| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 |
| Location: | South Lakeland, UK |
| Posts: | 4066 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
I just weighed my now 'standard' kit of three good FX zooms, ranging from 18 to 200mm, Nikkor 50mm f1.4, D3, SB800, batteries and gubbins like cleaning wipes, grey card, D3 quick guide, etc. all in a Flipside 400 AW backpack. It weighs about 8Kg. The 80-200 is the main culprit, perhaps a lighter, slightly longer zoom might get the job done without the weight penalty.
The 'family' D3300 with 18-105mm DX lens is featherweight in comparison, at 1.4Kg in it's nice little Nikon shoulder bag. Christopher made some lovely photographs with that camera on our recent visit to Skye and is more than adequate for most photography, even in novice hands.
I am a great believer that mass (weight) adds to steadiness and steadiness improves images. In comparison to what I am used to carrying when doing my usual thing, (building and engineering) 8Kg is nothing. When I walked up to the Fairy Pools in Glen Brittle on Skye, I carried that plus my trusty old Kennet Benbo tripod which weighs almost 4Kg. I left my heavy (6Kg with mud) tripod in the car!
Good, strong, robust gear is heavy. It all depends if that matters. If I am going with the main intention of taking nice photographs, the weight is irrelevant, if my main intention is to visit a location and take one or two snaps then my iPhone fulfils that need. I wouldn't take the D3 to London, or the top of Great Gable, the D3300 is more than adequate and a lot less conspicuous.
Perhaps it's just me but I don't see any point in long lenses for casual photography, OK sports and wildlife yes but I wouldn't particularly want to take close ups of Big Ben clock as a tourist, more likely the whole building. If your going birding then that's different, leave the fisheye at home.
My tuppence worth!
____________________
Robert.