> Mirrorless cameras have all been lighter and more compact than their DSLR counterparts, but with Z9 and the R3, Nikon and Canon have changed that.
This is a recurring topic that never gets the attention it deserves. These cameras are big on purpose. It's not sacrificing portability to push the other specs up, it's a feature unto itself.
I shoot with Sony cameras, and own a full-frame a7iii and an APS-C a6400. The a6400 is much smaller and more compact than the a7iii, and it's light enough that I can just leave it in my backpack as an everyday carry sort of camera. Problem is, I like shooting wildlife, especially birds, and need a chunky telephoto lens for that. My 100-400 is a chunky hunk of metal, heavy and with a fair bit of the weight towards the far end. I only very rarely use that lens on the a6400, because that body is just too damn small and light. It's light enough that it offers no counterweight to balance out the heavy lens, and it's small enough that it's not comfortable to hold all that weight. It also has, quite simply, a fair bit less space for control surfaces.
Cameras like the Z9 and the R1 aren't hobbyist cameras, they're not even the sort of cameras a photo journalist would use. They're specifically for sports and wildlife, and their size is meant to help you control [this sort of beast](https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/ef-800mm-f-5-6l-is-usm-lens/).
The "big on purpose" crowd is used to long focal length lenses being super big and heavy, and therefore need a heavy body as a counterweight.
I know some would consider this blasphemy, but the micro-four-thirds (m43) platform with its 2x crop factor means that a pro level 600mm equivalent f4 telephoto with exceptional clarity can weigh under 1.5kg (instead of the 3 to 4kg of similar offerings for full-frame).
When you factor in the weight of the total package (camera body, lens, accessories), the differences are very substantial. Sure - you won't be able to print your photos on wall-sized posters, but you will get great livability/usability, good performance at an attractive price.
> 2x crop factor means that a pro level 600mm equivalent f4 telephoto with exceptional clarity can weigh under 1.5kg (instead of the 3 to 4kg of similar offerings for full-frame)
You mean a pro-level 600/f8 equivalent. You can get something similar for full-frame, like the Canon 600/f11 or 800/f11 which are like a kilogram.
That sounds good in theory, but it really doesn't work out in practice. If you want a like-for-like comparison, you end up with similar weights.
The Olympus OM-D E-M1X comes in at 850g for the body alone, which puts it squarely between the Canon R3 (~1kg) and the Sony a1 (~750g). Once you adjust for the equivalent light-gathering ability of the whole kit , the Panasonic Leica 200mm f/2.8 is 1245g, versus the Canon 400mm f/5.6's 1250g.
This may be my ignorance showing, but wouldn't the DOF be equivalent and the panasonic is getting more light to the sensor? The pixels may end up larger on the canon thus leading to less noise or something, but I thought in terms of light hitting the sensor Fstops were equal, but for DOF you adjusted for crop factor.
Instead of trying to figure out what's happening by changing the sensor size, a fun hack is to instead think about it in terms of a teleconverter. The micro 4/3 format gives you roughly half the area of a full-frame sensor so let's think in terms of a x2 teleconverter.
Let's assume you have a 200mm f/2 lens, and you put that x2 teleconverter on. The way you get the equivalent of 400mm out of that is that you're taking all the light that comes out of the back of the original lens, then spreading it out into a bigger circle. Same total amount of light, stretched thinner, so the sensor is gathering less light overall. That's why that 2x converter that turns your 200mm into 400mm also takes away 2 stops of light and reduces your effective aperture from f/2 to f/4.
Now, the trick is that with the smaller sensor instead of the teleconverter, you have the exact same situation: You're taking that same amount of light projected by the optics, and cutting a smaller slice in the middle. You're just doing the slicing differently.
I wonder if the "big on purpose" is because photographers got used to the size of previous generation cameras and would rather have a full-sized body to grip than the miniaturized technical wonders like the Sony APS-C cameras which, while highly capable cameras feel like well-built toys. I bought my a6400 because of the reviews on the eye-AF which is flat-out amazing. But I absolutely hate the feel of the body and wish I could have the electronics of an a7-III or a7-IV in the body of a Nikon D700... something that feels like it was designed by a photographer and not an electrical engineer with a specialty in compact design.
The most important 'feature' that comes with a large camera body, for me, is that when I operate the controls, I don't lose my grip. This means I can operate controls at the same time, in quick succession, etc. When I'm wanting to use all the tools available to me to get the perfect shot, I want to be able to reach them and operate quickly.
On my smaller-bodied Fuji mirrorless, there's no viewfinder and I almost always shoot in a fully automatic mode. This is great for holiday photos, where it's much more about the memory and much less about the 'art'.
I think this discussion is typically fuzzy because people do not separate weight and size.
As for weight, no sane person wants to carry around more weight than needed. So there's a wide consensus that less weight is better. The counter point that extra weight helps with balance is a bit of a stretch. People often mention long heavy lenses but the truly heavy lenses you will not really support from the camera body anyway. Plus, we're not really talking about cameras where the "light" bodies really are that light as to make handling them unstable.
As for size, if we were to ignore weight for a second, I strongly believe a largish camera body is ergonomically ideal for almost everyone. These cameras are often portrayed to be "huge", but they really aren't as it comes to holding them. A large deep grip allows you to hold it well. A large back plate allows for lots of buttons and room between buttons.
I extend that remark to people with small hands. Even with small hands you can't fully "grip" a compact mirrorless camera. Don't get me wrong, for sure you can accustom yourself to deal with this compromise in ergonomics, I'm just saying that a largish size is the ergonomic ideal, if weight were not a factor.
Of course, the problem is that size and weight do correlate. So you can pick between a large camera that is ergonomically ideal to handle yet heavy to carry or a lighter camera with poor ergonomics.
In the end it's best to just try it. My main point is to keep an open mind towards largish cameras, they have some very strong pros.
I shoot with an A7iii (and I owned a D70s before), and while it's small, it's not uncontrollable or unbalanced for my use.
Bigger (mirrorless) cameras are bigger on purpose because you can fit more batteries inside and control heat better amongst other things, but I wouldn't want my A7iii to be the size of D70s or any DSLR, because it really hinders portability of these devices.
I agree Sony's APS-C cameras maybe miniaturized a bit too much, but A7/A9 series' size is perfect IMHO (and they manage their heat really well).
I've shot the z9 and it's pretty amazing but definitely not perfect. The teardown was pretty cool, always wonder when they put it back together if it still worked.
Shooting sports side by side with a D5, pro level mirrorless has more to improve upon. The pro dslr's canon 1Dx series and Nikon D4,5,6 series are big and heavy, but that size all translates into a single battery that shoots 3000-5000 shots and numerous custom buttons to quickly change a variety of settings fast which is important. Most have never experienced shooting with these bodies but are quick to whine about every aspect. When it comes to getting a shot they are indispensable with sports, wildlife, events because they just work. Especially in poor weather conditions.
Since covid I skipped the canon 1dx3 upgrade and after shooting the z9 will skip the r3 now. Still sticking with Canon but will wait for R1 in hopes the EVF is flawless when panning shots.
Spot on that these are not hobbyist camera's, but when do you get shoot with them everyday they definitely serve the intended purpose well.
I think that some users are actually expecting their EVFs to magically eliminate motion blur when panning. Have you tried the Z9 since the firmware brought faster refresh? I'm surprised you are passing the Z9 given it appears you shoot heterogeneous. That said I'm seriously looking at D6/120-300_2.8 for the similar reasons, but I think my reasons might be a bit more distilled.
I have too much invested in canon lens, but no hurry to switch a 100% over to mirrorless. D5 is bargain body, D6 is just refined further but super nice. Availability for z9 and r3 is ridiculous.
What do you make of the Sony a1, with its detachable battery grip? Sony made it so that the camera could be compact when needed (ex. traveling or on a gimbal) and full-sized when weight isn’t an issue.
The Sony a1 is of course the choice of the Associated Press, and were heavily used at last year’s Olympics.
Yeah, I didn’t mention that but I use the same grip on my a9 series cameras that I use on my a1. It really is a nice setup that I think is under-appreciated. I went to a football game pre-a1 and had a 400mm 2.8 on the a9 II without the grip and I had multiple photogs carrying similar lenses with full size DSLRs on the back ask me about mirrorless. The difference in weight alone between my kit and theirs was astounding.
It’s rare that something that game-changing appears in such an established market.
By curiosity, if a camera's body is just too impractical for a specific use, would it work with a body extension ?
I was thinking for instance about the extra grip that can be added on Canon/Nikon's middle range models that make them easier to manipulate for vertical shoots. While the top of the line comes built with grips in both directions, options exist for the smaller bodies.
We already have flash brackets, cinematographic rigs etc., would it be realistic to have an outer frame for your a6400 when it's equipped with your 100-400 telephoto ?
Yes for extra batteries and perhaps vertical shutter release (as per my D850's body extension) but a larger body can have more controls and displays that can't be easily extended. The larger size allows for much more than just a more easily grippable physical object.
I do have an L-bracket with a built-in grip[0] that I can use with the a6400. It does make the grip itself more comfortable, but the added volume then moves the shutter release too far back relative to the grip, which brings us back to an uncomfortable shooting experience. I don't think fixing ergonomics after the fact works.
I don't know. This comes up all the time in photog discussions but I think it's just a matter of older Pros being used to it. Last Olympics was the first time I saw almost as many Sony cameras as Canon in the stands, so we will see if the pros all go back to CaNikon because they can't live with Sony and their argos - plenty of people have shot Sony now and Canon/Nikon have equal alternatives.
Canon/Nikon and Sony sure have different ergonomic visions. But I think, at the end of the day, it's more about professional support, parts and service availability, turnaround and general reliability than size/ergo.
Personally, I'm in the Sony camp - I use my 200-600 for hours for wildlife with my "bare" A9 or RIV without any issues. I feel like it's really the lens I'm holding and the camera is just an attachment I look through.
Imo, Sony's customizable enough that _anything_ is just a button away without ever taking my eyes off the EVF, no need for a larger body to fit the buttons and dials. But to each their own, and it's a great that we now have all the options.
And wildlife is a bit of specialty field, AF performance ultimately trumps ergonomics for most serious photographers, I think.
I've been channelling Thom Hogan who I've been reading for over 25 years. Thom is the most rational (and frequently only sensible) publicly available voice in the technical aspects of photography. Thom also worked for Osborne Computer..
Edit: https://bythom.com. by the looks of things about everyone here ought to go catch up with Thom's writings ;)
Sony's A1 became available almost half a pro body (4yr/2, actually nearer1.5y given pre production) than any other top level mirrorless cameras. This plus very aggressive selling support services to the agencies(which are a negligible number of pros globally especially in the states) gave Sony the home advantage Japanese pride fully deserved. As is self evident the performance level available from the A1 is too good to pass, especially when it's the only show in town.
But the A1 is the first professionally usable Sony period. Tokyo was Act1, Scene 1.
I only got into photography a few years ago, and I almost immediately felt this issue, so it's clearly not just a matter of habit.
It's also important to note we're not comparing between different brands here, we're comparing models within the same brand. E.g. Canon has the R3 but they also have the R5, which is much more appropriate for all professional uses that don't involve shooting action.
And finally, speaking of Sony ergonomics, e.g. my a6400 can't fit the focus joystick I have on my a7iii.
Yes I agree with all. Indeed I’musing a Leica Q2 for photojournalism. I’m not photographing birds and sport but doing it with a A7 and a 2/300mm long lenses, will result in a heavy unbalanced and hard to handle setup (unless you use a tripod every time).
It would, but then it'd lose the light-gathering advantage you get from a larger sensor. There is no free lunch.
Also, for the sensor to have the same resolution as a full-frame sensor means smaller pixel sites, which requires a smaller circle of confusion for the same perceived quality, which puts more pressure on the optics.
In addition to what @pdpi said, for me, there are a couple of key factors why the larger form factor makes sense..
When I am shooting birds and wildlife, I want to control the iso, shutter speed and/or aperture without taking my eyes off the viewfinder. Further, there are several times where I would tune the focus which means switching to manual and back to auto as needed. All of these need appropriately placed wheels and switches. Small form factor makes everything screen based and hard to access.
The second and probably the more important aspect is heat dissipation. Sony A1 shoots a 50MP image at 8k and can shoot upto 30 frames per sec with compressed raw. Its autofocus system runs at 120 times/sec. All of this processing needs a lot of compute and that heat needs to be moved out somewhere. A large form makes it easier to have decent airflow between components.
Do you mean tune focus as in lens back focus calibration, or fine tuning your focus point in the desired picture? If the latter you're doing it wrong ;)
The former.. Sometimes, the focus goes to background and I use the MF to bring it to the front and switch to AF.. I am curious about why the later is incorrect? If I focus on a bird and the AF decides that the branch next to it is the subject, you can use DMF to fine tune it (as I understand it).
> It’s a shame Nikon couldn’t use CFexpress Type A cards like we saw on the Sony A1 and A7S III, which can still fit SD cards in their ports. Of course, given that Type A cards are manufactured by Sony, it’s understandable why Nikon wouldn’t want to use their competitor’s innovation on their flagship.
I don't see how it is a shame. Nikon ensured users will have a better, more consistent user experience by going with Type B slots. Type A cards have half the theoretical max throughput [0] and cost more per GB. I suspect most people using a $5,500 camera don't put high importance on SD card compatibility.
I think Sony uses Type A CFe due to their small bodies.
> Nikon wouldn’t want to use their competitor’s innovation on their flagship
Not sure where the author gets this idea, especially considering that the Z9 uses a sensor made by Sony [0]. Yes, technically it is made by Sony Semiconductor and not Sony Imaging, but they are still the same company.
I understand that, but I think the target users of the Z9 would much rather have faster I/O. There are a number of articles and videos benchmarking the Z9 and the buffer performance is directly correlated to the speed of the storage. If Nikon went with Type A/SD their theoretical max buffer speed would get cut in half.
It's one of those "limited consumer choices to ensure best experience" things. Using an SD card and it's slower I/O speeds would meaningfully degrade the video and burst capability, blackout free still shooting of the camera, so might as well enforce a higher standard tk ensure a uniform experience.
A benefit of Type B is that it can host a 2230 M.2 adapter. You can take out a laptop SSD and put into a camera, almost like we all did in 200s with iPod mini and dSLR back then.
These are customer runs of proprietary designs which extends to the filter pack, micro lens array and potentially the stacked data take off layout, but the core is all untouched Sony.
There are contractual agreements in place to use certain designs over a given period of time.
Therefore, Sony can invest and Nikon can benefit from Sony's products. It is a bit of a win-win situation. Otherwise, Nikon would be force to use another supplier's sensors (as they do and have done already in the past). Nikon don't have the capability to produce large scale sensors for their cosumer imaging devices at the present time and likely won't for the foreseeable future.
I'm not so much concerned about full size HDMI vs small size (plenty of good quality custom length cables exist that are one size at one end, mini or micro, and full size at the other) but lack of SDI out port.
generally having an SDI out port is a clear dividing line between serious/non-serious video cameras.
It's not the need for adaptation that's the problem with micro-HDMI; it's the ridiculous fragility of it. It WILL become faulty on the second day of use, making your "cine" camera useless for some applications.
But yes, SDI is the hallmark of more-professional gear. I always thought it was perplexing that the first truly affordable UHD camera (the BlackMagic Production Camera 4K) only had SDI and no HDMI whatsoever. At $3K, it appealed to a market that would not own SDI-based equipment. But they were forced to buy a more-expensive SDI viewfinder or an HDMI adapter (and mess with powering it). Still... all of that is preferable to micro-HDMI.
I think the intended use of the blackmagic production camera line is for broadcast studio stuff where the whole workflow and switcher is pure SDI all the way to the encoder.
This is a recurring topic that never gets the attention it deserves. These cameras are big on purpose. It's not sacrificing portability to push the other specs up, it's a feature unto itself.
I shoot with Sony cameras, and own a full-frame a7iii and an APS-C a6400. The a6400 is much smaller and more compact than the a7iii, and it's light enough that I can just leave it in my backpack as an everyday carry sort of camera. Problem is, I like shooting wildlife, especially birds, and need a chunky telephoto lens for that. My 100-400 is a chunky hunk of metal, heavy and with a fair bit of the weight towards the far end. I only very rarely use that lens on the a6400, because that body is just too damn small and light. It's light enough that it offers no counterweight to balance out the heavy lens, and it's small enough that it's not comfortable to hold all that weight. It also has, quite simply, a fair bit less space for control surfaces.
Cameras like the Z9 and the R1 aren't hobbyist cameras, they're not even the sort of cameras a photo journalist would use. They're specifically for sports and wildlife, and their size is meant to help you control [this sort of beast](https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/ef-800mm-f-5-6l-is-usm-lens/).