Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-26-2009, 07:45 AM   #61
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
Don't you guys have something else better to do??? Nit-piking over one word.

Go shoot some pictures......

05-26-2009, 08:29 AM   #62
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
Pictures? With a camera? Surely you're joking!
05-27-2009, 06:53 AM   #63
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
Solid construction and weight have little to do with one another. One can certainly have a brick of a camera that is built like crap, or a lighter tightly made unit.
Lightweight can also mean plasticky (as the Canon Rebel is IMHO), so I wouldn't say it has "little to do" w/ how solid the construction is.
Engineering is balancing things, including unfortunately cost. To put metals in a body to make it more solid means more weight...
05-28-2009, 05:18 AM   #64
Forum Member
irchan's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 55
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
I never had a winder for my ME super. Never needed one, never wanted one, and have v rarely used the continuous mode on any digital camera. I'm not interested in action photos; I do landscapes, and that stuff is not much use for landscapes. Similarly, autofocus is not important, I prefer to compose a picture, focus it and shoot, and the time needed for a manual focus is trivial. YMMV if you do a difft style of photography.

So for my uses, the winder is a red herring: the actual weight of my ME Super body is 445g, plus film: say about 480 grams. The "lightweight" K7 is 50% heavier, at 750g (inc battery_SD card)
Why would you need small/lightweight camera for landscapes? Shuldn't you'll bring atleast tripod and lots of filters anyway? heck, why not using 120film? since you only shoot landscape

And i shoot z-1 + fa20-35mm which is bigger than k7


Last edited by irchan; 05-28-2009 at 05:29 AM.
05-28-2009, 05:28 AM   #65
Veteran Member
distudio's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Photos: Albums
Posts: 448
QuoteOriginally posted by irchan Quote
Why would you need small/lightweight camera for landscapes? Shuldn't you'll bring atleast tripod and lots of filters anyway? heck, why not using 120film anyway, since you only shoot landscape
It depends how far you have to trek to shoot your landscape, I shoot my Mamiya 7 hand held quite often and the results are superb even under a 30x loupe.
05-28-2009, 05:36 AM   #66
Forum Member
irchan's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 55
Yea, but.. Should you want to shoot slow-speed also? Waterfalls, startrails, waves, etc.. Just curious why need lightweight camera for landscape tho
05-28-2009, 03:26 PM   #67
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 27
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by irchan Quote
Yea, but.. Should you want to shoot slow-speed also? Waterfalls, startrails, waves, etc.. Just curious why need lightweight camera for landscape tho
Because most of the landscape I like photographing isn't accessible by car, and the less gear I have to carry, the better. The lighter the setup, the more likely I am to be in a place where good photos can be taken.
05-28-2009, 04:10 PM   #68
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 184
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
I'm glad that the K7 isn't any heavier than my very heavy K20D, and any weight-saving is a step in the right direction. But the difference is so small that it will probably be completely un-noticed in use.
dave9t5 pretty thoroughly debunked your statement that since "lightweight" wasn't explicitly qualified as "for its class" that it was somehow a flawed claim, so I won't repeat what he said. There are lighter cameras, and if that is your primary need then definitely look at those other options.

If the K20D is "very heavy" for you, then you're in the wrong product segment. You should be looking at primarily plastic cameras--K2000, Digital Rebel, etc. For the rest of us, the K-7 is plenty small and light for its feature set. Any smaller and it wouldn't be comfortable. Any lighter and it wouldn't be as durable. I think it hits a very nice sweet spot of weight vs. durability, maximizing weight savings as much as possible without sacrificing durability.

Obviously go with what works for you. But the K-7 is relatively lightweight and that's not hype.

05-28-2009, 08:42 PM   #69
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 27
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
dave9t5 pretty thoroughly debunked your statement that since "lightweight" wasn't explicitly qualified as "for its class" that it was somehow a flawed claim, so I won't repeat what he said. There are lighter cameras, and if that is your primary need then definitely look at those other options.
No he didn't.

He quoted an entirely different piece of promotional material, and just repeated the assertion that I should have followed those who inferred into the ad I read some things that it didn't say.

But clearly some people are mortally offended that I criticised Pentax marketing, even though I been a Pentax SLR user for over 20 years, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
If the K20D is "very heavy" for you, then you're in the wrong product segment. You should be looking at primarily plastic cameras--K2000, Digital Rebel, etc.
I had one overriding reason for not going for those cameras: the Pentax K-m and other models at that end of the market lack the dust-sealing which is needed to cope with the fact that dSLRs are much more vulnerable to dust than film SLRs. With careful design, good sealing should add much to the weight, although it does push up the price.

The other major reason was that I don't want an expensive piece of kit like an SLR body to be wrapped in a flimsy plastic shell. Film SLRs managed to be lightweight despite having a metal case, and the plastic shells are an exercise in cost-savings in tooling and in manufacture rather than lightness. Metal has a higher strength-to-weight ratio than plastic.

I also don't want all the kindergarten scene-setting modes which clutter up the K-m.

QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
For the rest of us, the K-7 is plenty small and light for its feature set. Any smaller and it wouldn't be comfortable. Any lighter and it wouldn't be as durable. I think it hits a very nice sweet spot of weight vs. durability, maximizing weight savings as much as possible without sacrificing durability.
I'm not really concerned about size, and I having tried the smaller dSLRs, most of them are just too small. My concern is weight.

But the point which you seem to be missing is that lighter doesn't mean less durable: that depends on the strength-to-weight ratio of the materials used. Since the plastics in use are not composites, a plastic-bodied camera has to be a lot heavier to match the strength of a metal one, and a light plastic camera is fragile thing.

QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
Obviously go with what works for you.
Indeed, and you likewise.

QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
But the K-7 is relatively lightweight and that's not hype.
Relatively lightweight compared to some bricks which cost twice as much, but still heavy compared with the lightweight cameras which Pentax used to produce.

Those who want all the bells-and-whistles of the K-7 can indeed now get them in a lighter package than the Canikon offerings, and I'm delighted for those who find that works for them. If the K7 as good as the more sober previews suggest, I'm sure that Pentax will justifiably sell lots of them.

But those of who are happy to leave video to video cameras and aren't fussed over the larger screen (which has displaced some handily-located buttons) still have to choose between a brick and a fragile plastic toy.

There's a gap in the market here, which won't be met by Canikon, who seem to delight in keeping their affordable cameras fragile as a marketing distinction from their very expensive models. It's for a robust, lightweight, camera which dumps the things like video that dSLRs do badly, doesn't try to maximise the screen size, and doesn't try to build into the camera tasks which are usually performed off-camera.

In film SLR days, Pentax offered a choice of relatively simple cameras: the K-series and the M-series. K was cheap and heavy, M was pricier and lighter, but their feature sets overlapped a lot. It would be great to see that sort of choice returning.
05-29-2009, 12:33 AM   #70
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Budapest
Posts: 821
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
The other major reason was that I don't want an expensive piece of kit like an SLR body to be wrapped in a flimsy plastic shell.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but all current Pentax DSLRs (including the K-m) have the same plastic outer shell on stainless steel frame. K7 will be the only different one.

QuoteQuote:
I also don't want all the kindergarten scene-setting modes which clutter up the K-m.

Then don't use them, duh *facepalm* Btw K20D and K7D also have many of those.

Looks like no Pentax DSLR is good enough for you.
05-29-2009, 12:35 AM   #71
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Budapest
Posts: 821
QuoteOriginally posted by Yohan Pamudji Quote
You should be looking at primarily plastic cameras--K2000,
And you should better be looking at tech.specs. It's as "primarily plastic" as all other Pentax DSLRs.
05-29-2009, 07:27 AM   #72
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 27
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by simico Quote
Sorry to burst your bubble, but all current Pentax DSLRs (including the K-m) have the same plastic outer shell on stainless steel frame. K7 will be the only different one.
Yes, they have a plastic shell, but the K20D appears to be a rather more solid plastic shell. That may just be a mistaken impression, but after poking around several current models from Pentax and Canikon, the K20D appeared to me to be a little more robust. Still plastic, but a bit more of the plastic, to make up for the deficiencies of that material.

QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
I also don't want all the kindergarten scene-setting modes which clutter up the K-m.
QuoteOriginally posted by simico Quote
Then don't use them, duh *facepalm* Btw K20D and K7D also have many of those.
Unused settings are just clutter, which gets in the way. Sure, the K20D has some of tehse, but not so many.

QuoteOriginally posted by simico Quote
Looks like no Pentax DSLR is good enough for you.
Where on earth did you get that weird idea from?

If I didn't think that a Pentax K20D was one of the best of the current crop of dSLRs, I wouldn't have gone out and bought one.

My point is that the choice on offer all falls a long way short of my ideal. A solid but light metal body would suit me much better, and those who want more weight to balance a monster lens could attach a battery pack to add weight, and a few lead weights if that isn't enough.
05-29-2009, 10:00 AM   #73
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
Yes, they have a plastic shell, but the K20D appears to be a rather more solid plastic shell. That may just be a mistaken impression, but after poking around several current models from Pentax and Canikon, the K20D appeared to me to be a little more robust. Still plastic, but a bit more of the plastic, to make up for the deficiencies of that material.
I think at this point one needs to differentiate "plastic" in general from "polycarbonate" in particular. Whatever deficiencies one typically associates with plastic, not all of them actually apply to polycarbonates. In some ways, a polycarbonate can arguably be a *better* shell (over a steel frame) for an electronic device than most metals. But I'm not a materials scientist, so I'll leave it to others to supply details if Google doesn't settle the matter to your satisfaction.

QuoteQuote:
My point is that the choice on offer all falls a long way short of my ideal. A solid but light metal body would suit me much better
Me too, but I think you're being unrealistic about the possibilities. Sure, there were much lighter film cameras, but few of them were weather sealed, they required much less battery power, and in any case they were largely hollow compared to a DSLR.
05-29-2009, 10:18 AM   #74
Veteran Member
Duck Dodgers's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: in the 24½th Century!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 439
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
[...] and in any case they were largely hollow compared to a DSLR.
THAT pretty much sums it up. Comparing any DSLR to an SLR is a red herring.

I, personally, felt it was obvious that Pentax was referring to the competition. But, since it wasn't *explicit* enough for some, I suppose this silly thread will go on and on...

05-29-2009, 10:49 AM   #75
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 27
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Me too, but I think you're being unrealistic about the possibilities. Sure, there were much lighter film cameras, but few of them were weather sealed, they required much less battery power, and in any case they were largely hollow compared to a DSLR.
DSLRs are generally heavy, and there seems to be an acceptance by many posters to this thread that this is inevitable. I'm not so sure, partly because it seems to me that the shift to digital imaging has occurred at about the same time as (or shortly after) a shift in the availability of more robust plastics.

Also, DSLR model lives are quite short: 2-3 years seems to be about the max in most cases, compared with up to a decade for film SLRs, so if (as I suspect), plastic bodies are cheaper and/or quicker to tool up for or more suited to robotised production, that may make them a more attractive proposition for a relatively short manufacturing run. Only a guess, but it may be a factor.

Similarly, since a DSLR is likely to be seriously outmoded after five years, manufacturers may be less inclined to make a camera which will take a decade of knocks. The professional photographers I know kept their film bodies for many years, but spend a lot of money changing their digital bodies at a much faster rate.

However, back to what makes DSLRs so heavy. Has anyone actually done or seen an analysis of the weight of DSLRs components? They do need much bigger batteries, but where is the rest of the weight going? Circuitry, screens, or sensors?

It seems to me unlikely that weather-sealing adds much to the weight -- a bundle of small neoprene seals isn't very heavy -- but maybe someone knows different.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
battery, body, camera, card, dslr, hype, k20d, k7, lens, photography, sd, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Official Inception Hype Thread deadwolfbones General Talk 11 07-11-2010 07:07 AM
Good, lightweight ballheads? Miguel Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 6 03-06-2010 09:59 AM
K-7 hype getting attention outside Pentax forum? Douglas_of_Sweden Pentax News and Rumors 45 05-24-2009 03:19 AM
lightweight ballhead, not too $$$? deuces Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 8 01-15-2009 02:27 PM
Lightweight tripod ixian Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 34 11-07-2008 08:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:48 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top