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, Feb 1, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wally

    Mike Guest

    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, Feb 1, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wally

    Me Guest

    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
  4. Wally

    Ron Guest

    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, Feb 1, 2011
  5. Wally

    Guest Guest

    now compare it with the canon 550d, which weighs 530g, just over half
    the weight.
    they *are* smaller & lighter, depending on which model.
    now compare a 18-200mm crop lens versus canon's 28-300 full frame
    version. one is a *lot* bigger, heavier and more expensive.
    Guest, Feb 1, 2011
  6. Wally

    Me Guest

    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
  7. Wally

    Rich Guest

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

    Wally Guest

    Right -- for long lenses, the 7D would be much better, because the 7D
    has much higher pixel density.

    Wally, Feb 2, 2011
  10. Wally

    Rich Guest

    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
  11. Wally

    Me Guest

    Yes, but the extra pixels don't weigh much.
    Me, Feb 2, 2011
  12. Wally

    Bruce Guest

    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
  13. Wally

    Peter N Guest

    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 N, Feb 2, 2011
  14. Wally

    John A. Guest

    I hope you mean 1600 and 6400, and that you have a good editor. :)
    John A., Feb 2, 2011
  15. Wally

    Peter N Guest

    I doubt if you will ever see the review, or learn the name of the magazine.
    Peter N, Feb 2, 2011
  16. Wally

    Ray Fischer Guest

    "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, Feb 4, 2011
  17. Wally

    John A. Guest

    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
  18. Wally

    Bruce Guest

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

    Peter N Guest

    Interesting theory. We have lossless compression. Do we now have
    weightless film?
    Peter N, Feb 4, 2011
  20. Wally

    Wally Guest

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

    Wally, Feb 4, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.