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?

 
 
Wally
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011

"Wally" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, 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?


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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Me
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
On 2/02/2011 7:17 a.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<ii8npi$sh9$(E-Mail Removed)>, 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
Stop being glued to Nikon and Canon and you might FIND some.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Charles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2011
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wally
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:45:16 -0600, "Ron" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Wally" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2011
On Feb 1, 8:41*pm, Wally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:45:16 -0600, "Ron" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >"Wally" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> 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


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.
 
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