There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
Forum ProPosts: 23,452
Re: There is no magical …Simple and makes sense.
In reply to Tooks, 10 months ago

Tooks wrote:

olyflyer wrote:

Tooks wrote:


I think this thread raises a couple of issues for me.

First, as a relative newcomer to this forum (albeit not new to forums, or photography, at all), it's clear that there are some folks who enjoy trolling and/or an argument for the same of it. But hey, that's forums. I can't help but feel that the whole place would benefit if the patronising could be kept to a minimum though. We all share an interest right?

Second, the whole world of photography forums seems rooted in the past. Why we have to compare everything to FF/35mm is beyond me. It may have been useful in the early days of the move from film to digital and the arrival of crop sensors (I was there!), but I think it has ceased to be useful. Indeed, it's now more confusing than ever for newcomers to this excellent hobby of ours.

For the first time in over 35 years of photography, some of it professional, last year I decided to pop along to a camera club, after becoming tired of the infighting that runs through a lot of online communities. I was a little nervous, I'd read online that camera clubs contained real people who might not be very nice, and indeed might dare to criticise or even laugh at your photographic efforts or kit that you were supposedly 'using'.

I'm pleased to report that what I found was completely the opposite. There is massive interest for me, and I suspect most, in how others have succeeded in creating wonderful images and it's even more pleasing to see that information freely given.

What is clear is that it has very very little to do with kit, but rather the person behind it. That doesn't matter whether it's the latest top end DSLR or a point and shoot. Some of the images are 'happy accidents' (I do miss Bob Ross, RIP) but there is something to be learned from those for sure.

I post this as a response to the OP, which although well meaning (I'm being charitable here), has become a bit of a car crash and potentially very confusing for many.

This thread is about technical differences between formats. If you don't find it interesting that's fine, but as a matter of fact, these subjects are more important today then they were before because of the large number of different formats, and since this forum is a pure technology forum, in my opinion it is the right place for these discussions. What surprises me is the large number of people who get emotionally engaged and believe that threads like these are patronizing, trolling or just arguments. Noone ever said that you, or anybody else should not like a different format, regardless if that format is CX, FT, APS, FF or MF. All have advantages and disadvantages, and what we prefer or like is our own business. Of course I like the CX, just like you do, that's why I bought one as an early adopter, paying much more than most other users here did, but that has nothing to do with the technical facts and the differences between my FX and the CX, and what one of them can do and the other can not. Those are simple facts and it is exactly those facts that many people refuse to understand or admit that they exists. My like of the system still not prevents me from seeing some basic facts.

Oh, and I for one am looking forward to any native CX 70-300 lens, whatever it's equivalent and whether it looks like an Apple or a Pear...

If that lens would ever be made it would of course have some advantages. It would be slightly smaller than the FX version (not larger like that blog states) and the N1 cameras would be able to use all the AF points and features which are now blocked. That's all. But it would probably be as expansive as a 190-810 lens would be, so very few would be interested in buying it. So, whoever expects this lens to be small, light and cheap is just having a pipe dream. It is not going to happen for real.

I was not saying that the differences between formats is not interesting, besides which, I thought this thread was about warning 'newbies' not to expect any new CX 70-300 lens to be 'radically' smaller and lighter than the FX equivalent? The only sure fire answer to that is to wait and see what is, if anything, released.

Actually, it's all about simple math regarding the size, but once again, it was not really about equivalent lenses, it was about a lens with the SAME focal length and the SAME aperture, so it is really easy to calculate the size with fairly good accuracy. Weight is a bit more difficult to gurss, because if for example Nikon would chose to use plastic lenses then it would be considerably lighter than the FX version of the lens.

I was saying that, and in my opinion (which may differ to yours), this discussion is largely irrelevant nowadays for most people.

This discussion is as relevant as ever before. Some people are interested in this, some not. There have always been different formats which gave different results. The only thing that's changed now is that we have Internet and a larger number of people can attend and take part of the discussions.

Sure, explain the FOV differences to people, explain DOF differences relative to FF too. Don't forget to explain it the other side of FF ie FF VS Large Format, just so people get the full picture.

I suppose you mean Medium Format, not Large Format, but sure, the crop factor works that way as well. Only I think that those who buy MF cameras are really aware of all these, and hardly anyone is buying those cameras anyway, so you can't really say that such discussion would add anything of a value, especially for people who can hardly understand the differences between smaller format cameras, so why would it be better to make it even more complicated to those?

Explaining facts is fine. Where it all hits the buffers is when people inject the subjectivity into it, the 'CX has more DOF so it's worse' or 'CX makes all your DSLR lenses 2.7x longer so it's better' comments. That, along with the majority of what's written above is subjective, which actually is unhelpful and confusing for some, especially when tainted by both evangelists and punishers of the 1 system.

The differences are NOT subjective, those are facts, easy to demonstrate but perhaps not easy for everyone to understand. I don't think I use emotionally loaded words like 'better' or 'worse' except is something is measurable or clearly visible, like ISO noise. On the other hand, some people misinterpret the words like 'different', 'more', 'less', 'smaller', 'larger' like if it would mean the same as 'better' or 'worse'.

When the debate steers toward unpleasantness and patronising somebody because they appear to have misunderstood something, it becomes even less helpful.

OK, fine. Did I do that? If yes, the where?

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