Size of milc

Is it just me or are the latest milc camera’s almost as big as the older DSLR’s? If I look at the size and weight of the Canon r7 or the fuji xh-2s than that is almost as big as the Canon 60D sometimes even bigger. A Nikon D 5600 is smaller.

I thought Milc was made to be less heavy and big but with the same features as dslr to make it the photographer easier to carry around so they would take the camera with them more often.

A small light camera sounds like a good idea till you mount on it one of those new wider aperture lenses or one of those long tele zooms.

Then you wish for a larger camera.

Would it be the video feature requires a not too small body size?

Video, if can do those crazy spec, e.g. 6K full sensor readout for many minutes continuous recording, or 4K 120 or 60fps all done internally... The heat so generated could be huge relative to the 10 or 20 fps burst shooting. This might need a certain size of body for heating management or other requirement.

Not familiar with other systems, but in case of Panasonic I know well, its video flagship models, the GH5, GH5 mk-II, are having a huge heat sink near the front grip to deal with potential over heating issue making them always the biggest of the family. The latest GH6, a step up on video capacity, indeed has a fan inside. Therefore the size of these models could never be too small or otherwise they might face over heating issue as certain tiny Sony APSs.

For my Panasonic GX85, which has a bare minimum video spec of today: 4K @30fps, it can be made a lot smaller than it's larger brothers. Yet, because of IBIS and 4K video, it has increased its size slightly from its predecessor GX7, also heavier despite it has a smaller size front grip and use less metal, due to a heat sink been added to the back of the sensor.

Yes, no more mirror box can theoretically reduce the size of camera body vs DSLR, also the shorter flange distance helps. However, some newer factors might need them larger... :-(

--
Albert
** Please forgive my typo error.
** Please feel free to download my image and edit it as you like **

You have plenty of choice, from small and light to large and heavy.

Some photographers like to carry big impressive cameras and lenses, and the manufacturers certainly target them with their more expensive models. On the other hand, there are models at the other end of the scale although the choice is more limited.

Personally, I choose something small and light most of the time.

Slimpie1972 said:

Is it just me or are the latest milc camera’s almost as big as the older DSLR’s? If I look at the size and weight of the Canon r7 or the fuji xh-2s than that is almost as big as the Canon 60D sometimes even bigger. A Nikon D 5600 is smaller.

Click to expand...

Canon R7 is lighter than the 60D and clearly smaller: https://camerasize.com/compare/#890,100

Slimpie1972 said:

I thought Milc was made to be less heavy and big but with the same features as dslr to make it the photographer easier to carry around so they would take the camera with them more often.

Click to expand...

MILCs are about 20mm shallower than DSLRs because they don't need the space to fit in the mirror. Otherwise, body size depends on the controls and buttons that need to be fitted on the body, battery size, number of card slots, etc. If the camera is going to be used with heavy lenses, then the size of the bulge for the right hand can be important. Entry level MILCs, like entry level DSLRs can be made much smaller, sometimes by omitting the EVF. Look at the small Canon EOS-M cameras, the Olympus Pen bodies and the Panasonic GM bodies,

While the shorter depths of MILC bodies can be an advantage, the primary advantages lie elsewhere - less moving parts, lower cost, EVF live preview, easier manual focusing,, quieter operation, much higher fps rates, more advanced AF, etc.

Chris R-UK said:

Chris R-UK said:

I thought Milc was made to be less heavy and big but with the same features as dslr to make it the photographer easier to carry around so they would take the camera with them more often.

Click to expand...

MILCs are about 20mm shallower than DSLRs because they don't need the space to fit in the mirror. Otherwise, body size depends on the controls and buttons that need to be fitted on the body, battery size, number of card slots, etc. If the camera is going to be used with heavy lenses, then the size of the bulge for the right hand can be important. Entry level MILCs, like entry level DSLRs can be made much smaller, sometimes by omitting the EVF. Look at the small Canon EOS-M cameras, the Olympus Pen bodies and the Panasonic GM bodies,

Click to expand...

In terms of lens sizes, there's no special MILC savings for long, heavy telephoto lenses.

There may be some savings for wide-angle lenses that would have needed retrofocal design on a DSLR, but that don't need it on a MILC with its shorter flange distance. But moderate wide-angle lenses are usually fairly small in the first place.

Tom_N said:

Chris R-UK said:

Slimpie1972 said:

I thought Milc was made to be less heavy and big but with the same features as dslr to make it the photographer easier to carry around so they would take the camera with them more often.

Click to expand...

MILCs are about 20mm shallower than DSLRs because they don't need the space to fit in the mirror. Otherwise, body size depends on the controls and buttons that need to be fitted on the body, battery size, number of card slots, etc. If the camera is going to be used with heavy lenses, then the size of the bulge for the right hand can be important. Entry level MILCs, like entry level DSLRs can be made much smaller, sometimes by omitting the EVF. Look at the small Canon EOS-M cameras, the Olympus Pen bodies and the Panasonic GM bodies,

Click to expand...

In terms of lens sizes, there's no special MILC savings for long, heavy telephoto lenses.

There may be some savings for wide-angle lenses that would have needed retrofocal design on a DSLR, but that don't need it on a MILC with its shorter flange distance. But moderate wide-angle lenses are usually fairly small in the first place.

Click to expand...

When Canon introduced the EOS R, a senior Canon lens designer talked about the advantages of designing for the shorter flange distances. He said that you could either design smaller lenses, or you could design cheaper lenses,, or you could design lenses with better IQ, but you couldn't have all three.

It seems to me that there are going to be three categories of mirrorless cameras.

You will have the kind that are DSLR replacements and will be quite big although should still be smaller than even compact DSRLS in depth and height.

Then you will have Rangefinder-style mirrorless cameras that are mid-sized.

And finally, you will have very small advanced compact style mirrorless cameras that people might only shoot with one prime lens and not buy a whole range of accessories for

Slimpie1972 said:

Is it just me or are the latest milc camera’s almost as big as the older DSLR’s? If I look at the size and weight of the Canon r7 or the fuji xh-2s than that is almost as big as the Canon 60D sometimes even bigger. A Nikon D 5600 is smaller.

I thought Milc was made to be less heavy and big but with the same features as dslr to make it the photographer easier to carry around so they would take the camera with them more often.

Click to expand...

And that's before you attach the huge f/1.2 prime lenses and zooms.

Slimpie1972 said:

--
Treat your Friends like Photos. Light them at their best.

Click to expand...

Chris R-UK said:

Slimpie1972 said:

Is it just me or are the latest milc camera’s almost as big as the older DSLR’s? If I look at the size and weight of the Canon r7 or the fuji xh-2s than that is almost as big as the Canon 60D sometimes even bigger. A Nikon D 5600 is smaller.

Click to expand...

Canon R7 is lighter than the 60D and clearly smaller: https://camerasize.com/compare/#890,100

Chris R-UK said:

I thought Milc was made to be less heavy and big but with the same features as dslr to make it the photographer easier to carry around so they would take the camera with them more often.

Click to expand...

MILCs are about 20mm shallower than DSLRs because they don't need the space to fit in the mirror. Otherwise, body size depends on the controls and buttons that need to be fitted on the body, battery size, number of card slots, etc. If the camera is going to be used with heavy lenses, then the size of the bulge for the right hand can be important. Entry level MILCs, like entry level DSLRs can be made much smaller, sometimes by omitting the EVF. Look at the small Canon EOS-M cameras, the Olympus Pen bodies and the Panasonic GM bodies,

While the shorter depths of MILC bodies can be an advantage, the primary advantages lie elsewhere - less moving parts, lower cost, EVF live preview, easier manual focusing,, quieter operation, much higher fps rates, more advanced AF, etc.

Click to expand...

Yet in the early days, a big selling point for MILC and one repeated by supporters, was that they were smaller than so called dinosaur DSLRs

Chris R-UK said:

--
Chris R

Click to expand...

Chris R-UK said:

Tom_N said:

Chris R-UK said:

Slimpie1972 said:

I thought Milc was made to be less heavy and big but with the same features as dslr to make it the photographer easier to carry around so they would take the camera with them more often.

Click to expand...

MILCs are about 20mm shallower than DSLRs because they don't need the space to fit in the mirror. Otherwise, body size depends on the controls and buttons that need to be fitted on the body, battery size, number of card slots, etc. If the camera is going to be used with heavy lenses, then the size of the bulge for the right hand can be important. Entry level MILCs, like entry level DSLRs can be made much smaller, sometimes by omitting the EVF. Look at the small Canon EOS-M cameras, the Olympus Pen bodies and the Panasonic GM bodies,

Click to expand...

In terms of lens sizes, there's no special MILC savings for long, heavy telephoto lenses.

There may be some savings for wide-angle lenses that would have needed retrofocal design on a DSLR, but that don't need it on a MILC with its shorter flange distance. But moderate wide-angle lenses are usually fairly small in the first place.

Click to expand...

When Canon introduced the EOS R, a senior Canon lens designer talked about the advantages of designing for the shorter flange distances. He said that you could either design smaller lenses, or you could design cheaper lenses,, or you could design lenses with better IQ, but you couldn't have all three.

Click to expand...

Bu you could have small high IQ lenses with smaller maximum apertures, say f/2.8 instead of f/1.4.

Chris R-UK said:

--
Chris R

Click to expand...

Different MILC sizes:
Canon EOS RP 485 g, 24*36 mm sensor.
Olympus OM-D E-M1X 997 g, 13*17.4 mm sensor.

I think that size and weight was more a sales argument. The lover manufacturing cost and the fact that the reflex OVF has some limitations, especially regarding AF and lens design that was hard to overcome digitally, probably mattered more.

Klaus dk said:

Different MILC sizes:
Canon EOS RP 485 g, 24*36 mm sensor.
Olympus OM-D E-M1X 997 g, 13*17.4 mm sensor.

Click to expand...

Panasonic DC-GX800 269 g, 13*17.4 mm sensor.

And many others ...

There are many very different sizes and weights. Picking just two is meaningless, unless you have a particular axe to grind.

Slimpie1972 said:

Is it just me or are the latest milc camera’s almost as big as the older DSLR’s? If I look at the size and weight of the Canon r7 or the fuji xh-2s than that is almost as big as the Canon 60D sometimes even bigger. A Nikon D 5600 is smaller.

I thought Milc was made to be less heavy and big but with the same features as dslr to make it the photographer easier to carry around so they would take the camera with them more often.

Click to expand...

The fact is many photographers prefer the beefier bodies of DSLRs, particularly with large sensors where the large heavy lenses make a small body a disadvantage. Mirrorless cameras have other advantages, especially in video, AF tracking, and shooting speed. If you want a smaller body get a camera with an APSC or M43 sensor.

--
Tom

The early ones tended to be smaller because they couldn't compete head to head and needed a niche. I cringed when this site rolled out the milc moniker, because even back then it was obvious that bigger and better would come.

Phil A Martin said:

Yet in the early days, a big selling point for MILC and one repeated by supporters, was that they were smaller than so called dinosaur DSLRs

Click to expand...

That ignored those who prefer larger camera bodies with large lenses on their large sensor cameras. Larger MICL bodies addressed that issue. The larger bodies expanded the potential buyer pool.

GossCTP said:

The early ones tended to be smaller because they couldn't compete head to head and needed a niche. I cringed when this site rolled out the milc moniker, because even back then it was obvious that bigger and better would come.

Click to expand...

But "MILC" makes no mention of size. It doesn't mean small.

GossCTP said:

--
"Law and order" is anathema to liberty and justice.

Click to expand...

Tom Axford said:

Klaus dk said:

Different MILC sizes:
Canon EOS RP 485 g, 24*36 mm sensor.
Olympus OM-D E-M1X 997 g, 13*17.4 mm sensor.

Click to expand...

Panasonic DC-GX800 269 g, 13*17.4 mm sensor.

And many others ...

There are many very different sizes and weights. Picking just two is meaningless, unless you have a particular axe to grind.

Click to expand...

No axe, sorry, but I wonder why you would think so?

My only point was made in the text you didn't quote: that the idea that MILCs were invented to decrease size and weight probably is a misunderstanding.

Phil A Martin said:

Chris R-UK said:

Slimpie1972 said:

Is it just me or are the latest milc camera’s almost as big as the older DSLR’s? If I look at the size and weight of the Canon r7 or the fuji xh-2s than that is almost as big as the Canon 60D sometimes even bigger. A Nikon D 5600 is smaller.

Click to expand...

Canon R7 is lighter than the 60D and clearly smaller: https://camerasize.com/compare/#890,100

Phil A Martin said:

I thought Milc was made to be less heavy and big but with the same features as dslr to make it the photographer easier to carry around so they would take the camera with them more often.

Click to expand...

MILCs are about 20mm shallower than DSLRs because they don't need the space to fit in the mirror. Otherwise, body size depends on the controls and buttons that need to be fitted on the body, battery size, number of card slots, etc. If the camera is going to be used with heavy lenses, then the size of the bulge for the right hand can be important. Entry level MILCs, like entry level DSLRs can be made much smaller, sometimes by omitting the EVF. Look at the small Canon EOS-M cameras, the Olympus Pen bodies and the Panasonic GM bodies,

While the shorter depths of MILC bodies can be an advantage, the primary advantages lie elsewhere - less moving parts, lower cost, EVF live preview, easier manual focusing,, quieter operation, much higher fps rates, more advanced AF, etc.

Click to expand...

Yet in the early days, a big selling point for MILC and one repeated by supporters, was that they were smaller than so called dinosaur DSLRs

Click to expand...

I still have a NEX-5N, which is quite small. If you look around, you can find some small lenses for E-mount, or use small manual-focus lenses such as Takumar or Olympus OM lenses. But there were many complaints from Texans with big beefy paws that the mirrorless cameras were too small.

One solution is to have a small basic body, with a choice of grips of various sizes, different viewfinders, etc.

Don

Phil A Martin said:

GossCTP said:

The early ones tended to be smaller because they couldn't compete head to head and needed a niche. I cringed when this site rolled out the milc moniker, because even back then it was obvious that bigger and better would come.

Click to expand...

But "MILC" makes no mention of size. It doesn't mean small.

Click to expand...

The "C" stood for compact. At least when they rolled it out it did.