[pingflood]

but is that really just due to being FF? or is it more because of Canon and to a good extent Nikons choice in body design?

I would be inclined to agree with you... I didn't state it clearly, but I meant that if you wanted FF today you do have a size penalty based on the bodies currently available. I really find it hard to believe that you couldn't make a far more compact one. You'd need a bigger mirror box, but the flange-sensor distance would remain the same so the only increase could be in width, and frankly the mirror box isn't THAT big even on FF gear.

(All that said, the size of the 1DsII + 24-105 no longer really bothers me, and I happily carry it around most places. But sometimes it's nice to travel real light and basic, and the M + 50 or 35 is just the ticket for that.)

[séamuis]

I would be inclined to agree with you... I didn't state it clearly, but I meant that if you wanted FF today you do have a size penalty based on the bodies currently available. I really find it hard to believe that you couldn't make a far more compact one. You'd need a bigger mirror box, but the flange-sensor distance would remain the same so the only increase could be in width, and frankly the mirror box isn't THAT big even on FF gear.

so why is it that Canon and Nikon choose such large body designs? do you find the size of the 1Ds to be beneficial or a hindrance? (EDIT: you answered that while I was typing) so was it a hindrance at first? I love the size of the K-7, I love the size of my K-m and my istD and my MX . I cant even stand the battery grip for the istD, but I do find it useful from time to time, concerning the added heft and its benefits for portrait shooting. I bet Pentax could blow a lot of people away with a K-7 sized FF body. too bad really...

[pingflood]

so why is it that Canon and Nikon choose such large body designs? do you find the size of the 1Ds to be beneficial or a hindrance? I love the size of the K-7, I love the size of my K-m and my istD and my MX . I cant even stand the battery grip for the istD, but I do find it useful from time to time, concerning the added heft and its benefits for portrait shooting. I bet Pentax could blow a lot of people away with a K-7 sized FF body. too bad really...

Good question. Part of the reason for the massiveness of the 1D/1Ds is that the battery is about the size and weight of your average DSLR (the entire bottom part is just battery). It's also built extremely heavily to hold up to all kinds of abuse. The big pentaprism occupies a lot of space too -- not sure if it's the best/most efficient design, but the viewfinder is damned nice I have to admit.

I have mixed feelings about its size and weight. When shooting it can really help keep things stable (remember, us Canonites don't get SR), and it balances really well with long, heavy glass. On the other hand, it can be damned tiring to shoot with when using big lenses.

Now, the D700 and the 5D I can't really explain. They don't have huge batteries and at least the 5D doesn't have the tank like build.

[KungPOW]

Camera body size has is a design feature that will never please everyone.

Many people when they first pick up a DSLR are suprised at how big it is. Compaired to the P&S that they have in their pocket, a DSLR looks huge.

For other people, after using a DSLR for a while, the size is really not a problem anymore. Personally, I like a larger camera. I find the larger body to be more comfortable, and easier to use. Especially in cold weather when I am wearing gloves. Of the cameras I use, I like the fit of the F100 the best. It is almost the same size as the D700, D300, and A850/A900.

The draw back to a camera of this size, is portability, and stealth. If I am shooting candids, a big camera, with a big lens, draws big attention. Often it is attention I don't want.

You just cannot have it both ways.

[Pentaxor]

Not in low-light / high-ISO. The D700 (and D3) are still the best camera ever made in these conditions.

that is yet to be seen. I'm only giving a possible scenario which maybe not far-fetched but basing from the specs that the A850 have and the D700. it's also a question of lowlight/ high ISO noise performance considering that the A850 mp sensor is twice as that of the D700. once the A850 comes out and tested both at 24mp/12mp versus to that of the D700's 12mp, and if the A850's 12MP results come out really good, equal or better, given the fact that the A850 has an additional 12 MP and the possibility of using Pentax lenses for FF and APS-C use, would you still consider that the D700 is better?
the D700 could only manage 5MP using strictly APS-C lenses under DX mode, while the Sony is able to boost that at 11MP.
IQ-wise, Price-Wise, and Lens-wise - I think it's obvious who's the clear winner. but as I said, we still have to wait for it to come out and see how the IQ really goes. I wouldn't mind looking at comparative High-ISO IQ results from both systems at 12MP. because that seems to be the big issue that the A850 might have over the D700.

anyway, just in case that the A850 lives up to the expectation once it comes out, I think you still wouldn't mind staying or preferring the D700 over the A850. because it's better overall eversince.

[johnmflores]

Good question. Part of the reason for the massiveness of the 1D/1Ds is that the battery is about the size and weight of your average DSLR (the entire bottom part is just battery). It's also built extremely heavily to hold up to all kinds of abuse. The big pentaprism occupies a lot of space too -- not sure if it's the best/most efficient design, but the viewfinder is damned nice I have to admit.

I have mixed feelings about its size and weight. When shooting it can really help keep things stable (remember, us Canonites don't get SR), and it balances really well with long, heavy glass. On the other hand, it can be damned tiring to shoot with when using big lenses.

Now, the D700 and the 5D I can't really explain. They don't have huge batteries and at least the 5D doesn't have the tank like build.

Maybe FF bodies are large because they are very often mated to larger, faster FF glass? Maybe making them K-7 sized doesn't make sense because FF glass is typically larger? Even my DA* 16-50/F2.8 overwhelms my wife's diminutive K2000/K-m.

I'd much rather prefer Pentax focusing on becoming a specialist with APS-C, to build out their family of DA lenses to complement their APS-C bodies, instead of releasing a FF and having incomplete lens lineups for two formats.

APS-C, after all, is sufficient for 90% of photographers 90% of the time.

[séamuis]

Maybe FF bodies are large because they are very often mated to larger, faster FF glass? Maybe making them K-7 sized doesn't make sense because FF glass is typically larger? Even my DA* 16-50/F2.8 overwhelms my wife's diminutive K2000/K-m.

I'd much rather prefer Pentax focusing on becoming a specialist with APS-C, to build out their family of DA lenses to complement their APS-C bodies, instead of releasing a FF and having incomplete lens lineups for two formats.

APS-C, after all, is sufficient for 90% of photographers 90% of the time.

thats a bit strange... I mean FF glass pairs nicely with much smaller film SLRs. I think some people have been spoiled by the DA limiteds.... or have the idea that FF equals canon and nikon body size. FF lenses are really no bigger than APS-C lenses. if the DA* 16-50 was a DFA* 16-50 it would be the same size. your wifes k-m is small. period. but an MX with the same lens attached would be even more diminutive. its a large lens. no need to go making bodies larger just because the lens is. that's ridiculous.

[johnmflores]

FF lenses are really no bigger than APS-C lenses.

Really? You better call up Nikon and tell them that how to make their FF glass smaller.

Because they are making their FF standard zooms too big:
APS-C
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED
3.4" x 4.4", 755 grams
(it's interesting to note that the DA* 16-50 2.8 is even smaller at 3.3" x 3.9", 565 grams)

Full-Frame
AF-S Nikkor 24-70 /2.8G ED
3.3" x 5.2", 900 grams

APS-C
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED
2.7" x 3.1", 255g

Full-Frame
AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G
2.9" x 4.6", 425g

Same with their image stabilised zooms:
APS-C
AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200 f/4-5.6 IF-ED
2.9" x 2.9", 335 grams

Full-Frame
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300m f/4.5-5.6 IF-ED
3.1" x 5.6", 745 grams

To deny that imaging circle doesn't affect lens size is in complete denial of the facts. One look at the lenses that are coming out for micro 4/3rds should make that pretty clear.

Besides, current buyers of FF dSLRs are more likely than your weekend shooter to mount big, heavy, fast, high-quality, pro-grade glass, so a body that balances those big lenses better is a smart ergonomic decision.

And I didn't appreciate that you called my claims "ridiculous".

[Pentaxor]

Maybe FF bodies are large because they are very often mated to larger, faster FF glass? Maybe making them K-7 sized doesn't make sense because FF glass is typically larger? Even my DA* 16-50/F2.8 overwhelms my wife's diminutive K2000/K-m.

I'd much rather prefer Pentax focusing on becoming a specialist with APS-C, to build out their family of DA lenses to complement their APS-C bodies, instead of releasing a FF and having incomplete lens lineups for two formats.

APS-C, after all, is sufficient for 90% of photographers 90% of the time.

bigger than a 645 lens?

[séamuis]

first of all, I don't much care what you appreciate and what you don't. do you always take things personal and get offended when someone disagrees with something you say? I stand by what I said and wont apologize for anything. I wasn't rude, your comparison is in my eyes ridiculous. period.

second, YES nikon builds there lenses too large, and zooms are larger by nature anyhow. not everyone uses zooms, much less all zooms. why are you comparing nikon lenses, and then pushing that as proof? it proves nothing. nikon lenses are completely different from Pentax lenses and do not in any way represent what FF sizes should be. also the size difference (not taking into account differences in focal lengths and thus optical formulas) is miniscule overall between APS-C and FF. on paper yea it looks like a bit when comparing the lenses you listed. but in real world use, you wouldn't notice much difference. especially after your arms get tired. I never said image circle didn't effect lens size, what 'facts' am I denying? as for Oly... they promised smaller lenses and have yet to deliver. again what does this prove?

my point is that (especially regarding zooms) size between APS-C and FF is so little that most lenses (particularly anything from about 85mm and up) will be about the same size as an equal focal length FF lens. in a lot of cases there would be no difference at all if the lenses all had the same features. lighter? yes, smaller glass, mostly with wide angle focal lengths. beyond that, where is the difference?

take the DA* 55mm 1.4. its comparable in size and even weight with the FF FA* 85mm 1.4. despite the 55 being an APS-C lens and a shorter focal length. increase the focal length to 85mm and what do you want to bet they would be almost identical in overall size and weight?

im not saying that there is NO difference in size and weight between an APS-C lens and a FF lens, what I am saying is that its small and depending on the lens in particular, small enough to not even matter. as for balance. thats a matter of opinion based on the individual. personally I do better with a smaller body, whether its a larger lens or a tiny little prime.

how do you know what the typical buyer of a FF camera is? and what lenses they will likely be using? I bet the typical 5D buyer isn't some "pro" carrying around a massive L series, constant aperture zoom.

Really? You better call up Nikon and tell them that how to make their FF glass smaller.

Because they are making their FF standard zooms too big:
APS-C
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED
3.4" x 4.4", 755 grams
(it's interesting to note that the DA* 16-50 2.8 is even smaller at 3.3" x 3.9", 565 grams)

Full-Frame
AF-S Nikkor 24-70 /2.8G ED
3.3" x 5.2", 900 grams

APS-C
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED
2.7" x 3.1", 255g

Full-Frame
AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G
2.9" x 4.6", 425g

Same with their image stabilised zooms:
APS-C
AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200 f/4-5.6 IF-ED
2.9" x 2.9", 335 grams

Full-Frame
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300m f/4.5-5.6 IF-ED
3.1" x 5.6", 745 grams

To deny that imaging circle doesn't affect lens size is in complete denial of the facts. One look at the lenses that are coming out for micro 4/3rds should make that pretty clear.

Besides, current buyers of FF dSLRs are more likely than your weekend shooter to mount big, heavy, fast, high-quality, pro-grade glass, so a body that balances those big lenses better is a smart ergonomic decision.

And I didn't appreciate that you called my claims "ridiculous".

[raymeedc]

how do you know what the typical buyer of a FF camera is? and what lenses they will likely be using?

Quite right. I'm a user of strictly "small" prime lenses, pining for a Pentax FF model, while dreading the possibility that it will be a huge, unwieldy monster. As close to *ist size" that they can keep it, the happier I'll be. I also, by the way, have a couple of like minded Pentaxian friends.

[johnmflores]

first of all, I don't much care what you appreciate and what you don't. do you always take things personal and get offended when someone disagrees with something you say? I stand by what I said and wont apologize for anything. I wasn't rude, your comparison is in my eyes ridiculous. period.

You need to take a chill pill, man. Maybe get off the Internets and take some more pictures.

second, YES nikon builds there lenses too large, and zooms are larger by nature anyhow. not everyone uses zooms, much less all zooms. why are you comparing nikon lenses, and then pushing that as proof?

Because photons don't care who made the glass that they are passing through. In order to make a valid comparison between full-frame lenses and APS-C lenses, I had to go to a manufacture that makes both. I'd imagine that if I'd gone to Canon the story would be similar.

I never said image circle didn't effect lens size, what 'facts' am I denying?

Now you are just contradicting yourself:

FF lenses are really no bigger than APS-C lenses. if the DA* 16-50 was a DFA* 16-50 it would be the same size.

Have you ever taken a college-level physics course, specifically regarding optics?

as for Oly... they promised smaller lenses and have yet to deliver. again what does this prove?

But Panasonic has:

take the DA* 55mm 1.4. its comparable in size and even weight with the FF FA* 85mm 1.4. despite the 55 being an APS-C lens and a shorter focal length. increase the focal length to 85mm and what do you want to bet they would be almost identical in overall size and weight?

You're conveniently forgetting that the DA* has SDM.

how do you know what the typical buyer of a FF camera is? and what lenses they will likely be using? I bet the typical 5D buyer isn't some "pro" carrying around a massive L series, constant aperture zoom.

I'd be happy to take you on that wager. The current FF pricepoints are high enough that people considering them understand the benefits of quality glass. I won't argue that they are using primes vs. zooms, but I'll put money that they are buying or aspiring to big, fast glass, not kit lenses from Rebels.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt - hoping that in the rush to post you didn't chose your words quite so carefully. I guess I was wrong.

[rparmar]

I will sit up and take notice when Sony releases a 645 digital at $2000.

Or when Pentax does.

Until then, I'm off buying film on one hand. And rocking with a K20D plus 50/1.2 on the other.

[johnmflores]

bigger than a 645 lens?

Not following you here, Pentaxor. Are you suggesting that a 645 lens isn't much bigger than a 35mm or APS-c counterpart despite that larger format? I don't know much about medium format, but I'd imagine that the distance from the mount to the imagine plane (register) is greater based on pictures that I've seen. Here's a link I just found:

mounts.htm

Look at the Pentaxes. It's interesting that the Panasonic G1 - a micro 4/3 EVIL is listed right above. Look at it's tiny register - the benefit of not having a mirror.

That increased register distance of the 645 gives the light rays more distance to expand and land on the larger film.

[séamuis]

You need to take a chill pill, man. Maybe get off the Internets and take some more pictures.

I could tell you the same thing.



Because photons don't care who made the glass that they are passing through. In order to make a valid comparison between full-frame lenses and APS-C lenses, I had to go to a manufacture that makes both. I'd imagine that if I'd gone to Canon the story would be similar.

of course. they both build similar lens types with similar features built into the lens. plus they are both oversized.



Now you are just contradicting yourself:

how so? I in fact never said it. you assumed that's what I meant. it isnt. I am very well aware that it does. again, my point is that the differences are very small in overall size and weight particularly after a the mild telephoto focal length (actual FL not APS-C cropped FL) and I also tried to show that comparing two sets of lenses from a manufacturer of varying focal lengths and optical formulas shows nothing. they are different lenses in focal length. that is a big variable.

Have you ever taken a college-level physics course, specifically regarding optics?

no. have you? care to share insights if you have? what would it matter if I didn't? I know enough of the basics to be able to debate the subject. larger image circle=larger glass. larger max aperture=larger glass. this is magnified as you increase focal length. true for any format. however the difference between the APS-C format and 135 format is small enough concerning image circle that as I have already stated: FF lenses are really no bigger than APS-C lenses for the same lens types. and after a certain focal length they are identical.



But Panasonic has:




You're conveniently forgetting that the DA* has SDM.

no im not. the motor is small and doesn't weight a whole lot. the FA* also has an aperture ring. ok, take the FA* 85 and decrease it to 55mm. same image circle but reduced focal length. put that optical formula in a DA* body gain an SDM motor and lose the aperture ring. what do you want to bet they would be almost identical in size and weight? one is APS-C and one is FF.



I'd be happy to take you on that wager. The current FF pricepoints are high enough that people considering them understand the benefits of quality glass. I won't argue that they are using primes vs. zooms, but I'll put money that they are buying or aspiring to big, fast glass, not kit lenses from Rebels.

sure the buyers know the benefits of quality glass. but I would be more than willing to bet that between 35-45% or higher of current 5D buyers/users are either using AF or manual focus primes. small, light lenses. this would be different for other FF bodies such as the 1Ds series. but not for the 5D. I cant say on the 5D Mk II, but I imagine its similar. the 5D is an enthusiast level "budget" FF camera that is incredibly popular with alternative lens users. I said nothing about kit lenses.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt - hoping that in the rush to post you didn't chose your words quite so carefully. I guess I was wrong.

so I DID choose them carefully? or am I reading this wrong?