Sensor Size & Versatility

Started Apr 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Senior MemberPosts: 2,682Gear list
Re: Sensor Size & Versatility
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 3, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

joejack951 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

I didn't pick his lenses. He picked his own, to advertise what he fits in a "small waist" belt. I picked mine, for focal lengths, I would normally carry which generally is about small, fast primes. If you want to take up the challenge, what kind of weight and size are you looking at with lenses to match the FoV I mentioned with a FF body?

You commented on the weight of his kit and compared it to the weight of yours. To me, that gave the impression that you saw the two kits as somehow comparable.

I commented on this argument:

ljfinger wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

Ulric wrote:

And the Canon FF primes or zooms will easily fit into the fridge you brought to the picnic.

People that claim there is a meaningful difference in physical size are kidding themselves, in my opinion.  I use a small waist pack and carry a full-frame camera with four lenses two teleconverters and a full-sized flash plus accessories like batteries, filters, cards, micro tripods, and even a water bottle, site map and snacks.

The person you responded to is definitely exaggerating, but so are you. How much space and weight do you think a FF camera, with an ultra wide zoom, a wide angle prime (20-30mm), a normal fast prime (50mm) and a short fast telephoto (85mm) cost?

Not I said, I use a small waist pack, and that includes a 70-200/2.8, a 24-105, a 15mm fisheye and a 35/1.4.

He provided his idea, to respond to mine.

Ok, so he didn't respond with exactly what you asked for but instead stated what he carries. A reasonable response but not much good for a direct comparison of versatility, weight, and size. However, the fact that his kit fits in a waist pack (versus say a large backpack) is still relevant to the discussion. You aren't putting your NEX kit in your pocket either and most likely put it in a bag of some sort in lieu of always wearing a jacket with large pockets or some other workaround to avoid a bag.

You have a field of view of 15-75mm full frame equivalent. If I had to match your focal length range, I'd get a 16-35/4 VR and a 24-85/3.5-4.5 VR lens which tip the scales at a combined 2.5 lbs.

You might want to also note that I didn't stop with couple of zooms to cover a FL range. So, let me ask again,

How much space and weight are we talking about, carrying an ultra-wide zoom, a wide angle prime (pick 20-35mm), a normal prime (50mm) and a 75-90mm short telephoto prime? With NEX-6, you're looking at about 2 lb, or the weight of a typical Full Frame body-only.

Nikon D600, 18-35/3.5-4.5, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 = 1886g / 4.1 lbs.

For almost zero weight increase (+25g), you could swap the 85/1.8 for a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro for some added versatility.

Weight difference: 2.1 lbs., Ergonomics and DOF control of FF system: Priceless

As it stands, the widest lens I own is a 24-120/4 VR that I rarely shoot at 24mm. Maybe someday when other things aren't screaming for my money I'll pick up an ultrawide. They seem like fun at times.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm just making conversation. We don't need to always be in constant argue mode.

 joejack951's gear list:joejack951's gear list
Nikon Coolpix AW100 Nikon Coolpix P7700 Nikon D300S Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +5 more
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