NickTrop
Veteran
So, it was my daughter's Confirmation today (not to get religious, which I'm not) and I'm in church, and I decided to go medium format, which mean my Kiev 60, and I decided to try the new Kodak Portra courtesy of Kodak, then some Tri-X which I'll do myself...
So I got my giant ugly Kiev with a flash attached to it. And the guy sitting in front of my happens to have a Canon with a "Canon Digital" strap, and his big zoom lens with pettal hood next to him.
This thing - literally, is as big as the Kiev 60. Mine had the Zeiss Jena 80mm (first time using that one...) so the lens didn't stick out nearly as much. First time comparing the two side by side.
These things are literally as big as a Kiev 60, which I dubbed "My Giant" (after the lame-o Billy Crystal bomb). Why are these Digital SLRs so big? The Kiev is big because of the 120 film size, it's a MF camera, it has an excuse. Digital sensors are the size of a finger nail. Why are these DSLRs (most of them) so damned big?
So I got my giant ugly Kiev with a flash attached to it. And the guy sitting in front of my happens to have a Canon with a "Canon Digital" strap, and his big zoom lens with pettal hood next to him.
This thing - literally, is as big as the Kiev 60. Mine had the Zeiss Jena 80mm (first time using that one...) so the lens didn't stick out nearly as much. First time comparing the two side by side.
These things are literally as big as a Kiev 60, which I dubbed "My Giant" (after the lame-o Billy Crystal bomb). Why are these Digital SLRs so big? The Kiev is big because of the 120 film size, it's a MF camera, it has an excuse. Digital sensors are the size of a finger nail. Why are these DSLRs (most of them) so damned big?
That new Canon is "slightly" bigger than the CLE body that arrived today, and at 1.3kg somewhat heavier too! But coincidentally, my Pentax 645NII body is also 1.3Kg, so I can easily imaging how it must feel to cart the EOS around. 
They all do their different jobs...
They all do their different jobs...
K
Kin Lau
Guest
NickTrop said:
My 350D + 35/2 is smaller than some of my 70's fixed-lens RF such as the Yashica Electro GS, Minolta 7s, Konica S2's. The vast majority of dslrs are the same size as the 350D/Rebel XT. You've probably seen one and thought it was just a P&S.
My 20D is about the same size (bit smaller actually) as my Eos A2 & Elan, both film cameras.
Have you ever seen a Nikon F5 or EOS 1VHS? Both are 35mm film cameras, and both are _massive_.
Most of the lenses for my dslrs are the same ones I use for my film slrs. With the large aperture zooms and primes, a beefier body is needed, both for balance and better grip.
ywenz
Veteran
This camera kicks the ass of almost all the RFs out there.
The guy with this fast zoom and high iso probably got better pics than any antiquated MF camera + flash can muster
NickTrop said:
The guy with this fast zoom and high iso probably got better pics than any antiquated MF camera + flash can muster
Last edited:
MadMan2k
Well-known
Now, a Leica with a 50 1.0 and some ISO 3200 B&W film on the other hand... can't handhold an SLR at half a second
Then again, this mark 3 is cleaner than any film at high ISO, and Canon does have a 50 1.2, so it's a tough call.
Then again, this mark 3 is cleaner than any film at high ISO, and Canon does have a 50 1.2, so it's a tough call.
John Camp
Well-known
Kin Lau said:
The Nikon F5 is physically smaller than the D2x -- I know, because I'm looking at them. I don't know about weight -- they feel about the same. The D2x is five ounces lighter than the Canon under discussion. Anyway, this comment seems a little odd -- somebody complains that camera A is very heavy, heavier even than camera B, which is known to be very heavy. The answer that camera C is lighter than either is a non-sequitur: an 8mm Minox is lighter than a 350D, but so what? That's not what we were talking about.
The fact is, the new Canon is even larger and heavier than cameras that are already large and heavy. Is the extra size and weight worth it? Depends. It wouldn't be for me, and probably not for a lot of other rangefinder shooters, but it might be for some.
Here's a fact for you. I know a pretty good PJ, late 40s or maybe 50, who got a very premature hip replacement probably (her doctors opine) because she carried a very heavy camera bag off the same shoulder for twenty-five years. I didn't ask her, but if I did, I bet she'd tell you that she could have taken 99 percent of her photos with the cheapest, lightest Nikon/Canon interchangable lens film camera, or the cheapest/lightest Nikon/Canon interchangeable lens digital, and the other one percent, she could come back to the office and say, "The camera wasn't good enough," and the photo desk guy would say, "Too bad; but, we've got other shots."
JC
y4m4
Cal Graham
I'd trade my Pentax K110d for it. Nice camera sure enough; I couldn't justify the cost though.
mw_uio
Well-known
This camera is when you are strapped in a Bell 407, air supremacy, hovering 20m above a screaming Mitsubishi in the Paris-Dakar.
Canon hands down for sports photography.
I love this thread this week!
MArk
Quito, EC
Canon hands down for sports photography.
I love this thread this week!
MArk
Quito, EC
K
Kin Lau
Guest
John Camp said:
It might help if you noticed that I was making a reply to Nick about his statement that _most_ DSLRs are huge.
350D_user
B+W film devotee
Got big fingernails?NickTrop said:
Manufacturers apparently need the space... for... er...
Well, there's the pentamirror (or pentaprism, for the cameras that were designed without cost restraints), then the batterypack, AF motor (for the non-Canon amongst us), flexible PCB, LCD display (or two... essential apparently), media slot, motors (possibly for the shutter and mirrorslap)... er... ah, then it's got to look as though you've actually got something for your hard-earned money.
Hmm.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I see. So the camera makes all the difference in the quality of the photos, eh? What, exactly does better mean? How do you define that?ywenz said:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
That made me think some more about why this thread makes me feel uncomfortable. It certainly wouldn't if it were just, or only, "good natured fun".FrankS said:
I get the impression that some posters (I'm not talking about you here, Frank) are taking things more seriously than that. But so what? Its the internet. It is what it is.
But I'm still uncomfortable. And I think I know why. "Good natured fun" appreciates things in a "knowing" way, with a good understanding of precisely what its sending up. But the word that seems to categorise way too much of this thread, to me, is "parochial".
To me, that's not a good word. "That's not the way we do things around here, so it must be bad." Never a good look, IMO. And I like to think better of RFF.
Hence the bad taste that's in my mouth at the moment (so I must go crack a bottle of decent red, about now).
...Mike
K
Kin Lau
Guest
mfunnell said:
Thanks Mike, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Trius said:
come on...isn't this exactly what's being discussed/implied/insinuated throughout this thread?
Since this is a forum, here's how I define it:Trius said:
Definition:
last weekend I shot a soccer match on a full-size field, in the rain with my Nikon D200 set on 5fps (I rarely shot more than 3 continuous shots), manual exposure, manual zoom, and AF: I used a 80-200/2.8 lens, on a monopod. my "assignment" was/is to get "action" shots of every player with one major restriction: I was limited to one touchline ONLY, I'm not allowed behind the goals or on the players side of the field. Even though I could only take about 40 minutes of the conditions, it was a blast, and I came away from the time with great results. I've shot soccer matches using an Leica M7 and a 135mm lens. It was fun, too. BUT the M7 is not the camera for the job. I get better sports photos using the D200.
p.s. I could've replace the DSLR body with an SLR body; I've done that, but the DSLR still allows me to get better results.
That's how I define it.