« Worth a Thousand Words | Main | Open Mike I: My Pool Lesson with Jerry Briesath »

Friday, 26 July 2013

Comments

When I first saw the 100D specs, I compared them to those of my 6 year old 400D, and found it was nearly the same size. DPReview mentions this too, commenting how the size-difference between the xxxD and xxD series has grown less over the last iterations, with the 100D returning to old `values'.

I don't know how these camera makers can be so stupid. What's the sense of making a smaller camera with a big long lens. The new kit lens is actually longer than the previous one. As dpreview points out: "Smaller sensors have their disadvantages, but one of their advantages is they can deliver equivalent focal lengths with smaller lenses. Though the SL1 is itself smaller, its 18-55mm kit lens is noticeably larger than kit lenses on cameras like the Olympus E-PM2 or Nikon V2." I want a smaller camera, but I also want a smaller (and shorter, or collapsible) lens. The reason for making a camera smaller is so that it occupies less space and is easier to carry around and is less obtrusive. If the lens is not also smaller, it's silly. The 40mm lens is not an option.

Gosh, I'm tempted to walk down the street and have a drink at the Brass Ring.

"blatant hint"
Would that otherwise be known as a "cue"?

Will Canon win on the snap is this a miscue?
time to break and run

An interesting camera for Canon's APS-C format. But the EF and EF-S lenses are still pretty large compared to 4/3 format lenses. Having a small camera with equally small lenses is why I keep my old Olympus DSLRs to use along with my Canon DSLRs. Besides, the Olympus 4/3 lenses are simply outstanding.

I still think that little camera needs a battery grip... i just want a cheap little 1Dx looking thing i guess

If they really want to make a small SLR then leave off that silly looking lump of a built in flash. They could have a clip on/pop up version of the flash that would appear to be built on and could stay on all the time if you were so inclined but with the option to remove it if desired. The visual effect would be to make the camera much smaller than the total volume removed would suggest.

This effect I first observed with my lovely old OM-1 with a removeable hot shoe. Although the hot shoe was small the visual and tactile sensation of smallness with it removed was remarkable.

A few weeks ago I checked out the SL1 and was impressed with it's petite size and diminutive weight - until I mounted an EFS zoom lens (not the kit lens). I was prepared to purchase the camera until I had second thoughts about my large and heavy Canon lenses.

Since then I've purchased a m4/3 body and 2 lenses and have decide to go all in for m4/3s paradigm as my shooting platform. I'll be selling all of my Canon gear now.

Stick a full frame sensor in a canon body this size and I'd sell my granny for it, if she was still alive. It would make a lovely match with my contax glass.

Nikon wake up please and turn the marvelous Fm3a into a digital camera.

I do agree with the comments on big lenses on small bodies. There is a work around if you don't mind manual focus. I have the Olympus E510 bought partly for the ability to use lenses not designed for it (in my case, my old Olympus OM lenses). From there I went to using OM lenses on a Canon 10D (bigger body) with a focus confirmation, chipped adapter. A couple days ago, I received a used Canon T3/1100D. The body it pretty comparable to my old E510 and I can use my chipped OM to EOS adapter. Pair that body up with an OM 50/1.8, 50/3.5 macro, and 100/2.8 and I'm almost back to a kit as small as OM bodies with their matching Zuikos.

Having always liked Canon (my Canon 7 remains the finest camera I ever owned) if this had been available during Christmas 2011 when I bought my E-PL1, I might well have been swayed. This seems to be a lot of Canon's problem recently - the proverbial too little too late.

I'm happy to stay with m4/3 now; I finally ordered an Olympus 17/2.8 lens for my camera just yesterday and will start saving for the 45/1.8 next (with a goal of the Olympus 12/2 & Panasonic 25/1.4 as the "someday" lenses.)

I agree with those commenting that they use the 4/3rd's system, and having a comfortably sized lens as well as a small body is really what a lot of us are looking for.
But for me, a electronic viewfinder, is at this point in my life, a necessity too.
I'm seventy-seven, and I've had multiple eye surgeries, and still have relatively poor vision. The fact that I can see the effects of exposure compensation, or the use of a filter, even though I seldom use them, makes the experience one not unlike it was when I was younger, and had better vision.
I can even make changes to the exposure parameters with my eye still at the viewfinder, which I could not do with the entry level DSLR's that I had before.
I suppose it could be argued that if I spent accordingly, I could have an optical viewfinder that would have worked for me.
But there is still the size of the package, and I really don't need more reasons not to take a camera with me, as many times as I would like to.

I kind of agree with Wayne, though from a different angle. Any APS-C DSLR is a bit of an encumbrance, but something of the size of a 35mm SLR is a lot less trouble to carry around. The size difference is mostly in the depth.

I've though about this, and I spend a lot of time sketching designs for things like cameras (yes I know it isn't actually photography) So: A DSLR is always quite deep from front to back, around 18-19mm, or 3/4" deeper than a 35mm SLR. I think it's partly the rear screen, so putting this on the top of the camera and perhaps some redesign and relocating of circuit boards would reduce the thickness back to film SLR dimensions.

Give the thing an electronic viewfinder in, say, the top left corner and you are good to go. there's plenty of room on the back for controls, the flash could swing up out of a slot on the right and end of the camera.

the dimensions would be about 130mm long, (alowing for the built in shake reduction!) 75mm high and 50mm deep. That's a bit smaller than any 35mm SLR.

Every lens you put on it would stick out 3/4" less, in fact a nice little set of pancake lenses in moderate lengths would go with it very well.

It would be cheaper to build than a camera with a swinging mirror and a pentaprism, and would be the cheapest camera in the range, a good second body, and a more portable camera for when you don't want to lug around the main one.

Why don't they just make a half decent CSC camera instead?

If you want a 35 F1.4 for this it will be a monster.

Still cramming mirrors and ovf down the throat of the customers... It was clear since the beginnings they do not want to be part of the mirrorless market, but some "smarty" out there said otherwise...

The comments to this entry are closed.