Why are DSLRs so huge ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alfred Molon, Apr 10, 2004.

  1. Particularly cross-making as I don't actually *want* sodding autofocus.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on 13 Apr 2004 22:29:13 GMT, Roland
    Not necessarily -- size and yield issues with semiconductors haven't changed
    much over the years.
     
    John Navas, Apr 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Apart from any commercial questions of Canon being able to sell lenses all
    over again to people who had bought them already once...

    .... Canon did claim to me that they considered and rejected the Nikon
    route. That ensuring backwards compatibility had significantly hampered the
    development of good new bodies by Nikon and restricted what could be done.
    Canon, by throwing away the old design and starting again had been able
    much to improve both lens and Camera design. Nikon was attempting to do it
    with 'one hand tied behind its back' and failing.

    This is a comprehensible argument if you think AF was any sort of an
    improvement. I have to say that so far, I don't.

    Though I appreciate that for some sorts of photography, it is advantageous
    - not least point and shoot photography - snapshots.

    And as my eyesight degrades with age, I've no doubt I'll be grateful for it
    too.

    But actually, I'd still like a good digital body to use with my lovely and
    well engineered FD lenses and sod the AF.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 14, 2004
  4. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    The same market there was for the 50mm f1.0, 200mm f1.8 and 1200mm
    f5.6...<G>

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Apr 14, 2004
  5. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    Hmmm, the only ones I ever saw were carrying, in one case, a Fuji RF MF
    camera, and the other, a Holga. But both were carrying only one of those.
    How many other fixed lens MF cameras are there?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Apr 14, 2004
  6. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:38:08 -0700, "Skip
    I don't think that's a valid analogy.
     
    John Navas, Apr 14, 2004
  7. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:50:44 +0100,
    Me either.
     
    John Navas, Apr 14, 2004
  8. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:06:50 +0100,
    I have to say I wasn't impressed or persuaded, in large measure because Canon
    was contradicting the (valid) claims it had made for the original FD breech
    lock mount, had already cheapened the original FD mount into the "new" FD
    mount, and because it was clearly possibly to implement an AF enhancement to
    the FD mount. I think the new mount was pretty clearly a way to cut costs and
    sell a lot more new glass, existing/loyal customers be damned.
    Me too.
     
    John Navas, Apr 14, 2004
  9. Two Fuji 6x9 RFs, several Fuji 645 cameras (call it four: 45mm, 60mm, 75mm,
    and 55-90 zoom), three Rolleiflexes (wide, normal, tele). Several wide
    angle/panoramic cameras. And there are dozens of folding MF cameras.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 14, 2004
  10. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    Well, John, since your sense of humor seems to have taken the night off, let
    me elucidate.
    You are right, there is little market for a lens that is big, heavy and
    doesn't perform as well as its less capable contemporaries. But that
    doesn't seem to have deterred Canon from producing lenses that fit that
    description, if nothing else, just to prove that they could do it.
    Especially for the 50mm f1.0L, which by all accounts was outperformed, not
    only by the f1.4, but by the $70 f1.8 iteration of that focal length.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Apr 14, 2004
  11. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    Ah, ok, I stand corrected. But I thought those folders had interchangeable
    lenses, a la the Speedgraphic.
     
    Skip M, Apr 14, 2004
  12. Not a correction, a quibble. I'd think carrying multiple fixed-lens MF
    cameras would be rare. Maybe a Fuji 6x9 and a Rolleiflex. But the bag gets
    really heavy really quickly. A 645 SLR and a couple of lenses makes more
    sense.
    I suppose you could think of the 6x9 versions of the press cameras as
    "folders", but what most people mean by folder are the 6x6 or 6x9 Agfa
    Isolette, Zeiss Ikonta sorts of things. These were the next step up from a
    Brownie, and widely used as snapshopshot cameras from 1930 to 1960 or so.

    Here's one nearly identical to mine:
    http://www.rolandandcaroline.co.uk/isoletteiii.html 77MP when scanned with
    my Nikon 8000: no wimpy 6MP digital for me<g>.

    http://www.cameraquest.com/zikontc.htm
    http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/moskva4.html
    http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Nettar.html
    http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/mesiko_e.htm

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 14, 2004
  13. More intentional spam. Second complaint for abuse sent.
     
    George Preddy, Apr 14, 2004
  14. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <[email protected]> on Tue, 13 Apr 2004 20:28:49 -0700, "Skip
    Touche. :)
     
    John Navas, Apr 14, 2004
  15. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    Knock yourself out. :)
     
    John Navas, Apr 14, 2004
  16. Alfred Molon

    Ron Bean Guest

    To me the question is not why big heavy DLSRs exist (many people
    do like them that way), but why small DLSRs *don't* exist.

    The smallest SLR ever made was the Pentax Auto 110. According to
    http://www.pentax110.co.uk/ it was 56mm x 99mm x 45mm (that's
    roughly the size of the Canon S-50). It had interchangeable
    lenses and an optical TTL viewfinder.

    At one time there was some discussion about whether Pentax could
    design a DLSR to use these same lenses. Unfortunately they didn't.

    The Minolta Z2 has a bizarre mirror arrangement that allows the
    main LCD to double as an EVF. Since it's directly behind the CCD,
    it seems clear that they could make an SLR that size if they
    wanted to (although it would cost more).

    Clearly there is no physical reason why a small DSLR couldn't be
    made, it's just a matter of what they think they can sell.
    It's also clear that the designers are still learning what works
    and what doesn't. When the market settles down and designers
    start to run out of ideas, maybe someone will try something crazy
    like a small DSLR.
     
    Ron Bean, Apr 14, 2004
  17. Alfred Molon

    David Gay Guest

    An SLR with a built-in flash and, e.g., a 28-105, should not be causing
    shoulder pain if you have a good camera bag... (yes, a bad camera bag and/or
    way-too-many lenses will cause shoulder ache). I find the "small camera"
    argument more persuasive for skiing (best if fits in jacket pocket) or
    backpacking (that extra weight can be annoying) than for other activities.
     
    David Gay, Apr 14, 2004
  18. Both the 300D and Pentax *ist are quite reasonable size cameras. The Pentax
    is lighter than the Nikon N80 and is too small for my hands; quite
    uncomfortable to hold. The 300D is certainly chunkier than my Olympus OM-1n,
    but it's not all that much heavier. (The Nikon F80 is 515 grams, the 300D
    645 grams: rather insignificant once you put a lens on it.) The 300D is a
    lot nicer to hold than either the OM-1n or the 350 gram Canon Kiss (Rebel)
    models.

    (FWIW, at 660 grams, the Olympus E-1 is a bit of a heavyweight.)

    So the whole premise of this thread is simply wrong.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 14, 2004
  19. []
    Let me see: an SLR, 35 - 135mm, 24mm, separate flash (no built-in),
    mini-tripod, odds and sods. It was the bulk as well as the weight. After
    a day out, I just wanted to dump the thing in the hotel room in the
    evening. Now it's just the 5700 round my neck, with extra batteries in a
    bum bag - easier to carry. And I now get those evening and night
    pictures. The more compact Nikon 990 was even better than the 5700, it
    could just about fit in a jacket pocket. These days I try and avoid
    jackets as well!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 14, 2004
  20. So "mini-tripod" eh? That explains a great deal.
    Can't stand having a camera round my neck. The 10D strap lasted about two
    days before it came off. Bloody things always get in the way. [And the
    viewfinder eyepiece came off twice because of the ****ing strap too. Lost
    it completely on the second day and had to buy another[1].]

    Your problem is that you had no rucksak-style bag and you were at heart
    only wanting snapshots anyway.

    No criticism intended and no slur on your character. Snapshots are great
    fun.

    Not sure why you are bothering with this group at all, though?


    [1] Another way the 10D is inferior to my old F1Ns in basic facilities. Why
    no shutter or switch to close off the viewfinder when wanted?
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.