[Not a Number]

Bigger is more intimidating - it must be expensive and takes good pictures!



Remember also that some of the viewfinders on the LX are huge and when you add the motor drive it gets much taller.

Consider the MZ-S with motor drive:


Or if you want manual focus the Minolta XM motor. This shot at a whopping 4 frames per second and had an optional 10m (250 frame) film magazine (and people gripe about the KP 7 fps and small buffer. Think about how long it took to clear the buffer - load new film - on film cameras):

[rawr]

Bigger is more intimidating - it must be expensive and takes good pictures!

That has a lot of truth. From experience, if you shoot an event with a DSLR with battery grip attached, a 70-200 f2.8 mounted (with a hood, of course), and a flash on top, the reactions of people are very different if you shoot the same event the next day with a tiny mirrorless NEX.

[Riggomatic]

Thinking about my LX bodies the other day, this question occurred to me: in this era when Apple and others can combine a computer, telephone and camera into something that can fit in a shirt pocket, why do FF DSLRs like my new K-1 need to be so much larger than "FF" film SLRs like my LXs, which had to accommodate the same size "sensor" while providing a film transport system? Battery size has to be one reason, but - for all you camera tech gurus - what other factors contribute to the size of the K-1?

Jer

Maybe the designers are using the golden ratio to determine size. 0.618 : 1 : 1.618.

[stevebrot]

Consider the MZ-S with motor drive:

That is the camera with grip. Motorized film transport was built in and there was no accessory motor drive.

The MZ-S dimensions are: 136.5(W) x 95mm (H) x 64mm (D), which is a little narrower than the Leica M3 above and a little shorter and less deep than the Pentax K-50. The camera is surprisingly small in real life.

As for the LX, it is not particularly large by current standards and was fairly compact when compared to other system cameras of the day. With any luck, @LesDMess will check in with one of his size comparison photos of the LX


Steve

[leekil]

To be even more pointed...Nikon F6 vs. Df

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The F6 was already much larger than the Pentax film cameras.

I saw my first Df in real life the other day and was shocked at how big it was; I thought it was supposed to be smaller.

---------- Post added 01-31-17 at 12:15 AM ----------

Part of it is the larger sensor and SR, but the other part is deliberate, because you want a big camera to balance well with big lenses.

You don't want a big camera for your small primes, though.

[Alex645]

Agree with many comments above. Also consider that there are FF cameras that are smaller and lighter than APS-C DSLRs. For example, the FF Nikon D610 is physically smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the APS-C D500. Same with the FF Canon EOS 6D being smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the APS-C 7D II.

To a large degree (no pun intended) it is an ergonomic choice to balance better with faster glass, but on a practical level having more dedicated buttons and controls vs. a menu-driven interface means needing a larger camera.

For marketing, most consumers demand smaller, lighter convenience. For pros and enthusiasts, thatʻs one of the last priorities.

[Rondec]

Pentax probably could make a full frame camera that was just a little bigger than a K-S1. I have a feeling it wouldn't be cutting edge with regard to specifications -- probably wouldn't have top end auto focus, frame rates, or buffer, but it probably would be doable. The question is if folks really want that.

I remember when Pentax switched from the K10/K20 camera body style to the K5 there were quite a few people who were upset that Pentax was leaving the chunkier body behind. Ergonomics on little cameras often aren't the best, even if you are shooting with smaller lenses.

Anyway, I guess there are a lot of things a K-1 does that an LX didn't have to do and those things do take up space.

[BigMackCam]

I remember when Pentax switched from the K10/K20 camera body style to the K5 there were quite a few people who were upset that Pentax was leaving the chunkier body behind.

Interestingly, I have the Samsung GX-10 version of the K10D... I've only owned it for a few months, but I actually prefer the chunkier feel of it to my much-loved K-3 and K-3II. I have pretty big hands, so the larger form factor works well for me. The K-70, K-S2, K-S1 etc. feel too small in my hands. I also have a Sony A7 MkII, and I almost always leave the battery grip fitted to that. Without it, I find it just a bit too compact.

We're all so different physically and in our preferences that it's pretty much impossible to build a camera that everyone will like.

[Mikesul]

That has a lot of truth. From experience, if you shoot an event with a DSLR with battery grip attached, a 70-200 f2.8 mounted (with a hood, of course), and a flash on top, the reactions of people are very different if you shoot the same event the next day with a tiny mirrorless NEX.

I agree about people's reactions to large lens/camera and I do not like it. Just a K-1 and DA*300 draws lots of attention in public. I really prefer to be inconspicuous. I am not afraid of theft, etc but I do not use my camera to show off.

[Digitalis]

The 42MP full-frame Sony RX1R II, for example, is tiny even compared to the compact Leica FF's

I'll wager the Leica camera will be working long after the Sony has kicked the bucket.

...bigger cameras for the usual male-ego reasons.

That kind of male preoccupation can be found in every male dominated sub-culture that exists.

[Sailor]

Thanks all for the thoughtful replies.

Many mentioned components in the K-1 (and other digital cameras) not necessary in the LX; such is indeed the case, doubtlessly playing some role in the size difference between the two cameras. However, some of components folks listed, like the mirror system and pentaprism, were incorporated in the LX and all film SLRs, and most of the electronic elements described also reside in relatively small DSLRs like my K-3. In fact, most of these elements have found their way into my diminutive Panasonic LX100, which has all the operational (not optical) flexibility of that K-3. So these extra doo-dads in digital FF cameras probably aren't the whole story, particularly since a couple of posters noted that some digital analogs of film cameras (such as the Leica M system) are not appreciably larger than their film counterparts.

I think there's also something in the argument that the size of the K-1 is at least partially based on the product's target market. The thinking may be that serious photographers want a serious-looking camera, with enough real estate to hold all the dials, buttons and control systems these customers need and want.

After reading some of your replies last night, it occurred to me that the simplest answer to my initial question may simply be that a conventionally large DSLR body allowed the K-1 to be developed and manufactured at a cost that would meet the company's financial targets for the product. It's often cheaper to design functionality into a large gizmo than a small one, and the K-1, because of its size, perhaps can utilize more off-the-shelf parts than would have been possible in a camera the size of an LX. The extra size also may make it cheaper to manage things like heat dissipation as Bruce Clark suggested.

Anyway, who knows what the future will bring. Thanks again for your comments.

Jer

---------- Post added 01-31-2017 at 02:09 PM ----------

There's no reason for a DSLR to be much (if at all) taller or wider than something like the Sony A7 series - although the PDAF sensor beneath the main and secondary mirrors maybe adds a bit of height. In terms of depth, room is needed for the sensor and shake reduction mechanism, and for the mirror mechanism itself. It's that mirror mechanism that dictates why DSLRs must be deeper than mirrorless cameras.

For most of my hobbies that require expensive hardware (e.g. sailboats, sports cars), I'm intensely interested in the technology and construction that the hardware incorporates. However, for some reason, while I'm interested in photography, I'm totally incurious about camera technology. As a result, I don't keep up with camera developments and haven't a clue what manufacturers other than Pentax are producing. Thus, I had no idea that such a thing as the Sony A7 exists!

Maybe I'd better start paying attention.

Jer

[BigMackCam]

However, some of components folks listed, like the mirror system and pentaprism, were incorporated in the LX and all film SLRs, and most of the electronic elements described also reside in relatively small DSLRs like my K-3.

Yes, Jer, but to have the sensor, shake reduction mechanism, shutter, a large enough mirror for the full frame image (which requires more space than an APS-C camera's mirror) and room for it to flip out of the way, an articulating LCD screen, rear panel controls, all the electronics required, and encased in a very rugged frame would result in a bigger camera than the LX.

In fact, most of these elements have found their way into my diminutive Panasonic LX100, which has all the operational (not optical) flexibility of that K-3.

But the LX100 has no mirror (since it's not a DSLR), and the viewfinder is a small LCD with data read from the sensor (so it has no need for mirror and prism). As I mentioned in my previous post, the single biggest thing dictating the depth (or "thickness") of the camera is the mirror and its mechanism. Take the mirror away, and you can halve the thickness of the body - though you'd need to manufacture lenses compatible with the reduced flange focal distance.

I think there's also something in the argument that the size of the K-1 is at least partially based on the product's target market. The thinking may be that serious photographers want a serious-looking camera, with enough real estate to hold all the dials, buttons and control systems these customers need and want.

I'm sure you're partly right... however, to retain compatibility with existing and legacy Pentax lenses, the flange focal distance needs to remain the same... the mount must be the same distance from the sensor or film plane as before (that's why the new KP looks fairly compact until you look at the mount, which sticks forward like a snout ). This, along with the mirror and its mechanism (and the sensor, shake reduction system, PDAF module underneath the mirrors etc. etc.) dictates the thickness of the body. As for width and height, some of this will be dictated by the electronics that have to fit inside... yet, I agree that some of it is probably by design; after all, who wants to have a tiny, feather-light camera sat on the back of a heavy 70-200 f/2.8 lens? It would feel very unbalanced indeed (I speak from experience using my A7 MkII with an A-mount Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 USD!)...

[Sailor]

Yes, Jer, but to have the sensor, shake reduction mechanism, shutter, a large enough mirror for the full frame image (which requires more space than an APS-C camera's mirror) and room for it to flip out of the way, an articulating LCD screen, rear panel controls, all the electronics required, and encased in a very rugged frame would result in a bigger camera than the LX.



But the LX100 has no mirror (since it's not a DSLR), and the viewfinder is a small LCD with data read from the sensor (so it has no need for mirror and prism). As I mentioned in my previous post, the single biggest thing dictating the depth (or "thickness") of the camera is the mirror and its mechanism. Take the mirror away, and you can halve the thickness of the body - though you'd need to manufacture lenses compatible with the reduced flange focal distance.



I'm sure you're partly right... however, to retain compatibility with existing and legacy Pentax lenses, the flange focal distance needs to remain the same... the mount must be the same distance from the sensor or film plane as before (that's why the new KP looks fairly compact until you look at the mount, which sticks forward like a snout ). This, along with the mirror and its mechanism (and the sensor, shake reduction system, PDAF module underneath the mirrors etc. etc.) dictates the thickness of the body. As for width and height, some of this will be dictated by the electronics that have to fit inside... yet, I agree that some of it is probably by design; after all, who wants to have a tiny, feather-light camera sat on the back of a heavy 70-200 f/2.8 lens? It would feel very unbalanced indeed (I speak from experience using my A7 MkII with an A-mount Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 USD!)...

Sorry - I guess I've been a bit inarticulate, and Lord knows I don't know nearly as much about camera technology as many here on the forum.

I wasn't suggesting that my little LX100 is internally equivalent to a DSLR, but it's electronic package does allow most of the control over shooting choices that I have with my K-3 in a much smaller package. Nor did I mean to suggest that somehow Pentax could have produced a camera with all the gizmos of the K-1 stuffed into a body with the exact size of the LX. Perhaps I should have asked, "what would have to happen to produce a FF DSLR closer to the size of the LX or even a K-3?"

Jer

[BigMackCam]

Sorry - I guess I've been a bit inarticulate, and Lord knows I don't know nearly as much about camera technology as many here on the forum.

I wasn't suggesting that my little LX100 is internally equivalent to a DSLR, but it's electronic package does allow most of the control over shooting choices that I have with my K-3 in a much smaller package. Nor did I mean to suggest that somehow Pentax could have produced a camera with all the gizmos of the K-1 stuffed into a body with the exact size of the LX. Perhaps I should have asked, "what would have to happen to produce a FF DSLR closer to the size of the LX or even a K-3?"

No, that's fine, Jer... I wasn't criticising - just commenting

To make the camera body less deep - specifically including the centre where the mount is - they would need to make the sensor thinner, shake reduction mechanism thinner, shutter thinner, mirror mechanism even more low profile, the LCD screen thinner, possibly even the frame and the casing materials thinner, but that would only shave millimetres off the thickness of the body... and *then* they would have to produce lenses that are optically compatible with a shorter flange focal distance (and perhaps offer an adapter that would allow existing K-mount lenses to be usable). The sections of the body either side of the mount can easily be made a bit thinner, and that's what they've done with the KP.

To make anything considerably thinner, narrower and shorter would be to make a mirrorless camera (like the Sony A7 series). Again, it's the size of the mirror, mirror mechanism and the space needed for the mirror to flip up flat inside the roof of the body that is largely responsible for that gaping big mirror box on the K-1 (and all other full frame DSLRs)...

[Sailor]

No, that's fine, Jer... I wasn't criticising - just commenting . . . . .. . .. . .

Believe me, my friend, I detected not even a hint of criticism in your comments - and that's coming from a man who's been married to the same woman for almost 49 years and who knows - very clearly - what criticism sounds like when he hears it.

Jer