Why are DSLRs so big and heavy? I just read about how a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens weighs 2 pounds MORE than the 70-200mm f/4 Canon lens (both "L" models). It got me thinking about how...

Budnjax Loc: NE Florida

I just read about how a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens weighs 2 pounds MORE than the 70-200mm f/4 Canon lens (both "L" models). It got me thinking about how huge, heavy and bulky most of today's DSLRs have become. Carrying around big, bulky cameras is certainly not conducive to good photography. Can't more camera makers produce cameras/lenses that are smaller and lighter, like the Leica models? I have quite a few Canon FD and EOS bodies and lenses, but frequently simply use my G10 because it's capabilities will cover 90% of the pictures I might want to take without needing a valet to carry my equipment. I really don't see thru-the-lens viewing as needed for most pictures most of us take, outside of where long telephotos or macro lenses are needed. No wonder so many people use only their cell phone camera and see no need for anything else. Does anyone else feel the same way?

STVest Loc: LA - that's Lower Alabama

Let me get that Leica camera and lenses -- and the valet -- so I can develop a fully formed opinion. I'll get back to ya. Meanwhile, PM me for my shipping address to send me some of that burdensome equipment so I can understand the full weight of your complaint.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Budnjax wrote:

I just read about how a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ... (show quote)

I don't feel the same way, to me, the cameras I use (5D II & 5D III both gripped),I do not consider being large, in fact to me, they are a little too small. It all comes down to personal preference I guess.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

STVest wrote:

Let me get that Leica camera and lenses -- and the valet -- so I can develop a fully formed opinion. I'll get back to ya. Meanwhile, PM me for my shipping address to send me some of that burdensome equipment so I can understand the full weight of your complaint.

I was just wondering why science grade observatories and satellite cameras weigh so much too. I bet camera manufacturers just add extra weight to get rid of extra metal in the warehouse... If only we could get them to make high-end lense that weigh nothing and cost the same!

STVest Loc: LA - that's Lower Alabama

St3v3M wrote:

... If only we could get them to make high-end lense that weigh nothing and cost the same!

But then we would all have everything - with nothing left to lust after. We'd have our money just piling up, not being put back into the economy. Yeah! That's it! Buying camera equipment is the sacrifice I make for the American economy. Oooo, oooo, let me go explain that to hubby.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

STVest wrote:

But then we would all have everything - with nothing left to lust after. We'd have our money just piling up, not being put back into the economy. Yeah! That's it! Buying camera equipment is the sacrifice I make for the American economy. Oooo, oooo, let me go explain that to hubby.

Doing it for the economy. I think we can sell that!

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Budnjax wrote:

Does anyone else feel the same way?

When I first saw your post, I just wanted to reply, "No". But after having decided to hold off on that and wait for some more meanimgful input, my opinion has changed to "Hell no!" :(

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

Budnjax wrote:

Does anyone else feel the same way?

Absolutely not! To remain happy, stick with your G10.

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

Budnjax wrote:

I just read about how a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ... (show quote)

IMHO a camera and the gear associated with it represent tools.
If a G10 provides all you need to get the image you desire you are all set.
For my needs I require : 1 G12, I Nikon P510, 50D, 60D, 2 1D Mk II, 100-400, 70-200 2.8, 100 macro, 18-200, 10-22 and a 1.4 TC. Every item has it's use.
Sports, Stage Performance, nature/scenic, birds and wildlife and so on.
Carrying a camera is not a burden even at my senior age. There are times I carry two rigs.

I suppose opinions vary

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Bruce with a Canon wrote:

IMHO a camera and the gear associated with it represent tools.
If a G10 provides all you need to get the image you desire you are all set.
...

Well said!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Budnjax, the camera companies could easily make cameras that weigh virtually nothing, and they do, they are called P&S and bridge cameras.
But, the companies all realize that photography is NOT a sport, and to keep up with the in-vogue fitness craziness of today, they build in lots of weight. Camera companies realize that the most exercise most old retired fogies get is running for coffee between long winded Hog sparing sessions. And though that is great for the cardio system, It don't do squat to make one more buffed, therefore, more attractive to the opposite sex, or indeed to sex at all.
The most manly of the men and ladies, will sport 2.8 glass on at least a nice body.
But only the manliest of men and ladies will shot with a 200mm f1.8.
I mean, don't it have to weigh something just so we know it's real !!
SS

STVest Loc: LA - that's Lower Alabama

SharpShooter wrote:

. . . and to keep up with the in-vogue fitness craziness of today, they build in lots of weight.

Whoopee! I'm gonna be buff! I'm gonna be buff! SS said so! I'm gonna be buff! All you cougars, move over! Make room for one more! I'm gonna be buff!

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I just think that it is what it is. DSLR's have certain "innards" in them and to house those innards takes a certain amount of metal, and more metal equals more weight.

Having said that, I DO have the RX1 which is a full frame sensor and a Zeiss 35mm f/2 in a body that's just barely above the size of a pack of cigs....hmmm...

For myself? I don't like carrying around a DSLR anymore. Recently I had to offload my DSLR and lens compliment and found that I like just carrying two small bodies in a "man bag" much better than the "guy with a ginormous DSLR and backpack" scenario.

To each his/her own.

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Budnjax wrote:

I just read about how a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens ... (show quote)

The "DSLR Brigade" here will always stand their ground and be counted. And quite rightly, 'cos it's a great tool when the occasion is right and demands it.

However, there is a growing fan base, more in Asia and in my own neck of the woods, the UK, for the "mirrorless" camera, which affords you lightness in weight, much better portability and stunning picture quality if you buy the right equipment. I enjoy the best of both worlds.

If ever you want to fill the remaining 10% when your G10 won't do it for you then take a look at the Fuji X-E1 with it's 18-55mm f2.8-f4 lens here - http://photomadd.com/review/lens-fujinon-18-55mm-f2-8-4-r/ - high build quality, stunning lens results, APS-C sensor, and great low light capability. Great combination for walking around on holiday or in town, as I discovered recently in Georgia (The Black Sea Georgia !) and in my home town of Nottingham, UK. (See pics) Buy it and you'll use it a lot more than your G10 - it's that good !

And check out the "world of mirrorless" here - http://www.sansmirror.com/

Ideal walk around combination

Hand held f5.6, 1/40 sec, ISO 3200

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

craggycrossers wrote:

The "DSLR Brigade" here will always stan... (show quote)

Very true.

And one other benefit to a small, light camera that doesn't have "built-in-vibration-due-to-a-mirror-that-has-to-get-out-of-the-way" is that you can hand hold to insanely slow shutter speeds.

With my 5DIII I could barely hold 1/focal length, many times I couldn't.

With my two small mirrorless cameras in can hold even 1/5 exposures if I'm reasonably braced and 1/20 without bracing and get shake free images.