DSLR - size or definition ?

dee

dee

Well-known
Local time
12:50 AM
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
1,925
I was considering a Nikon D 300 - too big , then D 90 , acceptable , now D 500 - perfect - with the same sensor too !
I may not indulge as my K 10D is fine , but I would put lighter and smaller over the better quality .
Not that my Leica Dig 3 is that small !
Can you-all cope with those massive DSLRs ?
 
As long as I can physically carry it, a camera's size is pretty much irrelevant to me. I'm as happy carrying a Mamiya RZ67 as I am a Werramatic (or, indeed, my Pentax K20D). I'm not too fussed about resolution either - any current dSLR will offer far higher picture quality than I really need.
 
Last edited:
No, No D3, No D200/300, I'm lusting for a D60. While the D3000 is the same size it does not have the same control options, though the D5000 does, but it's bigger. I'm looking small, simple and makes use of that wonderful Nikkor glass I've used for many years.

Size matters, but it's every demention.

B2 (;->
 
NO, small is better (well not better, but), at least you consider taking it with you. Which one (in the realm of film) would you choose to take to Puerto Vallarta:

2188985214_fc7aebacee.jpg


This is the smaller, and it was great there:

3283212260_de4dae32f1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I cut my teeth on motorized Nikons - the D300 feels normal to me with the battery grip.
 
None of my DSLR's outweigh my F2 with MD-2/MB-1 combination. The DCS200 is about the same size, and the Nikon E3 is about the same weight. The Nikon D1 and D1x are "itty-bitty" compared to them.

Been coping for a long-time!
 
But I'm thinking my S3 is about all I want to carry around all day, size and weight wise it's OK.

Never really was into my FM/MD-11. Never should have moved from my FTn.

B2 (;->
 
charjohncarter said:
NO, small is better (well not better, but), at least you consider taking it with you. Which one (in the realm of film) would you choose to take to Puerto Vallarta:

2188985214_fc7aebacee.jpg
Click to expand...


Some time ago whenever I entered a plane or bus I looked for men with big gorilla sized hands. I did this after all the posts on pnet about how they hated the teeny dslrs from Nikon and Canon and how their hands cramped after using them.
 
Thardy said:
Some time ago whenever I entered a plane or bus I looked for men with big gorilla sized hands. I did this after all the posts on pnet about how they hated the teeny dslrs from Nikon and Canon and how their hands cramped after using them.
Click to expand...

Tell them to get a new Canon DSLR, then they will be happy. My Pentax 6x7 is actually smaller than the Mark II or whatever it is called. It is just too much to enjoy photography on a walk.
 
I walk around with a D40 and a Sigma 30mm 1.4. Pretty diminutive compared to some digi kits. With my 50mm Nikkor 1.8 the ensemble is REALLY small. But that lens I have to focus manually. No problem.

Cheers...

Rem
 
Can`t do better than a D40 for hike. For serious work, my D700 with grip and a bunch of old Nikor Ai glass to put on it.

This assumes I don`t use my Leica. A screw mount is equally nice for a hike of an M camera.
 
I swapped my D40x for a D90. Love the size of the D40/D40x/D60/D3000/D5000 cameras but I'm only going to keep one and the D90 is still small enough to sling over the shoulder. The D90 has noticeable nicer image quality (not valid against D5000) and nicer LCD. But otherwise the biggest change is in the controls. I'm a little disappointed with the ISO 3200 (esp after seeing what the D700 can do at 6400) but it's still pretty good.
 
D2X, "downgraded" from a D60. The D60 was nice, performed well, compact and all that. But boring. And on the downside, slow, only three area AF, and manual focus only on most interesting lenses. Manual focusing wasn´t that easy either, even with the VF meter assistance. The D2X is another matter. Substantial (if I want compact a DSLR doesn´t come into the picture at all), can tweek just about anything. Though I use it almost exclusively in aperture priority mode, apart from night and sports shooting.

But must say, the D2X is second in line to the R-D1 these days. Even more fun.
 
got rid of all DSLR's. Using film stuff. Maybe will go back to digital when I can afford an M9 or a cheaper cousin which does not exist.Would not mind a digital Nikon FM either.
 
Can't offer anything about Nikon, sorry (my last Nikon was an F3), but image quality is way more important to me than the size of the camera - I'm using my 5DII (the first digital I've been able to afford that I've thought is worth buying) here in Thailand for its first serious outing since I got it, and I really am impressed.

It's big, but it feels OK even in my small hands.

I just made some samples to share with a couple of friends - they're here...

http://homepage.mac.com/oscroft/5DII/5D.html

Cheers,
 
I like the feel of the D300. It fits in my hands much better than a D60 or D5000, it feels more durable too (it's metal instead of plastic). I don't have huge hands. At first I was a little intimidated by the size but now it just feels normal, and the other smaller cameras feel dinky and cheap in comparison (well they are...but they're still good). If I could afford an M6 and a 35/2, I wouldn't have a D300. However, having that and the 17-55 is just light enough to actually hold ;) and it takes great pictures for weddings, events, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom