# Quality lens system for lightweight travel



## DigglerDawg (Jun 27, 2014)

Hi all,
I'm expecting to emigrate in the near future with the intention of owning not-much more than would fit in a rucksack. This of course would necessitate the sale and replacement of much of my photography gear - I've got chunky stuff - 1DSIII and a range of 'L' lenses. I can see that going mirrorless may be the most suitable compromise but what of lenses? 

Assuming it is a fact that my 'L' lenses are too big and heavy for my plans, what manufacturer/system should I be looking at that offers lenses with an optical quality as close as possible to my Canon L's? I appreciate that I'll be making a compromise, but what would be the smallest compromise I can make in order to save vastly on weight/size whilst losing as little as possible in image quality?

...I know this is a Canon forum, but I'm entirely open to a solution of another manufacturer!


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 27, 2014)

DigglerDawg said:


> Hi all,
> I'm expecting to emigrate in the near future with the intention of owning not-much more than would fit in a rucksack. This of course would necessitate the sale and replacement of much of my photography gear - I've got chunky stuff - 1DSIII and a range of 'L' lenses. I can see that going mirrorless may be the most suitable compromise but what of lenses?
> 
> Assuming it is a fact that my 'L' lenses are too big and heavy for my plans, what manufacturer/system should I be looking at that offers lenses with an optical quality as close as possible to my Canon L's? I appreciate that I'll be making a compromise, but what would be the smallest compromise I can make in order to save vastly on weight/size whilst losing as little as possible in image quality?
> ...


Assuming you want an overall smaller system, still with exchangeable lenses and an EOS 100D/SL1 or a 6D is still too big for you with your L lenses, then you will need to use smaller sensors to reduce the size of the lenses as well. 

AFAIK Olympus is also building really good lenses and their OM-D MFT system is going to be built up with new and really good pro lenses. See here:
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/mlenses/12-40_28_pro/
So I would choose an OM-D M1 or M10 depending on your needs. 

Other small systems like Sony a7 still have similar sensor size as your Canon body/ies and therefore the lenses would be at almost the same size. 

But I would stay with what you have as I see that you like the quality. I would look for a small body and reduce your lenses and equipment to the most needed/used.

If you need help on choosing the right things, maybe we can continue by discussing your list of equipment 

_ edit: If I would start today building up my system, I would be very tempted by the OM-D M1. Knowing and loving the quality and possibilities of FF I will not change. _


----------



## Cory (Jun 27, 2014)

What I did isn't tiny, but works most of the time:

Canon crop (70D), 10-18 and 35 2.0 IS.


----------



## DigglerDawg (Jun 27, 2014)

Thanks for your very helpful response. I forgot to mention that I also have an EOS M collection and while I haven't run any side-by-side tests, I've been assuming that the optical quality on the M system is significantly inferior to L glass.

While I've been happy to run around with the M on occasions when I didn't fancy taking the big kit, I'd never consider going out on a landscape jaunt without the 1DSIII and 24mm t&s.

I must remember to keep the word 'compromise' clear in my mind, but I'm concerned the M system is too large-a-compromise at the moment.


----------



## chas1113 (Jun 27, 2014)

Also consider the Fuji X system. The lens lineup is pretty mature and most are quite good optically and tiny compared to "L"s. At 350g XE-2 is about 1/3 the size/weight of a 5DIII, so probably 1/4 the size of a series 1 body. The XT-1 is a bit heavier/larger (440g) but closer functionally to a dSLR. The XA-1 is smaller than the XE-2. As it's an APS-C system, you will compromise on final image size, DOF, diffraction limits, etc., but the overall results are very good image quality rivaling full frame (without pixel-peeping).

Mirrorless cameras have some inherent shortcomings compared to dSLRs: namely focusing speed, flash sync (Fuji really has lackluster flash offerings for the X-series cameras), SD write speed...so if your shooting involves high speed/high fps, then you may be frustrated.

I have a Canon 5DIII for sports and more discriminating subjects and a Fuji XE-1 for when I want light, portable, small, non-intrusive, deliberate shooting. I am using the Fuji more and more for everyday shooting because of the weight and ease of use. The JPG files it renders are really quite good!

—chas


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 27, 2014)

DigglerDawg said:


> Thanks for your very helpful response. I forgot to mention that I also have an EOS M collection and while I haven't run any side-by-side tests, I've been assuming that the optical quality on the M system is significantly inferior to L glass.
> 
> While I've been happy to run around with the M on occasions when I didn't fancy taking the big kit, I'd never consider going out on a landscape jaunt without the 1DSIII and 24mm t&s.
> 
> I must remember to keep the word 'compromise' clear in my mind, but I'm concerned the M system is too large-a-compromise at the moment.


Reading this I am quite sure, that changing to a smaller sensor to get a smaller system won't make you happy and you will not like the compromise. Safe money by rethinking your plans.

The best way would be to borrow equipment you might want to change to before selling anything.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 27, 2014)

DigglerDawg said:


> Hi all,
> I'm expecting to emigrate in the near future with the intention of owning not-much more than would fit in a rucksack. This of course would necessitate the sale and replacement of much of my photography gear - I've got chunky stuff - 1DSIII and a range of 'L' lenses. I can see that going mirrorless may be the most suitable compromise but what of lenses?
> 
> Assuming it is a fact that my 'L' lenses are too big and heavy for my plans, what manufacturer/system should I be looking at that offers lenses with an optical quality as close as possible to my Canon L's? I appreciate that I'll be making a compromise, but what would be the smallest compromise I can make in order to save vastly on weight/size whilst losing as little as possible in image quality?
> ...


Although I cannot comment on what would work for your personal needs, I can tell you what has worked for me ... I shoot Canon, Nikon & Sony systems (for a very long time Canon gear has been my go to system), but for the past 6 months or so, I've been shooting with Sony a7 (full frame mirrorless system) ... if you shoot only JPEG then you may not be happy with its jpeg images (Canon, according to me, has he best jpeg output of all the 3), but if you shoot RAW, then the Sony is brilliant in terms of image quality, especially how much you can post process. I use the ZEISS FE 55mm f/1.8 prime lens, which stands up very well to the "L" primes ... the ZEISS FE 24-70 f/4 is an ok zoom lens but the FE 70-200 f/4 is very good ... although I do not have the FE 35 f/2.8 lens, I did try it and it is a very sharp lens in a tiny package (so is the 24mm f/1.8 lens) ... in addition I use Sony a6000 (crop frame) for speed (shoots 11 fps ... but buffer kinda kicks in after 21 continuous shots to slow down the system, or wait for 3 seconds before you can take another 21 continuous shots at 11 fps ... but the good news is, focus accuracy is spot on) ... I now have the 10-18mm lens permanently mounted on the a6000 for 15mm-27mm fov, which gives very good results (although its a lens meant for crop frame, it does work between 12-16mm on the Sony FF a7 camera with a little vignetting (acceptable for certain ultra wide angle shots ... alternatively it can be fixed in PP).
Currently, I am able to carry 2 cameras and six lenses (plus an adapter to use my canon lenses on Sony mirrorless cameras) plus 2 speedlites in a small bag ... and its a joy to be able to carry that much gear and not feel the weight or the size. I just picked up an Sony RX100MIII yesterday and am blown away by its performance in such a tiny camera. 
You may want to test the a7 and the a6000 + a few of the FE/E mount lenses at your local store and see how it works for you ... but do try out the RX100MIII it will surprise most people.
Happy shopping!


----------



## tomscott (Jun 27, 2014)

Your little EOS M doesn't perform too badly in comparison

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=814&Camera=812&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Obviously you can correct distortion with the 24mm and the 22mm is more like 35mm. Remember you also get a 1.6x DOF increase with the M too. F8 is more like F13 on your 1DSIII

I like the idea of the Sony A7/R but the lens system is maturing and by the time it does it probably have been discontinued for yet another system. 

Other than that the Fuji X looks brilliant also the Olympus system. But when I come round to the thinking most mirrorless bodies are around 350-450g and a lens to go with them is 250-400g depending on the lens (think F2.8 zooms even more and just as bulky) you are looking at 1000g now a 5DMKIII 860g with a 35mm F2 355g is 1215g your not really saving much weight.

Best way to go mirrorless is to go with primes, but remember the smaller sensors whether it would be 4/3s APC etc etc you loose the shallow depth of field and ISO advantage. 

Currently the A7/R is the only ff mirrorless interchangeable lens camera and they have gone down the road of F4 zooms or F2.8 primes to save weight. You won't find any F1.2/1.4 primes as they need the glass = weight. They are also very expensive and not that fast. The 70-200mm F4 and the 24-70 F4 make the system pointless they are too big. The advantage of the A7/R is fairly minimal its not that much smaller and doesn't weigh that much less. It is also a difficult camera to handle as there isn't much to grip on to.

But it is the best option IQ wise atm. 

I like the Fuji 100S but unfortunately its a fixed lens camera.

I have the Nex5N and really like it, just the lens system is frustratingly small and quality isn't brilliant.


----------



## rs (Jun 27, 2014)

What lenses do you use? Flashes? Typical subjects?

From your one post it seems like landscapes and the 24 TS-E are quite high up your list. Judging by your lack of faith in the EOS M, I'd suggest a 100D or indeed any less than FF mirrorless won't be suitable. And if you can't bare to leave the 24 TS-E behind, there are no worthy alternatives to that and one of Canon's FF from any system short of medium format.

I'd suggest a 6D, reduce the number of lenses, and replace any large lenses with smaller equivalents. I have no idea what you shoot, but tele lenses could potentially be replaced with a 70-300L, and mid range lenses or zooms could be replaced with a 40/2.8.

Failing that, just buy a much larger rucksack!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 27, 2014)

Compact ? But not EOS-M 

Personally, I'd stick with Canon, look at a Canon 70D with a 15-85mm, plus whatever floats your boat for your shooting styles. Whilst the Fuji and Sony systems have a buzz at the moment, they aren't without their issues and aren't cheap either, the choice of lenses isn't great and by retaining a Canon system, you could actually hold onto some of your current lenses, saving money on the financial losses that inherently come with swapping systems.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 27, 2014)

rs said:


> I'd suggest a 6D, reduce the number of lenses, and replace any large lenses with smaller equivalents. I have no idea what you shoot, but tele lenses could potentially be replaced with a 70-300L, and mid range lenses or zooms could be replaced with a 40/2.8.



I have the 6D and the 70-300L, it's not small, but a great combo - I crave for something smaller/lighter though and to be fair, the EOS-M suits me some of the time, but I'm seriously considering a lighter crop body for hiking with.


----------



## Max ☢ (Jun 27, 2014)

Hi,
I am also in the process of reducing the weight and size of my photo gears while compromizing the image quality as least as possible, so I think my current experience can help you. The first thing to do is to move away from full-frame and consider APS-C or even µ4/3 equipments since for a given apperture the physical size of the lenses depends primarily on the image circle. Personnaly I picked up APS-C because of the lack of either ultra fast or ultra wide-angle lens offerings on µ4/3, and APS-C features better high ISO performances while enabling shorter depth of field when fast primes are used.

As for the image quality, the problem is that compact APS-C offerings usually target consumers rather than professionnals, and lenses optimized for this format are usally sub-par in terms of construction and optical quality compared to canon L glass. One exception to that is the X system from Fujifilm. They offer a range of compact mirrorless cameras (see there) and Fujinon XF lenses (see roadmap here) which have an excellent and robust pro-grade construction and quality. The image quality I get from my X-T1 and XF lenses is about equal to or even superior to what I got with my Canon 6D and the equivalent L lenses.
Naturally, the Fuji system is among the priciest of all APS-C systems out there, but if you sell most of your L lenses you won't have any issues acquiring the new camera and lenses (I actually sold several of my Ls to fund my X-T1 and two lenses).

There are of course some compromises that will be made in the transition from FF to mirrorless APS-C, like a decrease in AF performance and a lower signal-to-noise ratio at very high ISOs. If your main photographic activity is not sports/action, then you should be pleased by the performances of the new system, and especially by its much smaller size and weight!


----------



## ecka (Jun 27, 2014)

I would wait for Photokina and then decide . If canon brings something smaller, maybe a higher grade mirrorless camera _(?FF)_, then you could keep some of your favorite L lenses. Otherwise, Sony a7r should work well with your TS-E 24L (via adapter of course).
If you are looking for a mirrorless system which is just as good as your 1Ds3+L, then forget it. You need magic to create something like that .
The weird thing is that you didn't bother to compare your M with the big guy. Last year there was a thread about the EOS M and the OP was bragging about it being as good or even better than his 5D3. Unfortunately, he couldn't take any criticism, so he got my post deleted and I got cr warning for "insulting him" (omg ???, how silly is that). So, I don't know, maybe for some people there is no difference ... you should check.

P.S.: 6D is pretty small


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 27, 2014)

Mirrorless cameras are not popular in the US or Europe, but there are some like the new Sony RX100 MK III which enthusiasts will like. It does not have interchangeable lenses, but is tiny.

Otherwise, I'd go with micro 4/3 systems simply because there is more than one manufacturer, so your investment should be safe from a company going out of business. The economy is putting companies out of business, and it might get worse.
Canon is supporting the "M", but they have also plainly indicated that it does not sell in the USA or Europe. 
Support of imported lenses not sold in the USA will not happen, no repairs.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 27, 2014)

Someone will give me crap for saying this AGAIN and AGAIN. The Sony a7 series fits best in this situation, much smaller and lighter. 

Once again Mr. Sony/Zeiss, where is FE UWA for landscape?


----------



## Max ☢ (Jun 27, 2014)

The A7 series certainly fit well the situation, but what is the point of using the exact same bulky FF-optimized lenses if the initial goal is to significantly reduces the overall system size and weight? The camera body size will be for sure smaller but not the lenses, so on the whole the size and weight reduction will be only minimal.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 27, 2014)

Max ☢ said:


> The A7 series certainly fit well the situation, but what is the point of using the exact same bulky FF-optimized lenses if the initial goal is to significantly reduces the overall system size and weight? The camera body size will be for sure smaller but not the lenses, so on the whole the size and weight reduction will be only minimal.



Have you ever hand-on a7 series with their native lenses: FE 35mm, 55mm, 24-70mm etc...?


----------



## DigglerDawg (Jun 27, 2014)

Some great responses here, thank you - I love the help and support on this forum!

My requirements probably extend further than I initially wrote, but they are secondary to the size/IQ priority (ie: I'll need something to take underwater and probably need 1080-60p too!). Landscape has always been my niche but I'm expecting much more reportage-style and even video opportunities coming my way too.

To a certain extent, I'm not so bothered by body recommendations; only if it is intrinsic to recommending a particular lens. As mentioned, my primary lens is a 24 T/S L II, followed by 16-35 f/2.8 L II, 100-400 L, 100 macro. I'd never forgive myself if I dropped these in favour of some that were massively inferior.

I won't be moving until 2015 so, as was mentioned, there's likely to be more options available by then, but I'm still keen to see what systems you're all seeing promise in at the present time.

Thanks for your replies, I'm gaining a lot of knowledge from them...


----------



## ecka (Jun 27, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Someone will give me crap for saying this AGAIN and AGAIN. The Sony a7 series fits best in this situation, much smaller and lighter.
> 
> Once again Mr. Sony/Zeiss, where is FE UWA for landscape?



I think that Sony A7 series can't work properly with short flanged classic design UWA optics, like there is a difference (worse in the corners) with the adapted Leica M UWA lenses vs. using them on a native Leica M body. IMHO, the best way for landscapes is to use Zeiss ZE lens via EF-NEX/FE adapter. I wouldn't expect Zeiss FE UWA equivalent lens (if they make one) to be any smaller, cheaper or better, except adding the AF.


----------



## Max ☢ (Jun 27, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Have you ever hand-on a7 series with their native lenses: FE 35mm, 55mm, 24-70mm etc...?



I did try the A7 at my local photo supplier when I was considering this option, but I did not test the whole set of native lenses. Although you're right that these are smaller than Canon's L equivalent, I did not find the size/weight reduction significant enough for me to step out from my 6D+ L lenses system (sure, the difference would be much more striking with a 1D body).

Your comment made me curious enough to dig the aspect of size difference further, and here are some side-by-side comparisons (keeping the equivalent focal length and apperture as constant as possible) :

¤ 35mm prime (135 format): http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.368,487.394,520.422,ha,t

¤ 50/55mm prime (135 format): http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.306,487.87,520.408,ha,t

¤ 24-70mm zoom (135 format) range: http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.367,487.393,520.421,ha,t

In some cases (like with the 35mm prime) the Sony system is indeed very compact and even smaller than the Fuji X, but in other instances the size difference with the 6D is very limited. Now, what would be interesting is to compare how the Sony lenses fare compared to Canon's L in terms of optical quality. That could be something to do on DxOmark next time I have time for that.


----------



## tomscott (Jun 27, 2014)

If your interested in the A7/R here is a review on the difference between the 28-70 F3.5-5. vs zeiss 24-70 F4 

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-28-70mm-F3.5-5.6-OSS-Serious-contender-to-the-Zeiss/Sony-FE-28-70mm-F3.5-5.6-OSS-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Tessar-T-24-70mm-F4-ZA-OSS-both-mounted-on-Sony-A7R

Not much difference, the 35mm F2.8 looks stellar and is only 200g! but it is just a 2.8 for a prime thats not particularly quick. Expensive considering the 40mm pancake lens is not miles behind and is 1/5th the price and even smaller.


----------



## preppyak (Jun 27, 2014)

DigglerDawg said:


> My requirements probably extend further than I initially wrote, but they are secondary to the size/IQ priority (ie: I'll need something to take underwater and probably need 1080-60p too!). Landscape has always been my niche but I'm expecting much more reportage-style and even video opportunities coming my way too.


You might be able to kill two birds with one stone and consider a move to something like a Panasonic GH4. You get all the video features you'd need while still being able to landscape work, etc. And Panasonic actually has a decent upper end lens system (certainly not L's, but very good), not to mention all the legacy lenses you can use.

I use a GH2 and Canon FD lenses for all my video work, and a 60D with various canon lenses for my photography. If I had to shrink down my collection, I'd go exclusively Panasonic because its more versatile with video. And with all the speedboosters available, you dont even lose that much by going micro four-thirds over full-frame.



> To a certain extent, I'm not so bothered by body recommendations; only if it is intrinsic to recommending a particular lens. As mentioned, my primary lens is a 24 T/S L II, followed by 16-35 f/2.8 L II, 100-400 L, 100 macro. I'd never forgive myself if I dropped these in favour of some that were massively inferior.


That said, you could easily get away with a 6D and shrinking your lenses. 16-35 could be downsized surely, as could the 100-400L. 24 T/S is hard to downsize, but if you were ok losing the T/S part, you'd be easily able to save a lot of weight. Heck, the 24-70 f/4L IS would cover the 24mm and macro in one, lighter lens.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 27, 2014)

Max ☢ said:


> The A7 series certainly fit well the situation, but what is the point of using the exact same bulky FF-optimized lenses if the initial goal is to significantly reduces the overall system size and weight? The camera body size will be for sure smaller but not the lenses, so on the whole the size and weight reduction will be only minimal.


In my office bag I could carry my Mac Book Pro and Canon 5D MK III + 24-70 f/2.8 lens and a 16-35 f/2.8 lens ... but now I can carry 2 cameras (a7+a6000) and 5 lenses (10-18 + 24-70 + 70-200 + 55 + 85 with Metabones adapter) and a MBP in the same space. Lenses for the mirrorless cameras may not be as fast as the DSLR equivalents but they are a happy compromise. 
Most people look at some camera/lens size comparison websites and come to incorrect conclusion that there isn't much of a difference in size, but one has to carry the mirrorless cameras and lenses around in bag to know the difference. What the mirrorless system does is reduce the overall weight and the space they occupy in your camera bag, plus you don't need to carry heavier tripods ... I now use Benro's MeFOTO Roadtrip tripod, (including ballhead) which fits inside my carry on luggage in the flight ... that's 2 mirrorless cameras, (1 full frame + 1 crop sensor), 5 lenses (with a FOV from 15mm - 300mm), 1 tripod with ball head, 2 speedlites and a Mac Book Pro as hand luggage in one single bag. 
Only those who travel frequently can appreciate the flexibility and ease that such a setup provides ... also the resulting weight reduction only brings back the joy of being able to use the gear you want anywhere. Many photographers I know (including me) have carried lots of DSLR gear only to realize that sometimes the space and weight took away the fun factor of photography (bcoz on many occassions we didn't get to use the gear we carried), so we tried taking only a limited amount of gear only to feel guilty for not carrying a particular lens which would have been perfect for a given situation ... but the mirrorless system provides you with the luxury of being able to carry 2 cameras with half a dozen lenses along with a light weight tripod & a MBP as hand luggage ... now that is awesome. Yes, as of now the morrorless system cannot do everything what high end DSLRs or "L" quality lenses can do, nevertheless its a happy compromise, one which I am very happy with at the moment.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 27, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Max ☢ said:
> 
> 
> > The A7 series certainly fit well the situation, but what is the point of using the exact same bulky FF-optimized lenses if the initial goal is to significantly reduces the overall system size and weight? The camera body size will be for sure smaller but not the lenses, so on the whole the size and weight reduction will be only minimal.
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 27, 2014)

Max ☢ said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever hand-on a7 series with their native lenses: FE 35mm, 55mm, 24-70mm etc...?
> ...



6D + 40mm pancake makes great combo to walk around.

Interesting on the camera comparison. The site only show top view? I wonder, why don't they show front, back and side view :


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 28, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Max ☢ said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


Those camera size comparisons are very misleading ... in reality there is a significant difference in the space that a 6D+24-70 f/4 & a7+24-70 f/4 occupy in the camera bag. In the space that 6D+24-70 f/4 occupies I can fit in an a7+a6000 cameras and 24-70+10-18mm lenses.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jun 28, 2014)

I love my 5D3 and fast lenses, but I hate to carry them very far. If I'm on vacation I want to relax and not feel like a beast of burden. Since I wanted to stay in the Canon line, I use two smaller Canons when I travel. For motorcycle trips where space is really tight, I carry an S100. For car trips, I use a T2i with the rather nice stabilized kit lens.

Although the images don't have the smooth, fine detail of full frame images, they are perfectly usable for posting on the internet, which is where most of my photos end up.

I look at these small format images as a challenge to my processing skills. For example, I recently started using Photomatix to do 3-exposure HDR images with my T2i. Although the two images below were taken with a light tripod, I've had really good luck doing this hand held using the exposure bracketing function of the T2i.

This is Diablo dam near Seattle:





This is Dry Falls, also in Washington state. The tiny objects along the horizon are large grain silos. Who says you can't shoot landscapes with an APS-C sensor? LOL




A center crop:





Debating the best photo equipment for travel is fun, as there is no best answer. It all depends on what kind of photos you take, what you do with them, and how sensitive you are to weight and bulk in your pack.

One other thing I take into consideration is the cost and what happens if my equipment is lost or damaged. I get a little paranoid carrying my expensive gear on trips, but if something happens to my obsolete T2i, I won't feel bad at all.

Edit: my images got cropped to a square format by the forum software, sorry about that.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 28, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Someone will give me crap for saying this AGAIN and AGAIN. The Sony a7 series fits best in this situation, much smaller and lighter.
> 
> Once again Mr. Sony/Zeiss, where is FE UWA for landscape?



Its a appropriate response, the OP asked for other brands. What generates complaints is where a different question was asked.


----------



## rs (Jun 29, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Someone will give me crap for saying this AGAIN and AGAIN. The Sony a7 series fits best in this situation, much smaller and lighter.
> ...


If you want telephoto, the A7 cameras don't make much sense. Take the Sony 70-200/4 OSS, and compare it to the Canon 70-200/4 IS. The Canon is shorter, narrower, lighter, and under half the price!


----------



## tayassu (Jun 29, 2014)

In your case, I would go for:
Sony A7R
Wait for Sony 16-35/4 OSS that will be released soon
Sony 55/1.8
Canon 70-300/4-5.6 L
Metabones Mark III adaptor
That is a nice and very high quality travel kit!


----------



## JumboShrimp (Jun 29, 2014)

Canon SL1 with 15-85 IS. That's all you need. This gives you great IQ for the size, good image controls, built-in flash, and a lens with an equivalent of 24-135.


----------



## Max ☢ (Jun 29, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> Canon SL1 with 15-85 IS. That's all you need. This gives you great IQ for the size, good image controls, built-in flash, and a lens with an equivalent of 24-135.



The EF-S 15-85 might be a bit long for landscape photography; the OP may need the 10-22 as well.



Rienzphotoz said:


> Those camera size comparisons are very misleading ... in reality there is a significant difference in the space that a 6D+24-70 f/4 & a7+24-70 f/4 occupy in the camera bag. In the space that 6D+24-70 f/4 occupies I can fit in an a7+a6000 cameras and 24-70+10-18mm lenses.



I have no doubt that you can pack more lenses and camera bodies using Sony's system than the one from Canon, but this is something which is also due the particular size/configuration of your bag and how you arrange your lenses and cameras. So, this really goes beyond the scope of the comparison provided in Camerasize.com, which shows only the side-by-side differences between different camera+lens combinations and the actual gain in space is something that has to be assessed by the user considering his/her bags and means of gear transportation. Finally, unless camerasize.com got the relative dimensions of the cameras and lenses wrong, the information provided are in no way misleading - but of course this information does not garantee that the photographer will make the best judgment out of it...

The point I tried to make earlier is not that absolutely no gain in space/volume is possible by changing from FF DSLR to mirrorless FF systems (i.e. keeping the same sensor), as you say you can carry more lenses and bodies by switching from Canon to Sony. My point is that more gain in space is possible by going from a FF system, which intrinsically requires large lenses for a given f/ apperture and image quality, to an APS-C system - mirrorless vs DSLR has all in all a lesser impact on total camera+lens volume/weight than FF vs APS-C.
I am convinced that using an APS-C system with fully optimized lenses (top build and optical quality) can deliver a higher image quality in a smaller package than a FF mirorrless systems with reduced-sized lenses having a compromized design and construction.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jun 29, 2014)

Max ☢ said:


> JumboShrimp said:
> 
> 
> > Canon SL1 with 15-85 IS. That's all you need. This gives you great IQ for the size, good image controls, built-in flash, and a lens with an equivalent of 24-135.
> ...


I understand what you are saying ... but I was not saying the the dimensions provided by camerasize.com are incorrect, however they are misleading in the way they display the sizes by just giving one dimensional view.
Also, I shoot with FF DSLRs (2 of them) and a 70D ... I have owned numerous APS-C DSLR cameras "with fully optimised lenses (top build quality and optical quality)" e.g. Canon 7D with 17-55 f/2.8 L IS and Nikon D7000+D7100 with 17-55 f/2.8 lens and they were all bulky ... even if you put el-chepo 50 f/1.8 lens on a crop sensored 7D or 7100 they are still much bigger than a7 FF mirrorless camera with FE 55 f/1.8 lens or a FE 35 f/2.8 lens and the FF mirrorless will deliver superior image quality in a much smaller package.


----------

