1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Do we need DSLRs to be smaller and lighter?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Nov 17, 2007.

  1. LargeFormat

    LargeFormat Well-Known Member

    At the Kendal Mountain Film Festival a couple of weeks ago Chris Bonnington had an exhibition of photographs all taken with an E410. There was a text display by him extolling the virtues of OMs and Olympus E series.
  2. justablur

    justablur Member

    Not for me. Big hands you see. I do think though that DSLRs need a complete redesign. They still look like film cameras basically T shaped where the film is wound across the shutter. If you gave a bunch of designers who had never seen a DSLR a remit to make a DSLR i.e it must have interchangeable lenses, a screen and/or viewfinder to compose the picture and a sensor, I wonder what it would look like?
  3. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    It works, why change it?

    Personally I regret the loss/shrinkage of the cassette chamber side of the "T", it was a useful handgrip when small lenses are fitted.
  4. Burgy

    Burgy In the Stop Bath

    Only if you are holding the camera incorrectly.
  5. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    A brick?...

  6. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Still a T-shaped brick ;)
  7. huwevans

    huwevans Not Really Here

    Olympus went back to the drawing board with the E-1 and ditched the trditional SLR shape. But what happened when they designed the E-3? They went straight back to the shape we were all used to. The trouble is, as someone else has indicated, the T shape works just fine, and has no obvious disadvantages that I can think of. Why change it?
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Indeed. I've a couple of (film) SLRs that are a little different - the APS EOS IX, which more or less did away with the "cartridge side", and of course the Rolleiflex SL2000F/3003, which are like cut-down MF system cameras. This design could work for a DSLR, and works rather well for a film SLR IMVHO.
  9. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    Obviously it is possible to make cameras very small, (for instance Olympus's half-frame SLR, the Pen F) but a point is reached where the human hand's size, gets in the way. Another consideration for not making cameras too small, is in cold weather when you have to use gloves and space around the controls, is of considerable benefit, especially on DSLRs with all their buttons.
  10. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I've got a much smaller SLR than the Pen F - the Pentax Auto 110. Looks like a minute 67... :D
  11. Burgy

    Burgy In the Stop Bath

    Big fan of the Pentax A110, defo a big fan of the 70mm F2.8 (I wonder why, small neg, wide ap, long lens) which I would still like to have in the collection, however (and I could be wrong) there were two minolta 110 cameras than pushed the SLR definition (smallest thereof) to the limit. The Minolta 110 Zoom SLR (which pre-dated the Pentax considerably) however I can't recall the details of the mkII and I can't find much on the web either.
  12. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Both the Minoltas were actually a fair bit bigger than the Pentax - I remember one mag voting the original Minolta the "World's Worst Camera", not because it was bad in itself - it was actually highly accomplished - but because it was pretty huge for a 110 camera and (with the films available then) delivered poor quality. That original one was a very strange shape - a 110 shaped camera with a bulge. The later one looked more like a modern SLR. Both had non-interchangeable zooms. I nearly bought one of the Mk IIs last month from a charity shop, but although I actually do shoot a little 110 still, it was just too dear.

    For my Pentax, I've got the 18mm Panfocus (bizarrely worth more than the one you can actually focus), 24mm and 50mm - the 70mm would be very nice. My favourite 110 camera is a rangefinder rather than an SLR, the Rollei A110 - a lovely little machine.
  13. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Lets put a note in our new diaries to revive this thread in a year's time. Hopefully one of us will do so. There is no good reason why a full frame DSLR should be larger than a full frame film based camera. A MgAl chassis for the mirror box, screen support, and sensor support, stainless steel for the lens mount and very good plastic for the body. Some weather sealing with artificial rubber gaskets and seals. Provided we don't need high drive rates, where's the problem. An FM2 with a D3 sensor and pretty basic electronics (basic to me as a user, but very very sophisticated to the manufacturer) would suit me fine. Perhaps it could be called a D400. Users of other marques feel free to substitute the Nikon model nomenclature.
    Edit. I'd accept a few extra grammes for a D300 AF and exposure system. :)

Share This Page