In article , Ken Hart wrote:

Sandman:
Also, what system is "more portable" than a Sony A7?

Alfred Molon:
FF lenses are HUGE ;-)

Sandman:
Which ones? I have plenty of smaller ones. The thing with crop
lenses is that they let in less light - well, there are plenty of
slower lenses for FF as well.

Also, that's weight/size, not portability. Something doesn't
become less portable for being slightly heavier or slightly
bigger. You still need a camera bag for a crop camera, it's not
like you can put it in your pocket. My iPhone is certainly more
portable than my A7, but a Sony A6500 isn't more portable than a
Sony A7 just because it's a crop camera with overall slightly
smaller lenses.

Exactly so. Easy to carry is kind of a definition of portable.

None of my full format cameras and lenses are "hard" to carry. Granted, if you
prefer to run around with a 70-200/2.8 attached at all times, I can see how a
smaller non-equivalent lens would look less cumbersome to you. But a A7 with the
55/1.8 attached is anything but big or "hard" to carry. The point is moot in the
APS/FF discussion.

I find my Canon FX to be easy to carry. If I'm shooting with no real
goal, I mount the 55-135mm, and put a 35mm lens in a pocket (cargo
pants or jacket). The camera and zoom fits my hand easily, and the
weight is maybe 3 pounds total.

OTOH, I find my Mamiya 645 SLR to be quite non-portable. The weight
is probably about the same as the 'walking-around' kit above, but
the camera does not easily fit my hand.

But the discussion was crop vs. FF, not crop vs. MF. While portable by any
definition of the word, a Mamiya 645 is worlds apart from a A7.

--
Sandman