Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Cameras are so big these days
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
Oct 14, 2019 07:57:15   #
ggab Loc: ?
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I don't understand by digital cameras have to be so big and heavy!


Love the Spotter Scope

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 08:49:35   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I don't understand by digital cameras have to be so big and heavy!


They don't have to be big and heavy. There are many, many, many camera's lighter and better than the Nikon Df.

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 08:57:38   #
BebuLamar
 
rook2c4 wrote:
Attach a brick to the bottom of the camera. Or an anvil, if the brick isn't enough.


That would make it bigger which I don't want. I want my camera small and heavy.

Reply
 
 
Oct 14, 2019 08:58:31   #
ggab Loc: ?
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I don't understand by digital cameras have to be so big and heavy!


We all know, Bigger is BETTER!!

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 09:06:25   #
Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona
 
If you call that big, you don’t know what β€œbig” is.

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 09:08:03   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
My favorite camera was the Mamiya RB 67. (Hint: It’s the one on the right)



Reply
Oct 14, 2019 09:08:58   #
47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range
 
Ha-ha! One way to find out is to disassemble the body and lens. Putting everything back together might be a little tricky. 😳😎

Reply
 
 
Oct 14, 2019 09:09:10   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
"I don't understand why digital cameras have to be so big and heavy!"

I am going to interpret this as a joke. Perhaps this explanation gives some light on why cameras are so heavy today.

The two top camera manufacturers, Canon and Nikon, when they began to make digital cameras they based the new bodies in the same bodies we were using when film was the main media. It is my guess they did it so that the lenses available at the time could be used with those bodies. Olympus had a different approach with cameras that were smaller but some of the lenses were big and heavy and I am referring to their film cameras.

When Olympus decided to enter the digital arena they started from scratch building a camera with no mirror. Those were the fourth thirds sensor cameras that so many photographers enjoyed using. Then they decided to go really small and began to manufacture micro fourth thirds bodies with even smaller lenses. In their joint venture with Panasonic lenses from one company fit the bodies of the other.

If you want small and lighter I am sure you know that mirrorless bodies is the way to go.

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 09:12:57   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I don't understand by digital cameras have to be so big and heavy!


Not enough plastic.

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 09:26:16   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I don't understand by digital cameras have to be so big and heavy!


Silly. Compared to the 8x10" Burke & James I once used at work, any digital camera is small and light. But actually I know what you mean. My four Pentax DSLR bodies weigh far more than any of my old film Pentax SLRs. My first "real" camera was a Asahi Pentax KM w/ Asahi smc-Pentax-M 50mm 1:1.7 lens, both fairly light. The sizes are still just about right. Due to their smaller size I was never fully happy with the MX and ME Super. Though these days with my arthritis I still rather like a good sized camera body but I am looking at less weight. Likely a Fujifilm X-T3 MILC someday.

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 09:39:20   #
radiojohn
 
About a year or two after leaving the Army, where I spend considerable time handling documents dealing with "mischief" from the Soviet Union, I saw a Zenit E in a store plainly marked MADE IN USSR. Of course I bought one!

The world of (former) soviet cameras is quite a study, dating back to the demand that the USSR produce their own Leica, FED. The initials FED are those of the head of the NKVD, later called the KGB.

In the mid 70's I managed to mail-order a camera and light meter direct from Mashpriborintog in Moscow. The adventure ended up as my first ever magazine article, "From Russia, With Lens" in Modern Photography.

Reply
 
 
Oct 14, 2019 09:48:57   #
Silverrails
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I don't understand by digital cameras have to be so big and heavy!


Well, I have a Nikon D3300, presently using my Nikon 50mm 1.8g lens, now to me, I do not consider it to be "Heavy", yes more than a P&S Camera. Now, true when I use my Nikon 18-140mm 3.5-5.6 lens on my D3300, that combination does weigh more, but I would not consider it "Burdensome". I use a "Cross-Body" Shoulder strap which allows me quick access by just "Sliding" my Camera up to my Eye level, then returns comfortably to my Hip. Although each Photographer must find what works best for them, as they sometimes say; "To each their own"

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 10:21:45   #
SueScott Loc: Hammondsville, Ohio
 
It's a joke!

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 10:23:31   #
Orson Burleigh Loc: Annapolis, Maryland, USA
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I don't understand by digital cameras have to be so big and heavy!


It just might be that we are habitually seeing wrongly. The permanent part of our equipment collections are our lenses. From time to time technological advancements re sensors, image processors and lens management systems lead us to swap out the detachable consumable accessories (camera bodies) for upgraded versions.
It's a bit like film was, but on a slightly longer cycle (usually).

Reply
Oct 14, 2019 10:31:33   #
timcc Loc: Virginia
 
πŸ˜ŠπŸ˜ŠπŸ˜ŠπŸ“Έ

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.