Reading mode: Light Dark

When did big become bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter illy
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
jkrumm said:
Member said:
E3 plus 7-14 plus 12-60 plus 50-200, my fave all purpose system. For now.
Click to expand...
Very similar to my system, but with a 620, and boy it all gets heavy in a backpack, at least to me... But it sure is a nice package, compact but dense.
Click to expand...
I agree, the 4xx, 5xx and 6xx systems are very likeable.

I had the OM1 for 30 years, when camera upgrading was less fashionable.

Obviously the E-510 or even E-600 grip is much more secure, and nicely usable with one hand, especially with the IS.

But what surprised me when I first picked up even an E-410 was that it did not seem much smaller or lighter than my OM1. I had thought OK, lose the film spool at both sides, make the sensor quite a bit smaller than 35mm, replace metal with engineering plastics and you have a much smaller, lighter system.

The lenses became much smaller and lighter, but the body did not.

Probably because most SLR people thought/think that weight = solid quality, and light weight = cheap nasty plastic?

For me, weight is useful in steam rollers (what do they call the modern equivalent?) which are not intended to be carried round the neck.

The Toys R Us lightness of the FZ8 and FZ38 suits me fine, and does not affect IQ, and the E-Series lenses are similar, but the bodies seem weighed down by the past.

But they are likeable, as I said before.

Mike
--
Gear: Panasonic FZ38 (just), 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
 
Hokuto said:
is Brett Weston's "anything more than 500 meters from the car is just not photogenic" (or words to that effect). Big is bad when you don't feel like humping the gear far enough for a great photograph.
Click to expand...
In three years I covered only 8000 km with my car, a small Fiat. No wonder that I go for small cameras. Some shots I take from my balcony, though :)

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
Mikedigi said:
The lenses became much smaller and lighter, but the body did not.
Click to expand...
Neither did the lenses. The OM 50/1.8 weights 165g. The only Oly in that equivalent range is the 25/2.8 but it is an f/2.8, so it is not really comparable. The Nikkor E 50/1.8 weights 145g but the matching digital version, the 35/1.8 weights a whole 200g, 55g more. I don't think Olympus could make a 25/1.8 lighter than the OM version. In other words, lenses became heavier as well. But then, I know, they also have AF motors and electronics inside, which was not the case with those old lenses.
 
olyflyer said:
Mikedigi said:
The lenses became much smaller and lighter, but the body did not.
Click to expand...
Neither did the lenses. . . . .
Click to expand...
I was referring to my E-600's two kit lenses, the 14-42 and the 40-150, which is about as far as I am going. These are very compact and light. I doubt that they could be made any smaller or lighter.

Mike
 
My favourite camera of all time is the original Canon 1D (big!). My close second favourite is the GH1 from Panasonic (small).

I don't think size is as relevant as some make out. It's more ergonomics, lenses owned and ultimate IQ. At least for me.

I have a soft spot for Olympus cameras too, the E-410 (and later the E-510) was my first DSLR and it's still one of my favourites. Really enjoyed the E-1 too, but never liked the EP-1...not that it was too small, but too square. The E-410 also had no grip but it was much nicer to handle.
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...
--
dholl
 
Mikedigi said:
olyflyer said:
Mikedigi said:
The lenses became much smaller and lighter, but the body did not.
Click to expand...
Neither did the lenses. . . . .
Click to expand...
I was referring to my E-600's two kit lenses, the 14-42 and the 40-150, which is about as far as I am going. These are very compact and light. I doubt that they could be made any smaller or lighter.
Click to expand...
The 14-42 weights 190g. There is no exact match for that in the OM fora but the 35-70 f/3.5-4.8 which had a weight of 185g. It did not really had the same reach but it was a faster lens, so I guess for the 14-42 you are wrong. The 40-150 weights 220g and the closest OM zoom is the 85-250/5. That lens weights 905g.

This is where the system advantages show, as we all know. If you need a long lens the 40-150 is as light as it can get. At wider angle the opposite is true, but at longer focal length no doubt the cropped cameras have some advantages. To talk about lens weight in generic terms is however wrong.

Also you should not forget that zoom lenses have been developed over time more than prime lenses. Zooms were optically quite mediocre when the OM system was new and flourished. You should also not forget that all those OM lenses were metal tubes and not plastic, like the more modern, light weight lenses are.

Comparing lenses between systems is difficult if not all parameters are set to equivalent values between them. Comparing between two systems which are so many years apart is even more difficult since concentration was on primes before, while it is on zooms for Olympus now and it is impossible to find equivalent OM zooms from that age.
 
Rriley said:
i figure this came about when some of your pals began to hit on some of the SHG glass about its size and weight....
no matter how good it was, the argument said it weighed 'too much'

then it became the distortions of the equivalence debate from both sides that made weight an enemy

ironic in a way huh, but of course you'd forgotten that or would like too
Click to expand...
But I don't know if Sergey ever knew:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=26394070
 
and not too surprisingly
my comments were not directed at him...

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
How easy to forget that the µ4/3 14-42 is half the size and weight of the old one.
A folding design OC. but a game changer nonetheless.

Because before you could not pocket the combo, and now you can. That answers perfectly the OP question.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
amalric said:
How easy to forget that the µ4/3 14-42 is half the size and weight of the old one.
Click to expand...
We were discussing DSLRs, not the PEN. The new 14-42 is totally useless on a DSLR.
amalric said:
A folding design OC. but a game changer nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that the Panny is none the less smaller. Maybe that's the wrong impression... Anyway, I don't like the folding lens, in my opinion it destroys the "look" of the PEN.
amalric said:
Because before you could not pocket the combo, and now you can. That answers perfectly the OP question.
Click to expand...
You must have might big pockets... The Canon G10 is the biggest I can fit in my pocket, not that pockets are a good place for a camera unless you don't care about them. It won't take long before it gets a lot of scratches and other damages.

Anyway, here is a wish list of PEN lenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Pen_F

If you look at those weights... not bad. Of course, as said before, zooms were not available as they are today but I think we will forever drool over lens lists like that.
 
olyflyer said:
amalric said:
How easy to forget that the µ4/3 14-42 is half the size and weight of the old one.
Click to expand...
We were discussing DSLRs, not the PEN. The new 14-42 is totally useless on a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Who said so? No such clause was mentioned in the OP-
olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:
A folding design OC. but a game changer nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that the Panny is none the less smaller. Maybe that's the wrong impression... Anyway, I don't like the folding lens, in my opinion it destroys the "look" of the PEN.
Click to expand...
Yes the folding design 'destroyed' the Leicas before. LOL. I am afraid you are taking a lot of assumptions for free. Like the Panny's not having dustbusting.
olyflyer said:
olyflyer said:
Because before you could not pocket the combo, and now you can. That answers perfectly the OP question.
Click to expand...
You must have might big pockets... The Canon G10 is the biggest I can fit in my pocket, not that pockets are a good place for a camera unless you don't care about them. It won't take long before it gets a lot of scratches and other damages.
Click to expand...
Never heard of plastic bags? You must be a fetishist :)
olyflyer said:
Anyway, here is a wish list of PEN lenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Pen_F

If you look at those weights... not bad. Of course, as said before, zooms were not available as they are today but I think we will forever drool over lens lists like that.
Click to expand...
Yes, pat pat, yesterday was always bettet than what we can get today :)

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
amalric said:
olyflyer said:
amalric said:
How easy to forget that the µ4/3 14-42 is half the size and weight of the old one.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That’s wrong as well. The MFT 14-42 is 150g the “old” one is 190g. While it is smaller, it is very far from half the weight. You should have checked…
amalric said:
amalric said:
We were discussing DSLRs, not the PEN. The new 14-42 is totally useless on a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Who said so? No such clause was mentioned in the OP-
Click to expand...
It seems that you have once again ended up in a sub-forum without knowing it...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=35864789

Not a word about the EP-1 in that post or the following ones, as far as I remember. At least not until you jumped in to sell the PEN for us.

Or by saying "Who said so?" you mean the foldable 14-42 is usable on DSLRs?
amalric said:
amalric said:
amalric said:
A folding design OC. but a game changer nonetheless.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that the Panny is none the less smaller. Maybe that's the wrong impression... Anyway, I don't like the folding lens, in my opinion it destroys the "look" of the PEN.
Click to expand...
Yes the folding design 'destroyed' the Leicas before. LOL. I am afraid you are taking a lot of assumptions for free. Like the Panny's not having dustbusting.
Click to expand...
Again, you are a bit confusing. Don't I have the right to have my own taste? I don't care if a Leica uses the same design (do they really?) I can still have my own opinion about what I like and what I don't. The foldable design of Oly is in my opinion ugly. That's all. Also, please don't compare the EP cameras with a Leica... They are very far from each other, at least the models I have seen.

As for the Panny not having dust buster, it is not an "assumption" it was a guess since I saw no indication on the camera I handled. I did not read the manual, and if I was wrong than you could have corrected that without taking this sarcastic tune once again. Get down from your high horse instead of using smiley’s and sarcasm as soon as you find something which might not be correct. I suppose even you are occasionally wrong, aren’t you?
amalric said:
amalric said:
amalric said:
Because before you could not pocket the combo, and now you can. That answers perfectly the OP question.
Click to expand...
You must have might big pockets... The Canon G10 is the biggest I can fit in my pocket, not that pockets are a good place for a camera unless you don't care about them. It won't take long before it gets a lot of scratches and other damages.
Click to expand...
Never heard of plastic bags? You must be a fetishist :)
Click to expand...
Oh, come on... Smiley or not, you have a strange communication style around here nowadays.
amalric said:
amalric said:
Anyway, here is a wish list of PEN lenses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Pen_F

If you look at those weights... not bad. Of course, as said before, zooms were not available as they are today but I think we will forever drool over lens lists like that.
Click to expand...
Yes, pat pat, yesterday was always bettet than what we can get today :)
Click to expand...
In other words, everything is fine as it is, there is no need for fast lenses and the handful lenses available today are enough. Is that what you are saying? Because that’s not what I am reading when I read other people’s posts about lenses. Quite the opposite, I can very often see how it would be necessary to make high quality fast lenses even for the MFT. I guess they are all wrong, since it is good as it is according to you.

I no longer understand when you are serious, sarcastic or joking, which makes communication very difficult. We were comparing DSLR lenses with OM SLR lenses. You jump in, comment with the new 14-42 PEN zoom, and when I link a list of old PEN lenses to compare with...

:(
 
As for small vs. big . . . a wise person once said (a friends ex girlfiend :D ):

"It's not the size of the wand . . . but the magic in it!"

*
amalric said:
olyflyer said:
You must have might big pockets... The Canon G10 is the biggest I can fit in my pocket, not that pockets are a good place for a camera unless you don't care about them. It won't take long before it gets a lot of scratches and other damages.
Click to expand...
Never heard of plastic bags? You must be a fetishist :)
Click to expand...
The only thing a plastic bag will do in a pocket is keep lint off of the camera.

Putting a camera in ones' pants pocket is one of the biggest reasons I see broken cameras come in for repair.

Most popular repairs for these situations are broken lenses and busted LCD screens.

Not really the greatest way to carry around an expensive camera . . .

--
J. D.
Colorado

 
I completely agree.

What a great size / shape / feel for a camera body.

Too bad K-mount has no equivalent to the 12-60.

That said, Oly has nothing (50 f2 is a bit long for me) comparable to the limited primes.
 
MusicDoctorDJ said:
The only thing a plastic bag will do in a pocket is keep lint off of the camera.

Putting a camera in ones' pants pocket is one of the biggest reasons I see broken cameras come in for repair.

Most popular repairs for these situations are broken lenses and busted LCD screens.

Not really the greatest way to carry around an expensive camera . . .
Click to expand...
Well, I was jesting. However it's true that I carry a Pen in a pocket - inside a flash case. I also have a protective filter and an LCD protector. I feel very protected :)

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
olyflyer said:
. . . . If you need a long lens the 40-150 is as light as it can get. . . . .
Click to expand...
OK, I don't know about these detailed lens comparisons. My main point is that the body is still relatively heavy and could be a lot lighter with no performance disadvantage.

But if people like a heavy body and would not buy a lighter one, fine - that's psychology, not engineering.

Mike
--
Gear: Panasonic FZ38 (just), 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.
 
Rriley said:
i figure this came about when some of your pals began to hit on some of the SHG glass about its size and weight....
no matter how good it was, the argument said it weighed 'too much'

then it became the distortions of the equivalence debate from both sides that made weight an enemy

ironic in a way huh, but of course you'd forgotten that or would like too
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the issue is that it weighs 'too much' - simply that some of the SHG lenses negate the advantages of Four Thirds - smaller size, weight and cost, while not quite overcoming the advantages of 135FF, more DOF control and lower absolute levels of photon noise. Weight is not an enemy for all, but if you're prepared to put up with big, heavy and expensive cameras and lenses, 135FF gives you more in return than FT. If you want small and light, 135FF isn't in the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
p
Previous
n
Next
w
Next unread
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top