Evil DSLRs: Bulky and Heavy ?

Ahhhh, Ruben, just wait until you get your Kiev m/f and then compare weights !

I now have a Pentacon Six, approx the same size as the Kiev-60 (but nicer handheld, in my opinion) and the larger dslr's, and someone asked me how many pixels it was - so I said it depends somewhat on the user-changeable sensor, but upwards of eighty megapixels. He looked very confused....

The larger dslrs are very strongly made, and can have such astonishing abilities as the radio-broadcast of thousands of pictures back to a picture-edit desk at large events. Probably not really needed for normal amateur use, but marketing comes in to play of course.
 
What's the weight of a Canon 1v film pro body compared to a 1dMk3? Or a Nikon F5 (F6 has separate battery grip) compared to a D3?
 
slr weight, etc.

slr weight, etc.

ruben et al.,

in terms of an slr, a lot of the weight can be lens-related. for example, i have a nikon d80, which isn't all that heavy, but i also have the 17-55 lens, which is excellent, but large and heavy (at 26.6 ounces).

the size and weight of the d80 + 17-55mm lens have hoping to purchase a rangefinder in a month or so ... well, the size, weignt, and the fact that an SLR really doesn't blend with my shooting style.

anyone want to trade an r-d1s for my d80 + 17-55mm lens? ;)
 
BTW, and very important, I was really impressed for good by the low noise of the Canon 30D. A very civilized and quiet noise, far below an OM1.
 
ruben said:
Yet it doesn't make much sense Canon builds big DSLRs for no reason
Click to expand...


If you talk to some men about the Canon xTi, they say it's too small and cramps their hand after a while.

I found the same thing happening when I first started using a 35mm RF.
 
I often lug around a Nikon D1x (about 1.5kg with battery) but it has great ergonomics and balances nicely with heavy lenses (my 300/4.5 which tips the scale at about 1.2kg for example).
On the film side, I often use a Nikon F4s (about 1.3kg). Heavy, but well balanced so you don't really feel the weight.
 
ruben said:
Just to enligthen me a bit. Is the use of fixed small lens on DSLRs a trend among RFF connousieurs, or a widely "prosumer" custom ?

Upon my talk with my nephew, and later by phone with his technical couch, I got the impression fixed lens are for them something of the far past.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

It may be some kind of trend, at least among Pentax users, if only because Pentax has been designing so many tiny lenses of late.

I myself often use an *ist DL with the 40mm f/2.8 pancake. Even though I bought it about a year-and-half ago, that combo still sometimes surprises me with with how light and compact it is. The lightness is especially apparent when I have lithium AA batteries in it.

Still, I think primes are not the future, or even the present for most DSLR buyers, mostly because the twin giants of the field, Canon and Nikon, have been pouring allot of time and money into zooms. I imagine the crop factor (1.5-2.0x) on most of the DSLRs sold below $2,000 also has an effect: for someone coming over from a zoom compact, an 18-55mm kit lens will provide more operational familiarity than a 50mm prime.

And that's the other thing: zoom compacts. For allot of people, perhaps the bulk of lower-end DSLR purchasers (D40, 350d, etc...), there may not actually be any preexisting awareness of single-focal length optics outside of, say, their camera phones.

I often use my 18-55mm on the Pentax due to simply not having an effective wide-angle for the thing; but even with the zoom, it's still pretty small.

A.
 
ruben said:
So the close to top DSLRs continue to be as big as the past close to top AF SLRs ?
Click to expand...
Yes. Particularly the offerings from canon, as the same (magnesium) chassis is the basis for all the 1x series cameras (1v, 1D, 1Ds, etc.) Their top DSLRs are even larger because they need more power, hence more and larger batteries.

I would imagine that Nikon went through a similar process of basing their premier DSLRs on the existing SLR lines. One reason for the bulk is most likely the fact that the most demanding user was the sports photojournalist primarily using large, long prime lenses.

nksyoon, bodies only

canon 1v - 953g/2.1lbs
" 1DmkIII - 1155g/2.54lbs
Leica M7 - 610g/1.34lbs
 
As it happens, I have a Canon 30D. Sure, it can end up as a bigish, heavyish beast if I put a 28-135 zoom on it (Ruben's original comment) by comparison to an M-type RF camera or my OM-4T. Same goes for my 17-55 f2.8 IS lens, and with a 100-400 IS zoom it gets very bulky and positively weighty.

But so what? With a 35mm f2 or 50mm f1.8 prime, or even with the new kit 18-55 IS zoom (which I don't have, but apparently isn't a bad lens) it is quite a small and tidy package: a little larger than my OM-4T with 55mm f1.2, but not hugely so. Put the Winder 1 on the OM then it is probably a little larger and heavier than the 30D with small-ish prime or zoom.

Its more about the lens you put on it than the camera as the 30D itself isn't that big or heavy. I just use my different cameras and different lenses for different things. A 30D with big zoom isn't really for street photography, but it does rather nicely for wildlife. I can and have made do with the 30D for street stuff with a 35/2 or 50/1.8 although I prefer RF cameras for that (for reasons other than bulk, mind you).

IMO, its all about choosing the right tool for a given task and what suits my preferences and whims at any given time.
 
Last edited:
Actually not all dslr`s are big and bulky.
I sold off my rather large Nikon D2H when the kids finished high school sports and now I just use the diminutive entry level Nikon D40 with a 18-135 lens. Not a fast aperture by any measure but the sharpness and quality of my images is far better than I ever expected. It`s just marvelous at ISO 800-1600 .

Still, it`s more fun shooting an old FSU.
 
Weight

Weight

Here is some Weight for you:


Canon Mark 1DS III - 42.5 oz./1,205g
Canon Mark 1D III - 40.7 oz./1,155g
Canon EOS 5D - 28.6 oz./810g
Canon EOS 40D - 26.1 oz./740g
Canon EOS 30D - 24.7 oz./700g

Canon EOS 1V - EOS-1V: 945 g / 33 oz (body only, excluding battery) EOS-1V + PB-E2: 1380 g / 48.7 oz (body only, excluding battery)

EOS-3 - 780g/ 27.5 oz.(Excluding lithium battery)

Canon F1N - 795g body only; 1,030g with FD 50mm f/1.4 lens.

Canon T90 - Weight: 395g (13 15/16 oz)

Lenses:

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM - 640g
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - 385g
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - 500g




Nikon D3 - Approx. 2.7 lb. (1,240 g) without battery, memory card, body cap or accessory shoe cover

Nikon D2Xs - Weight (without battery): Approx. 2.4 lbs (1,070g)

Nikon D2Hs - Weight (without batteries) : Approx. 1,070g (2.4lbs).

Nikon D300 - Weight: Approx. 1.82 lbs. (825 g) without battery, memory card, body cap, or monitor cover

Nikon D200 - Weight: Approx. 830g without battery, memory card, body cap, or monitor cover

Nikon D80 - Weight: Approximately 1 lb. 5 oz. (585g) without battery, memory card, body cap, or monitor cover

Lenses -

AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED - 1.07 lbs
AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED - 970g
AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED - 26.3 oz.
AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED - 26.6 oz
AF Zoom-NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED - 13 oz.


Nikon F6 - Weight (without batteries): Approx. 34.4 oz

Nikon F5 - Weight (without batteries): Approx. 1,210g (42.7 oz.)

Nikon F4 - Weight (body only): With Multi Power High Speed Battery Pack MB-23: approx. 1,400g (49.4 oz.), with High Speed Battery Pack MB-21: approx. 1,280g (45.1 oz.), with Battery Pack MB-20: approx. 1,090g (38.4 oz.)

Nikon F3HP - Body weight: Nikon F3: 705g approx.; Nikon F3HP: 760g approx.

Nikon F2s Photomic w/DP2 prism - Weight: 880g without lens



If this enough for everyone? :cool:
Or shall I do more? :cool:

MArk
UIO
Ecuador
 
Think of it this way. One dSLR, one or two very small 4 - 8 gb cards, one wide range zoom and you have in one package; many focal lengths, many (hundreds of) exposures, very wide (low noise) ISO range, and a flash in many cases.

That can be one efficient package.
 
sitemistic said:
But I come from a time when we carried three or four Nikon F's with F36 motor drives around our necks. Everything seems light to me. :)
Click to expand...

Those were the days....
 
I picked up a Nikon D200 with 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED lens yesterday and while it is somewhat large it doesn't feel heavy. But it is bigger and heavier than the D40X I played with.
 
not sure

not sure

but I walk around in the rain with a 28/2.8 JC Penny lens on my K100D Super, and for indoors low light, a 35/1.9 Vivitar.

The kit zoom is great and light for sunny days or travel with a whole bunch of focal lengths in one lens.

ruben said:
Just to enligthen me a bit. Is the use of fixed small lens on DSLRs a trend among RFF connousieurs, or a widely "prosumer" custom ?

Upon my talk with my nephew, and later by phone with his technical couch, I got the impression fixed lens are for them something of the far past.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...
 
My Pentax DS with a 28mm f2.8 prime lens is only a tad larger than my M6 with 40mm nokton. It's actually more comfortable to hold due to the grip...
 
The reasoning for a larger camera when talking about the Canon and Nikon pro model DSLRs is that when you are using the camera professionally, in most situations, you are not trying to be inconspicuous. Therefore you don't need to have a tiny little camera, and especially in the photojournalistic world - instead of having a small 50mm prime, most guys want a "do it all" lens coverage - and for good reason! Their job is to document and wehn documenting one isn't thinking about distortion or sharpness or any of that crap. A lens like the canon 24-105 f4L IS is perfect for it, and balances extremely well on a canon 1d series camera. They're incredibly tough - weather sealed, dust sealed and strong enough to drop every day onto concrete without affecting functionality. I've even heard stories of photojournalists being attacked and using their cameras to fend off the attackers.

Also, consider a pro who shoots in portrait orientation a lot - the extended grip on the pro series cameras makes this a hugely easier task, if you haven't held a canon 1d or nikon dx series camera in portrait position, go and do it.

Then you consider the cameras are used for things like sports as well. When shooting with a 400 f2.8 or some massively long telephoto lens that a lot of sports guys use, it's MUCH nicer to have a big weighty camera body to balance it out. The autofocus technology in the newer DSLRs is just amazing.

Also consider the OM series cameras have always been the smaller end of the SLR market. 10-30 years back, the professional camera of choice has traditionally been the nikon SLR. Sure, a nikon f3HP isn't as big as a nikon D3, but when you add the motor drive, its possibly bigger.

In general, the amount of shooting customization that the modern DSLRs allow a working professional is quite amazing and extrememly useful in getting the most out of shooting situations. While you may prefer something along the lines of the positively TINY olympus e-410 or the nikon d40, in the professional world such a camera does not last.
 
And here I thought the rap on DSLRs was the cheap plastic-y bodies. :D

kevin m said:
I'm still amazed when people claim that a Leica M will fit into their pocket. :D
Click to expand...

I can put an M4-P with a CV 35/2.5 or a 28/3.5 in my jacket (windbreaker-type) pocket. Definitely couldn't do that with my D200!





.
 
Now you can almost hear the groans or snickers when someone new post "I'm selling all my digital stuff and buying a 50 y/o Leica."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom