Camera size - why should FF cameras be large?

[The Davinator]

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.

Based on an average of fifteen SLR cameras that were popular among professionals, mid to high end, I can't see that they were bigger or heavier that the A7x/A9 cameras - quite the opposite. I could have skipped the top models when looking at average SLR size, since the A7x series does not belong here, and the average SLR would have been even a tad smaller and lighter. ;-)

They started getting bigger in the late 1980s. First with the Canon T90 (big built-in motordrive and lots of batteries for high speed shooting), then when AF was added and these built-in motordrives stayed. I also have an EOS A2e; that's a lot bigger. More or less on par with my Sony a900, though about half the weight.

Pretty much all manual focus SLRs before the T90, though, had only a small battery for the exposure electronics, and either no, or optional, detachable, motor drives. So, yeah, pretty much all of them were around the size of this New F-1, or even, like the Olympus models, more than a bit smaller.

I still have my T70....noisy little camera. The F1 was a superb body. I still use my boatanchors....two Nikon F5 bodies. But yes, I noticed bodies getting bigger and heavier as the 80's marched into the 90's.

 

[Dave Sanders]

Before system cameras went digital, professional 24 x 35 mm photographic film cameras were about as small and light as the Sony A7x/A9 series - in fact a tad smaller and lighter (judged from the average size and weight of fifteen popular medium to high end DSLR cameras from this period, cameras often used by professionals). Those cameras did not even have an extra grip, since photographers were aware that balancing the combo with the left hand under the lens gave most keepers - no matter small or large lenses!

...I think your memory is a bit selective here. When cameras like the Canon 10D shook the market, professional 35mm film cameras were things like the Nikon F5, F100, Canon EOS-1N/V, Minolta Maxxum/Alpha 9...they were not small. I had the Maxxum 7 and 9 with their respective grips...they were sizeable cameras. My friend shot an EOS-1N RS with its permanent grip and pellicle mirror, that thing was a beast. If we go back a bit further we also see things like Nikon's revolutionary F4 with its myriad grips...it was also a beast.

So why this "request" for large cameras now.

Pros requested them a long time ago...I remember all of the massive grips that pros used to get continuous drive on their film cameras before the advent of AF and built in motors. Pros who wanted small shot Leica.

Is larger and heavier cameras needed, or even what the marked want?

Well, it was what the 'pro' market wanted decades ago, and judging by the sidelines of most professional sporting events, still do, at least in a certain segment.

Or is this just about increasing profit with cameras that look more professional?

No, I don't think so, they increase profit by convincing amateurs the world over to over-camera themselves with things like the A7RIII and outrageously priced normal lenses. Back in the film days every camera had the same image quality, so it was a tougher sell. Now they don't. Judging by the forums, they don't need cameras to look 'pro' to sell pricey cameras and lenses. In the film days my (unnecessary haha) collection of pricey fast glass was relatively rare, now it isn't. That's the biggest change I've noticed...serious enthusiasts have bags full of $1000-2000+ lenses. That used to be a rarity, largely reserved for working pros, now weekend warriors routinely have $2k 70-200 zooms or for taking photos of their kids.

My expectation would be even smaller full frame cameras, since tech now is moving towards solid state products, with almost no mechanical parts. Things like space between grip and lens, and somewhere to put the pinkie, could easily be overcome by small design adjustments. I highly support the Sony philosophy: "Keep it compact"!

I'll admit I've played a bit of the devil's advocate here...I like small cameras. Weight isn't such a big deal for me, but size is, hence my main landscape kit being an original A7R and the Loxia 25/85 combo. But getting that image quality in such a small package is a new thing, at least for digital. Early digital, I think, followed the evolutionary track that film cameras were on...people wanted cameras that fit their hands, that were comfortable, that stabilized large lenses. Demand for expensive, high performance lenses has negated quite a bit of the size advantage as well. For me, the best camera in terms I've ergonomics I've ever used has been the the Nikon D2x and D3. Perfect for my big mitts. But unnecessary. As time went on, I tired of the weight and how much I got noticed. I'm happy with my Sony and even happier that they've released a lens like the new 24 GM.

 

[PWPhotography]

Before system cameras went digital, professional 24 x 35 mm photographic film cameras were about as small and light as the Sony A7x/A9 series - in fact a tad smaller and lighter (judged from the average size and weight of fifteen popular medium to high end DSLR cameras from this period, cameras often used by professionals). Those cameras did not even have an extra grip, since photographers were aware that balancing the combo with the left hand under the lens gave most keepers - no matter small or large lenses!

...I think your memory is a bit selective here. When cameras like the Canon 10D shook the market, professional 35mm film cameras were things like the Nikon F5, F100, Canon EOS-1N/V, Minolta Maxxum/Alpha 9...they were not small. I had the Maxxum 7 and 9 with their respective grips...they were sizeable cameras. My friend shot an EOS-1N RS with its permanent grip and pellicle mirror, that thing was a beast. If we go back a bit further we also see things like Nikon's revolutionary F4 with its myriad grips...it was also a beast.

So why this "request" for large cameras now.

Pros requested them a long time ago...I remember all of the massive grips that pros used to get continuous drive on their film cameras before the advent of AF and built in motors. Pros who wanted small shot Leica.

Is larger and heavier cameras needed, or even what the marked want?

Well, it was what the 'pro' market wanted decades ago, and judging by the sidelines of most professional sporting events, still do, at least in a certain segment.

Or is this just about increasing profit with cameras that look more professional?

No, I don't think so, they increase profit by convincing amateurs the world over to over-camera themselves with things like the A7RIII and outrageously priced normal lenses. Back in the film days every camera had the same image quality, so it was a tougher sell. Now they don't. Judging by the forums, they don't need cameras to look 'pro' to sell pricey cameras and lenses. In the film days my (unnecessary haha) collection of pricey fast glass was relatively rare, now it isn't. That's the biggest change I've noticed...serious enthusiasts have bags full of $1000-2000+ lenses. That used to be a rarity, largely reserved for working pros, now weekend warriors routinely have $2k 70-200 zooms or for taking photos of their kids.

My expectation would be even smaller full frame cameras, since tech now is moving towards solid state products, with almost no mechanical parts. Things like space between grip and lens, and somewhere to put the pinkie, could easily be overcome by small design adjustments. I highly support the Sony philosophy: "Keep it compact"!

I'll admit I've played a bit of the devil's advocate here...I like small cameras. Weight isn't such a big deal for me, but size is, hence my main landscape kit being an original A7R and the Loxia 25/85 combo. But getting that image quality in such a small package is a new thing, at least for digital. Early digital, I think, followed the evolutionary track that film cameras were on...people wanted cameras that fit their hands, that were comfortable, that stabilized large lenses. Demand for expensive, high performance lenses has negated quite a bit of the size advantage as well. For me, the best camera in terms I've ergonomics I've ever used has been the the Nikon D2x and D3. Perfect for my big mitts. But unnecessary. As time went on, I tired of the weight and how much I got noticed. I'm happy with my Sony and even happier that they've released a lens like the new 24 GM.

I still keep my 10mp 1D III and still use it in some portrait photos with its well known creamy skin tone. But if you ask me if I really like in handling? Yes and No. Yes it balances EF 500L/4.0 IS very well but No actually my fingers got a bit numbed after several hours against a flat surface.

Alaska trip, full size

with EF 100-400L IS, full size

with EF 70-200L/2.8 IS II, Masai Mara safari trip

It's heavy to lug around. Now with A9 it has much more capability while in much smaller/lighter body. I attached Sony OEM vertical power grip for better balance and double batteries as did in airshow events that I hand-held several hours and feel very comfortable. Could not wait for the planned 2nd Africa safari in September and hope will receive A9 FW v6 update on time for animal eye-AF, and mind boggling if to rent a Sigma EF 500/4.0 OS Sport that works very well on A9 via MC-11 adapter. Otherwise I removed the vertical grip and swapped to Gabale L-plate for regular trip as A9 is my 2nd camera into vacation trips. Such modular design gives me great flexibility and versatility.

the Iceland trip last week

the Iceland trip last week

the Iceland trip last week

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

 

[ISO 1 Million]

The EOSR, however, is a completely different story. It still isn't much larger than the 3rd gen Sony bodies and weighs practically the same but it was immediately and immensely more comfortable to hold. The difference was dramatic.

I'm not asking for a D850 or S1/S1R sized camera. I'm only asking for a camera that fits the human hand better. Taller and DEEPER grip and move the mount further away from the grip. It's not that difficult. It's been over 5 years Sony. Get it right.

Interesting. I went to my local store when they had all the reps in with new stuff. They didn't have the Nikons out for some reason, but they did have the Canons. I had my A7R2 with me, with the MC-11 and Tamron 24-70/2.8 on it. When I picked up the Canon (I think it had their 24-105 on it), it felt just the same to me as the A7R2.

I really think some of these impressions have to be due to differences in how people hold cameras. Or maybe it is down to the size of peoples hands. Looking at the two cameras, I see what you're saying about the difference in sizes and placements of the grips... but it really doesn't make a difference to me in feel when holding them.

BTW, do you have a grip extender on your Sony?

Yeah I agree it has everything to do with the size and shape of our hands. I have very small hands (men's glove size small) so one would assume that the Sony's would be a great fit for me but they just don't feel great. I can actually mange to cram all 4 fingers onto the grip but it's a tight fit. I don't have a grip extender and have never tried one because it will block my peak design tripod mount that I have on the camera at all times. The height of the grip isn't my biggest issue though. The grip just simply isn't deep enough.

 

[araudan]

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.

Greg.

This is a commonly repeated myth. Sony has a completely different design philosophy on their A mount cameras. Sony chooses, so far, to keep the size smaller with E mount. I use and enjoy both.

 

[W3PYF]

The Canon F1 looks so classical, wonderful! Like the old motorbikes from the 70es and 80es, Kawasaki Z1, Honda CBX etc.

Forget those "new" bikes - how about this East German bike I saw outside a cafe along the Croatian coast. The couple in their late 60s who owned it rode it all the way from Germany, wearing helmets painted to match the bike.

 

[PWPhotography]

The EOSR, however, is a completely different story. It still isn't much larger than the 3rd gen Sony bodies and weighs practically the same but it was immediately and immensely more comfortable to hold. The difference was dramatic.

I'm not asking for a D850 or S1/S1R sized camera. I'm only asking for a camera that fits the human hand better. Taller and DEEPER grip and move the mount further away from the grip. It's not that difficult. It's been over 5 years Sony. Get it right.

Interesting. I went to my local store when they had all the reps in with new stuff. They didn't have the Nikons out for some reason, but they did have the Canons. I had my A7R2 with me, with the MC-11 and Tamron 24-70/2.8 on it. When I picked up the Canon (I think it had their 24-105 on it), it felt just the same to me as the A7R2.

I really think some of these impressions have to be due to differences in how people hold cameras. Or maybe it is down to the size of peoples hands. Looking at the two cameras, I see what you're saying about the difference in sizes and placements of the grips... but it really doesn't make a difference to me in feel when holding them.

BTW, do you have a grip extender on your Sony?

Yeah I agree it has everything to do with the size and shape of our hands. I have very small hands (men's glove size small) so one would assume that the Sony's would be a great fit for me but they just don't feel great. I can actually mange to cram all 4 fingers onto the grip but it's a tight fit. I don't have a grip extender and have never tried one because it will block my peak design tripod mount that I have on the camera at all times. The height of the grip isn't my biggest issue though. The grip just simply isn't deep enough.

I wore flip-top gloves like this last week in the Iceland, had to in its cold weather especially in evening and had no problem to handle cameras. My hands are not small but I have thin fingers so everyone could have different experience. Will go to the Antarctic trip in next January with the basically same sets of camera gears.

frigid cold with hurricane category 1 level strong wind. Could not even stand still.

BTW, have not noticed any stars turning into green, or maybe reflected by aurora green 2 days after full moon still shinning at right side

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

 

[Selene]

You are probably right. I have struggled to master the a7riii, but I have very small hands so find the struggle worth it given how well it suits my hands. Makes it a fun camera to use!

 

[Dave Sanders]

Indeed, it took me a number of years, but age and desire for a bit more stealth and I'm 'over' the full-sized pro cameras. I still like how they feel in my hand but I like the size and stealth of Sony mirrorless more. My solution is to, uh, not hold my A7R like it's a D3 haha. I like the idea of a modular system as well and originally had the grip for my A7/A7R combo. I sold it with my A7 as I didn't use it enough. I'd love to see Sony go a bit further than the GP-X1EM and offer something like the old-school Nikon F4 grip selection but, honestly, 3rd party mfgs have done a good job filling the gap. I'll buy when when I upgrade my A7R to the RIII or whatever comes next.

 

[captura]

The EOSR, however, is a completely different story. It still isn't much larger than the 3rd gen Sony bodies and weighs practically the same but it was immediately and immensely more comfortable to hold. The difference was dramatic.

I'm not asking for a D850 or S1/S1R sized camera. I'm only asking for a camera that fits the human hand better. Taller and DEEPER grip and move the mount further away from the grip. It's not that difficult. It's been over 5 years Sony. Get it right.

Interesting. I went to my local store when they had all the reps in with new stuff. They didn't have the Nikons out for some reason, but they did have the Canons. I had my A7R2 with me, with the MC-11 and Tamron 24-70/2.8 on it. When I picked up the Canon (I think it had their 24-105 on it), it felt just the same to me as the A7R2.

I really think some of these impressions have to be due to differences in how people hold cameras. Or maybe it is down to the size of peoples hands. Looking at the two cameras, I see what you're saying about the difference in sizes and placements of the grips... but it really doesn't make a difference to me in feel when holding them.

BTW, do you have a grip extender on your Sony?

Yeah I agree it has everything to do with the size and shape of our hands. I have very small hands (men's glove size small) so one would assume that the Sony's would be a great fit for me but they just don't feel great. I can actually mange to cram all 4 fingers onto the grip but it's a tight fit. I don't have a grip extender and have never tried one because it will block my peak design tripod mount that I have on the camera at all times. The height of the grip isn't my biggest issue though. The grip just simply isn't deep enough.

Interesting. I have the A7 which is smaller still, and extremely long fingers. The grip works for me.

 

[dynaxx]

The Sony RX1 / II / R's will never be bettered for compactness when it comes to FF cameras - the leaf shutter and the absence of IBIS makes this possible. Just hold one and be amazed at the miniaturisation !

 

[captura]

The Sony RX1 / II / R's will never be bettered for compactness when it comes to FF cameras - the leaf shutter and the absence of IBIS makes this possible. Just hold one and be amazed at the miniaturisation !

The same is true for the A7/A7R/A7S.

 

[Iuvenis]

All manufacturers face questions about which of the myriad combinations of features and qualities to put into a relatively small number of products.

In making these decisions, they are guided by how popular features are. So, for example, they know that lots of people like compact cameras, but that some people don't care, and others like larger cameras.

They also understand how there are engineering trade offs. For example, people who like compact bodies in the abstract may also like tilt screens, 4K, big sensors, ibis and other features that add weight and size.

However, they are also guided by what their customers and target customers like, and this is the key to understanding why there isn't a huge market for really compact full frame bodies.

First, a larger sensor means a larger mount (in many cases) larger shutter, and other issues that mean that, however small a full frame body is, a smaller sensor body could always be smaller. Second, ignoring their capabilities, full frame lens sets are heavier than their smaller sensor counterparts. They have fewer light lenses, and more really big and heavy lenses.

That means that if you're sensitive to size and weight, full frame may still be an option, but it's not the obvious choice.

In turn, that means that full frame users are, as a class, less likely to be weight and bulk sensitive.

In turn, that means manufacturers of full frame cameras don't worry too much about weight and bulk. Yes, their users may care about size, and may prefer to have a relatively compact body compared to the larger DSLRs, but size and weight is unlikely to be a deal breaker. As a result, even Sony full frame cameras have drifted upwards in size and weight over time.

You see the same thing in even more extreme form with the GFX range. GFX customers may wish their cameras and lenses were smaller, all things being equal, hence the popularity of the GFX-R. However, they are the very users least likely to compromise on optical performance, and most likely to be tolerant of weight and bulk. As a result, the GFX lenses tend to offer very fine optical performance, but are heavier and larger than similar lenses for smaller sensor systems.

 

[LenRivers]

The camera can be any size that fits the sensor and I assume the selected memory card format SD or XQD. XQD is a larger card so it has to fit.

The lens always has to match the sensor or cover the sensor area so that is just the constant.

A small full frame camera is ergonomically terrible and you end up buying a battery grip, hand grip, well some do.

there is no benefit to a small camera you can not hold for longer periods with out any balance.

Maybe someone need to come up with a different form factor. Like build a iPhone around a Full Frame sensor maybe, I am not a engineer or whom ever makes this stuff.

If it is not functional who cares how good and advanced the tech is.

Just take your new card with no roof open to the elements. It is great, has the sound system and all, but you are open to the elements not so functional unless one figures out how to control the weather in all ways.

 

[LiveFromPhilly]

My favorite camera of all time is probably the Nikon FE2. Perfect size, IMO, and very similar to my Sony.

 

[SQLGuy]

The camera can be any size that fits the sensor and I assume the selected memory card format SD or XQD. XQD is a larger card so it has to fit.

The lens always has to match the sensor or cover the sensor area so that is just the constant.

A small full frame camera is ergonomically terrible and you end up buying a battery grip, hand grip, well some do.

there is no benefit to a small camera you can not hold for longer periods with out any balance.

Maybe someone need to come up with a different form factor. Like build a iPhone around a Full Frame sensor maybe, I am not a engineer or whom ever makes this stuff.

If it is not functional who cares how good and advanced the tech is.

Just take your new card with no roof open to the elements. It is great, has the sound system and all, but you are open to the elements not so functional unless one figures out how to control the weather in all ways.

You're leaving out a ton of considerations about intended use and whether or not the camera has interchangeable lenses.

I have a NEX-5T. I can use it with or without a viewfinder, and I can mount native lenses on it from the very small Samyang 35/2.8 to the very large Sony 400/2.8. It supports all of these lenses, but it was clearly designed with a priority towards compact, pocketable, or near-pocketable ILC use.

The RX1 doesn't have interchangeable lenses, so there's no need for the battery grip, vertical grip, whatever, that you're worried about. Just because it's full frame does not mean it needs to be big and does not mean that it will have bad ergonomics if small.

The A7 series is for enthusiasts. This means they need to be adaptable. People will want to use those small 35mm lenses and have a discrete camera to carry or use for street photography. They'll also want to be able to mount a 70-300 or even a 70-200/2.8 to shoot events... especially things like their kids' sports and music events. If you make the body big, you take away the flexibility. If you allow for add-on grips and such for those who need them, you can satisfy a wider market. Not all of the people all of the time, though.

But, complaining about an enthusiast camera not being ideal for specific pro use cases is silly.

That's not to say that camera companies don't sell a lot of pro cameras to enthusiasts... I'm sure they do, and that they try to and expect to. But, I think photographers should be able to better understand the intended uses of the cameras. If the body is really too small, cluttered, or whatever, for your applications, you probably bought the wrong camera.

 

[No account anymore]

My favorite camera of all time is probably the Nikon FE2. Perfect size, IMO, and very similar to my Sony.

About the same size as my "early love", the Rolleiflex SL35 … ;-)

 

[Michael Fritzen]

Hi,

some thoughts:

1) Among the smallest FF cams is certainly the RX1 - although no interchangeable lens.

2) Since makers have opted for convergence of stills + video power consumption and heat got an issue with increacing relevance. Add to this the MP / fps race for stills.

3) After shooting film for years and entering digital by the KM 7D I was shooting Sony DSLR, then SLT since then. In the way of upgrading from the A99 I ventured going FE - but I didn't like its ergonomics.

4) I'd wonder what might be the possibilities or constraints of a pure stills cam based on today's tech. Take away video and put in instead time lapse.

 

[LenRivers]

And your point is

 

[Marty4650]

So instead, they make various cameras, each one aimed at a very specific buyer.

At this isn't a new phenomenon. It happened long before digital cameras existed. We had small, medium and some very large film cameras too. And, just like now, those size differences were based on features, build quality, and film (or sensor) size.

During the film era you could buy a full frame SLR like the Pentax MX or the Olympus OM-1 that weighed around 500 grams. Or you could have gone for something much larger, like the the 1,210 gram Nikon F5. And the exact same thing is true today with digital cameras.

So, rather than making generalizations based on any particular camera that might be either too big or too small for our likes, I think we should look at the range of sizes available today. And for each sensor size and type of camera. If we do that, then we see something like this:

The digital camera is certainly larger and heavier than the film camera equivalent. But that is simply because it weighs more to have heavy batteries and heavier components like LCDS, EVFs, and much more electronic parts.

So now you have a choice between around 650 grams and 1,530 grams, where in the past your choice was between 500 grams and 1,210 grams.

I don't think anything has really changed here. You always did, and you always will have cameras to buy that are different sizes. And those size differences will always be based on their particular features and capabilities.





--
Marty

http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132

Favorites

Explore this photo album by Marty4650 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/