When did big become bad?

i see lots of negativity towards the size of larger gear, but who decided 'big is bad' ?
And when is big too big? And small....... too small?
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
every day's a curry day

You can track the precise date by checking when Amalric purchased an m43

But beware, you'll get a Nikon tag on your forhead by talking about big lenses. Oh wait - did you already talk about them ? Well, he tagged you already. Big deal.

My definitin would be

Big is too big when you miss shots because of the large size
Small is too small when you miss shots because it is too fiddly

More important than big or small is probably ergonomics and whether you find it easy to take pictures
--



Oly e-fivetwenty, seventy-threehundred, eFZed50, Oly TeeCON17, RaynoxDCR150 DCR250
My Galleries are at
http://picasaweb.google.com/trevorfcarpenter

Big is not necessarily bad if it's unavoidable (like big 35mm and MF cameras), but some people feel that big FT cameras make little sense because the sensor is quite smaller than 35mm, yet cameras are almost as big (for example E3 vs D700 or 5D).

I tend to agree, but again pro lenses like Oly f2 zooms need bigger cameras to support them properly, definitely nothing smaller than E-1.

--
Cheers,
Marin

I think it must be balanced a 300mm F2.8 isn't working on a small body. For me the E-3 is small enough ;-)

regards Walter
--
Missed a photo posting from me? Look at my website, it's free!
~ http://www.waltersoestbergen.nl/ ~ renewed

illy said:

i see lots of negativity towards the size of larger gear, but who decided 'big is bad' ?
And when is big too big? And small....... too small?

Click to expand...

For me, it was 1979. That's when I purchased my Olympus OM2n. One of the factors in my decision was the small size of the body. (The other major factor was the off-the-film metering.)

Sterling
--
Lens Grit

SterlingBjorndahl said:

illy said:

i see lots of negativity towards the size of larger gear, but who decided 'big is bad' ?
And when is big too big? And small....... too small?

Click to expand...

For me, it was 1979. That's when I purchased my Olympus OM2n. One of the factors in my decision was the small size of the body. (The other major factor was the off-the-film metering.)

Click to expand...

For me, it was when I got a Nikkormat in 1975 (if I recall correctly), the F2 was way too heavy for me.

SterlingBjorndahl said:

Sterling
--
Lens Grit

Click to expand...

--
'Photos are what remain when the memories are forgotten' - Angular Mo.

or good. Whether you like your gear big or small is personal preference. Canon and Nikon would not make huge bricks for their pro models if that wasn't what their market place wants. On the other hand, we are here on the Oly SLR Talk forum, and the major advantage the Four Thirds system offers over others is less size and weight. It's natural therefore that the self-selecting set of people here will be predominantly those who prefer small and light over big and heavy.

After all, if you're going to make a big heavy camera, you might as well put a big sensor in it too, and gain the advantages that gives.

illy said:

i see lots of negativity towards the size of larger gear, but who decided 'big is bad' ?
And when is big too big? And small....... too small?
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
every day's a curry day

Click to expand...

Tyrone Wellhung said:

or good. Whether you like your gear big or small is personal preference. Canon and Nikon would not make huge bricks for their pro models if that wasn't what their market place wants. On the other hand, we are here on the Oly SLR Talk forum, and the major advantage the Four Thirds system offers over others is less size and weight. It's natural therefore that the self-selecting set of people here will be predominantly those who prefer small and light over big and heavy.

After all, if you're going to make a big heavy camera, you might as well put a big sensor in it too, and gain the advantages that gives.

Click to expand...

I believe the discussion stems from another one where the obvious was suddenly realized: big lenses are not very well suited for m43 cameras because of the flimsy batteries powering said cameras (DUH ). Hence - they need a "stronger" body to power them.

Hence, big lenses are bad. Hence, anyone talking good about them is a Nikon troll, trying to justify his/her purchase. Yes, m43 lenses are the next best thing after sliced bread, even though they are an average of x1.6 times more expensive for a usually worse than its 4/3 equivalent product. And yes, it was on the Olympus forum, and it was about Olympus lenses.

Long story short - SHG lenses are all junk, because they are big and the m43 cameras will pee on themselves trying to power them up. Please dump these lenses. Dumpster is this way, just behind my door.

Please do so fast, before someone releases an m43 camera with a decent battery pack, and SHG lenses become the best thing before sliced bread.

goblin said:

You can track the precise date by checking when Amalric purchased an m43

Click to expand...

Brilliant!

Personally I've found the Pentax K-7 to be just about the perfect size for a DSLR body for me. Pity they don't use 4/3 lenses...

--
MFBernstein

'Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.' - Ed Abbey

illy said:

i see lots of negativity towards the size of larger gear, but who decided 'big is bad' ?
And when is big too big? And small....... too small?
--

Click to expand...

It's more a question of intent, or how you want to use the gear. The E system was originally launched as a professional camera system with the E1. I used the camera professionally for some yrs and found the size and handling optimum for the work. Would I have wanted smaller for the work? No. Do I want a more compact camera with EVF? No. Depends on the intention.

There's a load of smoke and BS about the E1&E3 plus HG/SHG being as bulky as FF and therefore pointless.

Now, lets have a look at how big FF lenses would have to be to pull in the same performance across the entire zoom range wide open and corner-to-corner.

Or lets have a look at the RAW files to compare the distortion of the original 7-14 and the Micro 4/3 7-14 and you'll see the original 4/3 design with longer registration had significant merits.

Big isn't bad...until you've been toting it around for a few hours.

I bought some large, military surplus winter boots a couple of years ago. I couldn't believe how comfortable they were. At 40 below, they were as warm and comfy as bedroom slippers. I thought to myself, "These things are fantastic...why doesn't EVERYBODY have a pair of these?"

I wore them on a hike. After three miles, I was sweating like a pig. Those super warm. comfy boots were about 35% heavier than other boots. I didn't notice the weight at first but, after hauling them around for a couple of hours I was beat. Had I truly been in the middle of nowhere, those boots may have literally killed me.

I like to go to car shows. Sometimes, I'll be walking in the hot summer sun for three to four hours with a camera around my neck. I'm sure a big camera wouldn't bother me at first. But, by that third hour, an extra few ounces dangling around your neck can take a real toll.

--

... when the photograph annihilates itself as medium to be no longer a sign but the thing itself...

it's too big when you can't physically use it, and too small when you throw it against a wall for being fiddly. I also think taking way too much gear you don't really need will negate any size advantage you might think you have. And remember to shoot from the hip with a big lens.......Rambo stylee
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
every day's a curry day

Yep, hikes uphill have a way of convincing you of the value of lite weight. I brought almost my full bag (with 12-60, 50-200 and 7-14 )on a hike last month and really did not want it after a while. Only used the 12-60.

Then of course a few days ago I was hiking with only the 50 f2 and an eagle comes soaring slowly by in great light, eye level, nice background, carrying a fat, hairy marmot in its claws. Sure did wish I was carrying the 50-200. Quite a sight.

--
John Krumm
Juneau, AK

Big is too big when there's a lighter alternative that does the job.

It's a pretty safe assumption that-- all other things being equal --lighter is better. Those who want to deny it are relentlessly being refuted by the market.

Since smaller and lighter was supposed to be the Oly advantage, I am surprised that you're raising this.

When the OM system was originally released, you could get the same results from an OM kit at about half the sheer mass of the Canon or Nikon kit that had all the same focal lengths and f-stops. Perhaps you would continue using your dedicated Canon/Nikon kit that you've spend untold thousand on on close range assignments, but if you ever try to scale a mountain with a bunch of gear, you'll soon wish that you didn't have all that mass with you.

True story: My OM-1 MD with Winder 1 attached has similar size and mass to a Canon FD-mount SLR of the same period with no motor drive.

Nowadays though, I would probably carry with me one lens on one camera and no tripod in the same situations where one would previously carry several lenses and a sturdy tripod. All of the sub-fullframe kits end up weighing about the same, unless you're into telephoto any slower than f/2.0--here, Olympus truly retains its size advantage.

From the 90s onward, ergonomics have become a more important consideration than size/weight alone. How does it handle? The camera's handling is not only affected by size and weight, but also by its design. I find, of the current crop of DSLRs, Olympus to be the best handling, followed by Nikon. Canon seems to be designed for people with large hands but short fingers. YMMV.

--
http://www.photoklarno.com

--

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.

illy said:

i see lots of negativity towards the size of larger gear, but who decided 'big is bad' ?
And when is big too big? And small....... too small?
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
every day's a curry day

Click to expand...

you gotta hump in that 16lb tripod. Nothing else really compares...even the SHG lenses.

--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'

Being big is not in itself a issue or anything bad, being big and excess when not needing be is the issue ( as many would testify to the E3 vs APS-C DSLR or even FF )

Its the same with being small ...

--

• Franka -