4 ms·

My wife is a part-time pro photographer in her 40's. She's looking to go mirrorless because, on long shoots, the weight of traditional cameras takes a toll on

My wife is a part-time pro photographer in her 40's. She's looking to go mirrorless because, on long shoots, the weight of traditional cameras takes a toll on her neck and shoulders.

ubermonkey 7y ago
The great news is that there are some awesome full-frame mirrorless bodies out there. Of course, because they're full-frame cameras, the glass is still big, so you don't get the hyper-compact size of a micro-4/3 body+lens, but it's still waaay smaller than, say, a 5D + a lens.
- lb1lf 7y ago
  Full-frame glass can get quite small, too. A 35mm f/2 for the Leica M system weighs in at 250g/0.55lbs. I believe the equivalent APS-C Fuji 23mm f/2 is around 200g/0.45lbs. Of course, with the Summicron you give up such new-fangled innovations as, say, autofocus.
  - ubermonkey 7y ago
    Yeah, that's a hard stop for some folks -- me included. I'm sure the AF material is a big contributor. The glass for my Sony A7ii is significantly larger than (most) lenses I had for my Olympus m4/3 body. The exception is the main prime on both systems -- I have the Sony 50mm/1.8, which is about the same size as the Panasonic/Leica 25mm/1.4 that filled the same role on my Olympus.
paggle 7y ago
Mirrorless is only a weight advantage in the APS-C size. At full frame there is almost no advantage.
- Green_man 7y ago
  Most of Sony's fe zooms are around the same weight (with some small benefits at wider angles) as an equivalent canikon lens, but it's the wide angle primes that you'll get a big size and weight benefit over full frame glass. The comparisons are complex, and lining up equivalent lenses only works sometimes, because many DSLR wide angle lenses are just zooms, since the primes are large anyways. Mirrorless lens designers have also doubled down on wide primes (like laowa's 15mm f2, or voigtlanders FE ultrawide primes) some of which don't exist for DSLR because they wouldn't be a good value/weight. But the mirrorbox in a DSLR means that the lens can't get super close to the sensor. So a 24mm DSLR lens will actually be a 40mm or so, with reducers put over the front. This means you get a larger lens overall, with more elements. So if you are going to go 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, then you won't see much size benefit. But if you shoot wider/standard primes, there are a lot of compact options for full frame mirrorless.
- pdpi 7y ago
  Sort of. Full-frame mirrorless bodies are most definitely smaller and lighter than their DSLR counterparts. The problem is the lenses, and those are a problem for two reasons. One is that many manufacturers haven't taken advantage of how mirrorless changes lens design yet (the shorter flange distance enables a lot of design space), so you're still carrying a lens designed for a DSLR, but with a lot of hollow space between the back element and the mount. This is especially obvious with third-party lenses; e.g. it's well understood that a lot of Sigma lenses for Sony FE are functionally just their DSLR lenses with a built-in adapter. The other reason why you don't see a big weight advantage with mirrorless lenses is that, where they are designed for mirrorless specifically, they tend to aim for "better" rather than "lighter. Lenses like the Canon 85mm f/1.2, the 50mm f/1.2, and the 28-70 f/2.0 are perfect examples of this. However, lenses designed to take advantage of mirrorless can be smaller and lighter, when they have the same design goals — e.g. the latest (DSRL) Canon EF 24-105L f/4 weighs 795g vs the (Mirrorless) RF 24-105L f/4's 694g.
prawn 7y ago
My wife also, though late 30s. She went from a Canon 5D to Sony A7 III.

My wife is a part-time pro photographer in her 40's. She's looking to go mirrorless because, on long shoots, the weight of traditional cameras takes a toll on her neck and shoulders.

ubermonkey 7y ago

The great news is that there are some awesome full-frame mirrorless bodies out there. Of course, because they're full-frame cameras, the glass is still big, so you don't get the hyper-compact size of a micro-4/3 body+lens, but it's still waaay smaller than, say, a 5D + a lens.

lb1lf 7y ago
Full-frame glass can get quite small, too. A 35mm f/2 for the Leica M system weighs in at 250g/0.55lbs. I believe the equivalent APS-C Fuji 23mm f/2 is around 200g/0.45lbs. Of course, with the Summicron you give up such new-fangled innovations as, say, autofocus.
- ubermonkey 7y ago
  Yeah, that's a hard stop for some folks -- me included. I'm sure the AF material is a big contributor. The glass for my Sony A7ii is significantly larger than (most) lenses I had for my Olympus m4/3 body. The exception is the main prime on both systems -- I have the Sony 50mm/1.8, which is about the same size as the Panasonic/Leica 25mm/1.4 that filled the same role on my Olympus.

paggle 7y ago

Mirrorless is only a weight advantage in the APS-C size. At full frame there is almost no advantage.

Green_man 7y ago
Most of Sony's fe zooms are around the same weight (with some small benefits at wider angles) as an equivalent canikon lens, but it's the wide angle primes that you'll get a big size and weight benefit over full frame glass. The comparisons are complex, and lining up equivalent lenses only works sometimes, because many DSLR wide angle lenses are just zooms, since the primes are large anyways. Mirrorless lens designers have also doubled down on wide primes (like laowa's 15mm f2, or voigtlanders FE ultrawide primes) some of which don't exist for DSLR because they wouldn't be a good value/weight. But the mirrorbox in a DSLR means that the lens can't get super close to the sensor. So a 24mm DSLR lens will actually be a 40mm or so, with reducers put over the front. This means you get a larger lens overall, with more elements. So if you are going to go 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, then you won't see much size benefit. But if you shoot wider/standard primes, there are a lot of compact options for full frame mirrorless.
pdpi 7y ago
Sort of. Full-frame mirrorless bodies are most definitely smaller and lighter than their DSLR counterparts. The problem is the lenses, and those are a problem for two reasons. One is that many manufacturers haven't taken advantage of how mirrorless changes lens design yet (the shorter flange distance enables a lot of design space), so you're still carrying a lens designed for a DSLR, but with a lot of hollow space between the back element and the mount. This is especially obvious with third-party lenses; e.g. it's well understood that a lot of Sigma lenses for Sony FE are functionally just their DSLR lenses with a built-in adapter. The other reason why you don't see a big weight advantage with mirrorless lenses is that, where they are designed for mirrorless specifically, they tend to aim for "better" rather than "lighter. Lenses like the Canon 85mm f/1.2, the 50mm f/1.2, and the 28-70 f/2.0 are perfect examples of this. However, lenses designed to take advantage of mirrorless can be smaller and lighter, when they have the same design goals — e.g. the latest (DSRL) Canon EF 24-105L f/4 weighs 795g vs the (Mirrorless) RF 24-105L f/4's 694g.

prawn 7y ago

My wife also, though late 30s. She went from a Canon 5D to Sony A7 III.