1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

I was bored...

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by SRHEdD, May 2, 2011.

  1. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    I was thinking about Amin's work on DR the other day, and it got me on this strange tangent. I've been trying to come up with a convenience factor (someone else please name this). Using OEM specs, I took the VOLUME of the body of the camera, and divided it by the AREA of the sensor. No lens, no weight factored in. It kinda makes sense, smaller body with a bigger sensor might be considered by most to be preferable to a large body with a tiny sensor (...reasonable?). This is for sh*ts and giggles, BUT if we could work out a standard, it might catch on! Posting it here, I'm declaring it is now this site's creative property, so all you other sites beware, this is OURS (LOL!!).

    The lower the number, the better the image quality for what you have to carry to get it (please feel free to word this, too).

    Here are the first four I ran:

    • Leica D-LUX 5 Convenience Factor (CF) 155
    • Nikon D3100 Convenience Factor (CF) 97
    • Canon EOS-1Ds III Convenience Factor (CF) 88
    • Olympus E-PL2 Convenience Factor (CF) 60



    I'm in marketing... therefore my ego died a long time ago. Feel free to make this better, just be constructive. It kinda makes sense, right?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    Interesting point of view. Nonetheless, I would personally tune your computation with a body depth variable. The volume is one thing, but we all know the most effective way to "store" a given volume is to shape it like a sphere, and a cube is also quite good to store a big volume. But those are far from ergonomic to handle, and in general, when it comes to camera bodies, the slimmer the better. Hence, I would factor your number with a 'width divided by depth' ratio.

    Cheers,
     
  3. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    Hmmm... good point, but what about bigger camera adding much bigger grips, smaller ones having only a rubber strip? Camera design has settled into accepted shapes (for the most part), and I'll give that to the design peeps to keep the formula simple.

    Run the D3100 and see how your factor fits.
     
  4. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    LOL ... pretty good stuff ... I bet your parents yelled at you to quit daydreaming and finish your homework.

    In biology, there is a funny little rule of thumb for bird intelligence. The ratio of head size to body size. Pretty similar concept to your idea.

    As a measure of "portability" ... it should work. I think Mauve is looking more at ergonomics and I think you're looking at "portability".

    I sorta see a problem in "significance" when applying your concept to "pro" cameras. Many of the "pro" bodies are very large because the battery grip in incorporated into the camera and some of the "pro" body bulk is to accomodate a stronger construction design. So maybe if you multiple your number by the warranted shutter count ... darn ... gotta go my folks are yelling at me to finish my homework.

    G
     
  5. John M Flores

    John M Flores Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 7, 2011
    Somerville, NJ
    That made my day. I'm in marketing too, so you know how easy that is :biggrin:

    Interesting idea. What units are you using? Curious to see where the NEX cameras fit...
     
  6. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    I can certainly include weight in the calculations, but I remember the age old argument when Canon's pro bodies went to ABS. I'm hesitating on adding mauve's body depth factor only because most bodies fall in a rather general configuration, and I'd prefer the simple formula over the more complex if shape is under consideration (no offense, and you could probably convince me with a good example). The fewer variables, the fewer exceptions to the rule(s), right?

    I'll do a NEX when I get back to the office, I'm home for lunch now.

    And are you suggesting we call it the Bird-Brain Factor (BBF)?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    I'm using inches, but the number isn't dependent on the unit of measure. The key to me is OEM specs.

    If there ever IS a pro version in the PEN series, and it used the same chip (for example), the number would go up. I'm okay with that (so far).
     
  8. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    Crazy idea. For fun if nothing else!

    Only comment -- higher should be better if the title is "convenience factor"

    A CF factor of 155 just sounds better than 60.
     
  9. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve


    Yeah, it def needs a better name.
     
  10. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    My wife suggested that she thinks men often use a similar formula when considering potential partners.

    I have no idea what she means.

    Marvellous score by the E-PL2. If it does not include a lens the Nex will score will. With the lens, not so much...
     
  11. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    I think the NEX-5 comes up with a 27 score. Which sorta makes sense, biggest sensor in the smallest body. That DOES make me think there needs to be a standardized lens factor though. But straight out, that number would make sense.

    If you just landed here from some other spinning rock and wanted to buy an earth camera, AND saw a list of cameras with their BBF score (w/formula explained), that low number would pop out at you on the list. You wouldn't be too erroneous to assume best bang for the size (an all important stat considering you were probably going to also include Jessica Alba in your souvenirs and space was limited).
     
  12. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    Including the lens is going to be key. One of the m4/3 advantages is in lens design, and one of the frequently posted flaws in the NEX is the big honkin' lens. I'll start an Excel worksheet tonight with the body, dimensions, chip specs, lens used, and BBF score, so I don't have to keep doing the calcs. I'll use a 14-45/18-55/35-70 equivalent... make sense? That would then be a working camera, not just a body. It will likely exclude compacts then, but we'll see how they play out. Maybe a second sheet for compacts...

    I think I can still use Excel...
     
  13. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    So, my EP1 is a 34-24-32? (34 is image quality, 24 is camera size, 32 is lens availability)? No wonder it's so sexy!

    My 5D is a 44-40-44?

    (Don't get me started on my iPhone camera!)
     
  14. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    [​IMG]

    This is where it stands now. I've switched over to metric units, because most sites give those specs in cm/mm, sensor sizes are shown that way, etc.

    The new "factor" was too big a number, so I added the x/100 to get it more pocketable.

    Not sure I like it anymore... maybe I'm bored with it now. Back in a few, time to take my meds.
     
  15. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010

    I agree with this - more convenience, higher number. You could change the name to "Excess Baggage Factor," then a lower number would be better.
     
  16. Armanius

    Armanius Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 23, 2010
    Houston
    Muttley
    Great thread and great idea! Definitely a good read. And yes, you were bored! :)
     
  17. Interesting concept, I do enjoy the 'recreational' application of mathematics from time to time. I will add though that the smaller they make these cameras the less ergonomic they become (for me, anyway). What I would like is the exact body and controls of my Canon 50D but lighter i.e. same volume, lower density. Small may be beautiful but it can sometimes be awkward to hold, and I've never quite gelled with bodies styled as mini-SLRs.
     
  18. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    I agree, the Panny m4/3 SLR design doesn't interest me at all.
     
  19. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    AHA!!! A camera's EBF quotient!! AWESOME!!!
     
  20. SRHEdD

    SRHEdD Mu-43 Top Veteran

    967
    Feb 24, 2011
    Viera, Florida USA
    Steve
    UPDATE... added a few more to the EBF chart!

    [​IMG]