Why are DSLRs so huge ?

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

  1. Alfred Molon

    Ron Bean Guest

    A small DSLR would be no less usable, nor any lower quality, than
    current cameras of that size, which do sell quite well. It
    wouldn't compete with the large DSLRs, it would compete with
    cameras that currently have EVFs (which many people don't like).

    My point was not that a DSLR as small as the Pentax 110 was
    desireable, only that it was possible, and therefore any size
    between that and current DSLRs is also possible.

    The Pentax 110 SLR was a bit less than savvy, since the
    popularity of 110 film was already declining when it came out...
     
    Ron Bean, Apr 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <[email protected]> on 15 Apr 2004 17:01:19 GMT,
    How would poor sensitivity be better?
     
    John Navas, Apr 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    All Canon EOS EF mount lenses will fit the 300D/RebelD. However, the 18-55
    will only fit the 300D, not any other Canon SLR or DSLR.
     
    Skip M, Apr 16, 2004
  4. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <> on Fri, 16 Apr 2004
    Actually *smaller*. Canon is about the same size.
     
    John Navas, Apr 16, 2004
  5. []
    - improved quatum efficiency

    - photon-electron mulitplication prior to the sensor (as in many
    night-vision sights etc.).

    Not claiming it would make great photos, though.....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 16, 2004
  6. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <_wMfc.396$> on Fri, 16 Apr 2004
    08:09:30 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    And that's the point.
     
    John Navas, Apr 16, 2004
  7. Now c'mon John. Don't do your best to misinterpret what I write :)
    Why should I think that poor sensitivity is better?

    We were discussing physically large sensors. All I said was that
    we shall not be all that certain that bigger sensors always
    will be expensive. It might be so - but it is not likely in the
    light of earlier history of technology.

    But - a 4x5 inch sensor with 1 giga pixel and ISO 10. Would
    that not be interesting?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 16, 2004
  8. (Ron Bean) wrote in
    Fair enough.

    My point is that even with large sensors you can make small cameras.
    In my collection of cameras I have a Pentax ME. Very small - and it
    has a full frame sensor (i.e. 35 mm film :). I also have an older camera
    that takes 6x9 cm pictures. Folded, I can put this camera even in
    a reasonable size pocket. It is smaller than my Canon G2 digital camera
    that have a sensor that has an area that is almost 100 times as small.
    OK - no zoom lens - but a 6x9 cm sensor is quite a (digital) zoom sensor.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 16, 2004
  9. I think that the Nikon mount is smaller than the 4/3 mount,
    but I might be wrong. The difference is not large anyway.
    Sort of - if they intend on keeping that sensor format.
    The points are ...
    1. It is cheaper.
    2. You can reuse your old lenses, with a crop of the picture.
    3. You have an entire existing SLR system, with lots of gadgets.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 16, 2004
  10. I wish you'd stop saying this. It's very upsetting and not true.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 16, 2004
  11. [dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote in
    Please explain. Why cannot you use your old lenses?


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 16, 2004
  12. There is no digital body that will fit them and no digital back for the
    cameras that do fit them.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 16, 2004
  13. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    Why do you say that there is no digital body that fits Canon film lenses?
    Are you talking about FD mount? Because EF mount lenses fit both Canon EOS
    film bodies and EOS digital bodies.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Apr 17, 2004
  14. I am referring to my old lenses - which are of course all FD lenses and
    very nice they are too. Pity they don't get used any more.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 17, 2004
  15. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    "Of course"? How would someone know that? You are posting on a digital
    newsgroup, so the implication is that you are doing digital photography.
    You've obviously somehow solved the problem of shooting digitally, it's a
    little much to ask for manufacturers to produce digital bodies to fit lenses
    that have been out of production for well over a decade, not to mention a
    digital back for the few people who have hung onto FD mount bodies and
    insist on not moving on.
    Complaining now about the incompatibility of FD lenses with current Canon
    production is a 17 year old rant/whine. And, yes, I shot with FD mount
    equipment, an A-1, AE-1P and AT-1. I still have the AT-1, mainly for
    sentimental reasons, with a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f3.5, Kiron 28-70 f3.5,
    Canon 50mm f1.4 and 35mm f2.8(?). So don't think I don't know what it's
    like to have a mount changed on you. But after more that 15 years, it's
    time to move on. I also have an A2, 1n and D30, so my "old" lenses do fit
    the current Canon lineup.
    Many of the current Canon lenses are better than their old FD counterparts.
    But you wouldn't know that, would you? 'Cause if you'd used the new ones,
    you wouldn't be whining about not being able to use your museum pieces.
    "Very upsetting." Sheesh.
     
    Skip M, Apr 17, 2004
  16. [dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote in
    Aha! Now I understand - you are whining :)

    Tell you what - I have medium format and large format
    gear that I will probably not use any more. Lots of
    nice (and expensive) lenses there. I also have some
    35 mm bodies - also collecting dust. And I have not
    decided yet - shall I buy a Pentax *istD for my set
    of 35 mm lenses. But most of all - I just threw away
    tons of photo papers - lots of money there. And - I have
    a medium format color Durst enlarger, with some nice
    lenses.

    Thats life - some things you cannot just reuse.
    No need for whining. BTW - some of your old nice
    lenses are not so good as you believe. There have
    been some advances in lens making also.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 17, 2004
  17. Alfred Molon

    Mark M Guest

    Actually, you're arguing against a point I am not making.
    I do not mean the lens becomes less important than it was
    before...rather...that the body selection has become far more important than
    body considerations are when using film.
    Lenses will always be important. That wasn't at issue in my mind.
    -But the old argument that "the body is just a box that collects light",
    etc., is not so simple a truth any more when it comes to digital.
     
    Mark M, Apr 18, 2004
  18. It was not really a truth for film cameras either.
    There are distinctive properties, e.g
    - finder technology
    - vibration
    - shutter properties
    - speed
    - focus methods
    - focus accuracy
    - flash sync methods
    - etc

    But, of course. You are right. Adding the sensor is a major
    shift towards importance of choosing the body.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 18, 2004
  19. The fact that I have already said it twice in this particular thread might
    have given you a clue?

    Got the attention span of a gnat, have we?

    Thought so.
    Well no, it isn't actually. But as a matter of fact, I am and have been for
    seven years.

    I'm sure you felt you had a point there, but it's got a bit lost somehow in
    translation.

    Perhaps if you stopped posting upside down, you'd make more sense?
    No it isn't. They were in many cases better or more suitable lenses. The
    current Canon lenses are in many cases a retrograde step on what went
    before.
    In what sense are you making this allegation?
    Oh do grow up. I was complaining about the falsity of

    Roland Karlsson <> claiming:
    - 2. You can reuse your old lenses,

    It isn't true.

    There's no point you whining on to me about something I didn't say. Your
    problem is you haven't yet learned how to post and so you end up confusing
    yourself.
    Many of them aren't. Which is the point.
    Yes. I would know that.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 18, 2004
  20. Why? No digital backs available? How ridiculous. And are you sure?
    Indeed. Which is why you should stop saying "2. You can reuse your old
    lenses" when even you know it isn't generally true. Why do you do that?
    Even you now realise it isn't true. So why say it?
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 18, 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.