Why R APS&4/3rds dSLRs SOOO FAT! Even Oly E-410

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Butthead, Oct 9, 2007.

  1. Butthead macrumors 6502

    Butthead

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #1
    So here we have dpreview raving about the size of the Oly E410, finally the 4/3rd has realized its promise? Oh really!

    Let's take alook at the smallest 35mm sensor dSLR Canon 5D for an example, it's certainly much smaller and lighter weight than the Canon or Nikon pro full-frame bodies.
    Canon 5D full-frame:

    W 152mm x 113mm H x 75mm D (6.0 x 4.4in x 2.9in)
    Weight: 2.0lb(895gr...actually 2.0lbs is 908gr so dpr is a bit off)
    Just a little bigger and heavier than the D20/30/40 series, not bad considering it's FF you say?
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page3.asp


    Olympus E410 4/3rds, the smallest dSLR yet, with smallest sensor of any dSLR
    W 130mm x H 91mm x D 53mm(5.1in x 3.6in x 2.1in)
    Weight 435gr which dpr claims is 1.0lb :p

    Compared to the sevelt Nikon D40
    126 x 94 x 64 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.5 in) 524 g (1.2 lb)

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse410/page3.asp

    They are all too fat!!!

    Let's take a nice 35mm film SLR as an example of how backwards we have come in over 30yrs!

    The Olympus OM-1 & OM-2, revolutionary in their time for small size, and equally compact, lightweight, high quality 35mm lens group. Remember, a good deal of the inside of a 35mm film camera is required area for the physical film travel from one side of the body to the other of a roll of film, dSLR's only need a tiny memory card and micro wires to transmit data to, along with a microprocessor of small size to handle the digital data recording.

    Full frame 35mm film SLR OM-2 I happen to have before me:

    Measures 140.4mm(5.6in) W---excluding the metal hinges for the film back closure>136.5mm(5.4in)x H 77mm (3.2in) x D 50mm (1.9in) including 5mm thick shutter speed selection ring around front of bayonet lens mount---without 44.5mm (1.75in)...Dat small and skinny, and perfect. Current dSLR's are out of balance, they don't have the proper yin-yang...what's the matter with those engineers over there in Asia these days??? Oly E410 is like Pam Anderson, too bulky, too wide in certain areas, all artificially pumped up when it's not necessary. OM1/OM2 are like sexy grrrl Lee Hyo-ri, fits in my hands perfectly :)...why, I'm fondling my OM2 while I type. Bring back sexy little Asian bodies to dSLR manufacturing, lol. Enough of this "bigger is better" warped Westernized pop-culture philosophy :p

    All metal body--taunt, lean and mean; no plastic (soft gushy silicone) except viewfinder frame and tip of the film wind lever. Maybe not a tank like Canon or Nikon, but still good enough, and keeping in with slimming, not even a hot shoe socket, as it was and add on/screw in attachment to the backside of the pentaprism housing! No built in flash...must be a high-end pro cam then :D. It cost ~$300 in the mid-70's, when the pro Nikon and Canon's where ~$1k for their bodies.

    No plastic 'grip' like all dSLR's now have, which supposeldy gives those with bigger hands better ergonomics??? I did get the poky slow 1.5fps, small/ligher weight 4AA battery motor drive which did not add too much bulk, screwed into the tripod socket mount and gave you bigger hands people a larger 'grip' if you needed that. But the superb (for me, medium size hands, and I suppose those with smaller hands/women would find it near perfect too) design placement of controls, minimal as they were, allowed near ideal handling/gripping with one finger on the shutter release button, two curled around the end, and the pinky wrapped around the bottom for secure grip...perfect for such a little body :D. With your other hand nicely balanced supporting underneath the lens, while controlling focus/shutter speed (firm indents on that), and aperture...as well as zooming synergy. They don't measure thickness of the non-grip side of dSLR's on dpr, but the OM-2 was pure rectangular (with very mild curvying ends/edges) box with larger lens mount on front) at staggeringly thick 30mm (1.2in)...the feel of the thickness of a puny PnS, but wider & just tall enough to fit like a glove into any small/medium sized hand...perfect!

    Did I mention it is full frame, and this small!!! How about that full frame viewfinder? Nice rectangular 17mm W x 11mm H glass 100% area, just enough for eyeglass wearers (no diopter correction though :( ), viewfinder. I put the optional matt focus screen w/split image circle, surrounded by circular micro prism focusing screen in there...why don't all dSLR's have this superior type of focus aid, when not using AF?

    Man oh, man...what's wrong with the new generation of dSLR designers, have they never studied the past???

    $5k for the D3, $8k for the 1Ds MkIII, absurd! The only other full frame dSLR that can use the full range of lenses and get the field of view those lenses are designed to cover...the Canon 5D, and it's @~2,400!!! Absurd!

    I guess I have to wait for progress, maybe another 10yrs before skinny is in like fashion models. dSLR's need to go on a diet and lose a TON of bulk both size and weight...not to mention cost, and damn it those future Olympus OM1 sized bodies, they should all be full-frame with high ISO 25k mode like the D3! Sheesh, is that too much to ask for???:mad::mad::mad: /end rant mode :p

    And while we're at it, since the body would be all plastic on such a new skinny little thang full-featured full-frame serious dSLR, might as well have a grrrrly color like pink, hehe, to match your iPod, lol.
     
  2. srf4real macrumors 68030

    srf4real

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Location:
    paradise beach FL
    #2
    My hands are big.:rolleyes:

    Seriously, you have some valid points, Butthead.
    I am just happy dslr cameras are coming of age with features and IQ!
    4/3 sensor gives me 600mm equivalent with a 4.5" long zoom lens (70-300mm about to hit stores this month) I'll deal with a heavy thick body.:p
     
  3. brendanryder macrumors 6502a

    brendanryder

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Location:
    Calgary
  4. RevToTheRedline macrumors 6502a

    RevToTheRedline

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    #4
    He's always making posts that make me read.
     
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #5
    There's a LOT of electronic shiznit inside a DSLR. That's the only real explanation. Can't say much about the pro cameras though, as they could be made smaller, and yet they aren't.

    And the OLY E-410 is the smallest a DSLR can be without being too skinny. If you give me a camera smaller than that, it would simply be more uncomfortable to hold. Ever hold one? It's small enough.

    Also, the "large" dimensions of the camera don't matter to me, because the lens that sticks out from the camera will always be a nuisance, and affects the size of the camera far more than the camera itself.

    As to the cameras being "metal", I don't really care. I forget where I read this, but a guy who has done work with metal materials for decades says that despite his obvious love of metal, new composite materials/plastics will probably give you better strength in cameras than if using metal.
     

Share This Page