Mirrorless is smaller and lighter - NOT!

Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
629
Location
Pacific Wonderland
Wow -- check out this comparison.
I know we all like better IQ on our lenses, but this comparison really shines a light on how big the Z lenses are compared to the F mount equivalents.
Nikon Rumor Article

Stick to your DSLR and F lenses for a smaller, lighter kit!
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,221
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
I figured that out when I compared the 70-200e to the 70-200z but I will admit there's alot more than size. The z6 does alot of very cool things that make getting the shot easier. I'm glad I got one
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
629
Location
Pacific Wonderland
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Randy - I know there's a lot more than size but size and weight were the main selling reason given for the shift to mirrorless.
Guess it was all smoke and mirrors ;-)
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,221
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Randy - I know there's a lot more than size but size and weight were the main selling reason given for the shift to mirrorless.
Guess it was all smoke and mirrors ;-)
i didn't mean to imply you didn't know....I agree size was the selling point. While the world was working on mirrorless Nikon brought us 2 of the best small lens ever, the 300pf and 500pf.....now that's my definition of smaller and lighter.....
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
22,643
Location
SW Virginia
The size and weight of the Z lenses has been one of my major disappointments, but their quality has been a hugely pleasant surprise. So it's a tradeoff.

That is an interesting comparison, however. Makes the Z50 + 16-50 even more tempting as a travel camera.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
660
Location
MN, USA
Randy - I know there's a lot more than size but size and weight were the main selling reason given for the shift to mirrorless.
Guess it was all smoke and mirrors ;-)
Go to the NikonUSA Z page. They really make scant reference to size and weight. 95% of their promotional material focuses on mount size and mirrorless features. They do note that the cameras are smaller and lighter (which they are) but never make the claim that the "size and weight (are) the main selling reason . . ."

Bit of an overstatement I think.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
16,262
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
size and weight were the main selling reason given for the shift to mirrorless
I suppose that depends on who was doing the "selling" and who was doing the "buying." When I switched a few months ago to mirrorless, I listed 22 advantages and only two of them were related to size or weight. Not all the listed advantages are unique to a mirrorless camera, but all of them are unique to my current system when compared to my previous system, which was a DSLR system that was a near-perfect fit for me for almost ten years.

https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/w...w-camera-system-for-the-next-10-years.320652/
 

Butlerkid

Cafe Ambassador
Moderator
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
21,696
Location
Rutledge, Tennessee
Real Name
Karen
This seems a LOT lighter to me. And it is relevant to me as I currently shoot the D850 + 24-70/2.8. G There are Z6 combos that are lighter....and ones that are heavier than DSLR equivalents.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

NCV

Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
278
Location
Italy
Real Name
Nigel
Well my Z7 and 24-200 works out to be just a few grams heavier than the supposedly lightweight M43 combo EM1 +12-100, so I guess it is all relative to which lens combinations you pick. This combination is a powerful lightweight hiking setup for me.

My D810 + 24-120 is much heavier than the Z7 with 24-200.

But all in all I have found my limited Z7 combo to be lighter than my D810 + F lens alternatives.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
574
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
As Mike said, it depends on who is doing the selling, and who is "enhancing" the vendor.
People will often inflate what the manufacturer advertises, making claims way beyond what the manufacturer is saying, and even make claims which the manufacturer is NOT saying.
And with regard to mirrorless, extending the size reduction of the camera to the lenses.

From old fashioned common sense.
The mirrorless camera can be made smaller.
But the optics in the lens can't be made significantly smaller without new technology. FF is FF, 50mm is 50mm, the image circle is the same size.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
574
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Well my Z7 and 24-200 works out to be just a few grams heavier than the supposedly lightweight M43 combo EM1 +12-100, so I guess it is all relative to which lens combinations you pick. This combination is a powerful lightweight hiking setup for me.

My D810 + 24-120 is much heavier than the Z7 with 24-200.

But all in all I have found my limited Z7 combo to be lighter than my D810 + F lens alternatives.
Apples to oranges.
While the focal length is equivalent.
The 24-200/4-6.3 is not a pro grade lens, it is not a fixed f/4 lens, at 200mm its max aperture drops to f/6.3. Both of these would add bulk and weight.

But having said that, if the 24-200 does the job for you, then that is the most important thing.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
629
Location
Pacific Wonderland
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
Not surprised here at all -- I knew flange diameter drives lens size.

Just really surprised some of the "simpler" lenses like the 50/1.8 are so big.

And the MANY original adopters hawked the "size and weight" advantage of going mirrorless for their travel bag. Leave the DSLR at home.

I do agree that I'll take BETTER over SMALLER any day...well almost any day....maybe one smaller lens allowed ;-)
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
574
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
Not surprised here at all -- I knew flange diameter drives lens size.

Just really surprised some of the "simpler" lenses like the 50/1.8 are so big.

And the MANY original adopters hawked the "size and weight" advantage of going mirrorless for their travel bag. Leave the DSLR at home.

I do agree that I'll take BETTER over SMALLER any day...well almost any day....maybe one smaller lens allowed ;-)
Only if you are young enough. Oh, to be young again.
Or if you can simplify the kit to keep the weight down.
For some of us old fogies, it is smaller and lighter, or STOP shooting.

I shoot the 70-200/4 instead of the 2x heavier f/2.8 lens. Even so, after 5 to 6 hours, my arms are tired and sore.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,383
Location
Los Angeles, USA
The weirdest thing, it seems third party lens manufacturers have a better sense of sizing when it comes to mirrorless. Samyang's compact series f/2.8 and f/1.8 prime lenses are smaller/lighter than anything Canon/Nikon/Sony make and Tamron's zoom lenses for mirrrorless is sized just right. I don't get why Canon and Nikon are reverting to f/6.3 and f/7.1 for some of their zooms? I recently picked up the Tamron 28-200mm and it's a game changer with it's close focus 28mm f/2.8 and it holds sharpness very well at 200mm f/5.6 on the long end. It's the best super zoom to date! If Samyang and Tamron start making Z mount AF glass, I might just jump ship from Sony E to Nikon Z for the integrated F-mount compatibility and shared Nikon speedlights. Third party versatility and cheaper pricing is actually what's keeping me in the Sony camp. For the lenses I need, it's cheaper to run two systems instead of going one system either way.

Here's my Samyang 18mm f/2.8, 45mm f/1.8 and Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 FE lenses (all in custom neoprene wrap) on the Sony A7III:
50072074826_d98df29518_b.jpg
200703_SONY_LENSES_FRIOLO_002
by Jonathan Friolo, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
155
Location
NC, USA
Real Name
Aaron
Stick to your DSLR and F lenses for a smaller, lighter kit!
That varies depending on the body and lens selected, which the Nikon Rumors article clearly showed. Sure, one can cherry pick a small DSLR body and prime lens (D3xxx with 50mm 1.8) vs Z6/7 with 50mm 1.8 S (or 85mm 1.8 S if trying to more closely match FOV) and declare F-mount the smaller/lighter winner. But as also shown in the article and also posted in this thread, Z6/7 with 24-70mm 2.8 S vs FX body with 24-70mm 2.8 E shows mirrorless to be much smaller and lighter. If one is very serious about having actual smaller, lighter gear, there are many other options on the market to achieve that goal.

None the less, not sure why this keeps getting argued every so often; buy what you want, it doesn’t really matter. No trophies will be handed out for “winning” internet arguments or playing “gotcha” better than some other anonymous forum member.
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,748
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
There were a few articles and a few posts here as I recall back in the early mirrorless days that compared a Sony, Canon, and Nikon kit of f/2.8 pro zooms with a few primes. They were all pretty close but as I recall the Sony was actually the heaviest.

The real way to to make a smaller system is use new tech / optics like the Nikon E PF lenses or with a smaller sensor AND lenses designed for that sensor; something neither Nikon or Canon really did with APS-C.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
1,151
Location
New York State
I will remember this discussion when I enter my tenth decade.
In my ninth decade, nothing will persuade me to change from using my astoundingly wonderful D5 (mostly handheld) until it is joined by my intended D6.
:)
 
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
6,479
Location
Annapolis
My mirrorless adventure stopped at a Fuji X-pro 2 and 35/1.4 since I really prefer using a DSLR. Gear weight is not a huge issue for me, but overall size is. It either fits in a coat pocket or not. Or in a small Patagonia sling bag or not. If I have to bring a backpack I figure my DSLR will be in it.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom