Weight reduction update

[billtils]

Well, the deed is done. I got a good price from Wex Photographic for the sale of all my Fuji SLR and miscellaneous related gear. I'm now running with my old, adequate, but not great iPhone SE together with some trips down memory lane from my flickr account until mid September when the iPhone 17 should be released.

Feeling surprisingly relaxed about it - seems that practically has beaten sentimentality 😱.


Cheers



Bill

[LenR]

Hi Bill, Seems it was not too long ago that you switched to Fuji for weight saving.
At least you seem to be "in a good place" with your decision......

[billtils]

Thanks Len - yes you are correct with "not too long ago" and it was not an easy decision to consign my beloved Fuji to photographic history. It was more a case of "sensible" catching up with and then passing "desirable" and when she who must be obeyed played her retired nurse trump card, there was no turning back.

On the software side, I can (and do) still use the Fujifilm colour simulations ...

[DanK]

Most of us are doing this to enjoy ourselves. So whatever works for you...

I'm having a problem related to age but not equipment weight. We just downsized (American English for moving to a smaller house or apartment) for several reasons, the most important of which was to be close to our kids and grandkids, but also because we need less space now and wanted a place suitable for aging in place. The only place we found that was suitable in other respects is old, built in 1866. That means next to no storage. I hadn't realized how much room I needed for photo gear: large boxes of paper, mat board, foam core, lights, mat cutter, old framed prints that I saved because of the expensive frames, etc., etc. I had to rent a storage locker, and I still have piles of stuff to sort through. I'm not yet willing to give up printing, which I really enjoy, so I can't get rid of the stuff yet. then again, with a much smaller house, I have fewer places to hang prints.

Not relevant, but, one way in which the real estate world here hasn't caught up: most apartment and condo buildings don't yet have any provision whatever for charging cars. Both of our cars are electric, so we had to narrow the search to places that had or would allow a charger.

[JDW in Oz]

Congratulations to anyone who has done/are doing/can do this. It's a lot of effort, but the rewards are great, and usually immediate.

Photo gear if left to its own, tends to breed in the dark...

Last December we had a conference at home about my photo hoarding. The main goal wasn't for us to downsize - we've no immediate plans to move house, possibly in 2027 as we are quietly considering a move to Malaysia to be nearer to my SO's family - more to clear space and free up one bedroom and ourthegarage, which I've had filled with long ignored/unused gewgaws.

As I've previously posted, I had great plans to do all this two years ago. Of course I didn't.

This year I FINALLY offloaded one Fuji kit (Xpro2, four lenses) and kept one (XE2, two lenses) of lesser value so not really worth selling. Ditto two Nikon D700s, wonderful cameras but no longer being used. Ditto ditto one Nikon D800, I kept one plus a grip. Six Nikon D lenses, six left to play with so no acute withdrawal symptoms were felt.

On a sadder note, the rest of my darkroom has gone. An LPL 7700 enlarger with a B&W head and a box of branded accessories, two Sawyer easels, a Jobo processor, many assorted darkroom bits. Two big cartons of FB paper and a box of chems I had lying around for too long.

All of the above had memories attached so much of it was sad to part with. But the feeling of relief came quickly and I felt - liberated. Free from the tyranny of film and the darkroom.

Still to go, three Nikkormat FT2s and old F mount lenses, two Nikon F65s (= N65s) with AA grips, three small digital camera kits, two 1950s German folders. The Rollei gear I'm keeping, it's now an investment.

I kept my Nikon Z6, THE camera that won me over to mirrorless. At my age Nikon DSLRs are too heavy for me to lug around. One mirrorless and one lens is still doable. And the Z6 images, as ancient as the Z6 , are stunning.

I did reward myself with a second Nikon Z6, one of the last of the Made In Germany, with low mileage, and a Nikon grip. Now considering the 24-70 4.0 Z as my walkabout glass. Nothing else.

So yeh, the mad merry-go-round goes on and on and on...

Expressions of sympathy will be politely overlooked. I've had enough from my local friends.

[C J Southern]

I'm reminded of an old saying that stuck with me: "If you get your kids into photography then they'll never have enough money to buy drugs"!

[DanK]

My situation is very different. I have very little accumulated old gear. Almost all of mine is my current kit, an R6 II and half a dozen lenses, 4 of which are truly top shelf. This is all superb equipment. My problem is that it gets heavier every year. The body isn't really the issue; the problem is the full-frame lenses. I've reached the point where it reduces how much photography I do because I don't want to lug the stuff around unless I know in advance that I'll want it.

I can't justify two systems, so I'm on the verge of admitting my age and selling it. I'm too busy this month to deal with it, but there's now a 50% chance that when I have time, I'll sell the whole kit and kaboodle and buy an OM-1 mark ii body with relevant lenses. I did the arithmetic, and at the system level, it will reduce weight by 50%. It's also much better for macro, although not as good for some other things I do.

The arguments against, and my reactions:

-- only 20 MPX. True, but I shoot 24 now, and the OM-1 has a high-res mode that will do 50 MPX handheld.

-- Not as good in low light. Unarguable.

-- Diffraction at smaller f-stops. True, but I don't think it will matter much.

-- greater DOF. A plus for me, given what I shoot.

--only 12-bit color. This might matter for what I do; it means more likelihood of color casts in the shadows. However, if you use the high-res mode, it's 14-bit.

--less dynamic range. True. At their base ISOs, the R6 II has about 2 stops DR than the R6 II. It's just about the same in this respect as the 5D III I show with for years. (Better DR was one reason I switched to the 5D IV).

So you win some and you lose some. But the larger issue is that I think the camera will be much more often with me.

[C J Southern]

I can relate. I climb up a 500m hill every weekend and once (and only once) thought that it would be good to bring my "pro" gear up here. So I got all that I thought I'd need into my pack and lugged it up there ... all 22kg of it. Not keen to repeat that.

I'm coming up 65 now; I don't mind the heavy stuff if I'm driving it in the car - and maybe even on an appropriate trailer behind an electric mountain bike would be fine - but I'm just getting too old and tired to lug it in my pack.

If it's "the best gear for the job" but we "never have it with us because it's too heavy" then the (pragmatic) message is probably pretty clear.

And the image I got wasn't even particularly good either

[Manfred M]

I'm probably one of the strange folks that has gone in the opposite direction. I still have the D810 and travel with it and use it when I am shooting outside of the studio, but generally with 1 or 2 lenses unless there is a particular need to take along a more specialized lens. I use the 28-300mm for most of my work and will take along the 24mm shift / tilt lens if I'm shooting architecture.

I went medium format last year when I picked up the 102MP Fujifilm GFX100s ii along with the 45-100mm and 100-200mm lenses. That being said, I am now primarily a still life photographer, so the extra weight isn't an issue as the camera usually sits on a tripod or camera stand.

A lot of my work ends up being shown in galleries, so I want to be able to produce large prints. The medium format has a different look when compared to full frame, so it is definitely the right move for me.

[billtils]

I went medium format last year when I picked up the 102MP Fujifilm GFX100s ii along with the 45-100mm and 100-200mm lenses. That being said, I am now primarily a still life photographer, so the extra weight isn't an issue as the camera usually sits on a tripod or camera stand.

A lot of my work ends up being shown in galleries, so I want to be able to produce large prints. The medium format has a different look when compared to full frame, so it is definitely the right move for me.

A good example of "horses for courses" - your gear is well matched to what it is used for, but your post triggered a moment of would it have been better to change what I shoot to suit the Fuji gear that I had (and liked a lot). Maybe I should avoid feedback induced procrastination and take a break from CIC - just kidding .

[DanK]

Just came back from a soccer game I wanted to photograph. I wanted 400mm. With my FF equipment, that is 2338g (5.2 pounds). With the OM-1 and a MUCH faster long zoom, it would be 1561g (3.4 lb)

[LenR]

Dan, looks like you are a candidate for the OM1 kit?
For my part with the current debilitating medical condition I am not sure where I will be heading. Perhaps a wait and see for now....

[DanK]

Dan, looks like you are a candidate for the OM1 kit?
For my part with the current debilitating medical condition I am not sure where I will be heading. Perhaps a wait and see for now....

Len,

Wishing you the best with your medical condition

I think I probably will spring for an OM-1 Mark II kit later this year. I'm really reluctant to give up FF, and the thought of learning all the menus and controls of a totally different system isn't appealing. Still, one has to adapt to age. Not sure why photography ought to be any different in that respect.

It's possible that I'll buy an OM-1 kit and keep some of the FF stuff for a while. However, I think the costs of switching between systems may make that impractical. Even with just one camera, I find that if I don't use it for a while, I forget some of the ways I do things. They can be little things, but they still stop one from responding quickly. E.g., last week my camera didn't show the histogram in the viewfinder, and I wasted quite a bit of time fiddling before I realized that it was because I had turned exposure simulation off.

Dan

[LenR]

Thanks for that Dan. I understand your reticence regarding the acquisition and learning curve for a new system.
Until this condition reared its ugly head weight was not a consideration. I am in my early 70's and could tote a FF body, 4 lenses and tripod without problem.
Oh well........

[billtils]

... the thought of learning all the menus and controls of a totally different system isn't appealing.

Even with just one camera, I find that if I don't use it for a while, I forget some of the ways I do things.
Dan

Reminds me of a friend who had a saying to suit most circumstances - my favourite was "the secret of success is to do one thing at a time ... and be there while you're doing it"

[DanK]

Well, I finally did it. I just ordered an OM-1 Mark II with the 12-40 f/2.8 walk-around (FL multiplication factor is 2x), a 40-150 f/4 zoom, a 60mm macro, a Godox flash, and a set of extension tubes. My most common pack--camera, walk-around, mix-length zoom, and macro lens--will drop from 3137g (6.9 pounds) to 1460g (3.2 pounds). Should arrive Monday.

[AntonioCorreia]

This question of making my gear lighter has been on my mind lately. As the years go by, I have to admit that carrying the Sony A7III together with two additional prime lenses is starting to take its toll – but I keep going, always out of pure love for photography.

Every time I look at my backpack and think about my back and all that weight, I wonder if I shouldn’t make life a bit easier. But then I remember the images that the Sony or Zeiss still manage to give me, and I end up convincing myself to carry it all a little longer… at least for now!

Not long ago, I tried picking up the Oly 5 (I think it’s the mark II, but I’m not even sure) and went out to shoot with the 12-40 zoom. Honestly, I felt the results were far from what I can usually get with the Sony or Zeiss primes. Maybe it’s just me, but I never seem to achieve that same signature sharpness with Olympus. That’s not to say I haven’t taken photos I really like with Olympus or Panasonic – I certainly have! But there’s something about the Zeiss and the Sony that continues to leave me open-mouthed and, to be honest, keeps me loyal to the system.

[DanK]

This question of making my gear lighter has been on my mind lately. As the years go by, I have to admit that carrying the Sony A7III together with two additional prime lenses is starting to take its toll – but I keep going, always out of pure love for photography.

Every time I look at my backpack and think about my back and all that weight, I wonder if I shouldn’t make life a bit easier. But then I remember the images that the Sony or Zeiss still manage to give me, and I end up convincing myself to carry it all a little longer… at least for now!

Not long ago, I tried picking up the Oly 5 (I think it’s the mark II, but I’m not even sure) and went out to shoot with the 12-40 zoom. Honestly, I felt the results were far from what I can usually get with the Sony or Zeiss primes. Maybe it’s just me, but I never seem to achieve that same signature sharpness with Olympus. That’s not to say I haven’t taken photos I really like with Olympus or Panasonic – I certainly have! But there’s something about the Zeiss and the Sony that continues to leave me open-mouthed and, to be honest, keeps me loyal to the system.

I'm keeping my Canon R6 II for a while, so I may do some A/B comparisons. However, I read a lot of reviews and tests, and the bottom line seems to be that you lose quality under specific circumstances, all predictable: (1) if you print large enough to need more than 20 MPX (although the OM-1 has pixel shift modes that will provide 50 or 80 MPX, depending on whether you use a tripod), (2) if you are shooting under low light conditions and need to boost ISO, and (3) if you need more dynamic range. (The OM-1 has computational ND and GND filters, so the last should be less often an issue.)

Re lens quality: at least in theory, good primes are still superior to zooms, but the differences are small, and apart from macro, I largely stopped shooting with primes years ago. the Zuiko zooms get very good reviews.

There is one circumstance where the OM-1 is clearly superior to full frame: macro. Some say also for wildlife because of the reach, but that's controversial, and I don't do much of it.

So, I'm optimistic that for most of my photography--but not all--I won't see a problem with the smaller camera. However, time will tell. In any case, I expect that I will have my camera with me much more often.

[AntonioCorreia]

Thank you, Dan, for your reply !
Honestly, I’m quite sure there’s hardly any difference in quality and clinging to heavier gear is just one of those silly whims we sometimes get.
I have to admit, in a moment of impulse and without thinking much, I sold the Oly 7-14, which always made me really happy. What a foolish move! I still regret it today but, well, there’s nothing to be done now except buy another… and that’s not exactly convenient at the moment.
At least I still have the Leica for the Oly, which I really enjoy using — not to mention the 40mm, which is as good as so many 85s out there; a real surprise!
As for the 12-40, honestly, I just don’t know why I don’t like what comes out of it… There are things you can’t explain!
I fully agree with you: lighter gear is a whole different story, you take it anywhere and you barely notice it’s there.

I sincerely hope you take some fantastic photos with the new equipment. I know you’ll make the most of it, because you have rare knowledge and sensitivity in this field!

[DanK]

Antonio,

Thanks for the kind note. At this point, I’m just trusting reviews and test results. I’m hoping I’m not disappointed, but only experience will tell. It’s not cheap gear, so I hope it was worth it.

I may end up keeping the Canon and a couple of lenses if the OM-1 doesn’t live up to expectations.

Dan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk