highly confidential - Micro Four Thirds info

Started Feb 9, 2012 | Discussions thread
MadsR Senior Member • Posts: 2,235
Re: Apocalypse Now! :)

Fullframer wrote:

Not necessarily.. In cameras, bigger is better for absolute image quality. M43/Nex, Nikon 1, are all far inferior to a big full frame DSLR, sorry that is just how it is. Yes, I have a M43, while it takes decent pics, doesn't compare to my D3S. It's a nice point and shoot, higher quality replacement (M43) only. I don't use it for my pro shoots or clients.

Only bigger sensor (or rather, bigger pixels) are better... You don't need a bigger body to handle a bigger sensor. Take a Leica M9 for example, it is a fair bit smaller than even a D90 and it have a larger sensor...

No, I've taken down and beatn many V8 sports cars with my little 4 cyl WRX STI... at the track

Well, I am talking "the american way" here... Putting a 4cyl toyota engine with a turbo on in a Lotus also makes for a much better sports car than the large v8 ones... However take one to the US (epsecially south states) and they will look funny at you for having a 230hp sports car, when a normal towncar takes 300hp to move it in the first place...

For the best quality in a camera, size does matter (esp sensor size) The M43 or NEX aren't as good IQ wise when compared to the full frame DSLR D700/D3/D3S, let alone even the crop framed D7000.

I would say you get better image quality from a Leica M9 which is a fair bit smaller than a D7000.. You don't need a big house to get good quality... All a big house does is look imposing, and you don't need that much bigger a house to put the electronics in, the electronics to a FF sensor does not take up more space than to any other system...

The D7000 is bigger/heavier than D5000 because it has a bigger viewfinder, an autofocus motor in the body to drive the older legacy screw driver AF lenses from Nikon. It also has a partially metal body with 2 card slots, etc. So yes it will be bigger.. LOL! You really need to do research before coming to these conclusions.

I have done my research, and yes the D7000 does have a bigger VF, the view itself is 5% bigger, and the unit is almost 3mm bigger inside, however that have resulted in a general increase of the entire body of the camera, something that is definitely not needed to house a few extra bits... The extra cm in height of the body for example... Or the bigger grip?

The D300S is bigger than the D90 because again, it has a bigger viewfinder, 100% coverage, and is a Pro body with a 100% metal build that is weather and dust sealed, >

Yet the new E-M5 is weather sealed... And it is not much bigger than the unsealed E-P3 (a few mm, that is all) No, Nikon is deliberately making things bigger than they need to be in order to make them look more expensive, and it is working, the do keep a large market share in the US where this strategy is the folk spirit.

Hello.. the D700 is dust and water sealed pro metal body with a bigger viewfinder, so yes, it SHOULD be bigger than a D90, LOL!

I would wager that you can make a FF DSLR in a body not much larger than the D90. The larger viewfinder is not physically that much larger, and in any circumstance it is the hump that should be made larger to house a bigger prism, you don't need to increase the distance from the mirror up to the prism by 1½cm air. And the added extra cm below the mount also does nothing (beside being big) neither are there need to make the camera 4cm wider... Weather sealing does not take up much space, as have just been proven by Olympus.

 MadsR's gear list:MadsR's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow