[davidmanze]

The other day I read another article which I found more interesting than the usual doomsday ones.
The author ranted on the fact that while full format cameras got smaller, the lenses actually got bigger and also heavier - leading to the unfortunate situation that the setups are terribly unbalanced and overall nothing has really been improved.

I actually mentioned this quite often in the reviews.

IMHO the only mirrorless system that is offering good ergonomics - that's when including the lenses - is MFT. And it's the only system that delivers upon the promise of being truly smaller than anything DSLR while not being too small thus avoiding to get unmanageable (like Nikon 1 and Pentax Q).
Fuji lenses are actually too close to DSLR variants in size/weight. Sony E had some potential but they lost it along the way. The same goes for EOS M.

Of course ... these are just my 2c

  ......... these are my 2 cents

...... a contra "micro (4/3rds) rant" about lazy pro photographers 

..... when the family hired a photography company to shoot a wedding "in my youth" ... ......several photogs arrived with a host of gear ...... shooting heavy Rollieflex TTLs on big tripods ......... they were even using flash bulbs ..... and were appropriately attired.

 .......the wedding shots were taken quickly and efficiently and the protogs went off to arrive 2-3 hours later with all the developed film and proofs of the taken images displayed so people could order their photos ...... photo-frames and all! ..... they must have been working like trojans to develop all those films and prints ........ nothing was too much trouble!

  Compare that to the modern day scenario........ I watched Edward from Photo-universe showing how he'd paired down his wedding shooting kit to a Olympus ML and couple of small lenses with a flash mounted on a right angle bar ..... whining how a DSLRs and their lenses get heavy after a few hours ....... 

 ........ Of course I nearly cried my eyes out for him  ....... fancy having to carry a DSLR for several hours as a job ........ the suffering !!.....
..... no chemicals, tanks, enlargers and dryers here ........ memory cards and ink cartridges only ........

  Before Toni and others rush to say it is not typical of most wedding shooters ....... I know !! ...... they are not your atypical protogs ...... most have several bodies FF ML/ DSLR with a good range of lenses with video equipment/ lighting and all the bazzar ...... and so on!
 
 Having got that off my chest (something I've wanted do for some time)  ........ I understand that those shooting for pleasure is a different story. 
  However, I will say that if I was hiring a wedding photog he would not be shooting a M4/3rds camera! (or APSc for that matter) ........
 
 IMHO a professional photog should be using professional gear .......... but then I still hold true some old fashioned standards ......

(maybe I've put the cat amongst the pigeons)  

[Klaus]

I've never really understood the critiques about lenses not balancing well on a body.
The way I see it is very simple: if a lens is way bigger than the body, then fine: just hold the lens when taking a picture.
To me, this is a non-existent issue: you carry the body with the right hand and use the left hand to support the lens.
If I have a big body, I'd do exactly the same. The size of the body is irrelevant.

Really ... https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~TS5...7.ACR.jpeg ... ?

[thxbb12]

Yes, really.
In your example, whether the photog has a Sony A7 or a Nikon D5 makes zero difference. The lens is way bigger than the body either way.

[goran h]

The other day I read another article which I found more interesting than the usual doomsday ones.
The author ranted on the fact that while full format cameras got smaller, the lenses actually got bigger and also heavier - leading to the unfortunate situation that the setups are terribly unbalanced and overall nothing has really been improved.

 

  ......... these are my 2 cents

...... a contra "micro (4/3rds) rant" about lazy pro photographers 

..... when the family hired a photography company to shoot a wedding "in my youth" ... ......several photogs arrived with a host of gear ...... shooting heavy Rollieflex TTLs on big tripods ......... they were even using flash bulbs ..... and were appropriately attired.

 .......the wedding shots were taken quickly and efficiently and the protogs went off to arrive 2-3 hours later with all the developed film and proofs of the taken images displayed so people could order their photos ...... photo-frames and all! ..... they must have been working like trojans to develop all those films and prints ........ nothing was too much trouble!

  Compare that to the modern day scenario........ I watched Edward from Photo-universe showing how he'd paired down his wedding shooting kit to a Olympus ML and couple of small lenses with a flash mounted on a right angle bar ..... whining how a DSLRs and their lenses get heavy after a few hours ....... 

 ........ Of course I nearly cried my eyes out for him  ....... fancy having to carry a DSLR for several hours as a job ........ the suffering !!.....
..... no chemicals, tanks, enlargers and dryers here ........ memory cards and ink cartridges only ........

  Before Toni and others rush to say it is not typical of most wedding shooters ....... I know !! ...... they are not your atypical protogs ...... most have several bodies FF ML/ DSLR with a good range of lenses with video equipment/ lighting and all the bazzar ...... and so on!
 
 Having got that off my chest (something I've wanted do for some time)  ........ I understand that those shooting for pleasure is a different story. 
  However, I will say that if I was hiring a wedding photog he would not be shooting a M4/3rds camera! (or APSc for that matter) ........
 
 IMHO a professional photog should be using professional gear .......... but then I still hold true some old fashioned standards ......

(maybe I've put the cat amongst the pigeons)   

Why not smaller and lighter stuff?
https://www.f16.click/gear/fujifilm-50mm-f2.html

[davidmanze]

Why not smaller and lighter stuff?
https://www.f16.click/gear/fujifilm-50mm-f2.html

  IQ  ....... low light levels inside the church favours FF ....... there will be a percentage of portraits (DOF) ..... inside shooting without flash ...... I'm sure Fuji could do the job ....... but why? FF is better..... the size between say a Z7 and a Fuji body is not really significant ....... the M4/3rds system sweet though it is, just doesn't look pro ...... how would it look if one of the guests brought along his own D850 /Z7 with a range of lenses and gets better images?
 ...... this is nothing to do with DSLRs vs ML ...... quite the contrary, if I was shooting weddings I would use a FF ML body, for the AF coverage and the silent shutter, which I think is essential these days for weddings.

[MatjazO]

Well, the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, isn’t it? I mean each system has it’s strenghts. M43 has theorethically size, speed and IBIS performance on it’s side. All the rest being equal. 35mm has image quality, shallow depth of field and low light performance playing it’s tune. 2 stops difference, all being equal again. And maybe I missed something, like that it matters. APS-C is in between, with a bit of perception that rounding math puts APS-C a bit closer to 35 mm than actually is. 

Pick your poison, whichever works for each of us. All are great cameras. They all make way better photos than what was feasible a decade or two ago. I say it is great we have so much choice.

[davidmanze]

Well, the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, isn’t it? I mean each system has it’s strenghts. M43 has theorethically size, speed and IBIS performance on it’s side. All the rest being equal. 35mm has image quality, shallow depth of field and low light performance playing it’s tune. 2 stops difference, all being equal again. And maybe I missed something, like that it matters. APS-C is in between, with a bit of perception that rounding math puts APS-C a bit closer to 35 mm than actually is. 

Pick your poison, whichever works for each of us. All are great cameras. They all make way better photos than what was feasible a decade or two ago. I say it is great we have so much choice.

Indeed it is! ...... well considered answer.

[Nickelodeon]

Hi, I'm not sure about the future of different camera types. But I'm pretty sure that f you order an essay at
expert-writers, you won't be disappointed

[wim]

Folks keep in mind that small size and lightweight  isn't always an advantage, I paid extra $$$ for an extension grip for my EOS RP that added nothing but extra size and weight but made it much better to handle, smaller and lighter isn't always good for ergonomics

That seems very specific to the body to me, how the grip is placed, its size and shape, etc.

I felt exactly the same about the RP as you did, so I am glad I got the R. The EOS R probably is the best, ergonomically, for me, of all cameras I ever owned, but I really enjoy the Oly Pen-F and the EM-1 II as well - they are different, but equally great to handle. Just different. The EM-1 does not have th eproblem I had with the RP, but them the grip is much deeper, and the Pen-F is a replacement for a compact camera for me, with the advantage of exchangeable lenses .

Kind regards, Wim

---

I've never really understood the critiques about lenses not balancing well on a body.
The way I see it is very simple: if a lens is way bigger than the body, then fine: just hold the lens when taking a picture.
To me, this is a non-existent issue: you carry the body with the right hand and use the left hand to support the lens.
If I have a big body, I'd do exactly the same. The size of the body is irrelevant.

I totally agree .

I have been doing so since my analog days .

Kind regards, Wim