pentax DSLR getting heavy

[silkmouse]

K100D
Weight (inc. batteries) 660 g (23.3 oz)
Dimensions 129 x 93 x 70 mm (5.1 x 3.7 x 2.8 in)

DS-DS2
Weight (inc. batteries) 605 g (21.3 oz)
Dimensions 125 x 93 x 66 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.6 in)

DL-DL2
Weight (inc. batteries) 565 g (19.9 oz)
Dimensions 125 x 93 x 66 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.6 in)

vs.

D80
Weight (inc. batteries) 668 g (23.6 oz)
Dimensions 132 x 103 x 77 mm (5.2 x 4.1 x 3 in)

How about K10D ? 700g?
... not for hiking.

 

[thegimly]

Rumor says 710g

 

[Scott Rylance]

The better build, and SR makes it a bit heavier.
--
Scott



Never judge a photo by the person who has taken it.
Never judge a person by the photo they have taken.

 

[velocio]

This cracks me up every time. A few grams more or less...

Like 50 g more would matter. If it DOUBLES in weight, I'll agree you've got a point, but now? Really...

 

[wll]

I will take this extra weight as the quality is what I care about. The new K100D is a very good feeling camera, pick up a Sony / Canon and feel the difference. Nikon is the only other mfg that feels like quality to me on the mid range price point cameras.

Oh, have you picked up a Canon 5D, 30D or any of their pro cameras .... these are (IMHO) HUGE cameras, and I mean big. I would not want to tote those guys around with the large glass that Canon makes.

wll

 

[sej1001]

I hate it. But, its the price for the addtional technology. They aren't able to get it down yet with the new stuff. Every other camera is dumbed down with very few short cuts and difficult menus. To escape it you add a couple of hundred grams. I hate it!

sej

 

[Reid133934]

my gym workouts by 50 to 100 grams...Boy is that going to put the stress on me!!

Reid

 

[parallaxproblem]

I doubt I'll be getting the K10D for exactly this reason

Guess I'll sit-out this round and wait for the next generation of Pentax DSLRs... let's hope they reverse the trend!

Incidentally, does anybody else find it rather strange that Pentax are producing a new range of smaller, lighter lenses (the Pancake limiteds) whilst at the same time increasing the size/weight of their camera bodies???!!!

Incidentally #2: I'm a bit sceptical about the need for the bodies to get bigger. SR will take-up a few extra mm of thickness but have they really not worked-out how to make savings to compensate elsewhere in 18 months - I'm thinking about the K100D and particularly the (non-SR equipped) K110D vs. the old *ist DL here? I can't help thinking there may in fact be an element of that 'Canon Thing' about bigger, Pro bodies being more 'impressive' - mobile phones have been getting bigger for similar (ie. often non-technical) reasons for the last few years now!

 

[selfnoise04101]

Heavy? Wow... my other camera is an Oly E-10 (1050g) and my new K100D seems... svelte by comparison.

 

[parallaxproblem]

This cracks me up every time. A few grams more or less...
Like 50 g more would matter. If it DOUBLES in weight, I'll agree
you've got a point, but now? Really...

I don't care about a few grams, but I do care about a few mm... this can make the difference between a body and lens-set fitting in a small case or needing a larger one, which in turn impacts how realistic it is to carry the equipment around with you...

My DS and current preferred lens-set fits in a Rezo 160, which is a pretty small bag by any standards. Add a few mm to the camera body - which defines at least one of the case's minimum dimensions - and suddenly you find you need to get a bigger bag!

Pentax makes wonderful travelling cameras... If I want something for day-trips, special events etc then one of those 'chunky Canons' (or in my case Minolta 7D) is a better option IMHO...

Just my thoughts!

 

[Harri R'is'nen]

K100D
Weight (inc. batteries) 660 g (23.3 oz)
Dimensions 129 x 93 x 70 mm (5.1 x 3.7 x 2.8 in)

DS-DS2
Weight (inc. batteries) 605 g (21.3 oz)
Dimensions 125 x 93 x 66 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.6 in)

DL-DL2
Weight (inc. batteries) 565 g (19.9 oz)
Dimensions 125 x 93 x 66 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.6 in)

vs.

D80
Weight (inc. batteries) 668 g (23.6 oz)
Dimensions 132 x 103 x 77 mm (5.2 x 4.1 x 3 in)

How about K10D ? 700g?
... not for hiking.

95 g ? Huuuge difference, really, isnt it?

Sorry, but cannot share your worries..... especially considering hiking

I have been regularly, yearly, hiking in wilderness since 12 years old ( it was more than thirty years ago ) mostly 6 to 7 days or longer treks, and 95 g difference in camera weight hasnt been exhausted me yet. Not even if it comes in addition of backpack containing weeks food and camping stuff.

I do not bother to mention all those day trips in this contex.......

If i feel some day that such a collapse would be near due to this kind of camera overweight, more jogging is needed, or a doctor... ;-)

--
Harri

 

[pjv363689]

This cracks me up every time. A few grams more or less...
Like 50 g more would matter. If it DOUBLES in weight, I'll agree
you've got a point, but now? Really...

I don't care about a few grams, but I do care about a few mm...
this can make the difference between a body and lens-set fitting in
a small case or needing a larger one, which in turn impacts how
realistic it is to carry the equipment around with you...

If my camera is going to be in my bag most of the day (as when I go walking), then size is more important (I need to carry food, water, maps and lenses too). On the other hand, if I'm at some sort of event (or birdwatching I guess) then every gram counts -- I'll have the thing in hand for hours at a time, and that can get tiring.

Still... I think the choice of lenses will have more of an impact in the weight area, and we do still have the pancake options in addition to a generally very low-weight DA lens selection.

Pete

--
http://www.magpiementality.org/gallery

 

[Nols]

Since the Ds came before the DL, weight actually lessened duiring that time (due pentamirror/prism weight diff I guess). With the K100, you have the built-in SR so the weight gain would be obvious. Well worth it by the comments and pics from the new owners.
Nols
--

“…you can see the whole world in a square mile if you knew where to look” – Dean Koontz in Life Expectancy

 

[Jonas B]

I have read 710 grams which is something I don't care about. But having to buy new thicker bags is another thing. Not the worlds end, I know, but I hope the K10D doesn't increase in height (I have the camera with the lens pointing downwards in my favourite small bag now).
Anyone knowing anything, or any possibly hints available? Height embargo?

--
thank you,

Jonas

 

[Anastigmat]

K100D
Weight (inc. batteries) 660 g (23.3 oz)
Dimensions 129 x 93 x 70 mm (5.1 x 3.7 x 2.8 in)

DS-DS2
Weight (inc. batteries) 605 g (21.3 oz)
Dimensions 125 x 93 x 66 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.6 in)

DL-DL2
Weight (inc. batteries) 565 g (19.9 oz)
Dimensions 125 x 93 x 66 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.6 in)

vs.

D80
Weight (inc. batteries) 668 g (23.6 oz)
Dimensions 132 x 103 x 77 mm (5.2 x 4.1 x 3 in)

How about K10D ? 700g?
... not for hiking.

No problem if you have a mule to carry your stuff on the hike.

 

[distudio]

Incidentally #2: I'm a bit sceptical about the need for the
bodies to get bigger. SR will take-up a few extra mm of thickness
but have they really not worked-out how to make savings to
compensate elsewhere in 18 months - I'm thinking about the K100D
and particularly the (non-SR equipped) K110D vs. the old *ist DL
here? I can't help thinking there may in fact be an element of
that 'Canon Thing' about bigger, Pro bodies being more 'impressive'

• mobile phones have been getting bigger for similar (ie. often

non-technical) reasons for the last few years now!

Just take a look at some of the internal shots of the K100D, there is far more than just a few mm required to implement in-body SR in the efficient, reliable and effective manner that they have.

--
Rob

 

[silkmouse]

I have been regularly, yearly, hiking in wilderness since 12 years
old ( it was more than thirty years ago ) mostly 6 to 7 days or
longer treks, and 95 g difference in camera weight hasnt been
exhausted me yet. Not even if it comes in addition of backpack
containing weeks food and camping stuff.

I do not bother to mention all those day trips in this contex.......

good for you!

last month I went hiking at Mt. Rainier. when I left the parking lot, i have the camera in a small powepro bag, two bottles of water, three apples in my back-bag. i put the bag on my back and felt this is pretty light.

after 5 hours of hiking, i finished the water & appples, but i felt the bag was 10 times heavier than before!

 

[silkmouse]

This cracks me up every time. A few grams more or less...
Like 50 g more would matter. If it DOUBLES in weight, I'll agree
you've got a point, but now? Really...

I don't care about a few grams, but I do care about a few mm...
this can make the difference between a body and lens-set fitting in
a small case or needing a larger one, which in turn impacts bigger cars, bigger
realistic it is to carry the equipment around with you...

well, these days people are making everything bigger & bigger. bigger cars, bigger TVs, bigger houses, ... somebody got to figure that out: there is no need to put a PC in a camera(DSLR).

 

[Spot Focus]

last month I went hiking at Mt. Rainier. when I left the parking
lot, i have the camera in a small powepro bag, two bottles of
water, three apples in my back-bag. i put the bag on my back and
felt this is pretty light.
after 5 hours of hiking, i finished the water & appples, but i felt
the bag was 10 times heavier than before!

Darn how am I going to manage A DS plus 1840gms of Bigma ) I have to ditch the water and apples and live off the land

--
LBA reactivated so keep ya hands off all those ebay lenes
Cheers Nick
*ist DS

 

[SelrahCharleS]

I think lenses have more of an effect on weight anyways... my SMC-M 50mm f/1.4 makes my camera a lot heavier than when it is used with the kit lens.

K100D
Weight (inc. batteries) 660 g (23.3 oz)
Dimensions 129 x 93 x 70 mm (5.1 x 3.7 x 2.8 in)

DS-DS2
Weight (inc. batteries) 605 g (21.3 oz)
Dimensions 125 x 93 x 66 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.6 in)

DL-DL2
Weight (inc. batteries) 565 g (19.9 oz)
Dimensions 125 x 93 x 66 mm (4.9 x 3.7 x 2.6 in)

vs.

D80
Weight (inc. batteries) 668 g (23.6 oz)
Dimensions 132 x 103 x 77 mm (5.2 x 4.1 x 3 in)

How about K10D ? 700g?
... not for hiking.

--



http://www.geocities.com/wild_tiger_1

http://flickr.com/photos/selrahcharles/

Whats more important to you? Taking photographs that have great image quality, or taking photographs that are quality images?