Reversing the Trend: Whilst the new Z series Nikon MILCs are slightly smaller than their full-sized DSLR siblings, and Canon's R is smaller than its 5D4 counterpart, Panasonic has...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Whilst the new Z series Nikon MILCs are slightly smaller than their full-sized DSLR siblings, and Canon's R is smaller than its 5D4 counterpart, Panasonic has introduced its new S1 as quite a bit larger than all the other FF MILCs out there, and dwarfs its own MFT line. The theory is - Bigger is Better - and advances the idea your clients will pay MORE - because you have a bigger camera. Is this something with which YOU have become aware, or is this idea an Old Wives tale? - Do you earn more, do you think, for having a bigger one?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Bigger is not necessarily better, bigger is just that, bigger. Why would bigger always be better?! Who told you that, and do you really believe it!? Bigger is relative to what it is. If you are busting up a concrete wall, bigger is better. If you are precision tuning a pipe organ, a bigger hammer is a very bad thing.
Many years ago I spent a lot of time restoring large stained glass windows and we sometimes had to tap the pieces in place with a small hammer. Bigger definitely was not better.
I own a 5D mk IV and it is a pretty big body. I'll be going to the Philadelphia flower show next week and I will be using my M50. Why? Because it's smaller and lighter and easier to carry around all day, especially with a versatile zoom lens attached.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Chris T wrote:

Whilst the new Z series Nikon MILCs are slightly s... (show quote)

Lots of incorrect and uncorroborated assumptions. . .

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Old wives tale. Look at cell phones.
For cameras, bigger may be ergonomically better.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Chris T wrote:

Whilst the new Z series Nikon MILCs are slightly s... (show quote)

Absolute balderdash! The size of the body has nothing to do with the quality of the image.

All full frame (24x36 mm) cameras have the same size sensor whether they are SLR, DSLR or mirrorless. They are potentially better than crop sensor cameras but not as good as MF sensor cameras or medium to large format film cameras.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Bigger is not necessarily better, bigger is just t... (show quote)

This Topic Post idea came from reading a blog, discovered, when I went to read a review of the new S1 - and yes - they all seemed to agree Bigger was Better - a) because the controls were all spaced more evenly and therefore - were easier to tell apart by feel … and b) the consensus seemed to be - you earned more money from weddings, etc. - if the client saw you were using a bigger camera. Yes, your point is noted about stained-glass windows, R. Thank goodness they make little hammers as well as big ones.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Gene51 wrote:

Lots of incorrect and uncorroborated assumptions. . .

Gene - you are very welcome to correct anything you find false or misleading in my Topic Post ...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Longshadow wrote:

Old wives tale. Look at cell phones.
For cameras, bigger may be ergonomically better.

Exactly, Bill … that's what I thought - an Old Wives Tale ….

However, the folks in the blog do point out the bigger cameras are better, just because the ergonomics are better … and that makes them easier to handle in the field - as the controls are easier to find by feel, alone.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

selmslie wrote:

Absolute balderdash! The size of the body has nothing to do with the quality of the image.

All full frame (24x36 mm) cameras have the same size sensor whether they are SLR, DSLR or mirrorless. They are potentially better than crop sensor cameras but not as good as MF sensor cameras or medium to large format film cameras.

Exactly, Scotty … but the discussion at the blog on the S1 - had nothing to do with sensor size. It was about the physical size of this camera, in relation to ALL other FF MILCs out there - the biggest one, so far ….

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Chris T wrote:

Whilst the new Z series Nikon MILCs are slightly s... (show quote)

There is nothing wrong with a "substantial" camera, I for myself can't use any of these tiny, tiny things (like a Rebel). I like my gribbed 5 D's, but for one thing, they are too small, I really would prefer them to be quite a bit bigger to be more comfortable to handle!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

speters wrote:

There is nothing wrong with a "substantial" camera, I for myself can't use any of these tiny, tiny things (like a Rebel). I like my gribbed 5 D's, but for one thing, they are too small, I really would prefer them to be quite a bit bigger to be more comfortable to handle!

My T1i with the battery grip is a quite sufficient size.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Chris T wrote:

Exactly, Scotty … but the discussion at the blog on the S1 - had nothing to do with sensor size. It was about the physical size of this camera, in relation to ALL other FF MILCs out there - the biggest one, so far ….

What blog? It sounds as ridiculous as some of the threads running here. This one fits right in.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

speters wrote:

There is nothing wrong with a "substantial" camera, I for myself can't use any of these tiny, tiny things (like a Rebel). I like my gribbed 5 D's, but for one thing, they are too small, I really would prefer them to be quite a bit bigger to be more comfortable to handle!

No, I guess not, S … but this camera of Panasonic's - is quite a bit larger than all other MILCs - about the size of the Canon 5D4, I gather. And, that - quite frankly, for a Mirror-less - is astonishing!!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

selmslie wrote:

What blog? It sounds as ridiculous as some of the threads running here. This one fits right in.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-s1-s1r-review-in-progress/7

If you think this thread is ridiculous, Scotty - why did you even bother commenting on it?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Longshadow wrote:

My T1i with the battery grip is a quite sufficient size.

Oh, I agree with you, there, Bill … I was extremely happy with my T3 when I first got it. But, as time went on - I ached for something with a little more heft. The T4i was my answer. It was the same size as the T3, but weighed a little more. The Rebel series reached its peak with the T6i/T6s - which were the largest. The replacements - the T7i/EOS 77D - were drastically scaled down from the T6i/T6s. Even though they're both smaller and lighter than the models they replaced - they are both light years ahead, in features and in their performance, however. I can't wait to see what Canon springs on us next. It foretells great things, I'm sure!