Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 … 5 6 end

Archive 2014 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

jerrykur
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

HI,

I am currently shooting with a 5DMK3 and micro 4/3 (Olympus). I would like to get a FF "small" camera, but wonder if I went with something based on a Sony would I really end up with a much smaller lighter kit. I mean compared to the 5DMK3, some L lenses, and a flash, the Micro 43s stuff is tiny and light. If I have to use big, heavy lenses to get good results from the Sony will I be nearly at the same place as I am with my 5DMK3?

Jerry

Aug 08, 2014 at 06:12 PM

millsart
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

You don't have to use big heavy lens, my Olympus OM's are downright tiny, hardly bigger than m4/3 glass, and are optically excellent.

OM 21/3.5, 28/3.5, 50/1.8 etc weight only a few ounces.

Lens like the Sony 35/2.8 FE are optically excellent as well and weight like 3 ounces or something. Hardly even know its on the camera. Its "only" f2.8 but its sharp wide open and on the FF sensor, that can still give pretty nice subject isolation. In fact, I'm often surprised just how far I have to stop down. I certainly wasn't used to using f8 and f11 on m4/3 when I had an EM1

Aug 08, 2014 at 06:26 PM

Mike Ganz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

I've been shooting with a 5D and a 5D2 for the past manyyears, and just picked up an A7r a couple of weeks ago. I have a stash of older Canon FD lenses from my film days that I've been using on the A7r, along with several Contax lenses. Just the other day, I needed some quick shots using AF, so I grabbed my 5D2 and the 24-70L lens...compared to the Sony, it felt like I was holding a cinder block, the difference in weight was that noticeable. I haven't tried my OM lenses yet (18/3.5, 24/2.8, 50/3.5) with the Sony, but like millsart mentioned, they would make for a very light kit (not to mention, the lenses could fit in your pockets). If you're a landscape shooter and do a lot of hiking, the Sony will definitely lighten the load.

Aug 08, 2014 at 07:11 PM

dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

It is lighter a little and with some alt lenses it can be much lighter. It's size is noticeably smaller too. The Sony Zeiss 35 makes a nice small ff kit. For me the benefit is not chiefly the reduced size, but the improved dynamic range and resolution.

Aug 08, 2014 at 07:21 PM

cputeq
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

As said, you don't have to use big, heavy lenses to get good results. Now, that being said, you'll have an easier time going "light" with primes over zooms, but even with zooms it's doable.

The same can be said for some of Canon's lenses, though - the 40/2.8 pancake is a spectacular lens and almost small enough to be a body cap, so it's possible with Canon.

The big difference is the A7 body size vs the 5D3. The 5D3 is twice as heavy as the A7 and larger all around.

Look at the A7 vs E-M1 - The A7 is practically the same height, not as wide, thinner and lighter than the E-M1!

http://camerasize.com/compare/#482,487

Aug 08, 2014 at 08:02 PM

Mike Tuomey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

jerrykur wrote:
If I have to use big, heavy lenses to get good results from the Sony will I be nearly at the same place as I am with my 5DMK3?

Pretty much the same, especially if the comparison were to the 6D rather than the 5DIII. To get a significant benefit, you'll need MF or slow AF primes. Can't cheat optics. You want fast, high performance full frame AF lenses, they're gonna be large.

Edited on Aug 08, 2014 at 10:03 PM · View previous versions

Aug 08, 2014 at 08:13 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

This difference is camera size between a Canon 5D MKIII and the Sony cameras is notable. With lenses it depends on what you are comparing. The Oly lenses could be used on either camera and the Sony would have a bigger adapter, so the primary difference would be in the size of the cameras. Where I think you get a real advantage for the Sony cameras is using lenses that you can't use on Canon. These include some Leica M lenses (that are generally excellent and small), a few Leica R lenses, Canon FD lenses (which can't be used on EOS mount easily at least), most Minolta MC and MD lenses, and some others in addition to the lenses that are native to the Sony E-mount.

So it depends on the kit you want and how much you are willing to spend and whether you need autofocus. So let me take a hypothetical kit and compare Canon to Sony.

Let's start with a high end kit of 3 lenses for Canon that emphasizes fast lenses. These three lenses if bought used would cost something like $3,600. They are quite large lenses.The 35L weighs in at 580g and has a volume of 350100 cubic mm. The 50L weighs in at 590g and has a volume of 378700 cubic mm. Finally the 85Lis truly huge weighing in at 1025g and having a volume of 552300 cubic mm. So together they weigh 2195g (or 4.83 pounds) and have a volume of 1281100 cubic mm.

Now let's compare that to a comparable kit for the Sony. Interestingly none of these lenses would work without some adapting on the Canon and one (the Leica M mount lens) lenses simply wouldn't work at all. I would pick the Voigtlander 35 f/1.2, the Minolta MC Rokkor 58 f/1.2, and the Canon nFD 85 f/1.2L. Together these lenses would cost about $2,300 or a fair bit less than the Canon L's. The Voigtlander 35 f/1.2 weighs in at about 520g with the adapter, but only has a volume of 208500 cubic mm. The Minolta Rokkor 58 f/1.2 would weigh in at about 535g, but again a volume of only 297300 cubic mm, and finally the nFD 85L would weigh only about 760g and have a volume of 487100 cubic mm. So together they would weigh about 1815g or 4 pounds. Given that the camera is about a pound lighter as well. The total kit would be very close to 2 pounds lighter or about 5 lbs for the Sony kit and 7 pounds for the Canon kit. The difference is not only in weigh but also in volume.. The three lenses for the Sony would only have a volume of 992900 cubic mm. That is about a thirty percent more volume for the Canon kit as well.

IMO, this savings of weight and size it is still substantial. To help make that point, even though this probably isn't the right set to compare for m4/3rds, if we did we could look at the Voigtlander 17 f/0.95, the 25 f/0.95, and the Panny/Leica 42.5 f/1.2. Together these three lenses would cost about $2,900. The 17 f/0.95 weighs in at 540g and has a volume of 252600 cubic mm. The 25 f/0.95 weighs in at 435g and has a volume of 201900 cubic mm, and the Panny/Leica 42.5 f/1.2 weighs in at 425g and has a volume of 330300 cubic mm. So tother the lenses would weigh 1400g or just more than three pounds and given that a camera like the EM-1 weighs more than the Sony camera, the difference between Canon and Sony is greater than the difference between Sony and m4/3rds. Yes m4/3rds is the smallest, but the Sony gets you about 2/3rds of the way to that small size.

The same basic story can be told for volume. The m4/3rds kit would have a volume of 784800 cubic mm. This is about a 25 percent reduction in volume, but again given that a camera like the EM-1 actually takes up quite a bit more volume than the Sony cameras there is a lot less of a decrease in size. Again the Sony would get you at least 2/3rds of the size reduction you get with m4/3rds.

Different kits will result in different savings in size and weight. It is also possible to use some much smaller Leica M lenses if you are willing to fork over the high prices some of these lenses command and can sort through to find the ones that work well on the Sony cameras. Micro 4/3rds will get much greater size and volumes savings at longer focal lengths as well. Still I think that the Sony will for most kits get you substantial size and weight savings, but not as much as m4/3rds.

Aug 08, 2014 at 08:52 PM

uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

If only the A7 models had thin covers on the sensors the answer would be obvious.

In that case the Leica 35/28/24/21/18 and wider CVs would be great and this would be an easy answer.

or if only sony had their act together with the glass, besides the 35 and 55, it would still be an easy answer.

but RF glass is only great at 50 and up, with a few exceptions that don't really help. IE the fle costs too much, and the Cv 35/1.2 is big and fat.

Now there are a number of RF 28s which while not fantastic, are pretty good on the a7 and a7s, but with the A7r, forget it.

Aug 08, 2014 at 09:17 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

uhoh7 wrote:
the Cv 35/1.2 is big and fat.

It may seem big and fat to someone used to rangefinder lenses, but it is way smaller (11mm less fat and 15mm shorter even including the adapter) than the Canon 35L that the OP is used to. It would offer him a substantial size reduction.

Aug 08, 2014 at 09:25 PM

mike reid
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

my hiking kit is currently a7r, cy zeiss 50 and cy zeiss 18 and a dummy adapter. much lighter than my old 5d2 setup

Aug 08, 2014 at 09:30 PM

arduluth
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

There will always be some weight savings in the body, but how much you can save overall depends on the lenses you're using. If you do most of your shooting with a 70-200/2.8 zooms or super teles, the savings will be limited to the body. If you spend more time with prices under 100mm, there is a lot of room for weight and size savings.

Aug 08, 2014 at 09:30 PM

uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

Steve Spencer wrote:
It may seem big and fat to someone used to rangefinder lenses, but it is way smaller (11mm less fat and 15mm shorter even including the adapter) than the Canon 35L that the OP is used to. It would offer him a substantial size reduction.

A7 + CV 35/1.2 = 1038 grams
M9 + biogon 35/2 = 885 grams

take another 100 off if u use a skopar on the m9.

Worse the CV is terribly front heavy, so it feels heavier yet.

Don't get me wrong, I love my CV 1.2 for low light, and it shoots well stopped down too. But heck if I'd drag it on a walk.

But to be fair the FE 35 is fine and light. If the A7 was my main rig, I'd own one.

The real issue is when you want to go wider than 35.

Aug 08, 2014 at 11:35 PM

philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

Jerry, I used to be a Canon 5D2/5D3 shooter, and now shoot a A7R. Further to Steve's remarkable analysis (kudos!), my point is simple. When I had my Canon DSLR, there was no way I would take it anywhere, except if I intended to take pictures, and if a photo bag was compatible with my plan for the say (which eliminated workdays).
Now I take my A7 with me every time. I tuck it inside a Billingham bag which does not reveal its photographic nature, and can attend any business meeting that way.
One of the beauties of the A7 platform is how many different lenses it will accomodate. From your canon L lenses thanks to a Metabones adaépter (that is what Fred himself uses, I believe) to some small, wonderful and onerous Leica M. Also many used lenses, where you can get great IQ , low weight and low cost at the same, like the Olympus already mentioned above. I paid 250$ for a lovely 28mm f:2.0. How does that grab you?

Today I have 2 sets of lenses: the lighter, AF one, with FE 35 and FE 55, and the dedicated, MF one, with Leica R 28, 50 and 80.
And the increased dynamic range, higher resolution and improved colours (my opinion) are bonuses.
Have fun!

Aug 08, 2014 at 11:57 PM

uhoh7
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

5D Mk3 + EF24-70mm f/2.8L = 1660 grams

Aug 09, 2014 at 12:20 AM

Two23
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

I am currently out hiking in British Columbia, and even with a medium sized Nikon D7100 and a couple of lenses I am feeling the weight here! More and more I am looking at a smaller camera system. In Vancouver I left my Nikon DSLR in my hotel and ran around the streets with only my small Leica IIIc and lenses 29/35/50/90mm, f3.5 --f4. i loved the size and using the Leica is fun! 'm about 75% sold on dumping the big Nikon stuff and going with a small camera. One other big consideration is the tripod needed. With the Nikon D7100 and f2.8 zooms, I use a Benro Travel Angel A269 with AcraTech head. It's very solid but it needs to be. With a smaller camera system I could get away with a lighter duty tripod and a smaller ballhead. Don't forget tripod size & weight in your calculations here. My Nikon gear fits in a Stratos Osprey pack, 35 liter size. My Leica gear fits into a LowePro Slim 300 which is half the size of my wife's purse!

Kent in SD

Aug 09, 2014 at 12:40 AM

pinholecam
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

I think it depends on what lenses you intend to use on the A7.

I am using mainly Pentax lenses and most of them are smaller than the respective Canon/Nikon lenses.
The size of the system becomes close to that of a manual focus film camera (eg. Oly OM; Pentax LX )

The system gets a bit smaller than the above with some mix and match of RF lenses.
A full RF lens solution is not possible though as most lenses in the 15mm-35mm range have issues in the corners and edges.
In fact, even some 50mm have such issues and never fully sharpen up to the excellent level on the sides.
The catch to all this is the UWA option.
Most end up to be the same old big ones like the EF 16-35; nikon 14-24;
The most one can get away with might be a bit smaller primes like a Samyang 14mm and legacy 20mm options.
Whether legacy 17mm-19mm options are good enough on the far edges depends on individual tolerance. (I tend towards them being not great, but 'ok' given their price)

If you intend to continue with Canon EF lenses on the A7, MHO is that its just adding back most of the size.
The problem with an all Sony FE lens setup is that there is no UWA and short tele prime option yet).

Aug 09, 2014 at 02:29 AM

carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

All the information to answer this question is readily available online. I am not sure what you expect of the community here. How should anyone know what lenses you want to bring?

Aug 09, 2014 at 03:40 AM

Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

If you use RF lenses, the difference is huge. If you just recycle your Canon EF optics, then no.

Aug 09, 2014 at 03:50 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

uhoh7 wrote:
A7 + CV 35/1.2 = 1038 grams
M9 + biogon 35/2 = 885 grams

take another 100 off if u use a skopar on the m9.

Worse the CV is terribly front heavy, so it feels heavier yet.

Don't get me wrong, I love my CV 1.2 for low light, and it shoots well stopped down too. But heck if I'd drag it on a walk.

But to be fair the FE 35 is fine and light. If the A7 was my main rig, I'd own one.

The real issue is when you want to go wider than 35.

Here is my point:

A7 (465g CIPA measurement with battery and card) + CV 35 f/1.2 (470g) + adapter (about 50g) = 985g
Canon 5D MKIII (950g CIPA measurement with battery and card) + 35L (580g) = 1530g

IMO, the Sony and Voigtlander 35 is a much smaller kit and the lens is even physically smaller than the weight difference. I grant that it might not seem small to someone who is used to using rangefinders, but I think it will to someone like the OP who uses a Canon DSLR and L lenses.

By the way 5D MKIII + 24-70 f/2.8L = 1900g if you take the CIPA measurement for the camera, although it drops to 1755g if you pick the 24-70 MKII.

Aug 09, 2014 at 06:09 AM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Is an A7 with good lenses really much lighter and smaller than a DSLR

Depends what kind of lenses you are currently using and if you are flexible to use MF lenses. If the latter is the case, you have a broad range of smaller and lighter lens kit options as others already mentioned. If you need to rely on good AF, you pretty much only have the option to invest in E-mount Sony/Zeiss lenses. They are about as heavy and bulky as the Canon EF lenses.

AF is not of my primary interest, so I am still using my Canon lens gear on the A7R with Metabones adapter in MF mode. Especially for TSE lenses you have none or very limited alternative options only - here you best rely on the Canon MF TSE lenses. For some other prime lenses, I am often using smaller and lighter MF prime lenses (listed on my profile) on my A7R instead of the more bulky and heavy Canon EF lenses.

Good thing is that you don't need to vest in other than Canon lenses when you add the A7 series to your gear as long as you are fine to use them either in MF or with slow AF.

Aug 09, 2014 at 08:01 AM

1 2 3 … 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.