Why are full-frame SLR cameras so big?

Started Jan 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
PK24X36NOW
Contributing MemberPosts: 742Gear list
Like?
Re: Why are full-frame SLR cameras so big?
In reply to merops, Jan 23, 2013

merops wrote:

PK24X36NOW wrote:

Not really the right question. More like "why are dSLRs so big" if you're comparing them to manual focus film cameras. The question you asked makes it sound as if FF dSLRs are giant, and APS-C dSLRs are not. Not true at all. If you compare cameras with similar build quality and features, you'll find there is virtually no difference in size between FF dSLRs and APS-C dSLRs.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#378,7

6, 7 and 8% increases in linear measurements give an estimated 22% increase in volume, which is not inconsiderable, especially as it's between the largest DX and smallest FX xameras in the Nikon range.

The cameras aren't rectangles, and the "linear dimension" differences are usually little more than the viewfinder hump, which brings with it a much better viewfinder. Use the "DX camera in front of FX camera" view for the bodies I compared in the links in my post, and you'll see how meaningless the size difference is.

What I compared was bodies with a similar build and feature set. They're comparable bodies in DX and FX. It makes no sense to compare FX bodies with the "smallest" DX bodies, just because Nikon makes cheaper lines in DX that are not (yet) duplicated in FX due to price and nothing else.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow