[rawr]

I think D500 vs D750 is an interesting comparison too.

D750 is smaller and lighter than D500, both are good low-light sports cameras with very good AF, plus have flippy screens. And (at least locally) the retail price of the D750 is substantially less than a D500.

The latest APS-C cameras costing more than FF's from the same brand has become an interesting trend. Canon seems to have started it with the 7DII, which costs more than the 6D, and now Nikon has the D500, which costs more than either the D610 or the D750.

[RAART]

For some of us, size definitely matters.

especially for the female part of the forum...


But definitely the comparison is good idea... D300s was also a heavy and large camera and I think that Nikon will keep that size for their DSLR's

I really like the ergonomics of K-3 but without battery grip the camera was not really comfortable in my hands. I am not big guy but have large hands and D300 was good in my hands but to heavy especially if I had to hold camera for long time. I guess the same can be told for D500

[danny09]

I think D500 vs D750 is an interesting comparison too.

D750 is smaller and lighter than D500, both are good low-light sports cameras with very good AF, plus have flippy screens. And (at least locally) the retail price of the D750 is substantially less than a D500.

The latest APS-C cameras costing more than FF's from the same brand has become an interesting trend. Canon seems to have started it with the 7DII, which costs more than the 6D, and now Nikon has the D500, which costs more than either the D610 or the D750.

Was about to say that! D500 is 4% bigger in size than even D750. Pentax K3 is smaller/lighter than D750 in every aspect. Why is D500 that big? Screw drive motor? Weather sealing? Pentax today makes probably the smallest and most feature packed DSLRs on the market today!

[Alex645]

Why is D500 that big? Screw drive motor? Weather sealing? Pentax today makes probably the smallest and most feature packed DSLRs on the market today!

The D500 is packed with a ton of electronics such as dual XQD and SD card slots, an EXPEED 5 image processor engine with 153 AF points, 99 cross type, Wi-Fi and bluetooth, and 4K video. But the main reason I suspect is that they wanted to make it as ergonomically similar to the D300s. Imagine if Pentax suddenly changed their ergonomics to something that looked and felt like a Canon T6i? It'd make sense to every Canon Rebel owner, but not to those who love their K bodies.

Also as mentioned earlier, it really helps with balance when using longer Nikon lenses which are often bulkier and heavier than Pentax glass.

[pathdoc]

Pentax today makes probably the smallest and most feature packed DSLRs on the market today!

One of these days I'd like to see someone design a micro 4/3 DSLR, just to see what such a beast would look like in size terms. Yes, I agree it's a flight of fancy - there's probably no market for it, except as an upscaled Q successor - but it might be fun to see what the parametric engineering exercise turned out. Design it in CAD, turn out the shell on a 3D printer, take it to Photokina and see how many people clamour to own it.

[Qwntm]

And as always the DA ltd primes are the real weight and size saving feature of the Pentax system. No one else has anything to match.


The Nikon G series primes are FF and their HUGE!!

[boriscleto]

One of these days I'd like to see someone design a micro 4/3 DSLR, just to see what such a beast would look like in size terms.

Wouldn't that be an Olympus 4/3 DSLR? Those were about the same size as a Pentax APS-C DSLR. They had some F/2 zooms that were huge.

[Alex645]

Wouldn't that be an Olympus 4/3 DSLR? Those were about the same size as a Pentax APS-C DSLR. They had some F/2 zooms that were huge.

As far as I know, all the EVF cameras like Olympus, Sony, Lumix, etc. are DSLT, not DSLR (translucent, not reflex). There are pros and cons between the two, and needless to say, Sony owners and Pentax owners have drawn a line in the sand. For sure, DSLT is the way to go if video is a priority or you want to see the viewfinder during the exposure. For me, I find even pentamirror OVF too dark and hard to see, and it's one reason I prefer Pentax (and my High Point Nikon F3) with pentaprisms.

[boriscleto]

As far as I know, all the EVF cameras like Olympus, Sony, Lumix, etc. are DSLT, not DSLR (translucent, not reflex). There are pros and cons between the two, and needless to say, Sony owners and Pentax owners have drawn a line in the sand. For sure, DSLT is the way to go if video is a priority or you want to see the viewfinder during the exposure. For me, I find even pentamirror OVF too dark and hard to see, and it's one reason I prefer Pentax (and my High Point Nikon F3) with pentaprisms.

Only Sony made a DSLT. From ~2004 to 2009 Olympus made traditional DLSRs with a 4/3 sensor. The last was the E-5 in 2010, which was the same weight as a K-3 and slightly larger in overall dimensions.

Olympus could make a m4/3 camera larger than the OM-D, but why would they?

[Alex645]

Only Sony made a DSLT. From ~2004 to 2009 Olympus made traditional DLSRs with a 4/3 sensor. The last was the E-5 in 2010, which was the same weight as a K-3 and slightly larger in overall dimensions.

Olympus could make a m4/3 camera larger than the OM-D, but why would they?

Only Sony today: yes. Only Sony in the past: no. I remember Canon had a DSLT camera as far back as the mid-60's, and that technology has continued with motion picture cameras as well....not just Sony. And if we're not talking about the past, then Olympus DSLRs are history too. Every system has it's pros and cons and what doesn't make any sense to one consumer, is perfect for me. (Car makers: Bring back manual transmissions!!!) One thing that seems to be a constant is that a jack of all trades is a master of none.

[RobA_Oz]

As far as I know, all the EVF cameras like Olympus, Sony, Lumix, etc. are DSLT, not DSLR (translucent, not reflex). There are pros and cons between the two, and needless to say, Sony owners and Pentax owners have drawn a line in the sand. For sure, DSLT is the way to go if video is a priority or you want to see the viewfinder during the exposure. For me, I find even pentamirror OVF too dark and hard to see, and it's one reason I prefer Pentax (and my High Point Nikon F3) with pentaprisms.

The original Olympus 4/3 cameras were actually DSLRs (ie had optical viewfinders). From my recollection, they were smaller than the Canons and Nikons of the day, but the Pentax *istD was around the same size, and the smaller mirror and pentaprism in the Olympus bodies meant that the optical viewfinder illumination was severely compromised in dull lighting conditions. They were nicely built, but a dead-end.

Edit: the fixed-lens E-20 counts as a DSLT, I guess.

[boriscleto]

Only Sony today: yes. Only Sony in the past: no. I remember Canon had a DSLT camera as far back as the mid-60's, and that technology has continued with motion picture cameras as well....not just Sony.

Canon made a Digital camera in the 1960s? Amazing...

[Alex645]

Canon made a Digital camera in the 1960s? Amazing...

Good point; no it wasn't digital but it was using the translucent pellicle technology. It was the beginning of what we call DSLT today, but the first digital camera is attributed to Steven Sasson over at Eastman Kodak in '75, with Bryce Bayer developing the modern day digital sensor a year later.

[boriscleto]

Good point; no it wasn't digital but it was using the translucent pellicle technology. It was the beginning of what we call DSLT today, but the first digital camera is attributed to Steven Sasson over at Eastman Kodak in '75, with Bryce Bayer developing the modern day digital sensor a year later.

Sasson built the first CCD based digital camera, the CCD having been developed in 1973. 8 lbs and B&W only. It had a resolution of 10,000 pixel (0.01 megapixels). It wasn't until 1986 that they had developed a digital camera capable of printing a photo quality 5x7.

You can pretty much count on one hand the number of cameras produced with a Pellicle mirror before Sony resurrected the idea.

1963 Topcon RE Super
1965 Canon Pellix
1971-1998 Nikon F HS, Nikon F2H, Nikon F3 HS
1972 Canon F-1 High Speed (For Sapporo Olympics)
1984 Canon New F-1 High Speed (For Los Angeles Olympics)
1989 Canon EOS RT
1994 Canon EOS-1N

And Sony has abandoned the idea again it would seem. Nothing since the A99 four years ago.

[Alex645]

You can pretty much count on one hand the number of cameras produced with a Pellicle mirror before Sony resurrected the idea.
.

Yes, the pellicle reflex has been uncommon in SLRs but is pretty much the standard in motion picture cameras from Panavision, Cinema Products, Arriflex, etc. As a motion picture camera operator you really have to keep your eye on the finder to prevent light re-entering the camera, and the pellicle reflex flickering at 24 fps is both dark (unless you're shooting wide open) and annoying. I think this technology resurfaces into SLRs from time to time because it is actively employed in high speed photography and cinematography.