justify their points but once they start using they will have different opinion that really battery is not an issue. I turned off many unnecessary features that may consume battery a bit such as I set to airplane mode to turn off WIFI and NFC etc. Sony NP-FW50 CIPA rates 340 on A7 and 350 on A7 II while Canon LP-E6 rates 850 shots as I said about 2.5x more capacity than Sony's. But in reality we know you can shoot more than 850 with LP-E6 and I absolutely can shoot more with NP-FW50, at least 500-600. One problem but not show stopper is that Sony A7-bodies sleep mode is bad (due to over-sensitive EVF/LCD auto switch but you can set only to show on one display), so I just turn camera off when I finish shooting at one scene that greatly prolong battery life on my experience. I prepare total 3 NP-FW50 for one A7 body but in reality I only use 2 batteries in entire day shooting from A7r or A7 II, roughly 1000-1300 photos from two batteries, virtually I didn't have a chance to use 3rd battery. But they are so small and light so I just put in pocket.

Sony FE 16-35/4.0 OSS and FE 24-70/4.0 OSS are still noticeably lighter and smaller than Canon counterparts. Add together, it's much lighter and smaller system than Canon or Nikon FF DSLR counterparts. Then people like me carrying two cameras (and two FF cameras) in trips, total weight/size reduction is quite significant.

I'd also like to throw out the idea of a fixed focal length, manual focus lens for landscape. A good Voigtlander or Zeiss would be bullet-proof for the trail and offer great results. And such a kit would be very, very light and small. Manual focus for landscape photography is easy peasy. Once you say "zoom," you are guaranteeing several hundreds of grams in weight and much bulk. For most situations that trade-off is clearly worth it, but for a hiker I think there is a different calculation. Of course, if you are a pro, then it is work, and the compromise calculation is much, much different.

You're right that you don't have to use zoom. Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 (with MF) and Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 (with AF) are two excellent choices of UWA lenses on A7-series bodies. Both are very light and compact. Then with IBIS and EFC enabled A7 II (lighter than A7r II) and A7r II, in reality you can have much better IQ over Canon FF and whatever APS-C and mFT especially in low light hand-held, especially if you need to push up shadows with much cleaner photos.

If I were OP, I'd pickup A7 II with Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 or Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 and FE 24-70/4.0 OSS or just another fantastic prime FE 55/1.8. All these primes can enjoy IBIS on A7 II that translates 2-3 stops advantage over 6D or 5D3 with similar primes without 'IS', no mention much better DR or much cleaner shadow after pushing up at base ISO. Once I get used to FF IQ, no return to crop cameras until I am really too old to carry with

 

[davev8]

If you want light plus don't like the X-Pro2 or m43 then (err, sorry) I'm going with neither of your suggestions and:

A6300
16-70 f4 (=24-105)
10-18 f4 (=15-27)
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work)

As it's a smaller, lighter kit and gives you the focal lengths you want. Also it's half the weight of your current set-up. You will need a bunch of batteries though, but the price difference to an A7rII will still leave you quids-in, and the weight difference less worn out.

(Edit) Oh, sorry, left out:

Sony A6300 - 403g (with battery and card)
Five spare NP-FW50 batteries (42g ea) - 210g
16-70 f4 (=24-105, effectively longer if crop the 24MP down to 10-16MP) - 225g
10-18 f4 (=15-27) - 308g
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work) - 155g
=======
1301g

Wow, been following this thread and you've really spurred some solid advice. This is DPreview at its best, imho.

As a hiker, I'm still fixated on the weight thing and I think there are workarounds for the smaller-sized sensor cameras being suggested. Zooming in Lightroom and stitching photos together allow very, very high resolution shots with an APS-C or 4/3 camera, esp. if you are taking a tripod anyway. And how large will you print? I'm skeptical that an A6300 in skilled hands or an EM5 couldn't get large, publishable, first-class results for landscape. Could many differentiate the output of an A7 variant against these choices after some Lightroom? Unlikely I could.

On the A7, yes, less weight on the body but, for me, I'd find it hard to justify that money to save that weight when the lenses are all about the same size. And with spare batteries you'd be losing a bit of that weight disadvantage, as lots of folks have pointed out.

OP doesn't have to choose A7r II if he wants a FF mirrorless. Original A7 body weights only 474g that can rival many APS-C and mFT mirrorless bodies. Size is still much smaller than 6D as said in DPR A7 review , not really in width and height but in thickness that makes much easier to carry with and much more comfortable to against chest or hip on my experience. I found many who never experienced A7-series over-exaggerates its battery weakness to justify their points but once they start using they will have different opinion that really battery is not an issue. I turned off many unnecessary features that may consume battery a bit such as I set to airplane mode to turn off WIFI and NFC etc. Sony NP-FW50 CIPA rates 340 on A7 and 350 on A7 II while Canon LP-E6 rates 850 shots as I said about 2.5x more capacity than Sony's. But in reality we know you can shoot more than 850 with LP-E6 and I absolutely can shoot more with NP-FW50, at least 500-600. One problem but not show stopper is that Sony A7-bodies sleep mode is bad (due to over-sensitive EVF/LCD auto switch but you can set only to show on one display), so I just turn camera off when I finish shooting at one scene that greatly prolong battery life on my experience. I prepare total 3 NP-FW50 for one A7 body but in reality I only use 2 batteries in entire day shooting from A7r or A7 II, roughly 1000-1300 photos from two batteries, virtually I didn't have a chance to use 3rd battery. But they are so small and light so I just put in pocket.

Sony FE 16-35/4.0 OSS and FE 24-70/4.0 OSS are still noticeably lighter and smaller than Canon counterparts. Add together, it's much lighter and smaller system than Canon or Nikon FF DSLR counterparts. Then people like me carrying two cameras (and two FF cameras) in trips, total weight/size reduction is quite significant.

I'd also like to throw out the idea of a fixed focal length, manual focus lens for landscape. A good Voigtlander or Zeiss would be bullet-proof for the trail and offer great results. And such a kit would be very, very light and small. Manual focus for landscape photography is easy peasy. Once you say "zoom," you are guaranteeing several hundreds of grams in weight and much bulk. For most situations that trade-off is clearly worth it, but for a hiker I think there is a different calculation. Of course, if you are a pro, then it is work, and the compromise calculation is much, much different.

You're right that you don't have to use zoom. Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 (with MF) and Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 (with AF) are two excellent choices of UWA lenses on A7-series bodies. Both are very light and compact. Then with IBIS and EFC enabled A7 II (lighter than A7r II) and A7r II, in reality you can have much better IQ over Canon FF and whatever APS-C and mFT especially in low light hand-held, especially if you need to push up shadows with much cleaner photos.

If I were OP, I'd pickup A7 II with Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 or Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 and FE 24-70/4.0 OSS or just another fantastic prime FE 55/1.8. All these primes can enjoy IBIS on A7 II that translates 2-3 stops advantage over 6D or 5D3 with similar primes without 'IS', no mention much better DR or much cleaner shadow after pushing up at base ISO. Once I get used to FF IQ, no return to crop cameras until I am really too old to carry with

 

[PWPhotography]

If you want light plus don't like the X-Pro2 or m43 then (err, sorry) I'm going with neither of your suggestions and:

A6300
16-70 f4 (=24-105)
10-18 f4 (=15-27)
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work)

As it's a smaller, lighter kit and gives you the focal lengths you want. Also it's half the weight of your current set-up. You will need a bunch of batteries though, but the price difference to an A7rII will still leave you quids-in, and the weight difference less worn out.

(Edit) Oh, sorry, left out:

Sony A6300 - 403g (with battery and card)
Five spare NP-FW50 batteries (42g ea) - 210g
16-70 f4 (=24-105, effectively longer if crop the 24MP down to 10-16MP) - 225g
10-18 f4 (=15-27) - 308g
35mm f1.8 (I would recommend a lens for low light, or lower DoF, work) - 155g
=======
1301g

Wow, been following this thread and you've really spurred some solid advice. This is DPreview at its best, imho.

As a hiker, I'm still fixated on the weight thing and I think there are workarounds for the smaller-sized sensor cameras being suggested. Zooming in Lightroom and stitching photos together allow very, very high resolution shots with an APS-C or 4/3 camera, esp. if you are taking a tripod anyway. And how large will you print? I'm skeptical that an A6300 in skilled hands or an EM5 couldn't get large, publishable, first-class results for landscape. Could many differentiate the output of an A7 variant against these choices after some Lightroom? Unlikely I could.

On the A7, yes, less weight on the body but, for me, I'd find it hard to justify that money to save that weight when the lenses are all about the same size. And with spare batteries you'd be losing a bit of that weight disadvantage, as lots of folks have pointed out.

OP doesn't have to choose A7r II if he wants a FF mirrorless. Original A7 body weights only 474g that can rival many APS-C and mFT mirrorless bodies. Size is still much smaller than 6D as said in DPR A7 review , not really in width and height but in thickness that makes much easier to carry with and much more comfortable to against chest or hip on my experience. I found many who never experienced A7-series over-exaggerates its battery weakness to justify their points but once they start using they will have different opinion that really battery is not an issue. I turned off many unnecessary features that may consume battery a bit such as I set to airplane mode to turn off WIFI and NFC etc. Sony NP-FW50 CIPA rates 340 on A7 and 350 on A7 II while Canon LP-E6 rates 850 shots as I said about 2.5x more capacity than Sony's. But in reality we know you can shoot more than 850 with LP-E6 and I absolutely can shoot more with NP-FW50, at least 500-600. One problem but not show stopper is that Sony A7-bodies sleep mode is bad (due to over-sensitive EVF/LCD auto switch but you can set only to show on one display), so I just turn camera off when I finish shooting at one scene that greatly prolong battery life on my experience. I prepare total 3 NP-FW50 for one A7 body but in reality I only use 2 batteries in entire day shooting from A7r or A7 II, roughly 1000-1300 photos from two batteries, virtually I didn't have a chance to use 3rd battery. But they are so small and light so I just put in pocket.

Sony FE 16-35/4.0 OSS and FE 24-70/4.0 OSS are still noticeably lighter and smaller than Canon counterparts. Add together, it's much lighter and smaller system than Canon or Nikon FF DSLR counterparts. Then people like me carrying two cameras (and two FF cameras) in trips, total weight/size reduction is quite significant.

I'd also like to throw out the idea of a fixed focal length, manual focus lens for landscape. A good Voigtlander or Zeiss would be bullet-proof for the trail and offer great results. And such a kit would be very, very light and small. Manual focus for landscape photography is easy peasy. Once you say "zoom," you are guaranteeing several hundreds of grams in weight and much bulk. For most situations that trade-off is clearly worth it, but for a hiker I think there is a different calculation. Of course, if you are a pro, then it is work, and the compromise calculation is much, much different.

You're right that you don't have to use zoom. Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 (with MF) and Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 (with AF) are two excellent choices of UWA lenses on A7-series bodies. Both are very light and compact. Then with IBIS and EFC enabled A7 II (lighter than A7r II) and A7r II, in reality you can have much better IQ over Canon FF and whatever APS-C and mFT especially in low light hand-held, especially if you need to push up shadows with much cleaner photos.

If I were OP, I'd pickup A7 II with Voigtlander 15mm F4.5 or Zeiss Batis 18mm F2.8 and FE 24-70/4.0 OSS or just another fantastic prime FE 55/1.8. All these primes can enjoy IBIS on A7 II that translates 2-3 stops advantage over 6D or 5D3 with similar primes without 'IS', no mention much better DR or much cleaner shadow after pushing up at base ISO. Once I get used to FF IQ, no return to crop cameras until I am really too old to carry with

--
It's not the arrow, it's the Indian.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

Good points, PW. Let me be the devil's advocate here. As we both agree that the MF lenses might be a good choice here, our difference seems to come down to the A7 II or the A6300.

I made the point that it would be difficult to distinguish the output of a APS-C from a FF sensor, and I'd like to get your opinion on that.

You still can see the difference even at ISO 100 as shown in DPR lab test with very sharp FE 55/1.8. You see A7 II is sharper with better contrast. In real world landscape photos, the difference will be bigger than in well-lit close distance lab scene.

The A7 II is 18 months old, the A6300 is a bit weather-proofed, whatever that means, a good feature while hiking. The A6300 is smaller and lighter as well. The A6300 is also about $700 cheaper, which is a long way to paying for one of those MF lenses we talked about.

A7 II and A6300 are at similar weather sealing level. A6300 is great for action photos but much faster burst rate is wasted in OP's landscape photo. From what I check in B&H, the price difference is about $550. I paid $1299 on Sony refurbished A7 II (virtually brand new except in white box) thru its contracted seller in eBay one year's ago.

So, at what point and under what circumstances will the A7 II produce better landscape results than the A6300?

1) Better IQ. DXO tested A7 and A6000 and you can see difference here . You can see FF sensor is better in every aspect of IQ spectrum from DR, SNR, color tonality to high ISO. A7 II and A6300 based on respective same sensor with very slightly improvement. As we see in general, FF sensors resolve lots more than APS-C with the same or similar lenses in DXO test on the same framed scenes. Size of sensor, not amount of pixels, still is a decisive factor affecting overall IQ. A7 II will have obvious IQ advantage when you push up shadows aggressively and under high ISO.

2) Lens' choice. As the UWA prime lenses I mentioned, CA 15/F4.5 and Batis 18/F2.8, they are truely WA without cropping factor. On 1.5x crop A6300, they will be FF-eq 22.5mm and 27mm respectively. OP said he wants UWA, wider than 24mm.

3) Effective IQ. With IBIS built-in A7 II, under low-light hand-held, you could effectively get 2~3 ISO stops below A6300 which has no IBIS with lenses without OSS (Sony's IS). With already advantage from FF sensor, the gap is further bigger.

I don't suggest crop cameras cannot take good IQ photos. But FF camera with usually better designed FF lenses takes simply better IQ photos.

--
It's not the arrow, it's the Indian.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[rrccad]

well, ir you are looking at ultra light with half decent quality, I'm not sure you can't do any better than the EF-M.

it lacks substance in the pro areas for sure, however for a lightweight travel kit where there is less focus (no pun) on fast motion - there's really no competition with the exception of the SL1 + EF-S lenses or the smaller m43's sensor equivalents.

Even though, the smaller m43 cameras - you do pay the price if you want excellent optical quality.

the EF-M 11-22 is excellent 220g
the 22mm ultra sharp at 105g
the 55-200 is pretty to very good, slow, but it's small and light and I find I really like taking this lens with me: 260g

the 18-55 is the weakest link .. but it's really not that bad if you use DPP and DLO to correct it's optical issues. (210g)

all 4 lenses would weigh in around the same as your one 24-105L

your total kit weight would be around 1kg and coverage from 17mm to 320mm not to mention that outside of m43's .. it is the smallest by volume taken into account lens and body size.

and it's also cheap - if you drop it, etc .. you're not out thousands.

 

[rrccad]

yes i did mention the M in a post further up ...as the 11-22 is the sharpest canon UWA lens on APS-c... my M with the 11-22 makes a good combo with my 100D/SL1 with the 35mm F2is on it...the original A7 is light but op needs a UWA as well

I'll agree it's really sharp, but 2.9 stops of vignetting means you can't lift the shadows at all without the corners falling apart (which you may well care about in Landscapes) and the 3.2% distortion at the wide end often needs fixing, which will throw away some of the sharpness (the EF-S 10-22 is 1.4 stops and 1.2% for example).

it doesn't have that much vignetting in real life. you have to watch those "rating" especially camera to camera because they are usually done on default jpg's using imatest.

3.2% is nothing. canon simply doesn't hide it in automatic corrections like some do.

you also get the advantage of the smallest UWA with above average optical quality.