| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4435 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
I know we pay for quality glass in many ways but today I weighed my rucksack - 7.58kg. Thats one body, one flash, three lenses (wide zoom, prime macro, and superzoom, some filters, batteries, etc).
I cannot even contemplate taking this in a shoulder bag!
And they get heavier every year.
The latest Nikons ...eg D500, D750, D600, D7200 are all similar weights and quite reasonable.
I bet the lions share of the weight in your bag, comes from the lenses.
The problem always comes from the lenses....especially the fast (ie wider) glass.
It's one of the reasons I raised the thread discussing/comparing the 300 v 80-400 v 200-500.
300 f4...755g compared to 300 f2.8...2900g
and 80-400.....1570g
and 200-500...2300g
Ive seen some superb images taken with the new 300f4. If your subject is big enough with 300mm...its a no brainier. But as you know with wildlife that's not long enough.
So weight is a trade off.
Last edited on Tue Aug 16th, 2016 16:00 by Eric
____________________
Eric