Reading mode: Light Dark

Size of milc

Go to last post
Something which I feel is important for anyone considering purchasing and using a camera body and lens(es) is.....choice. For me, some years ago it was fun and interesting to have a new mirrorless camera (Sony NEX 7) which was smaller and lighter than my DSLRs. Time went on, and eventually mirrorless was becoming more and more prevalent and when the time came to go with mirrorless full-frame, I again chose Sony because they had many choices in lenses, including the ones in which I was most interested.

IMHO Nikon, in its recent release of their new flagship, the Z9, made a significant error in designing that camera body so that it incorporates a built-in grip, which makes the entire body look and probably feel bulkier and heavier and awkward -- not exactly most people's idea of what mirrorless cameras are supposed to be. I wonder how many potential customers have been turned off by this?

I think Nikon would have been smarter to have followed others' leads, including Sony's, and simply provided that grip as an accessory, leaving the choice to the consumer. Nikon users with small hands or no need or desire for a grip would be happy, they'd have the smaller, lighter body, and those who definitely need and want a grip would be happy as long as they could purchase one as an immediately-available accessory.

Water over the dam now, of course....

--
Former Nikon user, now using Sony A7R IV and Sony A1, plus several great Sony and Voigtlander lenses
PBase supporter, Zenfolio supporter
 
Last edited:
I think you hit on something. With new cameras being "everything but the kitchen sink" complete, except for lenses and flashes, there's not that much to keep people coming back. Imagine an assortment of grips, add-on battery chambers, viewfinders with different stand-off's and magnifications, microscope stands, external power and SSD drives, and monitors. Hmmmm.
 
Clix Pix said:
IMHO Nikon, in its recent release of their new flagship, the Z9, made a significant error in designing that camera body so that it incorporates a built-in grip, which makes the entire body look and probably feel bulkier and heavier and awkward -- not exactly most people's idea of what mirrorless cameras are supposed to be. I wonder how many potential customers have been turned off by this?
Click to expand...
And yet Nikon can't keep up with orders. Go figure.

David
 
David Pavlich said:
Clix Pix said:
IMHO Nikon, in its recent release of their new flagship, the Z9, made a significant error in designing that camera body so that it incorporates a built-in grip, which makes the entire body look and probably feel bulkier and heavier and awkward -- not exactly most people's idea of what mirrorless cameras are supposed to be. I wonder how many potential customers have been turned off by this?
Click to expand...
And yet Nikon can't keep up with orders. Go figure.

David
Click to expand...
A constant around here are people that have a real hard time figuring out that others are not like them.

For example the fact that ,like it or not, some cameras feel too big to some but too small to others.

I am not all that sure why something so simple is at the same time so hard to grasp.
 
Bob Janes said:
Tom_N said:
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!
Click to expand...
Are there links to support this assertion?
Click to expand...
No links but I do remember people saying that and still do complain about cameras being too big and heavy. I was never one of them. Whether it was intended to hasten the death of the DSLR is doubtful. It was done more to justify buying a smaller camera when such cameras were criticized by DSLR users. I remember a few years ago there was a mirrorless vs DSLR war going on in which each side emotionally felt compelled to defend their purchases. Thank goodness it has mostly faded away.
 
Bob Janes said:
Tom_N said:
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!
Click to expand...
Are there links to support this assertion?
Click to expand...
I remember it, DSLRs were big like dinosaurs and doomed to extinction.
Bob Janes said:
--
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
Click to expand...
 
FrancoD said:
David Pavlich said:
Clix Pix said:
IMHO Nikon, in its recent release of their new flagship, the Z9, made a significant error in designing that camera body so that it incorporates a built-in grip, which makes the entire body look and probably feel bulkier and heavier and awkward -- not exactly most people's idea of what mirrorless cameras are supposed to be. I wonder how many potential customers have been turned off by this?
Click to expand...
And yet Nikon can't keep up with orders. Go figure.

David
Click to expand...
A constant around here are people that have a real hard time figuring out that others are not like them.

For example the fact that ,like it or not, some cameras feel too big to some but too small to others.

I am not all that sure why something so simple is at the same time so hard to grasp.
Click to expand...
Having a Mamiya RB67 as my prime camera for some twenty years, my Pentax K1ii feels quite small 😀
 
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
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
Joseph S Wisniewski 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.
Click to expand...
Video was not available from day one; the G1 had no internal video recording capabilities and came out about 5 months before the GH1. Plus the D90 was the first ILC with video and it beat the GH1 by about 6 months. The usefulness of video for mainstream users was dubious anyway given the useless autofocus and expensive storage.

Manual focus is a niche use case so that's hardly something that would have shifted the mainstream paradigm.

Much of the talk around the G1 at launch was around its reduced size and complexity. Today much of the talk of MILCs is around tech and performance. The focus has shifted over the last 14 years.

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/
 
Last edited:
Phil A Martin said:
FrancoD said:
David Pavlich said:
Clix Pix said:
IMHO Nikon, in its recent release of their new flagship, the Z9, made a significant error in designing that camera body so that it incorporates a built-in grip, which makes the entire body look and probably feel bulkier and heavier and awkward -- not exactly most people's idea of what mirrorless cameras are supposed to be. I wonder how many potential customers have been turned off by this?
Click to expand...
And yet Nikon can't keep up with orders. Go figure.

David
Click to expand...
A constant around here are people that have a real hard time figuring out that others are not like them.

For example the fact that ,like it or not, some cameras feel too big to some but too small to others.

I am not all that sure why something so simple is at the same time so hard to grasp.
Click to expand...
Having a Mamiya RB67 as my prime camera for some twenty years, my Pentax K1ii feels quite small 😀
Click to expand...
Having shot with that beast for a few years I totally get your point. It might rank as the most ungainly non sheet film camera ever made. I really liked it though.
 
FrancoD said:
A constant around here are people that have a real hard time figuring out that others are not like them.

For example the fact that ,like it or not, some cameras feel too big to some but too small to others.

I am not all that sure why something so simple is at the same time so hard to grasp.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear!! Sony makes cameras that produce terrific results, but handling one is like handling a toy. Subjective for sure, but it was off putting enough for me to not give their cameras a consideration. In two words, too small.

We like what we like, but like you said, some just can't believe that the next person doesn't like the same thing as they do. Although, I'm not sure why everyone hasn't switched to the R5. :-D:-D

David
 
Phil A Martin said:
Bob Janes said:
Tom_N said:
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!
Click to expand...
Are there links to support this assertion?
Click to expand...
I remember it, DSLRs were big like dinosaurs and doomed to extinction.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it was the bigness of dinosaurs that was the emphasis? There were plenty of small dinosaurs... (and there are plenty of mammals bigger than dinosaurs were).

I suspect the reference was more to extinction (although ironically the descendents of dinosaurs are still with us - but they tend to be of reasonable sizes)

--
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:
David Pavlich said:
FrancoD said:
A constant around here are people that have a real hard time figuring out that others are not like them.

For example the fact that ,like it or not, some cameras feel too big to some but too small to others.

I am not all that sure why something so simple is at the same time so hard to grasp.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear!! Sony makes cameras that produce terrific results, but handling one is like handling a toy. Subjective for sure, but it was off putting enough for me to not give their cameras a consideration. In two words, too small.

We like what we like, but like you said, some just can't believe that the next person doesn't like the same thing as they do. Although, I'm not sure why everyone hasn't switched to the R5. :-D:-D

David
Click to expand...
 
HappyMartin said:
David Pavlich said:
FrancoD said:
A constant around here are people that have a real hard time figuring out that others are not like them.

For example the fact that ,like it or not, some cameras feel too big to some but too small to others.

I am not all that sure why something so simple is at the same time so hard to grasp.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear!! Sony makes cameras that produce terrific results, but handling one is like handling a toy. Subjective for sure, but it was off putting enough for me to not give their cameras a consideration. In two words, too small.

We like what we like, but like you said, some just can't believe that the next person doesn't like the same thing as they do. Although, I'm not sure why everyone hasn't switched to the R5. :-D:-D

David
Click to expand...
What gets people in a tizzy is the emotive language. Like you saying the Sony is like a toy or handles like a toy. You could have just said you find it too small. People find the toy reference insulting to their choice of camera. Personally I don’t give a dam what you say about what camera but it’s a fact that such descriptions rile people up. Same as those who refer to DSLR’s as dinosaurs. Next thing you know handbags are swinging and no one learns a dam thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, my Lumix GM1 and GX800 both look like toy cameras. Quite an advantage in some situations (although very occasionally it can be a disadvantage).
 
David Pavlich said:
I avoided mirrorless because of the manufacturer's desires to make the things smaller. I was pleased when Nikon and Canon chose to make their pro and pro-sumer bodies similar in size and shape to the cameras they were replacing.

Further, I didn't replace my 5DIV with an R because I require 2 card slots. The advent of the R5 cured that, so now I have the R5. If Canon had gone the Sony route and made their mirrorless FF cameras look like they belong on the shelves of a toy store, I would have either stayed with Canon DSLRs or moved to a mirrorless brand that had a size that suited me.

Subjective for sure, but I can't imagine shooting with a camera that doesn't feel right.

David
Click to expand...
I can shoot with any camera that doesn't have a lot of sharp corners. The last film camera I bought was a used Mamiya C3, which is heavy and has sharp corners. That didn't get much use before the transition to digital.

Don
 
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
Click to expand...
It's funny how things are perceived by folks sometimes when facts show it to be very different. The 7D II is even bigger & heavier.
 
Mark B. 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
Click to expand...
It's funny how things are perceived by folks sometimes when facts show it to be very different. The 7D II is even bigger & heavier.
Click to expand...
Correct and some people equate heavier with "better" build quality. Anybody who is familiar with those big old American cars from the 60s knows that's not true.
 
HappyMartin said:
What gets people in a tizzy is the emotive language. Like you saying the Sony is like a toy or handles like a toy. You could have just said you find it too small. People find the toy reference insulting to their choice of camera. Personally I don’t give a dam what you say about what camera but it’s a fact that such descriptions rile people up. Same as those who refer to DSLR’s as dinosaurs. Next thing you know handbags are swinging and no one learns a dam thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, the toy comparison seems intentionally derogatory as does the term Dinosaur. It's like saying "Your camera is no good. Mine is better".
 
Bob Janes said:
Phil A Martin said:
Bob Janes said:
Tom_N said:
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!
Click to expand...
Are there links to support this assertion?
Click to expand...
I remember it, DSLRs were big like dinosaurs and doomed to extinction.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it was the bigness of dinosaurs that was the emphasis? There were plenty of small dinosaurs... (and there are plenty of mammals bigger than dinosaurs were).
Click to expand...
Well considering I own Pentax K5, K3, K1ii and a KP, which I use in rotation and depending on the circumstances, I'd suggest I'm the wrong person to direct this question to but yes, I clearly remember people emphasising small size as one of the benefits of MILC. And for a camera format doomed to extinction, it's certainly taking a while for it to reach it's conclusion.
Bob Janes said:
I suspect the reference was more to extinction (although ironically the descendents of dinosaurs are still with us - but they tend to be of reasonable sizes)

--
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
Click to expand...
 
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...
There is a big misunderstanding that all mirrorless camera should be smaller than all DSLR.

MILC can be made smaller and ligther than DSLR, but that does not mean that all MILC should be designed that way. Higher end cameras has always tended to be larger than lower end cameras.

The users want higher end cameras with more dials and buttons which require larger cameras for comfortable use, and the user want higher performance on these cameras which need better cooling, which makes cameras bigger. Higher end cameras tend to be used with larger higher end lenses, which makes a better balance on a larger cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Canon R7 + Canon 100-400mm (+ 1.4x) vs Sony A6700 + Sigma 150-600mm
Replies
12
Views
2K
Planterz
Planterz
R
Underrated but useful gear for you
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
114
landshark
landshark
B
Looking to Upgrade: OM-1 Mark II + 300mm vs Canon R7 + RF 100-500
Replies
4
Views
355
beagle1
B
N
Can not decide between fuji or m43
Replies
7
Views
27
Mountaingrapher
M
Dick Dastardly
Dear fellow Rebels,
Replies
6
Views
2K
StrugglingforLight
S

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