Why are DSLRs so huge ?

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

  1. Alfred Molon

    MarkH Guest

    Sure, if you believe that the only measure of image quality is the MPix
    number.
     
    MarkH, Apr 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. []
    ... and now I don't carry one - it was a waste of time.
    Surprisingly bad from such a marque!
    I can't stand things on my back, either.
    It's rec.photo.digital, not professional.photo.digital.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 14, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sure, but you aren't terribly interested in photography, are you? At least
    not any more?
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 14, 2004
  4. Probably more interested than ever since going digital, to be honest.
    Replacing the darkroom by the computer has been a major advantage!

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 14, 2004
  5. My mistake.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 14, 2004
  6. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <c5j07g$b48$> on Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:28:16 +0000 (UTC),
    I believe the lens is the most important element (play on words intended:),
    but that's the same either way..
     
    John Navas, Apr 14, 2004
  7. Alfred Molon

    ThomasH Guest

    [...
    Subject: SUV's are huge, my man... [Re: Why are DSLRs so huge ?]
    Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 21:45:24 GMT
    ....]

    Actually, it contains an entire litany of reasons...
    :)
     
    ThomasH, Apr 14, 2004
  8. Semiconductors?

    Hehe ... just to make you think :)

    Sometimes there are radical shifts in technology.

    Maybe some thin film, photo sensitive, transistor array?

    If you can make thin film leds for displays you can
    make thin film sensors.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 14, 2004
  9. Please - can I say "me too" also? :)

    There are some advantages to auto focus.
    But - mostly - it is irritating - at least
    for macro shots.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 14, 2004
  10. (Ron Bean) wrote in @corp.supernews.com:
    I disagree here. Most of the DSLR are too huge according
    to my taste. But - that does not mean that I want any
    miniture cameras, like the 110 SLRs. There are very good
    reasons why it did not succeed. Picture quality and usability
    are two that I can think of.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 14, 2004
  11. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <[email protected]> on 14 Apr 2004 20:15:05 GMT,
    I think sensitivity would suffer.
     
    John Navas, Apr 14, 2004
  12. Alfred Molon

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    Autofocus is pretty useless for wildlife photography, too, when the
    subjects are in a complex environment. I don't know how many shots I've
    missed because the AF went the wrong way, and stopped, when it was
    already close to being in focus. Using manual override when the
    camera/lens are still focusing often means being in focus, and having it
    taken away from you, because the system keeps trying to "focus" after
    you have already manually focused.
    --
     
    JPS, Apr 14, 2004
  13. Alfred Molon

    Dave Guest

    I heard from a guy who heard it from a guy who works in development at
    Konica that the New Konica/Minolta that will be introduced this fall
    has a block body concept. This means that the user will be decide
    what kind of lenses he wants to place on the camera body and buy the
    "adapter" for that lens. This means that you will be able to use old
    Konica lenses, Minolta, Nixon or anything else! I also heard that the
    back is removable and you will need to by a digital back or a film
    back! When new digital technology make better imaging arrays avalable
    you need only buy a new back, not a new camera.

    Dave
     
    Dave, Apr 14, 2004
  14. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    Are those "Nixon" lenses made in China? Are they conservative? Do they
    have everything down pat? Can you buy them at the Watergate Hotel?
     
    Skip M, Apr 15, 2004
  15. Alfred Molon

    Charlie Self Guest

    Skip M responds:
    You have to keep an eye on them. They're tricky.

    Charlie Self
    "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our
    institutions, great is our sin." Charles Darwin
     
    Charlie Self, Apr 15, 2004
  16. Alfred Molon

    Chris Brown Guest

    Canon's FTM-capable (Full Time Manual) lenses, coupled with setting the *
    button to be the autofocus, gives you the best of both worlds. Press * to
    have the camera focus for you, if you want to. If not, just turn the focus
    ring and then push the shutter-release.

    It does annoy my wife (she uses a 300D where you can't do this) though, when
    she picks up my 10D and tries to shoot with it, expecting it to focus on a
    half-press of the shutter release. ;->
     
    Chris Brown, Apr 15, 2004
  17. You are probably right.

    But my point was not to tell you a new fine technology
    that is better. My point was that there will always
    be new technologies, better and/or cheaper.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 15, 2004
  18. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Brief update: I bought a (film) SLR for my wife who doesn't want to use
    digital. A Canon 3000V with a F4.5-5.6 28-90mm lens. Very nice camera,
    also considering that it was very cheap (167 Euro including the lens).
    "Digital" look and feel with the LCD screen behind and all controls.

    The body is also relatively compact. What is really *huge* is the lens -
    this camera has more depth than length ! And the lens starts only at
    F4.5 - can you imagine what size the lens would be if it was F1.8-2.6
    28-90mm ? I think the advantage of the 4/3 design is that the lenses
    will be smaller, not necessarily the body.
     
    Alfred Molon, Apr 15, 2004
  19. There are no reasons at all that the lenses will be smaller
    with a 4/3 camera than with e.g. a 300D. The sensor is
    approximate the same size and so is the lens mount. A
    4/3 camera might be very nice, but its advantages are
    hugely overestimated.

    Here are the only advantages IMHO
    * A potential for a universal mount (not realised yet)
    * Lens aberration parameters
    * Shorter distance from mount to sensor (I think)

    Nice, but not all that impressive.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 15, 2004
  20. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    I don't know about Canon, but the Nikon DLSRs can use SLR lenses, so the
    Nikon lens mount must be larger than the lens mount of a 4/3 camera.

    On the other hand, if indeed Canon DSLR lenses are smaller than SLR
    lenses, it means that Canon is de facto creating an own 4/3 standard.

    Then the question is, what's the point of buying a 300D if you can't
    reuse your DLSR lenses. You might as well switch to a true 4/3 camera.
     
    Alfred Molon, Apr 15, 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.