Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Why don't crop sensor cameras have crop weight bodies?

Reply
Thread Tools

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

 
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
On 2/02/2011 7:51 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<ii9qec$i0j$(E-Mail Removed)>, Me says...
>> On 2/02/2011 7:17 a.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> 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.

>
> On the other hand the 5D2 has 21MP vs only 12 for the D3/D700/D3s, so
> it's higher-specced here.


Yes, but the extra pixels don't weigh much.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Not really, it might even be worse. You need a lens that can actually
>make full use of the sensor. The tighter the pixel density, the
>better the lens has to be. In other words, ask yourself why Olympus
>measures its Top Pro lenses at 60lpmm where other companies only use
>30 or 40. When you stuff 12 megapixels into a 4/3rds sensor, you need
>superb lenses to deal with that pixel density, which is higher than
>any other camera's, except Panasonic's 16 megapixel sensors.



That's sloppy wording even for you, Rich. Much higher pixel densities
exist in 14 MP and 16 MP point and shoot digicams whose sensors are a
tiny fraction of the size of (Micro) Four Thirds sensors.

Just a word on the Panasonic GH2 with the 16 MP sensor; it is a
noisebox, with luminance noise clearly visible at anything over ISO
160 and severe from ISO 640 upwards. I have just finished testing one
for a magazine review and it was quite a disappointment.

Given the sheer excellence of the Sony 16 MP APS-C sensors that are
available in Sony NEX and Alpha, Nikon and Pentax bodies, it would
appear that (Micro) Four Thirds has hit a very solid wall beyond which
any progression would appear unlikely.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter N
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
On 2/1/2011 11:11 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:44:02 -0800 (PST), Rich<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Stop being glued to Nikon and Canon and you might FIND some.

>
> They're all made of plastic though.


So is my toothpaste tube.
I wonder if the OP uses toothpaste.
Or, perhaps he rubs it in his eyes before he posts articles. Hmnn

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:31:46 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Just a word on the Panasonic GH2 with the 16 MP sensor; it is a
>noisebox, with luminance noise clearly visible at anything over ISO
>160 and severe from ISO 640 upwards. I have just finished testing one
>for a magazine review and it was quite a disappointment.


I hope you mean 1600 and 6400, and that you have a good editor.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter N
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
On 2/2/2011 9:40 AM, John A. wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:31:46 +0000, Bruce<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Just a word on the Panasonic GH2 with the 16 MP sensor; it is a
>> noisebox, with luminance noise clearly visible at anything over ISO
>> 160 and severe from ISO 640 upwards. I have just finished testing one
>> for a magazine review and it was quite a disappointment.

>
> I hope you mean 1600 and 6400, and that you have a good editor.
>


I doubt if you will ever see the review, or learn the name of the magazine.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2011
Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) | The new GOP ideal

 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2011
On 04 Feb 2011 06:30:20 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


Yup. Might as well ask why a film camera doesn't weigh much less when
you load 12-exposure film instead of 24.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2011
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>Alfred, are you and Rich cousins?



An interesting thought. Or perhaps not.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter N
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2011
On 2/4/2011 1:42 AM, John A. wrote:
> On 04 Feb 2011 06:30:20 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Wally<(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

>
> Yup. Might as well ask why a film camera doesn't weigh much less when
> you load 12-exposure film instead of 24.


Interesting theory. We have lossless compression. Do we now have
weightless film?

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wally
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-04-2011
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:38:54 -0800, C J Campbell
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CMOS vs CCD - why Kodak has used a CMOS sensor in a small-sensor camera David J Taylor Digital Photography 4 08-15-2007 07:37 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 1 04-01-2007 07:55 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 4 04-01-2007 01:12 PM
Cameras--Cameras--Cameras wagwheel Digital Photography 0 03-31-2007 11:38 AM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM



Advertisments