There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
razormac
razormac Senior Member • Posts: 1,014
I Believe in Magic . . . ;)
2

No offense intended, but this thread is confusing at best, and not true. I am no optics expert (just an engineer with a photography habit), but these kinds of posts rub me the wrong way to the point where I have to respond.

1) Yes there is a size advantage, and no it isn't magic, just simple physics, the physics of needed less glass (and mass) to cast a smaller light circle with the same light density falling on the sensor (photos/sq cm)

2) Rather than try to argue further the physics, I will give real world examples that prove my point

Nikon 1 32mm f1.2 (2.58x1.85in) vs Nikon DX 35mm f1.8 (2.8x2.1in) - the f1.2 lens is slightly smaller than its DX equivalent despite the ~ 1 stop advantage

Nikon 105mm f2.8 Macro (3.3x4.6in) vs Pana 35-100mm f2.8 (2.7x3.9in) again, advantage smaller format

Have to cut this short as I am being called to a meeting

 razormac's gear list:razormac's gear list
Nikon 1 V2 Nikon D610 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +13 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
(unknown member)
IVN
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
(unknown member)
IVN
(unknown member)
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
tko
tko
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
IVN
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow