What if a "Pro" Body was made LIGHTER

[johnparas11zenfoliodotcom]

would you buy a "pro" body, top of the line, Flagship camera body of your favorite/chosen camera manufacturer if that camera body was made 50% or 60% lighter by using "plastic" (or whatever the tough plastic needs to be used to make it super sturdy and pliable like a magnesium alloy equivalent, which is what is usually used)...?

and let's say your pro work -- is a wedding photographer/studio photographer...you know where the body will not usually be exposed to rough and tough environments?

you know.. the camera body will look the same as teh existing Canon 1D mark something or Nikon D3x... only that it will be 60% lighter..?

will you buy it knowing it will perform teh same and knowing it will give the same super quality Images you get from a body made with a magnesium alloy chassis?

--
http://www.johnparas11.zenfolio.com

 

[28to70]

I'm sure both Nikon and Canon consider the weight of their cameras. You could try 3 04 helium balloons tied to your camera and see if it helps. Take it with a grain salt!

 

[NottsPhoto]

Like a shot.

Since the late 80's and the advent of AF, cameras and lenses have been getting bigger and bigger and heavier... and the price that a lot of photographers are paying is only now started to become odvious...

I have extenisve tendonitis in my right hand, pain in both shoulders, occaisonal pains in my arms, and occasional lower back problem...

And almost every one of the other guys that I know who has been working in simular circumstances.. (Ie press/sport/ editorial..) suffers from simular problems.

I now have a trolly in the car, have all my gear broken down into smaller packs so I can just take what I need... and have now got shot of my 1d series cameras, and replaced them with 5d and 7d's...

One of the main reasons I swopped from Nikon was to get the Canon 400 f4 DO... which is half the weight of the 300 2.8...

The whole point of the 35mm format was to be lite and portable... and now we are lugging around this stupidly heavy gear, and in reality a lot of people are gonna have problems in the future..

Sorry, This is a pet peeve of mine... peeps really need to be aware of just how bad carrying all this gear is..

--
http://www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.

 

[Outside]

Typical misconception. For a given rigidity and yield strength, magnesium is several times lighter than any plastic. The weight of a DSLR is mainly in the view finder and shutter assemblies.

It would certainly be possible to create a large, light DSLR using Canon 550 components for instance, but it wouldn't be a smart buy. Part of what allows a mostly plastic unit to maintain its tollerences over time is the small size.

 

[yvind Strm]

Hi

I would not go for a lighter model.

Personally, I find that the lighter a camera is, the more prone to camera movement it is.

I sure get more unsharp pictures with my dlsr than with my twice as heavy good old Nikon F3 with a motor drive. With my dslr I tend to use a tripod for most shots.

When travelling - in the film days, I never carried more than two bodies and 2-3 lenses + a Metz 45 sometimes + a tripod + a light meter.

On assignments, I added a 6x6, a 6x45 + two lenses+ a hard suitcase with strobes + lightstands for these + some umbrellas.

Oh, I got "carried" away.

would you buy a "pro" body, top of the line, Flagship camera body of your favorite/chosen camera manufacturer if that camera body was made 50% or 60% lighter by using "plastic" (or whatever the tough plastic needs to be used to make it super sturdy and pliable like a magnesium alloy equivalent, which is what is usually used)...?

and let's say your pro work -- is a wedding photographer/studio photographer...you know where the body will not usually be exposed to rough and tough environments?

you know.. the camera body will look the same as teh existing Canon 1D mark something or Nikon D3x... only that it will be 60% lighter..?

will you buy it knowing it will perform teh same and knowing it will give the same super quality Images you get from a body made with a magnesium alloy chassis?

--
http://www.johnparas11.zenfolio.com

--
Kind regards
Øyvind
My best images:
http://foto.nordjylland.biz/porta/Portfolio/Best/album/index.html
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking/sd14
SD14 Compendium:
http://www.foto.nordjylland.biz/SD14/sd-usertips.htm

 

[RDKirk]

The whole point of the 35mm format was to be lite and portable... and now we are lugging around this stupidly heavy gear, and in reality a lot of people are gonna have problems in the future..

Well, back in the 70s my Canon F-1 with the MF motor drive (ten AA batteries in the doggoned thing) was pretty darned heavy.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

 

[Charlie Self]

The whole point of the 35mm format was to be lite and portable... and now we are lugging around this stupidly heavy gear, and in reality a lot of people are gonna have problems in the future..

Well, back in the 70s my Canon F-1 with the MF motor drive (ten AA batteries in the doggoned thing) was pretty darned heavy.

Yeah, and add a 50' bulk back to it for real fun. I used that combo for a bit, but finally decided if I couldn't get it in 40 frames, having 200+ would help. I then worked on my technique a bit. I'm a lot older now, and I find today's DSLRs quite easy to handle.

--
Charlie Self



http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Like a shot.

Since the late 80's and the advent of AF, cameras and lenses have been getting bigger and bigger and heavier...

Actually, they haven't.

Comparing my working pre-AF and AF cameras...

• Nikon FA (625g) + MD-15 (390g) + 8 AA (208g) = 1223g
• Nikon F100 (785g) + 4 AA (104g) = 889g

The F100 is 4.3 frames/sec, the FA 3.2.

What happened when some of my lenses went AF? Mostly, they went down in weight, with the exception of the 200mm f4 micro-Nikkor.

• 70/80-200mm f2.8 -430g (1900g -> 1470g) and they added VR and AF-S and dropped the filter from 95mm to 77mm
• 85mm f1.4 -70g (620g -> 550g)
• 28mm f2.8 -55g (250g -> 195g)
• 135mm f2 -45g (860g -> 815g) and they added the DC "defocus control"
• 50mm f1.4 -20g (250g -> 230g)
• 20mm f2.8 +10g (260g -> 270g)
• 200mm f4 macro +110g (800g+280g -> 1190g)

and the price that a lot of photographers are paying is only now started to become odvious...

Do you mean odious or obvious?

Since the weight went down, there's nothing "odious". Since you didn't know the weight went down and assumed it went up, there's nothing "obvious", either.

I have extenisve tendonitis in my right hand, pain in both shoulders, occaisonal pains in my arms, and occasional lower back problem...

Then you're lucky that weights are going down, and that you've got improved ergonomics (aperture dial on the grip instead of the lens, etc).

And almost every one of the other guys that I know who has been working in simular circumstances.. (Ie press/sport/ editorial..) suffers from simular problems.

Ah, sports. The big teles mostly lost weight, too.

• 400mm f2.8 -530g (over a pound lighter, and it gained AF-S and VR)
• 500mm f4 +430g
• 600mm f4 -590g

I now have a trolly in the car, have all my gear broken down into smaller packs so I can just take what I need... and have now got shot of my 1d series cameras, and replaced them with 5d and 7d's...

One of the main reasons I swopped from Nikon was to get the Canon 400 f4 DO... which is half the weight of the 300 2.8...

And a stop slower.

The whole point of the 35mm format was to be lite and portable...

Leica still makes M rangefinders, film or digital, your choice.

The "whole point" of the "system cameras" from Nikon and Canon was to do anything . Including insane speeds. Have you compared a 1980 10 frame/second rig to a 2010 one? Again, they got smaller and lighter.

and now we are lugging around this stupidly heavy gear,

That's a philosophical change. Instead of bringing "barely enough" gear for particular missions, we bring "too much".

Anything we could do with 35mm film back in 1970 (and I remember what 1970 film was like) we can do better with an APS DSLR, a bouncy little 650g thing like a 50D or D90. It weighs as much as a 70s film camera stripped of its motor drive, except that the DSLR still motors along at 5 fps and it has more ergonomic controls (good for your tendinitis) and it's self contained for a 1000 shots instead of needing 30 rolls of film (another 450g) loaded.

and in reality a lot of people are gonna have problems in the future..

True. But only because the convenience of digital gets more people into the hobby, shooting more, carrying more gear more places.

Sorry, This is a pet peeve of mine... peeps really need to be aware of just how bad carrying all this gear is..

Yup. But you can't get that message through if your intro contains large, obvious errors like "Since the late 80's and the advent of AF, cameras and lenses have been getting bigger and bigger and heavier."

You've got to start with a strong foundation.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Typical misconception. For a given rigidity and yield strength, magnesium is several times lighter than any plastic. The weight of a DSLR is mainly in the view finder and shutter assemblies.

Exactly.

It would certainly be possible to create a large, light DSLR using Canon 550 components for instance, but it wouldn't be a smart buy. Part of what allows a mostly plastic unit to maintain its tollerences over time is the small size.

Yup. Hang a large prism on top, the heavy motors that move the thing along at 10 fps, and the plastics "creep".

You've saved me from having to counter the OP's errors in materials science. Thanks. I'd have probably been a lot more verbose.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[EOS3User]

The whole point of the 35mm format was to be lite and portable... and now we are lugging around this stupidly heavy gear, and in reality a lot of people are gonna have problems in the future..

Well, back in the 70s my Canon F-1 with the MF motor drive (ten AA batteries in the doggoned thing) was pretty darned heavy.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Back in "my" day, it was 3 x A-1
1 with a power winder and a 300 2.8
2 with motor drives (12 x AA) - wore out the bloody Ni-Cads in 3 or 4 years
35-105 on one, and 85mm on the other.
I think I had a T-70 or something in my back pocket for backup.

Now, it's 2 x 1Dwhatever with 28-70 and 70-200

The 1D2-3-4 is no heavier than the A-1 with 12xAA motor drive.

In between, I had 1VHS and EOS-3's with motor drive, Again, to me they all weigh the same.

 

[NottsPhoto]

Well, maybe I didnt go back far enough! (Time blurs..)

My Pre- AF kit was a reflection of the mid-late 70's.... and we simply didnt have the large f2.8 lenses, and motorized cameras were limited to some pretty exotic gear..

So most of the time I was on smaller fixed lenses... and non-motorized cameras.. Once you get into the 2.8 lenses and the motorized cameras, then the damage is done....

This didnt really change for me until the likes of the the Tokina AT-x came out... and the F3 with the nicads..... (Though I had a F2 with the big drive..) I had mates on Olympus OM series until the early 90's...

--
http://www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.

 

[carl english]

The main point you missed joseph was age of Photographer, I'm in my seventies now and everything seems heavier!! Why! even the print size in manuals is getting smaller, I think making Cameras heavier is a ploy to stop the old folk from using them.

 

[RedFox88]

Like a shot.

Since the late 80's and the advent of AF, cameras and lenses have been getting bigger and bigger and heavier...

Actually, they haven't.

Comparing my working pre-AF and AF cameras...

• Nikon FA (625g) + MD-15 (390g) + 8 AA (208g) = 1223g

d3x is 1260g including battery (probably 1, so if it'll take 2 batteries even heavier).

• Nikon F100 (785g) + 4 AA (104g) = 889g

The F100 is 4.3 frames/sec, the FA 3.2.

What happened when some of my lenses went AF? Mostly, they went down in weight, with the exception of the 200mm f4 micro-Nikkor.

• 70/80-200mm f2.8 -430g (1900g -> 1470g) and they added VR and AF-S and dropped the filter from 95mm to 77mm
• 85mm f1.4 -70g (620g -> 550g)
• 28mm f2.8 -55g (250g -> 195g)
• 135mm f2 -45g (860g -> 815g) and they added the DC "defocus control"
• 50mm f1.4 -20g (250g -> 230g)
• 20mm f2.8 +10g (260g -> 270g)
• 200mm f4 macro +110g (800g+280g -> 1190g)

and the price that a lot of photographers are paying is only now started to become odvious...

Do you mean odious or obvious?

Since the weight went down, there's nothing "odious". Since you didn't know the weight went down and assumed it went up, there's nothing "obvious", either.

I have extenisve tendonitis in my right hand, pain in both shoulders, occaisonal pains in my arms, and occasional lower back problem...

Then you're lucky that weights are going down, and that you've got improved ergonomics (aperture dial on the grip instead of the lens, etc).

And almost every one of the other guys that I know who has been working in simular circumstances.. (Ie press/sport/ editorial..) suffers from simular problems.

Ah, sports. The big teles mostly lost weight, too.

• 400mm f2.8 -530g (over a pound lighter, and it gained AF-S and VR)
• 500mm f4 +430g
• 600mm f4 -590g

I now have a trolly in the car, have all my gear broken down into smaller packs so I can just take what I need... and have now got shot of my 1d series cameras, and replaced them with 5d and 7d's...

One of the main reasons I swopped from Nikon was to get the Canon 400 f4 DO... which is half the weight of the 300 2.8...

And a stop slower.

The whole point of the 35mm format was to be lite and portable...

Leica still makes M rangefinders, film or digital, your choice.

The "whole point" of the "system cameras" from Nikon and Canon was to do anything . Including insane speeds. Have you compared a 1980 10 frame/second rig to a 2010 one? Again, they got smaller and lighter.

and now we are lugging around this stupidly heavy gear,

That's a philosophical change. Instead of bringing "barely enough" gear for particular missions, we bring "too much".

Anything we could do with 35mm film back in 1970 (and I remember what 1970 film was like) we can do better with an APS DSLR, a bouncy little 650g thing like a 50D or D90. It weighs as much as a 70s film camera stripped of its motor drive, except that the DSLR still motors along at 5 fps and it has more ergonomic controls (good for your tendinitis) and it's self contained for a 1000 shots instead of needing 30 rolls of film (another 450g) loaded.

and in reality a lot of people are gonna have problems in the future..

True. But only because the convenience of digital gets more people into the hobby, shooting more, carrying more gear more places.

Sorry, This is a pet peeve of mine... peeps really need to be aware of just how bad carrying all this gear is..

Yup. But you can't get that message through if your intro contains large, obvious errors like "Since the late 80's and the advent of AF, cameras and lenses have been getting bigger and bigger and heavier."

You've got to start with a strong foundation.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Osvaldo Cristo]

I agree completely. For my age the biggest problem is the print size and sharpness. I cannot understand how blurry they print currently...

Regards,
--
O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer

Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds . Franklin

 

[Charlie Self]

Well, maybe I didnt go back far enough! (Time blurs..)

My Pre- AF kit was a reflection of the mid-late 70's.... and we simply didnt have the large f2.8 lenses, and motorized cameras were limited to some pretty exotic gear..

So most of the time I was on smaller fixed lenses... and non-motorized cameras.. Once you get into the 2.8 lenses and the motorized cameras, then the damage is done....

This didnt really change for me until the likes of the the Tokina AT-x came out... and the F3 with the nicads..... (Though I had a F2 with the big drive..) I had mates on Olympus OM series until the early 90's...

As noted above, my 1971 gear at times included a motor drive on a Canon F1, sometimes with a 50' bulk back. I very much doubt there's any pro camera today that even approaches that rig. When I added a second body, with motor drive, I was halfway grateful to my drill instructors at Parris Island years before!

I graduated to Olympus's OM series when I quit shooting motorcycle races. I loved them, but they weren't all that much lighter than today's unencumbered DSLRs. Add a motor drive or power winder and zing--you just passed the heavier digital gear.

And, as Joseph noted, you had to make room for about 40 rolls of film if you didn't use a bulk back. Even with the bulk back there were additions. Carrying cartridge film was essential in case something broke on the bulk back (never did, but...), an extra 50' in the film can had to be carried, along with a changing back, and the beat goes on. If I were covering the same thing today, I'd slip 2-3 extra 16GB memory cards into holders, along with two extra camera batteries, and just go.

The overall load is much lighter than it was earlier for the same types of shooting.

--
Charlie Self



http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[Charlie Self]

The main point you missed joseph was age of Photographer, I'm in my seventies now and everything seems heavier!! Why! even the print size in manuals is getting smaller, I think making Cameras heavier is a ploy to stop the old folk from using them.

I'm 72 now, with exceptionally bad knees I hope to get replaced soon. Other health problems add to the fun, but I still don't see that toting a Pentax K20D is all that much problem. I may change to a Canon 60D for the articulated screen even after my knee replacements, but that's about it.

I cannot walk far, but that's the case with, or without, a couple, three pounds of camera gear. The gear hasn't gotten heavier, but I have!

--
Charlie Self



http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[AcquiredTaste]

No, I would not want anything lighter than what I have. The lighter cameras are not as comfortable to hold and tend to be more difficult to hold still.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

Well, maybe I didnt go back far enough! (Time blurs..)

My Pre- AF kit was a reflection of the mid-late 70's.... and we simply didnt have the large f2.8 lenses, and motorized cameras were limited to some pretty exotic gear..

Actually, my film kit included 2 or sometimes 3 Canon F1 bodies with motors and typically 4 or 5 prime lenses from 20mm through a 300 f2.8. And that's just what I carried on my person. There was more in the car.

Working in newspaper before zooms became good enough and fast enough for pro use I carried a ton of stuff. Enough lenses to cover whatever might happen, at least two bodies so I could keep two lenses ready (not to mention the fear of running out of film at the crucial moment). At least one flash with external battery pack. And so on. Oh, and 12 to 15 rolls of film.

At one point I and the other 2 photographers at the paper got into a dispute over who's kit was lightest. We took our bags and the gear we kept hanging around out necks to a scale and checked. The lightest kit was 38 pounds, the heaviest 42.

I suspect today's top pro cameras are every bit as heavy as the old F1, but the overall kit may be a little lighter. Seems like photographers today doing the kind of work I did get by with 2 bodies and 2 zooms, AA batteries in the flash, and of course they don't have to carry film.

Gato

--
Street Fashion and Alternative Portraits:
http://www.silvermirage.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Well, maybe I didnt go back far enough! (Time blurs..)

My Pre- AF kit was a reflection of the mid-late 70's.... and we simply didnt have the large f2.8 lenses,

That 80-200mm 2.8 goes back a pretty long way.

And you'll notice that my pre-AI kit included several manual focus primes, a 20, 28, and 50mm, that mostly got lighter in their AF versions (the 20mm, for reasons unknown, got 10 grams, 1/3 ounce heavier).

and motorized cameras were limited to some pretty exotic gear..

High speed motors were pretty exotic, but...

My first motorized camera was a Nikon FM2 with a Sears "house branded" winder that could move at an impressive 1.8 frames/second or so. I remember a friend of mine got a Nikon FG at JC Penny with their house brand winder. That winder cost $30.

So most of the time I was on smaller fixed lenses... and non-motorized cameras.. Once you get into the 2.8 lenses and the motorized cameras, then the damage is done....

Sort of. But today, you get the motor "free".

• Nikon FM - 618g with film
• Nikon D90 - 703g with battery and card

Now, you mentioned "extensive tendinitis" in your right hand. I'd say the FM's awkwardly placed, high effort shutter speed dial and shutter button, and the right hand position that puts the wrist in more extension than the D90 while also putting the fingers in more flexion, far far outweighs any damage you might have from an extra 85g.

Not to mention rewinding and changing film.

This didnt really change for me until the likes of the the Tokina AT-x came out...

Evil little things weren't they? High quality optics for the masses. AT-X 28-70mm f2.8, that's an old friend.

and the F3 with the nicads..... (Though I had a F2 with the big drive..) I had mates on Olympus OM series until the early 90's...

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Like a shot.

Since the late 80's and the advent of AF, cameras and lenses have been getting bigger and bigger and heavier...

Actually, they haven't.

Comparing my working pre-AF and AF cameras...

• Nikon FA (625g) + MD-15 (390g) + 8 AA (208g) = 1223g

d3x is 1260g including battery (probably 1, so if it'll take 2 batteries even heavier).

Wow. That's only 8g (1/4 ounce) heavier than the FA rig, once you load a 29g roll of film. Yeah, once you stop talking about "AF vs. MF" and start taking "digital" into consideration, you've got to look at film. Who would have imagined that the "flagship" pro body of 2010 would weigh so close to the same as the "intermediate" FA body and drive from the "pre-AF" days?

Now, there's a reason that I compared FA and F100. I always preferred competent, "medium weigh" cameras, generally preferring an FA to an F3, an F100 to an F5. And I'd put FA and F100 in the same "class", more or less. (Actually, when you adjust for 1983 money vs. 1999, FA+MD-15 is actually more expensive than F100).

But thank you for pointing out that a pre-AF "mid line" system like an FA weighs about as much as a 2010 "flagship" DSLR. I noticed that, myself, when I started carrying the D2X. Since you threw in a D3X (100% finder, mirror lockup, etc.) I think we should "upgrade" the film system a little...

• Nikon F3HP (760g) + MD-15 (480g) + 8 AA (208g) + roll of film (29g) = 1477g

And thank you for mentioning the extra EN-EL4a battery. The D3X can go over 800 shots on one battery. So, if you take more than one battery, you're making provision for shooting more than 800 shots.

800 shots on the pre-AF film rig involves 22 rolls of film, at 29g each, that's 638g. That's assuming that you can carry out your "mission" with one particular kind of film, or that you can break your 22 rolls down exactly to a plan, 14 rolls of Provia 100F, 4 rolls of TMAX 400, 4 rolls of Tech Pan, etc...

If you allow for a day that might go farther into high res B&W, or one that may be all chrome, you could easily end up with 50 rolls.

Now, maybe you're not planning an 800 shot "mission" and are carrying an extra battery "just to be safe". A D3X with EN-EL4a can give you an exact power reading on its batteries. A Nikon MD-15 or MD-4 can't. So, unless you're loading up a brand new set of alkalines before the mission, you're dealing with batteries that can go dead on surprisingly little notice. And that was long before 2000 mA-H NiMH and chargers that could condition the cells and charged each cell in parallel, so you got the unpredictability of series charged NiCad.

So...

• Nikon F3HP (760g) + MD-15 (480g) + 8 AA (208g) * 2 + roll of film (29g) * 22 = 2294g
• Nikon D3X (1260g) + spare EN-EL4e (160g) = 1420g

Yeah, that DSLR shaved a couple of pounds off the bag, by eliminating the archaic film "support system".

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com [/S]