35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
how much does a Holga weigh since you're on the topic?
The True Weight of the Leica M4's
- Thread starter TessarT*
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 60
- Views 11K
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, a 36-exposure roll of film in a conventional cassette weighs about 20-25g (presumably silver rich films are heavier, and IXMOOs certainly are), which is why I gave the test conditions: no film, no body cap. Perhaps the variations are a result of this. they certainly tell us not to trust figures where the test conditions aren't given.
Of course it's trivial, as others have said, but hey, 90-99% of what's on RFF is trivial. Why is this any more trivial than yet another picture of an M-series Leica?
Cheers,
R.
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
I seem to recall that the M4-P's top cover was originally made of brass but later in the series it was switched to zinc, as used in the M6?
bastian a.
Well-known
You're right ...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In which case you'd expect a bit MORE variation, given the relative densities of brass and zinc. So: the zinc housing is presumably thicker...
Cheers,
R.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Sure enough, thanks to your inquiry above, I just realized there was a roll of film in the camera. 😀
The no-film weight is: 542.
Then I saw that I have a screw-in soft-release on, took it off, back to the scale, final weight: 540 grams.
micromoogman
Well-known
My empty black paint M4 weight is 540 grams. My M3 570 grams.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
did you weigh them during high tide or low tide? or maybe this tells us something about the nature of our earth's gravitational field?
Fraser
Well-known
just weighed my m2 its 576g with film, this is a strange thread!
Graham Line
Well-known
I get 536 grams for my M4-P, but it has a plastic viewfinder window cap snapped over the metal one. No body cap, though.
Would certainly never stop into the middle of a disagreement between Erwin Puts and Ken Rockwell.
Graham Line
Well-known
A roll of Fuji NPS 160-36 weighs 22 grams 🙂
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
One of mine: The SI abbreviation for gram is "g", not "g." or "gr" or "gm". And we put a space between the number and the unit: "500 g".
I have corrected these deviations from best practice hundreds of times in scores of scientific manuscripts.
😉
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
philipus
ʎɐpɹəʇɥƃı&
ChrisP
Grain Lover
We also have to look at whether you're using weight or mass (the former changes slightly depending on your altitude and position on the earth)... This might get complicated
burancap
Veteran
dabick42
Well-known
I own many cameras and lenses - rangefinders, SLRs and TLRs.
Apart from the self-evident fact that some are bigger and heavier than others, I haven't the foggiest idea what each of them weighs or measures, certainly not to the nearest gramme or millimetre.
Nor do I intend to find out.
Life's too short, time's too precious...
Apart from the self-evident fact that some are bigger and heavier than others, I haven't the foggiest idea what each of them weighs or measures, certainly not to the nearest gramme or millimetre.
Nor do I intend to find out.
Life's too short, time's too precious...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Roger Hicks
Veteran
dabick42
Well-known
@ Roger...
I thought it worth sacrificing 5 minutes in order to mention the fact that, to some people (ie myself), the almost infinitesimal size and weight differences existing between essentially similar cameras doesn't figure highly on the list of essential things to know when pursuing the noble art of photography.
Others may think differently, of course... (!)
I thought it worth sacrificing 5 minutes in order to mention the fact that, to some people (ie myself), the almost infinitesimal size and weight differences existing between essentially similar cameras doesn't figure highly on the list of essential things to know when pursuing the noble art of photography.
Others may think differently, of course... (!)
Similar threads
