Why are DSLRs so huge ?

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

  1. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    I know, but I'm having a hard time to convince her to use a digital
    camera. I just bought her a film SLR, because she wanted to have a film
    camera (because of the prints problem).
    But today I noticed that in most drugstores here you can bring your
    memory card, have the pictures copied to a CD and have them printed (1
    Euro fixed fee for the CD and between 15 and 35 Euro cents/print).
    That's very cheap (even cheaper than film prints).
    Alfred Molon, Apr 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alfred Molon

    Ken Oaf Guest

    It is because the people who own them like to be noticed. ;-)
    Ken Oaf, Apr 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    It depends on the film SLR to which you're comparing them. My D30 is
    smaller than my A2 and 1n, the DRebel is smaller than the Elan series of
    cameras and the 10D is roughly the same size as the Elans.
    Skip M, Apr 11, 2004
  4. Alfred Molon

    Skip M Guest

    I wouldn't say the DSLR is somewhat obsolete in today's world, maybe with
    the glorified P&S crowd. To them, a ZLR with a 35mm equivalent zoom of
    35-135 is perfectly sufficient, and for general snap photography, it is.
    But I find my wife's Oly E-10 has limitations that put it out of the running
    for me when I need a long lens, or a wide one. I think there will be many
    who get to the point, photographically, that they realize that the choices
    offered by a DSLR system, properly thought out, give it an advantage that is
    very appealing.
    Skip M, Apr 11, 2004
  5. Alfred Molon

    jriegle Guest

    My question is kind of like that: Why no compact digital cameras with a
    sensor like the ones used in the digital rebel or D70? The sensor is smaller
    than the 35mm frame and there a several tiny film compacts. lens speed would
    not be too much of an issue because these sensors can produce cleaner images
    at ISO 1600 than many compacts digitals can at ISO 400.

    The only issues I can think of are cost, no video shooting capability or
    live preview. Of course, the camera would appeal more to the serious shooter
    who wants a more compact camera.
    jriegle, Apr 11, 2004
  6. Alfred Molon

    Patrick L. Guest

    Patrick L., Apr 11, 2004
  7. Alfred Molon

    MarkH Guest

    But which SLRs are you looking at? If you look at the Canon 1V you will
    see that it is larger than the Canon 300D. Both Film SLRs and Digital SLRs
    come in different sizes.
    MarkH, Apr 11, 2004
  8. Alfred Molon

    MarkH Guest

    Very poor, limited example!

    I have a Canon 10D and 4 lenses, my 4 lenses cost less than the 24-70 you
    used in your example. I can cover a range equivalent to 29-480mm in 35mm
    terms. I have a choice of brands, quality and price and CAN pay more (eg
    600 f4) than I would with an E-1, but I can also pay less. I have the
    necessary range of focal lengths to do everything I want, as I can afford
    to I will look at upgrading to high quality ā€˜Lā€™ lenses.

    If I had an Olympus E-1 I would not have the money to buy the starter
    lenses to cover the range I need. The problem in my opinion is not the
    price of the available lenses, more a problem with the limited choices of
    lenses available. Of course over the next few years that could change

    Of course for those that can afford the lenses they want and happily pay
    for quality glass, their buying decision may be different to mine.
    MarkH, Apr 11, 2004
  9. Alfred Molon

    Mark M Guest

    My D30 and 10D are both significantly smaller than my film SLR, the EOS 3.
    Mark M, Apr 11, 2004
  10. Alfred Molon

    Mark M Guest

    I would wager that it is because when you have a larger sensor, you must
    have a greater distance between teh lens elements and the sensor.

    Otherwise, you'd be casting light at rather extreme angles, and would also
    mean that lens optics would have to really strain to cast such a wide image.

    This is one of teh reasons why DSLRs will remain fairly thick
    (deep)...because the distance between the sensor and the rear-most element
    of the lens needs to be sufficient.
    Mark M, Apr 11, 2004
  11. Alfred Molon

    leo Guest

    Nobody will dispute the quality of E1 is anything less than superb. The talk
    of focus length alone without factoring in the sensor size and the number of
    pixels is pointless. Neverthess, the choice of lens on the E1 is limited. If
    one can't afford a long fast zoom lens, you have no alternatives. And the
    size of the E1 body is not much smaller than other DSLRs. The lens are, of
    course, smaller due to the 2x 4/3 image circle.

    Price for Olympus 300mm f/2.8 US$6500
    Price for Canon 400mm f.2.8L IS US$6500

    By applying your focal length multiplier trick, the E1 would have 600mm and
    10D would have 640mm and gosh, the new and expensive 1D MKII would reduce
    the same expensive lens to 520mm!! You can add the 1.4x teleconverter to the
    E1. Likewise, you can add 1.4x or 2x teleconverter to the 10D.

    Nevertheless, I have no objection to E1 and 4/3 system but it's not any less
    expensive and I'd certainly wait and see before investing in it. As for now,
    I have got some good EOS lens so I don't think I'd switch. I have a compact
    camera to complement the 300D so I'm not hard pressed to abandon EOS for a
    slightly lighter system.
    leo, Apr 11, 2004
  12. And how much does it cost to print the bad ones?
    George Preddy, Apr 11, 2004
  13. It's much harder to build a digital SLR than film SLR, since there are
    electronics to support (circuit boards and batteries) and defend
    (weather proofing).

    Some DSLRs are fairly small, like the prosumer Canon 300D, which
    overlaps film bodies in size, but isn't worth considering because the
    image quality and build quality is so sub standard. A real DSLR like
    a Sigma SDX, a Kodak 14n, or a Canon 1Ds is truly enormous. If you
    put this baby on a table top next to a 12oz Coke can, the top of the
    can won't even reach the bottom of the view finder...


    But once you use a DSLR for a while you'll notice that, as
    ridiculously huge as it is, its nothing compared to the lenses you'll
    need which will take up at least 75% of the storage space you'll need
    to lug around.
    George Preddy, Apr 11, 2004
  14. Alfred Molon

    Dan J. S. Guest

    A real cowboy doesn't drive a pickup truck, he rides a horse. At least this
    is what they said in 1920s.
    Dan J. S., Apr 11, 2004
  15. So how do you put a different lens on it, then?
    Simon Gardner, Apr 11, 2004
  16. Alfred Molon

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    I saw a guy in Central Park in NYC last fall who had *3* Canon DSLRs
    hanging from his neck; each with an L zoom lens.
    JPS, Apr 11, 2004
  17. Hmm. I have a pretty comprehensive FD Canon lens system which I cannot be
    "locked into" precisely because no bugger has ever manufactured a digital
    body to go with them. I've had fixed lens digital cameras and they just
    don't cut it. Nice toys, good fun but not any sort of a useful replacement
    for my wet film cameras and lenses.

    So finally I've bought a Canon digital body and 4 of these new-fangled
    autofocussy lenses (to start with). Bliss. There's just no comparison with
    the crummy and restricted fixed-lens digital cameras I have been using.
    It's not just the lenses, it's also getting back manual control, being able
    to use system accessories plus lots of new advantages that come uniquely
    with a modern digital SLR. Still not a fan of autofocus, though. I'm sure
    glad I didn't bother going over to autofocus lenses 18 years ago. For most
    of my purposes, I'd be better off turning the autofocus off - even with my
    new camera. Can you do that with your beloved fixed-lens cameras BTW?

    So those new "35mm SLR" lenses I just bought are never going to be used on
    a 35mm SLR and were never bought to be so used.

    This seems somewhat at variance with your odd reasoning.

    It seems highly improbable that there will ever be a 'fixed lens' digital
    camera that comes even close to meeting my requirements.

    My major complaints with my 10D are there seems no facility to change
    focussing screens so I can add some manual focussing aids or an
    architectural grid and the Canon flashguns are just not powerful enough.
    Certainly not up to my old Metz's standards.
    Simon Gardner, Apr 11, 2004
  18. []
    As I said before, you would need to buy multiple cameras, but this is
    typical of the pro in any case.

    David J Taylor, Apr 11, 2004
  19. Alfred Molon

    Mikey S. Guest

    I hope you took a picture of that guy, I'd love to see it!
    Mikey S., Apr 11, 2004
  20. So you ended up locked into a name? Of course fixed-lens cameras won't
    suit everyone, my point was that we should be thinking whether a 36 x 24
    mm sensor is actually the optimum size for silicon.
    Certainly the high-end cameras will offer you full manual control (Nikon
    5700/8700, Minolta A1/A2 etc.) and both offer manual focus as well. It
    sounds as it you have been used to less capable cameras than these. For
    me, not having to carry around a bag of "system accessories" is an
    Interestingly, the Minolta A2 offers just this - a choice of different
    grids overlaying the display at the flick of a switch. My own choice
    these days is not to carry an external flash, so that wouldn't bother me.

    It's good to have the discussion and, yes, I am at odds with many people
    here who view the SLR as the be-all and end-all. But the people here are
    probably also at odds with 90% of the camera using public!


    David J Taylor, Apr 11, 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.