Size comparison of the current models Nikon dSLRs

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by pete_s., Jul 6, 2015.

  1. While it's always best to try out a camera before buying, sometimes it's interesting to see size differences and how control layout changes from model to model. is a couple of years old but new to me, so I figured it could be interesting to others as well.
    Size comparison of the most popular current models Nikon dSLR:,567,486,611,580,509,hd,b
  2. Well, I'd add the D4s just to stop me feeling quite so fat as a D810 user (as opposed to just fat because I'm fat...) I knew the D5500 was smaller than the D3300, but it's impressive by how much. I hadn't realised the D5500's grip overhang has disappeared, either. The side view does show why a D750 felt quite so weird to me - though from the top, it's scary seeing how thin the body of a D750 (and D5500) is. I don't think I realised the D810 had such sloped shoulders compared with the others - the drive mode dial is really at a jaunty angle.

    I'd seen the site before, but interesting to have another look!
  3. Gosh, what a handy App!
    Well Andrew, I've just inherited a D3S and it looks like Godzilla next to the rest...:)
  4. Gup

    Gup Gup

    That was fun. :)
    Interesting there are no images for the left sides of any of the D8xx series.
  5. Just for fun: added the D4S, F6, Leica S, Leica M, and Sony A7II: (doesn't seem to preserve the intended order)
  6. That F6 finder looks terrific
  7. You guys did notice that you can put lenses on the bodies as well?,611.322,291.327,ga,t
  8. Gup

    Gup Gup

    Dieter, you can adjust the camera positions using the arrows above the models.
  9. Dieter, you can adjust the camera positions using the arrows above the models.​
    I did that - twice actually - but the didn't stay put in the order I wanted, except for the D4s.
  10. I've just got myself a D7200 after using a D700 and D800, and to be honest the D7200 doesn't actually feel much more compact or lightweight. I think the lens has a lot to do with it. Stick a big or weighty lens on almost any camera and you're going to have an unwieldy lump in your hands.
    Even the 18-140mm kit lens on the D7200 makes it a bit lens-heavy and cumbersome. So just looking at a camera's profile will tell you next-to-nothing about its handling.
  11. RJ - interesting. I've handled a D7200 in a store, but not next to my other cameras. I did use someone's D7000 immediately after my D700 and it felt tiny - and the D750 feel pretty tiny compared with a D810.

    I'm actually surprised the S2 isn't bigger (although it's not exactly a 645 sensor); my Pentax 645 is relatively huge. And an M3 (Leica, not BMW) is surprisingly heavy and unwieldy, in my brief experience.

    Do you think it's interesting that nobody has thought to add the Df, which as far as I know is still "current"? :)
  12. Df added ;-)
    @Andrew: the Leica M body has hardly any weight or size advantage over a DSLR - in particular not if one adds the EVF and body grip to get the full functionality.
    The S2/S have 30mm x 45mm sensors; many "645 digital cameras) are about 33mm x 44mm; film 645 is 41.5mm x 56mm.
    So just looking at a camera's profile will tell you next-to-nothing about its handling​
    True - I would have never guessed how poorly the D7000 feels in my hands from looking at the dimensions and the images alone. Quite surprised how well the D5500 works - though there's very little space for the fingers between grip and bayonet "dome". D750 suprised me as well - the deep grip and narrow body helps the ergonomics - too bad the control layout doesn't.
  13. True - I would have never guessed how poorly the D7000 feels in my hands from looking at the dimensions​
    I used the D7000 on one occasion and it felt cramped to me. Can anyone comment on any body/handling differences b/w the D7000 and the 7100/7200? Any (subjective) improvements?
  14. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Coming from a D300 and D700, it didn't take me very long to get used to the D7000. The D7100 maybe a slight improvement from the D7000 as far as handling goes, but all three (including the D7200) are about the same size. I have all three. The key is the size of the right grip.
    But when I tried some Sony and Fuji mirrorless cameras recently, I found them all too thin and too small. The mirror increases the thickness such that even the D7000 series has a better grip. Likewise, I don't like the Df, Olympus micro 4/3 bodies and Nikon 1 mirrorless. I never tried the Nikon V2 much, but its grip seems better.
  15. Chip, I have both a D7000 and a D7200. The D7200 is a slight improvement over the D7000 but it isn't huge. The sculpting is a little different but the grip to lens distance is still tight and the overall height (read that, how many fingers will fit on the protrusion) is the same.
    I came from a D200 with an MB-D200 grip on it so I was a little lost until I added a grip to the D7000. That helped immensely with overall comfort but added significant weight. I'm OK with the extra heft and will be 're-gripping' the D7200 shortly. With lenses like my Tokina 12-24 F4.0, my knuckles hit the lens on the D7000 without the grip installed. With the battery grip installed, I can relax a bit and not overreach around and towards the lens in order to feel like I've got a good hold on it. It's just the new normal and after a while, it's all I know. Now the D200 feels like a beast.
  16. Thanks Shun and Tom. I shoot a D300 and the natural successor for me would be in the D7k series. I did hold a D5500 the other day, and it seems to have the new shape Nikon used for D750. It felt pretty good, so I am hoping Nikon incorporates something similar for D7300. Of course, we do also adapt and I am guessing I would also be able to get comfortable with a 7200 if I owned one.
  17. The D7100/D7200 is slightly wider than the D7000. But as Shun said: the key is the size of the grip. To which I would add - not only the size but also the shape. The D7000's grip is too narrow and too "squarish" - instead of fitting into the fingers/hand, the fingers end up pinching the grip - which at least for me caused fatigue and cramping within minutes. On the D7100/D7200, the grip is more rounded. The position of the AE-L/AF-L button was too close to the viewfinder on the D7000 - I shoot left-eyed and could hardly get my thumb in there. The D7000 just was too heavy for its size and shape. Luckily, the small improvements made on the D7100 at least make the camera fit my hands better - though its far from feeling good. The smooth rubber is also not a favorite of mine.
    The more I use the D7100, the more I resent the entire control layout with the PSAM dial on the left, the ISO button in an impossible position - there's way too much that needs left-handed operation or even two-handed one. I will never understand why why a PSAM wheel is preferable to a mode button - yet Nikon choose to go that route. To me there's absolutely no advantage to having that dial - and the only one I can think of is of no importance to me (seeing the mode I am in without the camera being turned on).
    With the D300, D700, D7100, and D810 I have now four Nikon cameras, with three differing so much in the details of handling that I am constantly confused as to where something is hiding. Switching from the D300 to the D700 poses no problems whatsoever (though the D300 would benefit from having a level as well); but even the D810 is sufficiently different (mostly better - lets call it natural progress) from those two to confuse me. Why there needs to be a totally different way of doing things in the D7100 I do not know.
    The D300/D700/D810 feel right to me (with the D810 being the most comfortable to hold) and the D7100 layout just all wrong. Not only does Nikon choose to move the cheese with every new camera - they also choose not to be consistent on a much larger scale. I assume it has to do with cost-cutting - though I don't understand why a PSAM wheel costs less than a mode button.
    The small "width" of the D7100/D7200 also gives me the same trouble already mentioned above by Tom - the fingers hitting the lens (in my case, the 80-400). I had to add the grip to the D7100 to be able to handle that combo somewhat comfortable - I have no problems doing so on the D810 without the add-on.
    And no - the D7K is not the "natural" successor of the D300 series - it's just what came next. And while the technology certainly has improved, the handling is a gigantic misstep (can't even say backwards because IMHO, there's never been a Nikon camera that's such an ergonomic disaster - save the Df, which indeed in in a league all of its own).
  18. Of course Dieter, but the natural successor for me is something I am qualified to determine ;)
  19. Of course Dieter, but the natural successor for me is something I am qualified to determine ;)
    Certainly - I should have added "for me" as well ;-) Though my fall-back position is that everything I write is "my opinion and my view" anyway - I never intend to speak for anyone but myself.
  20. To each his/her own, of course. But aren't we putting to much weight on a little detail such as these minute differences in grips, being a bit more or less square, or a few mms difference in height or width? For me, as long as you can hold a camera, it works (and i have used a few that you simply cannot hold, but need to put on a tripod. Those are no fun to carry either. But still fun to use.) Switching from one to another is as easy as switching from writing with a pen to writing using a computer keyboard: effortlessly, because you know you are using one or the other. Much more important, i'd say, and by far is how it delivers what i need to use a camera for.
  21. For me, as long as you can hold a camera, it works​
    Certainly - and the D7000 for me falls in the category of camera I can't hold comfortably - so I am not going to hold one at all. For Nikon, that was a loss of the sale of two new cameras - since at the time I was fully prepared to walk out of the store with two D7000 bodies and because of the screwed-up ergonomics, walked out with none at all. I really don't care about the millimeters and the size and shape of the grip - I handle the camera and if it doesn't feel right, then it's a - perhaps decisive - count against.
    Of course, making a camera that fits all kinds of hands large and small etc. is no easy feat - and I am quite sure there are many that didn't/don't like the feel of the D300, for example. But at least for me, smaller usually doesn't mean better.
  22. But aren't we putting to much weight on a little detail​
    It may just be a few mm, but little things can be big things :)
    To some extent, your point is well taken. I have a Coolpix A, and I adjust my handling to the camera. If I am shooting with my FE2, I make a different adjustment. With a main body DSLR, I am going to be more particular. Depending on what lens I am using, the camera grip might have a significant impact on my capability and it will almost certainly have an impact on my enjoyment level.
  23. Dieter: Very much agreed about the left-handed thing (which won't be news to people who have heard me rant on this before). I always believed that Nikon put a mode dial on cameras that have lots of scene modes, because it would be a bit hard to find the mode you wanted with the mode button and scroll wheel if you had a long list. With the four "creative" modes on the "pro" cameras, it's not an issue. Though I have to say I switch modes very rarely, and would be perfectly happy reprogramming the button to something more useful.

    I, too, had my fingers pinched by a D7000, but I have large and chubby hands. I'm slightly surprised that I felt a D4's grip was so deep (I could barely reach the buttons by the mount) - but that may have been my hands in the wrong place. My F5 never troubled me (well, the vertical grip is a bit vestigial, but the normal one is fine).

    But then I tried a 5D3 and found it unnaturally awful - partly because of the need to dislocate my thumb to reach the rear scroll dial (which is always a feature I actually envied on Canons). I guess it's what we're used to. I've yet to use my RX100 enough to comment on it much, but it seems to be trying very hard to slip out of my fingers and I'm forever lost in the menu interface, so I conclude I'm a long way from used to it right now. For some reason I didn't seem to have handling problems with an Eos 620, a Pentax 645 or a Voigtlander Bessa R, but maybe they're just so far from the digital cameras that I don't see the weirdness. Shame about the 5D3 experience, though - it's scaring me off my long-term plan of getting an Eos 3 so I can play with the eye-control focus.
  24. But aren't we putting to much weight on a little detail such as these minute differences in grips, being a bit more or less square, or a few mms difference in height or width?​
    Ergonomics is more important than what the manufacturers think. They put their faith in design more so than usability.
    It also becomes a lot more important as the amount of time you are going to use it increases.
    I used to shoot weddings that were 12-15 hours of shooting. I was on my way to pick up one or two D7000 when it was introduced because it was light and DX lenses are smaller and lighter as well (at least in theory). Specs sounded great and I did use D70s back in the day and I knew they were about the same size. Well, they're not. The D7000 is smaller (not as wide) and there was not enough room between the right grip and the lens mount. Not being able to hold the camera comfortably is a no go for long shooting days.
    At work I have a D600 and that body size works fine for me. It's not heavy as the pro models but I wish Nikon could understand that they have to make the cameras and lenses lighter. Carbon fiber, titanium - whatever it takes. Low weight is important.
  25. Another weird thing about the D7000 is that they moved down the "arrow navigator". Now looking at the D7100 and D7200 I see they moved it up for each iteration. So now it's back to where it has been all the time on the D700, D800, D600, D300 and even the old D70s I was talking about. What's up with that?
  26. Low weight is important.​
    Only to a point - then it becomes a liability. The weight of the camera needs to be such that it balances fine with the most common lenses. My above issue with the handling of the D7000 was amplified by having the 24-120/4 lens mounted - the combo didn't balance well at all. From the cameras and lenses I currently have, I would say that the D700 is just a tad too heavy, and for FX, the D810 just about right. The D300 is a little lighter than the D810 - but for DX I wouldn't mind a bit lighter - and the D7100 certainly fits that bill.
    But I do realize that the comfort level is different for everyone.
    @Andrew - well a dial doesn't fit all that many scene modes either before it becomes overcrowded. Whereas on a display one can have as many as one wanted - and to boot, could have an option to only display the ones one is actually interested in (which in my case would be exactly zero). I like the idea of the U1, U2 settings - but again, that could also be implemented more convenient via a mode button and the LCD display.
    Canon: I was getting to the point that a Canon 7DMkII "felt" better in my hands then the D7x00 body - until I tried to deal with the wheel and the little buttons all over the place. Nice feel but the overall control layout is something I would have a hard time getting used to.
    I can't recall exactly how the F5 felt - I sold mine a few years ago. It had been my only experience with the pro "uni-body" design and I remember that I liked the way it handled (not so much the weight though). Here's definitely a place where a bit of weight saving would go a long way - just imagine a D4-style body which doesn't weigh more that 1 kg! And wouldn't be reserved for cameras that cost north of $6K.
  27. Dieter: Agreed that the mode dial gets crowded. My point was that you can see where to turn it to, whereas scrolling between many options when only one is visible is a bit painful. This assumes only one is visible - as in the finder, when selecting metering mode. If you're using the rear LCD, your options are far more flexible - but obviously this assumes you don't mind a compromise to changing mode while your eye is to the finder. I change mode pretty rarely, but I admit that I've been known to go between aperture priority and manual in a hurry.

    I like a bit of heft, especially when it provides damping. I'm sympathetic that too much isn't a good thing, though. The F5 was a bit raw by modern ergonomics standards, but it's still pretty nice to use if you don't mind five-point autofocus. Of course it - and probably the D4 - doesn't weigh all that much - the weight is in the batteries, and AA lithiums help a lot (though it's still not light, especially with the big prism). Of course, there's always the Samsung WB2200F. :)
  28. I wish Nikon could understand that they have to make the cameras and lenses lighter.

    Nikon have made a lot of very good to excellent light weight products in recent years so they are certainly aware of this wish. You just have to pick the right products. Examples are the AF-S Nikkor f/1.8G series (20, 28, 35, 50, and 85), the 70-200/4, and 300/4 PF which are all very good to excellent products yet light weight. In the case of some of the f/1.8G primes they might have gone a little too far, as the manual focus rings don't exactly inspire confidence (in the f/1.4 35/58/85, manual focus rings are better). In the camera bodies, the Df and D750 are lighter weight than the D8x0 which in turn is lighter weight than the D700, which is lighter weight than the D3, so the progression clearly has been towards lighter weight FX camera bodies. I suspect we will see some longer supertelephoto lenses with PF optics. Although that type of a design is a compromise with respect to certain aspects of image quality, at least for me the 300 PF is a delightful compromise. Even the fast supertelephoto primes are losing weight and becoming less front heavy thanks to the use of fluorite elements. So, the weight is on its way down both in cameras and lenses but obviously the photographer has to choose the models which realize this goal and provide the features and quality that they need. It can be question of making the right compromise.
    I don't necessarily think further progression of reduced weight especially in camera bodies is always beneficial. Weight can help stabilize the camera at slower shutter speeds. At some point as too much material is removed from the camera or lens body it can no longer hold itself in precise calibration and so focus accuracy and image quality (not to mention durability) may suffer. As the cameras are made smaller some features are left out or components replaced by less performing ones. If some camera and lens combination feels too heavy but you need its quality or feature set regularly, I recommend practicing by using something which is even heavier. After a while of using that very heavy kit, the slightly lighter setup which you previously felt is too heavy will likely feel quite manageable if not light weight. I'm not joking - it is a serious suggestion and has worked for me. I enjoy light weight lenses myself but generally prefer the camera body itself to have some weight so that the center of gravity of the combination is close to my body rather than far from it. What problems I have had in the past with the weight of my camera equipment have been when the weight extends quite far from my body when used hand held. For long wedding shoots there are ways to reduce the kit weight, e.g. use primes, and shoot in available light where possible. Of course if your style and/or the conditions require the use of flash then it cannot be avoided, but the on camera flash can be an SB-700 instead of a 910, and that reduces the weight already a little and is easier to handle. The use of a small remote flash trigger on the camera instead of an SB unit can also reduce weight.
    Regarding camera size, shape and controls, Nikon have some designs that are widely liked but in order to satisfy a broad customer base, they make also some new designs (e.g. the Df and D750) and tweak the existing ones. Of the current bodies, personally I like the handling of the D810, D4s, D7200, and Df.
    Since different users have different needs, not every camera in the lineup is going to be a perfect match to a particular photographer. If you find one model which you're happy with, and if you need two cameras with the same controls, buy two cameras of the same model. That way you don't have to worry about switching between cameras that have different controls interfering with your reaction time etc. I personally don't have difficulty switching between cameras that have slightly different controls, but of course there is a point where the differences become too great to adjust easily to.
  29. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    In the last few years, Nikon has introduced a set of f4 AF-S VR zooms: 16-35, 24-120, and 70-200, a series of f1.8 fixed lenses as Ilkka listed, and fairly small D7000 series and D750. They just announced a new 600mm/f4 AF-S VR that is 3 pounds lighter than its predecessor: Nikon Introduces 16-80mm DX and Updated 500mm/f4 & 600mm/f4 Lenses
    And some people still think that Nikon is not aware of the demand of lighter cameras and lenses from some customers?
  30. If only the modern Nikon digital cameras were more F6-like...

Share This Page