Why are DSLRs so big and heavy? (Page 10): And the difference between 4/3 and m4/3 is tthe lens mount. Sensors are the same size.

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

Cdouthitt wrote:

Um, is that new math...cause that's not really true.

According to Wiki:
APC (Nikon, Sony...) sensor size = 368mm (squared)
APC (canon) sensor size = 329mm (squared)
m/43 sensor size = 225mm (squared)

And the difference between 4/3 and m4/3 is tthe lens mount. Sensors are the same size.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Isn't the real difference that 4/3rds is a DSLR whereas M4/3rds is mirror less?

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

Peekayoh wrote:

Isn't the real difference that 4/3rds is a DSLR whereas M4/3rds is mirror less?

Oops. Right you are.

cudakite Loc: San Antonio

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.

Yes!! I'm gonna use that one myself - running out of more routine justifications! ;)

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Budnjax wrote:

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

Not really. I have always preferred the viewfinder. What's necessary and what's comfortable to do the job may not always be the same. Fact is with equal level of photographer skill, a dslr with an "L" type lens will produce a better image than a bridge camera.That said, I love the p&s for convenience. I am happy that we have the choices theses days compared to earlier film days though.

cudakite Loc: San Antonio

ocbeyer wrote:

No fair! You big bully.

:wink:

HaHaHa! Hilarious. :thumbup:

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

sirlensalot wrote:

Not really. I have always preferred the viewfinder. What's necessary and what's comfortable to do the job may not always be the same. Fact is with equal level of photographer skill, a dslr with an "L" type lens will produce a better image than a bridge camera.That said, I love the p&s for convenience. I am happy that we have the choices theses days compared to earlier film days though.

Viewfinder adds stability. Holding a camera at arms length makes it unstable, A close in hold with two crooked arms against the body and pressed against the face makes a camera much more stable. Also today's camera is much lighter than yesteryear's. Though lower mass certainly has its place, more mass gives more inertia which makes a stationary camera more stable. Give me my DSLR, more stable, bigger sensor, lighter than yesteryear's by a fair bit.

Mousie M Loc: Coventry, UK

wlgoode wrote:

Viewfinder adds stability. Holding a camera at arms length makes it unstable, A close in hold with two crooked arms against the body and pressed against the face makes a camera much more stable. Also today's camera is much lighter than yesteryear's. Though lower mass certainly has its place, more mass gives more inertia which makes a stationary camera more stable. Give me my DSLR, more stable, bigger sensor, lighter than yesteryear's by a fair bit.

I don't go for the bit about yesteryear's SLRs being heavier. My Nikon EM + 50mm series E lens (which I thought was a magic combination at the time) is MUCH lighter than my D600 + kit zoom lens. OK, so am not comparing like with like, but it is what I carried then compared with what I carry now. Do resent the extra weight? Of course not. (If someone has already said this, then my apologies, I have not read all 10 pages!!!! 8-)

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

Mousie M wrote:

I don't go for the bit about yesteryear's SLRs being heavier. My Nikon EM + 50mm series E lens (which I thought was a magic combination at the time) is MUCH lighter than my D600 + kit zoom lens. OK, so am not comparing like with like, but it is what I carried then compared with what I carry now. Do resent the extra weight? Of course not. (If someone has already said this, then my apologies, I have not read all 10 pages!!!! 8-)

So a brass bodied camera with a solid glass pentaprism and a brass bodied lens is not a lot heavier that a plastic bodied camera with a pentamirror and a plastic bodied lens? Get a new scale.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

wlgoode wrote:

Viewfinder adds stability. Holding a camera at arms length makes it unstable, A close in hold with two crooked arms against the body and pressed against the face makes a camera much more stable. Also today's camera is much lighter than yesteryear's. Though lower mass certainly has its place, more mass gives more inertia which makes a stationary camera more stable. Give me my DSLR, more stable, bigger sensor, lighter than yesteryear's by a fair bit.

Agreed. Forgot to specifically add the stability part. The three point hold (kind of a tripod) has been the standard for a long time for hand held shots. Good point.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

sirlensalot wrote:

Agreed. Forgot to specifically add the stability part. The three point hold (kind of a tripod) has been the standard for a long time for hand held shots. Good point.

Don't forget 5 axis stabilization. Soon to be integrated into Sony sensors.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Cdouthitt wrote:

Don't forget 5 axis stabilization. Soon to be integrated into Sony sensors.

Sounds interesting. Will look into it. As stated recently, I think Sony has done remarkably well on our behalf with their sensor technology. It appears they will be taking another step (or leap) forward. Appreciate sharing this info.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Mousie M wrote:

I don't go for the bit about yesteryear's SLRs being heavier. My Nikon EM + 50mm series E lens (which I thought was a magic combination at the time) is MUCH lighter than my D600 + kit zoom lens. OK, so am not comparing like with like, but it is what I carried then compared with what I carry now. Do resent the extra weight? Of course not. (If someone has already said this, then my apologies, I have not read all 10 pages!!!! 8-)

Yeah, I have quite a few 35mm film SLR's and, with perhaps the exception of the Nikon N90, they are all noticeably lighter and a bit more compact than my DSLR cameras. And the reason the N90 is so heavy is mostly because of the four batteries in it.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

St3v3M wrote:

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!

I gotta wonder, too, St3v3M, how much lighter the Hubble might have been if it had been a mirrorless telescope.

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

rook2c4 wrote:

Yeah, I have quite a few 35mm film SLR's and, with perhaps the exception of the Nikon N90, they are all noticeably lighter and a bit more compact than my DSLR cameras. And the reason the N90 is so heavy is mostly because of the four batteries in it.

You are talking about the later model SLRs with plastic bodies and pentamirrors if you read my first post about this. I'm talking about something different!