Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities

Started Apr 10, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Re: Continuation: Sensor Size, Present & Possibilities
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 10, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

The thread (Death of Full Frame ) hit the 149-response...

1-Depth, width and weight measurements with a particular combination, as requested. I should have included height as well (because that too matters).

I do appreciate you providing that. So it looks like your combination is just over 3" shorter than a Nikon D800 with a 70-200mm f/2.8 attached. In terms of carrying something around that's not a lot of space to be saved, although there is a somewhat significant weight difference which may matter to some users.

It may not matter to some, it matters a lot to me. Let us look at the two key aspects:

1- Size: That it is a slimmer and shorter combination, providing an optical reach of 300mm equivalence, it fits perfectly in a third of the main compartment in my sling bag, leaving room for another camera body with a lens and couple of additional lenses.

I acknowledge the slimmer and shorter part, although if you're talking resolution equivalent the D800 combo is actually much longer than 300mm, as I quoted previously. It's more like 450mm @ 16MP.

If I cared for more resolution, I would get NEX-7 (or 7n).

2- Weight: It is at the time of using the camera, and not just walking around with a gear where it matters. To hold 3 lb for couple of hours isn't a burden as 5-6 lb would be, for the same purpose (and I'm assuming avoidance of using a 300mm lens on FF for the FOV because those lenses are considerably heavier, and larger).

Debunked above. Your combination is actually heavier to cover less range in equivalent terms. (Yours covers 24mm to 75mm, 202.5mm, and 300mm at f/2.8, plus a 12mm fisheye. The D800 combo above covers 24mm to 450mm continuously with the same or more resolution plus a 16mm fisheye. So slight difference between fisheyes but WAY more coverage options with the D800 combo overall.)

So the question becomes, is 3" of length, 1" or 2" of height, and a couple of pounds worth the extra range, extra image quality, extra accessory and other options, and extra ergonomic advantages of the D800?

And you won't be able to meet the range (12mm to 300mm) with that combination to begin with.

Debunked above.

Lighter and smaller will find more ways to accompany me than a bulkier system will, and that matters a lot more than negligible difference in IQ.

That's fine. You're just giving up versatility to have that.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

I hate redundancy and as I said in last thread, no need for duplication and creating more responses than necessary especially considering 149-response limit imposed by DPR. Please keep your responses consolidated.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 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