Evil DSLRs: Bulky and Heavy ?

R

ruben

Guest
Two days ago my nephew finally showed me his Canon 30D, on which he mounted a 28~135 (I think) zoom IS (image stabilizer)

The whole think looked and weighted as a big beast of the kind news photographers used by the 80's and 90's. Around 1,250 Kg and massive size.

Being a great ignorant of all digital cameras I was rather amazed: I was expecting the package to be much smaller. And he even hadn't a hood on his 80 mm something diameter lens.

Is this the realities of today's DSLRs ?

Cheer,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not at all... I mean not all of them, a Nikon D40x is really small.. (small than a Nikon S RF) OTOH a D3 ou D2Xs are about same size and weight as the D30. The difference (besides features) is that I can drop the big ones from 5 feet and they will work, the D40x no way is going to survive.
 
I got a Pentax DL when it came out and was surprised that it was as small as it is, but then I got the Pentax K10d, when it came out. It is bigger and seems to be the size of the Nikon. Too big, not a street photographers dream camera. Canon, to me, has always had SLRs and DSLRs that were too big. Just look at the Canon Mark whatever their big one is, and you need serious muscles to handle that.
 
Pitxu said:
The're all different Ruben.
I use a Pentax*isDL, but never with a zoom. I have a 28mm manual focus lens as standard (equiv' 44mm) and it's pretty light and compact.
Click to expand...


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
 
I joined a new flicker group and yesterday was our first meet-up. Everyone but myself had dslr's with exception of a few p&s digital cameras. I was amazed at one guys dslr. A Sony alpha 100. That camera is amazingly light. Compact to carry anywhere. Has the image stablization built into the camera instead of the lens. Uses Minolta lenses. I was impressed. Others had Canon 30d's and Nikon d40,s and a Nikon d80. They were kind of big and bulky but were still not bad to carry around.
 
It does appear that way. Rarely (for me never) have I seen a DSLR with fixed lenses. V-F are much heavier and what I have read not as sharp as fixed. I have moved away from the V-F to the fixed for everything. If you have the 85/90 for portraits why a V-F?
 
Another Pentax *ist DL user here. I use an SMC-FA 50/1.4 AF lens on mine. The kit is pleasantly weighty but very compact, as mentioned previously. It's just a tad bigger than my Canon AE-1. Not a burden to carry for the day.

The kit zoom lens on any DSLR too big, IMO. If you must have a pocketable camera then a DSLR is not the best choice.
 
Ruben if by small fixed lenses you mean prime lenses or manual focus lenses then the answer is that some DSLR users habitually use both. However I do not imagine this is a mainstream thing - more for people who are "into" lenses.

Here is a link to a web site for aficionados of manual focus lenses. Many regularly use manual lenses (often 50mm or wider) as their standard lenses. (However they will often also use larger old manual focus primes and zooms too. So it is not always about size - its more about image quality)

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=65c451cb17246cea7ebd23e9eab6e5a7

Speaking for myself I own a Panasonic L1 which I bought partly because of its relationship to Leica (it has a Leica standard lens) and partly because with appropriate adapters I can use lenses from almost any other SLR system including Leica R. It will not use Leica M because of the register distance.) I frequently attach a manual focus lens of one brand or another when I am out and about taking photos.

There are many superb manual focus prime lenses. Nikon, Pentax Leica and European brands in M42 mount etc and all have adapters that can allow them to be used on various DSLRs. The only slight issue is that some DSLRs are not ideal for manual focusing unless they have focus confirmation that works with these lenses that do not have a chip. Some do. Some do not. But its a joy to be able to use high quality lenses from yesteryear - even if they are not rangefinder lenses.
 
Last edited:
Yet it doesn't make much sense Canon builds big DSLRs for no reason
 
Olympus E-1 and E-400 here. The E-1 is pretty small, albeit built like a tank, but the E-400 is light as a feather and easy to carry all day.

Regards,

Bill
 
Big or small is all relative - what I would consider small might be big for someone else. I regularly use an 8x10 camera, even on hikes. Compared to that monster, my Canon 5D is lightweight and VERY small. I actually like the bigger cameras - they fit better in my hands and allow me to shoot steadier than with the smaller ones.
 
peterm1 said:
Ruben if by small fixed lenses you mean prime lenses or manual focus lenses then the answer is that some DSLR users habitually use both.

Here is a link to a web site for aficionados of manual focus lenses. Many regularly use manual lenses (often 50mm or wider) as their standard lenses. (However they will often also use larger old manual focus primes and zooms too. So it is not always about size - its more about image quality)

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=65c451cb17246cea7ebd23e9eab6e5a7

Speaking for myself I own a Panasonic L1 which I bought partly because of its relationship to Leica (it has a Leica standard lens) and partly because with appropriate adapters I can use lenses from almost any other SLR system including Leica R. It will not use Leica M because of the register distance.) I frequently attach a manual focus lens of one brand or another when I am out and about taking photos.
Click to expand...


Hi Peter,

Let me put it in another way.

Once upon a time, some 20 years ago, an amateur with money was holding a small Oly OM3 or OM4.

Has this stereotype amateur went digitalized by bigger and bulkier DSLR cameras ? After all Canon is not a fringe brand.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Hi folks all,

I am trying to understand not exactly our clever minds, but what is going on around with consumers buying DSLRs.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Nikon and Canon have serious competition to see who can throw in the most bells and whistles into their top end cameras.

The lower end D40 and D40x, however, are more along the lines of an OM1 in size. They do come with a cheap kit zoom lens, which is slow, but again, cheap. After all, at this end of the market they compete on price, not features.

If one were to purchase a D40 and a prime like a 50/1.8 one would have to spend another $100 or so. If one wants a fast wide prime, like a 35/2, add $300, which is a big percentage of the cost of a D40 kit.

I'm a big fan of the D40/D40x for size reasons, but the previous poster is correct, it's not tank-bulit like the D300 or D3.
 
Very good point. After losing 32 pounds of fat and gaining 7 pounds of muscle last year, I can personally attest. Although lighter gear is still preferred. :) This is why I use primarily primes on my D300. There are some nice zooms with decent speed (f/2.8) but they are just freaking huge and heavy compared to primes. I don't want to scare off my subjects.

Vic said:
From a standpoint of logic, most photographers on this forum as packing at least 10 to 20 kilos of extra weight around their waists, yet complain about a few hundred grams of camera weight. They need to hit the gym on a regular basis and do some aerobic work, as well as building upper-body strength. There is no excuse for letting the body go. Fat and sloth are killing good photographers!

I had a D2H for a while, a very well balanced camera. I could shoot it one handed, it was that good. The size didn't matter.
Click to expand...
 
Once upon a time, some 20 years ago, an amateur with money was holding a small Oly OM3 or OM4.

Has this stereotype amateur went digitalized by bigger and bulkier DSLR cameras ? After all Canon is not a fringe brand.

Ruben bear in mind that Olympus OM cameras were always small by comparison with all others except perhaps the early Pentax M series. But having said this I think its true to say as a generalisation that today's cameras are basically larger in size especially now that they inevitably are sold with a zoom lens. (I recall buying my first camera in the early 1980s and having to plead with the store to replace that nasty old 50mm Pentax prime lens with a shiny new Sigma zoom.) Ahh the follies of youth. And you can see that this trend has been around for some time - look at the Nikon F4 and F5. Neither were small so its probably a progressive thing rather than something that kicked in recently.

In some ways this may also be more apparent than real too. I have a 1970s era Canon FT QL in Canon FL mount and with a 50mm F 1.4 lens this may be dimensionally smaller than modern equivalents but boy it is not a lightweight either.

I should add that Olympus are following this early pattern again. Their E-1 and E-3 pro DSLR cameras are very small by comparision with many competitiors (but boy are they heavy for thier size! Beautifully made.)
 
Last edited:
So the close to top DSLRs continue to be as big as the past close to top AF SLRs ?

Boys you are too good tango dancers in skipping this question.

Cheers,
Ruben

PS
So far Peter is the exeption here.
 
On the size issue, while my Nikon D40 is quite compact for an SLR, the fact in my experience is that a high end SLR tends to be a brute, be it digital or film. The next DSLR up in the Nikon line is considerably bigger and heavier than my D40, and it goes on up from there. Canon has a similar progression. As I see it, going digital hasn't really changed any of the reasons that an SLR would need size for. A DSLR may not need space for a film winding mechanism, but it's got various other new needs that more than eat up that space.

Regarding prime lenses and DSLRs, I own 8 prime lenses and use them regularly. I can't say I'm the norm, but there is a notable contingent of us DSLR shooters who have discovered the economy and quality of using fixed focal-length lenses. We are a certain breed though, as DSLR beginners naturally start off with kit lenses that are zooms and many never stray outside that path. Many casual dabblers with money just buy higher end zooms, as being dabblers most either don't want to juggle lenses at all, or want to juggle lenses as little as possible.
 
ruben said:
So the close to top DSLRs continue to be as big as the past close to top AF SLRs ?
Click to expand...

I'd say yes. Compare an F4 to a D3 and they are probably very close in size and weight. Although the F5 went on a comparative diet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom