a_c_skinner wrote:(Lighthearted reply.) This is the worst advice. Snowboarding isn't the same as you don't carry your gear for hours up hill. Once you've done that you know that there is no room for compromise on the weight question. I've read one mountaineer who cut the handle off his toothbrush to save weight (Mike Gill, IIRC). Once you give in on one thing you are down the road to madness and you end up renting a Yak to carry the gear. Of course anything other than Fuji is also going down the same road.speaking as someone who has cut half the handle off their toothbrush, I do use an XT3 and XF16-80 for ski touring. I have to wear a pack to carry all the avalanche gear and I do go uphill for hours. The day usually starts with a good 3 hour slog to get to where the snow is better. Yes there's a weight penalty for carrying this rig. You have to decide if it's worth it. Day trips for me, it's no big deal. I may not carry it if I'm going for days and concerned about the weight of a tooth brush, though.

Well depends on the focal lengths you are looking for the lightest package I have found (cost/performance wise) so far is:X-S10+35 f1.4+ 50 f2 wr+ 14 f2.8You may need different lenses.

jjz2 wrote:And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!I looked at this more closely yesterday. If I compare like-for-like lenses, the Fuji ends up 13-40% lighter than the A7C. Here's the numbers I came up with:Body only: A7C (509g) vs. X-E4 (with some kind of ~50g grip = 400g) or XT30. That's 25% lighter for Fuji.Body + General (slow) Zoom: AC7 + Sony 28-60/4-5.6 (676g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 15-45/3.5-5.6 (462g). That's 40% lighter for Fuji.Body + General (faster) Zoom: AC7 + Sony Zeiss 24-70/4 (939g) vs. EX4 + Fuji 18-55/2.8-4 (710g). That's 25% lighter for Fuji.Body + wide prime: AC7 + Tamron 20/2.8 (729g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 14/2.8 (635g): That's 13% lighter for Fuji.Body + nifty-fifty: AC7 + Sony Carl Zeiss 55/1.4 (790g) vs. XE4 + Fuji 35/1.4 (587g). That's 26% lighter for Fuji.Body + tele zoom: AC7 + Tamron 70-300/4.5-6.3 (1054g) vs. XE4 + 50-230/4.5-6.7 (775g). That's 27% lighter for Fuji.Granted, there are light combinations with the A7C, the difference is not huge and if I picked an equally heavy (~500g) Fuji body the difference would be non-existent. But together with the size difference, the ~25-30% weight difference still matters. I was (and still am) tempted by the tracking, FF DR and IBIS in the A7C, but in the end of the day, I don't want to compromise on weight. (Price is these days less of an issue).If Sony really committed to small rangefinder-type bodies and produced a good selection of light and quality glass (in addition to the 28-60 kit lens), I think it would be a much harder choice to stay with Fuji and APSC.These are not really fair comparisons imo? The equivalent to the Sony 28-60 is actually the Fuji 18-55. Similarly the x-e4 has no ibis, so actually you can see the a7c attraction. Personally I wouldn't touch either camera and I'm not a fan of 18(28) to x zooms either. But if size is all that counts, sure the x-e4 looks small and light but if you keep the aperture to equivalents then you will really see what Sony did with a little help from Tamron, Sigma and Samyang too!Personally, ibis is now a must especially with primes and even with ois lenses too. So a7c, 28-60 and Tamron 70-300 is very comparable to Fuji X-S10 18-55/55-200 both offerings will provide almost identical results but Fuji X-S10 has a better evf and general functionality is far far superior!You rarely find true "equivalents..."No, but you can make a good assimilation of the options on FF and APS-C and others.But, why only concerned with aperture equivalents and put that on a pedestal, and not focal length equivalents?Well, we could but I was trying to be fair to both sides, I am completely impartial. Have now tested lots of FF, aps-c and m43 options and understand the limitations and benefits of most options nowThe 15-45 is equivalent to a 23-68mm lens... so the Sony might have a similar aperture, but loses the range.Sure, I like that range, a lot, but if we want a fair comparison then that's all I was pointing out, Do I personally prefer the Fuji 16-80 to the Sony 24-105, yes, on weight, focal range grounds alone. But I do recognise that the FF options will give you a touch more subject isolation and noise at the comparable settings. Is it important, no, not to me either.The 18-55 doesn't have a muffin design, the build quality is also on a higher level than the sony, with again, longer range. It's not really mirrored in sony lineup. Sony of course has lenses that aren't mirrored in Fuji's lineup, such as the 90mm 2.8 macro.No, the nearest thing is the Tamron 28-75 and the Sigma 28-70 but both are constant 2.8's, so the Sigma 28-70 at 470g is less than 1kg with the a7c,  I personally recognise that is quite an accomplishment. Similarly the Tamron 17-28 is 420g, as much as I love Fuji, the Tamron 17-28/Sigma 28-70 and Tamron 70-180 are all constant 2.8's and provide phenomenal performance with the 7c. Its such a shame Sony couldn't equip ther 7c with a better evf and joystick, then it really would be something!None of these are truly "equivalent."He just picked mostly the lightest lens options available.I do agree with you that I have no interest in zooms that start at 18/28... needs to be 16/24 minimum for me.I don't agree that IBIS is a must, I've never used it in my 25+ years of photography...I've got by fine. It's a nice to have sure, but not a must. But I'm one of those that doesn't even consider AutoFocus a must, depending on the lens... If I went Sony, I'd probably pick up something like the Zeiss Loxia 21mm.Sure, ibis or af is not essential but I wouldn't want to lose either, Sony ibis by the way is mediocre but haven't tested the 7c.I think the sony 50mm 1.8 would be more comparable to Fuji though, instead of the 1.4 lens. Or even the 2.5G. So depends what options you go with.You can absolutely build a very light Sony kit, but if you want the lightest kit, and are more concerned about focal length coverage, rather than max aperture, Fuji is inevitably going to be smaller/lighter. The IQ is "enough" for most applications.With your last point we are on the same page, I've had no end of FF options to try and sent them all back!

Nevermess wrote:Well depends on the focal lengths you are looking for the lightest package I have found (cost/performance wise) so far is:X-S10+35 f1.4+ 50 f2 wr+ 14 f2.8You may need different lenses.My preference is XE3 + one of XC15-45 / 27 / 35F2 / 16F2.8 for small system.Fits in a much smaller pouch - which is important to keep it out of the way. I never change lenses when mountaineering/skiing/climbing..so the zoom is more flexible. I often change lenses when hiking, though.  When i climb or ski the focus is on the activity and you frequently cannot hold up your partners (especially if roped up!)..so lens changes are a no-no.

I think COVID and age mean we won't be skiing in the Finnish arctic again but I took all my images last time (2020) with an X-E3 and 23/2.  I'd now go for the 27/2.8 as the only lens.

Handheld high resolution imaging with any camera using pixel shift:Here's how to create a super resolution photo with any camerahttps://www.dpreview.com/articles/0727694641/here-s-how-to-pixel-shift-with-any-camera

C-AF works VERY good with the latest Fujis! X-T3, X-T4, X-S10 and X-E4 should be on par....Just make a 3x3 or bigger Zone, keep the skiier in it (which needs a bit practice) and shoot with approx. 5fps. Superb, fast, and reliable! Unfortunatly, tracking over the whole screen is not reliable. That’s the playground where Sony shines! But when you learned to keep your subject within the predefined AF-Zone, you’ll get many many keepers with the latest Fujis!

jjz2 wrote:And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!Even lenses like the 24-105 are substantially bigger and heavier, if wanting an all day lens, compared to something like the fuji 16-80...You are right, there are some tiny primes under 85mm...but after that it's out the window. I'd also say, under 24mm...out the window for the most part... look at sony 20mm 1.8g or Tokina F2, compared to Fuji 14mm 2.8... I know not a direct equivalent...but that's what is on offer.If you get 35mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8 for Sony, they are basically the same as Fuji's 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, so nothing gained there.Also definitely no 340g bodies like the XE3.A great light landscape combo like the XE3 with 16mm 2.8 weighs less than just the A7C body only.My advice is do not try to do it all with one lens. You will want a small lens for mountaineering/climbing (small prime or XC15-45). For skiing you NEED some reach, and 16 makes formuchmore dramatic pictures than 18.  XF16-80 is pretty ideal for skiing. I had the 18-55 and I bought the 16-80 specifically for skiing. 80 IMHO is the minimum telephoto i'd want for skiing. I tend to use 16 and 80 focal lengths the most when skiing. A  few example skiing shots with 16-80 and one with the magic 90:16-80 at 80mm  & XT3 16-80 at 16 &XT3 The 90. & XT3 Some mountaineering shots:XC15-45 is a great mountaineering lens..just wish they'd do an XF version. I use 15 a lot & try not to go beyond 35. Portrait shots in the mountains are ok..generally not looking to totally obliterate background anyway.XC15-45 & XE3 XC15-45 &XE3 XC15-45. Example portrait at it's weakest FL 45mm XF14F2.8

Clive99 wrote:jjz2 wrote:And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!Even lenses like the 24-105 are substantially bigger and heavier, if wanting an all day lens, compared to something like the fuji 16-80...You are right, there are some tiny primes under 85mm...but after that it's out the window. I'd also say, under 24mm...out the window for the most part... look at sony 20mm 1.8g or Tokina F2, compared to Fuji 14mm 2.8... I know not a direct equivalent...but that's what is on offer.If you get 35mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8 for Sony, they are basically the same as Fuji's 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, so nothing gained there.Also definitely no 340g bodies like the XE3.A great light landscape combo like the XE3 with 16mm 2.8 weighs less than just the A7C body only.My advice is do not try to do it all with one lens. You will want a small lens for mountaineering/climbing (small prime or XC15-45). For skiing you NEED some reach, and 16 makes formuchmore dramatic pictures than 18. XF16-80 is pretty ideal for skiing. I had the 18-55 and I bought the 16-80 specifically for skiing. 80 IMHO is the minimum telephoto i'd want for skiing. I tend to use 16 and 80 focal lengths the most when skiing. A few example skiing shots with 16-80 and one with the magic 90:16-80 at 80mm & XT316-80 at 16 &XT3The 90. & XT3Some mountaineering shots:XC15-45 is a great mountaineering lens..just wish they'd do an XF version. I use 15 a lot & try not to go beyond 35. Portrait shots in the mountains are ok..generally not looking to totally obliterate background anyway.XC15-45 & XE3XC15-45 &XE3XC15-45. Example portrait at it's weakest FL 45mmXF14F2.8Good examples, Fuji 16-80 is a sensational lense and probably the most flexible lens available today for size,weight,range and a constant f4. It stands up against all FF 24-105's I've compared it too and Tamron 17-70 too despite its 2.8. The extra range from 105-120 really is useful, for blurring close up objects or getting that tiny bit more tele from it! The 15-45 looks equally interesting and looking forward to giving one a go over the summer out of lockdown😎

And-roid wrote:Clive99 wrote:jjz2 wrote:And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!Even lenses like the 24-105 are substantially bigger and heavier, if wanting an all day lens, compared to something like the fuji 16-80...You are right, there are some tiny primes under 85mm...but after that it's out the window. I'd also say, under 24mm...out the window for the most part... look at sony 20mm 1.8g or Tokina F2, compared to Fuji 14mm 2.8... I know not a direct equivalent...but that's what is on offer.If you get 35mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8 for Sony, they are basically the same as Fuji's 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, so nothing gained there.Also definitely no 340g bodies like the XE3.A great light landscape combo like the XE3 with 16mm 2.8 weighs less than just the A7C body only.My advice is do not try to do it all with one lens. You will want a small lens for mountaineering/climbing (small prime or XC15-45). For skiing you NEED some reach, and 16 makes formuchmore dramatic pictures than 18. XF16-80 is pretty ideal for skiing. I had the 18-55 and I bought the 16-80 specifically for skiing. 80 IMHO is the minimum telephoto i'd want for skiing. I tend to use 16 and 80 focal lengths the most when skiing. A few example skiing shots with 16-80 and one with the magic 90:16-80 at 80mm & XT316-80 at 16 &XT3The 90. & XT3Some mountaineering shots:XC15-45 is a great mountaineering lens..just wish they'd do an XF version. I use 15 a lot & try not to go beyond 35. Portrait shots in the mountains are ok..generally not looking to totally obliterate background anyway.XC15-45 & XE3XC15-45 &XE3XC15-45. Example portrait at it's weakest FL 45mmXF14F2.8Good examples, Fuji 16-80 is a sensational lense and probably the most flexible lens available today for size,weight,range and a constant f4. It stands up against all FF 24-105's I've compared it too and Tamron 17-70 too despite its 2.8. The extra range from 105-120 really is useful, for blurring close up objects or getting that tiny bit more tele from it! The 15-45 looks equally interesting and looking forward to giving one a go over the summer out of lockdown😎Great examples from Clive99, indeed! Goes to show how useful different focal lengths are. Buying this new camera might be more expensive than I thought because clearly... Now I need the 14-45, 16-80 and the magic 90 as well. I haven't been able to get a single image like the skier with the 90 with my current setup.Skiers are really tricky thou, when they are coming towards you, even more than 80 or 90 would be nice (I like my 50-230 for that), but then when they are just passing, even the 18 feels tight, if you want to include the view. Also the last image with the 14/2.8 is something I've struggled with. There is always something that gets left out with 18mm. I have been using my phone as my second wide-angle camera thou. Works surprisingly well, whatever purists might say.And you are right, I picked the lightest zooms for my earlier comparison that I could find. With good light the bigger apertures are mainly useful for separation and not really worth the extra ~200-300g over their slower siblings when the light is good.Btw. Managed to find an A7C to rent cheaply for today. Lovely body, good ergonomics, great tracking AF and excellent combo with the 28-60. But I wouldn't like to lug around a lens that weighs as much as the body. The default JPG settings have way too much contrast and "hard" colors for bright scenes with deep shadows. The uncompressed RAW files give plenty of editing room thou. Example below.A7C + 28-60 @ 60mm. Cropped and edited from uncompressed RAW.Practically the biggest annoyance was a bit of a surprise. The light from the back LCD screen of the A7C is polarized perpendicular to my sunglasses, making it impossible to see anything (unless shooting in portrait). Needless to say, massively frustrating. And at first I thought I had broken the rental! The XE1 LCD polarization is opposite and clearly visible with my sunglasses (unless trying to shoot in portrait).Gona try to rent one of the Fuji bodies next. Finers crossed they haven't switched the polarization of their rear LCD:s.

Joel_O wrote:It's a good point that 16 to 26 Mpix is already 40% larger, that's probably enough for me. I have some 60*100 cm prints on my walls now from the 16 Mpix sensor. They are watchable from a couple of meters away, but I would definitively prefer a better DPI and the ability to crop. I also have to check out this Gigapixel software, it looks very handy to get more out of my current images. Thanks for the tip!What I'm really wondering is how much better the AF is in the newer Fuji bodies compared with my X-E1? It would be a real benefit if I could just point the thing at the skier with AF in auto/continuous tracking, fire of some bursts and expect to get at least half of the frames in focus with something like the XC 50-230mm. How's your experience with faster-moving subjects?Even the X-E2 is much better than the X-E1 in terms of AF.  If you plan on continuous tracking and "expect to get at least half the frames in focus with the 50-230", an X-E2 or T1 would be enough.  However if you're looking for fast tracking with the subject getting closer, an E3 would be a much safer bet.As to 16MP...definitely check out Topaz Gigapixel.  I tried 16MP images on it - if my computer weren't that slow I wouldn't need anything more than 16MP ever.  So it depends on how often you want to print 60x100cm.  For me, if it happens less than 4 times a year, I'd definitely opt for using software, because less MP out of camera allows faster RAW workflow, less storage for backups, more pictures fitting onto SD cards, etc.24MP isn't that much more than 16.

Joel_O wrote:And-roid wrote:Clive99 wrote:jjz2 wrote:And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!Even lenses like the 24-105 are substantially bigger and heavier, if wanting an all day lens, compared to something like the fuji 16-80...You are right, there are some tiny primes under 85mm...but after that it's out the window. I'd also say, under 24mm...out the window for the most part... look at sony 20mm 1.8g or Tokina F2, compared to Fuji 14mm 2.8... I know not a direct equivalent...but that's what is on offer.If you get 35mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8 for Sony, they are basically the same as Fuji's 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, so nothing gained there.Also definitely no 340g bodies like the XE3.A great light landscape combo like the XE3 with 16mm 2.8 weighs less than just the A7C body only.My advice is do not try to do it all with one lens. You will want a small lens for mountaineering/climbing (small prime or XC15-45). For skiing you NEED some reach, and 16 makes formuchmore dramatic pictures than 18. XF16-80 is pretty ideal for skiing. I had the 18-55 and I bought the 16-80 specifically for skiing. 80 IMHO is the minimum telephoto i'd want for skiing. I tend to use 16 and 80 focal lengths the most when skiing. A few example skiing shots with 16-80 and one with the magic 90:16-80 at 80mm & XT316-80 at 16 &XT3The 90. & XT3Some mountaineering shots:XC15-45 is a great mountaineering lens..just wish they'd do an XF version. I use 15 a lot & try not to go beyond 35. Portrait shots in the mountains are ok..generally not looking to totally obliterate background anyway.XC15-45 & XE3XC15-45 &XE3XC15-45. Example portrait at it's weakest FL 45mmXF14F2.8Good examples, Fuji 16-80 is a sensational lense and probably the most flexible lens available today for size,weight,range and a constant f4. It stands up against all FF 24-105's I've compared it too and Tamron 17-70 too despite its 2.8. The extra range from 105-120 really is useful, for blurring close up objects or getting that tiny bit more tele from it! The 15-45 looks equally interesting and looking forward to giving one a go over the summer out of lockdown😎Great examples from Clive99, indeed! Goes to show how useful different focal lengths are. Buying this new camera might be more expensive than I thought because clearly... Now I need the 14-45, 16-80 and the magic 90 as well. I haven't been able to get a single image like the skier with the 90 with my current setup.Skiers are really tricky thou, when they are coming towards you, even more than 80 or 90 would be nice (I like my 50-230 for that), but then when they are just passing, even the 18 feels tight, if you want to include the view. Also the last image with the 14/2.8 is something I've struggled with. There is always something that gets left out with 18mm. I have been using my phone as my second wide-angle camera thou. Works surprisingly well, whatever purists might say.And you are right, I picked the lightest zooms for my earlier comparison that I could find. With good light the bigger apertures are mainly useful for separation and not really worth the extra ~200-300g over their slower siblings when the light is good.Btw. Managed to find an A7C to rent cheaply for today. Lovely body, good ergonomics, great tracking AF and excellent combo with the 28-60. But I wouldn't like to lug around a lens that weighs as much as the body. The default JPG settings have way too much contrast and "hard" colors for bright scenes with deep shadows. The uncompressed RAW files give plenty of editing room thou. Example below.A7C + 28-60 @ 60mm. Cropped and edited from uncompressed RAW.Practically the biggest annoyance was a bit of a surprise. The light from the back LCD screen of the A7C is polarized perpendicular to my sunglasses, making it impossible to see anything (unless shooting in portrait). Needless to say, massively frustrating. And at first I thought I had broken the rental! The XE1 LCD polarization is opposite and clearly visible with my sunglasses (unless trying to shoot in portrait).Gona try to rent one of the Fuji bodies next. Finers crossed they haven't switched the polarization of their rear LCD:s.Did you consider to replace the 50-230 with the 55-200, it's surprising how well f4 on aps-c even at 80mm starts to show good separation, so the 55-200 is still holding onto f4 at around 100mm too! So not upto 90mm levels but then the 90mm is fixed and far less flexible! Partner the 55-200 with the 15-45 too for a very decent range for size/weight.How was the a7c evf, apparently its very small?

And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:And-roid wrote:Clive99 wrote:jjz2 wrote:And-roid wrote:Joel_O wrote:Son of Thunder wrote:If I were you I would stay in the fuji family. You know the system well already. If you are serious about your photography and switch systems you will have to shell out a lot dough. Fuji is serious about there aps-c system the big 3 aren't which means going full frame so that is about 2 grand unless you want the RP which isn't full featured. I own the RP I like it but the specs are not the bestThank you. You (and others) are right. Fuji is the only one fully invested in the APSC system, and interested in pumping out small and quality lenses that do it justice. Even light weight FF bodies like the RP and AC7 would increase my system weight by around ~30% due to the lenses. I just hope the AF in the new Fuji bodies is good enough to track skiers. Only way to find out is try.Actually you could build a lightweight comparable system around the a7c, I doubt it would be so much heavier! But, it will be a lot more expensive and the tele zoom eg the Tamron 70-300 is much larger than the 55-200 and will rely solely on ibis of the 7c.So Sony's weight reduction is real and below 85mm can be very very compact, in weight and volume. Above things just get big and the real issue us the 7c, a very mediocre evf and permanent efcs, which might affect bokeh when shot wide open with fast lenses.Fuji af, especially zone is great for tracking now, just shoot away and with skiers its unlikely to lose focus on such objects!Even lenses like the 24-105 are substantially bigger and heavier, if wanting an all day lens, compared to something like the fuji 16-80...You are right, there are some tiny primes under 85mm...but after that it's out the window. I'd also say, under 24mm...out the window for the most part... look at sony 20mm 1.8g or Tokina F2, compared to Fuji 14mm 2.8... I know not a direct equivalent...but that's what is on offer.If you get 35mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8 for Sony, they are basically the same as Fuji's 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, so nothing gained there.Also definitely no 340g bodies like the XE3.A great light landscape combo like the XE3 with 16mm 2.8 weighs less than just the A7C body only.My advice is do not try to do it all with one lens. You will want a small lens for mountaineering/climbing (small prime or XC15-45). For skiing you NEED some reach, and 16 makes formuchmore dramatic pictures than 18. XF16-80 is pretty ideal for skiing. I had the 18-55 and I bought the 16-80 specifically for skiing. 80 IMHO is the minimum telephoto i'd want for skiing. I tend to use 16 and 80 focal lengths the most when skiing. A few example skiing shots with 16-80 and one with the magic 90:16-80 at 80mm & XT316-80 at 16 &XT3The 90. & XT3Some mountaineering shots:XC15-45 is a great mountaineering lens..just wish they'd do an XF version. I use 15 a lot & try not to go beyond 35. Portrait shots in the mountains are ok..generally not looking to totally obliterate background anyway.XC15-45 & XE3XC15-45 &XE3XC15-45. Example portrait at it's weakest FL 45mmXF14F2.8Good examples, Fuji 16-80 is a sensational lense and probably the most flexible lens available today for size,weight,range and a constant f4. It stands up against all FF 24-105's I've compared it too and Tamron 17-70 too despite its 2.8. The extra range from 105-120 really is useful, for blurring close up objects or getting that tiny bit more tele from it! The 15-45 looks equally interesting and looking forward to giving one a go over the summer out of lockdown😎Great examples from Clive99, indeed! Goes to show how useful different focal lengths are. Buying this new camera might be more expensive than I thought because clearly... Now I need the 14-45, 16-80 and the magic 90 as well. I haven't been able to get a single image like the skier with the 90 with my current setup.Skiers are really tricky thou, when they are coming towards you, even more than 80 or 90 would be nice (I like my 50-230 for that), but then when they are just passing, even the 18 feels tight, if you want to include the view. Also the last image with the 14/2.8 is something I've struggled with. There is always something that gets left out with 18mm. I have been using my phone as my second wide-angle camera thou. Works surprisingly well, whatever purists might say.And you are right, I picked the lightest zooms for my earlier comparison that I could find. With good light the bigger apertures are mainly useful for separation and not really worth the extra ~200-300g over their slower siblings when the light is good.Btw. Managed to find an A7C to rent cheaply for today. Lovely body, good ergonomics, great tracking AF and excellent combo with the 28-60. But I wouldn't like to lug around a lens that weighs as much as the body. The default JPG settings have way too much contrast and "hard" colors for bright scenes with deep shadows. The uncompressed RAW files give plenty of editing room thou. Example below.A7C + 28-60 @ 60mm. Cropped and edited from uncompressed RAW.Practically the biggest annoyance was a bit of a surprise. The light from the back LCD screen of the A7C is polarized perpendicular to my sunglasses, making it impossible to see anything (unless shooting in portrait). Needless to say, massively frustrating. And at first I thought I had broken the rental! The XE1 LCD polarization is opposite and clearly visible with my sunglasses (unless trying to shoot in portrait).Gona try to rent one of the Fuji bodies next. Finers crossed they haven't switched the polarization of their rear LCD:s.Did you consider to replace the 50-230 with the 55-200, it's surprising how well f4 on aps-c even at 80mm starts to show good separation, so the 55-200 is still holding onto f4 at around 100mm too! So not upto 90mm levels but then the 90mm is fixed and far less flexible! Partner the 55-200 with the 15-45 too for a very decent range for size/weight.How was the a7c evf, apparently its very small?Agree with the comment about longer FL. I compromise to limit myself to 80 and crop when necessary. I have used the 55-200 a couple of times for skiing. I do really like the lens, but for a zoom I find it really limiting not to be able to go below 55. My ski partners would not tolerate a lens change in the field when there's pow to be had. My recollection was that it's a little slower focusing than the 16-80. I *think* i got less keepers with it. It is worth consideration, though.Also tried the 18-135. It really is a good telephoto FL. I just really wasn't happy with the IQ. IMHO it was a big step down from the 16-80..and 18 is not 16.For a sleeper setup, before I had the Fuji, I used a tiny Nikon J5 with 30-110 lens. 300mm equivalent, super fast AF and 1" sensor. In good light it was pretty damn good. I still may bring it out from time to time as a 2nd camera.

Strangefinder wrote:The Sigma fp L is a superlight FF at ~420g and now has quite light all-metal "I series" lenses with aperture rings. Sigma have the most advanced film modes after Fuji, and also have in-camera re-processing. The 61mp "fp L" (as opposed to the almost the same 24mp "fp") also has a very high resolution sensor with a "crop-zoom" option which can extend focal range in-camera with more precision. The main downside for stills is the electronic-only shutter; yet, this has a plus-side since the camera has no moving parts and is weather-resistant.(Probably off-topic, but it’s the only camera which can shoot video directly to SSDs, so video storage is far cheaper and needn’t be compressed at all)Suggested lenses to correspond with your Fuji kit, would be:28-70mmF2.8 (470g) or the even smaller+wider Panasonic S 20-60mmF3.5-5.6 (350g)65mmF2 (405g) record-breaker; all-metal with aperture-ring24mmF3.5 (225g) demi-macro of 2:1 in FF mode; all-metal with aperture-ring105mmF2.8 with 2x TC (700g) extremely sharp macro, but can be a telephoto with the TC and "crop-zoom" (there are also Panasonic, Leica and Sigma telephoto zooms in L mount, but more expensive and heavier.)Alternatively:an X100V with the wide & long TCLs, or a;Silver X-Pro3 since you’ll probably have it for ten more years, and so it can be justifiedHonourable mention: The Panasonic S5 also has the same mount as the fp above, and is quite compact at 715g, but with a big grip so there’d be no need to buy accessories etc. It’s got great colour (though not the number of options as Fuji and Sigma) and is a better all-rounder than the fp (IBIS, mechanical shutter, etc) but not as tiny or X-E like.Sony colour would be hard to face after Fuji, and Canon has good colour, but the system is closed and lenses very expensive (same with Nikon) whereas Sigma and Panasonic are sharing lenses, and building them at various sizes + price-points, while keeping them all high quality (including Leica and Leica-certified.)I'd be really wary of the AF on a Sigma. I have no knowledge of the AF performance to the new fp, but Sigma has never prioritized AF, not handling speed in the past. Also not keen on the ergonomics of the Sigma. They tend to do niche cameras, with great IQ.Be aware Panasonic do depth-from-defocus AF..not phase detect. Personally haven't tried it, but AFAIK it's not as good for action. Perhaps someone with experience using Panasonic for action could chime in? In my mind it's an open question.

And-roid wrote:Did you consider to replace the 50-230 with the 55-200, it's surprising how well f4 on aps-c even at 80mm starts to show good separation, so the 55-200 is still holding onto f4 at around 100mm too! So not upto 90mm levels but then the 90mm is fixed and far less flexible! Partner the 55-200 with the 15-45 too for a very decent range for size/weight.How was the a7c evf, apparently its very small?I remember considering the 55-200, but bought the 50-230 because it was heavier (~200g, I see). Today I don't need to shave off -every- gram, so I'm happy to consider both the 55-200 and the 90. But I generally don't take more than one lens when I move in a group. I've put up notifications for used 90, 16-80 and 15-45 lenses on the local exchange site.The EVF in the A7C was much better than in the XE1, which isn't necessarily saying much. I just don't have anything else to compare with. Using the left hand for additional shielding from the sun helps, but prevents holding the camera by the lens. Not an issue with the 16-80, but larger lenses probably would.

Joel_O wrote:And-roid wrote:Did you consider to replace the 50-230 with the 55-200, it's surprising how well f4 on aps-c even at 80mm starts to show good separation, so the 55-200 is still holding onto f4 at around 100mm too! So not upto 90mm levels but then the 90mm is fixed and far less flexible! Partner the 55-200 with the 15-45 too for a very decent range for size/weight.How was the a7c evf, apparently its very small?I remember considering the 55-200, but bought the 50-230 because it was heavier (~200g, I see). Today I don't need to shave off -every- gram, so I'm happy to consider both the 55-200 and the 90. But I generally don't take more than one lens when I move in a group. I've put up notifications for used 90, 16-80 and 15-45 lenses on the local exchange site.The EVF in the A7C was much better than in the XE1, which isn't necessarily saying much. I just don't have anything else to compare with. Using the left hand for additional shielding from the sun helps, but prevents holding the camera by the lens. Not an issue with the 16-80, but larger lenses probably would.Be aware there may be some sample variation with the 16-80 (and the 15-45), as I believe there is with most consumer zooms. There have been a few posts from people unhappy with their 16-80 (some may be a result of an early FW problem the lens had that increased shutter shock susceptibiIity). I strongly recommend testing as much as possible before buying. I wasn't happy with my first one, but my 2nd copy is really good.

I think you should switch to Canon.  JMO.Good luck.