Full-frame (35mm) cameras are heavier than their crop-sensor siblings. Their lenses are heavier too. But how much heavier? After hauling my Nikon D3200 (DX 1.5x crop sensor) as well as my Nikon D600 (FX full-frame sensor) up and down and around, I thought I'd just run the numbers and see if the FX system was as much heavier as it felt.
Executive summary: Kinda.
While the FX system is nearly twice as heavy as the DX, it is still only "nearly" twice as heavy: 80% heavier, to be more exact. And if you factor in the tripod (which is the same), you end up at only about 50% heavier.
| DX | FX | Ratio | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camera | Nikon D3200 | 505 g | Nikon D600 | 850 g | 168% |
| Wide | Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 | 470 g | Irix 15/2.4 | 581 g | 124% |
| Normal | Nikon 18-55/3.5-5.6 | 195 g | Nikon 24-85/3.5-4.5 | 460 g | 236% |
| Tele | Nikon 55-200/4-5.6 | 300 g | Nikon 70-300/4.5-5.6 | 745 g | 248% |
| Total | 1470 g | 2636 g | 179% | ||
| Tripod | Velbon Ultra Maxi L | 920 g | Velbon Ultra Maxi L | 920 g | 100% |
| Total w/tripod | 2390 g | 3556 g | 149% |
But I feel the extra weight. Certainly when you've been hauling it around for a full day - and absolutely when you compare it to the third alternative: just bringing your cellphone. The FX kit is 3.5 kg of photo nerdery that you have to haul around forever when you're on a trip.
The shots are nice, though.
Compared to the D3200, the D600 delivers just that bit of extra colors and dynamic range - and utterly outperforms the crop-sensor in low light and astrophotography. The cellphone isn't even a starter in this competition. Ultimately, carrying another 1.2 kg to get the very best image quality when I'd otherwise be carrying 2.4 kg is worth it for me.
But I feel the extra weight.