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

Nikon: System camera prices to fall

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Feb 6, 2013.

  1. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Sorry that is silly, you can't reduce the size of a FF dSLR too much because you have to put in a 35mm mirror. Look at the new FF camera. Not exactly lightweight are they?

    http://camerasize.com/compare/#378,380

    Nikon D600 850g and the Canon 6D 770g. Lightest dSLR I believe is 505g. Mirror and focal plane shutter put pay to reducing the weight and bulk of any dSLR. So there is a limit.

    But with a CSC and a reduced sensor

    http://camerasize.com/compare/#378,392

    Now of course the CSC does not match the performance of the D600 or 6D.

    But as a consumer product it appeals because it is smaller and lighter.

    Doing a FF dSLR is actually the wrong approach for the consumer market. Like offering a desktop PC to buyers of Iphones. :rolleyes:

    Much better to design a FF mirrorless camera with a high spec EVF.

    http://camerasize.com/compare/#378,376

    Take the blooming mirror out and look at how tight the design can be. :)

    Since phase detect was put into the sensor, mirrors are for the scrape heap big time. :D
     
  2. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    No it's not.

    You must be old enough to remember the OM1 & 2, the Pentax M series and if not then the Canon EOS 300 series. That was pretty dinky! :)
     
  3. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    Well I have an OM as well as a Canon 300 and yes they are lovely and small. At the moment I am staying with one of my children and noticed on her wall was an A4 print I made years ago from a scanned negative taken with that 300 camera and and there is nothing wrong with the quality. However to compare those cameras with a modern DSLR is not really fair as we did not then insist on large viewing screen nor did we ask for any type of stabilisation - both of which add significantly to the size and weight of modern cameras. Of course an unstabilised DLSR with no screen could get the size / weight down but would you buy one? - I know that I would not.

    Roger
     
  4. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    Your words, not mine! ;)

    Are you aware that the lens designs for a fixed lens camera and an interchangeable camera are quite different? The RX1 has a purpose built lens. A better match would be http://camerasize.com/compare/#380,377

    As you can see, the real answer (in miniaturisation) lies in stripping out as much as possible and making a new lens mount with a VERY small distance from sensor to lens. Look at these from above... http://camerasize.com/compare/#317,375

    I'm all for smaller DSLRs, but there comes a point where you have to admit that you'll never match the size of the best compact film SLR bodies (FM, LX, OM etc).
     
  5. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath


    That's a very good point in my view too. Occasionally I get my Nikon F3 out to use and I am amazed at how small that is compared with the Nikon F4 that replaced it. In the case of film inbuilt motor drives, lens focusing motors, and bigger batteries took their toll. By the time the F5 arrived you almost needed a caddy to carry it for you.
     
  6. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    These models did not have anything like the amount of electronics squeezed into their bodies that a dslr has, think of the size of the battery alone compared with a couple of silver oxide cells, not to mention all the circuitry, also in some cases a focusing motor and associated parts.
     
  7. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Most DSLRs are much bigger than AF film SLRs - compare the Pentax K30 with the MZ5n, and the K30 is not even full frame! The battery size argument does not hold water, most DSLR batteries are now smaller than a 35mm film. Electronics can me miniaturised, software doesn't take up ANY physical room, focusing motors were seen in AF film SLRs, and are now being moved to lenses anyway (like Canon).

    There are a lot of apologists for the manufacturers on this thread, I'm afraid.
     
  8. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Olympus OM1 is 136x83x50mm

    Canon 6D 145x111x71mm

    Not much in it really. So I reckon they are as tight as possible. :)

    But sadly FF dSLR are fat at over 700g, OM1 is 500g around the weight of the Nikon D3200.
     
  9. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Again facts

    Pentax MZ5n 135x90x61mm

    Pentax K30 130x 97x71 mm

    Not much in it really.


    Nikon V1 is 122x76x36mm

    Much slimmer but the real up side is weight. FF dSLR are too fat. A MZ5n was only 400g.

    But I think you do need a powerful battery because the sensor needs alot of juice. Plus the screen etc.

    Comes back to that question of can you produce your art with a CSC? In alot of cases you might find it hard to spot which was put out by a CSC to a FF dSLR.

    I have seen some great examples at exhibition that were not made by dSLR. :)

    Even in the APOY there have been high scores not made on dSLR.
     
  10. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    Having both a Panasonic GX1 and a Nikon D700, despite being a real fan of CSC's, I reckon you would need aging eyesight not to tell the difference - certainly with micro 4/3.
     
  11. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Well, that's interesting, because the big brother of the D700 the D3s scored 26 on AP resolution test.

    http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/129299/7/nikon-d3s-review


    Where as the new GX1 scored 26 in raw mode under the same test. :)

    http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...meras/129224/7/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gx1-review

    Of course as the ISO climbs the GX1 suffers where as the D3s or D700 probably can keep detail.
     
  12. BikerMike

    BikerMike Well-Known Member

    It isn't just about the size of the body anyway, but the body+lens combination. As CSCs have smaller sensors and no mirror box, they require smaller lenses - in the case of m4/3, much smaller lenses with a crop factor of 2x.

    Compare a FF DSLR with a 400mm lens and an m4/3 with a 200mm (x2 for crop factor) and the difference is striking. Length, diameter, weight and size are all significantly reduced. I know which I prefer carrying around with me :)

    Pancake lenses are only possible on mirrorless cameras due to the shorter distance between the rear element and the sensor, on DSLRs they require retrofocus because of the mirror box, which makes them bigger.

    Regards, Mike
     
  13. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    So your like me? would carry the FF DSLR just to make sure you had the quality with you!

    Ian
     
  14. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    But not with the same lens... you can't directly compare the results.
     
  15. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    So they used a bad lens on the D3s? :rolleyes:

    Surely AP would make the test as equal as possible for clear comparision?

    Otherwise the tests become meanless and a waste of everyones time.
     
  16. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    They do, but the same lens isn't necessarily available in every fitting.
     
  17. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath

    You sure about this Mike - Nikon, Canon, and Voigtlander make pancake lenses for DSLR's.
     
  18. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    Sorry to say Mike pancake lenses have nothing to do with being mirror less, they are available to fit DSLRs

    Ian
     
  19. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    And were available for SLRs before them - famously from Pentax, but Contax, Praktica and Minolta also had them. And, in fact, the Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM pancake for all EOS cameras is actually less deep than the EF-M 22mm f2 STM pancake for mirrorless.
     
  20. Atavar

    Atavar Well-Known Member

    Or perhaps they've finally realised just how little money there is left in the country to pay for them?
     

Share This Page