What is the lightest and cheapest full frame camera/lens set?

Here is an interesting video from Duncan Dimanche who compared the price and weight of a basic full frame camera + lens set from the top four manufacturers (Sony, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax). The results may surprise you - the Nikon D750 body with five lenses was lighter and cheaper compared to a similar Sony a7 set (click for larger view):


This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • I’ve argued this exact point with a number of friends that are Sony users. None of them agree with the points.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      But look how small my Sony body is !

      • Ric of The LBC

        Now add the weight of extra batteries that are needed to get the equivalent of power from one Nikon battery.

        • Duncan Dimanche

          yes ! i should have done that really !

      • Richard Hart

        the a7r2 is not much smaller than a d800. Only the prism head difference. Not significantly lighter either. 250grams? Plus decent full frame lenses will be just as heavy if they are for mirrorless or not. If you want smaller and lighter, you could go for a d3300 and small lenses.

      • sickheadache

        I can shoot all day and night and next day with my Nikon D810 or even a D750 with grip and not even…Worry about changing a battery…Can you do that with a a7rll? U would probably need 4-5 batteries as back up…to do what I can do in one day with one or two battery on Nikon….

        yes..we see the puny sony.

        • Photobug

          Agree. I am amazed at the battery life of the D750. We returned from vacation 2 weeks ago and I only had one day in which the battery charge was low. The battery grip is so good with this camera for vertical shots.

        • I am currently travelling with my A7R II. 80% battery after two days. My D700 would probably be at 95% but… who cares? I easily get 3-5 days of life out of one battery, and I have two.

          • sickheadache

            What u shooting one picture a day? lol Links can prove u wrong.

            • Albert

              Obviously, with so few pictures, it is a non-issue, but the point remains that if you plan to travel to a place where recharging may be impractical, or cover an event that would risk exceeding this, your back is not covered without backup. Even with gimping, I get on average about 1600+ images in one charge with the D750. I could get more no doubt if I did not use the rear-screen at all, but we’re talking real-life usage.

          • Duncan Dimanche

            If you are not shooting too much then it’s totally fine. But for those who shoots 300+ day (or triple that if you need to braket) and film as well then you will need a lot more batteries than that…

            • Oh definitely. Personally I get two full days of shooting in a worst case scenario.

      • vcize

        It’s pretty clearly chosen to intentionally use the range where all of Nikon’s lightest lenses are. The entirety of the difference in this case is made up in the 70-300 where Sony does not yet have a light (native) option.

        • The weight difference between the Nikon and Sony 70-300s is only 0.16lb (less than 100g). Or to put it another way, less than the weight of a battery.

          • vcize

            Negative. The Nikon 70-300 used here is the non-VR one, an older designed entry level lens that weighs in at 430g (almost a full pound) less than the Sony one.

            • Ah. I was comparing the actual 70-300VR with the Sony. (The price seemed wrong too.)

      • xrb

        I tried the Sony’s at the store. Holding it with a full sized lens, I find the weight distribution is weird. The whole set-up is front heavy and I can’t grip enough width on the body that I feel I’ll have wrist pain issues shooting with it on the long run. Now with my D810 yes it is bigger body but I can hold it with one hand with enough girth on it. It is actually so good that I didn’t even need the external battery pack/grip even if I shoot with my 70-200 VRII lens. The ergonomics on it is just spot on for my use. Now if I want to travel small, I slap on my favorite 28 1.4D (or 50 1.4G for even smaller setup) and I have a nice and light set-up.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      And I didn’t add (should have) the extra batteries the Sony shooter needs to take with them to last a day…

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        agree with your thoughts – prefer the size and feeling of Nikon cameras

        • sickheadache

          I have big man hands..and use D810 with Grip…and I truly like the feel of Nikon and tried using a Sony A7rll…it with it’s one card slot made me extremely nervous and the buttons..are at best…mushy and the menu…wtf…Sony…it is too complicated and never ever, ever never was useful…i don’t like jumping through sony menus of nothingness.

          • TheInconvenientRuth

            Wait, what?! Sony menus are even worse than Nikon’s?

            • sickheadache

              yes ruth da truth.

            • vcize

              Nikon’s menus are fine. Sony’s are awful.

            • Both are awful. I have yet to see a well designed menu in any system. Having said that, Nikon’s is probably least awful.

      • yes, good point 🙂

      • faocisco

        Not only that,it needs the vertical grip to be somewhat comfortable.

      • vcize

        As someone who owns both systems that’s not really how it works in practice.

        The Nikon batteries weigh more than double the Sony battery. No photographer worth their salt is going anywhere important without a spare battery even if the battery is rated for one million hours. So really, any time I have my Nikon system I have at least two batteries (the one in the camera and the spare) even for a day shoot, which is the equivalent weight of 4 Sony batteries, which I would never carry for a day shoot.

        Likewise, any muti-day trip I always bring 3 total Nikon batteries, which is the equivalent weight of SEVEN Sony batteries, which I don’t even own much less carry.

        When I have my A7r2 with me I certainly miss the battery life of my D750, but that is more of a convenience issue than a weight issue. I’m almost always carrying more actual weight in batteries when I have my Nikon system, even if much of that battery juice ends up going unused.

    • Tim Reeves

      Sony 12-24, 35 2.8, 28 f2, 55 1.8.

      That’s what’s in my bag most days, how does nikon stack up against that for weight? My quick calcs have nikon at nearly double the weight.

      • Indik

        Yep, that`s it for wide angle.
        But each to their own. Example: I have no particular interest for wideangle nor do I like compromises with smaller aperture (not fair to compare f2.8 lens to a f1.8).
        If we take a generally more useful kit of 24+35+50+85 primes (all f/1.8), suddenly nikon becomes lighter/comparable (depending on which sony 35 you chose – 1.4 or 2.8). And it`s more affordable too.

        • Athanasius Kirchner

          Why is it more useful? I’d take Tim’s setup any day above yours. It’s all relative, and some options leverage the advantages of mirrorless, while others don’t.

          • Indik

            Please do so. Take it and happy shooting.

        • Duncan Dimanche

          hahah and that’s not even true

          NIKON
          nikon 8-15mm f3.5-4.5 485g 1246$
          nikon 28mm f1.8 330g 596$
          nikon 35mm f2 204g 386$
          nikon 50mm f1.8 185g 216$

          nikon total weight: 1204g
          nikon total cost: 2444$

          SONY
          sony 12-24 f4 565g 1698$
          sony 28mm f2 200g 448$
          sony 35mm f2.8 120g 798$
          sony 55mm f1.8 281g 998$

          sony total weight: 1166g
          total cost: 3942$

          I think that I made my point… Sure I could have used the more recent Nikon lenses but to match the weight and size that 35 f2 was perfect and is even brighter than the Sony…

      • Duncan Dimanche

        NIKON
        nikon 8-15mm f3.5-4.5 485g 1246$
        nikon 28mm f1.8 330g 596$
        nikon 35mm f2 204g 386$
        nikon 50mm f1.8 185g 216$

        nikon total weight: 1204g
        nikon total cost: 2444$

        SONY
        sony 55mm f1.8 281g 998$
        sony 35mm f2.8 120g 798$
        sony 28mm f2 200g 448$
        sony 12-24 f4 565g 1698$

        sony total weight: 1166g
        total cost: 3942$

        I think that I made my point… Sure I could have used the more recent Nikon lenses but to match the weight and size that 35 f2 was perfect and is even brighter than the Sony…

    • koenshaku

      smaller and heavier doesn’t distribute weight well. I am already imagine my hands cramping since I have large hands.

    • Athanasius Kirchner

      Because comparisons like the one linked are terribly flawed. Sure, if your use case is birding or sports, the Sony kit won’t be advantageous. But an A7 with the 12-24mm f/4, 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6, 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2.8, for instance, is simply impossible to match weight- and size-wise at any price point in another system.
      For wide angle and normal lens users, the mirrorless format can bring great advantages. Not so with telephoto or very fast aperture lenses.

      • Duncan Dimanche

        I’m gonna paste an answer that I just made to someone arguing that Sony was way lighter…

        NIKON
        nikon 8-15mm f3.5-4.5 485g 1246$
        nikon 28mm f1.8 330g 596$
        nikon 35mm f2 204g 386$
        nikon 50mm f1.8 185g 216$

        nikon total weight: 1204g
        nikon total cost: 2444$

        SONY
        sony 55mm f1.8 281g 998$
        sony 35mm f2.8 120g 798$
        sony 28mm f2 200g 448$
        sony 12-24 f4 565g 1698$

        sony total weight: 1166g
        total cost: 3942$

        I think that I made my point… Sure I could have used the more recent Nikon lenses but to match the weight and size that 35 f2 was perfect and is even brighter than the Sony…

        But yeah you are correct if you can live with “slow” primes than Sony might have an edge but once again not by much

        • Athanasius Kirchner

          Again, your comparison sucks. Sorry, but it does.
          EnPassant did a much better job of it some comments below mine:

          Canon EF
          5Ds 50MP 930g $3,469
          100mm Macro IS 625g $749
          16-35/2.8 II 790g $1,999
          24-70/2.8 II 805g $1,699
          70-200/2.8 IS 1490g $1,899
          100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II 1570g $1,999
          6210g $11,814

          Nikon F (FX)
          D810 36MP 980g $2,797 (Amazon)
          105/2.8 Micro VR 720g $897
          14-24/2.8 970g $1,897
          24-70/2.8 E VR 1070g $2,397
          70-200/2.8 E VR 1430g $2,797
          80-400/4.5-5.6 VR 1570g $2,297
          6740g $13,082

          Pentax D FA
          K-1 36MP 1010g $1,784
          100/2.8 Macro WR 340g $547
          15-30/2.8 WR 1040g $1,367
          24-70/2.8 WR 787g $1,297
          70-200/2.8 AW 1755g $1,670
          150-450/4.5-5.6 AW 2000g $2,180
          6932g $8,845

          Sony A (Full frame)
          A99II 42MP 849g $3,200
          100/2.8 Macro 505g $619
          16-35/2.8 II 872g $2,248
          24-70/2.8 II 974g $2,099
          70-200/2.8 II 1500g $2,877
          70-400/4.5-5.6 II 1500g $2,198
          6200g $13,241

          Sony FE
          A7RII 42MP 625g $2,698
          90/2.8 Macro OSS 602g $1,098
          16-35/2.8 680g $2,198
          24-70/2.8 886g $2,198
          70-200/2.8 OSS 1480g $2,598
          100-400/4.5-5.6 1395g $2,498
          5668g $13,288

          THAT is a relatively fair comparison, with equivalent lenses. Comparing an ancient 35mm f/2 to a slower but much higher resolving lens is absurd, and so is believing that a fisheye 8-15mm is remotely comparable to a rectilinear 12-24mm. Maybe you should shoot these systems, buy a lot of lenses, and then come back to us, instead of spouting irrelevant crud. I have (not Nikon, to be fair, but Canon EF, Pentax K, Sony A and Sony FE), and that’s why I find many faults in your approach.

  • Phanter

    Comparing an 18-35 F3.5-5.6 to a Sony Zeiss 16-35 F4 OSS is fair of course.
    Same goes for the cheapest Nikon 70-300 to the most expensive and newest Sony 70-300.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      Sony does not have any other option out there for the E mount… so yeah… there isn’t much choice here

      • Phanter

        True but then you have to be fair and say that you got better optics with the sony kit

        • Eric Calabros

          No, because its a weight comparison, not quality.

          • BG

            What’s the point of comparing the weight of equipment that does not deliver even remotely similar performance…?

            • Eric Calabros

              To show capabilities of different systems.
              However I don’t know why you think a possible Sony made 18-35 would be noticeable lighter.

            • MdB

              Well take a look at the 12-24mm f4 perhaps as a bit of a guide.

            • BG

              Was talking about the 70-300 of course.

          • Duncan Dimanche

            yep

      • BG

        In all fairness, that ultra-cheap 70-300 is nonsensical on such a body. Should have at least included the 70-300/4.5-5.6 G AF-S VR.

        • Duncan Dimanche

          true true

        • Duncan Dimanche

          the point was to find the cheapest lens available. And Nikon has those old weird lenses still available

          • Athanasius Kirchner

            Sure, but if that’s fair, then it’s also fair to add a Sigma MC-11 to the A7 to leverage all those old, cheap lenses available in Canon EF mount.

      • dabug91

        Good little comparison video. Though the Nikon APS-C price advantage becomes even better if you make a simple adjustment: replace their $900 10-24mm with their $300 10-20mm and BAM, another $600 in savings. With that $600 you could change the 18-105 to the 18-140 and it’d still be $500 saved. Looks like Nikon unsurprisingly provides the best bang for buck while also being at or near the top in image quality. 😉

        • Duncan Dimanche

          Yeah it came out a week after I posted the video ! And I mentioned it in the infos section 😉

          (crop sensor video not full frame)
          It brings the NIKON system to the FIRST SPOT at 1607$ !

          1) Nikon 1607$
          2) Canon 1715$
          3) Pentax 2026$
          4) m4/3 2240$
          5) Sony 2919$
          6) Fuji 3594$

    • That shows that sony doesn’t have anything lightweight to match their lightweight camera body.

      • NotAMeasureator

        Welcome to the marketing lie that is Sony.

        • I wish Nikon had Sony’s marketing 🙂

          • Duncan Dimanche

            hahah I do too !

    • Mr_Miyagi

      Fair? Or sarcasm? Not fair by a long shot. For example, the Nikon 70-300mm (priced at $170) lacks VR. The Sony 70-300mm (which I own) has IS and is a stunningly good lens, almost as good as my Sony 70-200mm and my Nikon 80-400mm at the focal lengths where these lenses overlap. To be “fair,” the Nikon kit should have included the more expensive version of the FX 70-300mm, which costs $330 more and raises the total price of the Nikon kit to more than $3100.

      • Duncan Dimanche

        the point was to find the cheapest lens available. And Nikon has those old weird lenses still available for very cheap…. Sony does not

  • Duncan Dimanche

    Thanks admin for posting my video 😉
    I was was pretty surprised at those results !

    The d750 was on sale at that time with an amazing deal but you can replace it with the D610 for the same price 😉

    • Yes, I am surprised too, but it does make sense. It’s all marketing – you keep hearing all those people switching to Sony because their back hurts from carrying DSLR cameras 🙂

      • Duncan Dimanche

        haha yes the mirrorless system world (other than M4/3 don’t really have a weight advantage really.

      • NotAMeasureator

        First rule/law of the mentality of purchasing – buy with emotion and justify with logic.

        After dropping big bucks to change systems the buyers need to convince themselves they’ve done the right thing.

        • Exactly, that’s why you see people vigirosuly defending the newer camera systems that did not exists 5 years ago – because they juts bought it. Nikon users have been using Nikon gear for decades, no need to justify anything.

          • Duncan Dimanche

            hahah here is my answer to one of the writers saying that his set up could not be match by a dslr

            NIKON
            nikon 8-15mm f3.5-4.5 485g 1246$
            nikon 28mm f1.8 330g 596$
            nikon 35mm f2 204g 386$
            nikon 50mm f1.8 185g 216$

            nikon total weight: 1204g
            nikon total cost: 2444$

            SONY
            sony 12-24 f4 565g 1698$
            sony 28mm f2 200g 448$
            sony 35mm f2.8 120g 798$
            sony 55mm f1.8 281g 998$

            sony total weight: 1166g
            total cost: 3942$

            I think that I made my point… Sure I could have used the more recent Nikon lenses but to match the weight and size that 35 f2 was perfect and is even brighter than the Sony…

    • and if you take the D610 the price and weight will drop even further

      • Duncan Dimanche

        yes true ! but at that time the d750 was selling for 2000$ with the 24-120mm ! which was cheaper than the D610 and a kit lens

      • Fdfas Jlkjl

        D750 is lighter than D610

        • Oh really? I thought it was lighter.

          • Fdfas Jlkjl

            By a backbreaking 5 grams 🙂

            • Duncan Dimanche

              haha i’ll take those 5 grams !

  • was there any point to this other than giving you something to do.

    Who would buy a camera because it weighs less or costs differently to another, you buy a camera surely as you buy a car because IT being the one you chose does what you want it to do, offers the choices you want

    Pointless

    • riceboy2049

      Thought that was the whole point of Sony’s marketing campaign? Sony’s are smaller and lighter than traditional DSLRs?
      FWIF I shoot both, and they both have strengths and weaknesses. I own two cameras for the same reason people own 2 cars.

      • “I own two cameras for the same reason people own 2 cars.” what an odd comment without clarification

        I know someone who owns three cars, two Veyrons and a Chiron £9m, I bet he owns them for a different reason to you, so pointless.

        I own one

        I know people who own ten cars !!!!!!! all classic car owners

        • CERO

          Jeremy Clarkson.. is that you?

        • ToastyFlake

          I own 2 mopeds, 1 car, 1 pickup tuck, and 1 cat. That’s why I own 1 Nikon D600 with a dirty sensor.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      people who travel a lot needs lighter camera and lenses.. if you only have a carry on then those extra pounds saved can make a big difference… And some people don’t buy Leica because they are expensive…. I really don’t understand how you think sir

  • maxx

    I hope the next FX Nikon mirrorless.

  • br0xibear
    • another good one worth sharing 🙂

    • Duncan Dimanche

      hagaga

  • Eric Calabros

    Moral of the story: if you want EVF, say you want EVF, dont say you’re​ no longer young enough to handle the heft.

    • ToastyFlake

      Kids should be taught this at an early age.

  • harvey

    there were two reasons why I am in the process of selling my Sonys. 1.their operation was too disorganized compared to other systems and I just could not bond to them; 2. the lenses did not give me the weight and size savings that the bodies promised.

    • I agree, I think the Sony a9 has like 20 different AF modes. Is that really necessary? Yes, it does look good on paper and on marketing materials but do people really use all of those AF modes? Maybe they do, I don’t know.

      • Josh

        Yeah it seems Sony likes cramming in as much automation and settings as possible with no regard how useful they really will be or any regard to having a streamlined and optimized user interface.

        • Yes, like I said – Sony cameras are designed and sold by their marketing department. Don’t get me wrong – they are very good at what they are doing. Same with Sony TVs – they have the best specs, but when you compare the picture side by side with other brands, they are not the best.

          • m35g35

            Like I am told by marketing people, repeat it enough times people will believe anything.

            • NotAMeasureator

              And pay for people to post on social media, flood forums, pay and gift free gear to the Ambassador’s to do reviews, gift free trips to reviewers to sunny locales and have staged lighting so no obvious faults can be reported on, deny overheating,release new bodies instead of fixing what’s wrong, etc…

              Welcome to the wonderful world of Sony!

  • Well If Nikon, launches a mirrorless/ or d750 like SLR with a flexible curved sensor, the lenses would need half the amount of glass in the lenses, since field curvature doesn’t need to be corrected … that’s the next step

  • nikon could have been lighter if it had a mirrorless sensor i bet. by a lil ofcourse

  • Josh

    For all the angst mirrorless vs DSLR simply comes down to personal preference for ergonomics and whether or not you like EVFs. Unless you’re a pro sports shooter. in that case there is no choice since Canon/Nikon have the needed glass and real world proven, bet your carrier on it AF tracking and dependability while the Sony A9, the only potentially viable mirrorless option, simply doesn’t.

    • dabug91

      I feel like EVF’s can probably be really fragile little pieces of equipment in the long run. While I like some of their benefits, I wouldn’t be able to deal with their lag, or the fear of “what if that tiny little screen just craps itself and stops working one day?” I also can’t stand how they just make the “quality” of your subjects look so degraded when looking through them rather than an optical pentaprism viewfinder.

      • Duncan Dimanche

        I own a a6500 and I’ve never had a problem with it. it has a 60fps refresh rate and can be boosted to 120fps but i never bothered with it really.

        Being able to see how your photo will be exposed is a god sent in my opinion. I love it

        • Josh

          lol that means nothing. that camera is still a baby age as is the EVF tech in general whereas the reflex mirror design has decades of proven reliability behind it. They are simply not comparable at all from a reliability and durability standpoint. You can’t use your less than 1 year experience with a brand new camera as proof the EVF has long lasting reliability.

          • nwcs

            There’s no evidence to say EVFs are not long lasting and durable. And small display panels are quite proven. In the end it’s a preference.

  • Allan

    Thanks for your efforts, Duncan.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      cheers !

  • D700s

    Has anybody held a mirrorless with 70-200mm equivalent extended to see the EVF all day long shooting action/sports or such. I see a lot of reviews with the reviewer shooting for a few minutes and raving about how great the camera is. Small and light are many of the reasons noted to go mirrorless but I’m not feeling it. Also, those that have one, how easy is it to see on a bright sunny day. Am I missing something?

    • mikew

      Bit lost on your question,are you saying the lens extended or the camera held away from your eye.
      The EVF you would use like an OVF close to your eye and will be no more difficult to use than the OVF,i have used a G80 and GX8 all day with the 100-400 on no problem.

  • EnPassant

    Obviously the outcome of a comparision depends on which types of cameras and lenses are included. Which can change the result in favour for one brand or another.

    To make a fair comparision cameras and lenses need to be enough similar. The problem is some mounts have a very limited set of cameras and modern lenses. Especially Pentax.

    So I based my comparision on what full frame camera and lenses Pentax can offer. That is the most basic set with a high MP camera and a short tele macro, the f/2.8 zoom trinity and a longer tele zoom.

    To save some effort I took the information about weight and prices from dpr. Prices can fluctate on a dayly basis and depend on seller, warranty etcetera. So they are more the indication of an average price level, not the best prices that can be found. I also make reservations for any errors made in calculation.

    With that said conclusions in my comparision is that Sony FE is the clearly lightest system, more than 500g lighter than both Sony’s own A-mount and Canon EF. Which is to be expected. Still hardly a night and day difference.

    Nikon and Pentax are both more than 1kg heavier than Sony FE, especially Pentax taking the bottom place in weight being 1264g heavier than Sony FE.

    Looking at prices things are partly reversed with Pentax being the clearly most affordable system being $2,969 cheaper than the second most affordable system Canon and $4,237 cheaper than Nikon on third place!
    Sony’s both systems are slightly behind Nikon, around $200 more expensive, with FE the most expensive.

    So the funny thing is that Pentax and Sony FE wins and loses in opposite comparisions! While Sony have an advantage in weight what stand out more is the price advantage for Pentax. At least if one are satisfied with these few lenses and only buy retail. For Canon and Nikon there are a lot of used lenses on the market at much better prices. Also a lot of Minolta lenses for Sony A mount can be found at very good prices.

    Canon EF
    5Ds 50MP 930g $3,469
    100mm Macro IS 625g $749
    16-35/2.8 II 790g $1,999
    24-70/2.8 II 805g $1,699
    70-200/2.8 IS 1490g $1,899
    100-400/4.5-5.6 IS II 1570g $1,999
    6210g $11,814

    Nikon F (FX)
    D810 36MP 980g $2,797 (Amazon)
    105/2.8 Micro VR 720g $897
    14-24/2.8 970g $1,897
    24-70/2.8 E VR 1070g $2,397
    70-200/2.8 E VR 1430g $2,797
    80-400/4.5-5.6 VR 1570g $2,297
    6740g $13,082

    Pentax D FA
    K-1 36MP 1010g $1,784
    100/2.8 Macro WR 340g $547
    15-30/2.8 WR 1040g $1,367
    24-70/2.8 WR 787g $1,297
    70-200/2.8 AW 1755g $1,670
    150-450/4.5-5.6 AW 2000g $2,180
    6932g $8,845

    Sony A (Full frame)
    A99II 42MP 849g $3,200
    100/2.8 Macro 505g $619
    16-35/2.8 II 872g $2,248
    24-70/2.8 II 974g $2,099
    70-200/2.8 II 1500g $2,877
    70-400/4.5-5.6 II 1500g $2,198
    6200g $13,241

    Sony FE
    A7RII 42MP 625g $2,698
    90/2.8 Macro OSS 602g $1,098
    16-35/2.8 680g $2,198
    24-70/2.8 886g $2,198
    70-200/2.8 OSS 1480g $2,598
    100-400/4.5-5.6 1395g $2,498
    5668g $13,288

    • Lex Cross

      Except you can also use nikons older 24-70 since the others aren’t VR. and the older 70-200 vr 2. That saves 1400 making it 11,682.

      And why not use canons widest lens?

      • EnPassant

        As I wrote there are more choices for Canon and Nikon, especially on the used market, but also older versions still on sale, that can save a lot of cost. To be consistent I used the latest current version in the comparision.
        Canon’s 11-24mm lens is only f/4. I compared f/2.8 wide zooms.
        Pentax K-1 and Sony A99II both have IBIS meaning all lenses are stabilized.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      Trust me it was a nightmare trying to make this video ! I B&H because of their wide range of lenses…. but it wasn’t easy lol

    • Athanasius Kirchner

      Now THIS is a well made comparison, instead of a pile of BS! Kudos to you, EnPassant.

  • Guys, it all depends on the lenses. That argument is null and void unless we all need and use that exact lens set. I have an A7R II and a 28/2 + 100/2. Much lighter than my previous D700 setup.

    • Well, your comparison is void because Nikon does not have 28/2 and 100/2, so how do you know they will be heavier? The most widely used lenses were selected for the comparison.

      • JL

        Nikon also has no tiny 35/2.8, but if you’re looking to build a lightweight system, you’ll certainly buy one.

        My Sony system is different from my old Nikon system, with different types of lenses, but it serves it’s purpose equally well and it is in fact much lighter. Therefore this post’s comparison is maybe not wrong, but also not very relevant from a practical standpoint.

  • Guido

    For Nikon they have selected the scrappy, light 70-300 without image stabilization. For Canon there is a similar light and cheap 70-300 lens without image stabilization available. But instead they have chosen the heavier 70-300 version with image stabilization. Doesn’t make any sense.

    In real world nobody would buy an expensive full frame body and couple it with a scrappy long zoom lens even without image stabilization. Just replace the scrappy 70-300mm for 169 USD with the 70-300mm VR (also not an expensive, high quality lens) and Nikon is no longer on the first place.

    Then they compare the Zeiss 16-35/4 for Sony with the Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5. Perfect match would be the Nikon 16-35/4. With these 2 changes Nikon is down to place 4 regarding weight.

    I don’t say, that Nikon is heavy or bad. It all depends on which lenses, which optical quality and which camera features you really need. But this comparison is for sure biased and completely rubbish.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      the point was to find the cheapest lens available. And Nikon and Canon have those old weird lenses still available

      • tomskyphoto

        Nikon Europe B.V. lists the fantastic plastic film era 70-300/4.0-5.6G as discontinued. So anything that’s still available is just unsold stock left from several years ago.

      • Guido

        No, your argument is simply wrong. For Canon you have NOT chosen the cheapest 70-300mm. You have chosen the 70-300 with IS, which is more expensive and has more weight. As I said: It’s a biased setup to get Nikon as a winner. An in practise the comparison doesn’t make any sense. The target group for this 300mm zoom for 169 USD is probably somebody with a D3300 body for 300 USD.

        And if less weight is the top priority, m3/4 or Fuji would be the top pick. I use a Nikon system by myself – so I don not arguing against Nikon.

        • Bob Thane

          Though he also picked the G primes instead of the still available D primes for Nikon, so that’s more costly.

  • When the D750 came out so many people complained about it not having a pro body with pro controls but i always thought it was a good move by Nikon to use the smaller form factor. If i did more weddings, I do a few but not many and i wouldn’t consider my self a professional, the d750 would be my choice. Great sensor, light enough, fast enough af, relatively good price, strong enough, I have a d7100 so used to the control layout, highlight weighted metering. It’s a lot in a relatively small and light weight body. Nikon might find it hard to replace it, if they go to a pro body some people will complain if they don’t others will, if they use the D5 sensor some people will moan about resolution, if they increase the res some people will moan about file sizes. Meanwhile Il wait for the 750 to go in the bargain bucket and get myself two!

  • dbltax

    Not surprised in the slightest if I’m honest. Plus you need to factor in the weight of all the extra batteries you’d need for the Sony setup to shoot the same number of photos.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      yes I will do that for the next one

  • Claude Mayonnaise

    The evolution of cameras is happening right before our eyes. All the charts, graphs, comparisons are not going to stop that.

  • Politics_Nerd

    I love my D750!

  • Albert

    Mirror, mirrorless, on the wall… who is the lightest and cheapest of them all?

  • Originaru

    the nikon 70-300…165 LOL is making the balance completely off,

  • Back to top