Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>>> 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. Hum. Perhaps I slipped a digit in my arithmetic somewhere...it happens to the best of us...as we'll see below ;-) > If you're going to go into this kind of discussion, you need accuracy. I completely agree. > 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. Er, I believe I said the were 560gm (would that be a math, reading, or typing skill slip ;-)...and grams is fine. The conversion from grams to ounces is 28.4 grams per ounce, is it not? It appears I accidentally used 25.4, sorry. > Total for Leica - 1120gm. We are not in dispute here... > 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. That is high, and not the equipment I used to compare. Since I own all the aforementioned equipment, I actually weighed them. How much more accurate can one get then to weigh the item on an accurate scale? > 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. That's the rub. As I said, I actually have all the gear mentioned, and I weighed them, and I used those numbers. But, you are right about one thing, I used the wrong conversion, so using the correct conversion number of 28.4 grams/oz, the arithmetic ends up as follows: The Hasselblad system I referenced is 58oz, or 1647 grams. The Leica I referenced is 1160 grams. The Leica is < 30 lighter than the Hasselblad. 1647-1160 = 487. 487/1647 is .295689, or <30%. Again, a far cry from the numbers you provide. I understand you got your numbers from the Hasselblad web site, but that is not the camera I referenced, so it is hardly accurate (and you wanted accuracy ;-) to use numbers from a completely different camera/lense/back. Perhaps, the weight they give on the web site is for the shipping weight, that is not untypical. Also, I weighed the 110/2 with a filter (which is quite a few ounces). > The A12 back and A24 weigh essentially the same, and the 203FE and 203FC > are only very slightly different. Agreed. > Try picking up the two cameras. The difference is obvious. Er, do you really have the two cameras that I mentioned? As I said, I do, and in fact, they are right in front of me. I use them both on a daily basis. They are not very different to me. If you really want to see the truth, try putting them in a paper bag, so you can't tell which is which. Close your eyes and have someone put the bag handle in your hands. Do this with a few friends, and I believe you will be surprised with the results.