The huge size of 24x36 DSLR

[bentcountershaft]

That is the point. Why would a digital update get smaller when it requires the same big lenses?

 

[Derrel]

Praktica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at this crap!!! I used to own a Praktika 35mm SLR...it collapsed on its own after about 3 years of use, according to my old boss, who gave it to me, in a box, with another lens...both were 'effed up and inoperable, and were only 4 years from the factory...sounds like somebody's got a soft spot for Communiste German cameras, and has never seen a camera that has actual "build quality" behind it--you know, something like a Leica M-series, or a Linhof of basically any vintage, a Rolleiflex, or even an old Hasselblad 500C...the stuff the DDR camera assemblers made for public use was always second-rate stuff..it's not their fault that their factories had been bombed into oblivion in the 1940's,and that they lost half or more of their optical industry professionals. They tried, but they simply did not have the engineering, or the manufacturing, or the expertise that the "rest of" the camera industry had. As far as overall size goes, a 24x36 full frame digital SLR like the Canon 5D can be made in a size that is comparable to the crap Praktica and Pentacon used to spew forth--the body, pentaprism, and mirror box assemblies are all about the same size as a 1980's "mid-sized" 35mm film SLR.

 

[astroshots]

That is the point. Why would a digital update get smaller when it requires the same big lenses?

The point is: film SLR lenses WERE smaller!!!

 

[analog.universe]

That is the point. Why would a digital update get smaller when it requires the same big lenses?

The point is: film SLR lenses WERE smaller!!!

But they didn't have near instantaneous auto-focus / auto-aperture... you can still stick old tiny film SLR lenses on new digital bodies too

 

[bentcountershaft]

That is the point. Why would a digital update get smaller when it requires the same big lenses?

The point is: film SLR lenses WERE smaller!!!

If that were your point I think you would have, you know, pointed it out before hand. Make your mind up. Is it the new fangled lenses your don't like or the new fangled bodies. You can't just be complaining about stuff all willy nilly, you need some direction.

 

[astroshots]

That is the point. Why would a digital update get smaller when it requires the same big lenses?

The point is: film SLR lenses WERE smaller!!!

But they didn't have near instantaneous auto-focus / auto-aperture... you can still stick old tiny film SLR lenses on new digital bodies too

Yes it's true but your argument was on the optical side of things, you were stating that they were bigger because the sensor was bigger and I said "all things being equal" which means not considering all the new technologies mentionned above.

 

[ghache]

Camera are like cars, i like them big :lmao:
Accents and kia's are for sisssysssss

 

[Josh66]

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).

The lenses are the same... All of my lenses can be used on a digital or film body.

And if you compare similar cameras, I don't think there really is much of a size difference.

A 1 series film body is the same size as a 1 series digital body. Rebel series bodies are also the same size, be it film or digital. If anything, the digital bodies are smaller.

The mid-range bodies are also the same size... In some cases, I think they even used the same chassis.

 

[analog.universe]

Yes it's true but your argument was on the optical side of things, you were stating that they were bigger because the sensor was bigger and I said "all things being equal" which means not considering all the new technologies mentionned above.

Well, if you look at new lenses, built for new digital bodies, that have the same features as old lenses built for film bodies.. the sizes are quite comparable no? Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 ZE, Voigtlander Color-skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL-II, even the canon 50mm f/1.8.. which is auto-focus and auto-aperture, etc..

 

[astroshots]

What I meant is that at the moment you cannot find any 24x36 DSLR at any price, that comes close in size to an "ordinary sized" 24x36 film SLR.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Which particular model would you use to represent "ordinary size"?

 

[Josh66]

What I meant is that at the moment you cannot find any 24x36 DSLR at any price, that comes close in size to an "ordinary sized" 24x36 film SLR.

What are you talking about?

Film and digital bodies are more or less the exact same size.

You see, you have to compare similar bodies. Compare a consumer body to a consumer body. A pro body to another pro body.

If you compare 'like' items, you will see that if anything the digital bodies are smaller, not bigger.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

This conversation is interesting, and sorta meaningless.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I'm thinking more meaningless than interesting.

 

[Village Idiot]

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...

The M9 is a range finder camera and not an SLR. That's like comparing apples and the intricate workings of quantum mechanics used in creating bahm mi sandwiches. It's two completely different things. FF DSLR prices have came down. The original 5D was $3500 and the 5D MKII was released at $2,700 with improved features. If you want a cheap small DSLR, buy an Olympus with a 2.0 4/3 sensor and stop complaining.