Film SLR vs DSLR cameras

[gryffinwings]

Basically what this whole thread is about is that you want a fully manual camera like 70's-80's Nikons but with a digital sensor... join the club.

Close, but not quite. I want the features such as a big view finder, like my Nikon EM, I like the size as well, but all I really want is some auto features and I don't need many, just: P, A, S, and M. I really don't need more than that, just a 2 or 3 knobs for Aperture and shutter speed and maybe ISO. All this should be easily accomplished, which it basically has with the 1 series, but the view finder is tiny and electronic and one model doesn't have a view finder, also the senser is even smaller than the DX.

 

[Solarflare]

Sooo ... basically you want a Contax 645 with digital backpack, just like every other photographer out there.

 

[enzodm]

Sooo ... basically you want a Contax 645 with digital backpack, just like every other photographer out there.

... but credit-card sized

 

[SamSpade1941]

I would be very happy with a Nikon FM2N with a Full Frame Digital Sensor and no I am not joking. No Auto Focus features of any kind. I actually like knobs versus switches and menus. Silly I know but thats how I roll. I am used to my D40 now but it was much easier and faster to make adjustments on my F2 than my D40. YMMV Where my D40 shines is that when I am ready to process my images I sit down in my office and plug my up to my MAC and transfer them all to my desktop. Then I work in photo shop no nasty mess to deal with chemicals and having a dark room , I dont really romanticize the days of dektol and d76 but to each his own.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Sooo ... basically you want a Contax 645 with digital backpack, just like every other photographer out there.

YESPLZ.

 

[Garbz]

Basically you can make something similar to the Nikon 1 Series, except make a bigger view finder, make it SLR instead of mirrorless and use a Full Frame sensor instead of a smaller one. Also keep provisions for an external flash. That's how you could possibly make a smaller DSLR camera. I don't see the need for all the features in most DSLRs these days.

Ultimately there are compromises. There always are. No one chooses to make components large. Larger components are more expensive. Larger circuit boards are also more expensive to manufacture unless you can simplify board design (less layers, less tollerance etc, and by looking at the boards I can tell you they are definitely not).

Of course they can be made smaller. Canon and Nikon make some of the finest lithography machines on the market. They could likely turn the entire camera into a chip if they wanted to. But they don't because it becomes a compromise. The EOS-M does phase detection on CCD. Works on a camera with that design, but is impossible for an SLR unless incorporated into liveview (compromise). In an SLR you need a separate CCD, separate circuit, and somewhere else in the body to put these (most usually a place where the mirror can direct the light to).

I understand what you're saying. There are smaller cameras on the market. But each of these have made a decision to compromise a feature. Leave out a flash, remove AF motor (over my dead body) these are all compromises, and quite visible compromises too. i.e. there's a reason Nikon's smaller cameras don't have an AF motor in them, it doesn't fit.

Show me a small camera with the feature-set, performance and critically camera type (don't compare rangefinders to DSLRs or to micro 4/3rds they are fundamentally different) of a D4 and I'll take it all back, but so far the features come with size.

 

[Loroly]

I wonder if people back on the wire before we take our time to answer them.

 

[gryffinwings]

Stuff like this, would be awesome:

Kodak DCS 100

This is the digital Nikon F3 everybody wants | Nikon Rumors

 

[JDFlood]

I like the current size of the DSLR. I admit I have fairly large hands. But given the functionality of them ( I have a D200, D700, and D800) you need manual controls or you end up with menus... We all know how useful those are. You need real estate to locate the controls as well. Given how much better today's product is than an old Film cameras this sounds like just nostalgia. I get it, but i think there would be tiny demand and high cost. I remember the spacious '56 Chevy, no air, power nothing, no seat belts ... But it had an open feel you don't get today. I would not pay for a special new car that had a couple nostalgic features. I will get an M9p at some point... This is kinda nostalgic. JD