Why is the E-1 so big?

markE59102 · Mar 14, 2004

AJR said:
This thread seems to miss the original point a bit. In absolute
terms, the E-1 IS a behemoth. The apples-to-apples lens comparo
notwithstanding, It just seems everything is bigger than its filmic
predecessor.

If I may quote Terry Sessford:

"1) The size of the sensor alone is not the only factor that determines camera size, of particular relevance here is the diameter of the lens-mount opening. Although the old Pentax 110 SLR had more or less the same size 'sensor' as the E-1, the Pentax had a much smaller lens-mount. This was because the Pentax used film whereas the E-1 has been designed as digital from the ground up and so it uses a 'telecentric lens design' (in which light strikes the image sensor at near right angles) to achieve the best quality images. This design requires that the lens-mount opening is much larger than the sensor size, and it is a feature that improves the off-centre image quality of the E-1 relative to that from other DSLRs (such as the 10D)."

End of quote.
--
markE
pbase supporter

'In wildness lies the preservation of the world.'
-Henry David Thoreau
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/gallery/wingsoflight

AJR · Mar 14, 2004

Not to be cheeky, but what does this technobabble have to do with the hulkdom of the E-1 and other DSLRs? The Sony DSC-T1 was also designed to be "digital from the ground up" and it'd almost fit in my wallet. Isn't it reasonable to expect a 2004 state-of-the-art digital SLR to be smaller than a 1975 35mm SLR? This was my point, not sensor size, lens equivalents, Nikon vs Canon vs Oly or the other obsessions that pepper this forum. It's like, where's the jet pack I was promised in the World of Tomorrow? Cameras aren't supposed to get bigger and more difficult to lug around; that's not progress!

markE said:
AJR said:

This thread seems to miss the original point a bit. In absolute
terms, the E-1 IS a behemoth. The apples-to-apples lens comparo
notwithstanding, It just seems everything is bigger than its filmic
predecessor.

Click to expand...

If I may quote Terry Sessford:

"1) The size of the sensor alone is not the only factor that
determines camera size, of particular relevance here is the
diameter of the lens-mount opening. Although the old Pentax 110 SLR
had more or less the same size 'sensor' as the E-1, the Pentax had
a much smaller lens-mount. This was because the Pentax used film
whereas the E-1 has been designed as digital from the ground up and
so it uses a 'telecentric lens design' (in which light strikes the
image sensor at near right angles) to achieve the best quality
images. This design requires that the lens-mount opening is much
larger than the sensor size, and it is a feature that improves the
off-centre image quality of the E-1 relative to that from other
DSLRs (such as the 10D)."

End of quote.
--
markE
pbase supporter

'In wildness lies the preservation of the world.'
-Henry David Thoreau
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/gallery/wingsoflight

Joseph Edward Forks · Mar 14, 2004

AJR said:
The Sony DSC-T1 was also
designed to be "digital from the ground up" and it'd almost fit in
my wallet.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

AJR said:
Isn't it reasonable to expect a 2004 state-of-the-art
digital SLR to be smaller than a 1975 35mm SLR?

Depands on the image quality you expect from said camera.

AJR said:
It's like, where's the jet
pack I was promised in the World of Tomorrow?

Gillagan had one back in 1975.

AJR said:
Cameras aren't
supposed to get bigger and more difficult to lug around; that's not
progress!

It is progress. All DSLR's are a compromise of sorts between size and
quality, otherwise you would have already bought a Sony DSC-T1
and it would do everything you need it to do, including sports and
wildlife.

Regards
Joe

alistairsyme · Mar 14, 2004

I've heard it mentioned several times that it appears that Olympus used a full-sized 36x24mm pentaprism in the E-1. Is this true? Is it a holdover part from an earlier camera? Might we expect a size or weight reduction in the E-2 with a designed-for-4/3 pentaprism. It is true that most of the APS format DSLRs use pentaprisms and mirrors from 35mm cameras.

markE59102 · Mar 14, 2004

AJR said:
Not to be cheeky, but what does this technobabble have to do with
the hulkdom of the E-1 and other DSLRs?

You can call it anything you want, it's still a valid reason. Can't you understand why this would require a larger camera body?

Other reasons the E1 couldn't be the size of the Sony DSC-TI would be the battery size and the amount of EASILY handled external controls (on the camera body).

Besides, who in there right mind would want to operate a camera as small as the Sony on a daily basis? My hands and fingers just aren't that small. Call in the munchkins!

Why do you think every car isn't as small as a Fiat Spyder?

AJR said:
The Sony DSC-T1 was also
designed to be "digital from the ground up" and it'd almost fit in
my wallet. Isn't it reasonable to expect a 2004 state-of-the-art
digital SLR to be smaller than a 1975 35mm SLR? This was my point,
not sensor size, lens equivalents,

Sorry, but that's called elementary physics. You can't fit 20 hot dogs on one bun. (unless you buy them at the local gas station ;-) )

AJR said:
Nikon vs Canon vs Oly or the
other obsessions that pepper this forum. It's like, where's the jet
pack I was promised in the World of Tomorrow?

Didn't you get yours? I'm already using atom-powered combat boots.

--
markE
pbase supporter

'In wildness lies the preservation of the world.'
-Henry David Thoreau
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/gallery/wingsoflight

Joe Sneed · Mar 14, 2004

AJR:

I'm an OM-2n owner, as well as an OM-1. I too was disappointed at the size sacrifice I had to make in going digital with an E-1. Size (not only weight, but also volume) is a major consideration for me. I DO carry thse things in a backpack.

However, the size comparison in the Phil Askey E-1 review (sorry can't call up the citation) with the Cannon 10D and Nikon D-100 convinced me. With the 14-54mm. lens the E-1 was significantly smaller (both weight and volume) than the compeditors. I'm aware that the lenses compared were not "equivalent" in all aspects, but surely close enough for my purposes

I also like the durable construction and ergononmics of the E-1 and the general convenience of digital vs. film.

But, I still think I get better iimages with an OM-1 slide and a high resolution scan.

joe

AJR said:
This thread seems to miss the original point a bit. In absolute
terms, the E-1 IS a behemoth. The apples-to-apples lens comparo
notwithstanding, It just seems everything is bigger than its filmic
predecessor.

I have owned several OM bodies, and still have an OM-2n and OM-4T,
both of which are tiny compared to my new E-1 body in all respects
save the size of the viewfinder. I like the E-1 a lot, but still
I'm disappointed that the move from film to high quality digital
hasn't yielded real physical size advantages. I could comfortably
carry my OM system (body, Tamron 28-210, 35mm PC shift, 24mm, 2x
tel & F280) in a Tamrac Velocity 5. Now, I can barely fit the
body/14-54 & the 50-200 in the same bag, forget the flash (The FL50
is twice the size of the F280) or the PC lens (when my OM adapter
arrives, that is). We got rid of all the mechanics of film
transport, Sony can put a passable digicam in a package the size of
a credit card, so why do DSLR's have to be so bloody huge?
Ergonomics is no excuse: the OM had great ergo too, in a much
smaller package.

Despite the joys inherent in shooting digital (and there are many),
it's still meant harder focusing for my older eyes in the smaller
viewfinder and buying new camera bags to house the significantly
larger system components. For me, it'll be REAL progress when
gearing up with E-1-quality doesn't mean lugging a backpack.

--
Joe Sneed

AJR · Mar 14, 2004

Joseph Edward Forks said:
Joseph Edward Forks said:

The Sony DSC-T1 was also
designed to be "digital from the ground up" and it'd almost fit in
my wallet.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

It's hardly irrelevant. The "digital from the ground up" is used like a mantra here, as if it excuses every shortcoming. One might better ask what this phrase has to do with the price of tea in China.

Joseph Edward Forks said:
Joseph Edward Forks said:

Isn't it reasonable to expect a 2004 state-of-the-art
digital SLR to be smaller than a 1975 35mm SLR?

Click to expand...

Depands on the image quality you expect from said camera.

Oh, just commensurate with the image quality from said 1975 35mm SLR.

Joseph Edward Forks said:
Joseph Edward Forks said:

It's like, where's the jet
pack I was promised in the World of Tomorrow?

Click to expand...

Gillagan had one back in 1975.

Joseph Edward Forks said:

Cameras aren't
supposed to get bigger and more difficult to lug around; that's not
progress!

Click to expand...

It is progress. All DSLR's are a compromise of sorts between size and
quality, otherwise you would have already bought a Sony DSC-T1
and it would do everything you need it to do, including sports and
wildlife.

These are all nitpicks or rationalizations. I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but with all that said, I still don't see anything addressing the size issue. The OM's weren't a compromise between size and quality. Perhaps when DSLR's have had an equivalent gestation period they'll come down to a size that is as revolutionary as their imaging technology. I just wish it were now, because one compromise I don't like making is lugging around bigger equipment to peer through smaller peepholes.

Joseph Edward Forks said:
Regards
Joe

AJR · Mar 14, 2004

markE said:
AJR said:

Not to be cheeky, but what does this technobabble have to do with
the hulkdom of the E-1 and other DSLRs?

Click to expand...

You can call it anything you want, it's still a valid reason. Can't
you understand why this would require a larger camera body?

I understand that this led to a larger camera body, but you treat the decision to make the mount the size it is as if it were an immutable law of physics, which it's not. The predicate may have been the deciding factor which led to the current size of the camera, but nothing about physics dictates that it had to be just that way. This is like a builder explaining that the roof's too low because they built the wall too short.

markE59102 said:
Other reasons the E1 couldn't be the size of the Sony DSC-TI would
be the battery size and the amount of EASILY handled external
controls (on the camera body).

Besides, who in there right mind would want to operate a camera as
small as the Sony on a daily basis? My hands and fingers just
aren't that small. Call in the munchkins!

Point well taken, but I wasn't suggesting that a DSLR be this size, just pointing out the extremes possible with this imaging technology that might reasonably lead one to expect similar diminution in size on the SLR front, without compromising operability.

markE59102 said:
Why do you think every car isn't as small as a Fiat Spyder?

markE59102 said:

The Sony DSC-T1 was also
designed to be "digital from the ground up" and it'd almost fit in
my wallet. Isn't it reasonable to expect a 2004 state-of-the-art
digital SLR to be smaller than a 1975 35mm SLR? This was my point,
not sensor size, lens equivalents,

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's called elementary physics. You can't fit 20 hot
dogs on one bun. (unless you buy them at the local gas station ;-)
)

Well, I'm just an MIT graduate, so I don't really understand this physics stuff too well...;-)

markE59102 said:
markE59102 said:

Nikon vs Canon vs Oly or the
other obsessions that pepper this forum. It's like, where's the jet
pack I was promised in the World of Tomorrow?

Click to expand...

Didn't you get yours? I'm already using atom-powered combat boots.

Damn! I knew I shouldn't have canceled my Popular Science subscription!

markE59102 said:
--
markE
pbase supporter

'In wildness lies the preservation of the world.'
-Henry David Thoreau
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/gallery/wingsoflight

Joseph Edward Forks · Mar 14, 2004

Your points are well taken too. It's just not a major deal for me.
It's still a lot lighter than carrying a Mamiya RZ67 with three lenses
and two backs for 10 or 15 miles in a back pack. Of course I'm now
in my 40's and not mid 20's, which is why I use an E1 and not
a Mamiya.

Regards
Joe

Marcus O · Mar 14, 2004

The E-1 could have been smaller and lighter. However, the E-1 design team was focused on creating a camera that would appeal the pro shooters. The marketing people determined that the Pro's like a camera with a little heft and would not respect a camera that they considered too light.

Marketing also knew that due to the 4/3 fomat, the E-1 lenses would make an E-1 kit significantly lighter and more compact than any comparable Nikon or Cannon kit.

I think they made a good call.

markE59102 · Mar 14, 2004

AJR said:
markE said:

AJR said:

Not to be cheeky, but what does this technobabble have to do with
the hulkdom of the E-1 and other DSLRs?

Click to expand...

You can call it anything you want, it's still a valid reason. Can't
you understand why this would require a larger camera body?

Click to expand...

I understand that this led to a larger camera body, but you treat
the decision to make the mount the size it is as if it were an
immutable law of physics, which it's not. The predicate may have
been the deciding factor which led to the current size of the
camera, but nothing about physics dictates that it had to be just
that way.

As I understand it, Oly had to make the mount this size, in order to accommodate the more perpendicular light rays. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I've understood it. That being the case, how could the mount size be any smaller without loosing part of the image?

AJR said:
This is like a builder explaining that the roof's too low
because they built the wall too short.

I see a physical necessity for the size of the lens mount, for this size of sensor. Are you saying that they could've used a smaller mount without reducing the physical size of the sensor? Maybe it could...I honestly don't know. Wouldn't a larger sensor require an even larger diameter mount?

AJR said:
Point well taken, but I wasn't suggesting that a DSLR be this size,
just pointing out the extremes possible with this imaging
technology that might reasonably lead one to expect similar
diminution in size on the SLR front, without compromising
operability.

I don't think you can necessarily expect the size to diminish to the same extent as a P&S camera. DSLRs have different physical requirements, due to things like I mentioned previously, and probably several more I'm not aware of.

AJR said:
AJR said:

Sorry, but that's called elementary physics. You can't fit 20 hot
dogs on one bun. (unless you buy them at the local gas station ;-)
)

Click to expand...

Well, I'm just an MIT graduate, so I don't really understand this
physics stuff too well...;-)

Touche. But try the bun/dog test sometime. At least the gas station employees will have something interesting to talk about. ;-)

AJR said:
AJR said:

AJR said:

Nikon vs Canon vs Oly or the
other obsessions that pepper this forum. It's like, where's the jet
pack I was promised in the World of Tomorrow?

Click to expand...

Didn't you get yours? I'm already using atom-powered combat boots.

Click to expand...

Damn! I knew I shouldn't have canceled my Popular Science
subscription!

LOL!

I think Marcus also made a good point, in his response to Joe. Marketing was most likely a factor. But in my opinion, so was actual practical use of the camera. I don't like a camera that is too light or too small. It more difficult to hold and keep steady (up to a point, of course). It seems Oly has possibly hit a sweet spot in this size/weight area. Of course, one mans feather is another man's brick.

--
markE
pbase supporter

'In wildness lies the preservation of the world.'
-Henry David Thoreau
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/gallery/wingsoflight

Ross · Mar 14, 2004

Marcus O said:
The E-1 could have been smaller and lighter. However, the E-1
design team was focused on creating a camera that would appeal the
pro shooters. The marketing people determined that the Pro's like
a camera with a little heft and would not respect a camera that
they considered too light.

Marketing also knew that due to the 4/3 fomat, the E-1 lenses would
make an E-1 kit significantly lighter and more compact than any
comparable Nikon or Cannon kit.

I think they made a good call.

Oly does say that they asked the Pros to help design the E-1. The Pros, harking back to their favorites, would say, "make it this big..."

I took this snap to show a friend (who has used Nikon all her Pro life) the size of the E-1 in comparison to her favorite.
--
Bob Ross

AJR · Mar 14, 2004

I was going to speculate on this earlier. I wonder if this is at least part of the reason DSLRs are so huge: The crop of users at whom they're aimed are most comfortable with the bulk of a Nikon or a Medium format system and might feel that anything less hefty is just a toy unworthy of consideration. So even if it were technically feasible to create a truly tiny DSLR with acceptable performance, it would fail because it doesn't meet the expectations of the transitional dinosaurs (and I count myself among this lot) used to professional film systems. If this is true, it may fall to a new generation of users without such preconceptions before the form factor of pro systems gets really small.

Ross said:
Marcus O said:

The E-1 could have been smaller and lighter. However, the E-1
design team was focused on creating a camera that would appeal the
pro shooters. The marketing people determined that the Pro's like
a camera with a little heft and would not respect a camera that
they considered too light.

Marketing also knew that due to the 4/3 fomat, the E-1 lenses would
make an E-1 kit significantly lighter and more compact than any
comparable Nikon or Cannon kit.

I think they made a good call.

Click to expand...

Oly does say that they asked the Pros to help design the E-1. The
Pros, harking back to their favorites, would say, "make it this
big..."

I took this snap to show a friend (who has used Nikon all her Pro
life) the size of the E-1 in comparison to her favorite.
--
Bob Ross

AJR · Mar 14, 2004

markE said:
As I understand it, Oly had to make the mount this size, in order
to accommodate the more perpendicular light rays. Maybe I'm wrong,
but that's the way I've understood it. That being the case, how
could the mount size be any smaller without loosing part of the
image?

It does seem that the size of the mount opening is significantly larger than the sensor area, and clearly Oly was hitting some compromise between resolution with today's sensor technology and system heft. But somebody's eventually going to do some additional conceptual blockbusting here that blows away the "perpendicular" issue, whether it's in sensor technology or by working on the geometry of the sensor plane (is there any reason the sensor can't curve to match a different, more compact light spread?).

markE59102 said:
markE59102 said:

This is like a builder explaining that the roof's too low
because they built the wall too short.

Click to expand...

I see a physical necessity for the size of the lens mount, for this
size of sensor. Are you saying that they could've used a smaller
mount without reducing the physical size of the sensor? Maybe it
could...I honestly don't know. Wouldn't a larger sensor require an
even larger diameter mount?

For all the talk about "designed for digital" and "perpendicular light rays," every test of the 4/3 vs "transitional" systems from Canon and Nikon fail to find any performance improvement from these attributes. In fact, the Canons with their legacy lenses and resulting variable strike angles seem to routinely best the E-1 in resolution and fidelity comparisons. Perhaps the purported advantages of being orthogonal are more marketing hype than reality.

markE59102 said:
I don't think you can necessarily expect the size to diminish to
the same extent as a P&S camera. DSLRs have different physical
requirements, due to things like I mentioned previously, and
probably several more I'm not aware of.

But I DO expect similar size advances, because so much mechanical stuff is obviated by the elimination of physical film and sensor technology is still in virtual infancy. It's simply unbelieveable to me that digital technology won't eventually lead to professional-grade cameras with form factors significantly smaller than the E-1.

markE59102 said:
I think Marcus also made a good point, in his response to Joe.
Marketing was most likely a factor. But in my opinion, so was
actual practical use of the camera. I don't like a camera that is
too light or too small. It more difficult to hold and keep steady
(up to a point, of course). It seems Oly has possibly hit a sweet
spot in this size/weight area. Of course, one mans feather is
another man's brick.

No disagreement that there was marketing going on here, and fulfilling expectations of a user group who EXPECT to have to transport any serious photo equipment in a small truck. All things said, though I really like my E-1, it's still too flippin' big, way bigger than my OM's, which were ergonomically great, felt great in the hand, had big, bright viewfinders half again as large as the E-1's, took great pictures and were easily 1/2 to 3/4 the size of the current crop of DSLRs. We can surely think of plenty of explanations and excuses, but I still say it's not unreasonable to ask DSLRs to improve on that paradigm.

Ross · Mar 14, 2004

AJR said:
I was going to speculate on this earlier. I wonder if this is at
least part of the reason DSLRs are so huge: The crop of users at
whom they're aimed are most comfortable with the bulk of a Nikon or
a Medium format system and might feel that anything less hefty is
just a toy unworthy of consideration. So even if it were
technically feasible to create a truly tiny DSLR with acceptable
performance, it would fail because it doesn't meet the expectations
of the transitional dinosaurs (and I count myself among this lot)
used to professional film systems. If this is true, it may fall to
a new generation of users without such preconceptions before the
form factor of pro systems gets really small.

Another point to consider is the mass, as a damper of vibration. The E-1 pictured weighs one oz. more than the F2 pictured (probably my Zing grip strap), but the mirror in the E-1 is smaller and probably better dampened. Mirror slap can be deadly to sharp images.

As AF came to the Pros, the cameras grew considerably over that old F2 workhorse and the Pros used to the F2 didn't get any younger.....

--
Bob Ross

Phredd · Mar 14, 2004

There shouldn't have been any "holdovers" since this was designed "from the ground up" as a Digital SLR. As for the camera mount mentioned in another post, theoretically they should have been able to reduce the size by 1/3 since the sensor is only 2/3 the size of 35mm film. Others also mentioned that fewer (and smaller) mechanical parts should have enabled the design of a smaller body, which also makes perfect sense. Smaller sensor requires smaller lens, which allows for smaller mirror and smaller viewfinder.

As for ergonomics, smaller cameras have been very ergonomic. Witness the so-called Prosumer cameras. Perhaps there's a size in between Prosumer and "35mm sized" DSLRs that would be just right. They may have kept the size large to appeal to professionals, but then why introduce the camera as a "compact" system.

I've also thought more about the compactness of the lenses based on the crop factor -- that the 55-200 is actually like a 110-400. Except that it's still a 55-200. Take a higher resolution camera and crop the image taken with a 200mm lens and you've equalled the E-1 "crop advantage". Otherwise, any camera could use a smaller, more dense sensor to create a "system" that is suddenly more compact because all your existing lenses are now "bigger".

My guess is that the OM designers have retired and we just can't expect that kind of revolutionary system today.

Fred

alistairsyme said:
I've heard it mentioned several times that it appears that Olympus
used a full-sized 36x24mm pentaprism in the E-1. Is this true? Is
it a holdover part from an earlier camera? Might we expect a size
or weight reduction in the E-2 with a designed-for-4/3 pentaprism.
It is true that most of the APS format DSLRs use pentaprisms and
mirrors from 35mm cameras.

Ross · Mar 14, 2004

AJR said:
No disagreement that there was marketing going on here, and
fulfilling expectations of a user group who EXPECT to have to
transport any serious photo equipment in a small truck. All things
said, though I really like my E-1, it's still too flippin' big, way
bigger than my OM's, which were ergonomically great, felt great in
the hand, had big, bright viewfinders half again as large as the
E-1's, took great pictures and were easily 1/2 to 3/4 the size of
the current crop of DSLRs. We can surely think of plenty of
explanations and excuses, but I still say it's not unreasonable to
ask DSLRs to improve on that paradigm.

I suspect that the coming consumer level 4/3rds body will probably resemble the Oly 8080 in size in general. It will have a mirror box, lens mount, pop up flash and prism in place of the EVF, pop up flash and fixed lens, but you'll see the family resemblance for sure. The hint is that the 8080 is about the largest of the new 8MP ZLRs. We'll get smaller and lighter at the cost of less build quality and a few features.
--
Bob Ross

Higuma · Mar 14, 2004

AJR,

Having a hard time getting what you point is here... Is this just another endless discussion about what one person feels the shortcomings of the E-1 is or do you have a valid and meaningful point to make...

Could the E-1 have been made smaller? - - Oh course it could have... But they didn't...

Will form factors shrink in the future?... Oh course they will - to a point... I am still driving a 4,000 pound luxury car (in Japan no less) only difference being it gets great mileage while sporting a 4.0 liter dohc 280hp V8...

Will the 4/3 system shrink in the future?... I don't think so because it is limited by the physical constraints put on it during the design phase... their decision and their success or follie...

******

I think that you may wish to exchange email with the "OM fan" / "paul"... the sound and discourse of your comments are very similar...

I also happen to like the complete OM system of Oly... It was great and I realize that there are still many people left who feel that they were abandoned by Olympus over the system...

For yourself, perhaps the best compromise digitally is to stay with your beloved OM and invest in a really good scanner.. that way you can be nostalgic about the smell of fixer and those days of yesteryear...

Conversely, if point and shoot size is what you yearn for then there are lots and lots to look at... But to sit and wonder why the E-1 is so big is just " a day late and a dollar short "...

This was an interested and informative thread until it started to sound like griping...

Cheers,

markE59102 · Mar 14, 2004

AJR said:
It does seem that the size of the mount opening is significantly
larger than the sensor area, and clearly Oly was hitting some
compromise between resolution with today's sensor technology and
system heft.

Or maybe it's in preparation for a larger sensor? Would this be feasible?

AJR said:
But somebody's eventually going to do some additional
conceptual blockbusting here that blows away the "perpendicular"
issue, whether it's in sensor technology or by working on the
geometry of the sensor plane (is there any reason the sensor can't
curve to match a different, more compact light spread?).

Oooo, now that sounds exciting! But I would think that's way beyond the life expectancy of the E-series. And wouldn't that surely render the current lenses obsolete?

AJR said:
For all the talk about "designed for digital" and "perpendicular
light rays," every test of the 4/3 vs "transitional" systems from
Canon and Nikon fail to find any performance improvement from these
attributes. In fact, the Canons with their legacy lenses and
resulting variable strike angles seem to routinely best the E-1 in
resolution and fidelity comparisons. Perhaps the purported
advantages of being orthogonal are more marketing hype than reality.

I don't have any personal experience with this myself, but I have heard from several people that the FF 1Ds has shown to have problems inthis area. I don't think you're going to see it with the cameras that have smaller sensors, since you are only using the best part (center) of the lens, and now are also carrying around considerably more glass that what the sensor requires.

AJR said:
AJR said:

I don't think you can necessarily expect the size to diminish to
the same extent as a P&S camera. DSLRs have different physical
requirements, due to things like I mentioned previously, and
probably several more I'm not aware of.

Click to expand...

But I DO expect similar size advances, because so much mechanical
stuff is obviated by the elimination of physical film and sensor
technology is still in virtual infancy.

Yes, I agree whole heartedly with you there. But that's the nature of economical product development and marketing. The auto industry is one of the biggest culprits of "holding back" technology, and milking the old stuff for all it's worth. I'm sure they could make an E1 much smaller, but why do it if the current rate of advancement is "good enough" for comfortable sales? I think Oly is much less guilty of holding back advancement than the other manufacturers. Don't you think Oly has taken greater risks in this area?

AJR said:
It's simply unbelieveable
to me that digital technology won't eventually lead to
professional-grade cameras with form factors significantly smaller
than the E-1.

I would think this will only happen when they feel it's necessary to continue comfortable sales, and rarely when it becomes actually possible.

AJR said:
AJR said:

I think Marcus also made a good point, in his response to Joe.
Marketing was most likely a factor. But in my opinion, so was
actual practical use of the camera. I don't like a camera that is
too light or too small. It more difficult to hold and keep steady
(up to a point, of course). It seems Oly has possibly hit a sweet
spot in this size/weight area. Of course, one mans feather is
another man's brick.

Click to expand...

No disagreement that there was marketing going on here, and
fulfilling expectations of a user group who EXPECT to have to
transport any serious photo equipment in a small truck. All things
said, though I really like my E-1, it's still too flippin' big, way
bigger than my OM's, which were ergonomically great, felt great in
the hand, had big, bright viewfinders half again as large as the
E-1's, took great pictures and were easily 1/2 to 3/4 the size of
the current crop of DSLRs.

You're referring to FF DSLRs, right? Is an OM actually 1/2 the size of an E1?!

AJR said:
We can surely think of plenty of
explanations and excuses, but I still say it's not unreasonable to
ask DSLRs to improve on that paradigm.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask, but I think it's unreasonable to expect them to do so until they feel they have to.

In conclusion (because I need some sleep), I think we both agree that it's possible to make a smaller E1 (or even a 1Ds), but we probably don't agree on how MUCH smaller. I think any size reductions in the future (at least with this series), will be minimal. And I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

Good night.

--
markE
pbase supporter

'In wildness lies the preservation of the world.'
-Henry David Thoreau
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/gallery/wingsoflight

markE59102 · Mar 14, 2004

Phredd said:
There shouldn't have been any "holdovers" since this was designed "from the ground up" as a Digital SLR.

Realistically, there are no absolutes when it comes to the promises of marketing. It's always a compromise.

Phredd said:
As for ergonomics, smaller cameras have been very ergonomic.
Witness the so-called Prosumer cameras.

Personally, I find them somewhat restrictive to operate. And I don't have unusually large hands.

Phredd said:
Perhaps there's a size in
between Prosumer and "35mm sized" DSLRs that would be just right.

Isn't that what the E1 is? It's larger than most prosumer cameras, but not as large as the other current DSLRs.

Phredd said:
My guess is that the OM designers have retired

Does that mean Canon and Nikon designers must have left the planet!

(Where's that Gene Windell guy when you need him?)

(Now I KNOW I need sleep...I never usually participate in these kinds of theads.)
--
markE
pbase supporter

'In wildness lies the preservation of the world.'
-Henry David Thoreau
-Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/marke/gallery/wingsoflight

Why is the E-1 so big?

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Active member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts