Reading mode: Light Dark

Size of milc

Go to last post
Tom_N said:
Bob Janes said:
Slimpie1972 said:
Is it just me or are the latest milc camera’s almost as big as the older DSLR’s?
Click to expand...
I'd say they are similar sizes to analogue area SLRs.
Tom_N said:
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...
DSLRs are much bigger in depth. The extra real-estate required behing the shutter tends to make DSLRs much deeper than anyone ever chose to make a camera previously (apart from the Contax AX). In the 20 years that DSLRs were with us, people got used to that depth, but I think it is difficult to justify from an ergonomics PoV.
Click to expand...
The mirror assembly in a (D)SLR is in front of the shutter – not behind it. Remember that the normal state for a (D)SLR is to have the shutter closed and the mirror down, with light being reflected from the mirror up into the optical viewfinder.

What's behind the mirror in a DSLR that isn't also behind the mirror in a MILC?
Click to expand...
My point is that an SLR needs depth for the mirror box. A DSLR needs depth for a mirror box, sensor and screen. A mirror less camera only needs depth for the sensor and screen - which leaves it with an overall depth similar to an analogue SLR - but the depth tends to be behind, rather than in front of the image plane/shutter.

--
Save a life, become a stem-cell donor.
Hello to Jason Isaacs!
https://bobjanes.smugmug.com/PoTB/
Please respect a BY-NC-ND cc licence on all my public internet images
 
Last edited:
GossCTP said:
GossCTP said:
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.
Click to expand...
I can't find the original article this discusses, but I remember reading it.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/34174575
Click to expand...
That thread doesn't confirm that C meant Compact. It was an opinion then without confirmation.
 
I prefer CSC, compact system camera, although that opens up the debate about what qualifies as compact.

Until battery makers make smaller, better configured batteries, better heat sinks are discovered, electronic shutters improve (replacing FP and leaf), and we drop this "retro thing", were stuck with the form factor.

It does beg the question: why is anyone still designing cameras like 35mm SLRs and rangefinders? What a wasted opportunity,
 
thinkinginimages said:
I prefer CSC, compact system camera, although that opens up the debate about what qualifies as compact.

Until battery makers make smaller, better configured batteries, better heat sinks are discovered, electronic shutters improve (replacing FP and leaf), and we drop this "retro thing", were stuck with the form factor.

It does beg the question: why is anyone still designing cameras like 35mm SLRs and rangefinders? What a wasted opportunity,
Click to expand...
I have a good answer for that. It's because people don't like change and they prefer them that way. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember the early years of digital but manufacturers experimented with all types of designs but in the end, they didn't sell as well as traditional designs.
 
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...
I would love to see the Age Groups of whom are talking most about the Sizes of an given Camera. That might be the true tell. I think we all can agree mostly on Lens and their sizes, then and now.
 
BackToNature1 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.

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...
I would love to see the Age Groups of whom are talking most about the Sizes of an given Camera. That might be the true tell. I think we all can agree mostly on Lens and their sizes, then and now.
Click to expand...
Yes that would be interesting. My current theory is most photographers complaining about MILC and the small sizes came to photography after digital and cut there teeth on the large DSLRs.



i am a lot older than that and started with a rangefinder before progressing to Minolta SRT 101 and 303 by my late 20s I was also using TLR, speed graphics, Pentax 6x7 Mamiya6X7 Sinar 8X10, a boat load of Canons and Nikons with and without motor drives. In other words a bewildering variety of body styles and sizes. I will shoot with anything quite honestly. What ever works. Hands are adaptable and I can hold and work with just about any camera.

Currently I use two Sony FF bodies one with a grip/battery thing. Both seem fine to me using from a small prime up to a 200-600 zoom. Before these two bodies I used a pair of Sony APSC bodies, with some FF lenses when needed.



Smaller better in my book. I shoot every day and don’t yearn for the hand held Speed Graphics.



Things change. Best not get too attached.
 
sportyaccordy 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.

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...
For starters comparing flagships like the R7/X-H2s to entry level bodies like Rebels and D5xxxs is a false equivalency. R7/X-H2 are smaller & lighter than the D500/7D2. Entry level APS-C MILCs are way smaller + lighter than Rebels/D3-5xxx bodies.

The whole "MILCs are supposed to be smaller" thing is a MILC detractor strawman.
Click to expand...
It's not a strawman, it was one of the primary advantages claimed for MILC when they were first introduced, as outlined here in this very discussion:-

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66432186
sportyaccordy said:
They can be and often are a lot smaller but even when they aren't they have a ton of other advantages over DSLRs. Lenses are generally smaller the wider the FL too.
Click to expand...
 
Phil A Martin said:
sportyaccordy 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.

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...
For starters comparing flagships like the R7/X-H2s to entry level bodies like Rebels and D5xxxs is a false equivalency. R7/X-H2 are smaller & lighter than the D500/7D2. Entry level APS-C MILCs are way smaller + lighter than Rebels/D3-5xxx bodies.

The whole "MILCs are supposed to be smaller" thing is a MILC detractor strawman.
Click to expand...
It's not a strawman, it was one of the primary advantages claimed for MILC when they were first introduced,
Click to expand...
Not for me as an early adopter - size was more of an argument for m43.

For me, the advantages were less moving parts, the ability to adapt legacy manual focus glass, focus peaking and a WYSIWYG viewfinder.
Phil A Martin said:
as outlined here in this very discussion:-

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66432186
Phil A Martin said:
They can be and often are a lot smaller but even when they aren't they have a ton of other advantages over DSLRs. Lenses are generally smaller the wider the FL too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Phil A Martin said:
sportyaccordy 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.

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...
For starters comparing flagships like the R7/X-H2s to entry level bodies like Rebels and D5xxxs is a false equivalency. R7/X-H2 are smaller & lighter than the D500/7D2. Entry level APS-C MILCs are way smaller + lighter than Rebels/D3-5xxx bodies.

The whole "MILCs are supposed to be smaller" thing is a MILC detractor strawman.
Click to expand...
It's not a strawman, it was one of the primary advantages claimed for MILC when they were first introduced, as outlined here in this very discussion:-

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66432186
Phil A Martin said:
They can be and often are a lot smaller but even when they aren't they have a ton of other advantages over DSLRs. Lenses are generally smaller the wider the FL too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I mean, that was 13 years ago. Things change. MILCs went from a novelty reliant on size to the de facto ILC form factor. So while size was the main/only advantage 13 years ago it's only one of many today.
 
I grew up with relatively small, flat cameras with minimal grips, like my beloved Pentax K1000, and I still prefer cameras like that with all but the largest lenses.

It amuses the heck out of me that every time I've mentioned buying a new camera here the response has been the same-- that particular camera is "useless" without an extra grip, I will have to buy an extra grip right away, an extra grip is an essential accessory. Fuji X- T10, Olympus E-M10 ii, Fuji X-T2-- no extra grips on any of them and I use them all regularly and happily. I do have the medium option out of the three piece modular grip set on my Pentax KP, but I use that camera with the Pentax 100mm macro and the 55-300, both of which are fairly big lenses.
 
sportyaccordy said:
Phil A Martin said:
sportyaccordy said:
For starters comparing flagships like the R7/X-H2s to entry level bodies like Rebels and D5xxxs is a false equivalency. R7/X-H2 are smaller & lighter than the D500/7D2. Entry level APS-C MILCs are way smaller + lighter than Rebels/D3-5xxx bodies.

The whole "MILCs are supposed to be smaller" thing is a MILC detractor strawman.
Click to expand...
It's not a strawman, it was one of the primary advantages claimed for MILC when they were first introduced, as outlined here in this very discussion:-

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66432186
sportyaccordy said:
They can be and often are a lot smaller but even when they aren't they have a ton of other advantages over DSLRs. Lenses are generally smaller the wider the FL too.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I mean, that was 13 years ago. Things change. MILCs went from a novelty reliant on size to the de facto ILC form factor. So while size was the main/only advantage 13 years ago it's only one of many today.
Click to expand...
That simply is not true.

Size was only a minor advantage 13 years ago, just as it is only a minor advantage today.

The main advantage at launch was video capabilities.

Right from day one, EVIL cameras like the Panasonic GH-1 offered an eyelevel viewfinder during video.

They also offered focus peaking and made adapters to all SLR lens families possible, but really, it was all about the video.
 
BackToNature1 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.

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...
I would love to see the Age Groups of whom are talking most about the Sizes of an given Camera. That might be the true tell.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

I'm 60 and I cannot handle the weight of gear I used to. My main axe for at least three decades has been a pro DSLR or FLSR, something that weighs about three pounds just for the body and battery (and drive, if we're talking an F3 or FA).

As my arthritis worsened, I found myself more likely to reach for a backup or lab camera like a D90, which was literally less than half the weight of my D3.

So these days, this old man likes a Z7, and uses the 24-70mm f/4 more often than the f/2.8.
BackToNature1 said:
I think we all can agree mostly on Lens and their sizes, then and now.
Click to expand...
Can we? Our styles change. I remember the days when I used to do street with a Nikon FM2, a 40-50mm prime on the camera, a 105mm in one pocket, a 20, 24, or 28mm in another. If wearing a coat, I could take the lens off the camera and stick them in two other pockets.

Then, event photography became about the "holy trinity" of f/2.8 zooms: 70-200mm, 24-70mm, and 14-24mm, and it was quite a backpack with a pair of 3 lb bodies.
 
HappyMartin said:
BackToNature1 said:
I would love to see the Age Groups of whom are talking most about the Sizes of an given Camera. That might be the true tell. I think we all can agree mostly on Lens and their sizes, then and now.
Click to expand...
Yes that would be interesting. My current theory is most photographers complaining about MILC and the small sizes came to photography after digital and cut there teeth on the large DSLRs.

i am a lot older than that and started with a rangefinder before progressing to Minolta SRT 101 and 303 by my late 20s I was also using TLR, speed graphics, Pentax 6x7 Mamiya6X7 Sinar 8X10, a boat load of Canons and Nikons with and without motor drives. In other words a bewildering variety of body styles and sizes. I will shoot with anything quite honestly. What ever works. Hands are adaptable and I can hold and work with just about any camera.
Currently I use two Sony FF bodies one with a grip/battery thing. Both seem fine to me using from a small prime up to a 200-600 zoom.
Click to expand...
It sounds like, gasp, you know how to hold a camera and lens.
HappyMartin said:
Before these two bodies I used a pair of Sony APSC bodies, with some FF lenses when needed.

Smaller better in my book. I shoot every day and don’t yearn for the hand held Speed Graphics.
Click to expand...
Come on, you know there's something deep inside, something you may have suppressed, that yearns for the handheld Speed Graphic.
HappyMartin said:
Things change. Best not get too attached.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid your good advice will fall on deaf ears. There's too many people here making a religion out of this stuff.
 
Phil A Martin said:
sportyaccordy said:
The whole "MILCs are supposed to be smaller" thing is a MILC detractor strawman.
Click to expand...
It's not a strawman, it was one of the primary advantages claimed for MILC when they were first introduced
Click to expand...
It was actually one of the things that the DSLR-bashers claimed over and over, in hopes of hastening the DSLR's death!
 
thinkinginimages said:
I prefer CSC, compact system camera, although that opens up the debate about what qualifies as compact.
Click to expand...
Please no, I can imagine how many threads that would motivate.
thinkinginimages said:
Until battery makers make smaller, better configured batteries, better heat sinks are discovered, electronic shutters improve (replacing FP and leaf), and we drop this "retro thing", were stuck with the form factor.

It does beg the question: why is anyone still designing cameras like 35mm SLRs and rangefinders? What a wasted opportunity,
Click to expand...
Perhaps because it's a functional, logic, and self-explanatory way to design a camera. I like my camera to look and feel like a camera.

There were tons of weird, experimental camera designs when digital photography was new. If any of those had appealed to a wider audience, they'd probably now exist in a version 15.

The only innovation in camera design is smartphones, and they also all look much the same, and their ergonomics aren't my cup of tea.
 
I probably owned or tried them out of curiosity. I still pick up old wonky cameras just to tinker. We lost some great cameras along the way, like the Casio EXILIM Pro EX-F1. A ridiculously fast camera from 2008. Way ahead of it's time...

Loading…

www.dpreview.com
 
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