Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 7:58 PM -0400 7/15/00, Austin Franklin wrote: >>> The Leica M6 with the 75 1.4 is only around %10 lighter than a Hasselblad >>> with 110/2. The Hasselblad body is very light, and is cast/machined >>> aluminum. > >> Over 50% more. Not counting any accessories on the Hasselblad other than >> film back. > >The actual weights are: > >M6 body - 560 grams (22 oz) >75/1.4 lense - 560 grams (22 oz) > >Total Leica weight - 44 oz (from Leica brochure) > >2003FC/W body - 20 oz >110/2 lense - 24 oz >A24 back - 14 oz > >Total Hasselblad weight - 58 oz (actually weighed) > >That makes the Leica weigh %24 less than the Hasselblad. A far cry from %50. Austin, Austin, Austin.... We've done this before, and as before both your math and your reading skills in this matter seem to be what they should. If you're going to go into this kind of discussion, you need accuracy. The M6 body and the 75/1.4 lens are both 650gm as you state, but your conversion to oz is faulty. Let's just leave everything in gms. Total for Leica - 1120gm. From Hasselblad's web site - 203FE camera with 80/2.8 lens and A12 back (and waist level finder - you're going to need some finder, so let's use the lightest one) - 1660gm. Weight of FE 80/2.8: 430gm Weight of FE 100/2: 760gm Difference: 330gm Add this to the 1660gm combination previously mentioned and you get 1990gm. Which is 870gm, or 77% more than the Leica combination. The A12 back and A24 weigh essentially the same, and the 203FE and 203FC are only very slightly different. Try picking up the two cameras. The difference is obvious. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com