Nikon Mirrorless and DSLR system

[Nebido]

My analysis exactly matches the OP, when comparing nikon primes, the weight advantage is minimal, and in the case of the 50 1.8, the DSLR combo is much lighter.

Could try the 40/2, which performs similarly to the F-mount 50/1.8.

the equivalent to my Sigma 17-50 f2.8 on my D7500, the nikon 24-70 f2.8 Z is much heavier.

The equivalent to your DC Sigma is the 24-70/4.

The Z 40/2 even outperforms the 50mm f/1.8G for landscape use.

___

In the corners, the two lenses start out about the same at f/2 and f/2.8, but the Nikon Z lens pulls way ahead at f/4. It’s not until f/11 that the corners start to look similar in performance again.

On balance, this makes the 40mm f/2 clearly better for landscapes, where corner performance in the f/5.6 to f/8 range is very important. Beyond that, even though the 50mm f/1.8G is sharper in the center at most apertures, the 40mm f/2’s has better central sharpness wide open, which is pretty important for a lens like this.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-40mm-f-2/3

______

Z 50 f/1.8 S vs 50 f/1.8 G

As you can see, the Z-mount lens absolutely destroys the F-mount lens in sharpness. The Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S is almost as sharp wide open at f/1.8 as the 50mm f/1.8G is when stopped down to f/4, which is insane!

Z 50 f/1.8 S vs Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art

As you can see, it’s certainly a closer fight. Keep in mind that the maximum aperture of the Sigma is f/1.4 rather than f/1.8, so the wide-open performance is not as lopsided as it may look. In fact, at f/1.8 and f/2, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art shows slightly better center sharpness in the center frame, which again shows just how good the lens really is.

However, once stopped down to f/2.8, the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 S takes off to a whole new level, demonstrating unbelievable center and mid-frame sharpness the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art cannot match. This trend continues until f/5.6 where both lenses perform equally in the center.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-50mm-f1-8-s/3

____

That is why pure cross-comparisons do not make sense.

Yes the 50 f/1.8 G weights only 185g, but it is nowhere near the Z 50 f/1.8 S in terms of IQ/Level of optical corrections.

To achieve this level with the F-mount, your options are Zeiss or Sigma Art.

Taking this fact into account, a lens like the Z 50 f/1.8 S is again relatively compact and lightweight, compared to the Zeiss F-mount options, or a Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art.

If one wants to fade this out completely, then one can come to the conclusion of the OP.

If one looks in the practice, you can save a lot of weight, if you consider the gain in IQ with the Z-lenses and if you consider which lenses you would need with the F-mount, to match this level.

First and foremost, the Z-optics have raised the optical level of the Nikkor lenses significantly.

Therein then lies the potential of the weight and size savings, lenses like the Z 14-30 are giving you the IQ-level of the best F-mount UWA-zoom with twice the weight/size, much more needed backpack space and the need for expensive and bulky filter solutions.

Some of the f/1.8 primes are giving you a IQ-level, which could only be realized in this form with considerably heavier and larger solutions in the F-mount.

That's the practice, far from a simple cross-comparisons considering only the weight and size.

 

[chambeshi]

As the many choices confirm, reported here, weight is only one variable. There are others, notably image quality at different lens speeds. Yet another can be choosing the Z-Teleconverters, with much improved image quality particularly with the Z Zoom-Telephotos.

Quibbles aside, within a mere 4 years the Z System has expanded the choices in optics of the highest quality, and also weight, and of course prices when we include the Used options. Yet another pragmatic reason to carry on regardless of purists with a mixed DSLR/MILC system :-D

Silent Shutters is the other incomparable advantage of the Z cameras, of course, for wildlife but also many events

 

[nikpharm]

The Z7 weights 300gr less than the d850.

Case closed. Nothing more to say.

Agreed. I said same thing in my comparison that Z7 is 300g lighter than D850, but no one can capture images with a camera without a lens and almost everyone uses more than one lens.

Z7/615g plus 24mm 1.8s/450g plus 50mm 1.8s/415g plus 85mm 1.8s/470g= total 1950g

D850/915g plus 24mm 1.8/355g plus 50mm 1.8/185g plus 85mm 1.8/350g= total 1805g

D850 = 1005g
24-70/2.8 = 1070g
80-400 = 1480g
++++++++++++++

Total: 3555g

Z7 = 705g
24-70/2.8 = 805g
100-400 = 1355g
++++++++++++++

Total: 2865g

That's a lot of extra weight to carry, not to mention the extra volume. Case closed. Nothing more to say.

3555g - 2865g = 690g..........is that a lot of extra weight?

So, starting with a camera which is 300g lighter than a DSLR camera, one ends up with more weight if using primes and 690g weight difference if using zooms so the weight saving with prime lenses is negative and with zoom lenses is 390g.

 

[nikpharm]

So basically, there is no weight saving with Z primes even though one starts with a camera which is 300g lighter than a DSLR camera.

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

I have already mentioned in my comparison that Z 14-24 2.8 is 350g lighter than f mount lens but with zooms, as per your 935g difference, is it a substantial weight saving for a normal healthy individual weighing 75-80kg carrying a bag pack of zoom lenses with a camera.

 

[nikpharm]

Indeed, it is a lighter option available in Z mount but when a comparison is done, it has to be between lenses with same aperture between the two mounts. One cannot compare the size and weight of a f2.8 lens to f4 lens.

Of course one can.

Let's try an excursion into the real world, rather than the theoretical realm.

If I had been shooting landscape seriously with my D850, I would have carried the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkors - not because they are faster, but because there aren't any F-mount f/4 lenses in those ranges with the requisite image quality.

Today, I would quite happily carry a Z7, Z 14-30mm f/4 and Z 24-70mm f/4. I would get equally good images and save what to me is a useful amount of weight. And that's without the savings from a smaller filter system and a smaller bag. I could probably get by with a tripod with lesser load capacity, too.

In the first paragraph, you are giving consideration to the image quality and in the second paragraph, you are giving preference to the weight and size.

So, you think it was a biased comparison? That's just what you have been doing in this thread - like where you picked the discontinued AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G for your comparison, rather than the current (and noticeably heavier) AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E VR.

If image quality is your main consideration, why would you carry Z14-30 and 24-70 f4 instead of Z 14-24 2.8S and 24-70 2.8S. Both the 2.8S lenses are far better than f4 lenses in every aspect except size and weight.

I'm not sure about "far" better - but those two f/4 Z lenses are themselves equal to or better than the two f/2.8 F-mount lenses in question - so I'd still be seeing equal or improved image quality, as well as a huge weight saving. That's fine by me!

As Lance has mentioned in his post, the difference goes from 815g to 935g even if you replace the G zoom with E VR zoom.

 

[AlanWatson]

Agreed. I said same thing in my comparison that Z7 is 300g lighter than D850, but no one can capture images with a camera without a lens and almost everyone uses more than one lens.

Z7/615g plus 24mm 1.8s/450g plus 50mm 1.8s/415g plus 85mm 1.8s/470g= total 1950g

D850/915g plus 24mm 1.8/355g plus 50mm 1.8/185g plus 85mm 1.8/350g= total 1805g

With all due respect to the 50 1.8 G (and I own one) it's not playing in the same league as the Z 50 1.8. But including that pair in your comparison is what tips your scales in favour of the DSLR system, since the weight difference between those 2 50s is 230g by itself. If we were to argue that the 40mm Z is more comparable in IQ to the 50 G and so a fairer comparison then the Z system becomes the lighter of the two. And that's where this discussion goes in circles: pick different lens sets according to different uses or different criteria and you produce different results.

For me it was simple: the D850 is too bulky, while the Z7II fits my hands a lot better. The fact that it looks much less imposing when you use it in public suits me better as well. So for me personally there is a huge advantage in the size of the body, while the weight is less of an issue. Others may differ.

 

[briantilley]

Indeed, it is a lighter option available in Z mount but when a comparison is done, it has to be between lenses with same aperture between the two mounts. One cannot compare the size and weight of a f2.8 lens to f4 lens.

Of course one can.

Let's try an excursion into the real world, rather than the theoretical realm.

If I had been shooting landscape seriously with my D850, I would have carried the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkors - not because they are faster, but because there aren't any F-mount f/4 lenses in those ranges with the requisite image quality.

Today, I would quite happily carry a Z7, Z 14-30mm f/4 and Z 24-70mm f/4. I would get equally good images and save what to me is a useful amount of weight. And that's without the savings from a smaller filter system and a smaller bag. I could probably get by with a tripod with lesser load capacity, too.

In the first paragraph, you are giving consideration to the image quality and in the second paragraph, you are giving preference to the weight and size.

So, you think it was a biased comparison? That's just what you have been doing in this thread - like where you picked the discontinued AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G for your comparison, rather than the current (and noticeably heavier) AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E VR.

If image quality is your main consideration, why would you carry Z14-30 and 24-70 f4 instead of Z 14-24 2.8S and 24-70 2.8S. Both the 2.8S lenses are far better than f4 lenses in every aspect except size and weight.

I'm not sure about "far" better - but those two f/4 Z lenses are themselves equal to or better than the two f/2.8 F-mount lenses in question - so I'd still be seeing equal or improved image quality, as well as a huge weight saving. That's fine by me!

As Lance has mentioned in his post, the difference goes from 815g to 935g even if you replace the G zoom with E VR zoom.

In the end (which I hope will come soon), it all comes down to this...

For you, a weight saving of 600-900g or so is not significant. For some other people, it is.

 

[nikpharm]

Agreed. I said same thing in my comparison that Z7 is 300g lighter than D850, but no one can capture images with a camera without a lens and almost everyone uses more than one lens.

Z7/615g plus 24mm 1.8s/450g plus 50mm 1.8s/415g plus 85mm 1.8s/470g= total 1950g

D850/915g plus 24mm 1.8/355g plus 50mm 1.8/185g plus 85mm 1.8/350g= total 1805g

With all due respect to the 50 1.8 G (and I own one) it's not playing in the same league as the Z 50 1.8. But including that pair in your comparison is what tips your scales in favour of the DSLR system, since the weight difference between those 2 50s is 230g by itself. If we were to argue that the 40mm Z is more comparable in IQ to the 50 G and so a fairer comparison then the Z system becomes the lighter of the two. And that's where this discussion goes in circles: pick different lens sets according to different uses or different criteria and you produce different results.

For me it was simple: the D850 is too bulky, while the Z7II fits my hands a lot better. The fact that it looks much less imposing when you use it in public suits me better as well. So for me personally there is a huge advantage in the size of the body, while the weight is less of an issue. Others may differ.

You can replace it with 50mm 1.4g or replace the 35mm lens in both the examples instead of 50mm or select a prime kit of your preference.

 

[nikpharm]

Indeed, it is a lighter option available in Z mount but when a comparison is done, it has to be between lenses with same aperture between the two mounts. One cannot compare the size and weight of a f2.8 lens to f4 lens.

Of course one can.

Let's try an excursion into the real world, rather than the theoretical realm.

If I had been shooting landscape seriously with my D850, I would have carried the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkors - not because they are faster, but because there aren't any F-mount f/4 lenses in those ranges with the requisite image quality.

Today, I would quite happily carry a Z7, Z 14-30mm f/4 and Z 24-70mm f/4. I would get equally good images and save what to me is a useful amount of weight. And that's without the savings from a smaller filter system and a smaller bag. I could probably get by with a tripod with lesser load capacity, too.

In the first paragraph, you are giving consideration to the image quality and in the second paragraph, you are giving preference to the weight and size.

So, you think it was a biased comparison? That's just what you have been doing in this thread - like where you picked the discontinued AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G for your comparison, rather than the current (and noticeably heavier) AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E VR.

If image quality is your main consideration, why would you carry Z14-30 and 24-70 f4 instead of Z 14-24 2.8S and 24-70 2.8S. Both the 2.8S lenses are far better than f4 lenses in every aspect except size and weight.

I'm not sure about "far" better - but those two f/4 Z lenses are themselves equal to or better than the two f/2.8 F-mount lenses in question - so I'd still be seeing equal or improved image quality, as well as a huge weight saving. That's fine by me!

As Lance has mentioned in his post, the difference goes from 815g to 935g even if you replace the G zoom with E VR zoom.

In the end (which I hope will come soon), it all comes down to this...

For you, a weight saving of 600-900g or so is not significant. For some other people, it is.

Being a Nikon shooter, I can discuss Nikon system only but the weight saving with any mirrorless system whether by nikon, canon or sony is not as significant compared to DSLR system as it was projected at the introduction of the mirrorless system.

 

[briantilley]

In the end (which I hope will come soon), it all comes down to this...

For you, a weight saving of 600-900g or so is not significant. For some other people, it is.

Being a Nikon shooter, I can discuss Nikon system only but the weight saving with any mirrorless system whether by nikon, canon or sony is not as significant compared to DSLR system as it was projected at the introduction of the mirrorless system.

You keep stating that as a fact. Whether any weight saving is significant is a matter of opinion.

 

[olyflyer]

The Z7 weights 300gr less than the d850.

Case closed. Nothing more to say.

Agreed. I said same thing in my comparison that Z7 is 300g lighter than D850, but no one can capture images with a camera without a lens and almost everyone uses more than one lens.

Z7/615g plus 24mm 1.8s/450g plus 50mm 1.8s/415g plus 85mm 1.8s/470g= total 1950g

D850/915g plus 24mm 1.8/355g plus 50mm 1.8/185g plus 85mm 1.8/350g= total 1805g

D850 = 1005g
24-70/2.8 = 1070g
80-400 = 1480g
++++++++++++++

Total: 3555g

Z7 = 705g
24-70/2.8 = 805g
100-400 = 1355g
++++++++++++++

Total: 2865g

That's a lot of extra weight to carry, not to mention the extra volume. Case closed. Nothing more to say.

3555g - 2865g = 690g..........is that a lot of extra weight?

So, starting with a camera which is 300g lighter than a DSLR camera, one ends up with more weight if using primes and 690g weight difference if using zooms so the weight saving with prime lenses is negative and with zoom lenses is 390g.

I am not sure that's always the case, nor do I care about theoretical discussions regarding the weight and the volume. I buy cameras and lenses to use them, not just to discuss them. I am sure that I could argue even your conclusions, but I am totally NOT interested in the lenses you listed anyway, and in fact, I am also not interested in the 24-70/2.8 but that was the only one I could pick which exists for the F mount also. I have the 24-70/4 for a reason... which is that it is very small, compact and light, but there is no matching DSLR version of that lens, so I had to pick the f2.8 versions.

Yes, 690g extra for nothing is a LOT of extra weight if you have to carry it a full day. 24% increase of ANYTHING is a lot in any way you look at it. I didn't even mentioned the volume differences, which is also an important factor when you have to carry things. For me there is even more saving, since as I said, I have the f4 version of the 24-70, which is only 500g. If you don't find 690g to be a lot then be happy, or you have never taken a several days long hike in your life. Anyway, the extra weight would not give any extra benefit, except the 20 mm extra focal length, but also the 80-400 is not as good as the 100-400 lens is so I don't know if the 20mm extra is anything to have at all. Even the 24-120/4 is lighter for the Z than it is for the F, so maybe every comparable zoom is lighter, I don't know, nor does it matter to me. I know I made the right decision when I bought the Z7 back in 2018, and I know why I did NOT buy the D850 instead of the Z7, even though the Z7 was the more expensive choice.

--
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLo219FKz6e4qho70cbk5bm9yBZPTI6aLx
https://adapting-camera.blogspot.com/2021/01/latest-update-regarding-external-auto.html

 

[olyflyer]

Indeed, it is a lighter option available in Z mount but when a comparison is done, it has to be between lenses with same aperture between the two mounts. One cannot compare the size and weight of a f2.8 lens to f4 lens.

Of course one can.

Let's try an excursion into the real world, rather than the theoretical realm.

If I had been shooting landscape seriously with my D850, I would have carried the 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkors - not because they are faster, but because there aren't any F-mount f/4 lenses in those ranges with the requisite image quality.

Today, I would quite happily carry a Z7, Z 14-30mm f/4 and Z 24-70mm f/4. I would get equally good images and save what to me is a useful amount of weight. And that's without the savings from a smaller filter system and a smaller bag. I could probably get by with a tripod with lesser load capacity, too.

In the first paragraph, you are giving consideration to the image quality and in the second paragraph, you are giving preference to the weight and size.

So, you think it was a biased comparison? That's just what you have been doing in this thread - like where you picked the discontinued AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G for your comparison, rather than the current (and noticeably heavier) AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E VR.

If image quality is your main consideration, why would you carry Z14-30 and 24-70 f4 instead of Z 14-24 2.8S and 24-70 2.8S. Both the 2.8S lenses are far better than f4 lenses in every aspect except size and weight.

I'm not sure about "far" better - but those two f/4 Z lenses are themselves equal to or better than the two f/2.8 F-mount lenses in question - so I'd still be seeing equal or improved image quality, as well as a huge weight saving. That's fine by me!

As Lance has mentioned in his post, the difference goes from 815g to 935g even if you replace the G zoom with E VR zoom.

In the end (which I hope will come soon), it all comes down to this...

For you, a weight saving of 600-900g or so is not significant. For some other people, it is.

Being a Nikon shooter, I can discuss Nikon system only but the weight saving with any mirrorless system whether by nikon, canon or sony is not as significant compared to DSLR system as it was projected at the introduction of the mirrorless system.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over. You also don't seem to understand that not everyone is ready to lug around a collection of primes when there are high quality zooms available also which can do the job better and which offer much more flexibility. I also have a small collection of primes, which I rarely use outdoors, so for me it is totally unimportant if the 50/1.4G + FTZ + Z7 I have is heavier or not compared to the same lens on a D850. I will not carry that lens for a full day anyway, so I don't care. The only lens I care about is the 60/2.8 macro, which I kept when I dumped the 105/2.8GVR I also had. The reason was simple. The Z7 provides the IBIS with that lens, and the 105 was simply too heavy and fat to hold on to for a longer outdoor shooting session. Not to mention that the 60 is optically better also.

In other words, use whatever you like, buy whatever you like, but don't try to convince everyone that there are no advantages of mirrorless, that discussion was dead when it started, basically, because you are wrong, and also because we are all different, your "one size fits all" theory does not fit everyone's needs.

 

[Nebido]

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

.......

It's a decisive difference if we talk about primes.,

Why at all buying a f/1.8 prime, or a f/2.8 Zoom, if you neither don't care about fast apertures nor the performance wide open.

If you have no use for fast primes, no need for fast apertures below f/5.6, it's even easier to save weight with the Z-mount, in comparison to the F-mount.

Then we are back to the point that Lance had already mentioned.

The Z mount zooms will give you better IQ than than the lightweight F mount primes.

You only care about IQ @ f/5.6 or higher, go with the compact, lightweight Z f/4 zooms.

Both have their peak already wide open @ f/4 - f/5.6 and will give you a nice and compact set-up, combined with a lightweight Z-body.

Would be the perfect fit for somebody, who does not care about the performance below f/5.6 and has no need for fast lenses/apertures.

Especially with such a reduced requirement profile the weight savings with the Z-Zooms can be significant.

If you are so uninterested in wide open performance, it is only about the performance from f/5.6 upwards, a Z 24-200 can give you nearly everything you need in one lens with low weight and travel friendly size.

For occasional use/need for faster apertures, you could add a Z 28 f/2.8 or a Z 40 f/2.

Contrary to your claim, there isn't any visible difference @ f/5.6 and above, even the low budget Z 40/2 outperforms the 50 f/1.8 G in edge to edge sharpness @ f/5-6 - f/8 significantly, see review extracts of the photographylife comparison.

Especially if you are additionally convinced that there are no visible differences from f/5.6 onwards between different lenses., the Z 24-200 + Z6 should leave nothing to be desired and should offer you everything you will ever need with minimal equipment effort.

With this mind set I would probably still be stuck with my 40-50 year old M42 lenses as my main optics.

 

[jgreg]

My analysis exactly matches the OP, when comparing nikon primes, the weight advantage is minimal, and in the case of the 50 1.8, the DSLR combo is much lighter.

Could try the 40/2, which performs similarly to the F-mount 50/1.8.

the equivalent to my Sigma 17-50 f2.8 on my D7500, the nikon 24-70 f2.8 Z is much heavier.

The equivalent to your DC Sigma is the 24-70/4.

Basil,

I have considered the Z 24-70 F4 . If as you say, i should settle for an F 4 lens, why not the 16 ounce 24-85 mm f3.5-4.5 vr and the d750. The weight is exactly the same as my D7500 and sigma 19ounce 17-50 OS zoom, for less than a thousand dollars.

In low light events, I find it is debatable if i am any better off with the D750 F3.5-4.5 zoom combo, the Z6 f4 zoom combo, or the d7500 F2.8 zoom combo when forced by limited light to use wide open apertures. Thus I would rather stick with what i have than move to FF and a F4 zoom.

If I go with the z, it will be the Z6 and the 28-75 F2.8 Tamikon. This is the best equivalent i see to my current setup in terms of weight and it gives me possibly a stop of headroom of clean iso when needed. No, it's quality is not up to the F4 Z, but it may possibly match my Sigma.

As I think the OP was saying, this is the type of consideration many make when looking at switching to the Z system. Pro's of course, may be willing to chase maximum quality with weight and cost secondary. I am not a pro, just an enthusiastic amateur . Again, as the OP clearly stated the parameters of his argument, i think he is quite on target.

 

[BasilG]

In the end (which I hope will come soon), it all comes down to this...

For you, a weight saving of 600-900g or so is not significant. For some other people, it is.

Being a Nikon shooter, I can discuss Nikon system only but the weight saving with any mirrorless system whether by nikon, canon or sony is not as significant compared to DSLR system as it was projected at the introduction of the mirrorless system.

The main reason why all big manufacturers (and many photographers) were or are moving to mirrorless is not weight savings, but 1) better autofocus (some companies executed on this early, others took a little longer) and 2) cheaper/easier manufacturing because there are fewer parts (both moving/mechanical and overall).

Weight savings are possible, e.g. with wide angles or with small systems, but those who understand photography understood from the beginning that most lenses, telephotos in particular, would be very similar in weight.

 

[jgreg]

The OP's point was that many touted the weight savings of mirrorless as an advantage. He simply states that he is not seeing significant advantages, and i agree, for now.

As to autofocus, i still am on the fence. The Z6 has many more autofocus points than the D750 (according to thom, every fourth row has horizontal sensors). The Z6 but focuses at the selected aperature up to f5.6. The D750 has cross type focus sensors, which the Z6 has none of but i am not sure if it focuses at the selected aperture, or at the widest F top of the lens. i do find my central (cross type) sensor a godsend at times.

In extremis, who will do best?

Is the future mirrorless, I suspect so. I think this because switching to mirrorless allowed the manufactuers to ditch the legacy mounts, and design from the ground up for digital. You are correct that mirrorless reduces complexity and cost as well. I am just saying that weight savings is not the driver of switching it was made out to be.

 

[Lance B]

So basically, there is no weight saving with Z primes even though one starts with a camera which is 300g lighter than a DSLR camera.

The new Z mount weight saving is at the wide end moreso than the tele end so, weight saving is not going to be at 85mm f1.8. Marginal if any at 50mm f1.8, but then the very inferior IQ F mount 50 f1.8 is 185 gms how much weight do you think you can actually save with a Z mount 50 f1.8 with only F mount IQ? I mean, it weighs nothing now but the IQ is way inferior to the Z mount. If you accept the much lower IQ of the F mount 24 f1.8 on a Z mount 24mm f1.8, then you may save weight and size but this is the only prime lens in your example where you may actually save size and weight in the prime lens Z mount system. So at best, there may be a 100-150gm saving with the 24 f1.8, but again, only if you accept the lower IQ level of the F mount version.

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

As I pointed out, if you are only going to use the lenses above f5.6, then why use a prime? Use the zooms and save weight and space.

I have already mentioned in my comparison that Z 14-24 2.8 is 350g lighter than f mount lens but with zooms, as per your 935g difference, is it a substantial weight saving for a normal healthy individual weighing 75-80kg carrying a bag pack of zoom lenses with a camera.

I would have thought so as almost 1kg is a fair amount of weight to save especially when travelling, but then how much are you really thinking you can really save? I mean, there is just so far they can go without compromising IQ. I think your expectations cannot match reality.

But let's say the person is a little older, or maybe a petite female, or with a disability or whatever, that weight saving may make a big difference to them.

--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[Lance B]

Weight reduction was one of the advantages commonly used to tout mirrorless. As a back injury makes me sensitive to weight, the low weight of the Z6 compared to the D750, made me curious if it made sense for me to upgrade from APS-C nikon to FF.

My analysis exactly matches the OP, when comparing nikon primes, the weight advantage is minimal, and in the case of the 50 1.8, the DSLR combo is much lighter.

Again, not apples to apples, the 50 f1.8S is way better than the 50 f1.8G.

the equivalent to my Sigma 17-50 f2.8 on my D7500, the nikon 24-70 f2.8 Z is much heavier.

Thats comparing Dx to FX. You would need the 24-70 f4 not the 24-70 f2.8 to be a more realistic and true equivalent. The 24-70 f4S lens = 500gms. The Sigma 17-50 f2.8 = 565gms. The D7500 = 730gms. The Z7 = 675gms.

Z7 + 24-70 f4S = 1175gms

D7500 + 17-50 f2.8 = 1295gms.

Thus, as i think OP was arguing, some folks like myself will find the choice to pick FF zed vs FF DSLR a difficult one.

i can take quite good pictures with my D7500, and it is only at the extremes that it struggles, especially low light venues. If I have to gain weight or merely break even in my switch to FF zed, , then why not pick FF DSLR and save a ton of money, as i already have the primes.

yes, there are other ways to make the comparisons, but the OP is right in in his. Weight is a real consideration for many. This does not say others don't pick absolute quality over weight.

You can justify it any way you like. But, I have pointed out, when you actually compare actual apples to apples, the Z system can in fact be lighter or of a similar weight.

 

[Droster]

The OP's point was that many touted the weight savings of mirrorless as an advantage. He simply states that he is not seeing significant advantages, and i agree, for now.

I mean we've all done the maths and they are there. Whether you choose to see it or not is a personal thing. For me specifically, the days of me going "ahh fu*k, my back" in the middle of a 10 day trip or at the end of a long day of event work are over.

 

[nikpharm]

Yes, the Z lenses are superior in image quality, but that difference is present between f1.8 to f5.6 and from f5.6 onwards, one is unable to notice any difference in image quality.

.......

It's a decisive difference if we talk about primes.,

Why at all buying a f/1.8 prime, or a f/2.8 Zoom, if you neither don't care about fast apertures nor the performance wide open.

I think you know better than anyone else what is optimum aperture, where the optimum aperture lies starting from the widest aperture of a lens and why and how the optimum aperture of a lens is used.