Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-29-2009, 11:24 AM   #76
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
I suspect it all adds up. We're not talking differences several pounds here - just a few dozen grams. The battery, a sensor, an anti-alias filter, an A/D converter and necessary processing engine, a JPEG processing system, a shake reduction system, electronics and hardware to support the SD card, an orientation sensor, a large LCD, and not just a couple but *scores* of weatherseals - a few grams here, a few grams there and I don't see why you find it so surprising that a DSLR weighs what it does.

05-29-2009, 11:31 AM   #77
Senior Member
Mister Guy's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 244
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
DSLRs are generally heavy, and there seems to be an acceptance by many posters to this thread that this is inevitable.
Heavier than you'd like, but you seem to have glossed over an important bit that dave9t5 pointed out, which I'll return to in a second.

QuoteQuote:
Also, DSLR model lives are quite short: ... snipdigital bodies at a much faster rate.
That's because we're still on the front edge of what a DSLR will be, but I think we're closer to settling down onto a reasonable approximation of film than you give credit for. There's still a surprisingly large number of K10D and *istD floating around and surviving well. I seriously anticipate, much to Pentax's possible chagrin, there will be K-7's floating around for the better part of a decade or longer.

QuoteQuote:
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.
It all does. Autofocus motors, circuitry, screens, memory buffers, and one thing you've overlooked that dave9t5 pointed out indirectly: The built in card reader. While not overly heavy by itself, card reader in a digital camera is actually a fantastic space saving device.

Your film camera takes rolls of film that have 36 exposures, typically, each.
Your K20D takes a memory card that can take thousands of jpegs or several hundred RAW files.

Digital cameras, aside from all the NEW features, have made a dramatic reduction in the overall bulk of your entire kit, especially since any single one of those thousands of jpegs can have a different ISO than the picture directly before or directly after without changing the "film" at all.
05-29-2009, 11:33 AM   #78
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: carpentersville, IL
Posts: 693
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
The hype and enthusiasm for the supposedly lightweight K7 seems to me to be misplaced. The following figures are all from Pentax UK's website:

So the difference is 45g. That means that the K7 body is a staggering ... umm ... well ... 6.29% lighter than the K20D body. Not so staggering, is it?

But nobody uses a body on its own (unless they are using their camera as a cosh). Add on 220g for the std 18-55 II kit lens, 80g for the battery and SD card, and we're looking at a weight-saving of 45g off a K20D's 970g. That's 4.64% lighter.

Even using the lightest lens I can see (the smc DA 40 mm / 2,8 Limited at 90g), we're looking at the following minimum working weights:
  • K20D (715g) + battery&SDcard (80g) + lens (90g) = 885g
  • K7 (670g) + battery&SDcard (80g) + lens (90g) = 840g

So the lightest K7 combo is only 5.32% lighter than the lightest K20D combo.

But if we're using the smc DA 60-250 f/4.0 ED (1040g), the overall reduction in weight is only 2.45%.

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.

I really like my K20D, and I'm sure I'd like a K7 even more. But the hype is silly.
I don't think most people cared about the lightweight hype, simply cause there wasn't any. It was mostly size hype...
05-29-2009, 11:45 AM   #79
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CT / NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
I'm glad that the K7 isn't any heavier than my very heavy K20D
Exactly what you already knew: if it were 4% or 5% heavier, you'd complain. So it better be on the light side instead of heavy one.



05-29-2009, 12:28 PM   #80
Veteran Member
dave9t5's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada & Taichung, Taiwan
Photos: Albums
Posts: 316
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
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.

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.
AF sensor + motor 80g
SR/DR 75g
Wireless flash transmitter 60g
LV+seals+pentaprism 80g
4xAA's 60~120g

If a film body must be compared to a current dSLR body (which is pointless), then the only one even remotely comparable: PZ1-p ~955g including battery and film.

Plastic cameras can be as strong as metal due to this relationship: F = m*a
Since the acceleration of gravity (a) is constant, force (F) is directly proportional to mass. Therefore, an ~750g metal camera (K-7), when dropped, hits the ground 27% more force than a ~590g plastic camera (K-m). Your best bet is to find an K110D, it's about 550g, a K-7 will hit the ground with ~36% more force compared to it.
05-29-2009, 01:04 PM   #81
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 27
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dave9t5 Quote
Plastic cameras can be as strong as metal due to this relationship: F = m*a
Since the acceleration of gravity (a) is constant, force (F) is directly proportional to mass. Therefore, an ~750g metal camera (K-7), when dropped, hits the ground 27% more force than a ~590g plastic camera (K-m). Your best bet is to find an K110D, it's about 550g, a K-7 will hit the ground with ~36% more force compared to it.
You are still assuming that a metal camera will be heavier than a plastic one. If that was the case, the K7 would be heavier than the K20D, rather than lighter.
05-29-2009, 01:07 PM   #82
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 27
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I suspect it all adds up. We're not talking differences several pounds here - just a few dozen grams. The battery, a sensor, an anti-alias filter, an A/D converter and necessary processing engine, a JPEG processing system, a shake reduction system, electronics and hardware to support the SD card, an orientation sensor, a large LCD, and not just a couple but *scores* of weatherseals - a few grams here, a few grams there and I don't see why you find it so surprising that a DSLR weighs what it does.
From one perspective, yes -- there's a lot of stuff.

But. But but but ... compare weight between cameras which both include most of that list.

Nikon D40: 471 g (no battery) / 522g (with battery)
Nikon D90: 620 g (no battery) / 703 g (with battery)

That's 150g to 180g difference, depending on whether you include the battery.

Neither has shake reduction (it's in the lens on Nikons). I'm not sure whether either or both have an orientation sensor, But both have

* a sensor
* an anti-alias filter,
* an A/D converter and necessary processing engine
* a JPEG processing system,
* electronics and hardware to support the SD card
* a large LCD

OK, the D90 has a slightly larger LCD, and a pentasprism rather than a pentamirror ... but otherwise, we're just talking about a few more powerful silicon chips and a few lightweight control switches.

A compact camera has more or less all of these things, but plenty weigh in at 100-200g all in, so the electronics can't be all that heavy.

I'm inclined to wonder if the manufactures aren't partly using weight as an indicator of market segment.
05-29-2009, 01:41 PM   #83
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,464
Hee. I just don't understand how people can say even a K20d is 'big,' (seems 'camera-sized' to me. Very comparable to my primary film camera: a bit narrower. ) unless you're indeed comparing to like an ME Super: but even among film cameras, those are *tiny.* (I think Pentaxians may be a bit spoiled if they want it all *that* tiny. ) Without the grip on, the K20 really isn't a big deal, especially compared to the competition, (my Nikonian friend is always complaining about the bulk and weight of the D300, and he wouldn't think of adding a grip)

A serious camera *ought* to have some heft and at least enough size to be really stable with, if you asked me. Things which are too light are just not going to feel like much quality, anyway. Dense and compact is good.

It'd be nice to see, as someone mentioned, something K-M sized that's a 'photographer's camera' for when you need a teeny backup, but it seems unrealistic to expect too much to be packed into too small a camera, anyway.

05-29-2009, 01:50 PM   #84
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
I think Pentaxians may be a bit spoiled if they want it all *that* tiny.
I'd say you're right there! And why not? It's a Pentax hallmark.

I am glad the K-7 is smaller than the K20D and want the follow-up to be even smaller. Portability and discretion are important to me. That's why my favourite feature is the quiet shutter.

If Olympus could have packed SR into their smallest body I might not even be shooting Pentax now. That and the K-mount lenses were the two defining features for me.
05-29-2009, 07:05 PM   #85
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
From one perspective, yes -- there's a lot of stuff.

But. But but but ... compare weight between cameras which both include most of that list.

Nikon D40: 471 g (no battery) / 522g (with battery)
Nikon D90: 620 g (no battery) / 703 g (with battery)

That's 150g to 180g difference, depending on whether you include the battery.
Then I'd suggest you've just successfully calculated the weight of the things the D90 adds over the D40: the AF motor, the movie hardware, the larger LCD, the secondary AF system for liveview, the pentaprism (you do realize those things are solid glass, whereas a pentamirror is hollow?), the dust removal system, the the status LCD, etc - and of course, the larger body (which many professionals prefer).

So I'm not sure what your point is here. What I see from the comparison is that yes, these features do add up in size - and the bigger the body, the more it weighs, too, so the more "stuff" you cram in there, the more the camera will way simply because of the chassis and shell itself. None of this should be the slightest bit surprising.

QuoteQuote:
OK, the D90 has a slightly larger LCD, and a pentasprism rather than a pentamirror ... but otherwise, we're just talking about a few more powerful silicon chips and a few lightweight control switches.
Seems I found a few more differences than you did...
05-29-2009, 08:18 PM   #86
Senior Member
Mister Guy's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 244
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote

I'm inclined to wonder if the manufactures aren't partly using weight as an indicator of market segment.
I'm sure they are using weight of the lens they hope to put on the front of it as a factor when deciding how much weight they need to trim. Make the body too light and all lenses but primes would feel awkward on it. Higher end fast zooms weigh in in the ballpark of a pound each. If Pentax is intending this camera body to be the one on the end of those lenses, it would be awkward to expect it to be MUCH less than a pound for balance.

From all reports, the size is very well chosen to balance weight against outer dimensions. I can't wait to hold one.
05-29-2009, 10:19 PM   #87
Veteran Member
dave9t5's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada & Taichung, Taiwan
Photos: Albums
Posts: 316
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
You are still assuming that a metal camera will be heavier than a plastic one. If that was the case, the K7 would be heavier than the K20D, rather than lighter.
In your OP you complain that the K-7 is not light enough compared to the K20d.

But above, you affirm that the metal K-7 is indeed especially light compared to plastic K20D.

Well noted. You confirm that you are indeed simply a flame baiter.
05-30-2009, 07:02 AM   #88
Forum Member
irchan's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 55
QuoteOriginally posted by TwoLegged Quote
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.
and the idea of light camera for you is what.. me super? then compare it with K7 and you complaining 200gr difference?? oh please..

when i shoot somewhere far, at least i'll bring 10rolls of film, how much weight it adds up? not to mention how much space it takes. it's not like im complaining or anything, im really enjoying using 35mm film. but reading someone post whining about little gr weight diffece is just annoying man.
05-30-2009, 12:03 PM   #89
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 27
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dave9t5 Quote
In your OP you complain that the K-7 is not light enough compared to the K20d.

But above, you affirm that the metal K-7 is indeed especially light compared to plastic K20D.

Well noted. You confirm that you are indeed simply a flame baiter.
Dave9t5, are you unable to read, or do you just enjoy abusing others for something they didn't say?

If you actually read my initial post, you would see that I checked the figures and confirmed that the K7 is indeed lighter than the K20D, but by very little.

The post I am replying to, in which you indulge yourself my calling me a "flame baiter", was about whether a metal body is lighter than a heavy one, and I noted there ... what, exactly? That a K7 is lighter than a K20D, which is excatly what I noted at the start.

So, there is no inconsistency, and no flame bait.

Some people evidently like heavy cameras, which is fine; whatever floats your boat. Others find that a heavy camera provides better balance for a long and heavy lens, which is quite logical ... but not everyone makes much use of long, heavy lenses. Clearly there are different uses here, which dictate different requirements.

I don't know what the problem is with some posters on this thread, but there seems to be an amazing degree of emotional attachment to the latest Pentax product and a determination that it must not be criticised in any way.

If you read what I have written, I haven't said that the K7 is a bad camera; I haven't said that someone else makes a better alternative; I haven't criticised anyone who wants one. So this charge of "flame bait" is nonsense.

For my uses, I want a light and robust camera body. That may not be what you want, which is fine -- it'd be a boring world if everyone was the same -- but it's a great pity that you seem so determined to be abusive and rude to someone with different priorities, and so determined to prove to yourself that I am writing in bad faith that you will happily accuse me of saying things I haven't said so that you can attach abusive names to me.

My own usage is not like a profesional photographer. I make my living other ways, and the use which I make of my camera doesn't need 20 rolls of film or half-a-dozen big lenses; I'm quite happy to go out for the day with my camera and one light lens (possibly with another light prime in my pocket), find that my walks take me to a beautiful place, and take two dozen carefully-composed photos in the course of the day.

Since I'm not carrying a motor drive or a sack of lenses or dozens of film rolls, the weight of the camera body is the biggest weight in my photo kit. The weight of the camera body is particularly important to me because unlike a spare lens or other gadgetry, the camera body is hanging around my neck.

My K20D is a good camera, but its weight is a problem for me, and I would have a similar problem with the K7. If that's not a problem for you, that's fine, but if you want to discuss our different approaches it's a great pity that you seem unable or unwilling to do either be polite or to assume good faith.
05-30-2009, 12:17 PM   #90
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 27
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by irchan Quote
and the idea of light camera for you is what.. me super? then compare it with K7 and you complaining 200gr difference?? oh please..

when i shoot somewhere far, at least i'll bring 10rolls of film, how much weight it adds up? not to mention how much space it takes. it's not like im complaining or anything, im really enjoying using 35mm film. but reading someone post whining about little gr weight diffece is just annoying man.
Here we go again: more unecessary rudeness. Disagree if you want to, but if you have to restort to using words like "whining" it makes it look you don't have much of substance to say. (If you a serious point to make, the rudeness is unecessary)

When I carry extra rolls of film, I don't carry ten of them, and I don't hang them around my neck. 200g in my rucksack is neither here nor there, but 200g on a strap around my neck is a different matter, and it's a 40% weight increase over the ME Super.

I can live with that weight, but for me it's not a good thing. When I saw a link on a reseller's website to Pentax UK's page on the K7, I followed it and was delighted to see a statement that it was "lightweight". Yippee! At last, a return to lightweight SLRs ... but it turned out that the K7 is only 5% lighter than than the K20D, which was why I started this thread.

If you accuse me of "whining" about a 200g difference, then i hate to think what unprintable language you would use about Pentax making such a big deal of shaving 45g.
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 01:18 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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