In terms of *actual volume* (not bounding box) I do think that an F
with a plain prism is very small compared to any full-frame DSLR.
Specifically, most DSLRs have giant, blobby, ergonomic bodies, whereas
all these old SLRs don't. I used to use Canon 1Dx cameras, yes, and
on a couple of separate occasions were loaned a 5D by Canon while they
were fixing my 1D. I'm quite comfortable with its handling - and I do
think the impression of volume is much greater than a plain-prism F's.
If you put the two side-by-side, I don't think it's overstated all
that much :-)
Dawid
On 30 Nov 2011, at 12:27 PM, Moose wrote:
> Hmmm. I seem to recall you had a phase with Canon 1Dx cameras? The
> 5D is a different thing:
>
> W H D Volume Wt.
>
> F 147 98 56 807 685
> FTn 147 102 95 1,415 1,049
> 5D 152 113 75 1,288 895
>
> The volume figures are, of course those of a box into which each
> camera would just fit, not the cameras themselves. I
> suspect if you measured volume displacement, the 5D would still be a
> bit smaller that the FTn.
>
> No really 'fair' way to compare, as the 5D has exposure measuring
> capability like the FTn, but there is no F equivalent
> DSLR.
>
> Still, I think "a baby camera compared to any full-frame DSLR!" may
> be overstated, no?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|