[rollei_list] Weights of 2.8 v. 3.5
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:13:55 -0800
Thanks Marc for the weights in grams of the models. So my 2.8E is 4 3/4
ounces heavier than the 3.5E. The 2.8F 4 1/2 ounces heavier than the 3.5F.
Not much difference and you get a faster lens.
Hey Jerry, time for some wheaties. :-)
Peter K
On 12/4/05, Thomas A. Frank <taf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Jerry;
>
> According to the data in Parker's book (and Marc's tabulation below),
> they (the 2.8F and 3.5 F) DO weigh the same.
>
> Even if you assume that the 1220g value for the 3.5F is a typo, and
> it's really 1120g, that means that the 3.5F only weighs 100g less than
> the 2.8F, which is such a small difference as to be essentially
> meaningless.
>
> For the weight of a sandwiches worth of cold cuts, I'll take an extra
> stop, thank you.
>
> Tom Frank
>
> > Marc,
> >
> > Do you mean to tell me that you actually believe that
> > the 3.5F and 2.8F weigh the same? If so, you are too
> > f&^%$ing gullible.
> >
> > I say, in legal language, BS!
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > Marc James Small wrote:
> >
> >> At 11:14 AM 12/4/05 -0800, Peter K. wrote:
> >>> Is it much heavier? Anyone have the weight differences?
> >>
> >> Here are some representative weights, camera bodies alone without
> >> cases,
> >> straps, hoods, &c:
> >>
> >> 3.5E 1120g
> >> 3.5E2 1120g
> >> 3.5E3 1120g
> >> 3.5F 1220g
> >>
> >> 2.8E 1255g
> >> 2.8E2 1250g
> >> 2.8FE3 1250g
> >> 2.8F 1220g
> >>
> >> In short, the 2.8E and F cameras were approximately 100g heavier than
> >> were
> >> their 3.5 contemporaries. Contemplate this one, guys: the
> >> difference is
> >> around 3.5 ounces. This is hardly a world-shaker.
> >>
> >> Marc
>
Other related posts:
- » [rollei_list] Weights of 2.8 v. 3.5
