Bigger may be better, but it sure is heavy.

[Tropicalmemories]

Smaller sensor means smaller lenses for a given angle of view - so as others have said, micro 4/3 may be the answer?

Or get a good bag with wide straps?

 

[ac12]

Having neck and back problems there are times I don’t bring my camera on hikes, etc. or talk my daughter into carrying it. The pros using mirrorless are producing some real nice photos. I’ll be looking at them someday. For traveling, family and landscapes.

Caution. Mirrorless size/weight reduction applies only to the camera.
If you are looking at a FF mirrorless, the camera may be smaller and lighter, but the lens for a mirrorless is the same size/weight as a similar dSLR lens.

 

[Derrel]

Compare the size and weight of a memory card that will hold 1,000 shots with enough film to shoot 1,000 exposures, or your View Camera outfit with enough film holders to shoot 200 shots! LOL!

 

[ronlane]

Having neck and back problems there are times I don’t bring my camera on hikes, etc. or talk my daughter into carrying it. The pros using mirrorless are producing some real nice photos. I’ll be looking at them someday. For traveling, family and landscapes.

Caution. Mirrorless size/weight reduction applies only to the camera.
If you are looking at a FF mirrorless, the camera may be smaller and lighter, but the lens for a mirrorless is the same size/weight as a similar dSLR lens.

Nope. The new lenses are getting lighter. pick up the Sony 400mm f/2.8, it doesn't seem like it weights what a 1dx mk II does. Pair it with the Sony A9 and it is considerably lighter than the comparable dslr and lens.

Now, I'll give you that they aren't all there yet but it is heading to lighter. The new glass that Canon is putting out for it's EOS R line of Mirrorless camera's is getting plenty of attention.

 

[johngpt]

For quite a few years I shot high school sports with the Canon 40D and the 70-200 f/2.8 L glass.
My left bicep became huge.
My left elbow wouldn't fully straighten for a couple years afterward.

For the last few years I've been shooting with the Fuji X100 and X-T1. The Fujinon 55-200 lens is amazingly light.
For farther reach I recently rented the Fujinon 100-400 with the 1.4x extender and thought my arm would fall off!
It must weigh about the same as the old 70-200 L lens I used to carry day and night.
I'm glad I rented that long Fujinon as I don't think I'd like to carry it around very much, so I won't purchase it despite the awesome image quality.

So, what's my point?
I agree with those that have gone mirrorless. There is far less biomechanical stress on my system which has to deal with previous blown spinal discs and surgery, and muscles and tendons that have aged beyond peak characteristics.

 

[ac12]

For quite a few years I shot high school sports with the Canon 40D and the 70-200 f/2.8 L glass.
My left bicep became huge.
My left elbow wouldn't fully straighten for a couple years afterward.

For the last few years I've been shooting with the Fuji X100 and X-T1. The Fujinon 55-200 lens is amazingly light.
For farther reach I recently rented the Fujinon 100-400 with the 1.4x extender and thought my arm would fall off!
It must weigh about the same as the old 70-200 L lens I used to carry day and night.
I'm glad I rented that long Fujinon as I don't think I'd like to carry it around very much, so I won't purchase it despite the awesome image quality.

So, what's my point?
I agree with those that have gone mirrorless. There is far less biomechanical stress on my system which has to deal with previous blown spinal discs and surgery, and muscles and tendons that have aged beyond peak characteristics.

If you can, drop down to a lighter f/4 lens.
That is what I did, for the same reason. The 70-200 f/2.8 lens was 2x the weight of the f/4 lens. I went with the lighter f/4 lens.
Even so, when I shoot two sequential games, I usually shoot the JV game on a monopod, so that my arm is not worn out, and I can shoot the varsity game free-hand.

For longer lens, I switch from DX/FX to m4/3.
My m4/3, 75-300 is equivalent to a 150-300 on a FX camera, but MUCH smaller and lighter. I don't NEED a monopod to support the lens.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I have a 1915 Seneca view camera, it weighs about 12 lbs. with six 4x5 film holders. (12 negatives) You can add a bit more for the tripod.

My point is, given the quantum leap in camera technology over the century, don't you think they could have done something about the weight?

My 1921 Old Town wood and canvas canoe weights about 100 lbs. My Kevlar Winona canoe weights 45 lbs.

Now I understand that good glass weighs a lot but I am looking at a simple camera with and even simpler zoom lens. My guess is, camera buffs prefer a bit of "heft" in the feel of their cameras.

The market makes what sells best.

 

[Lonnie1212]

Carry this for a while and everything else will seem light...

View attachment 181602

Please tell us what model of camera and lens that is.

Thank you,

Lonnie

 

[Lonnie1212]

Have you considered using a shoulder strap on your camera? Most cameras have neck straps issued from the factory. A few days ago I bought a shoulder strap on eBay. I love it! It hangs on my right shoulder and the camera is on my left hip. The strap has a shoulder pad like a machine gun strap. $19.00 well spent on a Rapid Fire camera shoulder strap. There are many different brands out there.

 

[ac12]

Have you considered using a shoulder strap on your camera? Most cameras have neck straps issued from the factory. A few days ago I bought a shoulder strap on eBay. I love it! It hangs on my right shoulder and the camera is on my left hip. The strap has a shoulder pad like a machine gun strap. $19.00 well spent on a Rapid Fire camera shoulder strap. There are many different brands out there.

I've replaced all the straps on my heavy digital cameras with PD straps. BIG difference.
A WIDE strap is great to distribute the load, so it isn't cutting into your neck or shoulder.

But a heavy kit is still heavy. Your back and legs still have to carry the weight. And your arms have to hold it.

 

[RVT1K]

Carry this for a while and everything else will seem light...

View attachment 181602

Please tell us what model of camera and lens that is.

Thank you,

Lonnie

That's my Nikon D4 and a Tamron SP 400mm f/4 LD IF with a 2x tele-converter mounted.

 

[beagle100]

First let me say I like a camera with a view finder. My phone and Kindle take fine picture but I just do not like looking at a camera screen, especially in bright light.

For decade I used an Olympus C-740 digital with video view finder. It had a 10x zoom, a 6.3 - 63 mm , 2.8 - 3.7 lens. At the time the 3.2 Megapixel as state of the art. It measures 4" x 2 1/2" x 3" (camera back to the 35 mm lens front. It weighs 12 oz. Beside the 3.2 megapixels, it was limited by the lack of interchangeable lenses and the 1"x 1 1/4" view screen.

I recently purchased a Canon T6 Rebel. With its 18 -55 mm zoom, 3.5 -5.6 lens, and 14 or so megapixels and a host of other bells and whistles. It is a fun camera to experiment with. However, it measures 5" x 4" x 6" back to front of the 58 mm diameter lens, it has a 2" x 2 1/4" view screen and weighs in at 1 lb, 10 oz. This is almost a pound more than the Olympus.

Given the plastic "entry level " lens, the weight is mostly in the camera body 1 lb. 3 0z. Surely the larger view screen and electronic chip inside the plastic body cannot weight that much. So my question is, do the cameras really need to weigh that much, or is it a perception thing, where heavier must be better?

not necessarily
mirrorless = .. smaller ... lighter
and mirrorless can easily use the big DSLR lens . (if you think that's better}
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[photoflyer]

Often most anything can be made smaller, lighter, and stronger...at a price. And, that price increase can be geometric in nature.

Imagine your car, if all components that could be made of carbon fiber composites were made of them . Now multiply the price times some multiple: I don't know what it is but I'm pretty certain it is way more than 2.

I suspect the engineers at Canon, Nikon etc., consider these same trade-offs.

 

[Solarflare]

So the OP has replaced an ancient compact camera with a system camera, which should be a HUGE step in all areas all over the board, from image quality to performance to ergonomics and photographic possibilities, and complaints that instead of nothing, the new camera still weights nothing. The main disadvantage is that the DSLR will require a lot more space.

Theres an easy way to replace sensor area: even more sensor area. *shrug*

And the larger the sensor grows, well, the optics for that sensor will grow in THREE dimensions, not just two.

So yeah, image quality requires weight. You can save weight again in many way:
- Use prime lenses instead of zooms (this saves a TON)
- Support less maximum aperture (half maximum aperture equals to about half weight)
- Use more lightweight materials

But moving from DSLR to mirrorless doesnt save much. In fact telephoto lenses for mirrorless will weight more than their DSLR counterparts, because the distance you gained on the DSLR from the mirror box is gone.

The main factor why mirrorless tend to be smaller is by far the fact that they use smaller sensors. If you dont do that, you very likely wont gain anything in respect to weight.

The same problem can occur if you get for example a mirrorless with an APS-C sensor instead of full frame, but then get lenses with more maximum aperture than before.

 

[petrochemist]

If it has a mirror its gonna be bulkier.

No my 5x4 monorail is bulkier but has no mirror.
Coupled to this lens it would weigh a fair bit more than the examples shown so far. Not the most manoeuvrable system, and I dread to think what it would do to my back to lug it around via a shoulder strap!