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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wally, Feb 1, 2011.

  1. Wally

    Wally Guest

    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
     
    Wally, Feb 1, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wally

    Mike Guest

    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
     
    Mike, Feb 1, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Wally

    Me Guest

    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.
     
    Me, Feb 1, 2011
    #3
  4. Wally

    Ron Guest

    "Wally" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    Ron, Feb 1, 2011
    #4
  5. Wally

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Feb 1, 2011
    #5
  6. Wally

    Me Guest

    On 2/02/2011 7:17 a.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article<ii8npi$sh9$>, 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.
     
    Me, Feb 1, 2011
    #6
  7. Wally

    Rich Guest

    Stop being glued to Nikon and Canon and you might FIND some.
     
    Rich, Feb 1, 2011
    #7
  8. Wally

    Charles Guest

    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.
     
    Charles, Feb 1, 2011
    #8
  9. Wally

    Wally Guest

    On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:45:16 -0600, "Ron" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Wally" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> 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
     
    Wally, Feb 2, 2011
    #9
  10. Wally

    Rich Guest

    On Feb 1, 8:41 pm, Wally <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 07:45:16 -0600, "Ron" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Wally" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> 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.
     
    Rich, Feb 2, 2011
    #10
  11. Wally

    Me Guest

    On 2/02/2011 7:51 p.m., Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article<ii9qec$i0j$>, 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.
     
    Me, Feb 2, 2011
    #11
  12. Wally

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> 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.
     
    Bruce, Feb 2, 2011
    #12
  13. Wally

    Peter N Guest

    On 2/1/2011 11:11 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:44:02 -0800 (PST), Rich<>
    > 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
     
    Peter N, Feb 2, 2011
    #13
  14. Wally

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:31:46 +0000, Bruce <>
    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. :)
     
    John A., Feb 2, 2011
    #14
  15. Wally

    Peter N Guest

    On 2/2/2011 9:40 AM, John A. wrote:
    > On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:31:46 +0000, Bruce<>
    > 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
     
    Peter N, Feb 2, 2011
    #15
  16. Wally

    Ray Fischer Guest

    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.

    --
    Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
    | The new GOP ideal
     
    Ray Fischer, Feb 4, 2011
    #16
  17. Wally

    John A. Guest

    On 04 Feb 2011 06:30:20 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

    >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.


    Yup. Might as well ask why a film camera doesn't weigh much less when
    you load 12-exposure film instead of 24.
     
    John A., Feb 4, 2011
    #17
  18. Wally

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >Alfred, are you and Rich cousins?



    An interesting thought. Or perhaps not. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Feb 4, 2011
    #18
  19. Wally

    Peter N Guest

    On 2/4/2011 1:42 AM, John A. wrote:
    > On 04 Feb 2011 06:30:20 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > 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
     
    Peter N, Feb 4, 2011
    #19
  20. Wally

    Wally Guest

    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
     
    Wally, Feb 4, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. David J Taylor
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,037
    Anoni Moose
    Aug 15, 2007
  2. Abertech

    Which P&S cameras have biggest CCD sensor?

    Abertech, Nov 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,783
    Paul Allen
    Nov 16, 2007
  3. Peabody

    Equivalent crop sensor lenses

    Peabody, Dec 16, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,103
    Paul Furman
    Dec 22, 2009
  4. fashion t shirts seller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,651
    fashion t shirts seller
    Jun 13, 2011
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    523
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Mar 2, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page