Is there such a thing as a LIGHT Full-Frame DSLR? ... (Page 6): Is it only me, or would one call to B&H provide the solution and/or options you seek? >Alan...

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Chris T wrote:

Bill ... I appreciate your in-depth comments ... a... (show quote)

Is it only me, or would one call to B&H provide the solution and/or options you seek? >Alan

EdU239 Loc: The Northeast

aellman wrote:

Is it only me, or would one call to B&H provide the solution and/or options you seek? >Alan

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Chris T wrote:

Bill ... I appreciate your in-depth comments ... a... (show quote)

Sony lenses are among the heaviest on the market. They more than make up the weight savings from a lighter body.

Micro 4/3 is about 1/4 the area of a FF sensor. DX/APS-C is about 1/2. The M43 difference, relative to full frame, is (on average) two stops less dynamic range and low light ISO performance, and two stops greater depth of field for a given field of view. DX/APS-C is right in the middle, a stop away from each.

I can live with any of them... They’re all better than 35mm film, now!

Just curious... why do you want/need full frame?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

aellman wrote:

Is it only me, or would one call to B&H provide the solution and/or options you seek? >Alan

Must be you, Alan ...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

burkphoto wrote:

Sony lenses are among the heaviest on the market. ... (show quote)

So, if MFT is only a quarter of the area of a FF sensor, why do they use a 2x factor ... why not 4?

Well, I've been lead to understand the body for the a99 II is the same body as the a77 / a77 II body - which I have, and know I can handle. So, before I put down $3200 for this workable body (for me) I just want to make sure there's not something lighter ....

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Chris T wrote:

So, if MFT is only a quarter of the area of a FF sensor, why do they use a 2x factor ... why not 4?

Well, I've been lead to understand the body for the a99 II is the same body as the a77 / a77 II body - which I have, and know I can handle. So, before I put down $3200 for this workable body (for me) I just want to make sure there's not something lighter ....

Just add up all the weights of what you want in your bag, and the alternatives. The “total lug” is what matters when you’re on foot (or trying to fit it under an airline seat or in an overhead bin).

Oh, yeah that 2X crop factor? It’s based on the diagonal, not the area.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

burkphoto wrote:

Just add up all the weights of what you want in your bag, and the alternatives. The “total lug” is what matters when you’re on foot (or trying to fit it under an airline seat or in an overhead bin).

Oh, yeah that 2X crop factor? It’s based on the diagonal, not the area.

Ah, gotya, Bill .... thanks ....

Bill ... I've got one bag which holds the 60D with Tokina 16.5-135 lens attached in a cradle on the upper level ... in the lower level (under the camera) are two UWA-Zs ... in the front corners are two 70-300mm lenses ... one Tamron, and the other's the Sigma APO Macro ... in the back - closest to the zipper - are the 18-55 and the Tamron SP 60 f2 Macro ... in the end pockets are two more 18-55 IS II lenses ... so the total lens count for that bag ... is nine!!!! ... Thankfully, it never goes anywhere ... I just use it for storage!!!

My carry-able kit bags usually just have room for 3-4 other lenses, apart from the one attached to the camera. The Sony kit bag sports another SLT body, and just two extra lenses, apart from the one attached to the a77. My Nikon D7000 kit bag holds another 70-300 APO Macro, along with a Nikkor 105mm, and a Tokina 35 Pro DX, along with the Tokina 16.5-135 I have for Nikons. ... I don't fly, nor do I take trains or buses. I just drive wherever I need to go ...