Re: Smallest, lightest FF DSLR on the market

1

marike6 wrote:

Anders W wrote:

marike6 wrote:

FrankS009 wrote:

I read the blog reference to monstrosity partly in terms of the relative weight of the camera. The DF weights about 765 g. That is about 50% more than the E1, the Gh3, or the Sony FF. And the FF lenses weigh even more than m4/3rds lenses proportionately.

F.

No, the Df is 710 g. 213 grams more than the EM-1. Considering the sensor is 4 times the size, really not all that much. Put it this way, I don't know too many adult males or women for whom 200 g heavier is much of a big deal at all.

Nikon Df

5.6 x 4.3 x 2.6" / 143.5 x 110.0 x 66.5 mm

1.56 lb / 710 g

Nikon D610

5.6 x 4.4 x 3.2" / 141.0 x 113.0 x 82.0 mm

1.67 lb / 760 g

Canon 6D

5.7 x 4.4 x 2.8" / 145 x 112 x 71 mm

1.69 lb / 770 g

Olympus EM-1

5.1 x 3.7 x 2.5" / 130.4 x 93.5 x 63.1 mm

1.09 lb / 497 g

You forgot the battery for the DF. According to the specs in the first-impressions review here on DPR, it is 760 g with battery so a little more than 50 percent heavier than the E-M1.

Lol. You are actually quibbling about a 50 grams of a battery? I do know for some here 50 grams is a lot, but for crying out loud, talk about pedantic.

I am afraid the laugh is all on you. As everyone can see for themselves, you are the pedantic quibbler. Why otherwise dispute the correct facts that Frank initially gave you. My only point is to show that on top of that, you were factually wrong in your quibbling.

Now what about the lenses: What would be the weight and size of the closest Nikon FF equivalents to my MFT lineup: 7.5/3.5 FE, 12/2, 20/1.7, 45/1.8, 75/1.8, 7-14/4, 14-45/3.5-5.6, 40-150/4-5.6, 100-300/4-5.6?

Gee, lets see the 28 f/1.8G at 330 g or the 50 f/1.4G at 280 g, or any number large aperture primes that couldn't be considered large by anyone's standards?

Well, just as expected, those are both significantly bigger and heavier than their closest counterparts in my setup (12/2 and 20/1.7).

How about the 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8 VR the so-called "holy trinity" lenses? Maybe these three lenses are big or heavy for some here, but there really are no equivalents of any of these five lenses in m43, that is for sure.

As everyone can see for themselves, the dispute you started with Frank is entirely about bulk and weight. He claimed that there was a significant difference in that regard and you disputed it.

Now when it is clear that he was right and you wrong, you try to advocate the advantage of big and heavy lenses like the three you mentioned. I can hardly think of a better example of a self-contradiction. As I said, the laugh is all on you.