# Why are DSLRs so Big?



## unfocused (Nov 4, 2013)

I've been reading with interest the many comments here about the desirability of a mirrorless system, with small size being one of the desired traits.

Well, recently I took a look at my old Canon F1 (which is on semi-permanent loan to my daughter as a decorating accessory in her apartment). I had forgotten how tiny it is compared to a 7D or a 5DIII. And, that got me wondering why are DSLRs so big?

The F1 used a reflex mirror, so we can't blame the size on the mirror housing alone. It was a "full frame" camera, so it's not the sensor. Perhaps the electronics require more space. But, then again, the F1 had to have two cavities, one for the film cassette and one for the exposed film. That was wasted space that DSLRs don't need. Yes, the DSLR battery is much larger than the little dime-sized battery that powered the F1 for decades. But, a DSLR doesn't require any of the mechanics needed by a film camera for advancing the film. 

The new SL1 shows that Canon can pack most of these electronics into a smaller body. 

So, I'm just wondering how we ended up with these supersized DSLRs. Is it just a styling convention – people expect a bigger camera for the price? Maybe it makes people feel more like a "pro" if they have a big camera body?

Will we see DSLRs start to shrink in the coming years? I wonder if Nikon's new retro camera will be the same size as their old SLRs.

Just some random thoughts and questions thrown out there for discussion.


----------



## gfoulk (Nov 4, 2013)

I think it's ergonomics. The 7D or 5D feel much better in my (average size male) hands than the smaller Rebels. It's more comfortable, the balance is better, and the controls easier to manipulate. Sure, I could do without the size or weight, but it's definitely superior when it counts most, which is to say when shooting. If there was a significant demand to make top-tier DSLRs more compact, I think we would be seeing products that meet it; as you say, it's not likely for any technical capability reasons.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 4, 2013)

As Canon stated, they were able to reduce the size of the SL1 by developing a new package for mounting the sensor as well as further miniaturization of the electronics. Its small enough now so that I find it difficult to use.
How big of a LCD display did your canon F1 have ? How many buttons? Not to mention joystick and control wheels. You can combine them down to fewer controls, and with touch screens, maybe some of them can go away.


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 4, 2013)

I wouldn't want to go smaller than the 5D series body, and even that with even a 100mm lens I find difficult to control balance handheld. It is worse with something like a 180mm macro lens.

I prefer the 1 series ergonomics (size and eye relief) much more. Too bad they are so expensive. I think the Canon 5D series camera guts installed in a 1D form factor, and priced comparable to a 5D + grip would sell reasonably well. Not sure on the battery style, but the bigger batteries in the 1D series wouldn't hurt. I'd still buy one with the standard 5 series battery.

I haven't checked out an M series camera, but it just seems silly in principle except when used with smaller lenses.


----------



## sjschall (Nov 4, 2013)

> I think it's ergonomics. The 7D or 5D feel much better in my (average size male) hands than the smaller Rebels.



+1

Holding a Rebel, then holding a 5D, there's just no comparison.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 4, 2013)

I like the big chunky grips when I'm working with them all day but I like the older SLR styles for more everyday use because of the compactness.


----------



## eli452 (Nov 4, 2013)

It is the ergonomics imho. The size allows for bigger LCD screen, top and back wheels, joystick, and multitude buttons to work with. Also the balance with bigger lens is improved. My 7D feels much nicer to hold and operate then my old 400D (and the 7D is gripped with L bracket).


----------



## bchernicoff (Nov 4, 2013)

I think we ended up here due to the size of the electronics in early DSLRs.

The Sony a7's show that a full frame camera could be made much smaller. It should be possible to make a DSLR as small as your old F1.


----------



## Halfrack (Nov 4, 2013)

Film cameras didn't have crazy people running around shooting 1080P video on them. Basically you're taking the most important and size inclined things and stacking them together - lens mount, mirror box, shutter, sensor, heat sink and lcd (with some overlap).

Yes, the overall form factor is based on those 35mm canisters and the take up for exposed film, but would you want something like a Lytro to hold on to?

On the flip side, my biggest complaint on the mirrorless/ EOS-M camera is the lack of battery space - that tiny little battery has to power so much.


----------



## kyamon (Nov 4, 2013)

Most of the volume is taken by the battery - I think they only use the fact that the cameras necessarily have to be bigger to also improve the ergonomics. 
The F1 has a battery half the size of a quarter, in a 1D X a third of the camera is battery.


----------



## stephan (Nov 4, 2013)

Ergonomics:

When I last purchased a DSLR, I went to a shop, had them give me both a 60D (gib body) and 600D (small body) with same sensor and processor. As soon as I handled them my Hands chose the bigger body as the better camera. 

I now have a grip on it 'cause it handles even better with that.


----------



## trof2 (Nov 4, 2013)

I would be careful of selecting an appropriate benchmark for comparison. Sure, your F1 may seem a bit smaller at first, but to make it more relevant to current standards, you'd have to add on a motor drive and a bulk back. Maybe a flash, too. In the end you'd end up with this 10-pound beast. 





If you think of it in these terms, the miniaturization of camera tech has achieved wonders already!
Could they shrink it further? Of course, but the more it gets miniaturized, the more costly the assembly. I think quality and durability of the electronics suffers as well.

The mirror assembly is not really a factor limiting the physical size, as much as the basic system parameters like the flange distance, and a bit of a thickness for the sensor, circuit board, and LCD under the hood. I'd say if you reduce the battery bulk in the handle, the flash and its capacitor, you'd get to about the same size as the F1.

You should also keep in mind that a lot of pro equipment doesn't particularly emphasize portability as a feature. You don't really see many architectural photographers complaining that their cameras don't fit in their purses. Most of the time, the pro camera camera is just one thing in a van full of other crap.


----------



## bchernicoff (Nov 4, 2013)

This is what Nikon is up to, BTW. It looks fairly compact to me: http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/04/this-is-the-nikon-df.aspx/


----------



## iron-t (Nov 4, 2013)

I loved the size of (and most things about) my Panasonic GF1, but overall much of the size advantage came from the half-frame Micro 4/3 sensor. That combined with the short flange means small lenses. To me, if it doesn't fit in a jacket pocket, it might as well have maximum image quality, ergonomics and durability. 5D3 fits the bill perfectly.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 4, 2013)

Why are DSLRs so big? Try putting a 70-200 f/2.8 on a Sony A7 and see how well it balances and handles 

Large & heavy full frame lenses need a large body otherwise it is a royal pain to try and grip the camera body + balance the lens.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 4, 2013)

.
Like most of us here I have no idea what has driven the DSLR form factor to the place it now occupies. Also like the rest of us, my ignorance is no barrier to speculation. A few ideas, and perhaps some combination of these may play a role in explaining why we now are where we are...

1. Balance. Considering a body like the 5D you have to put a big battery on one side. Add to that the need for a comfortable grip, even more gets put on that side (shoulder LCD, etc.) -- so without something on the other side, the imbalance is too great. Maybe it's just a ballast issue.

2. Lens size and use. In the film days, most of us used a 35mm or 50mm prime most of the time. Ordinarily, a short telephoto zoom was usually the only other possible lens. News/sports photographers would probably add a motor drive and the sports guys would have a big lens or two -- but that was the exception. Today, half the serious photographers are parading around with a big 70-200, and many frequently use larger lenses. Such lenses would dwarf the old smaller bodies. Again, a sense of balance.


3. Value perception. Buyers like to feel they're getting something substantial for their money -- and bodies like the 5D3 get traded for a LOT of money. The greatest techno whizbangery is nice, but if it doesn't feel like "quality," the buyer will balk. Words like "plastic" and "flimsy" and "toy" get tossed around when a product is perceived as insubstantial. Marketing devils work hard at achieving the right balance in this area, much to the annoyance of design engineers who tend to value function over all.

One thing I know is that I like how my 5D3 feels when I'm using it -- my S95, not so much!


----------



## brad-man (Nov 4, 2013)

They're big so we can impress the ladies. Ohhh, you're going to shoot me with THAT!


----------



## unfocused (Nov 4, 2013)

Interesting comments and actually, somewhat surprising to me. Reading the threads about mirrorless cameras you'd think that the whole world wants a smaller body. Yet, on this thread it's clear that a lot of DSLR owners like their chunky boxes (yes, I'm in that camp) and many of us add a battery grip to make it even larger. 



bchernicoff said:


> I think we ended up here due to the size of the electronics in early DSLRs.
> 
> The Sony a7's show that a full frame camera could be made much smaller. It should be possible to make a DSLR as small as your old F1.



This, I think is probably closest to the truth. Those early Kodak/Nikon and Kodak/Canon hybrids were huge, so clearly things have come down in size. 

I admit to a bit of bias here, as I have serious doubts that mirrorless will ever supplant DSLRS. I don't really buy into the idea that the smaller size of a mirrorless makes it that much more desirable for many photographers.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 4, 2013)

trof2 said:


>



Be thankful it's not a Graflex RB Series D




My 7D is tiny by comparison.

But then, put my 7D next to my Agat 18K and that's a whole other size down again (for the same image-area too)


----------



## brad-man (Nov 4, 2013)

Well, I think different people are looking at the question in different ways. Many, myself included, would appreciate a smaller, lighter camera for transporting. Whether that means packing for a flight or just walking around with a shoulder bag all day, it's about comfort and convenience. The other group, myself included, is considering the ergonomics while actually shooting. More weight for better balance and more stability, and more controls to avoid taking your eyes off of your subject and dealing with menus. What we need is a _transformer_ camera...


----------



## candc (Nov 4, 2013)

i agree with what most has been said here, i bought a 70d and its great but its too small, its okay with smaller lenses but with a big telephoto like the sigma 120-300 it sucks. your fingers pinch between the grip and the lens and the buttons are too small and close together. i like the size of the 40d, i suppose the 7dii will be bigger and would buy it just for that. 

i bought an sl1 as a gift, its a great camera but its like typing on a blackberry, you feel like you have to use your fingertips to do anything


----------



## Jim Saunders (Nov 4, 2013)

I picked up my 5D2 after some time spent with my 1Dx; It feels a little strange not being able to use your last finger to help, at least without a grip (poorly) attached to it.

Jim


----------



## sdsr (Nov 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I admit to a bit of bias here, as I have serious doubts that mirrorless will ever supplant DSLRS. I don't really buy into the idea that the smaller size of a mirrorless makes it that much more desirable for many photographers.



Small size clearly seems to matter to some, though (but, given the poor sales history of M43 cameras, not *that* much). This is hardly a representative sampling, of course, but all the friends I have who have sought my advice re buying a (better) camera in the last few years, especially women, want something small enough to fit in a largeish handbag; and some of them consider cameras/lenses which strike me as light to be heavy, including such a lightweight combination as a Nikon D3200/Rebel + a couple of kit lenses. (I persuaded a colleague to get at least one of the smaller M43s, but she was unwilling to buy a Panasonic/Leica 25mm for it because it was "much heavier" than the other M43 lenses of similar focal length - we're talking a difference of a couple of ounces here; she stated it in grams to make it sound more dramatic...).

For my part, if the lenses can be kept small, I'll take a small body; and small systems are nicer to carry around all day on vacation, etc. But I would rather handle a larger camera; my fondness for the OM-D EM5 is mainly because of how well it works (and because I like how it looks). Big lenses on a small body is a combination that doesn't appeal to me at all.


----------



## BruinBear (Nov 5, 2013)

Good luck using something like this for a day long shoot ;D


----------



## pwp (Nov 5, 2013)

This is a great, relevant question. I recently got an SL1 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-100d-rebel-sl1 as a light travel camera. This thing is _TINY._ Next to a de-gripped 7D it's hard to believe they are both APS-C bodies.

Next to the 1D MkIV and 5D3 it looks like a pocket camera. I needed a third body on a corporate job last week and hooked the SL1 onto my 300 f/2.8is. It looked hilarious, but the 1600 iso files were as good as gold. 

I was pretty surprised when I got my gripped 5D3...it is heavier, taller, thicker and wider than my 1D MkIV. And the 1DX is slightly bigger in every dimension than the 1D MkIV. Let's hope that the current 1-Series and 5 Series bodies represent the peak in size and weight for Canon DSLR's.

-pw


----------



## trof2 (Nov 5, 2013)

brad-man said:


> They're big so we can impress the ladies. Ohhh, you're going to shoot me with THAT!



Smaller cameras and choad lenses are much more easily wieldable under the covers


----------



## Drizzt321 (Nov 5, 2013)

sdsr said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I admit to a bit of bias here, as I have serious doubts that mirrorless will ever supplant DSLRS. I don't really buy into the idea that the smaller size of a mirrorless makes it that much more desirable for many photographers.
> ...



For me this hits it right on the head. I want small(ish) lenses on a small camera. Unfortunately, with physics that kinda means a FF is pretty well out (for a compact mirrorless), especially for a fast lens, because you need all that glass. I actually wish they could have made the 22mm on the EOS-M just a tad bit thinner, because it doesn't fit quite as nice as I would like into my pocket. Just a bit too thick.


----------



## iam2nd (Nov 5, 2013)

I have taken apart a variety of digital cameras to convert them to infrared, both compact and DSLR size. There's no wasted space in there (not that anyone is saying that). There is almost always a balance between the mechanical and electrical design and layout that happens during product development. Each developer's "piece" of the puzzle has to work in harmony: Human factors, ESD and EMC radiation and susceptibility, thermal, mechanical, performance, etc. Certainly there are obvious size adders on the 1D series bodies, such as bottom battery placement, vertical and horizontal grip controls ,etc. But I am always amazed at how much technology gets squeezed in there. 

I have small hands, but I absolutely love the feel of the 1D series in my hands. It just fits and works. I actually hope the size of the flagship models don't shrink too much even if technology allows. I use a 5D (infrared) and 5D Mark II on occasion and I always prefer the feel of the 1D cameras better. Having said that, there are times when it would be nice to have an SL1 in the bag


----------



## LowBloodSugar (Nov 5, 2013)

The size and shape of canon's DSLRs are a consequence of the 35mm SLRs. Early DSLRs still had the motors and gears for advancing film.

They have to be as thick as they are to allow for the amount of distance between the sensor and the lens mount. Plus there is a mirror/prisim and a grid of focus sensors. Because of these limitations there was no miniaturization.

NOW that there is fast dual cmos focusing, that paves the way for a smaller mirrorless autofocus interchangeable lens camera that could be on par with canon's flagship cameras (5dm3/1DX).


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 5, 2013)

BruinBear said:


> Good luck using something like this for a day long shoot ;D



Some even think that is one "sexy combo" :-\

Sorry, but I just don't see it and will never get it :


----------



## RunAndGun (Nov 5, 2013)

Speaking personally and professionally, I'll say that ergonomics play a huge roll(no pun intended). You get to a point when miniaturizing things that they get too small to effectively be able to interact with them. I live in the TV world and if you look at a one piece Betacam from the 90's with it's tape transport in the body vs. a solid state camera today(with 20 years of technological advancements), the bodies are still pretty much the same size, same weight and same layout of key switches and buttons(even among different manufacturers). If I go in my office and pick up my first Sony Betacam from 1997 and then pick up my Panasonic P2 Varicam from today, the power switch, black balance/white balance switch, filter wheel, record button, white balance memory switch, etc. are all in the same places. The cameras sit on my shoulder and balance similarly. My point is, especially in the professional world, the way something feels and the way you are able to interact with it are more important than "lets make it small just because we can".


----------



## BruinBear (Nov 5, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Some even think that is one "sexy combo" :-\
> 
> Sorry, but I just don't see it and will never get it :



I actually tried it with my EOS m and 70-200 II and it was mildly usable for the short time period i was messing around with it. I pretty much was supporting the entire weight with my left hand on the lens and just kinda aimed and pressed the shutter with my right.

The most awkward part for me tbh was having to hold the combination in front of you to see the LCD instead of up to your face.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Nov 5, 2013)

DSLRs are big (well compared to what exactly?) because when DSLRs came into market the idea of the camera manufacturers were to put the available technology inside the body (or a similar body) of the existing film cameras - the form factor remained the same. For canon that form factor probably drew on T90; for Nikon it was probably something like the body of Nikon F401 or F4. At that time there was a technological limitation on the miniaturization of the digital components. And photographers have grown accustomed with the form factor so much that there have never really been any revolutionary change in that form (What can Lytro lightfield form factor do is yet to be seen). In future the size is bound to go down a bit... with further miniaturization of the digital and electronic components. For example with the new AF technology of 70D I can foresee that the AF sensor at the base of the camera (the are located at the base of the camera right?) will surely be eliminated - so will the secondary mirror. As SL1 has shown the sensor mount mechanism can also be made smaller - in near future that will go to full frame as well, but making full frame cameras smaller may not be in the primary goal list of camera manufactureres. 


OP is forgetting that the DSLRs need space for several motherboards, chips and much more wiring than the film/analogue cameras. Roger cicala of Lens Rentals stripped down the 5D III long back,.... it is worthwhile to have a look at what it has inside

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/5d-iii-strip-tease


----------



## pwp (Nov 5, 2013)

RunAndGun said:


> Speaking personally and professionally, I'll say that ergonomics play a huge role (no pun intended). You get to a point when miniaturizing things that they get too small to effectively be able to interact with them.
> 
> My point is, especially in the professional world, the way something feels and the way you are able to interact with it are more important than "lets make it small just because we can".



++1
My tiny SL1 is ideal as an ultra-lightweight travel body, but compared to a 1-Series body the ergonomics are separated by orders of magnitude. And it's not just about size. The seamless, close to perfect ergonomics of 1-Series bodies on a busy, demanding project tangibly deliver better outcomes for the client and with less mental fatigue for the photographer. While my gripped 5D3 is pretty darn good in the ergonomics department, it's still a long way short of the almost exquisite, highly evolved handling of just about every 1-Series since the original 1D which launched way back in November 2001. 

-pw


----------



## distant.star (Nov 5, 2013)

.
Ergonomics -- it does not mean what you think it means.


----------



## gmrza (Nov 6, 2013)

RunAndGun said:


> Speaking personally and professionally, I'll say that ergonomics play a huge roll(no pun intended). You get to a point when miniaturizing things that they get too small to effectively be able to interact with them. I live in the TV world and if you look at a one piece Betacam from the 90's with it's tape transport in the body vs. a solid state camera today(with 20 years of technological advancements), the bodies are still pretty much the same size, same weight and same layout of key switches and buttons(even among different manufacturers). If I go in my office and pick up my first Sony Betacam from 1997 and then pick up my Panasonic P2 Varicam from today, the power switch, black balance/white balance switch, filter wheel, record button, white balance memory switch, etc. are all in the same places. The cameras sit on my shoulder and balance similarly. My point is, especially in the professional world, the way something feels and the way you are able to interact with it are more important than "lets make it small just because we can".



The point that I think some people are missing is that you can operate a DSLR "without looking" - i.e. while the viewfinder is up against your eye, you can change most or all of the important settings - shutter speed, aperture, controlling the AF system (not only focusing, but also selecting things like the AF points to use), ISO etc. all without lowering the camera to look at it. - Smaller form factors sacrifice that ability.


----------



## Grumbaki (Nov 6, 2013)

DSLR are tiny


----------



## pwp (Nov 6, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> Ergonomics -- it does not mean what you think it means.


Oh? What is the correct definition as it applies to camera design?

-pw


----------



## George D. (Nov 6, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I've been reading with interest the many comments here about the desirability of a mirrorless system, with small size being one of the desired traits.
> 
> Well, recently I took a look at my old Canon F1 (which is on semi-permanent loan to my daughter as a decorating accessory in her apartment). I had forgotten how tiny it is compared to a 7D or a 5DIII. And, that got me wondering why are DSLRs so big?
> 
> ...



Top series dSLR body shape evolved out of SLR. Check the F1N (1981) size as compared to the 1V (2000) latest film pro body which is the base for today's dSLRs. It's fair to compare the F1N with power winder attached as this became incorporated in the 1V. As it shows, the F1N is overall larger than the 1V. Plan view shows the curvier design of the 1V for resisting to rain.

If you want to compare F1/1Ds MkIII you would have to attach the AE motor drive FN w/battery pack which is double size to the winder, result probably favours the 1Ds MkIII (1Dx only slightly larger).

Now, if you were to compare just the bare F1N body take a dSLR, strip LCD screens, change battery type and you get the idea of a [email protected] retro style DF.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 6, 2013)

gmrza said:


> Smaller form factors sacrifice that ability.



Yes, *small*, but not necessarily smallER. Just because something isn't as large as a 1dx doesn't mean you cannot cleverly design it so you still have button access to all crucuial settings unless you try to operate it with thick gloves.

My observation is that next to there's a good deal of marketing involved. With the old film slrs like the EOS RT/620 I had back then you could exchange the grip with a bigger one, but currently spending less money means getting a cramp in the hand which is a striking incentive to "upgrade" from a Rebel. Also "bigger" means "sturdier" and "pro" and "I'm the photog, step aside people" - non of this is a necessity.

With the introduction of the 6d this might change a bit, it's not "pro" and crippled alright, but still not an embarrassing Rebel so it now seems to be more acceptable to like or wish for a smaller and lighter camera - the same seems to be happening with lenses looking at the latest Canon releases like the 24-70L2.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 6, 2013)

Current Canon ergonomics are perfect, they just need to be lighter in weight.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 6, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Why are DSLRs so big? Try putting a 70-200 f/2.8 on a Sony A7 and see how well it balances and handles
> 
> Large & heavy full frame lenses need a large body otherwise it is a royal pain to try and grip the camera body + balance the lens.



I actually far prefer the balance of the 400f5.6 on my Rebel T3 over the 5D2 with battery grip. The 5D2+grip weighs almost as much as the lens itself, meaning you pretty much have to hold the whole thing with two hands all the time, whereas with the Rebel it pivots on the Tripod foot and is much easier to swing around from carrying it by your side to lining up a shot. It feels a lot more nimble with a lightweight camera on the back.
I don't believe there's any reason a smaller body would be a compromise in control. Look at current Fuji models, they have more buttons and dials than any Canon. At any rate, I think it would be amazing if Canon would at least start developing light weight versions of their high end cameras. From what I've heard a lot of photographers tend to have pretty sore arms after a long day of shooting.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 6, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Why are DSLRs so big? Try putting a 70-200 f/2.8 on a Sony A7 and see how well it balances and handles
> ...



Errrrr on a tripod yeah, it won't matter especially with it mounted on the collar. Try handholding and it's a world of difference, you ever do an all day event or wedding shoot? The 70-200 F/2.8 is an all around great lens to use but man, back when I used a rebel with one it was a pain, halfway through the day my wrist was not working the way I wanted it to. Weight unbalanced towards the front, front-heaviness, is a lot more of a pain to deal with than getting a bigger heavier camera that actually balances out the whole setup. The bigger grip is comfortable to hold and the whole thing is easier to swing around. And really, ~ 800 grams is not bad for just the body when carrying a load of lenses and other gear, once you add a flash as well then shaving off several more grams on just a single body like with a mirrorless camera (lets say A7) doesn't do much.
Fujifim's cameras are that way because their lenses are also small and lightweight, and neither are they FF, which helps reduce the size and weight big time.

Aside from grip and balance though, DSLRs on their own aren't that big, even a 5D series, take the lens off and hey it can fit in a coat pocket 
It's the big lenses, get a pancake lens like the 40mm F/2.8 and it's all compact enough.
The only reason I'd be excited about a mirrorless FF mount is for adapting all sorts of lenses to... lenses I don't have anyways though... small and lightweight bodies would need equally small and lightweight, but still fast and high quality lenses, and I'm not looking at Leica as they currently don't offer AF


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 8, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



My comment was actually referring to using the camera handheld. When I go for a walk with the 400f5.6, I'm usually just carrying it around and only looking through the viewfinder for a few moments periodically. In this situation I find the lower total weight far more valuable than any handling benefits from the 5D2. With just a little Rebel on the back it puts the balance point nicely on the tripod foot, which makes it easier to carry.


----------



## Ryan Ricaborda (Nov 8, 2013)

I would probably prefer a bit lighter and more balanced then smaller. IMHO 1dx feels fantastic but gets really heavy with big lenses or shooting half a day.


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As Canon stated, they were able to reduce the size of the SL1 by developing a new package for mounting the sensor as well as further miniaturization of the electronics. Its small enough now so that I find it difficult to use.
> How big of a LCD display did your canon F1 have ? How many buttons? Not to mention joystick and control wheels. You can combine them down to fewer controls, and with touch screens, maybe some of them can go away.



Even with a large touch screen, the controls would never be as convenient or reliable, and likely never as quick, as with physical dials and buttons. There is something to be said for having a large camera body with large physical controls...you have the ability to memorize button placements, button press sequences, dial rolls by notches, etc. allowing you to almost entirely automatically reconfigure a DSLR on the fly via. procedural memory, allowing the rest of your mind to focus on the art. I can't imagine ever being able to achieve that with a touch screen...especially when my face is pressed up against the camera body.


----------



## P_R (Nov 12, 2013)

With film and manual focus plus manual aperture, there was little in the cameras. Manual film transport too meant all you needed was a tiny battery to power the exposure system, at least that is how I used my dads Tlb canon. And it still works.
Move to a T90 and you get multiple motors for film transport, more buttons and less dials. But to do this you have more electronics which go somewhere. Size goes up.
Move to a digital canon and you have to add in all those things peculiar to digital but absent with film. Rear screen, memory card(s), bigger battery, flash, dials to zoom in or change focus points and so on. You then have to have the buttons spaced such that they are usable. 
Following a logical set of steps you can see how dslr bodies range from the 1 series to the rebels. My only criticism of the 1series is the weight! But even that can help with balance or unsteady hands. My 350d seemed to produce many more crooked horizons which are absent (mostly) on the 1dx.


----------



## jrista (Nov 12, 2013)

P_R said:


> With film and manual focus plus manual aperture, there was little in the cameras. Manual film transport too meant all you needed was a tiny battery to power the exposure system, at least that is how I used my dads Tlb canon. And it still works.
> Move to a T90 and you get multiple motors for film transport, more buttons and less dials. But to do this you have more electronics which go somewhere. Size goes up.
> Move to a digital canon and you have to add in all those things peculiar to digital but absent with film. Rear screen, memory card(s), bigger battery, flash, dials to zoom in or change focus points and so on. You then have to have the buttons spaced such that they are usable.
> Following a logical set of steps you can see how dslr bodies range from the 1 series to the rebels. My only criticism of the 1series is the weight! But even that can help with balance or unsteady hands. My 350d seemed to produce many more crooked horizons which are absent (mostly) on the 1dx.



The now decades-old Canon film 1-series SLRs that used the EF mount were roughly the same size as modern 1-series EOS DSLRs. The size of the 1-series has nothing to do with electronics. It is an ergonomics factor...always has been. The large 1-series have always had the integrated grip...its one of its selling points. The large size offers much better hand-holdability in both landscape and portrait orientations. 

That is, has always been, and probably will always be one of the primary arguments for using an SLR-style camera...ergonomics. Even if you have smallish hands, mirrorless cameras are exceptionally small. They really don't fit the hands all that well, and while they certainly save on weight, for all but those with tiny hands, they end up having other ergonomically related problems, like cramping your hands into your face in an uncomfortable way. 

From a weight standpoint, one of the most significant weight factors in a modern DSLR is the battery. Larger batteries with much greater capacity are usually the most dense aspect of the camera. A large battery can get you a lot more shooting time before having to swap out batteries, and/or supply the necessary power to move the mirror and actuate the shutter and write huge amounts of data to a memory card at extremely high frame rates. It's a trade off you can choose to make, however...1D X with grip and extra large battery, or 5D III with no grip and a relatively small/light battery. Perhaps at some point in the future dense, heavy batteries might be traded out for some kind of light weight fuel cell that can operate for days under the same kind of load conditions.


----------

