Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?

On 2011-01-31 23:06:26 -0800, Wally said:

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?

It is far worse than that. Why are full-frame cameras so much heavier
than their predecessors? Why does a Nikon FM2 weigh 540g, while a D3x
weighs 1220g? The D3x does not even need the stuff for handling film!
Yet, despite all this additional weight, the pentaprism does not
transmit light to the viewfinder as well as the FM2 and overall
performance is arguably no better. Even a D700 weighs 995g. What on
earth for?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Paul Furman wrote:
The Hasselblad design could probably be adapted to 35mm but that would
handle like a mini hand held slide viewer: a longish spice-box, maybe
with a folding pop-up viewfinder so it's not top-viewing - hold it as if
looking through a toilet paper tube.

I was mixed up about that; I was thinking of the old style which is
already flip-up and top-viewing but a more complex system could relay it
to the rear for normal viewing and end up kind of like the new digital
models. I'm really not familiar & shoulda kept my trap shut but there is
probably a way to devise a folding system which would result in a
compact 2" cube sized body, probably an inch or more longer in the
viewing axis to hold a battery and LCD screen. AF could be a problem.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:38:54 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2011-01-31 23:06:26 -0800, Wally said:

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?

It is far worse than that. Why are full-frame cameras so much heavier
than their predecessors? Why does a Nikon FM2 weigh 540g, while a D3x
weighs 1220g? The D3x does not even need the stuff for handling film!
Yet, despite all this additional weight, the pentaprism does not
transmit light to the viewfinder as well as the FM2 and overall
performance is arguably no better. Even a D700 weighs 995g. What on
earth for?

Maybe the manufacturers pour cement into them to give them extra heft.
Makes them feel more expensive and justifies the high price.

Wally

On 5/02/2011 10:53 a.m., Wally wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:38:54 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2011-01-31 23:06:26 -0800, Wally said:

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?

It is far worse than that. Why are full-frame cameras so much heavier
than their predecessors? Why does a Nikon FM2 weigh 540g, while a D3x
weighs 1220g? The D3x does not even need the stuff for handling film!
Yet, despite all this additional weight, the pentaprism does not
transmit light to the viewfinder as well as the FM2 and overall
performance is arguably no better. Even a D700 weighs 995g. What on
earth for?

Maybe the manufacturers pour cement into them to give them extra heft.
Makes them feel more expensive and justifies the high price.

No point comparing a D3x with an FM. Better comparison may be an F3
with MD4, which with a set of batteries in the MD4 probably weighs more
than a D3x.
The "less bright" VF relates to semi-silvered mirror in phase-detect AF
dslrs, there's a secondary mirror behind the main mirror that reflects
image down to the AF unit in the bottom of the mirror box. The CAM 3500
unit in the D3/700/300 series is hefty, with a very large lens. Less
capable AF systems (low light/number of AF points) are also much
smaller. That's probably why a D700 weighs more than a Canon 5DII, and
why in comparison, the 5DII AF performance is lousy.
Sure - they could probably make a "digital FM" (or IMO, a "digital FA"
would be better with PASM metering modes). Some people have been
whining about this for years, and so far none of the makers have come up
with one.

On 2011-02-04 13:34:45 -0800, Alfred Molon said:

In article 2011020323161482327-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...
On 2011-02-03 23:03:58 -0800, Alfred Molon said:

In article , Ray Fischer
says...
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?

"If a sensor weighs just three grams then why does the
camera weigh 900 grams?"

A sensor is not a camera.
A camera is not a sensor.

Get a clue.

Still there are film cameras whose size is a fraction of the size of
current full frame DSLRs. It should not be a problem to make very
compact full frame DSLRs. The electronics can't take so much space, as
the Sony NEX cameras demonstrate it.

Alfred, are you and Rich cousins?

Why?

Whoooosh!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Me wrote:
On 5/02/2011 10:53 a.m., Wally wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:38:54 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2011-01-31 23:06:26 -0800, Wally said:

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?

It is far worse than that. Why are full-frame cameras so much heavier
than their predecessors? Why does a Nikon FM2 weigh 540g, while a D3x
weighs 1220g? The D3x does not even need the stuff for handling film!
Yet, despite all this additional weight, the pentaprism does not
transmit light to the viewfinder as well as the FM2 and overall
performance is arguably no better. Even a D700 weighs 995g. What on
earth for?

Maybe the manufacturers pour cement into them to give them extra heft.
Makes them feel more expensive and justifies the high price.

No point comparing a D3x with an FM. Better comparison may be an F3 with
MD4, which with a set of batteries in the MD4 probably weighs more than
a D3x.
The "less bright" VF relates to semi-silvered mirror in phase-detect AF
dslrs, there's a secondary mirror behind the main mirror that reflects
image down to the AF unit in the bottom of the mirror box. The CAM 3500
unit in the D3/700/300 series is hefty, with a very large lens. Less
capable AF systems (low light/number of AF points) are also much
smaller. That's probably why a D700 weighs more than a Canon 5DII, and
why in comparison, the 5DII AF performance is lousy.
Sure - they could probably make a "digital FM" (or IMO, a "digital FA"
would be better with PASM metering modes). Some people have been whining
about this for years, and so far none of the makers have come up with one.

Thanks for the better explanation. AF sensor (and AF motor). Where does
the metering system go?

The thing is; if you eliminated all that automation, it would be a
pro-only camera, and many 'pro's' want high performance AF and other
features for sports and wildlife so it really would only be useful for
street shooting and certain kinds of photojournalism - a rather narrow
market. Pro's who do the slow measured tripod type shooting would mostly
not benefit from compactness, except backpackers and photo enthusiast
tourists I guess. For the relevant segment, the new Leica is probably
about right. If it were small and inexpensive with only manual
functions, it would be great for students and enthusiasts with modest
means but there's no money in that market. The closest match for that
market is probably Russian medum format film cameras but no such thing
for digital exists. If the world economy collapses for decades and
everyone is poor with more time to learn how to shoot manual, we might
see such a camera emerge. If you don't need super image quality or
dynamic range, smaller formats are fine.

In article
201102040938546934-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom, C J
Campbell wrote:

It is far worse than that. Why are full-frame cameras so much heavier
than their predecessors? Why does a Nikon FM2 weigh 540g, while a D3x
weighs 1220g?

try comparing a nikon d40x with an fm2 - 522g versus 540g.

don't forget the space needed for all of the film. a bunch of flash
cards for the d40x will fit in a pocket and can hold thousands of
photos and does not need any type of cooling for warmer days like film
would. even a few rolls of film will take up quite a bit of space,
nevermind enough for thousands of photos.

and to be a fair comparison, you should also add a winder to the fm2
since the d40x can shoot 3 fps until it runs out of space on the card
(in jpeg mode).

Alfred Molon wrote:
Ray Fischer
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?

"If a sensor weighs just three grams then why does the
camera weigh 900 grams?"

A sensor is not a camera.
A camera is not a sensor.

Get a clue.

Still there are film cameras whose size is a fraction of the size of
current full frame DSLRs.

So what?

It should not be a problem to make very
compact full frame DSLRs.

I am never impressed by ignorant fools who think that even though they
have no experience or training, they still believe themselves to be
smarter than engineers with gradaute degrees and decades of experience
designing cameras.

Know anybody like that?

--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

On 5/02/2011 1:32 p.m., Paul Furman wrote:
Me wrote:
On 5/02/2011 10:53 a.m., Wally wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:38:54 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2011-01-31 23:06:26 -0800, Wally said:

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?

It is far worse than that. Why are full-frame cameras so much heavier
than their predecessors? Why does a Nikon FM2 weigh 540g, while a D3x
weighs 1220g? The D3x does not even need the stuff for handling film!
Yet, despite all this additional weight, the pentaprism does not
transmit light to the viewfinder as well as the FM2 and overall
performance is arguably no better. Even a D700 weighs 995g. What on
earth for?

Maybe the manufacturers pour cement into them to give them extra heft.
Makes them feel more expensive and justifies the high price.

No point comparing a D3x with an FM. Better comparison may be an F3 with
MD4, which with a set of batteries in the MD4 probably weighs more than
a D3x.
The "less bright" VF relates to semi-silvered mirror in phase-detect AF
dslrs, there's a secondary mirror behind the main mirror that reflects
image down to the AF unit in the bottom of the mirror box. The CAM 3500
unit in the D3/700/300 series is hefty, with a very large lens. Less
capable AF systems (low light/number of AF points) are also much
smaller. That's probably why a D700 weighs more than a Canon 5DII, and
why in comparison, the 5DII AF performance is lousy.
Sure - they could probably make a "digital FM" (or IMO, a "digital FA"
would be better with PASM metering modes). Some people have been whining
about this for years, and so far none of the makers have come up with
one.

Thanks for the better explanation. AF sensor (and AF motor). Where does
the metering system go?

I don't know. Nikon introduced matrix metering with the FA model -
before AF, even the F3AF. I think (but don't know) that metering must
be with photosensors in the prism assembly, small enough and out of the
focal plane enough so they can't be seen though the VF, and there's
enough of them so that each focus point can be user selected as metering
point for centre-weighted or spot, and approx spot diameter can be user
selected on many models. That's 51 AF points /and/ 51 CW centre or spot
points on D3/700/300 models. I've never seen documentation or stripped
down a camera enough to see what really goes on. If someone knows, it
would be interesting to see how it really works. But it works well, I
had an FA, and the earliest matrix metering system worked really well
most of the time. That also had spot and CW, but limited to the centre
point.

The thing is; if you eliminated all that automation, it would be a
pro-only camera, and many 'pro's' want high performance AF and other
features for sports and wildlife so it really would only be useful for
street shooting and certain kinds of photojournalism - a rather narrow
market. Pro's who do the slow measured tripod type shooting would mostly
not benefit from compactness, except backpackers and photo enthusiast
tourists I guess. For the relevant segment, the new Leica is probably
about right. If it were small and inexpensive with only manual
functions, it would be great for students and enthusiasts with modest
means but there's no money in that market. The closest match for that
market is probably Russian medum format film cameras but no such thing
for digital exists. If the world economy collapses for decades and
everyone is poor with more time to learn how to shoot manual, we might
see such a camera emerge. If you don't need super image quality or
dynamic range, smaller formats are fine.
Yes - the Leica is in the boutique market. Breaking in to that market
without a "name" and heritage isn't likely to happen. The major SLR
makers could do it. It's a marketing issue - not a technical issue.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:45:10 +1300, Me wrote:

On 5/02/2011 1:32 p.m., Paul Furman wrote:
Me wrote:
On 5/02/2011 10:53 a.m., Wally wrote:
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:38:54 -0800, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2011-01-31 23:06:26 -0800, Wally said:

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?

It is far worse than that. Why are full-frame cameras so much heavier
than their predecessors? Why does a Nikon FM2 weigh 540g, while a D3x
weighs 1220g? The D3x does not even need the stuff for handling film!
Yet, despite all this additional weight, the pentaprism does not
transmit light to the viewfinder as well as the FM2 and overall
performance is arguably no better. Even a D700 weighs 995g. What on
earth for?

Maybe the manufacturers pour cement into them to give them extra heft.
Makes them feel more expensive and justifies the high price.

No point comparing a D3x with an FM. Better comparison may be an F3 with
MD4, which with a set of batteries in the MD4 probably weighs more than
a D3x.
The "less bright" VF relates to semi-silvered mirror in phase-detect AF
dslrs, there's a secondary mirror behind the main mirror that reflects
image down to the AF unit in the bottom of the mirror box. The CAM 3500
unit in the D3/700/300 series is hefty, with a very large lens. Less
capable AF systems (low light/number of AF points) are also much
smaller. That's probably why a D700 weighs more than a Canon 5DII, and
why in comparison, the 5DII AF performance is lousy.
Sure - they could probably make a "digital FM" (or IMO, a "digital FA"
would be better with PASM metering modes). Some people have been whining
about this for years, and so far none of the makers have come up with
one.

Thanks for the better explanation. AF sensor (and AF motor). Where does
the metering system go?

I don't know. Nikon introduced matrix metering with the FA model -
before AF, even the F3AF. I think (but don't know) that metering must
be with photosensors in the prism assembly, small enough and out of the
focal plane enough so they can't be seen though the VF, and there's
enough of them so that each focus point can be user selected as metering
point for centre-weighted or spot, and approx spot diameter can be user
selected on many models. That's 51 AF points /and/ 51 CW centre or spot
points on D3/700/300 models. I've never seen documentation or stripped
down a camera enough to see what really goes on. If someone knows, it
would be interesting to see how it really works. But it works well, I
had an FA, and the earliest matrix metering system worked really well
most of the time. That also had spot and CW, but limited to the centre
point.

I thought the film Nikon cameras made use of light reflected off the
film.


The thing is; if you eliminated all that automation, it would be a
pro-only camera, and many 'pro's' want high performance AF and other
features for sports and wildlife so it really would only be useful for
street shooting and certain kinds of photojournalism - a rather narrow
market. Pro's who do the slow measured tripod type shooting would mostly
not benefit from compactness, except backpackers and photo enthusiast
tourists I guess. For the relevant segment, the new Leica is probably
about right. If it were small and inexpensive with only manual
functions, it would be great for students and enthusiasts with modest
means but there's no money in that market. The closest match for that
market is probably Russian medum format film cameras but no such thing
for digital exists. If the world economy collapses for decades and
everyone is poor with more time to learn how to shoot manual, we might
see such a camera emerge. If you don't need super image quality or
dynamic range, smaller formats are fine.
Yes - the Leica is in the boutique market. Breaking in to that market
without a "name" and heritage isn't likely to happen. The major SLR
makers could do it. It's a marketing issue - not a technical issue.