Film SLR vs DSLR cameras

[gryffinwings]

So I've been messing with my new to me Nikon EM, yes I know it doesn't have a ton of features, but for me it will work, especially for the price I paid, just 20 bucks. Anyways I've been comparing the view finder with my Nikon D5100 as well as the camera body and comparable lens.

What I compared:
Nikon D5100 with Nikkor 35mm F/1.8G
Nikon EM with Nikon Series E 50mm F/1.8

So I noticed that the view finder seems very noticeably smaller. Where as my Nikon EM, the viewfinder is definitely bigger than the D5100, which I find very nice, the size of the body of the EM is also very nice to handle as well. Now I'm wondering why Nikon isn't making something similar to what they used to make in the Film cameras. Can't a camera like the EM be made in digital and be just as good as newer cameras?

 

[sovietdoc]

They do make cameras with 100% viewfinder. D7000 is one of them.

 

[gryffinwings]

It's not only that, the viewfinder seems a lot bigger, I'd have to compare the D7000 to the Nikon EM I have, but the size seems very different, not just noticeable.

Also the size of DSLRs are much bigger than my EM, there is a lot more depth in the body, I'm wondering why they can't start making cameras a little smaller and as durable as the old stuff. The Nikon EM I have feels really beefy. I know the 1 series is smaller but it's not really an SLR and to be honest making a camera of similar size and using a full frame sensor would be amazing.

 

[greybeard37 10]

There is just so much more going on with a DSLR than a regular film SLR. You are comparing apples with oranges.

 

[gryffinwings]

There is just so much more going on with a DSLR than a regular film SLR. You are comparing apples with oranges.

Not saying there isn't, and I am here to learn more, but to be honest I think that way of thinking is kind of out dated considering how small digital cameras can be, supporting electronic circuits don't need to be that big, which can allow for smaller cameras, just like the Nikon V1/J1 cameras, I don't think it's asking for much to make an DSLR camera to be the size of something slightly bigger than a V1/J1 and have it have all the same amenities as the bigger Full Frame cameras.

 

[Garbz]

Not saying there isn't, and I am here to learn more, but to be honest I think that way of thinking is kind of out dated considering how small digital cameras can be, supporting electronic circuits don't need to be that big, which can allow for smaller cameras, just like the Nikon V1/J1 cameras, I don't think it's asking for much to make an DSLR camera to be the size of something slightly bigger than a V1/J1 and have it have all the same amenities as the bigger Full Frame cameras.

Erm no sorry but these are not comparable in what they do at all. You may just as well ask why you don't see any 800 horsepower Smart cars around. Simple answer is the engine won't fit.

DSLRS are PACKED TO THE ABSOLUTE LIMIT. There is literally no space inside them. Go have a look at the teardown pictures of people opening the cameras. Here's some things that DSLRs have over point and shoots that justify their size:
- Significantly improved image processing (physically larger and warmer chips)
- Significantly improved analogue electronics (lots of filtering electronics plus better voltage regulators)
- Significantly higher output onboard flash (physically larger capacitor bank approximately 1/6th of the size of the camera)
- Significantly beefier batteries (physically larger batteries anywhere from 1/4 to 1/5th of the size of the camera)
- Significantly lower noise (on top of filter and voltage regulation there's actually metal shielding of certain components that help achieve this)
- Significantly larger sensor to lens distances (make it any thinner and your lenses won't be compatible)
- A mirror (well that's part of the SLR bit)
- Phase detection autofocus (this is a whole separate sensor, with separate signal processing, and relies on the mirror to project light down to the bottom of the camera. This takes up a massive amount of space in the bottom of the camera).
- Highly advanced metering systems (this is again a whole separate sensor, with separate signal processing [yes your DSLR actually has 3 sensors in it, not just one])
- Larger Nikons have a motor in them to drive mechanical AF lenses.

And I'm sure I could think of other things. The reason you get such top quality out of the DSLRs is because of the space they have to put all this advanced gear. If you want a smaller body you need to make compromises and that is exactly what you end up with on the bridging cameras. V1/J1 aside from being incompatible with all other Nikon lenses compromise on every other feature i.e. no Phase detection means slower autofocus, no massive capacitor means weaker onboard flash output, smaller battery means I can't take 1000 photos on one charge etc.

 

[Solarflare]

I believe that the main reason why DSLRs are not build for eternity is because they progress so fast, people keep buying new models every couple years.

I hope the Megapixel race ends soon, so cameras may again be build for eternity.

Or I'm wrong and its because todays camera producers are not interested in producing quality.

Besides, you can buy very sturdy DSLRs. For example, the Nikon D4. But these cameras are very expensive.

 

[Fred Berg]

Film SLR cameras were designed to allow the photographer to take very good photographs. Digital SLR cameras are designed to do this for the person holding them. Previously a certain level of knowledge was assumed and the brains of the set up were in the photographer's head. Nowadays complete novices buy cameras they don't have the first idea about, so the camera has to do the thinking - and so they have got bigger and bigger as their brains have grown.

 

[usayit]

DSLRS are PACKED TO THE ABSOLUTE LIMIT. There is literally no space inside them. Go have a look at the teardown pictures of people opening the cameras. Here's some things that DSLRs have over point and shoots that justify their size:

I know you are pretty knowledgable with electronics but I'm not convinced. If you look at recent mirrorless cameras they pack pretty much most of what you list. Leica M9/M8 packs a full sensor using mostly off the shelf components (Leica isn't an electronics company with access to high complex components manufacturing) with very minimal custom components to take advantage of minaturization. (A member of another forum literally took his M8 apart and photographed the process (he had access to the proper environment.. its pretty neat to see) The M8/M9 are only slightly larger than the film Ms since they neeed thickness for the rear LCD. The latest OMD packs not only an image processor but the processesor/components to drive the 240hz sampling rate for its AF as well as the components required for the EVF. The list goes on and on. Let's not forget that between the early DSLRs (Canon 1 series for example) that used NiMH batteries that were HUGE have moved on to Li-Ions that are much more compact. What did they do with the space?

I do agree the part about the phase AF and mirrorbox... something that both Leica M and mirrorless bodies do without. On the other hand, both existed in film days and the professional cameras were still a bit smaller. An OMD EM-5 + battery grip + 2 batteries will get you close to a 1000 shots still in a package that is smaller than a Canon 5D (without grip).

 

[enzodm]

Also the size of DSLRs are much bigger than my EM, there is a lot more depth in the body, I'm wondering why they can't start making cameras a little smaller and as durable as the old stuff.

Olympus in particular and Pentax too did some small dSLR initially (and even weather-sealed, at least some). Look at E-420 or so for Olympus, K-m for Pentax. However, since their size (and robustness) did not become a selling point, maybe is not what the people really wants. Actually, I switched from a 1000D to a larger 60D and it fits better in my hands.
Olympus now is producing a dSLR-like mirrorless that resembles the old OM1 (expensive but very very nice and small).

 

[Dao]

When they make the DSLR bigger, people will comment and wonder why they cannot make them smaller and easier to carry/hold.
When they make the DSLR smaller, people will comment and wonder why they don't make it bigger. Then they go out and get a battery grip.

 

[Solarflare]

I think the moment they manage to put the phase autofocus on the fotosensor, DSLRs will be dead.

Granted, some still might prefer them as long as electronic viewfinders do have as low resolutions as they have now. But in the long run, DSLRs are going to die.

 

[usayit]

They are getting closer in terms of resolution. The Olympus EVF is higher resolution than even the high end DSLRs rear LCDs (including both Nikon and Canon). Its close to monitor resolutions compressed to the size of a postage stamp.

 

[gryffinwings]

DSLRS are PACKED TO THE ABSOLUTE LIMIT. There is literally no space inside them. Go have a look at the teardown pictures of people opening the cameras. Here's some things that DSLRs have over point and shoots that justify their size:

I know you are pretty knowledgable with electronics but I'm not convinced. If you look at recent mirrorless cameras they pack pretty much most of what you list. Leica M9/M8 packs a full sensor using mostly off the shelf components (Leica isn't an electronics company with access to high complex components manufacturing) with very minimal custom components to take advantage of minaturization. (A member of another forum literally took his M8 apart and photographed the process (he had access to the proper environment.. its pretty neat to see) The M8/M9 are only slightly larger than the film Ms since they neeed thickness for the rear LCD. The latest OMD packs not only an image processor but the processesor/components to drive the 240hz sampling rate for its AF as well as the components required for the EVF. The list goes on and on. Let's not forget that between the early DSLRs (Canon 1 series for example) that used NiMH batteries that were HUGE have moved on to Li-Ions that are much more compact. What did they do with the space?

I do agree the part about the phase AF and mirrorbox... something that both Leica M and mirrorless bodies do without. On the other hand, both existed in film days and the professional cameras were still a bit smaller. An OMD EM-5 + battery grip + 2 batteries will get you close to a 1000 shots still in a package that is smaller than a Canon 5D (without grip).

This is basically what I'm getting at.

 

[amolitor]

Batteries and on-camera flash are the biggest things in play here. An EM uses button batteries or none, I think, and has no on-camera flash.

My FE2 is actually heavier than my D3100, but is physically a little smaller. That's because the FE2 uses a thing called "metal" in its construction, which the D3100 does not. They are surprisingly close in size all around, however. The D5100 is a bit bigger, I think, but it's not one of the "pro" battlewagons, which will be heavy like anvil. The pro cameras have, I think, bigger battery compartments for longer battery life, hence, more size and weight. Also, they use that whacky "metal" thing as well.

All the electronics and crap in a DSLR should be trivial to pack into the space that's not being used by film canisters. It's the capacitors for the flash and the batteries that have to be physically big and heavy. Also, people just plain like big heavy cameras -- they're marginally more stable to shoot with handheld, and it feels like you really BOUGHT SOMETHING.