Remember your SLR?

[Goodyear]

I wish we could look back at the "photo forums" of when the first 35mm cameras came out and see if they were are roundly chastized as less than FF sensors are today.

My understanding is that they were.

35mm is 'miniature', doncherknow.

 

[XAos]

When did SLRs and especially DSLRs get so big! Is it all the rush to get the PRO look? I think the large size of the bodies, lens mounts and lenses of modern dSLRs and the small chip high/iso noise of P&S cameras leaves niche between the two. Maybe the Sony R1 can fill that, maybe the 4/3 Evolts and Lumlix will.

I been banging drum of the Digital descendant of the Pentax Auto 110 for a while now. One can only hope.

 

[Doug]

Oddly enough, the 4/3 sensor is near the same size as the 110 frame (14x17mm), so the Pentax Auto 110 lenses should cover it fine. And why shouldn't it be possible to produce a 4/3 sensor camera in the same form factor as the little Pentax? And in this context that's a "full-frame" sensor too! 🙂

 

[Goodyear]

Oddly enough, the 4/3 sensor is near the same size as the 110 frame (14x17mm), so the Pentax Auto 110 lenses should cover it fine. And why shouldn't it be possible to produce a 4/3 sensor camera in the same form factor as the little Pentax? And in this context that's a "full-frame" sensor too! 🙂

That would rock.

 

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Oddly enough, the 4/3 sensor is near the same size as the 110 frame (14x17mm), so the Pentax Auto 110 lenses should cover it fine. And why shouldn't it be possible to produce a 4/3 sensor camera in the same form factor as the little Pentax? And in this context that's a "full-frame" sensor too! 🙂

Have you guys looked at the circuit layouts in a digicam? Scary packing job. I think the "4/3" sensor, the supporting curcuits would cost a great deal to fit ino something the size of a Pentax 110 slr (not much larger than an Oly s-350).

For the cost of miniaturization, you may as well go ahead and buy a D200.

Oh, wait... where would I put the film? 😉

 

[KoNickon]

I must be still an SLR man at heart, because I really like seeing what the final picture will look like by seeing through the lens (and checking depth of field). I don't give much thought to what lies outside the view through the viewfinder, since I have already surveyed the scene and have mentally framed what I want included (and change focal lengths accordingly). Framelines imposed on a scene are nice, but no one has mentioned the basic truth of rangefinder cameras that indeed the framelines are not especially precise -- one of the perceived advantages of an RF doesn't exist.

 

[Jocko]

I wish we could look back at the "photo forums" of when the first 35mm cameras came out and see if they were are roundly chastized as less than FF sensors are today.

In a way we can! "the remark [is] so often heard, 'I have no use for the miniature camera It is only a toy... I was left with the impression that few of those present [at an RPS debate in the mid 1930s] thought very much of, or even believed there was any real future for the 35mm camera... One professional photographer remarked that the ease with which pictures could be obtained with the 35mm camera made him feel quite ashamed..."

Lancelot Vining, "My Way With a Miniature" (1941)

Ian