Is it time to start shrinking?

Looking over all the latest camera releases I find that they are so packed with features that I’m hard pressed to think of a feature that I really need or want except for size and weight. The new cameras are so big and heavy so I got to wondering if we are not near or at the peak of the camera size curve. I’m seeing the SLR market following a similar growth curve as the portable audio market did a few years back.

First we had all those nice little portable radios. They were functional, they were reasonably sized though basic with few features, and their sound quality got the job done but that’s about it. Then the market started to demand more features, better sound and the manufactures responded. The technology at the time allowed for the increase in quality but to do so the size of the box had to increase. For a few years the boom box was king. We had loads of features, great sound, and it was not uncommon to walk a city street and see someone with a suitcase sized radio hoisted on their shoulder blasting their music for all to hear. Then the engineers kicked in and the boom boxes started shrinking providing the same sound quality or better, the same feature set or better and finally getting down to the small portable music devised we have today.

Are we in the boom-box phase of DSLRs? It is not unusual to see a photog with two or more 3 pound cameras strapped on their neck dragging around 20~30 pounds of supporting equipment just to capture an image. Is it time for the engineers to start applying their craft and provide us a camera every bit as capable as the finest DSLR of today but in a package no larger than say an iPOD? Are there really technical limitations which dictate that a SLR needs to be huge and heavy to be good or are we just the optical equivalent of the boom-box toting audiophile from a few years ago?

gjl711 wrote in post #6189883
Looking over all the latest camera releases I find that they are so packed with features that I’m hard pressed to think of a feature that I really need or want except for size and weight. The new cameras are so big and heavy so I got to wondering if we are not near or at the peak of the camera size curve. I’m seeing the SLR market following a similar growth curve as the portable audio market did a few years back.

First we had all those nice little portable radios. They were functional, they were reasonably sized though basic with few features, and their sound quality got the job done but that’s about it. Then the market started to demand more features, better sound and the manufactures responded. The technology at the time allowed for the increase in quality but to do so the size of the box had to increase. For a few years the boom box was king. We had loads of features, great sound, and it was not uncommon to walk a city street and see someone with a suitcase sized radio hoisted on their shoulder blasting their music for all to hear. Then the engineers kicked in and the boom boxes started shrinking providing the same sound quality or better, the same feature set or better and finally getting down to the small portable music devised we have today.

Are we in the boom-box phase of DSLRs? It is not unusual to see a photog with two or more 3 pound cameras strapped on their neck dragging around 20~30 pounds of supporting equipment just to capture an image. Is it time for the engineers to start applying their craft and provide us a camera every bit as capable as the finest DSLR of today but in a package no larger than say an iPOD? Are there really technical limitations which dictate that a SLR needs to be huge and heavy to be good or are we just the optical equivalent of the boom-box toting audiophile from a few years ago?

Are you kidding me?? The sensor on the 5D is that big, because it has to be. That's why the IQ on DSLR's is so much greater. You want that, look at a P&S...

The biggest technical limitation is glass.
When we come up with a decent substitute for glass in lenses, overall dSLR size will drastically go down..

manutd101 wrote in post #6189902
You want that, look at a P&S...

+1. P&S has been going this route for a while. Notice that your analogy compares this to "boom boxes". Boom boxes are the audio equivalent of a P&S. High-end audio equipment for the most part is still housed in large metal enclosures and is reasonably heavy.

manutd101 wrote in post #6189902
Are you kidding me?? The sensor on the 5D is that big, because it has to be. That's why the IQ on DSLR's is so much greater. You want that, look at a P&S...

They made 35mm film cameras much smaller, so they ought to be able to do similar things with digital sensor cameras! I would be quite happy with adding a 'digital back' to the camera on the left, via an attachment the same size as the electric film winder attachment (like the battery grips on dSLRs)

Wilt wrote in post #6189938
They made 35mm film cameras much smaller, so they ought to be able to do similar things with digital sensor cameras! I would be quite happy with adding a 'digital back' to the camera on the left, via an attachment the same size as the electric film winder attachment (like the battery grips on dSLRs)

Well you're comparing with a 20D, if you'd showed a 450D or a 1000D the size difference wouldn't be that big.

Personally, I hope the cameras stays around the size they are now. I find all the xxxD and xxD cameras too small unless they have their grip attached. If you have a large piece of glass you also need a good sized camera body to balance it out and give you a better grip.

My opinion is, the 1 and 10 series cameras are the size they are because that's the size people want them to be. You can get a credit card size camera with 8+ megapixels, so what. I can buy a cell phone just about that size. Doesn't mean I would want one or find using it convenient.

The 40D is about the size and weight of a 1950's Polaroid Land camera with Film Pak in it and even the 1D with a flash on it is still smaller, lighter and easier to point than the old fold out bellows plate cameras.

No, I think the size and weight are just right as is.

With nano-technology they will one day custom fit the camera to your hand. Send in a hand print and they send a custom fit camera to you. Yeah right. I like them the way they are.

canonloader wrote in post #6189970
No, I think the size and weight are just right as is.

I agree with you up until this sentence. I love the ergonomics and weight of my 40D and I suspect the 1D would feel even better. However, I do know people who won't even be considering anything heavier than a D80 because they just can't carry that weight around with them all day every day. This means they will have to skimp on feature layout and build quality.

i really hope that nobody does what you are suggesting John to be honest. i for one love the size of the DSLR and find them very comfortable. they allow us to shoot and change settings quickly and they are also designed to be comfortable in the hands. i recently got a G9 and to be honest with you, even if the IQ was fantastic, i still wouldn't want to use it for more than casual snapshots. with my 1D or even the smaller 1.6x bodies, i can use the camera quite comfortably where with the G9, shooting portraits was just horrible and gave me cramps.

even if you take one of the smaller lenses that Canon has today (for example, the 50 1.8) it would still be very uncomfortable with the smaller body. now, if you take a lens like the 70-200 or even the bigger 400 5.6, you will see that a smaller body will mean less comfort and a non balanced kit.

I'm afraid I don't know anyone who carries a camera around all day, but I do see many and many who have 1D's, long and insanely heavy f/2.8 lens who cover C-Span, politics and sports without so much as a monopod. All the 10 series cameras are about the size of the old 35mm film hand wind cameras and the 1D's are about the size of those same bodies with a motor drive and batteries. It's not going to change. If it was, it would have by now. Form follows function.

I think this thread brings a good point, and instead of size, I will focus on features.

We live in a market driven by features.

Jack Handey once said "If you ever have to choose between going to regular heaven, and pie heaven, I think you should go with pie heaven. Not sure why, but pie, mmmmmmmhhh!!" or something like that.

While 90% of the features can and will be useful to our photographs, we do tend to have a practical and effective amount of mental 'bandwidth' to use them. Old film cameras were not feature loaded, because most of that mental energy was used in calculations for light and exposure, and the eye/hand coordination was submerged in the focus/composition/timi​ng sub-dimension.

Today I do feel that Point and Shoot cameras are the best examples of over-features. You purchase one, and its box will be filled with bullet point text lines, detailing the hundreds of features that make this mini-camera that fits in a pocket so complete.

As you open the box, and handle the camera for the first time, you notice something immediately. There are 250 features, but only 5 buttons. The skill required to solve a rubick cube in your mind from just looking at one, is about the same degree required to learn the button combinations in order to change ISO, or even the aperture value.

With DSLRs, the space has not been an issue. So buttons are there, and even if they are not many, they are simple to operate and access each feature, to a degree.

What about custom functions? What about advanced options? There are so many features included in today's cameras (and even more so in tomorrow's) that one can't help but wonder. Sure, most features actually complement and improve the photo capture capability.

But do we use it? Is it within that mental bandwidth for us to operate? How often before a shoot do we check on the custom function set, to make sure AF and other Flash functions are properly set according to the situation?...

If you had to rate yourself, out of a 100 frame regular photo shoot, what percentage of features you use, the number can't remotely be high.

Not that features hurt in a camera, it is good to have them there.

But my point is, there is a direct correlation between USEABLE features and size, when the camera is properly built (unlike the case of P&S models which are geared to consumers asking "which one's got the most cool things for my buck?").

We do have to be careful not to be thrown in the same area, with DSLRs.

canonloader wrote in post #6190065
I'm afraid I don't know anyone who carries a camera around all day, .

Try vacationing in a foreign country, travelling about in the city on foot all day, while your spouse slowly window shops all the unusual never-before-seen (by her) goods, and visiting museums and 500 years old churches, etc. etc. !

canonloader wrote in post #6189970
My opinion is, the 1 and 10 series cameras are the size they are because that's the size people want them to be. ..No, I think the size and weight are just right as is.

Why did SLR ownership blossom when Olympus had the OM, Canon had the AE-1, Nikon had the FM, Pentax had the ME, etc. --all SMALL SLRs? People bought SLRs that had the advantages of SLR (over P&S) without horrendously increasing the burden of carrying them around (as would happen with the 'full size' SLRs from Nikon and Canon and Pentax, etc.)

gjl711 wrote in post #6189883
Looking over all the latest camera releases I find that they are so packed with features that I’m hard pressed to think of a feature that I really need or want except for size and weight. The new cameras are so big and heavy so I got to wondering if we are not near or at the peak of the camera size curve. I’m seeing the SLR market following a similar growth curve as the portable audio market did a few years back.

First we had all those nice little portable radios. They were functional, they were reasonably sized though basic with few features, and their sound quality got the job done but that’s about it. Then the market started to demand more features, better sound and the manufactures responded. The technology at the time allowed for the increase in quality but to do so the size of the box had to increase. For a few years the boom box was king. We had loads of features, great sound, and it was not uncommon to walk a city street and see someone with a suitcase sized radio hoisted on their shoulder blasting their music for all to hear. Then the engineers kicked in and the boom boxes started shrinking providing the same sound quality or better, the same feature set or better and finally getting down to the small portable music devised we have today.

Are we in the boom-box phase of DSLRs? It is not unusual to see a photog with two or more 3 pound cameras strapped on their neck dragging around 20~30 pounds of supporting equipment just to capture an image. Is it time for the engineers to start applying their craft and provide us a camera every bit as capable as the finest DSLR of today but in a package no larger than say an iPOD? Are there really technical limitations which dictate that a SLR needs to be huge and heavy to be good or are we just the optical equivalent of the boom-box toting audiophile from a few years ago?

First let me ask, what is the reason to use the smallest size font and one of the hardest to read?

OK,

There are basically three sizes of cameras 1D, xxD and xxxd and now the XS series. Buy the one you want for size. They really haven't changed much since the series model was introduce, so I don't see them getting bigger.

The reason for the change in iPod sizes, is a MAJOR CHANGE in hard drives from mechanically to solid state. Things are getting smaller, battery, memory. But the SLR is STILL a SLR with a mechanically shutter, it has to have room to move.