If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?
The Canon 7D with its 1.6-factor sensor weighs 900 g with battery --
the Full Frame Canon 5D2 weighs 907 g. What the hell? Why aren't the smaller-frame bodies significantly smaller than the bigger frame models, as used to be the case between 35mm film cameras and the medium format models like the RZ and the Hasselblad? The small frame normal zoom for the 7D is the 17-55mm lens, and it weighs 645 g. The corresponding model for the 5D2 is the 24-105mm, at 670 g -- only 25g heavier. Put body and lens together and the bigger format weighs only 2% more. The difference in price is around $1000. But for that extra cash, I'm getting so much more camera. The 24-105 lens has a smaller aperture, but considering the size of the sensor, gives about the same DOF as the 17-55mm lens for the same composition with both lenses wide open. I can compensate for the slower speed of the 24-105 lens by dialling in one stop more ISO. I won't get more noise because the pixels are larger. So DOF and noise are roughly equal, after making these adjustments. But the bigger format gives me better resolution. The lens has a 4.4x zoom, instead of only 3.2x for the smaller camera. The 5D2 is less limited by diffraction. And all reports suggest the 5D2 produces much better IQ than small frame models. All this for a diff of a thousand bucks. What am I missing here? Wally |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?
On 01/02/2011 07:06, Wally wrote:
The Canon 7D with its 1.6-factor sensor weighs 900 g with battery -- the Full Frame Canon 5D2 weighs 907 g. What the hell? Why aren't the smaller-frame bodies significantly smaller than the bigger frame models, as used to be the case between 35mm film cameras and the medium format models like the RZ and the Hasselblad? The small frame normal zoom for the 7D is the 17-55mm lens, and it weighs 645 g. The corresponding model for the 5D2 is the 24-105mm, at 670 g -- only 25g heavier. Put body and lens together and the bigger format weighs only 2% more. The difference in price is around $1000. But for that extra cash, I'm getting so much more camera. The 24-105 lens has a smaller aperture, but considering the size of the sensor, gives about the same DOF as the 17-55mm lens for the same composition with both lenses wide open. I can compensate for the slower speed of the 24-105 lens by dialling in one stop more ISO. I won't get more noise because the pixels are larger. So DOF and noise are roughly equal, after making these adjustments. But the bigger format gives me better resolution. The lens has a 4.4x zoom, instead of only 3.2x for the smaller camera. The 5D2 is less limited by diffraction. And all reports suggest the 5D2 produces much better IQ than small frame models. All this for a diff of a thousand bucks. What am I missing here? Wally They have the same size lens mount is the most obvious answer and the sensor it a tiny fraction of the overall weight and size. I dare say it has many similar components as well. If the weight is so important attach a couple of 100g weights via the tripod socket. Mike |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?
On 1/02/2011 8:06 p.m., Wally wrote:
The Canon 7D with its 1.6-factor sensor weighs 900 g with battery -- the Full Frame Canon 5D2 weighs 907 g. What am I missing here? You're comparing about the lowest spec 35mm format dslr camera on the market with one of the highest spec crop sensor dslrs. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?
"Wally" wrote in message ... The Canon 7D with its 1.6-factor sensor weighs 900 g with battery -- the Full Frame Canon 5D2 weighs 907 g. What the hell? Why aren't the smaller-frame bodies significantly smaller than the bigger frame models, as used to be the case between 35mm film cameras and the medium format models like the RZ and the Hasselblad? The small frame normal zoom for the 7D is the 17-55mm lens, and it weighs 645 g. The corresponding model for the 5D2 is the 24-105mm, at 670 g -- only 25g heavier. Put body and lens together and the bigger format weighs only 2% more. The difference in price is around $1000. But for that extra cash, I'm getting so much more camera. The 24-105 lens has a smaller aperture, but considering the size of the sensor, gives about the same DOF as the 17-55mm lens for the same composition with both lenses wide open. I can compensate for the slower speed of the 24-105 lens by dialling in one stop more ISO. I won't get more noise because the pixels are larger. So DOF and noise are roughly equal, after making these adjustments. But the bigger format gives me better resolution. The lens has a 4.4x zoom, instead of only 3.2x for the smaller camera. The 5D2 is less limited by diffraction. And all reports suggest the 5D2 produces much better IQ than small frame models. All this for a diff of a thousand bucks. What am I missing here? Wally As far as I am concerned if I were to change from my 7D to 5D2 I would lose 140mm of zoom. That is, my 100-400mm zoom lens would show the same field of view as it would on a 35mm camera. With the 1.6 crop factor on the 7D my field of view is the same as a 160-640mm on a full frame sensor camera and I can hand hold the 7D and lens when I shoot. Try hand holding the 5D2 with a 160-640mm zoom lens! I don't really care what the "normal" lens is or what a wide angle lens is on the 7D as my 100-400mm lens is the only lens that I have had on my 7D. Ron |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?
In article , Wally
wrote: The Canon 7D with its 1.6-factor sensor weighs 900 g with battery -- the Full Frame Canon 5D2 weighs 907 g. What the hell? now compare it with the canon 550d, which weighs 530g, just over half the weight. Why aren't the smaller-frame bodies significantly smaller than the bigger frame models, as used to be the case between 35mm film cameras and the medium format models like the RZ and the Hasselblad? they *are* smaller & lighter, depending on which model. The small frame normal zoom for the 7D is the 17-55mm lens, and it weighs 645 g. The corresponding model for the 5D2 is the 24-105mm, at 670 g -- only 25g heavier. now compare a 18-200mm crop lens versus canon's 28-300 full frame version. one is a *lot* bigger, heavier and more expensive. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?
On 2011-02-01 10:53:03 -0800, Peter said:
Are you now or have you ever been a sock puppet for one purporting to be Rich who appears to have an interest in some things plastic? Pete Have you always been an ass? From: Peter Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Subject: Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies? Followup-To: uk.rec.ufo -- Regards, Savageduck |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?
On 2/02/2011 7:17 a.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
In , Me says... On 1/02/2011 8:06 p.m., Wally wrote: The Canon 7D with its 1.6-factor sensor weighs 900 g with battery -- the Full Frame Canon 5D2 weighs 907 g. What am I missing here? You're comparing about the lowest spec 35mm format dslr camera on the market with one of the highest spec crop sensor dslrs. Since when is the 5D2 the lowest spec full frame DSLR? Since the D3/D700/D3s/D3x, 1dsIII, - perhaps also the A900. It has a slow frame rates (and faster frame rates with short blackout time need a faster / stronger mirror assembly), and an old and fairly limited AF system, it also doesn't have a popup flash with wireless, nor a fully weatherproofed body design. The D700 weighs about 200g more than the 5dII. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?
Not much difference in the actual size and weight of the silicon sensors.
Not a good idea to try to remap old film facts, in this case. Analogies tend to fail miserably in high-tech replacements. Those little Si sensors are a marvel of modern technology and tend to be near the cutting edge (when first released). With the rapid change we now enjoy(?), they tend to be boring after just a few years. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:45:16 -0600, "Ron" wrote:
"Wally" wrote in message .. . The Canon 7D with its 1.6-factor sensor weighs 900 g with battery -- the Full Frame Canon 5D2 weighs 907 g. What the hell? Why aren't the smaller-frame bodies significantly smaller than the bigger frame models, as used to be the case between 35mm film cameras and the medium format models like the RZ and the Hasselblad? The small frame normal zoom for the 7D is the 17-55mm lens, and it weighs 645 g. The corresponding model for the 5D2 is the 24-105mm, at 670 g -- only 25g heavier. Put body and lens together and the bigger format weighs only 2% more. The difference in price is around $1000. But for that extra cash, I'm getting so much more camera. The 24-105 lens has a smaller aperture, but considering the size of the sensor, gives about the same DOF as the 17-55mm lens for the same composition with both lenses wide open. I can compensate for the slower speed of the 24-105 lens by dialling in one stop more ISO. I won't get more noise because the pixels are larger. So DOF and noise are roughly equal, after making these adjustments. But the bigger format gives me better resolution. The lens has a 4.4x zoom, instead of only 3.2x for the smaller camera. The 5D2 is less limited by diffraction. And all reports suggest the 5D2 produces much better IQ than small frame models. All this for a diff of a thousand bucks. What am I missing here? Wally As far as I am concerned if I were to change from my 7D to 5D2 I would lose 140mm of zoom. That is, my 100-400mm zoom lens would show the same field of view as it would on a 35mm camera. With the 1.6 crop factor on the 7D my field of view is the same as a 160-640mm on a full frame sensor camera and I can hand hold the 7D and lens when I shoot. Try hand holding the 5D2 with a 160-640mm zoom lens! I don't really care what the "normal" lens is or what a wide angle lens is on the 7D as my 100-400mm lens is the only lens that I have had on my 7D. Right -- for long lenses, the 7D would be much better, because the 7D has much higher pixel density. Wally |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?
On 2011.02.01 2:06 , Wally wrote:
The Canon 7D with its 1.6-factor sensor weighs 900 g with battery -- the Full Frame Canon 5D2 weighs 907 g. What the hell? Why aren't the smaller-frame bodies significantly smaller than the bigger frame models, as used to be the case between 35mm film cameras and the medium format models like the RZ and the Hasselblad? 1. Many are smaller/lighter than the 7D/5D2. 2. The lens mount is a size constraint. 3. Some people have big hands in any case. 4. Hasselblad? It's not that big at all compared to full feature SLR/DSLR's http://gallery.photo.net/photo/9471512-lg.jpg The RZ is a bit beefier - really a studio camera. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentax K-X, best 1.5 crop sensor going? | Ray Fischer | Digital SLR Cameras | 8 | March 4th 10 03:33 PM |
Pentax K-X, best 1.5 crop sensor going? | SMS | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | March 2nd 10 09:35 PM |
Canon 40D... on a 1.3x crop sensor? | [email protected] | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | September 9th 06 11:33 AM |