There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 23,914
Re: There is no magical …
1

clark321 wrote:

myzel wrote:

And just in case: A CX 70-300 isn't going to be that much smaller than a FX 70-300 - in the worst case it could be bigger. But it would be smaller than a 189-810 if you don't mind the larger DoF

This equivalency of 189-810 depends entirely on pixel density. If the full frame camera has the same pixel density as the N1 then the objects seen in the images from both cameras using a 70-300 lens will be the same size when viewed at 100%.

Yes. But the thing is that to get a full frame camera with the density of the V1 you will need 73MP FF. My D800 has "only" 36MP, so we have a bit to go, but sure, the D800, when cropped, is already better that the Olympus E-500, which was my first DSLR and which had 8MP. For Nikon, the D800 already matches the D7000 and is considerably better than the D300s, when cropped, but is far away from the V1 and even further away from the V2, so in this respect, I think that smaller sensors are the winners.

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