Switching from DSLR to more compact camera

Hi,

I am looking to switch to a smaller/ lighter system but trying to keep image quality. Last camera I had was D7100 with Aquatica housing and it was a very heavy and bulky set up for traveling. Ideally sticking with Nikon would be a a benefit as my husband has D500 and we have bunch of lenses we share.

Do you have any recommendations or personal experience of also switching to smaller system recently?

Many thanks!

Frankly you either change lens system or you are stuck with the bulk.

I switched to the M43 and it is far more compact (especially the lenses) and the quality is excellent unless you print greater than A2.   

I sold my Canon lenses and it was the best decision I made.

I can lug all my equipment in the airplane cabin (with some accurate planning).

I would love to something even more compact but unfortunately unless you stick to UW macro there is nothing more compact that gets close to M43 quality.  Most 1" camera sensor manufacturer never optimize their system for UW use.  Nikon was the only one that did that in the past but never renewed that market.  So I would say that  because of the available lenses and compactness M43 is top choice.

Andrea

If you're looking to downsize but stay with Nikon interchangeable lenses, perhaps look at Z50 with 16-50mm and WWL-C? This will get you a reasonably compact rig, and you can use F-mount lenses via FTZ adapter.

I agree with Andrea. I went down the Olympus M -5 and never regretted it. I can do all the things a full size DSLR can do without ANY of the bulk. I also got a 1" Sony compact, and it has a greater range of lenses if that matters.

1 hour ago, nudibranco said:

Frankly you either change lens system or you are stuck with the bulk.

I switched to the M43 and it is far more compact (especially the lenses) and the quality is excellent unless you print greater than A2.   

I sold my Canon lenses and it was the best decision I made.

I can lug all my equipment in the airplane cabin (with some accurate planning).

I would love to something even more compact but unfortunately unless you stick to UW macro there is nothing more compact that gets close to M43 quality.  Most 1" camera sensor manufacturer never optimize their system for UW use.  Nikon was the only one that did that in the past but never renewed that market.  So I would say that  because of the available lenses and compactness M43 is top choice.

Andrea

Thanks for your input. I used to have Olympus EPL series long time ago and it was great for traveling but as my skill set improved I upgraded. Now I don't dive as often but still want to keep the quality regardless. I'm sure the quality of M43 has improved significantly since last 10 years so worth revisiting that idea. 

1 hour ago, Barmaglot said:

If you're looking to downsize but stay with Nikon interchangeable lenses, perhaps look at Z50 with 16-50mm and WWL-C? This will get you a reasonably compact rig, and you can use F-mount lenses via FTZ adapter.

Yeah I was thinking about Z50 as an option as well. 

46 minutes ago, bill1946 said:

I agree with Andrea. I went down the Olympus M -5 and never regretted it. I can do all the things a full size DSLR can do without ANY of the bulk. I also got a 1" Sony compact, and it has a greater range of lenses if that matters.

You have both Olympus and Sony for underwater? Do you have any preference between the two brands?

I would have a look at this: 

https://wetpixel.com/articles/wetpixel-live-downsizing-underwater-imaging-systems

1 hour ago, adamhanlon said:

I would have a look at this: 

https://wetpixel.com/articles/wetpixel-live-downsizing-underwater-imaging-systems

100% agree with Alex Mustard. You can score negligible weight/size, as major problems are outside of housing itself: viewfinder, ports, domes, lights, arms etc. As result you will save 200-300-400 grams with a lot of cost for new system
It's sad but true

2 hours ago, adamhanlon said:

I would have a look at this: 

https://wetpixel.com/articles/wetpixel-live-downsizing-underwater-imaging-systems

Thanks so much. I will look into it!

The thing to realise with UW rigs is that while the camera might be a little smaller with mirrorless if the sensor size is the same then the lenses and more importantly any domes you use will be the same size.  Also housing sizes vary quite a bit for the same model camera between manufacturers and this can impact packability.

The good news is the m43 cameras particularly the 20MP Olympus sensor are very close in quality to the Nikon APS-C sensors.  This DXO link compares the D7100, D500 and EM-1 MkII for sensor perofrmance and you will see the plots are right on top of each other.  https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-D500-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II___865_1061_1136

This is my EM-1 MkII Nauticam rig packed for travel in a Think tank streetwalker hard drive backpack - a fully carry-on legal bag.  In it you'll find the Nauticam housing with camera inside, Zen 170mm dome, macro port, Zen 100mm fisheye dome, 8mm fisheye, Pany 7-14, Oly 12-40 and 60mm macro with 2x INON Z-240.  You can see the m43 lenses are very small and light.

I also sometimes pack this lot into a carry on size spinner bag along with home made padding/dividers.

Chris, how much does that rig weigh?

1 hour ago, PhotoJunkie said:

Chris, how much does that rig weigh?

the entire bag is about 12kg, including a laptop in the slot underneath.

It is true that you could save some weight and volume (at the cost of a little IQ) when switching to a MFT system, but you say your husband has already a Nikon setup. When adding weight and volume of two different systems, the sum together will be more when using two different systems, compared to using identical systems together. When using the same, you could use synergy and share domeports, extensions and lenses...

I am doing so with my wife, together we have two MFT setups (Oly EM1II and EM5II with Nauticam) with only one macroport (constant source of discussion who uses the macro setup, however) but two domeports (Nauticam 140 and zen DP170) that can be used with several fisheye, WA and normal range lenses. Since we share all lenses and ports, the overall weight is less than two separate setups...

I also want to say that it is not required that one puts the housing and the domeports (and all other stuff that is not really fragile) in the carry on lugagge. At least Nauticam offers stuffed bags for the housings and domeports that can be put in the regular check-in lugagge without the danger of beeing damaged. This makes it much easier to pack and carry, we only have lenses, cameras, flashes, dive computers, accus and dive compasses in our carry on lugagge (already a lot) ...

Since you say IQ is important for you, I would go for a Nikon FF camera and build a system together with my partner, where you can share as many ports and lenses as possible, e.g. the APS-C camera for macro and the FF for WA...

Wolfgang

9 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

The thing to realise with UW rigs is that while the camera might be a little smaller with mirrorless if the sensor size is the same then the lenses and more importantly any domes you use will be the same size.  Also housing sizes vary quite a bit for the same model camera between manufacturers and this can impact packability.

The good news is the m43 cameras particularly the 20MP Olympus sensor are very close in quality to the Nikon APS-C sensors.  This DXO link compares the D7100, D500 and EM-1 MkII for sensor perofrmance and you will see the plots are right on top of each other.  https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-D500-versus-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II___865_1061_1136

This is my EM-1 MkII Nauticam rig packed for travel in a Think tank streetwalker hard drive backpack - a fully carry-on legal bag.  In it you'll find the Nauticam housing with camera inside, Zen 170mm dome, macro port, Zen 100mm fisheye dome, 8mm fisheye, Pany 7-14, Oly 12-40 and 60mm macro with 2x INON Z-240.  You can see the m43 lenses are very small and light.

I also sometimes pack this lot into a carry on size spinner bag along with home made padding/dividers.

 

Thanks for this! Do you also pack arms and floats in there too or that goes into the big luggage? Also wondering did you recently make a switch from DSLR or upgraded within M43? I just recently read that Olympus sold image company and not sure what does that mean for its users in the future.

1 hour ago, Architeuthis said:

It is true that you could save some weight and volume (at the cost of a little IQ) when switching to a MFT system, but you say your husband has already a Nikon setup. When adding weight and volume of two different systems, the sum together will be more when using two different systems, compared to using identical systems together. When using the same, you could use synergy and share domeports, extensions and lenses...

I am doing so with my wife, together we have two MFT setups (Oly EM1II and EM5II with Nauticam) with only one macroport (constant source of discussion who uses the macro setup, however) but two domeports (Nauticam 140 and zen DP170) that can be used with several fisheye, WA and normal range lenses. Since we share all lenses and ports, the overall weight is less than two separate setups...

I also want to say that it is not required that one puts the housing and the domeports (and all other stuff that is not really fragile) in the carry on lugagge. At least Nauticam offers stuffed bags for the housings and domeports that can be put in the regular check-in lugagge without the danger of beeing damaged. This makes it much easier to pack and carry, we only have lenses, cameras, flashes, dive computers, accus and dive compasses in our carry on lugagge (already a lot) ...

Since you say IQ is important for you, I would go for a Nikon FF camera and build a system together with my partner, where you can share as many ports and lenses as possible, e.g. the APS-C camera for macro and the FF for WA...

 

Wolfgang

Thanks for your reply. I value your opinion and agree that sharing equipment is easier especially if something brakes etc. 

We did pack or housings and ports into the main luggage but the whole point of keeping items together in carry on was in case of lost luggage. Especially when you take that one expensive trip a year very far away like Raja Ampat and change many flights to get there. It would suck to miss one crucial part of your camera gear because it's not as easy to replace it as it would be any part of scuba gear or your clothes. I try to use a small cabin wheel bag for housing stuff and a backpack for the camera/laptop. It works fine as you are allowed one carry on and "personal bag" on most flights. You also distribute weight so its not one super heavy bag. 

2 hours ago, andi_db said:

Since you say IQ is important for you, I would go for a Nikon FF camera and build a system together with my partner, where you can share as many ports and lenses as possible, e.g. the APS-C camera for macro and the FF for WA...

At the risk of this really going "off-piste" (if it does, I'll move the posts to a new thread), I was intrigued by your comment, Wolfgang, of using APS-C for macro and FF for WA.

I've been using APS-C (DX) on Nikon now for about 5 years having "downgraded" from the D800 to the D500. One of the advantages to this I found was porting WA. It's so much easier than for FF (FX) with no need for huge domes, correction lenses etc. Travel became easier, the patience and tolerance of my diving, non-photographer partner was restored - and life bobbled along happily.  I slap on either the Tokina 10-17 or the Nikkor 8-15, a 4" or 8" dome and voila! No problem. IQ, to my eyes, is excellent - certainly for all the normal uses of the images (and I sell quite a lot).

But the one area that, maybe, I do think about with DX is macro. Sometimes some serious cropping is necessary and then I feel I miss the extra pixels provided by FF/FX. In reality I'm sure I don't REALLY need them but the thought lingers.

So I would have gone with FF/FX for macro and APS-C/DX for WA.

Your point on sticking with one system for downsizing is a very good one of course - but I was intrigued by your thinking on DX/FX.

As I say, if this conversation continues and others chip-in, I'll move this to another thread.

1 hour ago, TimG said:

One of the advantages to this I found was porting WA. It's so much easier than for FF (FX) with no need for huge domes, correction lenses etc.

While this is the conventional wisdom, I would posit that recent advances in water-contact optics (Nauticam, AOI, Weefine, etc) have brought another dimension to this picture, where systems with lenses compatible with those optics can give you a reasonably compact wide-angle package regardless of sensor size. M43 with 14-42mm, Canon M with 15-45mm, Fuji X with 15-45mm, Nikon Z DX with 16-50mm, Sony E with 16-50mm, Sony FE with 28-60mm, they all work with the same WWL-1/WWL-C. I just looked at Nauticam's WWL-C chart again, and I see that they've added Sony full-frame compatibility, using Sony and Sigma 24mm prime lenses. On the other hand, this leaves Canon EF/EF-S/R and Nikon F and Z (except DX Z50) out in the cold.

7 hours ago, andi_db said:

 I just recently read that Olympus sold image company and not sure what does that mean for its users in the future.

It remains to be seen what the new owner will do with the OM system. They have promised a new flagship camera this year.  I'm not so sure, but hopefull.  I'm very happy with my EM-1 mk II and fully invested in all the lenses (which are brilliant) so will stick with the system as long as it still works. But if I was starting from scratch, I don't think that I'd buy into OM at this time until the new company is proven.

One thing not mentioned yet is the case for "hybrid" photographers, which I suspect many of us are.  I'm doing much more hiking for landscapes and wildlife lately and there is no question that the smaller and lighter systems have huge advantages on land in those terms.  But since Tim has a ready warned about going off piste I'll not pursue that line of thinking further here.

43 minutes ago, troporobo said:

But if I was starting from scratch, I don't think that I'd buy into OM at this time until the new company is proven.

Thanks for your honest opinion, that was something along the lines what I was thinking. 

44 minutes ago, troporobo said:

I'm doing much more hiking for landscapes and wildlife lately and there is no question that the smaller and lighter systems have huge advantages on land in those terms

This is a valid point and definitely something to consider.