Typical FF DSLRs are nearly 6 inches wide and 2lbs in weight. Why?
Oct 1, 2017 02:08:14 #
btbg wrote:
No, the D5 has an ergonomic piece for your thumb t... (show quote)
Well, there ya go, yasee ... of course you should ... you have about $7500 invested in those two suckers ...
Oct 1, 2017 02:24:38 #
ChrisT wrote:
Sharp ... this is a reference to the ever-so-slightly larger diameter lens flange, I take it .... 
LoL, Chris, you have made several references of the larger Nikon sensor having an impact on size and weight differences.
The Nikon is 23.6mm vs 22.2 for the width of the Canon. That's a whopping 1.4 mm!
Yet, when I jokingly mention the size of the HOLE(flange), suddenly its a "ever-so-slight" difference...., LoL!!
The Canon "HOLE", is a WHOPPING 10mm bigger in the Canon, 54mm vs 44mm.
It's the difference between an f1.4 lens and a f1.0!!!
I'm sure the reason the bodies are so big though, is because they are full of HOT AIR and not much else!!!
SS
Oct 1, 2017 02:50:31 #
SharpShooter wrote:
LoL, Chris, you have made several references of th... (show quote)
And, your point is, Sharp?
Oct 1, 2017 02:57:20 #
ChrisT wrote:
And, your point is, Sharp?
It seems to me that would make the light-gathering abilities of the Canon, greater than the Nikon ...
Which is why Canon has a 50mm F1.2 AND a 85mm F1.2 ... and Nikon doesn't have either ....
Because their lens flange is so much smaller ... and thus, light-gathering capability isn't as great ...
Oct 1, 2017 06:09:47 #
jerryc41 wrote:
You have a point. The sensor is 1.5 times larger ... (show quote)
You're (mostly) correct. In Nikon, full frame cameras are considered semi-pro or professional cameras. Because of this, in addition to features/controls, the full frame camera bodies are built heavier and (supposedly) stronger because of the abuse and treatment that the camera may have to endure on the road with a professional camera. Even Nikon's upper end (Nikon D7xxx) cameras are significantly larger/heavier than the entry level D3xxx and D5xxx cameras. In addition, the lens mounts on the D7xxx crop sensor and upper cameras are reinforced to be more stable with the larger/heavier (and longer) professional lenses. Also, the shutter mechanisms of the D7XXX and up are rated at progressively higher levels. This is similar to automobiles and nearly everything else on the market. If you buy and entry level car, chances are that the parts used will be made less expensively in order to keep the cost down. The entry level car will probably not have the acceleration, endurance, top speed or comfort of the more expensive vehicle. (note: this is not always the case as some manufacturers will make a very expensive cheaply built car/truck/van or motorcycle to capitalize on a previously popular name or reputation).
Oct 1, 2017 06:19:29 #
I apologise for my fellow Englishman ChrisT. You will find not all of us are as boring as hell and ask inane questions. Chris old love who the f... cares?
Oct 1, 2017 06:53:04 #
They're bigger and heavier because there is a development studio hiding inside. Smaller APS-C get away with just a darkroom. Both are significantly more unweildy than my old film cameras. But I'm not sure I want to go back.
Oct 1, 2017 07:00:36 #
kymarto wrote:
Less plastic, large pentaprism instead of a mirror in the viewfinder, more controls, more robustly built overall, etc.
Exactly. Or more metal than plastic is another way of saying it.
Oct 1, 2017 07:09:05 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
ChrisT wrote:
APS-C cameras are typically just shy of 1lb, and usually around 5.2" or so. Why is there such an enormous difference?
Don't you just love the folks who start a post without any research. For your information, the Nikon D750, which is a FF camera body, weights in at 1.65 lbs. The Nikon D500, which is a APS-C camera body, weights in at a whopping 1.892 lbs. SO MUCH FOR YOUR RESEARCH.
Oct 1, 2017 07:09:40 #
This is all posh tosh!!! Why do I say this is because if you look at the original Olympus OM-1's they were a very small camera and get this full frame too.
[=robertjerl]Some of it is the larger size of the sensor which needs a bigger body for the lens to mount far enough from the sensor to throw an image of the larger size.
Part of the rest is that most full frame cameras are higher end with more controls etc and you need a bigger body to fit all that in, it takes a bigger body with more room to put in manual controls, buttons, dials etc for features than to put those features in the menus - advanced photographers and most pros want controls instead of playing "read the menu". The bodies are usually also built more rugged and weather sealed. That adds weight and size - metal body shell vs plastic body shell.
Some of the higher end APS-C cameras are as big or bigger than some of the FF cameras. My 7DII (advanced level action/sports APS-C constructed to take rough conditions/weather) is bigger and heavier than my 6D (beginner level FF). And both of them are bigger than my daughter's T2i which in turn is bigger than an SL1 (designed to be small, it is one of that camera's major selling points (and its replacement the SL2).[/quote]
[=robertjerl]Some of it is the larger size of the sensor which needs a bigger body for the lens to mount far enough from the sensor to throw an image of the larger size.
Part of the rest is that most full frame cameras are higher end with more controls etc and you need a bigger body to fit all that in, it takes a bigger body with more room to put in manual controls, buttons, dials etc for features than to put those features in the menus - advanced photographers and most pros want controls instead of playing "read the menu". The bodies are usually also built more rugged and weather sealed. That adds weight and size - metal body shell vs plastic body shell.
Some of the higher end APS-C cameras are as big or bigger than some of the FF cameras. My 7DII (advanced level action/sports APS-C constructed to take rough conditions/weather) is bigger and heavier than my 6D (beginner level FF). And both of them are bigger than my daughter's T2i which in turn is bigger than an SL1 (designed to be small, it is one of that camera's major selling points (and its replacement the SL2).[/quote]
Oct 1, 2017 07:14:49 #
billnikon wrote:
Don't you just love the folks who start a post without any research. For your information, the Nikon D750, which is a FF camera body, weights in at 1.65 lbs. The Nikon D500, which is a APS-C camera body, weights in at a whopping 1.892 lbs. SO MUCH FOR YOUR RESEARCH.
Actually no I do not love em at all. How can you even begin to like a boring fart yet alone love them?
Oct 1, 2017 09:10:51 #
Oct 1, 2017 09:34:02 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
As one responder put it, in addition to bigger bodies, they're more rugged and weather sealed, strong metal instead of plastic. I find the weight an advantage. When I get it up to my eye and anchor it, it stays put, more stable. I have a D7000 wopith a crop sensor but the metal body gives it a good heft. I like that. Besides, at my age I need the exercise.
Oct 1, 2017 10:07:26 #
ChrisT wrote:
APS-C cameras are typically just shy of 1lb, and usually around 5.2" or so. Why is there such an enormous difference?
Compare apple to apples. D500 = 26.9 oz. vs a D850 = 32.3oz. I could handle 5.4 oz. (less than a cup of coffee) without noticing. Mate.
Oct 1, 2017 10:22:49 #
I own a Canon 5D MIII (FF) and 7D MII(1.6 crop). The 5 has a weight of 33.1 OZ and the 7 has a weight of 32.1 oz. Not much of a difference.
Mark
Mark
ChrisT wrote:
APS-C cameras are typically just shy of 1lb, and usually around 5.2" or so. Why is there such an enormous difference?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.