[monochrome]

I just recently bought two 'modern' Contax film cameras - an RX and an RTS II - because they are in never-used condition, came with a host of accessories and were $89 (RX) and $50 (RTS). The RX is a brick - bigger than K2, KX, K2DMD and any Nikon I own. The RTS is bigger than the LX, and they're both significantly heavier than anything short of the K2DMD. You prob. Know Contax cameras were by no means cheap or compromised in any way.

I think camera size is an intentional design choice.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 01-31-2017 at 05:45 PM.

[Alex645]

I just recently bought two 'modern' Contax film cameras - an RX and an RTS II - because they are in never-used condition, came with a host of accessories and were $89 (RX) and $50 (RTS). The RX is a brick - bigger than K2, KX, K2DMD and any Nikon I own. The RTS is bigger than the LX, and they're both significantly heavier than anything short of the K2DMD. You prob. Know Contax cameras were by no means cheap or compromised in any way.

I think camera size is an intentional design choice.

One of the innovations that Contax developed which contributed to their size was the extra wide pressure plate that eventually evolved into the Real Time Vacuum Back plate. Canʻt get the most of those Zeiss lenses if the film is not perfectly flat, and so they ensured that with the larger plates...and ceramic instead of metal.

[monochrome]

One of the innovations that Contax developed which contributed to their size was the extra wide pressure plate that eventually evolved into the Real Time Vacuum Back plate. Canʻt get the most of those Zeiss lenses if the film is not perfectly flat, and so they ensured that with the larger plates...and ceramic instead of metal.

Yeah, they're quite a package

[Digitalis]

I think camera size is an intentional design choice.

Price point is too - and this has a large impact upon the construction quality of cameras.

the FF Canon EOS 6D being smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the APS-C 7D II.

Amusingly, the Pentax K1 is also smaller than the 7DMkII

[leekil]

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

Maybe this is the reason for the KP's interchangeable different-sized grips.

[Alex645]

Maybe this is the reason for the KP's interchangeable different-sized grips.

Considering the downsizing of the KP, the multiple grip option is a great idea. I wonder if anyone will ever make a left handed DSLR for left eyed photographers?

[BigMackCam]

Considering the downsizing of the KP, the multiple grip option is a great idea. I wonder if anyone will ever make a left handed DSLR for left eyed photographers?

Hmmm... An entirely symmetrical body that would accept bolt on grips either side, with symmetrically-arranged fully-configurable buttons on the back, and an interchangeable top plate with shutter release and dials for R or L hand use... that could be very cool indeed

[abhaskare]

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?
Jer

Good question!
I guess it is the weight of processor, circuit boards and the SR system that is in addition.
There is also the alloy body that has to protect the electronics that adds to the bulk of vol and weight.
In film camera, only a thin metal case to shield the film.
I think it should be possible to make it comparable if we only provided raw and left everything to be processes on computer.

[TomB_tx]

Leica has slimmed down their new M10 so that it is basically sized like the film M6 of the 1980s, so digital can be fitted ina film-sized body. Of course the M is not an SLR, but the RF still takes a lot of space, and it took them a few digital generations to return to film camera size. Also, the M10 and its lenses have no autofocus, and they had to extend the lens mount slightly to fit in the added thickness of the sensor compared to film.
The A7 is FF and LX sized, but notice the "film plane" (image position) is over 1/2 inch forward of the camera back, while an LX was about 1/8 inch from the back. So to use my nice compact Pentax-M lenses on it the adapter has to place the lens well forward.
If an A7 style were made without the thick, pivoting LCD on the back (the eye-level EVF alone is sufficient), and you do away with autofocus and accept the EVF instead of a mirror,you could have a K mount body about the same dimensions as an LX. But marketing would never believe it would sell.

[Not a Number]

If an A7 style were made without the thick, pivoting LCD on the back (the eye-level EVF alone is sufficient), and you do away with autofocus and accept the EVF instead of a mirror,you could have a K mount body about the same dimensions as an LX. But marketing would never believe it would sell.

Getting rid of IBIS would remove a lot of the bulk too. However Ricoh would then have to either go back to using a physical AA filter or AA through software.

[Sailor]

Leica has slimmed down their new M10 so that it is basically sized like the film M6 of the 1980s, so digital can be fitted ina film-sized body. Of course the M is not an SLR, but the RF still takes a lot of space, and it took them a few digital generations to return to film camera size. Also, the M10 and its lenses have no autofocus, and they had to extend the lens mount slightly to fit in the added thickness of the sensor compared to film.
The A7 is FF and LX sized, but notice the "film plane" (image position) is over 1/2 inch forward of the camera back, while an LX was about 1/8 inch from the back. So to use my nice compact Pentax-M lenses on it the adapter has to place the lens well forward.
If an A7 style were made without the thick, pivoting LCD on the back (the eye-level EVF alone is sufficient), and you do away with autofocus and accept the EVF instead of a mirror,you could have a K mount body about the same dimensions as an LX. But marketing would never believe it would sell.

Interesting. As I mentioned in a reply above, I pay little attention to camera developments and didn't know the A7 exists prior to this thread - that camera looks like the future to me.

I considered a Leica M rather than the large K-1, but the body plus two or three lenses would take the bill over 10 grand; I enjoy photography, but I'm not sufficiently passionate to write that kind of check!

Jer

[TER-OR]

I do like having space on the body for physical controls large enough to use with gloves. A WR camera is likely to be used wearing those, after all.

When I look at the cutaways, I don't see a LOT of wasted space in the bodies.

Maybe eventually the metamaterial revolution will give us active materials lenses, which reconfigure rather than move physically, then we'll get compact lenses. Maybe even fixed lenses which can be high-quality superzooms, close-focus and everything. Plus, we'll all get ponies or race cars (but not both).

[monochrome]

I've always wanted a pony car.

[Tony Belding]

Interesting. As I mentioned in a reply above, I pay little attention to camera developments and didn't know the A7 exists prior to this thread - that camera looks like the future to me.

I bought a used A7 only for use with adapted lenses. It's similar in size to my old 35mm SLRs, but the images remind me of medium format film. The vintage lenses also tend to be quite a bit more compact than lenses of today, I reckon because they don't have all the electronics, autofocus motors, etc. However, the compactness is compromised somewhat by the length of the lens adapter.

I would remind everyone, though, that 35mm film is kind of crummy. I don't just mean by today's standards. It was always kind of crummy, fuzzy and gritty. Whenever practical, pros shot medium or large format film. 35mm was portable and versatile. Reporters used it because it was easy to take everywhere. Sports and wildlife photographers used it because it was easy to attach a motor drive and telephoto lens. Amateurs and tourists used it because it was cheap. And the pictures, well. . . they were "good enough" for many purposes.

Your full-frame DSLR is today's counterpart of those medium format film cameras. Perhaps the closest thing conceptually to a 35mm SLR today would be the Pentax Q series.

[lithedreamer]

Getting rid of IBIS would remove a lot of the bulk too. However Ricoh would then have to either go back to using a physical AA filter or AA through software.

Not necessarily. How often is moire really a problem?