[Sailor]

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

[pakinjapan]

I hear from Pentax guy at a small conference class in CP+ last year, the 5 axis shake reduction system which need to be powerful and large enough to work with FF large sensor size. It sure contributes to the size of K-1.

I am also having a similar question, but more about the choice of materials uses to make the body shell.
Why not go for carbon fiber which light weight, has twice strength compare to aluminum-magnesium alloy, and good heat dissipation. Carbon fiber is also similar to the metal, it is a conductive material.

[jpzk]

Looking forward for responses to this question !!
Let the battle of the techkies begin !

[BigMackCam]

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.

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-30-2017 at 03:50 PM.

[Kunzite]

Yes, many other factors.
First, the classic, manual film transport system is quite compact - two cylinders and the back plate, that's about it. Note how the battery takes more room than the film take-up spool (grip side), while on the other side the DSLR is shorter.
We have motors for shutter/aperture/mirror (3 in case of the K-3 and I guess also K-1). Then, there's the electronics (and, on Pentax K DSLRs, the SR system) - taking space and increasing camera's thickness. Add a back LCD, too. Even the sensor itself is significantly thicker than the film.

[tuco]

Perhaps your LX didn't need room for a computer, auto focus module, large battery, USB ports, LCD screen, etc. But my old ( for a digital generation) M9 is a FF digital camera and it is not much bigger than the film version.

[Na Horuk]

a) Battery (DSLRs still use relatively "old" batteries, unlike smartphones which use pretty cutting edge batteries - and this leads to problems like some smartphones igniting)
b) back screen (cameras usually have screens much inferior than modern smartphones)
c) processor, buffer, and connections
d) sensor
e) Mirror and the motors for functions like AF, auto-aperture
f) Viewfinder prism

For Pentax three more:
g) SR system
h) K-mount register distance (this means lens mount is 4.5cm from the sensor, so you have a rather large mirror box)
i) WR, camera body skeleton

But I agree with you. I have seen many old SLRs that are so small, stylish. Even K-mount or m42 mount (same register distance, FF mirror, big viewfinder). I would like a real digital camera in a small small package like some of the old film K-mount DSLRs. If the price is low, I would even go for one without SR system (or a more primitive, compact one)
That said, Pentax K-S1 and K-01 are very compact, too. Not FF, but still very compact.
And keep in mind, some people want a hefty FF. The camera has to be robust, big enough to support large FF lenses like the 70-200mm f2.8. And some people just equate size with "professional" camera.

---

Last edited by Na Horuk; 01-30-2017 at 04:07 PM.

[Adam]

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

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.

[BigMackCam]

f) Viewfinder prism

Oh yeah... I forgot about that!

[Na Horuk]

Oh yeah... I forgot about that!

I almost didn't put it in because many SLRs have pretty big viewfinders. But modern ones tend to have more info, overlays in there.

[stevebrot]

There's no reason for a DSLR to be much (if at all) taller or wider than something like the Sony A7 series

Yep...add in the mechanical AF drive too.

Adding depth to the equation and comparing to APS-C cameras, the mirror box is the exact same depth and height and the pentaprism is of similar height. A lot of the bulk is due to a beefier shutter and mirror mechanism.

But my old ( for a digital generation) M9 is a FF digital camera and it is not much bigger than the film version.

Similarly, compare the Epson RD1 to my Voigtlander R3m. The digital Epson is the same size.

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



Nikon F6 vs. Nikon Df

Nobody would accuse the F6 of being svelte, but still the comparison gives pause for thought.

Adding a few more megapickles and we get the K-1:

Pentax K-1 vs. Nikon Df


Steve

[Bruce Clark]

I will throw in heat dissipation. The electronics need air space around them to prevent overheating.

[stevebrot]

I will throw in heat dissipation. The electronics need air space around them to prevent overheating.

That is why the A7r is pertinent.


Steve

[rawr]

If you dispense with a few things like a pentaprism and interchangable lenses, full-frame digital can be very compact indeed. The 42MP full-frame Sony RX1R II, for example, is tiny even compared to the compact Leica FF's, and is probably not much bigger than my film Olympus XA, I think.

[photoptimist]

Thank Steve Jobs for the iPhone's compactness. Apparently when the original iPod was under development, the engineers showed Steve a prototype. Steve thought it was too big but the engineers claimed it was as compact as possible. Steve then dropped the iPod in an aquarium and saw some air bubbles come out. “Those are air bubbles,” he snapped. “That means there’s space in there. Make it smaller.” Even today, the iPhone's internals are compacted in the thinnest, skinniest space with all the chips jammed together (with more than enough CPU power and enough RAM to buffer 30 K-1 raw images).

There's a lot of air inside a DSLR beyond the minimum required by the mirrorbox, AF, and OVF. Certainly, if one looks at the compact cameras one can see much better use of space.

So why aren't DSLR's more compact? Some of it might be the higher fixed costs of creating such small intricate devices. But I sometimes think DSLRs suffer from "big=professional" syndrome (especially those massive Nikon & Canon pro bodies). Maybe Pentax could stuff a K-1 core + iphone CPU, RAM, and 64 GB of flash into something about the size of the LX (it might have to be maybe 10 mm thicker to accommodate the K-mount registration distance+thick full-frame CMOS chip+chip carrier + articulating back panel but it could still be quite small). I know I would buy one immediately as would a lot of other people. Yet the internets would probably explode with laughter at the "toy camera".

Why have there ALWAYS been bigger and smaller 35 mm SLRs since the dawn of the format unless some people (a lot of people judging by Nikon's and Canon's long-running popularity) simply prefer bigger cameras for the usual male-ego reasons.