Camera size - why should FF cameras be large?

I am one of those who really enjoy pretty compact and lightweight full frame cameras, with build quality sufficient to stand heavy use during the life time of the camera - in my world this is five years until new tech makes me upgrade anyway.

Most of us accept that MFT cameras should be small, and so should aps-c cameras be.

Recently we have seen Olympus offering the huge E-M1X, built to outlive electronic and sensor tech many times, and sealed to be used in the shower. This makes the camera expensive, but in general not impressive powerful. And we have seen the new Lumix cameras, that are at least as large as the Leica SL.

Some expect full frame cameras to be bigger than MFT and aps-c cameras, by a large margin. Probably not because of the physical sensor size, but the fact that full frame cameras grew to monster size to include electronics and huge batteries when they became digital. Some even thought of these large and heavy cameras as counterweights for large lenses. But a heavy lens is even more troublesome to shoot with when weight is added … and a large camera can't be compact with small lenses.

Before system cameras went digital, professional 24 x 35 mm photographic film cameras were about as small and light as the Sony A7x/A9 series - in fact a tad smaller and lighter (judged from the average size and weight of fifteen popular medium to high end DSLR cameras from this period, cameras often used by professionals). Those cameras did not even have an extra grip, since photographers were aware that balancing the combo with the left hand under the lens gave most keepers - no matter small or large lenses!

So why this "request" for large cameras now. Is larger and heavier cameras needed, or even what the marked want? Or is this just about increasing profit with cameras that look more professional?

My expectation would be even smaller full frame cameras, since tech now is moving towards solid state products, with almost no mechanical parts. Things like space between grip and lens, and somewhere to put the pinkie, could easily be overcome by small design adjustments. I highly support the Sony philosophy: "Keep it compact"!

The A7 is about the same size and weight as the 6300. Only about 1" more in height.

All small format cameras (including "full frame") can be made relatively small. But the market demands features like IBIS, 4K video (heat dissipation), tilting screen, bigger battery, dual card slots, gps, wifi connectivity, etc etc

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series. The human hand hasn't changed much in size since those days... if anything, it's got bigger.

IMO, Sony FE bodies have bad ergonomics and could use a taller grip. Sony itself acknowledges this with the GP-X1EM.

Plus FF lenses are generally bigger by default, and by extension need bigger bodies to balance against. For example the lightest zoom on Sony FE is the kit zoom, which comes in at just under 1 lb. 24-70/4 is similar. Both are not great lenses due in part to the compromises made for their size. Same with the Samyang 24/2.8. They went too far.

So ultimately if you want a light system go with a smaller format. Sony FE bodies are already too small, and are needlessly compromised as a result. They should be moving in the other direction (though not extremely so- they can probably make the bodies bigger without adding much weight).

Magnar W said:

Some expect full frame cameras to be bigger than MFT and aps-c cameras, by a large margin. Probably not because of the physical sensor size, but the fact that full frame cameras grew to monster size to include electronics and huge batteries when they became digital.

Click to expand...

The same with MFT, re: the Panasonic G9 and recent Olympus

Member said:

Before system cameras went digital, professional 24 x 35 mm photographic film cameras were about as small and light as the Sony A7x/A9 series - in fact a tad smaller and lighter (judged from the average size and weight of fifteen popular medium to high end DSLR cameras from this period, cameras often used by professionals). Those cameras did not even have an extra grip, since photographers were aware that balancing the combo with the left hand under the lens gave most keepers - no matter small or large lenses!

Click to expand...

An observation often overlooked. Curiously, I use small primes with my Sony and a large telezoom with my Panasonic:




No difficulty balancing/holding the system with the left hand

Member said:

My expectation would be even smaller full frame cameras, since tech now is moving towards solid state products, with almost no mechanical parts. Things like space between grip and lens, and somewhere to put the pinkie, could easily be overcome by small design adjustments. I highly support the Sony philosophy: "Keep it compact"!

Click to expand...

I agree. The A7R2 is quite nice to handle.

Ergonomics is subjective, of course, which is why I don't pay much attention to reviewers' comments on that! Everyone's hand is different; everyone handles/grips the camera differently.

- Richard

--
http://www.rsjphoto.net

snappu said:

All small format cameras (including "full frame") can be made relatively small. But the market demands features like IBIS, 4K video (heat dissipation), tilting screen, bigger battery, dual card slots, gps, wifi connectivity, etc etc

Click to expand...

"The marked" or parts of the marked?

I know a bunch of professionals and serious amateur photographers that moved from DSLR to mirrorless to reduce size and weight.

sportyaccordy said:

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series. The human hand hasn't changed much in size since those days... if anything, it's got bigger.

IMO, Sony FE bodies have bad ergonomics and could use a taller grip. Sony itself acknowledges this with the GP-X1EM.

Click to expand...

I agree completely now we will both be on the hit-list

sportyaccordy said:

Plus FF lenses are generally bigger by default, and by extension need bigger bodies to balance against. For example the lightest zoom on Sony FE is the kit zoom, which comes in at just under 1 lb. 24-70/4 is similar. Both are not great lenses due in part to the compromises made for their size. Same with the Samyang 24/2.8. They went too far.

So ultimately if you want a light system go with a smaller format. Sony FE bodies are already too small, and are needlessly compromised as a result. They should be moving in the other direction (though not extremely so- they can probably make the bodies bigger without adding much weight).

Click to expand...

This is one area where Canon and Nikon did better both their FF mirrorless cameras feel better in the hand and size wise the are hardly huge





Whilst the add on grips give your pinkie a place to call home . My gripe is the space between lens mount and grip, or rather lack of space





This is for me exacerbated by the way that many Sony lenses flare out at just the ideal spot for me to be constantly rubbing my fingers against







--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

sportyaccordy said:

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series. The human hand hasn't changed much in size since those days... if anything, it's got bigger.

Click to expand...

Take a look at the shutter release button side of SLR cameras. The grip area doesn't give support for the pinky, and there was not even an extra grip.

sportyaccordy said:

IMO, Sony FE bodies have bad ergonomics and could use a taller grip. Sony itself acknowledges this with the GP-X1EM.

Click to expand...

What about extra grip for those who want bigger grip? I find this solution excellent.

sportyaccordy said:

Plus FF lenses are generally bigger by default, and by extension need bigger bodies to balance against.

Click to expand...

Do you really balance the camera and lens with the right hand grip? And what happens when you add extra weight? You seriously limit the time you can work handheld.

With the left hand under the lens, any lens will balance even with a tiny-tiny camera body. I have used 400 mm and 560 mm telephoto lenses for years with SLR cameras that are lighter than the original A7 camera body. I found ergonomics ok, since there was not anything frustrating when using these combos.

My guess is that ergonomics is much about what you are used with, unless function and form is anti human so that regular use feels awkward. There is a noticeable difference from this, and getting used to something different than we are used with.

Magnar W said:

sportyaccordy said:

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series. The human hand hasn't changed much in size since those days... if anything, it's got bigger.

Click to expand...

Take a look at the shutter release button side of SLR cameras. The grip area doesn't give support for the pinky, and there was not even an extra grip.

Click to expand...

There have been add on battery grips that extend the hand space for cameras going back decades.

Member said:

Member said:

IMO, Sony FE bodies have bad ergonomics and could use a taller grip. Sony itself acknowledges this with the GP-X1EM.

Click to expand...

What about extra grip for those who want bigger grip? I find this solution excellent.

Member said:

Plus FF lenses are generally bigger by default, and by extension need bigger bodies to balance against.

Click to expand...

Do you really balance the camera and lens with the right hand grip? And what happens when you add extra weight? You seriously limit the time you can work handheld.

With the left hand under the lens, any lens will balance even with a tiny-tiny camera body. I have used 400 mm and 560 mm telephoto lenses for years with SLR cameras that are lighter than the original A7 camera body.

Click to expand...

Magnar , you cannot argue with someone else's take on ergonomics as by their very nature it is down to how the individual feels about it.

James Stirling said:

Magnar , you cannot argue with someone else's take on ergonomics as by their very nature it is down to how the individual feels about it.

Click to expand...

Ergonomics is not that much about personal preferences, it is about rationally based development of products that operates to fit human behavior.

Large or small cameras is mainly about personal preferences, where expectations and feelings play a major part.

One could ask: Do you prefer large cameras since you are used with them? Have you tried other options? How does it feel after a period? And so on. You could also ask the questions the other way around. Then even ergonomics can be discussed seriously! ;-)

sportyaccordy said:

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series.

Click to expand...

Not really.







And the new F-1 was the pro camera in Canon's 1970's lineup.
--
A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

SQLGuy said:

sportyaccordy said:

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series.

Click to expand...

Not really.



And the new F-1 was the pro camera in Canon's 1970's lineup.

Click to expand...

Based on an average of fifteen SLR cameras that were popular among professionals, mid to high end, I can't see that they were bigger or heavier that the A7x/A9 cameras - quite the opposite. I could have skipped the top models when looking at average SLR size, since the A7x series does not belong here, and the average SLR would have been even a tad smaller and lighter. ;-)

[No message]

Magnar W said:

I am one of those who really enjoy pretty compact and lightweight full frame cameras, with build quality sufficient to stand heavy use during the life time of the camera - in my world this is five years until new tech makes me upgrade anyway.

Most of us accept that MFT cameras should be small, and so should aps-c cameras be.

Recently we have seen Olympus offering the huge E-M1X, built to outlive electronic and sensor tech many times, and sealed to be used in the shower.

Click to expand...

The E-M1X is large for a m4/3 camera but it is still not that large compared to some FF ones. But it is large compared to Sony FF, I agree on that.

But due to the size it is not for me, I liked my original E-M1mkI and think that m4/3 should stay in that size range, maybe make a body like the PEN-F in size and form factor but weather proof at "Tough" camera level, both the body and lenses and aim for the "take anywhere" use case.

I like the IP-classed weather sealing on the E-M1X but I can't really decide if I think there is a market for it due to the size. As I said, not for me at least.

If Olympus or Panasonic made a weather proof IP classed camera with A7III performance in speed and AF and the 20 Mpix m4/3 sensor upgraded with BSI etc and poured that into a body like the E-M1mkII then I might actually get one.

Member said:

This makes the camera expensive, but in general not impressive powerful. And we have seen the new Lumix cameras, that are at least as large as the Leica SL.

Click to expand...

My guess is that Leica SLII and SLIIR will be very much like the Panasonic S1 and S1R feature wise, but looking more like the SL.

Already the current SL seem to have a lot of Panasonic tech in it, like the DFD focusing so Panasonic must have been involved in the development. Which isn't strange at all since they are Leicas tech partners since the beginning of the 2000s.

My guess is that they did the new cameras together and the platform was adapted to both companies requirements.

The SLII will most likely be announced not to far from now, the SLmkI came in 2015 so it is time.

Member said:

Some expect full frame cameras to be bigger than MFT and aps-c cameras, by a large margin. Probably not because of the physical sensor size, but the fact that full frame cameras grew to monster size to include electronics and huge batteries when they became digital. Some even thought of these large and heavy cameras as counterweights for large lenses. But a heavy lens is even more troublesome to shoot with when weight is added … and a large camera can't be compact with small lenses.

Click to expand...

I agree that I am troubled by the development of heavy lenses. I looked up the weight on all Leica L-mount lenses due to my curiosity and published here some months ago. They are all very heavy. And the new Panasonic ones are not light either. And so are not Sigma ART lenses that will come for L-mount. So it will be a heavy system.

It is harder to say where Canon and Nikon will aim in the weight class from now on. At the moment, they have some lighter lenses in their new systems but also some heavy ones.

Sony started light, went quite heavy when they began to chase bright apertures but lately seem to be using constructions that can give both brightness and lightness. This makes me happy.

And for bodys they have several times said that they will not make large and heavy ones, but that they might consider to move the lens mount out from the grip some, since they heard many users wishing that.

I would like a little better weather sealing as well overall.

Member said:

Before system cameras went digital, professional 24 x 35 mm photographic film cameras were about as small and light as the Sony A7x/A9 series - in fact a tad smaller and lighter (judged from the average size and weight of fifteen popular medium to high end DSLR cameras from this period, cameras often used by professionals). Those cameras did not even have an extra grip, since photographers were aware that balancing the combo with the left hand under the lens gave most keepers - no matter small or large lenses!

Click to expand...

Yes, I still have Minolta X300s and SRT101 and they are in the same size. My old Nikon FM2, F3 and F90 was also around there.

Member said:

So why this "request" for large cameras now. Is larger and heavier cameras needed, or even what the marked want? Or is this just about increasing profit with cameras that look more professional?

Click to expand...

If I look at Canon and Nikon constructions they got larger already in the late film days and even more so in the digital era. Also they went to electronic controlled aperture and since they already had AF then there wasn't any need to actually adjust anything on the lens. I wonder if this also brought that many started to hold the cameras fully in the bodys and not the classic one hand under the lens way I learned. This could be the reason why people have trouble holding a Sony camera, they simply don't have the correct hand position.

Member said:

My expectation would be even smaller full frame cameras, since tech now is moving towards solid state products, with almost no mechanical parts. Things like space between grip and lens, and somewhere to put the pinkie, could easily be overcome by small design adjustments. I highly support the Sony philosophy: "Keep it compact"!

Click to expand...

My A9 with the Meike "pinky grip" (very similar to the one from Sony but with Arca Swiss rail and 1/3 of the price) is almost perfect. If Sony only moved the mount a little out from the grip it would be perfect for me.

If you are a wedding photographer, or anybody that has to keep the camera in your hand for long periods of time, Sony body design is at least a minor problem that must be adapted to in order to keep using it long term.

Sony 24-70 GM on a Sony A7(R)III is an absolute knuckle buster. Same with the 16-35 GM.

I don't think the camera needs to be made substantially bigger. I have solved my lack of pinky support with an L plate with the L taken off. Those that have no need for one can take the weight and size savings.

However, the camera for me would turn from my favorite camera ever, to the perfect camera that would stop me from ever looking at another system, if they just put an extra 1/4" between the grip and the lens mount.

I also think that a 10% larger grip would also be nice, but I'm willing to concede that this is a less objective problem.

lattesweden said:

Sony started light, went quite heavy when they began to chase bright apertures but lately seem to be using constructions that can give both brightness and lightness. This makes me happy.

And for bodys they have several times said that they will not make large and heavy ones, but that they might consider to move the lens mount out from the grip some, since they heard many users wishing that.

Click to expand...

Makes me happy too. Camera gear, at least mine, has to be lugged around a lot! ;-)

lattesweden said:

This could be the reason why people have trouble holding a Sony camera, they simply don't have the correct hand position.

Click to expand...

Small design adjustments could solve this. And much mass could still be removed from the right side of the cameras, unless the volume is needed for the electronics.

Magnar W said:

SQLGuy said:

sportyaccordy said:

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series.

Click to expand...

Not really.



And the new F-1 was the pro camera in Canon's 1970's lineup.

Click to expand...

Based on an average of fifteen SLR cameras that were popular among professionals, mid to high end, I can't see that they were bigger or heavier that the A7x/A9 cameras - quite the opposite. I could have skipped the top models when looking at average SLR size, since the A7x series does not belong here, and the average SLR would have been even a tad smaller and lighter. ;-)

Click to expand...

They started getting bigger in the late 1980s. First with the Canon T90 (big built-in motordrive and lots of batteries for high speed shooting), then when AF was added and these built-in motordrives stayed. I also have an EOS A2e; that's a lot bigger. More or less on par with my Sony a900, though about half the weight.

Pretty much all manual focus SLRs before the T90, though, had only a small battery for the exposure electronics, and either no, or optional, detachable, motor drives. So, yeah, pretty much all of them were around the size of this New F-1, or even, like the Olympus models, more than a bit smaller.

--
A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

Member said:

My expectation would be even smaller full frame cameras, since tech now is moving towards solid state products, with almost no mechanical parts. Things like space between grip and lens, and somewhere to put the pinkie, could easily be overcome by small design adjustments. I highly support the Sony philosophy: "Keep it compact"!

Click to expand...

If someone wants a small camera to have a larger surface for a hand grip, etc., on their camera as many do, we can always make the camera effectively bigger with a grip extension/battery grip/L-plate.

If someone wants a large camera to be smaller...well, they're out of luck.

NoTicket said:

If you are a wedding photographer, or anybody that has to keep the camera in your hand for long periods of time, Sony body design is at least a minor problem that must be adapted to in order to keep using it long term.

Sony 24-70 GM on a Sony A7(R)III is an absolute knuckle buster. Same with the 16-35 GM.

I don't think the camera needs to be made substantially bigger. I have solved my lack of pinky support with an L plate with the L taken off. Those that have no need for one can take the weight and size savings.

However, the camera for me would turn from my favorite camera ever, to the perfect camera that would stop me from ever looking at another system, if they just put an extra 1/4" between the grip and the lens mount.

I also think that a 10% larger grip would also be nice, but I'm willing to concede that this is a less objective problem.

Click to expand...

I shot low light club events quite much. Often at least for six hours in a row, at times even more. My normal setup has been the A7RII with an L-plate and the 24-70GM and the A9 without any additional grip, a flash and the FE35/1.4. No problems.

I got the Meike pinky grip last autumn and I really start to like it on the A9. When I first got my A9 1.5 years ago I thought that it wasn't for me, since I had the knuckle problem the first time I was out with it and the FE35/1.4 was on.

I then found that I should place my fingers a little different and the problem went away. I agree that it is on the margins and the 3d gen bodys seems to have a little less space towards the lens due to the thicker grip than what the 2nd gen bodys have.

With the battery grip on, I shot my A9 and the GM24-70 four days in row from afternoon to after midnight at a festival last summer. So it isn't a problem at all for me since I adapted my finger position, but I do agree that Sony should address this since so many seams to have problems and for me it would give more freedom to shift the finger position to variations.

Lately I have been experimenting with shooting my low light club events with the FE28/2, the 55/1.8 and the Batis 85/1.8 to reduce weight. I miss the zoom at times but it works quite well and it also allows for more finger position variants since the lenses have less diameter.

Magnar W said:

I am one of those who really enjoy pretty compact and lightweight full frame cameras, with build quality sufficient to stand heavy use during the life time of the camera - in my world this is five years until new tech makes me upgrade anyway.

Most of us accept that MFT cameras should be small, and so should aps-c cameras be.

Recently we have seen Olympus offering the huge E-M1X, built to outlive electronic and sensor tech many times, and sealed to be used in the shower. This makes the camera expensive, but in general not impressive powerful. And we have seen the new Lumix cameras, that are at least as large as the Leica SL.

Some expect full frame cameras to be bigger than MFT and aps-c cameras, by a large margin. Probably not because of the physical sensor size, but the fact that full frame cameras grew to monster size to include electronics and huge batteries when they became digital. Some even thought of these large and heavy cameras as counterweights for large lenses. But a heavy lens is even more troublesome to shoot with when weight is added … and a large camera can't be compact with small lenses.

Before system cameras went digital, professional 24 x 35 mm photographic film cameras were about as small and light as the Sony A7x/A9 series - in fact a tad smaller and lighter (judged from the average size and weight of fifteen popular medium to high end DSLR cameras from this period, cameras often used by professionals). Those cameras did not even have an extra grip, since photographers were aware that balancing the combo with the left hand under the lens gave most keepers - no matter small or large lenses!

So why this "request" for large cameras now. Is larger and heavier cameras needed, or even what the marked want? Or is this just about increasing profit with cameras that look more professional?

My expectation would be even smaller full frame cameras, since tech now is moving towards solid state products, with almost no mechanical parts. Things like space between grip and lens, and somewhere to put the pinkie, could easily be overcome by small design adjustments. I highly support the Sony philosophy: "Keep it compact"!

Click to expand...

Yep, you hit on the right points, I agree, this is customer, and hence marketing, driven.

Remember the good ol' Nex-7?

This camera can house a FF sensor and a mount strong enough to hold FE glass.

IBIS will make it fatter (compare A6500 to A6400), but that's it.

However, the 'buying' public demands something that has a center-based EVF (why?) and controls far enough apart to fit all slender and stubby fingers.

I too have added the grip sometimes to the A7rII, and it feels much easier to handle. So bigger is better?

I would love a A7000/A6 type of camera that brings back the Nex-7 RF style. I don't care whether it has two models (A7000=APS-C/cheaper materials, A6=FF/sturdier+IBIS), or whether one model does it all (e.g. software locked - you can pay extra to get FF capability).

Plus the current EVF would no longer fit, it has grown its internals too much, I am afraid.

Sadly, I don't think that Sony believes in such Nex-7 RF style for FF. Personally, I would snatch an A6 (FF) and an A5400 (APS-C) immediately should they appear.

I am not holding my breath. The people with stubby fingers that want to mount large glass and must have IBIS have a loud voice - Sony's profit shows this. They are also the majority purchases.

As to legacy FF cameras, consider an Olympus OM-10 (the 'smaller brother'). Yeah, it is SLR, but it is actually quite a bit smaller than the A7 series cameras. It would need IBIS + digital back, so a mirrorless digital camera would grow its 'rear' while losing its 'front' (flange). Even then 'professional' cameras grew bigger because of added (mechanical) control knobs and sturdier frames (even full metal - ever handled one of those?), as well as built in film-transport motors.

And again, bigger was better - more $$$, more impressive, and top-of-the-line.

Durability, handling/ergonomics, and features will always push to a size compromise that is larger than some of us need - this is even visible in the MFT market, where cameras *should* be smaller than even APS-C, yet they are larger - again for these three reasons I believe.

As to corporate profits - just look around you: almost any larger product (cars, houses, TVs, cell-phones, digital watches (yes), monitors, planes, and so on) is also 'higher end' and 'more expensive'.

I believe that Sony is not focused on size (see the recent FE lenses) but on profit and market growth. A mirrorless rig *can be* smaller than a DSLR rig, this still holds quite true, and a mirrorless rig is nowadays accepted state-of-the-art and hints of professionalism (which both were still hurdles a few years back).

If you were a big conglomerate, would you want maximum $$$$ or smallest product?

Sony has a $1200 RX100 VI product available, its sales are slowing. Surprise?
Yet is is beautifully small and state-of-the-art.