Why are DSLRs so huge ?

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

  1. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

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

    Nonsense.
     
    John Navas, Apr 11, 2004
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alfred Molon

    John Navas Guest

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

    In <> on Sat, 10 Apr 2004
    For reasons of practicality and economics, current DSLRs are based on film SLR
    bodies, in part because they need to be able to handle large 35mm lenses.
     
    John Navas, Apr 11, 2004
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Quite, some of us hardly ever use zoom lenses.
    Now there's a great solution to the problem of carrying round several
    different lenses. Carry round several different *cameras*, each with their
    own lens.[/QUOTE]

    Aah. You know I thought he was talking the most stupendous wibble. But you
    have made it all clear now. Rather than carry round 8 lenses, I should
    carry 8 cameras.
    Verily.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 11, 2004
    #63
  4. Crikey. You can make a camera with a good quality fixed lens that does [the
    equivalent of] 15mm-500mm, macro down to 1:1 or 2:1 and all at f1.4 or
    less? What a design genius you must be.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 11, 2004
    #64
  5. Quite. I'll use one if I have to - but for most purposes, it's still an
    [inferior] jack of all trades and master of none.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 11, 2004
    #65
  6. Diddums.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 11, 2004
    #66
  7. A camera is still a lens with a box attached to it. Digital makes no
    difference to that. The lens[es] is still the important bit.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 11, 2004
    #67
  8. Alfred Molon

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Unlike with film, you don't have to print the bad ones.
     
    Alfred Molon, Apr 11, 2004
    #68
  9. []
    That wouldn't be my choice, but if you insist!

    <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 11, 2004
    #69
  10. Now you are just being plain silly. You know perfectly well that I was
    referring to the 28 - 200 mm or 35 - 280 mm zooms (which include good
    macro capability in some cases). Even the best professional lenses do not
    cover the sort of range you are talking about.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 11, 2004
    #70
  11. You choose your way, I choose mine.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 11, 2004
    #71
  12. I don't know what giant hands photographers have :)

    Yes - it is true that too small tools are not
    all that user friendly. But ... the DSLR are
    generally huge. They could be much smaller and
    still as user friendly.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Apr 11, 2004
    #72
  13. I have never seen any "pro" in this country with 10 cameras round her neck.
    How odd are you people?
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 11, 2004
    #73
  14. Quite the opposite. I spent 7 years so goddam mad at Canon for *not* making
    either a digital back for my F1Ns or a digital body that would work with my
    FD lenses that I swore I would never buy a Canon product ever again. I made
    the mistake of buying an Olympus digital camera. <shudder> Never again.

    I won't bore you with the reasons finally that forced me (starting with a
    completely clean slate, mind) reluctantly to acknowledge that the best
    around for my purposes or in the mid future was going to be to have to go
    back cap in hand to sodding Canons.
    Pile of dog-doo, mate.
    I'm sure it isn't. I'd definitely like something bigger and squarer.

    I certainly don't expect to still be using my 10D body as my main camera in
    ten years time. I certainly hope not to have again to replace my
    new-fangled lenses.

    And I still don't like autofocus much.
    For me, I am *so* grateful once again to have access to the versatility of
    the system. Even if I *did* have to start again and buy it all from scratch
    - which sure rankles.

    I mainly do two kinds of photography; wildlife/natural history for fun and
    people/politics for work. Neither field could I adequately cover with any
    sort of fixed-lens system or any that's likely to happen any time soon.
    OK, that's good and manual focussing aids?
    I have a Canon high-end flash and still it offers nowhere near the power I
    need to successfully bounce off the ceiling in many of the rooms I have to
    use. Big mistake. Should have bought another Metz.

    And in any case, one of my regular subjects has severe red-eye very easily.
    It's vital I take the flash quite a way from the lens axis to have any hope
    of getting a useable and publishable picture of her. (And yes. I know
    there's always Photoshop.)
    I'm not sure that's it. But your alternative is the be-nothing and
    end-nothing.
    90 per cent of the camera buying public aren't bothered about photography
    and 85 per cent are entirely happy with a technically inadequate picture
    and 95 per cent don't have to get it right every time.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 11, 2004
    #74
  15. []
    There will disagree. For my needs it is 98% of the way there, obviously
    not for your needs. Certainly no "nothing". Not every needs or wants a
    DSLR.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 11, 2004
    #75
  16. []
    What people? You were the one who chose the single fixed focal length
    lens - I recommended staying with the zoom. As our needs differ, likely
    our choice of optimum camera will as well. There's nothing odd about
    that.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 11, 2004
    #76
  17. Thanks for that background - I just wish I could say: "Ah, but only if
    you'd bought brand YYY that wouldn't be true", but all the manufacturers
    have seen the need to advance their lens systems.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 11, 2004
    #77
  18. Alfred Molon

    zbzbzb Guest

    I don't know what giant hands photographers have :)
    The digital Rebel looks pretty small.
     
    zbzbzb, Apr 11, 2004
    #78
  19. Now you are just being plain silly. You know perfectly well that I was
    referring to the 28 - 200 mm or 35 - 280 mm zooms[/QUOTE]

    I certainly didn't. That's doesn't even come near to meeting my
    requirements.
    No they don't.
    Oh they do, you know, you just have to carry them.

    See? Easy when you know.
     
    Simon Gardner, Apr 11, 2004
    #79
  20. I certainly didn't. That's doesn't even come near to meeting my
    requirements.[/QUOTE]

    DIfferent people have different requirements.
    You should look at the Nikon Coolpix range - excellent macro capability.
    Please point to a single professional lens covers 15mm-500mm, with macro
    down to 1:1 or 2:1 and all at f1.4 or less.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 11, 2004
    #80
    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.