Why are DSLR bodies bigger than film era SLR?

Started Jan 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
PK24X36NOW Senior Member • Posts: 1,570
Re: Why are DSLR bodies bigger than film era SLR?

Yes, I never liked an SLR without a winder attached, as it was too small to hold comfortably. I think dSLRs NEED to be bigger (as did autofocus film SLRs) in this era of lenses with motors in them and such, otherwise the lens + camera combination becomes awkward to hold and use (think big fat lens and small camera). My manual focus lenses (Pentax system) were far smaller than current autofocus equivalents. I should qualify my statement with the fact that I shoot with primarily zooms, not that the typical prime lens hasn't also plumped up in the autofocus era. I think puny cameras are unpleasant to hold and use compared with a D3-type body, and agree entirely that their large size is primarily an ergonomic issue; they have room for more on-body controls and are more comfortable to hold.

Robert Hoy wrote:

ohmydentist wrote:

For example, I compared F6 with D700. Overall dimension are similar, but when you look at their volume, D700 is chunkier.

I think SLRs have been getting bigger and bigger throughout time mainly to be more ergonomic. My Pentax K1000 is not easy to hold and digs into the palm of my hand when I hold it for a long time. Bigger cameras with an ergonomic handgrip are easy to hold.
--
http://www.photographybyhoy.com
http://www.facebook.com/Photography.by.Hoy
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
KSV
KSV
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow