The huge size of 24x36 DSLR

[Josh66]

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

My 35mm lenses are smaller...

I bet the one on the right will fit on a 35mm body though. So, all three of those are 'film lenses'.

 

[eric-holmes]

That's true, but I think the OP was just wondering why you cant have full frame digital camera lenses as small as those I showed on the left.

 

[o hey tyler]

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.

Okay, the information I got from Amazon was incorrect. So it's smaller, and less than half the weight. :lmao:

 

[Josh66]

What focal length are those lenses, BTW? I'm guessing the little one is a 50 (or close to that), and the other one is...?

 

[bogeyguy]

Astroshots, you do know we moved into the 21st century a few years back, right.

 

[eric-holmes]

What focal length are those lenses, BTW? I'm guessing the little one is a 50 (or close to that), and the other one is...?

Those are from my Argus. The smaller one is a 35 with lens hood mounted. The taller one is a 100 with lens hood mounted.

 

[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.

Okay, the information I got from Amazon was incorrect. So it's smaller, and less than half the weight. :lmao:

Ah - those are probably the dimensions of the box it ships in.

edit
Er - I mean the box the camera comes in. Obviously it would ship in a bigger box, with padding, I hope.

 

[djacobox372]

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

My 35mm lenses are smaller...

If I mounted that 70-200mm to my nikon F2 would it magically shrink?

What if you mounted a digital slr to the 1960's film era lens below, would it get even bigger?

 

[Josh66]

What if you mounted a digital slr to the 1960's film era lens below, would it get even bigger?

It would probably actually get smaller. So small, in fact, that you might have a hard time finding it.

 

[tirediron]

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

Gimme a bit, I can do an F5 and gripped D700 - should be close.

 

[Ed Bray]

Okay, lets put this to bed,

EOS 1n (film), EOS 5DMk2 (FF) and EOS 10D (1.6x crop)

EOS 1n Gripped (film), EOS 5DMk2 (FF) and EOS 10D Gripped (1.6x crop)

 

[Derrel]

Okay, lets put this to bed,

EOS 1n (film), EOS 5DMk2 (FF) and EOS 10D (1.6x crop)

zOMG Ed, that 24x36mm Canon EOS 5D Mark II, shown above in the middle, looks positively GARGANTUAN compared against the EOS 1(n); I mean sheesh, the 5D-II's pentaprism towers above the 1(n)'s by perhaps a full quarter of an inch! And compared against the EOS 10D 1.6x body on the right, the 5D appears to be as much as five to ten percent larger! Yikes! A guy would need to lift weights every day for months in order to build up enough muscle to be able to manhandle a burly beast like the EOS 5D-II...

 

[jake337]

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

Gimme a bit, I can do an F5 and gripped D700 - should be close.

Cool. I bet they're similar in size. It seems the op is trying to compare the size of old consumer film cameras to today's pro digital. Like comparing the size of a d3100 and d3x.