Film SLR vs DSLR cameras

[gsgary]

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

But he will save loads of money on up grades and get lovely grain

 

[gsgary]

i have an old Zorki4 from the 70's how manly dslr's will still be working in 40 odd years and Zorkis are not very well made

 

[bhop]

I don't think it's 'dslr vs slr' in this case, it seems to be manual focus vs autofocus.

Example, my d300 and F100 are both the same size. F5 and D3 are same size.. etc. F100 and F5 were made before digital sensors existed. F4 is a beast as well and again, autofocus..

 

[djacobox372]

Your em is "full frame" hence the larger, brighter viewfinder. Currently full frame digital is expensive to manufacture, so you'll only find it in the higher end "bigger" models. If u want a compact full frame digital you'll have to mortgage your house and go with leica.

 

[o hey tyler]

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

Already been done. Even with a DSLR with an optical viewfinder. The Canon T4i has it, as well as the ILC's (if I recall).

DSLRs still exist, and are going quite strong.

 

[SamSpade1941]

I think the F2 will be around and still working when all the current crop of DSLR cameras have been ground up and recycled and made into new cameras. The problem is I am not sure anyone will be shooting film in 15 more years. I may have people who strongly argue with me and tell me I am wrong but CCD technology is making huge strides the quality improves almost daily to the point any perceived gain from film is growing smaller and smaller and getting film is not getting easier. Especially some of the old standard "professional" films because they have been discontinued for a while. JMTC.

 

[Garbz]

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.

The only reason people think DSLRs are not built for eternity is because they bought a cheap DSLR and expect comparable performance to top of the line film cameras. I know 2 people who had D1s, both of them still have working cameras albeit their batteries are getting quite weak even at full charge. 13 years later!!!! My D200 is also now more than 6 years old and has not been looked after at all. It's been dunked, frozen to the point where my hand stuck to the metal parts and the shutter and LCD failed (-50deg), cooked to the point where I couldn't pick up my camera, dragged through sand, snow, and dust and is still kicking on.

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).

Well now you're comparing Rangefinders to DSLRs, and again things like phase detection AF take up a large chunk of the camera. Things like metering also take up their fair share of space. Rangefinders have different more space friendly alternatives of both. The Olympus OMD is in the same boat. Not only do a lot of space hungry things become noticeably absent because they aren't needed for the EVF design, but again smaller battery means less battery life, micro 4/3rds is a system designed from the ground up to be small including the backfocus distance from the lens to the sensor allowing the bodies to be thin, and flash? Well it doesn't even have a flash, there's another component the size of a C sized battery cell that they didn't need to put anywhere. Actually I just googled and the Leica M8 doesn't either. Don't under estimate the amount of space something as simple as an onboard flash takes. Take a look at this picture: http://kevincollinsphoto.smugmug.co...ion/D200IRConversion17/481787956_NHPD4-X2.jpg it's the inside of a D200. See the black thing on the left? That's the flash capacitor for a GN12 flash. It takes up 1/3rd of the camera ... literally.

I'm not sure what your point is with the battery pack for the 1D. The 1D is a body the size of a standard body with a battery grip too. The batteries were at the bottom in a place where current top of the lines cameras like the D4 also keep a similar sized battery, and throw a battery grip on any Nikon it becomes the size of the Canon 1D and you can run it from AAs. So there's no real design change there and no space change either.

I highly recommend you google some teardowns if you think somehow there's even a tiny bit of space to spare in a DSLR. The modern DSLR has circuit boards in every orientation under every surface of the camera stacked with only micrometers to spare between the metal bodies / shielding. They really don't compare at all to the functionality of older cameras. All the circuitry of film SLRs will typically fit on a circuit board the size of an adult thumb. Look at the Nikon F5, it's really no smaller than a current DSLR, just slightly thinner on account of not having to stack two / three circuitboards behind the sensor. Circuitry for phase detection is also likely quite a bit simpler (smaller) on account of having a total of 5 focus points.

Really the size of a DSLR is not a fashion statement but a necessity. You want a small camera? There's plenty. Just don't expect the feature set of a large one because so far none really compare.

 

[gryffinwings]

@Garbz: I understand where you are going with this, and to a degree it does make since, however from my stand point, it can be done. A lot of what cameras makers are trying to do is to cram every feature they can into camera, which is all and good, but all these features do take up space in the camera, like built in flash. So this is what I would do:

Things I would take out:
Built in Flash: It usually sucks, buy external. Right there I probably bought a lot of room.
Internal Motor: Not needed with newer lens.

Change Different AutoFocus Mechanism that doesn't use so much space.

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.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

You want to see a decent viewfinder in an AF camera..Look through a Hasselblad 645. Now THAT'S a viewfinder for an autofocus camera!


Otherwise if it's got "AF" in the spec sheet, expect a lousy finder. They just don't make them like they used to. I've been shooting with a damn near like new F3 with zeiss primes for the last two weeks and going back to a D800 it's like looking through a dark tunnel..

 

[gryffinwings]

You want to see a decent viewfinder in an AF camera..Look through a Hasselblad 645. Now THAT'S a viewfinder for an autofocus camera!


Otherwise if it's got "AF" in the spec sheet, expect a lousy finder. They just don't make them like they used to. I've been shooting with a damn near like new F3 with zeiss primes for the last two weeks and going back to a D800 it's like looking through a dark tunnel..

That's exactly how I feel about my D5100 viewfinder.

 

[usayit]

Well now you're comparing Rangefinders to DSLRs, and again things like phase detection AF take up a large chunk of the camera. Things like metering also take up their fair share of space. Rangefinders have different more space friendly alternatives of both. The Olympus OMD is in the same boat. Not only do a lot of space hungry things become noticeably absent because they aren't needed for the EVF design,

I still disagree... sorry. I'm not convincing me that those components cannot be miniaturized. There are examples of this appearing in the market. EOS-M has both phase and contrast AF in a package roughly the size of many Micro 4/3 cameras and smaller than the Leica Rangefinder. The battery of my 1dMarkII is roughly 1/2 the size of the version that use lithium ion. Displays OLED/LCDs have become slimmer.

As for the flash.. none of the upper tiered (and rather large) professional bodies from both Canon and Nikon have on-board flashes. Neither does my Leica M's nor does my Olympus OMD.

I have seen teardowns of various cameras. Most notable is the Leica M8/M9. Its actually more cramped than the DSLR teardowns that I have mentioned. Much more cramped but most of it is due to off the shelf components... components that Canon and Nikon with their budgets are more than capable of reducing to a single chip.

DSLRs certainly do look cramped but so did the circuit board of an Apple IIe.

 

[gryffinwings]

Well now you're comparing Rangefinders to DSLRs, and again things like phase detection AF take up a large chunk of the camera. Things like metering also take up their fair share of space. Rangefinders have different more space friendly alternatives of both. The Olympus OMD is in the same boat. Not only do a lot of space hungry things become noticeably absent because they aren't needed for the EVF design,

I still disagree... sorry. I'm not convincing me that those components cannot be miniaturized. There are examples of this appearing in the market. EOS-M has both phase and contrast AF in a package roughly the size of many Micro 4/3 cameras and smaller than the Leica Rangefinder. The battery of my 1dMarkII is roughly 1/2 the size of the version that use lithium ion. Displays OLED/LCDs have become slimmer.

As for the flash.. none of the upper tiered (and rather large) professional bodies from both Canon and Nikon have on-board flashes. Neither does my Leica M's nor does my Olympus OMD.

I have seen teardowns of various cameras. Most notable is the Leica M8/M9. Its actually more cramped than the DSLR teardowns that I have mentioned. Much more cramped but most of it is due to off the shelf components... components that Canon and Nikon with their budgets are more than capable of reducing to a single chip.

DSLRs certainly do look cramped but so did the circuit board of an Apple IIe.

I agree with this, there is no reason why a camera internals can't be minaturized. I looked at a Nikon V1, and it's smaller than my Nikon EM, certainly a Full Framed version with a regular view finder can be made.

 

[Derrel]

You want to see a decent viewfinder in an AF camera..Look through a Hasselblad 645. Now THAT'S a viewfinder for an autofocus camera!


Otherwise if it's got "AF" in the spec sheet, expect a lousy finder. They just don't make them like they used to. I've been shooting with a damn near like new F3 with zeiss primes for the last two weeks and going back to a D800 it's like looking through a dark tunnel..

I showed my old F3-HP to a shooting buddy this weekend and he said, "GOD--that's a BIG viewfinder image!"

Uh, yeah...the F3-HP viewfinder was/is awesome for a 35mm SLR. The thing about film SLR's is the cost per shot is kind of high...d-slr's pay for themselves in a VERY short period of time if you shoot more than 36 frames a week. I had a FUji S2 Pro d-slr a number of years back...I calculated that I shot the equivalent of $78,000 worth of "Ektachrome 100 Professional" with that $2,400 body--in around two years' time! If I had been calculating based on 4x6 color prints, the cost would have been over $100,000 for the film and print developing!!!

 

[gryffinwings]

You want to see a decent viewfinder in an AF camera..Look through a Hasselblad 645. Now THAT'S a viewfinder for an autofocus camera!


Otherwise if it's got "AF" in the spec sheet, expect a lousy finder. They just don't make them like they used to. I've been shooting with a damn near like new F3 with zeiss primes for the last two weeks and going back to a D800 it's like looking through a dark tunnel..

I showed my old F3-HP to a shooting buddy this weekend and he said, "GOD--that's a BIG viewfinder image!"

Uh, yeah...the F3-HP viewfinder was/is awesome for a 35mm SLR. The thing about film SLR's is the cost per shot is kind of high...d-slr's pay for themselves in a VERY short period of time if you shoot more than 36 frames a week. I had a FUji S2 Pro d-slr a number of years back...I calculated that I shot the equivalent of $78,000 worth of "Ektachrome 100 Professional" with that $2,400 body--in around two years' time! If I had been calculating based on 4x6 color prints, the cost would have been over $100,000 for the film and print developing!!!

Of course it would be expensive over time with film, but what we are getting at is that they could make a DSLR camera about the size of the old F series cameras with all the pros they come with.

 

[bhop]

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.