PDA

View Full Version : Volume measurements



propwash
10-09-2004, 06:37 PM
Jeff, I really enjoy your reviews, especially the one you posted today for the Panasonic FZ3. However, there is one error I notice frequently in your reviews. You give the length, width and height measurements for the cameras, and then you list a volume. The volume figures you list are the result of taking the length times the width times the height. These numbers would only be correct if the camera's physical shape were a perfect cube. This is somewhat the case with simple point and shoot cameras, but with those which are more like a film SLR in appearance, and have lots of projections, your volume figures are going to be way off on the high side. Of course the only way to measure volume is to immerse the object in water and measure the volume of water displaced, but I'm not going to try that with my FZ3!!

Anyway, keep up the good work on the reviews. We all enjoy reading them and learning from them.

Rhys
10-09-2004, 08:41 PM
Jeff, I really enjoy your reviews, especially the one you posted today for the Panasonic FZ3. However, there is one error I notice frequently in your reviews. You give the length, width and height measurements for the cameras, and then you list a volume. The volume figures you list are the result of taking the length times the width times the height. These numbers would only be correct if the camera's physical shape were a perfect cube. This is somewhat the case with simple point and shoot cameras, but with those which are more like a film SLR in appearance, and have lots of projections, your volume figures are going to be way off on the high side. Of course the only way to measure volume is to immerse the object in water and measure the volume of water displaced, but I'm not going to try that with my FZ3!!

Anyway, keep up the good work on the reviews. We all enjoy reading them and learning from them.

But surely volume can be measured by air displacement also?

Jeff Keller
10-10-2004, 12:33 AM
Jeff, I really enjoy your reviews, especially the one you posted today for the Panasonic FZ3. However, there is one error I notice frequently in your reviews. You give the length, width and height measurements for the cameras, and then you list a volume. The volume figures you list are the result of taking the length times the width times the height. These numbers would only be correct if the camera's physical shape were a perfect cube. This is somewhat the case with simple point and shoot cameras, but with those which are more like a film SLR in appearance, and have lots of projections, your volume figures are going to be way off on the high side. Of course the only way to measure volume is to immerse the object in water and measure the volume of water displaced, but I'm not going to try that with my FZ3!!

Anyway, keep up the good work on the reviews. We all enjoy reading them and learning from them.

That's certainly true... but it does give you an idea of relative bulk... there's really no better way to measure such things as far as I know.

Tiago
10-10-2004, 05:00 AM
Jeff, I really enjoy your reviews, especially the one you posted today for the Panasonic FZ3. However, there is one error I notice frequently in your reviews. You give the length, width and height measurements for the cameras, and then you list a volume. The volume figures you list are the result of taking the length times the width times the height. These numbers would only be correct if the camera's physical shape were a perfect cube. This is somewhat the case with simple point and shoot cameras, but with those which are more like a film SLR in appearance, and have lots of projections, your volume figures are going to be way off on the high side. Of course the only way to measure volume is to immerse the object in water and measure the volume of water displaced, but I'm not going to try that with my FZ3!!

Anyway, keep up the good work on the reviews. We all enjoy reading them and learning from them.

Actually, with a little bit of math it is possible to compute the volume of a complex solid, at least an approximate value. But that's not the point here. What matters, IMHO, is the size of the largest protrusions of the camera.

Imagine your FZ3, for instance. For pratical reasons, the dimensions that matter when you're going to carry it in a bag are, from a top view, the points of the triangle formed by the sides and the lenses.

It doesn't matter too much if the camera has a "hole" or some complex shape (I can remember of DiMAGE Z10), the important "volume" measure would be the triangular prism formed by the main body and the lens protrusion (although this might not apply to more "exotic" camera geometries.)