When did big become bad?

Smaller sizer is the raison d'etre of 4/3rds. If you wish to be educated in the 4/3rds philosophy, check this out.

http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/index.html

Big is bad if it hurts your back.

Small is too small whan you can't handle it or it won't give you what you need/want.

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...

Big becomes bad when the size adds weight to what Im toting around all day..

Anything that is heavier than my E-1 with a 50-200 on it isnt going to go to an event with me..

I sometimes actually have the camera in my hands for 9 or 10 hours on an "Event day"..

Its not that I "can't" carry the weight, its just that I see no point in torturing myself..

Right now, the camera/lens Im most likely to have in my hands at an event is the E-620, with the ZD 40-150 (old style) and Fl-50, or the E-1 with the Sigma 18-125, and FL-50.

Thats enough for me to carry all day.
--
Larry

illy said:

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

Click to expand...

No-one . . . you need an E-3, or better still, a D700.

Mike
--
Gear: Panasonic FZ8, Fuji F20, Olympus E-600/14-42/40-150.
Wish List:
1: Minimalist FZ9, same shape/size/weight as FZ5.
2: Failing that, an FZ35/38 with a better EVF and a tilt-swivel LCD
3: Noise reduction that can be switched OFF.

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...

OK, so the dSLR has some features earlier SLRs didn't have...but those features didn't have to make a dSLR thicker, bulkier, or heavier?

Many SLRs had built-in electronics, built-in flash, motor drives, and motorized lenses, and they were nothing like the size and weight of today's dSLRs. Heck, when I was a kid I even owned a 110 camera that had a motor drive and flash built-in, and it was very little difference in size and weight compared to other 110 cameras with flash.

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.

Click to expand...

But you chose to add the motor drive weight to the camera for added functionality, just like this weekend I'll be adding the HLD-3 grip to my E-300 for added functionality (more shots and easier portrait shooting) since I'm doing a portrait shoot this weekend...but after the shoot the grip is coming off again.

But for the average user, they typically didn't have a motor drive on their SLR; I even did (as an amateur) auto race photography and never felt the need for adding a motor drive. Having shot with FourThirds since the early days I've only tried the sequential shooting just after I bought the camera to see what it does, but haven't used it since; in my photography I haven't found a use for it, so other than the first month of owning the camera I haven't used it, and would gladly give it up if it would make the camera lighter and smaller, but we all know that's not the case, that the "motor drive" in dSLRs are part of all digitals (no more need to manually wind and reset the shutter as it's done for you), but that doesn't add bulk and weight as even the smallest P&S digitals have it built-in.

i'm sure some have, but the ones i personally know---i've never heard a peep about it.

for my part, big can be a help: it can be a lot easier to hold some larger gear still. my problem isn't with big, per se, it's with awkward. awkward comes in all sizes.

humping big gear long distances can be a pain---especially tripods, as astutely mentioned above---but the photographers i know just lump it. among the people i know i think there's a feeling that you use what you must and there's no point b*tiching about it.

Big is good.....for those of us that shoot with m4/3's camera's, it means people take no notice of us and assume we can't take high quality images, I'm all for that. Let the people who like big camera's and lenses take the limelight while the rest of us can inconspicuously shoot away, it's all good for me .
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Brent Gair said:

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.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This is often forgotten when discussing DSLR cameras. A DSLR is like an SLR with a motor drive. My OM2n could do 2.5 fps with the winder and four batteries, just like the E-500, but while the E-500 was heavier and larger than the OM-2n, when the winder and the batteries were added the size and weight disadvantage was gone and the OM-2n became heavier and larger than the E-3 if I am not wrong.

papillon_65 said:

Big is good.....for those of us that shoot with m4/3's camera's, it means people take no notice of us and assume we can't take high quality images, I'm all for that. Let the people who like big camera's and lenses take the limelight while the rest of us can inconspicuously shoot away, it's all good for me .

Click to expand...

Here is one you practically can hide behind.



That tiny "thing" on the right is a Hasselblad body...

Not THAT is a big lens.

olyflyer said:

papillon_65 said:

Big is good.....for those of us that shoot with m4/3's camera's, it means people take no notice of us and assume we can't take high quality images, I'm all for that. Let the people who like big camera's and lenses take the limelight while the rest of us can inconspicuously shoot away, it's all good for me .

Click to expand...

Here is one you practically can hide behind.



That tiny "thing" on the right is a Hasselblad body...

Not THAT is a big lens.

Click to expand...

That's perfect, now if I could get someone else to shoot with it nearby! Seriously, in a lot of situations DSLR's make people very wary these days. To not be taken seriously is a good thing in many situations, it also means that you're a lesser target for thieves although I guess you could argue a smaller camera is easier to steal.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

papillon_65 said:

Big is good.....for those of us that shoot with m4/3's camera's, it means people take no notice of us and assume we can't take high quality images, I'm all for that. Let the people who like big camera's and lenses take the limelight while the rest of us can inconspicuously shoot away, it's all good for me .
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

I'm 6'7" it doesn't matter which camera i use i tend to get noticed lol, i really think most people see you have a camera then just tend to ignore you unless you do something strange, if someone points out i have a big camera or lens it's either because they have an interest or they are just weird
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
every day's a curry day

illy said:

papillon_65 said:

Big is good.....for those of us that shoot with m4/3's camera's, it means people take no notice of us and assume we can't take high quality images, I'm all for that. Let the people who like big camera's and lenses take the limelight while the rest of us can inconspicuously shoot away, it's all good for me .
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

I'm 6'7" it doesn't matter which camera i use i tend to get noticed lol, i really think most people see you have a camera then just tend to ignore you unless you do something strange, if someone points out i have a big camera or lens it's either because they have an interest or they are just weird
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
every day's a curry day

Click to expand...

Being a diminutive 6' 2" I guess it's slightly different for me lol. Bigger camera's attract attention, smaller camera's less so. I'm going to a weekend festival at the end of August and DSLR's are banned so I'm banking on my EPL-1 being acceptable, which will be good as it's something of a wolf in sheeps clothing in terms of IQ.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

Kuppenbender said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, Leica and now Micro, the Leica of the poor are the ideal size, at least for a photographic world centered around the human factor.

Interesting hobbies as they might be, it makes me laugh to see some behemots used for macro bugs or distant deer. Of course Astronomy too is a hobby, but some use Micro for it too.

Basically I like a camera that does not draw attention or makes me look as a wealthy tourst.

Am.

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

and a matter of what you are willing to carry.

I used to pack a tripod mounted Samyang 100-500mm w 2x on my OM-4, but these days, the biggest lens I'm willing to carry is the 70-300 (or a 600mm mirror), and the tripod only comes out at night... And I find my E5xx bodies perfectly sized.

Smaller? well, my Stylus fits in a shirt pocket, but I find I can't hold it... w/o mounting it on some kind of handle (a mini tripod works)

But I don't expect what works for me will work for everyone else... If there was one perfect size camera for everyone, then all cameras would be that size...
--
Art P
Select images may be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sigvarius/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cecropia_grove/

Go waaay back in time, look at the new Olympus OM-1 35MM film camera. Smaller than any FF digital ever made, smaller than almost all crop. It was a choice, the pro's didn't drop all their large equipment, but a what of people embrace it.

Make a FF digital the size of the OM-1 (only 30 years later), a lot of travel photographers would be estatic.

whenever "it" is to big or bulky or heavy (or valuable, or can't be exposed to the elements) that it limits your freedom, then it's too big:

• weighs you down on a hike, or even a simple stroll
• is too bulky to fit a normal bag so you take it on many less trips
• makes you look like a photographer and people shy away
• makes you too conspicuous so you have to avoid various spots including more iffy ones
• is too valuable so you can't leave it in your car / on your train seat / other and at the same time it's too bulky to carry with you
• it rains or snows or whatever and where a compact would fit in an inside pocket only to be taken out for the shots, either the big thing stays home, or you need to cover it up (despite the weather sealing you don't really dare to risk ruining it)
• in various places or for various activities (climbing, sailing, etc) you'd prefer not to risk damaging it

When I sum it all up, I'd say the upper end is something like a 550D (or D90) with a 50mm 1.8 lens, or maybe a GF1 w the kit lens, or a superzoom, or of course a compact.

at least in some English speaking cultures.

Have you ever heard:

Small bad wolf
Small bad world
Small bad boy?

Contrast this with:

Big bad wolf
Big bad world
Big bad boy

Big evokes the feeling of increased threat, most bad characters in movies are portrayed as big; such as Jabba the Hut, Sauron. It is an ingrained cultural thing that has penetrated mass psyche.

Very perceptive
--
Kiwi Scribe

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unforcederror/

I like big cameras , my decision for 4/3 has other reasons [nt]
cheers ( drinking Pommern Korn )
Martin

Before you go to bed, say good night here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=35837166