The "Heavy" Price Of Full Frame Gear*

Top: Olympus E-M1 Mark III with the 300mm f/4 PRO lens attached (600mm FF equivalent).
Bottom: Nikon Z7 + FTZ Adapter with the 200-500mm f/5.6 F mount lens attached.  The hood is
not attached to the Nikon and is retracted on the Olympus.  The Olympus, as you see it with
the hood retracted, is 10 7/8" (276mm) in length while the Nikon, without a lens hood, is 14 3/8" (365mm) in length—33% longer.  Also, the Nikon gear weighs 68% more than the Olympus gear.

During my recent road trip to both Virginia's and Maryland's Eastern Shore, I took only my Nikon Z7 and a few lenses.  I had acquired a refurbished Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 lens last summer and I hadn't had much of an opportunity to use it.  (Something about lockdowns, no travel and some sort of virus, etc.)  Also, I wanted to compare my 'hit rate' with the Nikon combination as compared to the success on previous trips I had had with my Olympus gear.  

Backup camera?  I didn't think there was a need to carry a backup camera as all of my Nikon cameras, from 1975 until today, have been extremely reliable and none have ever failed me (unlike Olympus and Fujifilm cameras).  Additionally, this short solo road trip was strictly a 'rest and relaxation/break the winter blues' kind of trip so if the camera happened to fail, I planned to just hang out and enjoy the Atlantic Ocean, Chesapeake Bay and the outdoors.

It wasn't long after my arrival at the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge that when out handholding this Nikon combination that I was immediately reminded how large, bulky, unwieldy and heavy full frame telephoto lenses are.  I had forgotten how uncomfortable it was to work all day long with the weight and size of the long telephoto lenses.  On the other hand, this combination was fantastic when I was working out of my vehicle with a bean bag.  However, to walk around, hold the 200-500 up to my eye, track birds or wildlife for a significant amount of time is just not fun.  I admit I very much missed my Olympus gear while on that trip.  Most likely, in the future, I won't take this combination again.

In retrospect, I don't think that any of the images I made could not have been made and look just as good if I had used my Olympus gear.  Yes, I could crop in much more closely using the Z7 with its 45.7mp sensor, but with the Olympus, I have fields of view up to an equivalent of 840mm so it pretty much cancels out the need for extra pixels.  

That started me wondering, with the editing tools now available to for us to use, such as Topaz Sharpen AI, Topaz DeNoise AI, Topaz Gigapixel AI and now the new Adobe Camera Raw "Super Resolution" upsizing feature (soon to be in Lightroom as well), why in the world would I want to take gear that is larger, heavier and very uncomfortable to use but doesn't provide any better results?  I now have access to technology that can pretty much equalize the two formats, in many cases. Notice I didn't say all cases.  There are advantages to using full frame but the size and weight of the lenses is not one of them.

The Nikon combination weighs over 6.85 lbs. (3110g) but the Olympus only weighs a tiny bit over 4 lbs. (1851g).  The Nikon combination weighs over 68% more than the Olympus combination.  That said, there is one advantage the Nikon has. The 200-500mm f/5.6 lens provides more versatility than a single focal length Olympus 300mm f/4 lens.  To compensate for that, when I travel with the Olympus gear, I'll also take my Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 lens which then gives me focal lengths from 80-300mm f/2.8 full frame (FF) equivalent.  I can also add the tiny Olympus MC-14 1.4x tele-converter to make a trio of glass that provides me with effective fields of view (FF) from 80mm to 840mm.  Of course, I don't have both Olympus lenses attached to the camera at once so there is no additional weight to hold and only a slight increase when adding the tele-converter.

Here are the weights of those two additional pieces of gear.  The 40-150mm f/2.8 weighs 1.94 lbs. (880g) and the tiny 1.4X tele-converter only weighs 6 oz. (170g).  When adding the weights of the 300mm, the 40-150mm and the 1.4x tele-converter together, they still weigh less than the Z7 with the FTZ adapter and the 200-500mm f/5.6 lens.

The upshot is that even though the Nikon is much larger and heavier, if I want the additional versatility that is provided by a zoom lens, I need to carry some additional gear which adds to the overall package.  But...that additional two pieces of glass then gives me a lot more versatility than just focal lengths from 200-500mm.  Everything is a compromise.

For comparison purposed, here are some images and stats just to illustrate the difference between the two systems.

When you extend the Olympus lens hood and add the lens hood to the Nikon (at 200mm), the
lengths then become—Olympus 12.78" and the Nikon 17 1/16"—33% longer.

When you extend the Nikon lens to 500mm and measure it against the Olympus lens, neither with lens
hoods, the differences are; Olympus 10.78" and the Nikon 17 3/4".

Finally, if you extend the Olympus lens hood, add the Nikon lens hood and extend the Nikon's
focal length to 500mm, the lengths are: Olympus 12.78" and the Nikon 20 3/4".

Pictured is the Olympus full kit with focal lengths from 80mm-840mm and the Nikon
with focal lengths from 200mm-500mm.

With all hoods extended, i.e., as large as they can be.

Oh!  I almost forgot.  My hit rate was not greater with the Nikon system when compared to my Olympus system.  Another advantage.

*Credit for the title suggestion goes to my friend Peter Frailey.  Thanks Peter.

Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.  

Thanks for looking. Enjoy!  

Dennis A. Mook  

All content on this blog is © 2013-2021 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.