There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started Mar 5, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Senior MemberPosts: 2,075Gear list
Re: There is no magical …
In reply to clark321, Mar 6, 2014

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
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow