The huge size of 24x36 DSLR

[Village Idiot]

I'm thinking more meaningless than interesting.

I just think it's ****ing confused. What's he complaining about? Camera size, camera price, lens size, form factor, the intricate workings of quantum mechanics used in creating bahm mi sandwiches, or what? I seriously think he might not own a camera yet.

Canon EF lenses were originally created for the EF mount of film bodies, so the lens size for a film camera vs. a DSLR is the exact same. AmIrite?

 

[Josh66]

Lets compare a couple non-similar cameras:

Photo020 by J E, on Flickr

Which one looks bigger to you?


I have another 35mm SLR that I should have thrown in there too. It's about the same size as that 350D.


I know the 350D isn't full-frame (which is why I said 'a couple non-similar items'), but it's a better comparison than the OP is trying to make.

Throw a 1D in there, and it will be about the same size as that 1N RS. Throw a 35mm Rebel in there, and it will be the same size as the digital one.

 

[Josh66]

I'm thinking more meaningless than interesting.

I just think it's ****ing confused. What's he complaining about? Camera size, camera price, lens size, form factor, the intricate workings of quantum mechanics used in creating bahm mi sandwiches, or what? I seriously think he might not own a camera yet.

Canon EF lenses were originally created for the EF mount of film bodies, so the lens size for a film camera vs. a DSLR is the exact same. AmIrite?

Yeah, that's what I don't get either... I'll have to re-read the thread, but I don't know how the lenses being different sizes got in there. If you can take the same lens and put it on a film or digital body, how can you say one uses bigger lenses than the other?


Even with lenses made for crop sensors, which have a smaller image circle and smaller elements - the physical size of the lens is more or less in line with it's full-frame equivalent.

As long as film bodies and digital bodies have the same mount (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji, etc...), the lenses will be of a comparable size.

 

[astroshots]

I'm thinking more meaningless than interesting.

So why are you wasting your time here?

 

[astroshots]

OK can anyone show me a DSLR 24x36 the size of a Nikon FM3a ?
.

 

[astroshots]

II know the 350D isn't full-frame (which is why I said 'a couple non-similar items'), but it's a better comparison than the OP is trying to make.

Well, no! if you start comparing ASP-C to 24x36 film then you're completely missing the point.


All 24x36 DSLR are massive at the moment when you compare to what a normally sized 24x36 film SLR was, and that's the subject of the thread.

The misunderstandings come from the people who state that the 24x36 DSLR are much better, much more advanded, that's why they are the size they are and therefore they are not big ...

 

[KVRNut]

When I compare the size of a Rebel XSi to my film Rebels or EOS 1V, there really isn't a lot of difference in the size or weight when a kit lens is fitted. It's when I fit an additional power booster to the EOS 3 or 1V that the heft and size goes up on them as I use 8 AA batteries in the boosters. Add some of the new mega glass and there goes the scale needle again. Granted, in my books, some of the improvements like being able to take movies, etc, are things I'll never use but then some people demand everything including the kitchen sink in a camera body and lens. Trying to get a basic full frame digital now without a ton of features is almost impossible unless you spend a ton of money or buy a camera several years old, but then one always has the off switch. I think one of the reasons I can't be bothered buying a digital is the thought of paying for features I won't be using in the first place.

I do have to agree with you on the feel of some of the newer cameras. Comparing an 80's camera to the current crop is like comparing apples to oranges but then some of the newer bodies are a lot easier to carry over the course of a day's photography just because they're lighter. So are some of the lenses when I compare them to some of my all metal body lenses that I use on my maual focus cameras. Yes, lenses were smaller but they weighed just as much as a lot of lenses today. Carrying a couple of A-1s and 4 telephoto lenses in a camera bag can make for a sore shoulder at the end of the day. LOL Even carrying the EOS 1V and EOS 3 plus lenses can make for sore shoulders too because of their construction.

As far as value for the money, I think that would depend on the individual. You may not think that the current crop of cameras has the value for the money but then there's a ton of folks that will disagree with you in a heart beat. (As you see...) There's been a lot of folks that have gone to digital just because of the volume of photographs they take and the value for them is the amount of money they save in cost per photo, some because it's the only type of photograhy they know, some because of the versatility of their digital cameras in being able to change ISOs or go from color to black and white with the press of a couple buttons.

Like you, I'll stick with my film cameras that don't go out of date every couple years and keep enjoying the photographic experience. Hold off for a while on looking at a digital. I'm sure that some whiz kid camera designer will get it thru their thick skull that more isn't really better...

One thing I've noticed and I may be corrected on this. Cameras started off large with the view cameras, then gradually got smaller with roll film medium format and finally 35mm and smaller sized film. Now with digital cameras getting larger and larger... I wonder....

 

[Josh66]

OK can anyone show me a DSLR 24x36 the size of a Nikon FM3a ?
.

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital Camera (Body Only) 2764B003 B&H

Nikon D700 SLR Digital Camera (Body Only) 25444 B&H Photo Video

Both of those are roughly the same size as the FM3a. Within a half inch or so in every dimension.


edit
The weight is the only real difference. Both of the digital ones are heavier (995g for the D700 and 810g for the 5D, compared to the FM3A's 570g), but there is also a ton more crap packed into them.


Now I wonder if you can show me a digital body that will work without batteries...?

 

[Josh66]

The misunderstandings come from the people who state that the 24x36 DSLR are much better, much more advanded, that's why they are the size they are and therefore they are not big ...

Like I have said already (and other posters), the misunderstanding comes from you trying to compare apples to oranges.

You want to compare a full manual body that doesn't even need batteries to a modern, autofocus digital body. And EVEN THEN, the digital bodies are the same size. If you compared an autofocus 35mm body to a digital body, the size difference would be even smaller.

Compare an F5 to a D3... Or a 1N (or V) to a 1D... The 1D's have the grip built in, but so does the 1N RS - so you don't even have to add anything else to it to make it the same size.

 

[astroshots]

As far as value for the money, I think that would depend on the individual. You may not think that the current crop of cameras has the value for the money but then there's a ton of folks that will disagree with you in a heart beat. (As you see...) There's been a lot of folks that have gone to digital just because of the volume of photographs they take and the value for them is the amount of money they save in cost per photo, some because it's the only type of photograhy they know, some because of the versatility of their digital cameras in being able to change ISOs or go from color to black and white with the press of a couple buttons.


.

The thing is, I went to several stores to see and feel the cameras and I did not get good impressions.
I'm sorry but when you spend £1000+ on a camera you expect more than a plastic, toy-like feel...like it's going to break in thousands of pieces at the first incident...The 24x36 looked better built but as I tried to explain in this thread, they are just too big!!
So yes I'm going to wait 2-3 years, I'm sure their size will have decreased by then.

 

[j-dogg]

5D user here. I like the bigger size, my Rebel XTi feels too small in my hand and even with the grip it's uncomforable. My 5D fits me like a glove, 100% perfect. The only camera I have ever shot that fit me better was a Minolta Maxxum 7xi

 

[Josh66]

So yes I'm going to wait 2-3 years, I'm sure their size will have decreased by then.

I doubt it, but go ahead and wait... I think the trend is going towards bigger, more 'pro looking' bodies. Everyone wants the big heavy bodies, and if they can't get them they add grips to the small bodies to make them bigger and heavier... But, I do hope they get cheaper, and that full-frame sensors make their way into consumer level bodies - but they will not be getting smaller.

Especially when you consider that they are already the same size as the film bodies were - so how small do you want them to get?

 

[astroshots]

You still don't understand.
I am not asking for a complicated beast. All I say is, there is not today, on the market, a more compact 24x36 DSLR .
You will read this thread again in 5 years and realise then that I was not comparing apples to oranges.You will find all the goodies that you have in your beloved monsters squeezed in something the size of an FM3a.
Just remember this.

 

[astroshots]

So yes I'm going to wait 2-3 years, I'm sure their size will have decreased by then.

I doubt it, but go ahead and wait... I think the trend is going towards bigger, more 'pro looking' bodies. Everyone wants the big heavy bodies, and if they can't get them they add grips to the small bodies to make them bigger and heavier... But, I do hope they get cheaper, and that full-frame sensors make their way into consumer level bodies - but they will not be getting smaller.

So, I do not see them getting smaller. Especially when you consider that they are already the same size as the film bodies were - so how small do you want them to get?

I fully disagree, but hey, no problem man!

 

[Derrel]

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.

Dude...the Canon EOS 5D is built on what is it?? Oh, yeah that's right, the Canon 5D digital was built around the Canon EOS Elan film body chassis and mirror box assembly, more or less. Yeah....those pesky facts and all...