SLR Alternative

[24lemons]

For the last 15 years or so I've been carting around Canon DSLR's with large L series lenses to various motorsport events and airshows. Back then I dabbled in a spot of professional work but now it's strictly an occasional hobby. I'm beginning to feel that my kit is a bit cumbersome and pretty well unused for the most part.

Are there any cameras that will offer the ability to shoot things like motorsport, with a reasonably big zoom range but without the bulk of a DSLR plus 70-200 f2.8. I'm not expecting pro quality but rather hoping to improve my enjoyment of the event.

[TheRainMaker]

How small do you want to go?

A7 is around half the size of a D810

Sony FE70-200mm f4 G OSS is shorter than a Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens

But the really kicker is the weight, you can carry an a7 around all day without really noticing.

D810 with a 70-200 is a pain in the ass (shoulder)

[Mr Will]

The big problem is the lens, not the body. You could pick up something like a Sony A7 but as soon as you attach a decent telephoto to it the size and weight difference compared to a DSLR is minimal.

For that reason, I'd suggest looking at the various micro 4/3rds options - specifically the Olympus OM-D range. These still offer DSLR like handling and quality but use a smaller sensor which means that as well as a smaller body the lenses can be made smaller and lighter as well. It gives a 2x crop factor, which means you can carry a 40-150mm instead of an 80-300mm or you can stick a 300mm lens on it for airshows to get a 600mm equivalent.

http://camerasize.com/compact/#579.392,154.294,482...

[K12beano]

Just what's "big" about a dSLR mated to something like a 70-200?

I've never been a pro, so don't have to carry round all day, but a Nikon D2X and 70-200 or a D800 and 300 with a 1.4x or 2.0x seems like a delight given the results you have in the bag to play with.

SLRs are still quick, handy, portable little beasts - I've yet to handle anything smaller which has the whole package and as already mentioned it is the glass which is more important/makes the difference/weighs you down...

[leglessAlex]

K12beano said:

Just what's "big" about a dSLR mated to something like a 70-200?

I've never been a pro, so don't have to carry round all day, but a Nikon D2X and 70-200 or a D800 and 300 with a 1.4x or 2.0x seems like a delight given the results you have in the bag to play with.

SLRs are still quick, handy, portable little beasts - I've yet to handle anything smaller which has the whole package and as already mentioned it is the glass which is more important/makes the difference/weighs you down...

If I'm on my prosthetics then my 5D3 and a 70-200 lens is a serious weight and it causes problems. Obviously, that's a rather unusual position to be in, most people can handle the 2.5kgs but it makes me see why there is a demand for a smaller and lighter camera.

If you think about it as carrying around a 2.5l bottle of water, even in a backpack that's noticeable. If your primary aim isn't to take photos it's quite a lot extra to be lugging around.

[ian in lancs]

The Fuji XT1 is what you're after!

[djsmith74]

Another fan of the OMD range here. I downgraded from a 60D with multiple big lenses to the little OMD and I've never looked back. It's fantastically capable and if you find that the body is a little too small to hold, you can add on a side grip to give you more "thickness". Be warned though, if you are used to the blazing-fast-continuous-autofocus-burst-mode of something like the 810 then you may be a little underwhelmed, but it is do-able...you just need to recalibrate your brain and use a little photography know how. This guy has done motorsport shooting with an OMD EM1....

http://www.michaelrammell.com/blog/olympus-shoots-...

You have two options for the body - the EM1 and EM5 Mk2:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-olympus-om-d-e-...
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-olympus-om-d-e-...

The side grip is here, but you only really need this if you go for the EM5, as the EM1 has a decent grip anyway:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-olympus-hld-8-b...

For the lenses, I recommend this one as a general walkabout lens:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-olympus-12-40mm...

And this zoom, as it's much smaller & lighter than the equivalent Olympus alternative and has internal zoom which keeps it compact:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-panasonic-35-10...

Please note, CSC cameras have a crop factor of x2 so the above lenses would equate to 24-80mm and 70-200mm respectively.

I've been shooting with kit lenses on mine for a few years now and even kit lenses are still impressive. This is my Flickr account and most of the photos taken in the last three years are with the OMD:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/28703702@N08/sets

Hope this helps.

[24lemons]

Really helpful comments so far, thanks.

In response to the question about size/weight, While the 70-200 plus 1.4 extender gives fantastic results, I find that the size and weight becomes more of an issue when I'm carrying it around all day. Not such a problem if you are shooting professionally but I'm not doing that any more.

I've started to realise that I enjoy events more when I'm not always rushing around trying to get the best vantage point and firing off thousands of shots. I just dont use them in the end. I also find a smaller camera enables me to be a little more creative with the angles I shoot, and the bottom line is that I'm more inclined to take the camera with me if I know it isn't going to be a hindrance.

[MysteryLemon]

Would you consider something like a Sony RX-10? Yes, it's basically a bridge camera but it's a bridge camera built around a larger 1" sensor with a cracking f2.8 lens.

Still quite large but much smaller than a pro DSLR body and L lens. The lens may hold you back a bit for Motorsport being equivalent to only 200mm. No option to throw in a teleconvertor either.

Edited by MysteryLemon on Wednesday 24th June 10:30

[ExPat2B]

Nikon 3300/d7100 + Nikon 300mm f4 Phase Fresnel + 1.4 TC III.

Currently the low weight/size balanced with telephoto image quality king by quite a considerable margin, no one else has got anything close right now.

Smaller sensors/bodies are all very well, but you need the quality glass to resolve into that sensor, so you are back to a big heavy piece of glass again. Phase Fresnel technology sidesteps that issue completely.

Regarding the body, Nikon D3300 for the lightest weight body possible, Nikon D7100 is heavier but has much improved autofocus and viewfinder.

[Mr Will]

ExPat2B said:

Nikon 3300/d7100 + Nikon 300mm f4 Phase Fresnel + 1.4 TC III.

Currently the low weight/size balanced with telephoto image quality king by quite a considerable margin, no one else has got anything close right now.

Smaller sensors/bodies are all very well, but you need the quality glass to resolve into that sensor, so you are back to a big heavy piece of glass again. Phase Fresnel technology sidesteps that issue completely.

Regarding the body, Nikon D3300 for the lightest weight body possible, Nikon D7100 is heavier but has much improved autofocus and viewfinder.

I'm not convinced. Smaller sensors do mean smaller glass. Compare these three: http://camerasize.com/compact/#594.366,509.327,594...

I've got a D3300 with 24-70 to stand in for the 300mm PF (they are about the same size - PF is slightly larger). Next to it we have an OM-D EM5II with a f2.8 70-200mm equivalent and (in case you need the length) a 150-600mm equvalent. The OM-D has the versatility of zooms rather than primes, the kit is still significantly smaller and lighter and this difference only increases if you choose to carry more than one lens.

It might not quite have the quality of the Nikon, but it'll be very close and I think it strikes the better compromise.

[Du1point8]

Canon Eos M3?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EOS-18-55-3-5-5-6-Le...

Would be my first choice instead of SLR.

Plus buy it here:

http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/279-836312...

Works out at £445 for the camera direct from Canon in germany, with no Import duties, etc to pay.

I did this when buying my V-moda M100, they are £250 in the UK

http://www.amazon.co.uk/V-Moda-Crossfade-Over-Ear-...

I paid £158 from Amazon Italy

Edited by Du1point8 on Wednesday 24th June 12:28

[Craikeybaby]

I was in a similar position to you a few years back, I'd gone from shooting a lot of motorsport with my 1D2 & 70-200 f2.8 lens, which produced great photos, but were really heavy, to occasionally going to events for fun and doing more travelling with my newly unoccupied weekends. Everything I looked at was going to be a step down in image quality, especially telephoto stuff.

I looked at all the CSCs etc, but ended up swapping my 1D for a 5D and buying some smaller lenses, which works well for the travel stuff. For motorsport I've taken the approach that if I want to take photos I'll lug my full kit around on the basis there is no point in taking crap photos and on other days I won't take my camera gear at all and enjoy the event without worrying about photography.

[chockymonster]

I've just got rid of my 5D II and a load of L lenses for the same reason.
I now have a Fuji XT-1 and it's fantastic, does everything I need.

[mr_fibuli]

Something like a Sony A6000 with a 55-210 or 18-200? Not fast lenses, but the on sensor auto focus on that camera beats a lot of DSLRs for speed and tracking.

If you have thousands rather than hundreds to spend, then look at the A7 range (full frame rather than APS-C sensors).

[ExPat2B]

Mr Will said:

ExPat2B said:

Nikon 3300/d7100 + Nikon 300mm f4 Phase Fresnel + 1.4 TC III.

Currently the low weight/size balanced with telephoto image quality king by quite a considerable margin, no one else has got anything close right now.

Smaller sensors/bodies are all very well, but you need the quality glass to resolve into that sensor, so you are back to a big heavy piece of glass again. Phase Fresnel technology sidesteps that issue completely.

Regarding the body, Nikon D3300 for the lightest weight body possible, Nikon D7100 is heavier but has much improved autofocus and viewfinder.

I'm not convinced. Smaller sensors do mean smaller glass. Compare these three: http://camerasize.com/compact/#594.366,509.327,594...

I've got a D3300 with 24-70 to stand in for the 300mm PF (they are about the same size - PF is slightly larger). Next to it we have an OM-D EM5II with a f2.8 70-200mm equivalent and (in case you need the length) a 150-600mm equvalent. The OM-D has the versatility of zooms rather than primes, the kit is still significantly smaller and lighter and this difference only increases if you choose to carry more than one lens.

It might not quite have the quality of the Nikon, but it'll be very close and I think it strikes the better compromise.

I agree the 35-100 Olympus is quite nifty, but the telephoto lens you compare won't have anywhere *near* the quality of the Nikon. You are comparing a variable aperture consumer zoom that is f6.3 at 300mm vs one of the sharpest primes resolving onto a larger sensor ?

Take a look at the terrible quality of the 75-300 at 300mm.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus75-300...

Nikon is only about a 5th longer and 300 grams heavier at 1213grams total compared to 892 grams for the olympus system. That doesn't seem like much of a compromise to make. A 5D Mk III and 70-200 is 2360 grams total, so you still nearly halved the weight of that rig.

The closest thing in olympusland in quality is the 40-150mm 2.8 pro......and that lens weighs 880 grams, 100 more than the Nikon 300pf, and as the Nikon 3300 body is actually 6 grams lighter than the Olympus you end up with a system weight of 1349 grams - ok its a stop faster but the larger APS C sensor is a stop more efficient so its ends up even- and look - its the same size as the Nikon !

http://camerasize.com/compact/#594.444,594.376,509...

Olympus are rumored to be making a 300f4 lens that might be a direct rival in the image quality stakes, but without PF it will still be heavier than the Nikon PF even with less glass. People on the birding forums are selling their Sigma 150-600s and switching to the Nikon 300PF as the reach and quality for the size and weight is completely unrivalled.

[Mr Will]

ExPat2B said:

I agree the 35-100 Olympus is quite nifty, but the telephoto lens you compare won't have anywhere *near* the quality of the Nikon. You are comparing a variable aperture consumer zoom that is f6.3 at 300mm vs one of the sharpest primes resolving onto a larger sensor ?

Take a look at the terrible quality of the 75-300 at 300mm.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/olympus75-300...

Nikon is only about a 5th longer and 300 grams heavier at 1213grams total compared to 892 grams for the olympus system. That doesn't seem like much of a compromise to make. A 5D Mk III and 70-200 is 2360 grams total, so you still nearly halved the weight of that rig.

The closest thing in olympusland in quality is the 40-150mm 2.8 pro......and that lens weighs 880 grams, 100 more than the Nikon 300pf, and as the Nikon 3300 body is actually 6 grams lighter than the Olympus you end up with a system weight of 1349 grams - ok its a stop faster but the larger APS C sensor is a stop more efficient so its ends up even- and look - its the same size as the Nikon !

http://camerasize.com/compact/#594.444,594.376,509...

Olympus are rumored to be making a 300f4 lens that might be a direct rival in the image quality stakes, but without PF it will still be heavier than the Nikon PF even with less glass. People on the birding forums are selling their Sigma 150-600s and switching to the Nikon 300PF as the reach and quality for the size and weight is completely unrivalled.

So you'd walk around a car show all day with just a 450mm-e lens then? Or would that just be the long end of a kit that also includes a shorter zoom of some sort, plus maybe a wide-angle and a few other bits?

I'm not saying that the 300mm PF isn't the better lens, just that it's not the answer to this question.

[24lemons]

So revisiting this thread, has anything changed in the last six months at all? Yesterday's WEC at silverstone more or less confirmed in my mind that I don't want or need to be carrying around a great big camera any more. The Olympus OM-D E-M10 seems to be well thought of although I can't say I'm sold on the retro styling!

[RobDickinson]

Oly/m43rds IMO is taking sensor size a step too small. Ok in good light falls apart outside of that.

Fuji and Sony are rocking the mirrorless world at the moment no one else is close.

I still think for overall performance for things that move, mirrorless is far behind an SLR for AF, lens selection/usability and viewfinder.

[ukaskew]

24lemons said:

So revisiting this thread, has anything changed in the last six months at all? Yesterday's WEC at silverstone more or less confirmed in my mind that I don't want or need to be carrying around a great big camera any more. The Olympus OM-D E-M10 seems to be well thought of although I can't say I'm sold on the retro styling!

Fuji X-T10 for me. About as small as a camera I'm comfortable using for motorsport (I like a bit of weight to dampen my movement when panning etc). All the Fuji telephoto options are excellent, I'm currently using the 100-400 but the much smaller 55-200 is also superb...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_s/albums/72157...

Couldn't be happier with it. The EVF is superb and my hit rate hasn't really gone down all that much.

Unless you're willing to go to Micro 4/3 you're not going to see a drastic reduction in size weight if you want a long tele. For me the Fuji is just the right balance, even with the 100-400 it's noticeably smaller and lighter than a comparable DSLR setup (X-T10 + 100-400 = 1.7kg, Canon 70D + 100-400 = 2.3kg). Most importantly, the Fuji lens quality is utterly exceptional across the range almost without exception.

Edited by ukaskew on Tuesday 19th April 12:45