Reading mode: Light Dark

D5500 is seriously small.... like mirrorless small

Go to last post
Seccotine said:
Kangaroo Court said:
Grats, you have stumbled on the truth behind camera size!!! ML isn't small bc it's ML, they just happen to be made that way (most of them) to appeal to certain consumers. The main differences inside the two are the VF and the mirror box, that's it.
Click to expand...
Funny not one single reflex camera is that small then, as the compact size of ML caneras is in no way linked to absence of mirror box, but just "happen to be". Must be that no DSLR people like compact cameras.
Click to expand...
Dude they could make a MFT SLR if they wanted to. They could design a smaller mirrorbox, smaller mirror, smaller sensor, the works. they could do that with 1" if they wanted to. And the miniaturization of cameras has only the two things I mentioned of difference between the two. ML and DSLRs both need sensors, they both need all the circuitry, they both need batteries.

The VF makes little difference overall, and the mirror box only ads depth for the center part of the camera. The reason you don't see small DSLRs is they haven't felt the need to appeal to an audience that wants smaller cameras. They are trying to win over some of the ML users who prefer smaller, so we are seeing that trend now.

There is no magical factor to ML that allows them to be smaller, it's all a choice of the MFG. In time we will see DSLRs that are as small or smaller than ML in every way except the lens mount will be slightly forward due to the mirror. That's it.
 
Seccotine said:
Chikubi said:
Seccotine said:
Kangaroo Court said:
Grats, you have stumbled on the truth behind camera size!!! ML isn't small bc it's ML, they just happen to be made that way (most of them) to appeal to certain consumers. The main differences inside the two are the VF and the mirror box, that's it.
Click to expand...
Funny not one single reflex camera is that small then, as the compact size of ML caneras is in no way linked to absence of mirror box, but just "happen to be". Must be that no DSLR people like compact cameras.
Click to expand...
You're right, ML cameras are not the size they are due to any physical limitations. They're the size they are due to marketing and nothing more, because there's no reason they couldn't make a ML camera the same size as a D4s or any other DSLR size for that matter if they wanted to except that the price/performance ratio would then be much more in favor of DSLRs and that would make ML less favorable and less likely to be purchased.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you didn't get my sarcasm, or I don't get yours..
Click to expand...
Hmm, that makes 3 of us then?
 
I had a film SLR that fit in a Pelican 1200 waterproof case, and still have the case, but not the camera.

I'm not buying anything taller than 89mm. I think Pentax made a DSLR that was small enough, but lately their cameras are getting bigger, just like dinosaurs before extinction.

P.S. Just read about the K-S2, 91mm tall, sorry I was behind on the news. Yikes, the orange bottom is ugly!
 
Last edited:
Kangaroo Court said:
Seccotine said:
Kangaroo Court said:
Grats, you have stumbled on the truth behind camera size!!! ML isn't small bc it's ML, they just happen to be made that way (most of them) to appeal to certain consumers. The main differences inside the two are the VF and the mirror box, that's it.
Click to expand...
Funny not one single reflex camera is that small then, as the compact size of ML caneras is in no way linked to absence of mirror box, but just "happen to be". Must be that no DSLR people like compact cameras.
Click to expand...
Dude they could make a MFT SLR if they wanted to. They could design a smaller mirrorbox, smaller mirror, smaller sensor, the works. they could do that with 1" if they wanted to. And the miniaturization of cameras has only the two things I mentioned of difference between the two. ML and DSLRs both need sensors, they both need all the circuitry, they both need batteries.

The VF makes little difference overall, and the mirror box only ads depth for the center part of the camera. The reason you don't see small DSLRs is they haven't felt the need to appeal to an audience that wants smaller cameras. They are trying to win over some of the ML users who prefer smaller, so we are seeing that trend now.

There is no magical factor to ML that allows them to be smaller, it's all a choice of the MFG. In time we will see DSLRs that are as small or smaller than ML in every way except the lens mount will be slightly forward due to the mirror. That's it.
Click to expand...
Right, not one DSLR maker is interested in compact cameras, since the dropping of a large physical part with ML's have no impact on size according to you. It's just 100% of DSLR world that like it chunky. They could have made cameras as compact as MLs if they just wanted. Sure.

It doesn't matter if you could make a DSLR with a 1mm sensor, the ML with 1mm sensor will always be smaller. Because there is less mechanical stuff in it.
 
Last edited:
The buffalo hump on the D5500 is quite fetching, some would say. In fact, the mirror-box hump is considered a mark of distinction by many DSLR users, even though it is an object of ridicule to just about everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Seccotine said:
Right, not one DSLR maker is interested in compact cameras, since the dropping of a large physical part with ML's have no impact on size according to you. It's just 100% of DSLR world that like it chunky. They could have made cameras as compact as MLs if they just wanted. Sure.

It doesn't matter if you could make a DSLR with a 1mm sensor, the ML with 1mm sensor will always be smaller. Because there is less mechanical stuff in it.
Click to expand...
Again, some people who actually want to use lenses longer than 200mm prefer a larger camera for better handling. Aside from the mirror box and small difference in the VF, if you know any other real reasons why ML would be smaller, I would love to hear it. In the mean time I will continue to buy larger cameras bc I want to. The SL1 tempted me not, instead I bought a much larger DSLR.
 
Kangaroo Court said:
Seccotine said:
Right, not one DSLR maker is interested in compact cameras, since the dropping of a large physical part with ML's have no impact on size according to you. It's just 100% of DSLR world that like it chunky. They could have made cameras as compact as MLs if they just wanted. Sure.

It doesn't matter if you could make a DSLR with a 1mm sensor, the ML with 1mm sensor will always be smaller. Because there is less mechanical stuff in it.
Click to expand...
Again, some people who actually want to use lenses longer than 200mm prefer a larger camera for better handling. Aside from the mirror box and small difference in the VF, if you know any other real reasons why ML would be smaller, I would love to hear it. In the mean time I will continue to buy larger cameras bc I want to. The SL1 tempted me not, instead I bought a much larger DSLR.
Click to expand...
Why would I need other reasons? They are -the- reasons, and they are plenty enough.

Good for you if you like big cameras and lenses. Cool beans, to each his own.
 
sportyaccordy said:
quezra said:
You just compared a FF camera with IBIS to an entry-level APS-C DSLR. Good job?

P.S. Canon SL1 is even smaller.
Click to expand...
How does IBIS affect body size? Most of the difference in size between the A7 and A7II is in the grip.
Click to expand...
Nope, the A7ii is thicker. And more than 100g heavier.
sportyaccordy said:
Nikon could put a FF sensor in the D5500 body no problem, the mount is the same.
Click to expand...
And yet they don't. Nor do Canon. The size of the OVF prism has to be made larger to give a good view, for example.
sportyaccordy said:
SL1 is shorter but has a thicker body when you subtract the grip. I.e. the point where your thumb and non index fingers pinch is thicker. D5500 is "mirrorless thin" at that point which from what I've seen is a first for DSLRs.
Click to expand...
The grip is literally the only thing that matters when carrying a heavy lens, in my opinion. Tiny body with huge grip still works very well, and Olympus knows it:

08-700x525.jpg


The center of gravity will be determined by the lens. Some people have a problem when the center of gravity is more towards the lens but not quite in the middle of the lens, and therefore they're unable to decide whether to hold their camera like a compact or a regular SLR (hand under lens). These are the people who complain that lenses "unbalance" a camera as if a 300/2.8 doesn't "unbalance" a DSLR just as bad. Such people simply need to learn that you should always hold a FF camera with hand under lens (and no camera is ever unbalanced once you have your hand under the lens, unless we're talking giant tele things like Bigmas), and no, a GM1 point-and-shoot grip is not how you hold a FF camera.
 
Kangaroo Court said:
sportyaccordy said:
For zooms, I agree; E mount is a class below. But for primes they have Canikon matched or beat IMO in the APS-C realm. The 35 and 50 1.8s are a little pricier, but they have OSS where Canikon's don't. And neither mount from Canikon has a direct answer to the excellent but pricey 24 1.8. It's either the much slower 24 2.8 EF, the screw drive only 24 2.8 Nikkor, or the eye wateringly expensive and oversized 24 1.4 pros. Pretty much all three mounts have weak coverage at ~16mm.

I have been eyeing a comeback to the F-mount from my Sony E setup, but I don't like the form factor and comparative bulk of the modern DSLR. Bodies can still get thinner and smaller, similar to what they were like in the film days. I could do away with on body flash as well if that would make things smaller (I have higher flash demands anyway). They are making slow steps in the right direction but they're not quite there yet.
Click to expand...
Canon's 35mm F/2 IS STM is better than any lens you can buy. Oh yea, in case you don't know what IS means, it means it's stabilized. It would be nice if you would research the lens systems before you make false claims about them. Did I also mention it's an STM lens with very fast AF'ing? Did I also mention it is also a FF lens? And only $150 more than the Sony 35.
Click to expand...
You are the one who needs to do research. 35/2 IS STM doesn't exist. 35/2 IS USM does, and is $200 more, as well as twice as big and heavy as the SEL35F18.
 
Last edited:
quezra said:
sportyaccordy said:
quezra said:
You just compared a FF camera with IBIS to an entry-level APS-C DSLR. Good job?

P.S. Canon SL1 is even smaller.
Click to expand...
How does IBIS affect body size? Most of the difference in size between the A7 and A7II is in the grip.
Click to expand...
Nope, the A7ii is thicker. And more than 100g heavier.
Click to expand...
The change in overall dimensions comes from the grip though. A7II could have been a little shallower with a smaller grip (not saying a bigger grip can't be a good thing).
quezra said:
quezra said:
Nikon could put a FF sensor in the D5500 body no problem, the mount is the same.
Click to expand...
And yet they don't. Nor do Canon. The size of the OVF prism has to be made larger to give a good view, for example.
Click to expand...
Nikon's F55 had AF support, auto metering and a viewfinder with ~89% VF coverage while also being smaller than most APS-C DSLRs let alone FFs. Obviously things have changed since it came out but my point is I don't think DSLRs have to be as big as they are.
quezra said:
quezra said:
SL1 is shorter but has a thicker body when you subtract the grip. I.e. the point where your thumb and non index fingers pinch is thicker. D5500 is "mirrorless thin" at that point which from what I've seen is a first for DSLRs.
Click to expand...
The grip is literally the only thing that matters when carrying a heavy lens, in my opinion. Tiny body with huge grip still works very well, and Olympus knows it:

08-700x525.jpg


The center of gravity will be determined by the lens. Some people have a problem when the center of gravity is more towards the lens but not quite in the middle of the lens, and therefore they're unable to decide whether to hold their camera like a compact or a regular SLR (hand under lens). These are the people who complain that lenses "unbalance" a camera as if a 300/2.8 doesn't "unbalance" a DSLR just as bad. Such people simply need to learn that you should always hold a FF camera with hand under lens (and no camera is ever unbalanced once you have your hand under the lens, unless we're talking giant tele things like Bigmas), and no, a GM1 point-and-shoot grip is not how you hold a FF camera.
Click to expand...
I don't shoot much beyond 85mm so I don't really care about these issues. In any case my gripe isn't really with grips; it's with "pinch depth".
 
MinAZ said:
http://j.mp/1EltLNX

I've added the 18-55mm kit lens or equivalent where possible, and compared the D5500, A6000, GM5, and G1 X II.

The A6000 is mirrorless APS-C. It ships even smaller bec it uses a retractable lens, but for the purposes of this comparison, I use the larger 18-55mm lens to be equivalent to the Nikon.

The GM5 is of course m4/3, with 14-42mm lens. m4/3 does not have a kit 18-55mm but this is pretty close and has (28-84mm vs 24-81mm).

And finally just for kicks, the G1 X II compact camera with APS-C is included.
Click to expand...
That D5500 looks like it'd offer me the best grip, for both hands actually. :)

YMMV and all that.
 
Kangaroo Court said:
Seccotine said:
Right, not one DSLR maker is interested in compact cameras, since the dropping of a large physical part with ML's have no impact on size according to you. It's just 100% of DSLR world that like it chunky. They could have made cameras as compact as MLs if they just wanted. Sure.

It doesn't matter if you could make a DSLR with a 1mm sensor, the ML with 1mm sensor will always be smaller. Because there is less mechanical stuff in it.
Click to expand...
Again, some people who actually want to use lenses longer than 200mm prefer a larger camera for better handling. Aside from the mirror box and small difference in the VF, if you know any other real reasons why ML would be smaller, I would love to hear it. In the mean time I will continue to buy larger cameras bc I want to. The SL1 tempted me not, instead I bought a much larger DSLR.
Click to expand...
Shallower flange depth enable for smaller wide angle lenses. Where are the 24-30mm equivalent pancakes on any DSLR system? Most mirrorless bodies have pancakes in that range. Hard to do a retrofocal pancake.
 
Switch to a top view, and the D5500 is seriously fat. One of the real advantages of a size optimized mirrorless setup is how slender they are, even with lenses attached, because mirrorless systems like µ43 or Fuji X have size optimized glass. Sony is still working on that, but give them some time. The D5500 has an APS sensor, and Fuji got the size of its lenses down without sacrificing IQ, so it can be done.

Look through the VF, and you'll find that much smaller bodies like the Fuji XE2, Oly EM1 or EM5II have a larger, brighter VF with quite a few interesting preview and review options the D5500 doesn't have.

If Nikon wants to get into the mirrorless field, they should get into the mirrorless field, not pretend like they're doing it.

I would welcome that: imagine an A7 designed by Nikon. It wouldn't just be an innovative body, it would be an innovative system that all works together, with size optimized lenses and a very good flash setup.

Get to work, Nikon. The handwriting on the wall couldn't be any clearer.
 
Compare a FF A7 to an APS-C Nikon is stupid. You should compare FF vs FF, and APS-C vs APS-C

But small is relatives. Canon SL1 is the smallest DSLR, and it'll even make Nikon D5500 look FAT:

Loading…

camerasize.com
 
sportyaccordy said:
You are the one who needs to do research. 35/2 IS STM doesn't exist. 35/2 IS USM does, and is $200 more, as well as twice as big and heavy as the SEL35F18.
Click to expand...
Oh my, cry me a river won't you, it was a typo. Yes I know it's USM, don't hurt your brain there. And the Sony is $150 unless you buy it by tomorrow where you get 50 off, while the Canon is $600 standard price. Aside from a "sale" they are only $150 apart.
 
sportyaccordy said:
Shallower flange depth enable for smaller wide angle lenses. Where are the 24-30mm equivalent pancakes on any DSLR system? Most mirrorless bodies have pancakes in that range. Hard to do a retrofocal pancake.
Click to expand...
Not all of us have weak wrists. If I cared about getting a tiny little camera and lenses I wouldn't own a gripped DSLR. And that same shallow flange distance causes very steep light angles in many lenses, just ask the A7 owners, A6k has shown some issues as well :-D
 
The size advantage for mirrorless is going to disappear. All the good mirrorless glass is dslr sized anyway. I look at my old Olympus om-2 and how small the body and lenses are and know full frame dslrs will get to be that size at some point. Plus you won't have to deal with horrendous battery life
 
Kangaroo Court said:
sportyaccordy said:
You are the one who needs to do research. 35/2 IS STM doesn't exist. 35/2 IS USM does, and is $200 more, as well as twice as big and heavy as the SEL35F18.
Click to expand...
Oh my, cry me a river won't you, it was a typo. Yes I know it's USM, don't hurt your brain there. And the Sony is $150 unless you buy it by tomorrow where you get 50 off, while the Canon is $600 standard price. Aside from a "sale" they are only $150 apart.
Click to expand...
Let's step back for a minute. What Sony lens are you talking about? I am talking about the APS-C E mount 35 1.8, which is $400. The Canon 35 F2 IS USM is $600. The prices are the same at B&H. Unless my math is wrong, 600 minus 400 is 200, not 150. So if you are talking about the SEL35F18, you are wrong about that too.
 
Last edited:
Kangaroo Court said:
sportyaccordy said:
Shallower flange depth enable for smaller wide angle lenses. Where are the 24-30mm equivalent pancakes on any DSLR system? Most mirrorless bodies have pancakes in that range. Hard to do a retrofocal pancake.
Click to expand...
Not all of us have weak wrists. If I cared about getting a tiny little camera and lenses I wouldn't own a gripped DSLR. And that same shallow flange distance causes very steep light angles in many lenses, just ask the A7 owners, A6k has shown some issues as well :-D
Click to expand...
Actually I bench press 235lbs for 5 to 6 reps for 3 sets at least once a week, and shoulder press about 130lbs for 3x10 twice a week. Back when I used to deadlift I would lift nearly 400lbs for reps. So you are wrong about this too. Wanting a small camera has nothing to do with "weak wrists"... it's about not wanting to lugging around a big camera if I don't need to, or more importantly not defining my self worth by the size of my camera as you do.

Kangaroo Court indeed. Must have been an assigned name to serve as a warning for anyone thinking to respond to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
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