Camera size - why should FF cameras be large?

[James Stirling]

Magnar , you cannot argue with someone else's take on ergonomics as by their very nature it is down to how the individual feels about it.

Ergonomics is not that much about personal preferences, it is about rationally based development of products that operates to fit human behavior.

Ergonomics of cameras is very much a personal thing , and the same camera ergonomics { grip size , lens mount to grip spacing etc } absolutely do not suit the gamut of human anatomy. I am a 6"4 European male with large hands. A camera that would be ideal for me would not suit a petite 5" tall Asian female with small hands .

For me and it is only what works for me { which is all I care about as does anyone else } Sony FF cameras I have the A7rII and A7rIII are without doubt the worst feeling in the hand cameras I have ever owned.

Large or small cameras is mainly about personal preferences, where expectations and feelings play a major part.

Ergonomics are about as personal as it gets . How something feels in the hand is a critical part of human interaction with any device. It is not just a whim choice or personal preference like for example the colour of an item. For ME the Sony cameras FE are a design fail and it impairs my enjoyment of the camera every time I use it.

One could ask: Do you prefer large cameras since you are used with them? Have you tried other options? How does it feel after a period? And so on. You could also ask the questions the other way around. Then even ergonomics can be discussed seriously! ;-)

I prefer cameras with a more comfortable grip , better spacing of lens mount to grip .The camera does not need to be particularly larger to achieve this . The Nikon Z7 camera which I have tested hands on now on a couple of occasions has for me a far far better feel in the hands. It is not a large camera by any stretch and is in fact lighter than my A7rIII .

I will be getting the Z7 as soon as I see how the upcoming 14-30mm F/4 performs. For my intended use it offers everything I actually need and use. I have no need for the best C-AF or any C-AF really. The battery life issue has been greatly exaggerated by fans of other brands DPreview reported getting 1600 shots on one charge. I am a deliberate shooter and do not take 1600 shots in a month. One XQD card is enough for me just as one SD card is enough for me in my A7rII , though the XQD card is sturdier. Features such as eye AF are irrelevant to me and I believe that it is coming to Nikon in a firmware update.

I was intending to hold on to some Sony gear to use my most favoured Sony lenses like the lovely 90mm macro. But the possibility of the tech-art adapter allowing the use of e-mount lenses on Z mount means that I will get rid of most of my Sony kit other than a couple of lenses and I will likely add the loxia 21mm which is a great bit of kit.

There are no bad cameras on the market and you can get superb images from any of them . So feel , enjoyment using and other less tangible aspects all come into play . There will be folk in the Sony camp saying what the hell are you talking about . And they will be right just as I am right about what matters to me

 

[richj20]

A few examples:

- Richard

--

http://www.rsjphoto.net

 

[sportyaccordy]

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series.

Not really.

And the new F-1 was the pro camera in Canon's 1970's lineup.

It is wider, taller and heavier. If it had a grip it would be deeper too.

If those old film SLRs had such great bodies, why did the last ones look like this:

Clearly film shooters wanted something different.

There's nothing to be gained by making the A7 even smaller... A6xxx ergos are terrible and A7x ergos are borderline, all due to the size. If you want to romanticize bad old ergos buy Fuji X

--
Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 

[PWPhotography]

This is one area where Canon and Nikon did better both their FF mirrorless cameras feel better in the hand and size wise the are hardly huge

Whilst the add on grips give your pinkie a place to call home . My gripe is the space between lens mount and grip, or rather lack of space

If you look closely, really the difference between Sony and others are 1) Sony mount stays in middle while other toward other side; 2) top of the Sony grip (shutter area) is not high enough.

I mounted a Gabale L-plate that effectively solves the grip height issue and also for excellent tripod mount. I can further remove the vertical part of the plate to further reduce size.

This is for me exacerbated by the way that many Sony lenses flare out at just the ideal spot for me to be constantly rubbing my fingers against

Solution is very simple to move the lens mount to other side (opposite to grip). It doesn't have to stay in middle. Sure Sony has to redesign their body but should not be that difficult. The downside is that my Sony OEM vertical power grip cannot be used in next generation but I will be OK. Personally I don't have that issue as my fingers are just thin while my hands are not small.

To OP: No, FF cameras are not necessarily be big and heavy, and hope Sony will not further increase size/weight in next generations but just improve on the two areas I suggested above. I carry two cameras into trips so size/weight is a big concern.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[sportyaccordy]

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series. The human hand hasn't changed much in size since those days... if anything, it's got bigger.

Take a look at the shutter release button side of SLR cameras. The grip area doesn't give support for the pinky, and there was not even an extra grip.

Yes, it was a bad design.

IMO, Sony FE bodies have bad ergonomics and could use a taller grip. Sony itself acknowledges this with the GP-X1EM.

What about extra grip for those who want bigger grip? I find this solution excellent.

That doesn't solve the finger pinch issue James Sterling mentioned.

Plus FF lenses are generally bigger by default, and by extension need bigger bodies to balance against.

Do you really balance the camera and lens with the right hand grip? And what happens when you add extra weight? You seriously limit the time you can work handheld.

With the left hand under the lens, any lens will balance even with a tiny-tiny camera body. I have used 400 mm and 560 mm telephoto lenses for years with SLR cameras that are lighter than the original A7 camera body. I found ergonomics ok, since there was not anything frustrating when using these combos.

My guess is that ergonomics is much about what you are used with, unless function and form is anti human so that regular use feels awkward. There is a noticeable difference from this, and getting used to something different than we are used with.

I have no issue with the gen 2/3 bodies, aside from the grip length, even with my 70-200 2.8. But the 600-1400g lenses I shoot with feel horrible on my NEX-5T, which sounds like how small you want the bodies to get. I also had an A7 and I promptly sold it, in part due to its awful ergos with bigger glass.

Given the general trajectory of FF bodies, I'd say they got bigger because people wanted them to.

 

[SQLGuy]

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series.

Not really.

And the new F-1 was the pro camera in Canon's 1970's lineup.

It is wider, taller and heavier. If it had a grip it would be deeper too.

If those old film SLRs had such great bodies, why did the last ones look like this:

Clearly film shooters wanted something different.

There's nothing to be gained by making the A7 even smaller... A6xxx ergos are terrible and A7x ergos are borderline, all due to the size. If you want to romanticize bad old ergos buy Fuji X

The New F-1 has a grip. You can see it clearly.

It is also not the smallest SLR body, which is why I said, "Not really." As you can see side-by-side, they are pretty close to the same size. An OM-10 or a Pentax MX will be quite a bit smaller than the A7R2 in every dimension. If you want to quibble about millimeters and grams, I also have an A-1, which is more of an enthusiast camera. It weighs about the same as the A7R2, is narrower than the F-1, and is shorter than the A7R2 by a mm or two. And it has a grip, too.

Your other questions about why bodies SLR got bigger in the 80's (like the examples you show) are already answered by me further up in the thread.

So, you say you want a bigger heavier body? Fine. You say most people want one? Maybe. You say SLRs were bigger than the A7 series? No.

--
A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

 

[W3PYF]

The A7 is about the same size and weight as the 6300. Only about 1" more in height.

 

[stkn]

You want a small FF you have one: the RX1R2

 

[SQLGuy]

You want a small FF you have one: the RX1R2

True. But then you're stuck with one lens.

If they made an E mount version of that body, and an E mount version of that lens, those would be some great offerings (assuming that the sensor isn't too tweaked to be specific to that lens).

 

[W3PYF]

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series.

Not really.

And the new F-1 was the pro camera in Canon's 1970's lineup.

--
A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

Love my F1 too!

 

[W3PYF]

Right size, right weight for what it is and does. I bought a Sony battery grip for my A7III when I bought it, but rarely use it.

Would I like a pseudo-rangefinder FF the size of my A6000 without IBIS but the A7III battery? - YOU BET.

Until that, I’m happy. Don’t want a bigger body.

 

[PWPhotography]

Right size, right weight for what it is and does. I bought a Sony battery grip for my A7III when I bought it, but rarely use it.

I mount Sony OEM vertical power grip when shoot under certain scenarios such as airshow events or in safari trip with FE 100-400 GM or FE 70-200 GM mounted, not only for better balance but also for double batteries. The reason I chose Gabale L-plate is that it also moves the battery door from body to plate so saving a bit time to swap with the vertical power grip.

In my last year's Rhode Island airshow, A9 with vertical grip took at least 17,280 RAW files under 10fps while 2nd battery was still about 32% left that is much more than 1Dx II or D5 with a single battery can handle. There were a group of Nikon DSLRs shooters near me with 'media' access (that can purchase actually). Most of them with D500 with power grip, at least one with D5 with Nikon 200-500 or Tamron/Sigma 150-500 attached. I saw they got tired after while and didn't even bother to raise cameras when smaller prop planes flying by. My A9+grip+FE 100-400 GM is still significantly lighter/smaller and my arms were not even sore after several hours. I guess I took much more pictures than them.

Would I like a pseudo-rangefinder FF the size of my A6000 without IBIS but the A7III battery? - YOU BET.

Until that, I’m happy. Don’t want a bigger body.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums

 

[CarlitosM]

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series. The human hand hasn't changed much in size since those days... if anything, it's got bigger.

My old Nikon film SLR is slightly smaller than the A7 mark 1.

When I decided to buy an ILC again a few years ago, I went to store and handled the Nikon D610 and the A7. The A7 felt just right.

 

[CarlitosM]

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series.

Not really.

And the new F-1 was the pro camera in Canon's 1970's lineup.

It is wider, taller and heavier. If it had a grip it would be deeper too.

If those old film SLRs had such great bodies, why did the last ones look like this:

Status symbol?

 

[Rol Lei Nut]

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series. The human hand hasn't changed much in size since those days... if anything, it's got bigger.

Let's see, I have a Pentax Spotmatic sitting around somewhere...

So, the Spotmatic is about the same height (prism) as the A7 and about 1.5 cm wider.

How about a Nikon FM? Even smaller.

A Rolleiflex SL35-E? Same height all round and less than 1 cm wider.

A Leica M6 (you know, for the mirrorless bit)? Practically the same body height (the A7's 'prism' soars above) and about 1 cm wider.

So while it's technically true that most film SLRs were a bit larger (don't have an Olympus OM or Pentax MX to compare), the difference is minimal. Considering we're taking about 1970's technology here, smaller FF digital bodies could easily be made. Think Rollei 35 T or Minox EL...

About human hands growing in the meantime, that's more of a presidential fantasy... ;-)

 

[Astrophotographer 10]

Magnar , you cannot argue with someone else's take on ergonomics as by their very nature it is down to how the individual feels about it.

Definition of ergonomics:

"An applied science concerned with designing and arranging things people use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely"

Merriam Webster.

Its an applied science so its not about people's feelings. Its objective.

If the ergonomics are wrong you will get people having bad feelings towards the object's layout or use.

If the ergonomics are good then they will have good feelings about it.

The trouble is that human bodies vary quite a bit in size of hands, height, strength etc.

Many people also control their bodies a bit differently one to the next. Just watch people walking down the street one day and look at all the ways you can do that!

Getting a camera so that one size fits all may not be possible. But Canikon show that the there is indeed a subject here and they are better at it than Sony.

It probably also comes with experience as Sony is still the new player in comparison.

What the ideal form that appeals to the bulk of the market is probably something that would have to be extensively surveyed.

I don't find Sony ergonomics on A7r3 "bad" at all. But ESO R does show better ergonomics are possible perhaps Nikon Z as well. Fuji XT cameras have quite nice ergonomics as well.

Greg.

 

[sportyaccordy]

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series. The human hand hasn't changed much in size since those days... if anything, it's got bigger.

Let's see, I have a Pentax Spotmatic sitting around somewhere...

So, the Spotmatic is about the same height (prism) as the A7 and about 1.5 cm wider.

How about a Nikon FM? Even smaller.

A Rolleiflex SL35-E? Same height all round and less than 1 cm wider.

A Leica M6 (you know, for the mirrorless bit)? Practically the same body height (the A7's 'prism' soars above) and about 1 cm wider.

So while it's technically true that most film SLRs were a bit larger (don't have an Olympus OM or Pentax MX to compare), the difference is minimal. Considering we're taking about 1970's technology here, smaller FF digital bodies could easily be made. Think Rollei 35 T or Minox EL...

About human hands growing in the meantime, that's more of a presidential fantasy... ;-)

Humans have definitely grown in the West

Loading…

ourworldindata.org

And again if those old camera ergonomics were so great they wouldn't have been relegated to nostalgic romanticism in Fuji and one offs like the Df/PEN-F. This might shock you but photographers like grips

 

[James Stirling]

This is one area where Canon and Nikon did better both their FF mirrorless cameras feel better in the hand and size wise the are hardly huge

Whilst the add on grips give your pinkie a place to call home . My gripe is the space between lens mount and grip, or rather lack of space

If you look closely, really the difference between Sony and others are 1) Sony mount stays in middle while other toward other side; 2) top of the Sony grip (shutter area) is not high enough.

I mounted a Gabale L-plate that effectively solves the grip height issue and also for excellent tripod mount. I can further remove the vertical part of the plate to further reduce size.

This is for me exacerbated by the way that many Sony lenses flare out at just the ideal spot for me to be constantly rubbing my fingers against

Solution is very simple to move the lens mount to other side (opposite to grip). It doesn't have to stay in middle. Sure Sony has to redesign their body but should not be that difficult. The downside is that my Sony OEM vertical power grip cannot be used in next generation but I will be OK. Personally I don't have that issue as my fingers are just thin while my hands are not small.

To OP: No, FF cameras are not necessarily be big and heavy, and hope Sony will not further increase size/weight in next generations but just improve on the two areas I suggested above. I carry two cameras into trips so size/weight is a big concern.

I agree that it would not be a difficult thing to change but will they ? As you say it is not so much about needing a bigger body just a better/differently laid out one .

--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 

[Rol Lei Nut]

Film SLRs were bigger than the A7 series. The human hand hasn't changed much in size since those days... if anything, it's got bigger.

Let's see, I have a Pentax Spotmatic sitting around somewhere...

So, the Spotmatic is about the same height (prism) as the A7 and about 1.5 cm wider.

How about a Nikon FM? Even smaller.

A Rolleiflex SL35-E? Same height all round and less than 1 cm wider.

A Leica M6 (you know, for the mirrorless bit)? Practically the same body height (the A7's 'prism' soars above) and about 1 cm wider.

So while it's technically true that most film SLRs were a bit larger (don't have an Olympus OM or Pentax MX to compare), the difference is minimal. Considering we're taking about 1970's technology here, smaller FF digital bodies could easily be made. Think Rollei 35 T or Minox EL...

About human hands growing in the meantime, that's more of a presidential fantasy... ;-)

Humans have definitely grown in the West

https://ourworldindata.org/human-height

Couldn't find the section showing the drastic increase in glove size. Total height has generally increased by a few mm since 1970: is that really a valid argument for bigger cameras?

And again if those old camera ergonomics were so great they wouldn't have been relegated to nostalgic romanticism in Fuji and one offs like the Df/PEN-F. This might shock you but photographers like grips

Some photographers like grips. Some don't.

Thankfully, we don't all share the same views...

 

[James Stirling]

Magnar , you cannot argue with someone else's take on ergonomics as by their very nature it is down to how the individual feels about it.

Definition of ergonomics:

"An applied science concerned with designing and arranging things people use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely"

Merriam Webster.

Its an applied science so its not about people's feelings. Its objective.

If the ergonomics are wrong you will get people having bad feelings towards the object's layout or use.

If the ergonomics are good then they will have good feelings about it.

The trouble is that human bodies vary quite a bit in size of hands, height, strength etc.

Many people also control their bodies a bit differently one to the next. Just watch people walking down the street one day and look at all the ways you can do that!

Indeed I go with the John Travolta Saturday night fever strut , which looks a bit odd out here in the countryside but my dog does not seem to mind

Getting a camera so that one size fits all may not be possible. But Canikon show that the there is indeed a subject here and they are better at it than Sony.

It probably also comes with experience as Sony is still the new player in comparison.

What the ideal form that appeals to the bulk of the market is probably something that would have to be extensively surveyed.

I don't find Sony ergonomics on A7r3 "bad" at all. But ESO R does show better ergonomics are possible perhaps Nikon Z as well. Fuji XT cameras have quite nice ergonomics as well.

Greg.