File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Here is the picture of progress
wouldnt time have allowed for digital SLR cameras to be smaller than this? makes the heavy m6 look like a toy
>> Anonymous
i don't know if any SLR these days is as small as the Pentax ME or Olympus OM-1 of the old days.

i think a lot of it has to do with autofocus mechanisms taking up the additional space that older cameras didn't have to accomodate for.

of course, some expert will surely correct me if i'm wrong.
>> Anonymous
WOOOOO E-420 BABY

the e-410 isnt much bigger. the lens though
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
If you'll notice, the body of the DSLR (while larger) isn't insanely larger than the body of the M6. It's the size of lenses.
>> Anonymous
This really annoys me, almost all modern DSLR's are huge plastic blobs.
Especially if you want one thats not a consumer level, and if we start to talk full frame, they'll make an old school medium format hasselblad seem small and portable.

Just look at that picture, one of the smalest DSLR's to date and still huge.

Untill they make a small, rugged full frame DSLR I'll stick to my OM's
Just bought a OM-4 Ti.
>> Anonymous
>>241079
>Untill they make a small, rugged full frame DSLR I'll stick to my OM's

Ok brb while i rewrite physics and steal some alien technology.
>> Anonymous
>>241079
MICRO 4/3 BABY!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>241078
well why do they make the lens as big as they can? there is often at least a centimeter in every direction of extra plastic.
>> Anonymous
>>241087
my only guess would be aperture limitations?
>> Anonymous
>>241086
op's pic is a 4/3 body
>> Anonymous
Yeah, why do people not care how fucking huge their equipment is these days? Why do we put up with these things?

>>241083
It's not difficult. They made small, rugged cameras with a 36x24mm sensor in them for years. While it's impossible on a rangefinder (or, at least a rangefinder with a mount with a flange focal distance the same as the M-mount, one could be a fuckwit and build a rangefinder with a longer FFD than the F-mount) it's just a matter of cost to make a DSLR have 36x24mm instead of whatever smaller format that company uses.

There were technical hurdles as far as corner performance, but those seem to have been dealt with. I don't hear anyone bitching about heavy light fall off on their 5D, D3/D700, or 1Ds Mk. III. And those had everything to do with the sensor and the mount specifications, not the size of the body.

Personally, I couldn't care less, for reasons I'm not going to go into I find the smaller APS-C formats preferable to 36x24mm. But it'd be good just to see someone produce a camera in any format that's great and it'd be great for people who do want the larger format. I keep comparing it to 645 and 67: both have their place, for different users and applications.

>>241078
Beyond that, it is significantly *bulkier*. One has a big mirror box. The other is sleek.
>> Anonymous
>>241086>MICRO 4/3 BABY!
>>241083/>>241079>Untill they make a small, rugged full frame DSLR I'll stick to my OM's

>full frame DSLR
>MICRO 4/3 BABY!


>full frame
>MICRO 4/3

Those aren't even close. Micro 4/3 is even farther from full, frame filling awesomeness.
>> Anonymous
As a few people before me have said, the lenses demand a body that can hold them up, and this directly affects the ergonomics of the camera - try picking up a potato with toothpick, then a chopstick.

There's also the issues of where to put all the dials and knobs and switches on the camera body, space for the rear screen, hot shoe mount, etc.

I wouldn't expect DSLR's to get any smaller than they are now until there's a major shift in camera technology - like being able to catch a crystal clear 12MP image on a sensor the size of a micro-SD card, using a 900 mm lense that is only the size of a matchbox, defying physics you know, i.e. never.

Sure, it's a bugger, but that's what point-and-shoots are for, getting smaller and more ubiquitous so you can always have a camera on you, anywhere, like in your phone for example.
>> Anonymous
>>241099
oh well i missed the full frame part

cancel that.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
So okay, you need to have the mirror box and pentaprism to keep compatibility with the lens system. For the 35mm-derived systems (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony) this mirror box has to be big enough to cope with having a 35mm chunk of film behind it. Even with the designed-from-scratch 4/3 system, you still need to accommodate the large sensor and the various focal lengths of lenses that one might want to put on it along with the 4/3 mirror box.

So. That chunk of camera isn't shrinkable due to physical limitations.

Could they shrink the grip and whatnot? Yeah, probably. But what the hell would you hold onto, and where would they put the buttons?

The current general SLR size range is pretty much at the sweet spot where it's small enough to carry comfortably and big enough to fit human hands.
>> Anonymous
>>241083

don't see why you'd have to.

how is it possible for a film camera to be that small and a digital one to not be?

Shouldn't it be the other way around? The only thing really to consider is the mirror box, but as another anon pointed out, pentax and olympus had no problems with that decades ago.
>> Anonymous
>>241103
a sensor is wider than a piece of film.
>> Anonymous
>>241087

SLR lenses are inherently larger than rangefinder lenses.

And the plastic? Well, anything built of plastics is going to need to be larger to maintain the same strength a metal design would have. That's kind of common sense.

People complaining about the size/shape of DSLRs are annoying. Their sized in the most convenient way they can be. The shape? I know nostalgiafags like to talk about how great their old film SLRs feel in their hands, but for a lot of older body designs; that's a lie. An SLR with no grip is fucking brutal on your hands.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>241103
God, please tell me you're a troll...
>> Anonymous
>>241103
>how is it possible for a film camera to be that small and a digital one to not be?

hmmm, well you've got your circuitry, lcd screen, battery, sensor, and all the other electronics that weren't in there before. All of that shit is much much larger than a roll of film.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>241087
A) it probably holds stuff.

B) You want it. I've got a bridge camera that came with a filter adapter that screws around the lens barrel- Godsend. It's been through stuff that would decenter the elements in a unshielded lens easy, but it still performs like the day I got it.

(Pic related.)

Now, thick plastic around the lens isn't as good as something that makes sure bumps don't even touch the lens, but it's still better than no protection for the elements with a ridiculously flimsly lens barrel just to make it slightly smaller.
>> Anonymous
>>241109
I would think that if you cut a DSLR down to its minimum (sensor and its supporting systems, camera control systems, and storage) you could get it very small.

No need for a giant LCD screen, or even one at all really. Have an external device for all the menu controls you change once a week. But really, the LCD doesn't have to be bigger than an inch diagonally to accomplish its two main functions, checking focus and the histogram.
>> Anonymous
>>241116
"Very small" meaning "comparable in size to old film SLRs."

Look, Leica did it even without any bare-bones-ness in the M8, fit a digital camera into a very old camera design.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I made this pinhole camera out of a matchbox, why can't they make DSLRs this small?
>> Anonymous
>>241116
>checking focus and the histogram
focus?
>> Anonymous
>>241121
Well, you want to know if you (either due to plain user error or an off diopter setting or whatever) or your camera's autofocus system are egregiously fucking up, don't you?
>> Anonymous
>>241106SLR lenses are inherently larger than rangefinder lenses.

Yes and no. 35mm lenses weren't all huge before AF and plastic. They were bigger than rangefinder lenses, but a lot smaller than the monstrosities today. I'd imagine that with the current technology even the AF could be brought within reason so that leaves plastic.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
     File :-(, x)
>>241118
>Look, Leica did it even without any bare-bones-ness in the M8, fit a digital camera into a very old camera design

the m8 is still quite a bit bigger than a rebel...
>> Anonymous
>>241124
It's not the plastic. I read Angénieux would often make their lens barrels of plastic (for better resistance to the heat messing with the elements) and got laughed at for it.

And now?
>> Anonymous
>>241118

Manufacturing costs perhaps? One of the key factors to the incredible continuing drop in price of microchips, LCD screens, and electronic circuitry is not that the technology is continually getting better so fast - well, not just that - but mainly that manufacturing techniques are getting better and more economical. LCD televisions are a very good example of this.

My guess is that the Leica DSLR's, while smaller and more comparable in size to older film cameras, are also a bit more expensive due to the rate of failure of manufacturing, i.e. the smaller the components, the higher the percentage of components that are flawed.

Hence, a smaller but equally capable DSLR is going to cost more than its larger, more ubiquitous counterpart.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
>>241118
...an M8 isn't a DSLR, doesn't have a mirror box, and was extremely difficult to make correctly. There's a reason why the RD-1s and M8 are the only digital RFs.

And compared to older SLRs? I don't know if you've ever actually HELD an older film SLR, but they're not noticeably smaller, they're just simpler. They aren't marketed with a streamlined look like modern cameras are, they're boxy. Yeah, they're slightly smaller, but they also don't have as many features. And if you're complaining about the hand grip, try using an old SLR that doesn't have one. Enjoy your wrist cramps. =]

>>241120
I made this pinhole camera out of a pinenut, why can't they make DSLRs smaller?
>> Anonymous
>>241075

It's this that makes me laugh when I hear retards whine about the size of the Rebel or other cameras being too small and wanting XBOX HUEG camera bodies instead.
>> Anonymous
>>241125
It's wider, that doesn't equal bigger.

Also, the cameras we're talking about are for the most part, maybe entirely, longer than the Rebel. It's the extra bulk overall that's the problem, and length really barely matters for that. Height and width is what makes the difference.

The Olympus OM-1 was 136mm long and 83mm tall. The Rebel is 127 and 94. The M8 is 139 and 80.
>> Anonymous
>>241128

I made this pinehole camera out of my penis. Why can't they make DSLRs smaller?
>> Anonymous
To the people comparing the OM-1 and ME to DSLRs;

Stop. You're comparing apples and oranges. Neither an OM-1 or an ME has AF capabilities, and they lack the amount of electronics (obviously)

Comparing the size of, say, a 40D, which is an AF DSLR with tons of features, to a bare-bones film SLR that is MF with few features is unfair. Compare Canon's film EF mount cameras to the digital EF mount cameras, at least they're similar.

And coincidentally, they're practically the same size. Imagine that, morons.
>> Anonymous
>>241134
compare to to a contax G2
it has AF and changeable lenses, and is about same size as the m6
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241134
>And coincidentally, they're practically the same size. Imagine that, morons.
My film Rebel is actually noticeably bigger than my digital Rebel.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>241139
okay, yeah. This has got to be a troll thread now...

The Contax G2 is a RANGEFINDER, not an SLR. Do so many of you REALLY have that much difficulty distinguishing between the two?
>> Anonymous
>>241143
no it has no rangefinder. its AF only. a rangefinder would allow for manual focusing.
Therefore AF makes little diffrence to camera size
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>241146
The presence of a rangefinder mechanism is what makes a camera a rangefinder, you dolt, not whether or not it's manual focus. It has an electronic two-window rangefinder mechanism, therefore it's a rangefinder.

Even a Canon AF35M is somewhat rangefinder-ish, and it's fully AF too, but it uses triangulation rather than a 'real' rangefinder.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>241146
And if it weren't a rangefinder period? Then congratulations, you're basically comparing an AF point and shoot to a DSLR. Even more illogical.
>> Anonymous
>>241149
you sure missed the point. semantics suck. we are talking about size, and obviously AF isnt a huge factor, based on that one camera.
>> Anonymous
>>241151
basically how much size AF adds to a camera
>> Anonymous
>>241074

What lens is that on the Olympus? None of the Zuikos seem to look like that.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>241151
I'm not playing semantics, you're just an idiot. Both systems autofocus, but they're not the same autofocus; they don't function in the same manner.

so way to miss the point yourself.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
if pentax can make the 'pancake' lenses AF and super tiny, this whole thread is proven wrong.

oh wait, they already do.

pic semi-related. tiny body with a tiny lens, on the left. standard old codger setup on the right.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareQuickTime 7.1.3Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:05 18:21:26
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241155
No, he was originally comparing it to an M6.

M6 (no AF) is roughly the same size as G2 (with AF), therefore AF doesn't make a difference, is the point he was trying to make.

Though I'm guessing the G2 has an in-body AF motor. Modern SLR lenses (All Canon, Nikon AF-I and AF-S) often have the motor in the lens, which is obviously going to add some size to it.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>241159
Oh, my bad. Missed that somehow. =x

either way though, there are more differences between an OM-1 and a DSLR than simply the AF.

basically, if you take apart a DSLR, you realize pretty quickly it doesn't have a lot of wasted space inside, they're just bulky inside and out. Even the most massive DSLR though isnt THAT massive, I don't see the point in complaining about size.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
why can't they make DSLR's smaller, look the russians did it half a century ago!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241166
Designed for 16mm, not 35mm
No autofocus system
No meter
No electronics of any kind (and therefore no battery)
No need for an LCD and buttons to change settings
>> Anonymous
>>241166
thats a scale focus
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>241172
...no, that's a submini 16mm SLR. notice the pentaprism on top?
>> Anonymous
>>241172

nope. it's an slr.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>241074
weegee was a better photog than you'll ever be, and he used a REAL camera.

pic very related.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
     File :-(, x)
>>241186
you call that a camera?
>> Anonymous
Yes, modern DSLR's have lots of electronics. But it's totally worth it!
I mean, who can go with out the option of compressing 50 JPEG's a second and then watching them on a LCD-screen the size of palm?
Or having 700 built in scene shooting modes, a built in panorama stitching program and live view so you can look like a moron while holding the camera as far from your body as possible.

Only advanced super high tech electronics I would want in a DSLR would be a good meter and just enough for the sensor to take a picture and dump the raw data on to a memory card, a small cache shouldnt be to bulky so why not that too.
Sure AF is nice but if the camera needs to be xbox HUEG to do something I can do myself then why bother.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241214
>Or having 700 built in scene shooting modes, a built in panorama stitching program and live view so you can look like a moron while holding the camera as far from your body as possible.
That's all software. Exactly how much bulk do you think the *software* adds to the SLR, hm?

Your laptop doesn't get lighter when you delete files.

>Only advanced super high tech electronics I would want in a DSLR would be a good meter and just enough for the sensor to take a picture and dump the raw data on to a memory card, a small cache shouldnt be to bulky so why not that too.
So basically you advocate dropping what... the LCD? How many ounces do you think that that adds, and is lightening up the camera by that many ounces really worth losing the ability to chimp, that being one of the prime advantages of a digital camera?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241214
>Sure AF is nice but if the camera needs to be xbox HUEG to do something I can do myself then why bother.
Oh, and you can buy a smaller digital SLR today that doesn't spend any ounces on autofocus hardware. Nikon D40 and Nikon D60. It does save you a smidgen of weight, but my opinion (and the general opinion of /p/ as a whole) is that it's not worth it.
>> Anonymous
Everyone ITT saying "it can't be done, DSLRs are the smallest they can be, etc." needs to contend with three things:

-Shoving a digital camera into an old-style body has been done, on the M8 and RD-1. That those are RFs and not SLRs is immaterial- there's no reason why the mirror box would have to be larger on digital than on film, and besides, the question isn't "why aren't digital SLRs like film rangefinders" but "why aren't digital SLRs like old film SLRs in the same way digital rangefinders are like film rangefinders."

-We're not really talking about much of a change in body volume at all, but rather layout. Modern SLRs tend to be chunky in their design. All of us (on both sides) talking about size is a bit of an error in language, what we're really complaining about is how that size is laid out and distributed.

- What exactly is so huge inside a DSLR that all the open space for film, etc. gets taken up? Except for the larger sensor and the mirror box (on all SLRs) it doesn't need any more in it than a little point and shoot has. I'm pretty sure you can stuff most, if not all, of the innards of one of those little SD series Canons inside the space used in a film body for holding and transporting the 35 pieces of film not behind the lens.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>241225
You have no idea how electronics work, so don't pretend to.

DSLRs efficiently use their space, and the difference is not in size but shape. You could make it smaller at the expense of sensor size, capability, reliability, and ease-of-access to features.

Yeah, fuck that.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2006:10:03 17:48:25Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width412Image Height326
>> Anonymous
>>241235
No, really, what electronics does a DSLR need that aren't associated with a mirror box that aren't in point and shoots?
>> Anonymous
>>241237

Tell you what, go buy one, crack her open and see how much wasted space is inside.
>> Anonymous
>>241252
Just because all the space is filled up doesn't mean that's the least bulky configuration of it possible.

You're arguing against the possibility of something that's already been done, just not with an SLR. If the M can be made as a digital body, why not the OM? Or whatever?

The fact that DSLRs are the same in form with contemporary film SLRs with the same functionality shows that the systems for digital capture itself take up pretty much the same amount of space as film capture.
>> Anonymous
>>241286
the M8 also functions terribly in comparison to a film M, and it's limited to crop technology.

Overheating in a cramped body would be my concern. Modern DSLRs aren't too bulky anyway, unless you have the hands of an infant.
>> Anonymous
>>241290
>the M8 also functions terribly in comparison to a film M

How so?

>and it's limited to crop technology

This is because of the mount's flange focal distance, though you're right, it probably helped matters inside the body.

Also, an APS-C SLR on the old pattern is fine, too.
>> Anonymous
>>241292
Also, if you have any particular beef with the M8, see the RD-1.
>> Anonymous
>>241090
quite aware of this being a olyfag, its not a micro 4/3 body though, they dont exist yet.
>> Anonymous
micro 4/3 will come to save the day......
>> Anonymous
>>241079
I have two Hasselblads and often travel with them and carry them around for 6-8 hours a day. They are, in fact surprisingly light and portable, compare to say a Nikon D2XS, as long as 1) your not stupid enough to use a prism and 2) your lens is shorter than 150 mm, and no SHORTER than 50mm
>>241290
I met a fairly famous pro yesterday who said the M8 is superior to almost everything out there in digital land. He said that if you compare shots from an M8, to something, full frame or not, up to 20 mp, that the M8 will win for pic quality.
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>I met a fairly famous pro yesterday who said the M8 is superior to almost everything out there in digital land. He said that if you compare shots from an M8, to something, full frame or not, up to 20 mp, that the M8 will win for pic quality.

haha, no.
>> Anonymous
>>241321
I have no axe to grind either way. I don't have an M8, nor do I intend to buy one. BUT - I do know who guy is and his work. Who are you and why do you say that it isn't true. Do you have shots you've done with an M8 and others with your first choice to post? Or are you just another guy with 4th hand information?
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>241323
I'm the guy with 4th hand information, google is your friend too :)
>> soulr !lK4GD5SleY
>>241323

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

http://cyberphotographer.com/m8v5d/

etc..etc...
>> Anonymous
>>241328

>Kamber

IIRC, the only IQ problem Kamber mentioned was OH MY GAWD IT HAS NOISE AT 2500 PIG DISGUSTING

>Other guy
>JPEG

Invalid, gb/2 Ken Rockwell.
>> Anonymous
>>241215
So how is it then possible for smaller cameras to have that capability? I just want to be able to take a picture and have the camera dump the raw data on a memory card. No fancy processing and compressing.

And you must be trolling, D40 and D60 no AF electronics?
THEY DON'T HAVE THE MOTOR.
How stupid must a person be to not realize that there are probably more than a small electric motor to the autofocus, or do you seriously think the motor just randomly runs at either direction when AF is activated?

Also, your laptop may not get lighter when you delete files. But what IS lighter? a big ass processor for using the modes AND 500 other totally useless functions only 14-year olds would dick around with, and the storage media to carry those around compared to, I don't know, almost nothing?
>> Anonymous
>>241345
>How stupid must a person be to not realize that there are probably more than a small electric motor to the autofocus, or do you seriously think the motor just randomly runs at either direction when AF is activated?

The AF sensor is a little tiny chip, I believe located somewhere in the mirror housing.

>a big ass processor

Do you really think that adds any bulk? ENIAC has been obsolete for a few years, you know.

I'm with you on wanting smaller bodies, but what you're talking about has nothing to do with it. Smaller mode dial, maybe.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241345
>So how is it then possible for smaller cameras to have that capability
Because they don't have a fucking mirror box and huge APS-C sensor. Know what processor is in a Canon EOS 40D? A Canon DiGIC III. Know what processor is in a nicely pocketable little Canon G9? A Canon DiGIC III. The majority of Canons use the exact same electronics. The bulk is because of
1. The mirror box
2. The large sensor
3. The fact that the camera would be uncomfortable to use if it were much smaller.

Have you lurked sufficiently? Have you ever read the many, many threads in which people complain about the EOS Digital Rebel series cameras because they're too small?
>> Anonymous
>>241324
ummm...
I don't google to find reviews of cameras. I ask people in real life who use them, and can show me why something is good or not. Or I borrow whatever it is and try it for myself.
You quickly find out, if you read reviews that:
1) some people have no idea what they are talking about
2) some didn't read the instructions so didn't get good result
3) some have biases
4) some have unrealistic expectations or tried whatever for a purpose it wasn't made for (ie: 'Blad's are no good because you can't use the WLF for sports...)
Sure real users could have the same problems as above, which is why you ask them to SHOW you, on their work why one thing works better than another.
So, poser why do you go out and actual try an M8, and see what it does instead of posting regurgitated shit here?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241356
Because M8s are not easy to find. Most stores don't stock them, since they're absurdly expensive niche products. I've only seen one in person in my life, and that was under glass at the George Eastman house.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241354
(Note: The Sigma DP-1 is tiny with an APS-C sensor, but it doesn't have a mirror box and it doesn't have to accommodate interchangeable lenses. Needing to deal with lenses from ultrawide to supertele increases the size vs. something that will have one and only one lens on it for its entire life.)
>> Anonymous
>>241357
where do you live Podunkt?
Any large-ish city will have rental houses. You can even rent an M8. My point was that until YOU try an M8 or any camera, you have no idea what it can do. The guy who told me that M8's a superior owns tons of camera (including an M8, M6, M4) and owned and tried many more. A few years ago I thought about buying a Hasselblad 40mm Distagon. That lens is over $5000. I borrowed one from a friend, took it on a trip to the Pacific NW, and used it for a week. I can tell you more about it than any of those guys debating ont the web.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241359
>where do you live Podunkt?
Buffalo. Same thing.
>> Anonymous
>>241360
so then my point is, that if you haven't tried it, for whatever reason, any comment you have about it's pros or cons, has to be taken with a huge grain of salt

My condolences that you live in Buffalo. I am in NYC
>> Anonymous
>>241359y point was that until YOU try an M8 or any camera, you have no idea what it can do.

Stabbing your penis with a red hot knife is awesome. Until YOU try it you cannot claim otherwise.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241361
Also, quick search for camera rental suggests that the price for renting an M8 would be prohibitive. I couldn't find anywhere actually renting M8s, but the places renting things like top end Nikons and Canons of similar prices were renting them for like ~$50/day

Also, I can't find anywhere that rents still digital cameras in the areas of Buffalo, Rochester, or Toronto. So either my Google-fu is being especially weak or I think you're probably full of crap (or, at least, spoiled by living in NYC)
>> Anonymous
Something I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that a lot of the space in a DSLR is taken up by the battery required to power all those electronics and motors. Even after years with smaller film and digital SLRs (And MUCH bigger film cameras...), including a vertgrip-equipped F100, I was still stunned when I pulled the battery out of my D2X for the first time.

But those big batteries allow for a helluva lot of continuous shooting, especially when exploiting the high speed modes, where the shutter and mirror are going crazy, the autofocus is working overtime, and all the autoexposure functions are taxing the processor.

I personally have no complaints with the size or weight of my camera. Another big bonus of a large camera is that you can have every control right at your fingertips. I put some heavy use on a D50, D70, and D200, and was always frustrated at the menu trees or button combos necessary for white balance settings, metering areas, and similar issues. Being able to flip a switch, or press a single button, turn a wheel, and have my settings visible without even looking at the top of the camera (secondary display below the color LCD) makes life much easier. It's especially notable when doing night work, as it allows me to deal with everything without lighting up a big screen and blinding myself. I think having more space for controls is well worth the added bulk.

To whoever said it, by the way... Some DSLRs meet the "plastic blob" description, but I find it very difficult to describe a D2/3 or an Eos 1D that way.
>> Anonymous
>>241356
your more likely to find someone whos giving a biased review if you go to a person who actually uses the camera rather than going to someone whos just review it.
what competent tester of anything would not read the manual or otherwise learn something about what hes testing
you cant use a digital camera for the wrong thing. all digitals are all things to man, its the lens that will determine what you shoot.

if you dont want to read reviews because your a lazy fuck then look at sample images
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e510-review/index.shtml
that guy does the same sample images for all the cameras he tests. THAT is a good review
>> Anonymous
When it comes to reviews, Rockwell's decent most of the time, although I disagree quite a bit, occasionally. For example, I'm totally happy with my Nikkor 24-85 2.8, and have gotten some awesome pictures with it, many of them taking advantage of the fast apertures he claims are so flawed on the lens. I also really disagree with his obsession with the D40, as some of the best glass out there (especially if "best" refers to bang for the buck) is incompatible with it. I probably use my 50mm 1.8 more than any other lens in my kit, and it's incompatible with the D40, thanks to needing body-based AF.
>> Anonymous
>>241354
"Durr large mirror box" take a good look at any of the OM's they have larger mirrors and still manage to make them small.
Yes, they may be as wide as the rebel but in the other two dimensions, its a different story

Also, I don't care that people complain about how small the rebel is, if its basically shaped like i cube with rounded edges of course it will be hard to hold on to if it's not the size of an xbox.

I guess you got me on the CPU, but as I said you cant blame it on the mirrorbox so whats left, the sensor?
How thick can that actually be?
Thicker than film? yes.
Thicker than film and the film pressure plate with it springs and what not?
Maybe but not by so much.

Batteries are kind of huge but don't have to add that much mass if cleverly designed.

And to the other one, okey, I give up, the AF only needs a motor AND a sensor. My mistake.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
0

this many people have designed a camera, and therefore know even a little about what they're talking in this thread.
>> Anonymous
>>241384
>But those big batteries allow for a helluva lot of continuous shooting, especially when exploiting the high speed modes, where the shutter and mirror are going crazy, the autofocus is working overtime, and all the autoexposure functions are taxing the processor.

Yeah, you need a big battery for all the useless specwhoring modern cameras indulge. Unless you shoot sports or wildlife (get a battery grip) then all that is two inches from useless.

And autoexposure even then.

>white balance settings, metering areas, and similar issues.

You shouldn't even need to touch WB when shooting, metering not too often.

>Being able to flip a switch, or press a single button, turn a wheel, and have my settings visible without even looking at the top of the camera (secondary display below the color LCD) makes life much easier

Settings that get changed much, yeah. Shutter speed, ISO, aperture, yeah. But white balance?
>> Anonymous
>>241457
Oh, and once more, the "it's been done" thing: the M8 has a nice, slim battery that seems to give it enough juice.

If you like bulky bodies, fine. There's no problem with them existing. It'd just be nice if those of us who want something a bit sleeker had some options.
>> Moron. Anonymous
>>241218

>It does save you a smidgen of weight, but my opinion >(and the general opinion of /p/ as a whole) is that it's >not worth it.

Ahh i see, right, so in general, nobody in /p/ ever uses anything made by canon. Back in the 80s, whilst Nikon was busy doing fuck all, Canon moved all their AF motors into their lenses.Whilst we all got our nice fast primes and a fully electronic lens mount, Nikon's engineers have to work overtime to make sure that each and every lens they've ever made will still work.
There's going to come a time where they're going to have to do the same thing that Canon did.
>> Anonymous
>>241457
Well, that battery grip is an integral part of my D2, which is a big part of why I bought a used one over a new D300+grip. I shoot motorsports, so it's a necessity.

I change white balance like crazy on the fly. When doing model/portrait shoots, it's really nice to not interrupt the flow of the shoot when moving around between direct sunlight and shade, and for sports, the same lighting issues can be a big deal when you move around, or even change direction. (Working in a open domed stadium is a good example, the action can move from sunlight to shadow in a matter of seconds.)

>>241423
Hey, there's nothing wrong with a cube-shaped camera. Ever shoot a Hasselblad?
>> Anonymous
>>241435

jackass reasoning
how many brain surgeons have designed brains?
or airline pilots designed airplane

please shut the fuck up before you embarrass yourself further
>> Anonymous
>>241469
Airplane pilots also don't tell the airplane designers that they're doing it wrong, and they know exactly why because, you know, they're pilots.

You suck at analogies.
>> Anonymous
>>241533
Test pilots do just that. Something something that works perfectly on a computer screen is less than optimal in real use.
>> Anonymous
They may not be smaller, but they sure as hell weigh less. I have an old Nikkormat SLR and the thing weighs almost 4 times my Nikon D40. And the lenses for the Nikkormat are also heavier. Frankly, I don't care that DSLRs aren't smaller, i'm just glad I can lose 10 lbs just be changing to a modern camera.
>> Anonymous
>>241465
>I shoot motorsports, so it's a necessity.

And like I said, you're free to have it. Us documentary/whatever folks don't like being saddled with cameras designed for your requirements and preferences anymore than you would like being saddled with a Leica M. That's what this thread is about. Contemporary cameras are perfect- if you're a sports photographer.

>I change white balance like crazy on the fly

AWB for chimp files + raw = no need really to have WB on the camera.
>> Anonymous
>>241435
You would have a point if we were saying something that hasn't been done yet, like a full frame sensor in an M-mount camera or a camera that is controlled by neural input.

But a digital camera in an old body style has been done, twice.
>> Anonymous
>>241547
how are they designed for sports photography at all?
id love to have the battery grip for the side buttons, and if you dont want one dont buy one. no amateur photographer really needs full frame or to have any of those cameras that come with the bat grip and side buttons.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
I liked the A100 for being BIGGER than the 450D because the grip (tiny) was far far too small for my (small) hands.

God knows how you americans cope with them.

I'm happy with the size of my SLR since with a flash and xboxhueg ultra wide angle on the front, the body is hardly 1/3 the size of the overal unit and so pretty irrelivent. I'd rather have a more comfortable flash for resting on my nose.
>> Anonymous
>>241536
The problem with that is your D40 will most likely not still be working in 30 years like your Nikkormat. I'd rather have a heavier camera that's durable than a light one that breaks if I sneeze on it.

>>241459
I rather prefer a gradual introduction of a new lens mount as opposed to an overnight switch like Canon did. It gives me 10 years to replace my older lenses with updated versions one at a time rather than dropping thousands of dollars to replace them all at once.

>>241435
This is the exact reason that cameras today suck, they're designed exclusively by engineers. Users should dictate design and engineers should make it work. Instead, engineers dictate the design and users have to live with it. Back in the 70s when Contax wanted to introduce a high end 35mm SLR, they hired FA Porsche to design an ergonomically pleasing camera body. Now ergonomic design seems to be an afterthought, especially on lower end cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>241587
how does one gradually change their lens mount? it either fits or it doesnt (sans adapters)

a ten year warning would be nice, like " hey guys we have these new lenses, start buying them because we are going to change our lens mount on yo ass!" but that cant be expected.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241459
>>It does save you a smidgen of weight, but my opinion (and the general opinion of /p/ as a whole) is that it's not worth it.
>Ahh i see, right, so in general, nobody in /p/ ever uses anything made by canon. Back in the 80s, whilst Nikon was busy doing fuck all, Canon moved all their AF motors into their lenses.Whilst we all got our nice fast primes and a fully electronic lens mount, Nikon's engineers have to work overtime to make sure that each and every lens they've ever made will still work.
You misunderstand me. I meant that the lack of an AF motor in body wasn't worth the weight savings right now when something like 40% of Nikon's lenses (including all of their non-telephoto fast primes) don't have in-lens motors, not that moving the AF motor into the lens is a bad idea in general. Additionally, I'm not saying:
1. That Canon is better than Nikon because they've got in-lens motors on all of their lenses
2. Nikon is better than Canon because they support using old manual-focus lenses on their cameras
3. Taking the AF motor out of an entry level camera was a bad idea (given that 95% of the D40/40x/60 purchasers will never buy another lens for it, and of that remaining 5%, most will just buy the 55-200 AF-S telezoom)

All I'm saying is that most of /p/ thinks that losing the ability to AF on fast primes is not worth the cost/weight savings you get from dropping the body motor right now. If and when Nikon ever gets around to updating all of its lenses with motors, that'll change.

So with regards to your post's subject line: NO U.
>> Anonymous
>>241589
Nikon F 1959-2008. The only thing that's the same is the bayonet dimensions, but most of the lenses will work on most of the cameras ever made.

With Nikon you have to buy a higher end body (D200+) to get the benefits of the transition though since the low end stuff is limited in it's compatibility. Of course most users who buy low end cameras don't really care about long term system compatibility, nor would they ever actually use it if they did.

I'm sure someday Nikon will have a fully electronic mount, but as it is today I like the fact that I can buy new lenses that work while still being able to use lenses I've had for twenty years.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241589
>how does one gradually change their lens mount? it either fits or it doesnt (sans adapters)
Fits or doesn't, yeah, but that doesn't guarantee all features will work. Nikon has changed their meter coupling, added support for autofocus, added support for automatic in-body aperture selection, added electronic communication for focal length and aperture and focus distance, removed support for manually changing aperture, and moved autofocus into the lens body.

They've maintained compatibility both forwards and backwards through each of these with the bodies released immediately adjacent, but the latest lenses won't work perfectly on the oldest bodies and vice versa. You can mount a G-series lens on a manual-focus body, but you'll lose aperture control because it doesn't have an aperture ring. You can mount a manual focus lens on a D80, but you'll lose metering.

So, gradual changes to the mount. Not a hard concept to grasp.
>> Anonymous
>>241596
i assumed mount meant the way the lens fits to the camera.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241458
>Oh, and once more, the "it's been done" thing: the M8 has a nice, slim battery that seems to give it enough juice.
Quick google search tells me that the M8 gives you about 200 shots per charge.

Personal experience tells me that the battery in my 40D gives me about 600+ shots per charge. My XTi had a smaller battery, and it gave around 400-500 shots per charge. This is with heavy chimping. And also, those batteries are driving an autofocus motor and a mirror assembly.

So... no.

>If you like bulky bodies, fine. There's no problem with them existing. It'd just be nice if those of us who want something a bit sleeker had some options.
I agree that it'd be great. I'm really looking forward to the Micro4/3 standard, which promises exactly that. We'll just never see something like that for an EF/EF-S mount or a Nikon F-mount because there's a certain amount of intrinsic bulk in the descended-from-35mm SLR design.

(Although I suppose it's possible that, say, Canon could make a "Micro EF" mount that could use standard EF/EF-S lenses with an adapter just like the four thirds people. That would be pretty frickin' sweet. I hope u4/3 works out so Canon's forced to do that.)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241598
Well, you know what they say. When you assume, you make an ass out of u.
>> Anonymous
>>241599
>So... no.

So... yes. 200 shots is enough. Just stick a few extras in your shirt pocket. Worth it IMO for a better body.

>a certain amount of intrinsic bulk in the descended-from-35mm SLR design.

Yes, it's called the mirror box. People have made some pretty unbulky cameras with them.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>241609
>So... yes. 200 shots is enough. Just stick a few extras in your shirt pocket. Worth it IMO for a better body.
Enough for you, maybe. Me, I get 600+ shots from a charge and I still carry two backups with me at all times. With a 200-shot battery, I'd have to carry roughly 5 batteries with me, and then spend a shitload of time swapping batteries to charge the empties after a long photoshoot. That would kill the weight advantage of a smaller battery pretty quickly.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Sigh

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A550Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:05:22 04:26:02Exposure Time0.8 secF-Numberf/2.6ISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/2.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height487RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>241534
Test pilots arnt human.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>241852
do want
>> Anonymous
>>241856

i don't know about you, but i like the fact that i'd be able to bludgeon someone to death with that canon if it ever came down to it.
>> Anonymous
>>241958
op thinks that the m6 is heaver, if both are without lens.
>> Anonymous
>>241958
If you want to bludgeon people I would suggest something Russian made.
Zorki RF's are pretty massive.
And the SLR's, like swinging some kind of medieval weapon of doom and skullcrushingness.
>> Anonymous
>>241971
oh gods the soviet medium formats are damn near hernia inducing
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>241971
yes

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeLeica Camera AGCamera ModelM8 Digital CameraCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2007:05:04 23:37:01Exposure Time1/180 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating160Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width900Image Height900White BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image ID00000000000000000000000000000192
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>241106

omg a SLR lens is 4X as large as this one

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A530Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:07:23 01:35:57Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.6Lens Aperturef/2.6Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1176Image Height1062RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>242011
CAAUUUUTE