Cameras are so big these days
Oct 14, 2019 14:44:51 #
timbambam
Loc: Manhattan, NY
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I don't understand by digital cameras have to be so big and heavy!
It does appear that must of the camera companies seem to have forgotten the mirrorless cameras we're thought of as being smaller and lighter than their cousin the DSLR.
Take a look at Olympus. They have a couple cameras that still are small but mighty.
I shot an Olympus OMD 5mkII. It's 24 megapixels but is capable of shooting in hi resolution node which give you 50 megapixal shots. It has a lot of great features. They should be coming out with a mkIII soon.
You can get this camera new for $600.00. They also make a smaller model, I don't recall the model vbut it is an OMD so it is pro level made for travel.
Also Olympus has kept the weight of the lenses down as compared to other companies. With the Micro Four Thrirds system the crop give you almost double when compared to a full frame lens.
So if you want a pro level camera that doesn't weigh a ton lol at Olympus OMD line.
Even the new full frame camera mated with Olympus pro level lenses is a lighter package the it's counterparts
Oct 14, 2019 14:50:25 #
timbambam wrote:
It does appear that must of the camera companies s... (show quote)
Olympus does a good job in keeping the camera small with the OMD-EM-1X.
Oct 14, 2019 15:58:14 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
DaveyDitzer wrote:
OP: I was joking. After I added that stuff, I thought, Davey, what the heck are you doing?
You may have been joking, but even the small equipment gets a lot bigger and heavier with basically the same accessories attached. Of course, the camera manufacturers and accessory manufacturers don't mention anything about their accessories when showing one the size, weight, and cost of just the body and basic lens.
Oct 14, 2019 16:14:05 #
twowindsbear wrote:
Most of the 'bigness' that I see in this pic is the 'gunsight' device on top, the 'handle' on the bottom, the device that attaches that handle to the camera, and the monster zoom lens.
Also consider that a camera body must be a certain minimum size to accommodate the size of the sensor, have room for the mirror, and enough more empty space inside the box for all the 'bells & whistles' that are demanded these days.
Also consider that a camera body must be a certain minimum size to accommodate the size of the sensor, have room for the mirror, and enough more empty space inside the box for all the 'bells & whistles' that are demanded these days.
Yup
Oct 14, 2019 18:53:55 #
Roger Dickinson
Loc: Boston
I know it is not your question BUT how would you possibly get through TSA with such a device? You’d likely be detained and miss your flight. No one would have ever seen such a device. 🤔
Oct 14, 2019 18:54:42 #
Roger Dickinson
Loc: Boston
I know it is not your question BUT how would you possibly get through TSA with such a device? You’d likely be detained and miss your flight. No one would have ever seen such a device. 🤔
Oct 14, 2019 19:29:25 #
Jersey guy
Loc: New Joisey
I read through the rest of the post and realize this is a little tongue in cheek. As for weight and size: I cut my teeth in photography as a teenager on my father's old 3 1/4x4 1/4 Graflex. A monster of an SLR (yes, it had a flip up mirror and a ground glass viewing screen that you looked at in a hood).
In college I traded for a similar sized Speed Graphic so I could use the same cut film holders and film pack adapter. Not exactly a "pocket" camera. Still have it almost 70 years later. Should have gotten the 4x5 version which still has some value on Ebay.
In college I traded for a similar sized Speed Graphic so I could use the same cut film holders and film pack adapter. Not exactly a "pocket" camera. Still have it almost 70 years later. Should have gotten the 4x5 version which still has some value on Ebay.
Oct 14, 2019 19:41:56 #
roger dicky wrote:
I know it is not your question BUT how would you possibly get through TSA with such a device? You’d likely be detained and miss your flight. No one would have ever seen such a device. 🤔
Well! On a side note, when ever I travel I try to get to the airport at least two to three hours before boarding. That way I check in my baggage, my equipment and I find a place to grab a bite of airport food. Perhaps I pick up a magazine. I'm not rushed and frustrated by the whole boarding process. As for large glass, I prefer to have everything xrayed. So I'll take my time and make sure my lenses don't go rolling down the conveyor belt.
Oct 14, 2019 20:11:17 #
Silverrails wrote:
Well, I have a Nikon D3300, presently using my Nik... (show quote)
I have a D3400 which at 14oz I considered to be too light. But combined with my 28-75 zoom it actually is “just right” and a pleasure to take anywhere. My D90 and D50 seem heavy by comparison but neither are “burdensome.” Can pretty much carry two of the three all day and not have weight issues. Have never used a full frame so can’t say much about their weight issues good or bad.
Oct 14, 2019 22:19:11 #
bpulv
Loc: Buena Park, CA
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I don't understand by digital cameras have to be so big and heavy!
Today's digitals are not that big or heavy. When I started as a photographer the standard camera was a 4"X 5" Graphic press camera with a "strobe light" (electronic flash). The most popular one was the Graphic Strobflash for with a coiled cord between a 15 pound battery pack that was slung over your shoulder and the flash head mounted on top of the camera's detachable D-Cell battery case which also served as a handle for the camera. The Strobeflash 4 was 200 watt/seconds and could be switched between full, 3/4, 1/2 and 1/4 power While the standard model was not switchable. The very large and heavy camera system along with another bag slung over your other shoulder containing several film holders was also often used.
Don't complain about today's DSLR's wight to me!
Oct 14, 2019 22:24:25 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Attach a brick to the bottom of the camera. Or an anvil, if the brick isn't enough.
The original "brick" was the Argus C-3.
Oct 14, 2019 23:51:47 #
Please excuse my ignorance but that scope on the top is that a rangefinder a spotting scope or something else what's its purpose and use?
Oct 15, 2019 01:35:53 #
The size of today's cameras is largely driven by the trend toward full-frame cameras. Even if the camera bodies are relatively small, the lenses make them large and bulky. Personally, I am a fan of the Micro 4/3 system, which was actually the first mirrorless system. I just traveled to my current destination with an Olympus body and three lenses in a small hip pack camera bag. Try doing this with any full-frame camera.
Oct 15, 2019 03:40:21 #
wdross
Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
dyximan wrote:
Please excuse my ignorance but that scope on the top is that a rangefinder a spotting scope or something else what's its purpose and use?
When a long lens is zoomed out, it becomes much harder to acquire the intended target. Dot sights, for hunting or a photographic accessory, help in acquiring the target quicker without zooming wide and then zooming back out.
Oct 15, 2019 04:24:17 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.