When did big become bad?

illy said:

i see lots of negativity towards the size of larger gear, but who decided 'big is bad' ?

Click to expand...

For me it was the reason why I didn't buy the E-1...it was too big, bulky, and heavy...compared to the film SLRs I've used for decades prior; even the smaller E-300 I did buy I found the grip on the body was overly large and the body overweight.

The E-4xx bodies are the size of what dSLRs should be...here it is next to the SLR I used for 20 years:



If the E-1 was that size I would have bought it. Instead Olympus treats the E-4xx bodies like a lower model due to its smaller size, stripped of features the bigger boys have.

Member said:

And when is big too big? And small....... too small?

Click to expand...

Well, that's a user preference. Unfortunately thanks to the E-300 I'm now used to bigger, heavier cameras and have trouble when I pick up an E-4xx body or smaller, so I'm stuck lugging bigger/heavier cameras; I will NEVER buy an E-3 or it's replacement as long as they make it in such a huge body...thanks a lot Olympus, you ruined my skills.

Bare bones SLR next to bare bones DSLR and it's hard to see the advantage of a DSLR.

The practical reality is a bit different.

A couple of days ago, I dug out my old Nikon F3. In order to do shooting in rapid sequence, you needed a motor drive. So it has the MD-4 Motor Drive attached that requires a whack of AA batteries. And the batteries will give out after a couple of hundred exposures. That thing is a TANK AND A HALF. I couldn't believe how big and heavy it was (is). You might as well carry around a car battery .

Now, if you look at something like my E-500 or E-510, it shoots almost as fast as the old MD-4 drive and you'll get 700+ exposures on a battery.

So...yeah...bare bones SLR vs. bare bones DSLR and the SLR wins.

But equip that SLR to do sequential shooting with enough batteries for over 700 exposures and it will probably weight twice as much as a comparable Oly DLSR.

market analyst and product analyst proposes new designs, ideas for innovations based on customer feedback from trouble tickets taken by call centers, direct sellers, online support. Hires GAP and business analysts , creates design specifications, create a new product name, submits ds to IT, IT sends ds to manufacturing, mfg submits date of completion, marketing selects channels, initiates marketing campaign for new product.

ideas like 4;3 will replace the bulky 35mm format. lenses will be smaller..portability. FF IQ in smaller format...etc. but the targeted FF further improves IQ, DR and resolution.

if only 4:3 will surpass technologically in all aspect the FF.

I like complementing gear. I want really small with small lenses (Micro Revolution) and the heft of a good DSLR for larger tele lenses. I think the E-1 and Pentax K7 are about the best size out there. Not cramped like I find the Rebel to be--plenty of tactile buttons for important settings.

If I add a Micro, it will be for different purposes, and it must be smaller. I think the NEX is getting too small. Most of the ultra slim cameras I would consider too small as well. The LX3 size is nice. The E-PL1/EP1/2 size is nice for what they offer. It's all good when you think of complementing systems. I think Micro is just too small to do everything well. And DSLRs are too big. If I had the money I'd collect the whole set.

Cheers,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

there were small cameras with film also and they never went away. This reminds me when PC's jumped up in power and everyone thought mainframes were doomed but turns out they were not- they just packed even more power in that space for a new generation of applications to run.

Thing is, what's going on if I see what happened with film is what happened with film- smaller capable cameras coming out. Ironically Olympus did this with film and it sure seemed to take them a while to get on to digital with it- or perhaps the level of technology required just wasn't there.

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

Mike_PEAT said:

If the E-1 was that size I would have bought it. Instead Olympus treats the E-4xx bodies like a lower model due to its smaller size, stripped of features the bigger boys have.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a perfect description of the E-620 to me. According to DPReview measurements, the E-620 is 3mm taller, 7mm wider, and 95g heavier. Surely those specs aren't too objectionable, given the features it adds:

• Image stabilization
• Flippy screen
• 12.3 megapixels (up from 10)
• Better high-ISO performance, including addition of ISO 3200
• 7-point autofocus (up from 3 points)
• Faster continuous shooting
• Moderately bigger viewfinder
• Art filters, aspect ratios, multi-exposure...need I go on?

When Oly designed the E-1, I think they shot for what had been the standard pro tool, the Nikon F series. It had been considered the right size for a long time, for pros.
The E-1 with the 14-54mm is about the same weight as the F2 + 50/1.4...



and then came the E-3....



--
Bob

I find Olympus gear to be just the right size, because I most always carry both cameras with me with lenses attached. I'm able to capture photos quickly without changing lenses. That works for me, but maybe others might not mind larger and heavier cameras & lenses. It's just what we individually prefer.

LinusP said:

Sounds like a perfect description of the E-620 to me.

Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy, but my current cameras (E-300 & E-330) are still working perfectly so there's no justification to get a new one. If I didn't mention it above I used my last SLR for 20 years.

Also after the E-330 every Oly made has been a downgrade in terms of its live view!

Big became bad when a "wannabe" wanders around at a public event, bumping and nudging people with his huge camera bag, as well as his Nikon D3 with great big zoom lens, but never actually takes any photographs! LOL

True story. Really. The guy in question would literally shove people aside with his camera bag, or ask them to move so they didn't bump his lens, and I never once saw him lift the camera to his eye and take a photo.
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

mfbernstein said:

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...

Click to expand...

Absolutely! My feelings exactly. Just a little larger than the E-620, but heft, build quality and feature set that put it to shame. The K-7 feels so much more substantial than it's absolute size.

With all the chatter about the (possible) demise of 4/3, I've found myself glancing at what the APS-C competition has on offer and keep wishing Olympus would just make lenses for other mounts. If I could have a 14-54 or 12-60 equivalent in K mount, I'd be a lot less anxious about Oly's future plans.

(I realize this is going off topic, but why is it that 14-54 or 12-60 equivalent lenses seem to be lacking on APS-C? The Canon, Nikon and Pentax f2.8 standard zooms are $1000+ and have less reach, as does Tamron's less expensive 17-50. I know these are all constant aperture lenses, but I wouldn't want f5.6 on the long end either. Sigma's 17-70 looks to be the closest match, but doesn't appear to measure up to the Zuikos in IQ. If Oly does ditch 4/3, these sorts of options are very disappointing.)

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...

When you realized a 500mm f/anything lens is too honking big for your mirrorless camera.

Mike_PEAT said:

LinusP said:

Sounds like a perfect description of the E-620 to me.

Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy, but my current cameras (E-300 & E-330) are still working perfectly so there's no justification to get a new one. If I didn't mention it above I used my last SLR for 20 years.

Also after the E-330 every Oly made has been a downgrade in terms of its live view!

Click to expand...

Don't own or haven't seen-handled the E30 with its four live view options -huh?

I believe it started with 9/11.

With new airport regulations, and other anti-terrorism preventions

Mind you in Japan, a population of urban commuters, small was always better. In America it took longer.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Hi Brent,

Brent Gair said:

Bare bones SLR next to bare bones DSLR and it's hard to see the advantage of a DSLR.

Click to expand...

(...)

Brent Gair said:

Now, if you look at something like my E-500 or E-510, it shoots almost as fast as the old MD-4 drive and you'll get 700+ exposures on a battery.

So...yeah...bare bones SLR vs. bare bones DSLR and the SLR wins.

Click to expand...

Well, yes. But I don't need sequential shooting. And with analogue SLRs, I had the choice to add a motor drive or not. I don't have that choice now: I can only buy full featured big DSLRs. So, if you want the DSLR to win, should somebody launch a bare bones DSLR without continuous shooting, high end measuring systems, super fast AF and so on ?

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens

The interchangable lens, Leica II coupled rangefinder.

Cameras have got bigger as more features were added, then smaller again - closer to Oscar Barnack's original design, as technology allowed.

CharlesB58 said:

Big became bad when a "wannabe" wanders around at a public event, bumping and nudging people with his huge camera bag, as well as his Nikon D3 with great big zoom lens, but never actually takes any photographs! LOL

True story. Really. The guy in question would literally shove people aside with his camera bag, or ask them to move so they didn't bump his lens, and I never once saw him lift the camera to his eye and take a photo.
--

Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.

http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/

http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/

Click to expand...

i see lots of lens caps on lenses slung around necks with hoods on backwards, i guess maybe they feel a little protective of their gear, saying that i need to superglue some bits on mine after i dropped it 6 feet..........don't worry the lens cap was in my pocket so it's safe and sound
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
every day's a curry day

sd40 said:

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.

Click to expand...

i felt the whole question was subjective, personally some of it i feel is a marketing gimmick to get people to buy new gear and some people genuinely want more compact gear, i also feel that by having a more compact setup and then taking more of it totally negates any benefit it could have.
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
every day's a curry day

I think looking at the reverse might prove helpful: When did big become good?

Forgive me for engaging in some slightly speculative history, but it seems to me that SLRs got a lot bigger with the adoption of autofocus. AF required motors, additional electronics and the batteries to drive them. Given the constraints of film SLR design (mirror box, film path, etc.), accommodating these meant larger bodies. This is when larger grips became standard (to hold batteries). With big batteries on board, it was then made sense to build in things that had previously been accessories, like motor drives, making bodies even larger. During this time, bigger bodies meant more features, many of which (AF, continuous drive) were very popular with pros and amateurs alike. For a while, it seemed that bigger really was better.

With digital, some of the constraints of SLR design have gone, namely the film path, freeing up a lot of space in the body for those electronics and batteries, and allowing designers greater freedom to create smaller bodies, e.g. by lobbing off what would have been to the left of the mirror box (E-1), loosing the grip (E-420, E-620), or just miniaturizing (K-7). Mirrorless systems open further possibilities. As people start to realize that bigger doesn't mean more features, or more features that they care about, those that would prefer smaller cameras can begin to demand them.

Big is bad when you have to think twice before grabbing your camera and going outside with your kids to play.

Big is bad when the size, weight and handling get in the way of taking a picture. Same applies to small. D700==too big, E-620==just right, EP2==too small, in my opinion.

Oleg

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...