There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
myzel Senior Member • Posts: 2,075
Re: There is no magical …

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. …

Not only on the pixel density, but also on the sensor technology. As I wrote, the concept of "equivalency" involves a lot of assumptions. As soon as you look at real world gear things start to get complicated.

For the fun of it you could start to apply the concept of equivalency to different cameras with the same sensor format. Is a 50mm f/1.4 a 50mm f/2.0 equivalent if the sensor on one of the cameras has 1 stop more noise?

 myzel's gear list:myzel's gear list
Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 Nikkor 10mm f/2.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor 18.5mm f/1.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor 32mm f/1.2
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