The huge size of 24x36 DSLR

[Village Idiot]

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...?

How much does 125 rolls of film weigh and how much space does it take up? I could easily fit 3,000 images on 3 16GB memory cards. Hell, even the cost of all that film. If you take 100,000 shots with a DSLR, it won't cost more than the original purchase of the body, barring malfunction and repair costs (if any ) and at $4 a roll of 36 exposure film, you're looking at $11,111 for film and that's not including development costs.

Why are full frame DSLRs so cheap compared to a 35mm camera?

 

[Josh66]

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.

Again, they ALREADY ARE THE SAME SIZE as film cameras. So what do you want now? Full frame DSLR the size of a P&S?


If you like film, use it. I do. I haven't used that 350D in over a year. I just think that you're trying to make up some kind of excuse to justify not going digital, like you have to convince yourself that film is better or something.

If you like film and your film bodies, use them. Just stop making stuff up to try to convince yourself that it's OK. You keep saying how big they are, and yet when you look at the actual dimensions, they are the same size as your FM3a (which isn't even a fair comparison - use an F5 it you want a fair film-to-digital comparison).

 

[astroshots]

Let's stop here man, you think that 24x36 DSLRs are not big and that's that. We will never agree.

 

[Josh66]

Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself...

edit
(your last post came in as I was typing)
I never said that they aren't big. They are big. They are also the exact same size as film cameras, which are also big.


(And the post I was replying to appears to have been deleted...)

 

[Village Idiot]

Let's stop here man, you think that 24x36 DSLRs are not big and that's that. We will never agree.

FF DSLRs are not big compared to Film SLRs. A smaller FF DSLR can't be made without sacrificing ergonomics. The mirror is the reason it's called an SLR. The mirror is defined by the size of the sensor, which can't be made any smaller than 36x24 or else it wouldn't be a full fram DSLR. The lenses have to be of a certain size to cover the entirity of the frame. They can't be made smaller without cropping the frame and essentially operating as a crop sensor camera. You can hack off the grips and sides if you can manage to stuff the processors and AF chips into the mirror box and have a FF mirror box, but trying to operate anything larger than a normal size prime lens would be completely ackward, not to mention, you'd be shooting without and LCD to review the images or to be able to see the settings. If you want to torture yourself like that, go ahead and try and build one and see how wildly unsuccessful your new small FF DSLR is.

 

[mikehaugen]

I like the size. I prefer the size of my eos 3 ten times to my old "small" ae-1 program, even my 20d feels too small in my hands. My next camera will definitely me a larger chassis.

Also, if you read this Canon EF lens mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, it kinda explains why canon went to a larger mount when they migrated from fd to ef lenses.

 

[Village Idiot]

And even then, if you want to cite the Leica M9 as a progress towards a smaller FF camera, then as a range finder, I don't think you'll get any smaller. Look at the Olympus PEN. It's using their 4/3 sensor. If it were to have a FF sensor, it would have to be even larger to accomodate the lens mount.

 

[Derrel]

Just LOOK at the size of this fully functional camera, shown in Berlin, Germany, and written up in the May, 1934 issue of "Modern Mechanix" magazine. The camera was styled in the image of the then very new, Leica III-series bodies.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/ModernMechanix/5-1934/big_camera.jpg

 

[KmH]

but still it is new technology and I expect the full format to decrease significantly in price in the next 3 years, ...

It's not new technology, and the price for full frame will go up, not down, in the next 3 years.

 

[o hey tyler]

Canon EOS 1V 35mm FILM SLR

Product Dimensions: 7 x 6 x 4 inches ; 3.5 pounds

Canon EOS 5D FULL FRAME DSLR

Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.9 x 6.8 inches ; 1.8 pounds

The DSLR is slightly larger, and half the weight of the film SLR. Do the math. Lenses have also been optimized for weight as well. If your hands are too small for this hobby, you should quit while you're ahead.

 

[Josh66]

Canon EOS 5D FULL FRAME DSLR

Product Dimensions: 9 x 6.9 x 6.8 inches ; 1.8 pounds

...That can't be right.

B&H lists the dimensions as 6 x 4.5 x 3" - so, about an inch smaller than the 1v in every dimension.

 

[eric-holmes]

How much does 125 rolls of film weigh and how much space does it take up? I could easily fit 3,000 images on 3 16GB memory cards. Hell, even the cost of all that film. If you take 100,000 shots with a DSLR, it won't cost more than the original purchase of the body, barring malfunction and repair costs (if any ) and at $4 a roll of 36 exposure film, you're looking at $11,111 for film and that's not including development costs.

Why are full frame DSLRs so cheap compared to a 35mm camera?

Ouch... Now why did I want to shoot more film again...?

 

[Josh66]

I just measured my 1N RS. It is 6 1/8" tall, 6 1/2" wide, and 3 1/8" thick. I don't think my scale is accurate enough to weigh it, but it's pretty heavy. It takes 8 AA batteries, if that tells you anything...

 

[djacobox372]

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!!!

Then go ahead and use those smaller film lenses on your nikon d700 or d3

Film lenses weren't smaller, that's ridiculous. My biggest and heaviest lenses are film era lenses.

The d3 is the same size and significantly lighter then an f5, and a d700 is the same size and weight as an f6

 

[eric-holmes]

Film lenses weren't smaller, that's ridiculous.

My 35mm lenses are smaller...