Size of milc

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.
But "MILC" makes no mention of size. It doesn't mean small.
The "C" stood for compact. At least when they rolled it out it did.
Always stood for Camera as far as I know. Never once heard of it meaning 'compact'. Makes more sense anyway for it to mean 'Camera'.
 
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.
Perhaps you should make a new poll thread asking what MILC is an acronym for? It seems the whole discussion is turning on whether the C is for Compact or Camera.
 
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.
Perhaps you should make a new poll thread asking what MILC is an acronym for? It seems the whole discussion is turning on whether the C is for Compact or Camera.
I think that there is only one guy here that thinks the C stands for compact.

When not comparing the size of two similar cameras (as in : my D60 is more compact than...) the word compact has always been used here to mean a small camera with a built- in lens.

The same for mirrorless, as a term for a camera that takes lenses but has no mirror we all know that otherwise most "compacts" are also mirrorless.

Anyway...



2512bed551524179a29c73950dbdeaf2.jpg
 
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.
Perhaps you should make a new poll thread asking what MILC is an acronym for? It seems the whole discussion is turning on whether the C is for Compact or Camera.
I think that there is only one guy here that thinks the C stands for compact.

When not comparing the size of two similar cameras (as in : my D60 is more compact than...) the word compact has always been used here to mean a small camera with a built- in lens.

The same for mirrorless, as a term for a camera that takes lenses but has no mirror we all know that otherwise most "compacts" are also mirrorless.

Anyway...

2512bed551524179a29c73950dbdeaf2.jpg
Agreed, we have terms that nearly everyone is familiar with, yet there is always a minority who have to quibble or try to invent new terms that nobody needs.
 
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.
But "MILC" makes no mention of size. It doesn't mean small.
The "C" stood for compact. At least when they rolled it out it did.
Always stood for Camera as far as I know. Never once heard of it meaning 'compact'. Makes more sense anyway for it to mean 'Camera'.
I posted the original article upthread, but everybody ignored it.


I had forgotten it was just ILC but it was the first designation this site used for what we now call mirrorless.
 
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.
MILC all started smaller and got bigger over time.

More features added to the weight and size.

Manufacturers listened to the current base and that's what the majority wanted. Bigger battery, IBIS, and thicker grips all add to the size.

Catering to one group means alienating another group. The manufacturers gave up on portability and size, they want you to use a phone instead.
 
[…]

Catering to one group means alienating another group. The manufacturers gave up on portability and size, they want you to use a phone instead.
I think camera manufacturers realised that portability was a bad USP when competing with phones. I doubt any of them want us to use phones instead, it's the general public that reacted to phones being "good enough".
 
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.
But "MILC" makes no mention of size. It doesn't mean small.
The "C" stood for compact. At least when they rolled it out it did.
Always stood for Camera as far as I know. Never once heard of it meaning 'compact'. Makes more sense anyway for it to mean 'Camera'.
I posted the original article upthread, but everybody ignored it.

https://web.archive.org/web/2010010...rial/2010/01/on-lenses-for-small-cameras.html

I had forgotten it was just ILC but it was the first designation this site used for what we now call mirrorless.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that ILC, a term that predated Mirrorless, stood for Interchangeable Lens Camera. I'm sure there were some people who assumed C stood for Compact but to the best of my knowledge that was an exception to the rule.

--
Tom
 
Last edited:
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.
But "MILC" makes no mention of size. It doesn't mean small.
The "C" stood for compact. At least when they rolled it out it did.
Always stood for Camera as far as I know. Never once heard of it meaning 'compact'. Makes more sense anyway for it to mean 'Camera'.
I posted the original article upthread, but everybody ignored it.

https://web.archive.org/web/2010010...rial/2010/01/on-lenses-for-small-cameras.html

I had forgotten it was just ILC but it was the first designation this site used for what we now call mirrorless.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that ILC, a term that predated Mirrorless, stood for Interchangeable Lens Camera. I'm sure there were some people who assumed C stood for Compact but to the best of my knowledge that was an exception to the rule.
I literally linked the article where the term first came from, right here on this site where I first read it over a decade ago. I remembered it so vividly because I disagreed with it at the time.
 
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.
But "MILC" makes no mention of size. It doesn't mean small.
The "C" stood for compact. At least when they rolled it out it did.
Always stood for Camera as far as I know. Never once heard of it meaning 'compact'. Makes more sense anyway for it to mean 'Camera'.
I posted the original article upthread, but everybody ignored it.

https://web.archive.org/web/2010010...rial/2010/01/on-lenses-for-small-cameras.html

I had forgotten it was just ILC but it was the first designation this site used for what we now call mirrorless.
It still doesn't mean anything. The Camera Feature search tool on this same site - as used today as in right now - shows Interchangeable Lens Cameras:



a853b810063d4e7cb88820aaabfaf8e8.jpg

You're literally the only person I've encountered here or anywhere else that has referred to this as "Compact". So what matters is how the term is used by the population of users.
 
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.
For as long as I've been involved in photography, about 55 years, I have always supported the camera with my left hand under the lens, That makes the camera body size and weight unimportant. The old Film SLRs had fairly small bodies and no grips making holding by the body very difficult. Even with larger-bodied cameras I still support the lens with my left hand, especially with telephoto lenses. Have you ever noticed that large telephoto lenses have a support ring with the tripod thread?
 
I posted the original article upthread, but everybody ignored it.

https://web.archive.org/web/2010010...rial/2010/01/on-lenses-for-small-cameras.html

I had forgotten it was just ILC but it was the first designation this site used for what we now call mirrorless.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that ILC, a term that predated Mirrorless, stood for Interchangeable Lens Camera. I'm sure there were some people who assumed C stood for Compact but to the best of my knowledge that was an exception to the rule.
I literally linked the article where the term first came from, right here on this site where I first read it over a decade ago. I remembered it so vividly because I disagreed with it at the time.
My memory disagrees with that article. :-) Even so if true the term Camera quickly replaced the term compact making it a moot point. The term compact became obsolete very soon after.

--
Tom
 
Catering to one group means alienating another group. The manufacturers gave up on portability and size, they want you to use a phone instead.
Manufacturers don't care what you use. ;-) They'll sell you whatever you want and what makes them money.
 
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.
RP gets front heavy sometimes, particularly with a big EF zoom and adapter.
 
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.
For as long as I've been involved in photography, about 55 years, I have always supported the camera with my left hand under the lens, That makes the camera body size and weight unimportant. The old Film SLRs had fairly small bodies and no grips making holding by the body very difficult. Even with larger-bodied cameras I still support the lens with my left hand, especially with telephoto lenses. Have you ever noticed that large telephoto lenses have a support ring with the tripod thread?
Likoe someone else you totally missed the point that YES INDEED one can do what you do HOWEVER many others don't want to or don't like that and that is why THEY prefer a larger camera.

This is really like pretending that one should always have two teaspoons of sugar in their coffee and that everyone not doing that is WRONG.

Is the point clearer now ?

(BTW, one reason why in the late 70s I switched from Canon to Olympus was because those OM cameras were smaller. BUT IT isn't all about me, remember I worked in retail and the trick there is to understand that we are not all the same)

and...

the funny thing with the OM system was that a lot of users bought the OM winder



35984bc3b3e941229a6aeee3388245bd.jpg

to get a better grip on the camera. Pentax followed that with the ME II winder also having a grip as opposed to the other bottom type other brands were using



a68b488abc764adab0e7e99409a4c544.jpg

mind you, the grip winder made the camera look more professional but at that time we also sold a lot of camer grips also to people that found their camera too small to handle with longer teles or larger flashguns



d29cb361e861435e983ab5542d65a82c.jpg
 
Last edited:
For as long as I've been involved in photography, about 55 years, I have always supported the camera with my left hand under the lens, That makes the camera body size and weight unimportant. The old Film SLRs had fairly small bodies and no grips making holding by the body very difficult. Even with larger-bodied cameras I still support the lens with my left hand, especially with telephoto lenses. Have you ever noticed that large telephoto lenses have a support ring with the tripod thread?
Likoe someone else you totally missed the point that YES INDEED one can do what you do HOWEVER many others don't want to or don't like that and that is why THEY prefer a larger camera.
It sounds like they lack the ability to adapt to something different. I don't understand that attitude in this case. It's like refusing to buy a car because the wiper controls are on the right stalk rather than the left. Anybody could adapt in a few days.
This is really like pretending that one should always have two teaspoons of sugar in their coffee and that everyone not doing that is WRONG.
That's not a good analogy. You can't change your sense of taste.

I'm not claiming they are wrong. I'm saying they could easily adapt if they wanted to.
Is the point clearer now ?
No. If camera A is better and offers features they want not available in camera B yet is smaller I would think someone would take the time to adapt to the smaller camera to access the better features of camera A.

What this boils down to is many people simply don't like and refuse to accept change of any kind. Disclaimer, I prefer larger cameras but not because they work better with larger and heavier lenses. It's mostly because they seem to fit my hands better. I own a large FF camera that is no longer made. If it broke I would have no problem adapting to a smaller lighter one. I own 3 cameras, a subcompact, a medium-sized superzoom, and a fairly large FF. I have no problem adapting to any of them.
 
Last edited:
Disclaimer, I prefer larger cameras but not because they work better with larger and heavier lenses. It's mostly because they seem to fit my hands better.
Ayup! We like what we like. Why should I have to try to learn to like something that is quite off putting? Small cameras are uncomfortable for my bit larger than average hands. Canon and Nikon saw to it that those of us that prefer the pro and prosumer cameras pretty much kept the same form factor as the cameras they replaced.

So I made the jump to mirrorless (R5). Had Canon decided to change their form to smaller, boxier shape, I would have moved to Nikon to get into the mirrorless gang. Subjective for sure, but it's what I like.

David
 
"It's mostly because they seem to fit my hands better."

BINGO!!!!!

It is a simple as that !

All too often people here overthink stuff that is really very simple , if we don't want to push the argument to a different conclusion.

I mentioned many times that camera retail was what I did for a living . I can tell you that it was very common for intercheangeable lens camera buyers, in particular, to like or dismiss a camera simply because of its size and at times its looks.

yes, it is really as simple as that.
 
"It's mostly because they seem to fit my hands better."

BINGO!!!!!

It is a simple as that !

All too often people here overthink stuff that is really very simple , if we don't want to push the argument to a different conclusion.

I mentioned many times that camera retail was what I did for a living . I can tell you that it was very common for intercheangeable lens camera buyers, in particular, to like or dismiss a camera simply because of its size and at times its looks.

yes, it is really as simple as that.
Well, slightly more complex, but all the factors point towards the same conclusion.

Mirrorless fits my hands better, it fits my weight limits better, and it fits my current lack of rock steadiness better (I went from 1 stabilized lens to 30, overnight).

Growing. Old. Sucks!
 
Exactly! Thanks for posting what I’ve also been wondering.
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top