Sensor Size & Versatility

Started Apr 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Senior MemberPosts: 9,284Gear list
Re: jeez
In reply to, Apr 4, 2013

Mjankor wrote:

tko wrote:

There are two type of photographers in the world. Those that want good photos, and those that want equipment that weighs less.

So here's the challenge. Give me a compact system with a 24-105 range equivalent. Any number of lens. Of equal or better speed, which means around F2.0 to F2.8. Add up the weight and see what you get. No one will ever respond to this.

It doesn't really matter if M43rd or whatever weighs a pound less. Because you can get a superzoom that weighs a pound less than that. And so on and so on. The point is, if you let one or two pounds drive your hobby, it's no longer photography. It's backbacking.

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

tko wrote:

The 5d and 24-105 does about everything your set of lenses do. Not quite as wide, but much longer. 1.9 lbs + 1.4 lbs = 3.3 lbs.

Once, more, your lenses are F6, F4.2, F2.7 equivalent. And with the Canon you don't even have to change any lenses.

Is changing lenses a nuisance? Is Canon the only one with 24-105mm equivalent lens that will fit only on FF bodies?

Listening to the person who doesn't want to carry a heavy camera, that's a funny statement. I don't find an extra pound a nuisance.

Yes, the Canon is a pound heavier. But is it really a show stopper?

The camera body itself is nearly 1.5 lb heavier. Then add lens differences. And bulk can often be a show stopper.

Canon 5DMkIII versus Sony NEX-6 - Size Comparison (Body only)

A body can be made the size of a thimble. Hey, why don't you compare a cell phone to a 5d? Because it's the lens that gives the performance. Show me a comparison with equal performing lenses, and the gap, price, and weight narrow dramatically.

Just because you CAN carry a bunch of lenses doesn't mean you have to.

Correct. But irrelevant.

Actually not. M43rd people always show comparisons using tiny lenses compared to some 400MM F5.6 monster. If one or two FF lenses will beat all compact sensor lenses put together, why isn't that fair?

That's a FF fallacy dreamed up the M43rds crowd, who love to show huge lenses on FF.

up, I'd walk into dinner with one body and one lenses. Why not?

Yes you can. Heck, you can walk with a Medium format camera for all I care.

Which would still be better than a compact sensor and a dozen lenses falling out of your pockets.


om-d, 12-35, 60mm macro

24-120, 900gm and 2:1 macro for funz.

Can be carried in jacket pocket.

Actually, doing such short range stuff you can ditch the EVF. Go the basic pen and shave off another 100-200gm.

I ran out of time to edit my post.

I'd also like to add that your first sentence is false, being based on a false dichotomy. It does reveal something about you though - "Your either with us, or against us" mentality, etc etc.

I'll also beef up the challenge.

OM-D + 12-35 + 35-70.

1100 grams

Meets your criteria, but now goes beyond it to 200mm in FF terms.

Or we go the other way - If the photography doesn't need f2.8, as it often doesn't

OM-D + 12-50

Covers the focal range, includes macro.


Oh, that's right, there's no FF lenses that small and slow. That's a pity. Here, have a pancake.'s gear's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 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