Thought it might be an interesting exercise to compare some price and weight differences.
Now some notes -- when dealing with full frame cameras and premium lenses, I believe mirrorless will typically not offer any significant weight savings. Furthermore, Sony is the only big full frame mirrorless player, and they have priced their premium lenses with an extra premium... so they are more expensive. It's among the reasons that for my full frame pro work, I am continuing to stick to dSLR for now.
On the other hand, for APS-C use -- There are really only 2 big players in APS-C mirrorless -- Sony and Fuji. Samsung withdrew from the market. Canon is finally starting to get serious in the market, but for now, they offer very few lenses truly designed for mirrorless.
On the smaller sensor, the weight savings can really be maximized, if lenses are designed specifically for it. Particularly wider angle lenses.
Anyway, I'll stick to 2 brands I know for this comparison:
Sony's current mirrorless entry level dSLR equivalent is the A6000.
For Nikon, it is the D3400. The D3400 is newer, but Sony no longer updates their entry level models. They simply allow yesterday's upper model to become today's entry level.
So is it a fair comparison? They both offer 24mp sensors, probably variants of the same sensor. DXO suggests the image quality is very similar, the D3400 having an edge as lower ISOs while the A6000 has an edge at higher ISOs, but very similar. Neither camera can shoot 4k, they both shoot HD video. D3400 has an ISO range of 100-25600. The A6000 has ISO range of 100-51200. They both have wifi. They both have 3" screens, but the A6000 has a tilt non-touch screen and the D3400 has a fixed non-touch screen. The A6000 has a much bigger 100% viewfinder, but it is electronic. The D3400 only has a 95% viewfinder, and it is much smaller, but it is optical. (some prefer electronic, some prefer optical) . The A6000 can shoot 11fps with full autofocus, the D3400 is limited to 5fps.
So overall, they both are on a similar playing field, the A6000 being a bit richer in features.
So price:
Unfortunately, I can't even find the D3400 being offered as body only. But with kit 18-55 lens, it is running $496 on
Amazon.
Amazon lists it as 394 grams in weight, I believe this is without lens.
Sony A6000, you can buy it body only for $400, or with the kit lens 16-50 for $550.
Weight -- 345 grams, body only.
Thus so far, you are paying $50 more for the Sony system, and saving 50 grams on the bodies.
Now, weight of the kit lenses:
The new Nikon 18-55 is 205 grams.
The Sony 16-50 116 grams.
Now, in fairness, in this case, the Nikon lens is the better lens by a little bit.
Still, we are now at an almost 150 gram difference between just camera + kit lens.
Now, I'll build out my typical travel bag. Other people will have different experiences, based on the types of lenses that carry.
I MUST have an ultrawide lens when I travel. Even if I stuck to a kit lens, I'd need something wider.
For Sony, it is their pretty good 10-18/4. It isn't cheap, $750. Weight, only 225 grams. That is with constant f4 and image stabilization.
The Nikon equivalent is not constant aperture and lacks image stabilization. It is their 10-24. It runs $899 and weighs 466 grams.
Now I'll add a normal view prime to the bag. Both Nikon and Sony have APS-C designed 35/1.8 lenses.
Sony's 35/1.8 for APS-C has image stabilization, it is $399 and weighs 154 grams.
Nikon's 35/1.8 for APS-C lacks stabilization, it is much cheaper at $199, and weighs 200 grams.
Then I need a portrait prime -- for APS-C, a nifty fifty.
Nikon does not have an APS-C designed 50/1.8, so you have to use their FX 50/1.8. It lacks stabilization. It is $220 and weighs 185 grams.
Usually, Nikon will have more lens choices than Sony. But in this case, Sony actually has more choices.
For Sony, you can get their FX 50/1.8, which also lacks stabilization, for $199 and weighs 186 grams --
Or, you can get their DX/APS-C 50/1.8, which has stabilization. It costs more, at $299 and weighs 202 grams. So in this case, there is no weight-savings no matter which Sony lens you pick. So keep things even -- so neither lens has stabilization, I'll go with the cheaper Sony.
Now, I could be done right there. I don't generally see a need for telephoto when I travel.
But for the sake of completeness, let's add telephotos to the bag.
We can either go with a cheaper kit-type telephoto, or a more premium telephoto options.
Going with the kit option: Sony 55-210 -- $350 and 345 grams.
Nikon 55-200, $350 and 300 grams. The Nikon also has a slightly faster aperture. As I said above, at telephoto, mirrorless doesn't really have any weight savings. In this case, the Nikon weighs less than the Sony, while likely delivering slightly better performance.
Now if we switch to premium telephoto:
Sony 70-200/4 -- 850 grams and $1500
Nikon 70-200/4 --850 grams and $1400
I actually own and use both these lenses. They both deliver very similar and very good performance.
Now, let's assemble our bag (I'll go with the premium telephotos as they are directly comparable:
Sony A6000 + 10-18 + 16-50 + 35/1.8 + 50/1.8 + 70-200/4
Price: $3400
Weight: 1876 grams or 4.1 pounds
Nikon D3400 + 10-24 + 18-55 + 35/1.8 + 50/1.8 + 70-200/4
Price: $3215. (so about 6% cheaper than the Sony bundle)
Weight: 2300 grams or 5 lbs.
When I started this comparison, I wasn't exactly sure how it would conclude.
I think we see overall that the Nikon options are a bit cheaper, but there are some lenses where Sony is cheaper. So when you balance it out, the Nikon is slightly cheaper to assemble a full kit. Lenses are not 100% equivalent... in some cases, Sony is offering the better lens, in some cases, Nikon is offering the better lens.
In weight... as you get to lenses that are 50mm and longer, there are no weight differences. At wider angles, there can be somewhat significant weight differences.
In my example, the Sony kit weighed 20% less. A real difference but not massive. Not sure how much my shoulder would see the difference between 4 lbs and 5 lbs.
But, if you limit yourself to the wider angles -- if I removed the 70-200 from both bags..
Then the Sony bag would be only 1026 grams. The Nikon bag would be 1450 grams.
So Sony bag only 2.3 pounds -- And this is my real typical travel kit.
The Nikon bag -- 3.2 pounds. So now the Nikon bag weighs 50% more than the Sony bag. I would definitely bring an extra batter for the Sony, but that's only another 80 grams, or .2 pounds.
So in other words, if you think a dSLR has to be 10 lbs and a mirrorless is only 2 lbs... then you are way off. The differences are never anywhere near that. But for some users, you may be talking about a moderate noticeable weight advantage to mirrorless... comparing 3 lbs to 2lbs.
And in terms of price... while there will be examples where the mirrorless is much more expensive due to the lack of cheaper 3rd party options (typically when talking about premium, professional and semi-pro lenses), there are also plenty of examples where the price differences are rather negligible (when sticking to consumer grade lenses).
You really need to look closely at what gear you really expect to add over time, what options exist in each system, etc. For me, personally, Sony allows me to carry a light weight, easy, fun, option capable for very good photographs. For my professional work, I need a full frame camera + 24-70/2.8 + 85/1.8. In this case, the Sony options didn't give me any real weight savings, and were much much more expensive (Nikon premium lenses aren't much cheaper than the Sony premium lenses, but I shoot with some Tamron lenses which deliver fantastic bang for the buck).
