I don't get how some people will opt for smaller sensors or even inferior camera bodies because of small reductions in weight and size. Are you that weak? We are talking about TINY reductions in weight. Heck, in the case of m43, the cameras are often heavier than their APS-C competitors (see pic related).I understand the reasoning: "if my camera is lighter, it's easier to carry everywhere so I use it more and get better at photography."But this really only applies to BIG size differences. This reasoning makes sense when comparing a pocket digital camera to a DSLR, not a mirrorless APSC vs a M43, both of which are pretty big regardless. Again, are you seriously that weak?The real benefit of these smaller sensors is their reduced tendency to overheat when recording video and their reduced cost.
you are so stupid it's unreal
The /p/ board ladies and gentlemen
>>4336360thank you sony representative!
>>4336360Yes, they are weaklook around you on this board, look around the whole world, people are going hiking with hasselblads and most hunters are trekking 100s of miles carrying guns that weigh 10lbs just to fire one bullet, and these bitch boys prioritize "grams". a literal non-unit invented for quantities only of interest to tax men, doctors, and scientists, because even children have trouble detecting such a small amount of weight. clearly, it's a non-issue... to men.the people whining about grams are mostly women, trannies, gays with aids, and europoors on vegan liquid diets (it's to offset china's emissions, which aren't that bad per capita because over half the country is poor and rural, chud)
I opt to shoot film for over 50% weight reduction from dslr or mirrorless.
Why do you care?
>>4336378Truly based
>>4336360Now add lenses and look at the weightSmaller is betterAlso poor comparison
>>4336388Sure is lighter!
>>4336449now show us Canon's 300 - 1200mm lens
>>4336360I largely agree. I use one is as a small and cheap secondary camera for cycling, but that's a rather niche use case.>small, good selection of pancakes.I can put it somewhere quickly accessible.>cheapI don't want to put something like A7c through long off road trips.A6000 is probably also close, but the pancake selection isn't as good and 1 extra cm can mean that it no longer fits where I want it.
>>4336527 (me)Or rx100v but I'd be almost halving the sensor are again.
>>4336360Body doesn't contribute much to the weight. It's the lens, especially sewer pipe tele lens. I think APS-C is a good compromise between DoF, crop factor (essentially size of lens). MFT has potential but lens choice sucks. Also, too small is bad too. You might want smth chunky to grip on.
>>4336531>Something chunky to grip ontoSorry, you called?For real though, M43 lenses are... Fine. But Canon lenses are basically magic bullshit. That being said I have a fair amount of areas in town and beyond where shoving an RF 100-400 is gonna get me spoken to or moved along, and I'm not even black. Pure performance? Get a FF or at least APS-C. You gotta make sacrifices somewhere
>>4336478Here you go, friend.
>>4336555are you blind?
>>4336578It's on an APS-C body, same field of view
>>4336360And then they slap a grip on it because the camera is too short to hold comfortably.(I love the added grip on my Snoy a6600. But I'm too cheap to go FF.)
