02-21-2017, 11:21 PM
Basically I, especially my spine strongly agrees to "less weight, please!"
But.
Once tasted the flavour of really decent optical performance, it is hard to know, at home there's just the lens for this situation which would let you return with something outstanding on your memory card. I developed some strategies to deal with:
Mobile objects in relative darkness, say dancers just need quick AF, not last 2% of sharpness because either I go the ISO highway or the "blurred by movement"-path. MTFs are ridiculously low at these situations.
I enjoy lightweight as good as it gets. If I need high resolution, a stitched pano can do the trick. in an otherwise not very much moving landscape.
I can reduce weight by taking only two instead of 4 lenses. Knowing that some pictures will not be possible, but others in best possible resolution - it's not so bad to reduce options... And of course, on my "usual photo grounds" I can learn a lot by just reducing to one lens and try to get some good pictures. I don't need to bring home 100 pictures with the full variety. If something is photographically impossible, because the lens resides in it's drawer, then there's still the joy of the moment
I DON'T have to get results...
Go mirrorless and µ 4/3 Doesn't save money, but a lot of weight and space.
Mo mirrorless and 44 × 33, baby-MF. Does burn a lot money, lenses stay below 1 kg and body - compared to DSLR - is lightweight
Yes, a lens around 1 kg is a heavy thing - but one or two DSLR bodies at 1.1 kg don't improve matters.
But.
Once tasted the flavour of really decent optical performance, it is hard to know, at home there's just the lens for this situation which would let you return with something outstanding on your memory card. I developed some strategies to deal with:
Mobile objects in relative darkness, say dancers just need quick AF, not last 2% of sharpness because either I go the ISO highway or the "blurred by movement"-path. MTFs are ridiculously low at these situations.
I enjoy lightweight as good as it gets. If I need high resolution, a stitched pano can do the trick. in an otherwise not very much moving landscape.
I can reduce weight by taking only two instead of 4 lenses. Knowing that some pictures will not be possible, but others in best possible resolution - it's not so bad to reduce options... And of course, on my "usual photo grounds" I can learn a lot by just reducing to one lens and try to get some good pictures. I don't need to bring home 100 pictures with the full variety. If something is photographically impossible, because the lens resides in it's drawer, then there's still the joy of the moment
I DON'T have to get results...Go mirrorless and µ 4/3 Doesn't save money, but a lot of weight and space.
Mo mirrorless and 44 × 33, baby-MF. Does burn a lot money, lenses stay below 1 kg and body - compared to DSLR - is lightweight
Yes, a lens around 1 kg is a heavy thing - but one or two DSLR bodies at 1.1 kg don't improve matters.