The huge size of 24x36 DSLR

[astroshots]

Coming from film photography and owning an SLR from the 1980s made in DDR (superb build quality), I've been looking at the brand new breed of DSLR to replace it and I must admit that I've been shocked by the sheer size of the beasts and the cheap feel of most of them , I like the 24x36 format because it allows greater flexibility over the APS-C for instance, but the packages I've seen, body+lens are just ridiculously big compared to my 24x36 film SLR, and this makes me believe that there is is much room for improvement in the current ranges of DSLR a bit like the first mobiles phones, not to mention the massive prices that come with the decent ones.
I know that there have been loads of "improvements" like antishaking, autofocus, and tons of electronics but generally speaking I believe that the value for money is still low in the DLSR world, add the size issue to this and I don't really feel like getting one yet...

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Yeah, I would wait 5 more years before you make the jump.

 

[jake337]

Pretty solid first post I guess, haha.

 

[ghache]

Yeah, I would wait 5 more years before you make the jump.

i loled.

 

[analog.universe]

The Leica M9 solves the size issue. But they're even more expensive than the fatty Canon's, and you basically give up every conceivable feature for astounding image quality.

 

[ghache]

Coming from film photography and owning an SLR from the 1980s made in DDR (superb build quality), I've been looking at the brand new breed of DSLR to replace it and I must admit that I've been shocked by the sheer size of the beasts and the cheap feel of most of them , I like the 24x36 format because it allows greater flexibility over the APS-C for instance, but the packages I've seen, body+lens are just ridiculously big compared to my 24x36 film SLR, and this makes me believe that there is is much room for improvement in the current ranges of DSLR a bit like the first mobiles phones, not to mention the massive prices that come with the decent ones.
I know that there have been loads of "improvements" like antishaking, autofocus, and tons of electronics but generally speaking I believe that the value for money is still low in the DLSR world, add the size issue to this and I don't really feel like getting one yet...

You can't compare DSLR with cell phone. High end DSLR are work tools. The point is not to hide them in your pockets. Have you tried to do something fast on a black berry pearl? I can't imagine having a d3s that big hahahah

 

[jake337]

So.... does anyone have a picture of an F5 next to a D3?

 

[Village Idiot]

Coming from film photography and owning an SLR from the 1980s made in DDR (superb build quality), I've been looking at the brand new breed of DSLR to replace it and I must admit that I've been shocked by the sheer size of the beasts and the cheap feel of most of them , I like the 24x36 format because it allows greater flexibility over the APS-C for instance, but the packages I've seen, body+lens are just ridiculously big compared to my 24x36 film SLR, and this makes me believe that there is is much room for improvement in the current ranges of DSLR a bit like the first mobiles phones, not to mention the massive prices that come with the decent ones.
I know that there have been loads of "improvements" like antishaking, autofocus, and tons of electronics but generally speaking I believe that the value for money is still low in the DLSR world, add the size issue to this and I don't really feel like getting one yet...

Most of the cost is in the sensor.

And it's a pay to play world. Either go used and live with it or go back to film.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Canon still offers the EOS 1V for $1700. Compared to the 5D Mark II at $2500 the price difference isn't all that much considering the savings on film, processing and the low light capabilities of a modern digital sensor. The 5D is smaller too.

 

[Derrel]

I lol'd as well: "DDR + 1980's" and "build quality" do not go together....are you trying to say that some old communist era Pentacon or Praktika 35mm slr impressed you with, with its, it's "build quality"???? Because the build quality of those things is akin to 1960's Soviet Era tractors...only workmanlike machining, average polishing, barely adequate painting and or plating, archaic design, crude mechanics, primitive electronics, and the degree of fit and finish of a late WW-II era German Mauser built by POW labor in a temporary factory...I have never seen a single piece of DDR-made photographica that was worth a tinkered damn...

 

[astroshots]

Most of the cost is in the sensor.

And it's a pay to play world. Either go used and live with it or go back to film.

I think there's a just middle!

I understand that you get for what you pay but still it is new technology and I expect the full format to decrease significantly in price in the next 3 years, it's always the same story with consumer electronics and size will follow.

The M9 points in the right direction indeed, Leica has shown that it's possible to squeeze a 24x36 in a reasonably sized camera, of course it's at a premium because it's Leica with all that goes with it, but I believe it is just the beginning and there will be a growing demand for smaller 24x36 DSLR as people won't want to carry those current monsters around their necks for ever, especially once the honey moon is over...

 

[bentcountershaft]

I don't see them getting drastically smaller. Bigger sensors require bigger lenses. It doesn't matter how small you make the camera if you still need to put a foot long lens on it.

 

[astroshots]

I lol'd as well: "DDR + 1980's" and "build quality" do not go together....are you trying to say that some old communist era Pentacon or Praktika 35mm slr impressed you with, with its, it's "build quality"???? Because the build quality of those things is akin to 1960's Soviet Era tractors...only workmanlike machining, average polishing, barely adequate painting and or plating, archaic design, crude mechanics, primitive electronics, and the degree of fit and finish of a late WW-II era German Mauser built by POW labor in a temporary factory...I have never seen a single piece of DDR-made photographica that was worth a tinkered damn...

Your camera looks as big as your face and you don't exactly look like a skinny, hungry communist...

 

[astroshots]

I don't see them getting drastically smaller. Bigger sensors require bigger lenses. It doesn't matter how small you make the camera if you still need to put a foot long lens on it.

Yes it is the most used argument but I have to disagree because the format (film or sensor) is the same 24x36, of course now there is the digital processing of what's recorded on the sensor (which is analogic by the way-the photo-electric effect) but optically speaking there is no more field to cover on the sensor than there used to be on the film so yes it's true that bigger sensors require bigger lens but the lens required for a 24x36 sensor should not be larger than that required with a 24x36 film camera (all things being equal).

 

[analog.universe]

The bodies these days are so much bigger because they do quite a bit more... film cameras did not have LCDs and histograms, or CPUs to handle white balance and noise reduction, or high quality analog amplifiers to get usable ISO performance in the thousands...

I think that as far as marketability.. if people are going to pay however much for a full frame sensor, they want all that other stuff to come with it. Otherwise you've got a very expensive camera with a comparatively narrow range of functionality. I still hear where you're coming from, it would be a cool product, but I think it would be hard for a company like Canon or Nikon to make it profitable. Leica will sell anything at any price if they make the red dot big enough