Where are the really small DSLRs?

[mark_amos]

There seems to be a significant gap in size between the point-and-shoot

digitals and the DSLRs. Does the average consumer not appreciate the benefits

of a really compact inter-changeable lens camera or are the technical

challenges preventing manufacturers from creating dlsr's in the size of the

great compact Olympus OM, Pentax MX,Me and the Nikon FM line film cameras?

 

Perhaps the lack of very small DSLRs results from manufacturer's perception

that people only like extremes. People love zooms so they can shoot 28 and

then 105 (or 157.5), without the discipline to realize that there was a great

shot waiting to be realized in the in-between focal length every time. Do they

think people only want either a pocket camera or a heavy status bohemouth. The

smallest plasticy DSLRs are 3 3/4" tall and more: not the 3 1/4" or less that

I've hoped for. This might seem like a small difference, but I like to take a

camera with me everywhere I go in small brief cases: even to work everyday,

and the difference between a 3" briefcase and a 4" briefcase is significant

when you carry it everyday. I need a smallish high quality camera with at

least a 24 and then about a 60. I'm not talking about a Nikon 8400 with an LCD

viewfinder.

 

I am also a Leica M6 user, and I know about the Leica M8, which would meet my

needs (even with IR filters), but it is expensive. Where is the Nikon digital

FM3a. I could be satisfied with the size of the Nikon D40, as a compromise, if

it could meter with all the smallest Nikon AI-S lenses, but it doesn't.

 

In summary, what is the obstacle to a very small size (3" in height) inter-

changeable lens, manually intuitive camera. Thanks to everyone.

[stephen hazelton]

My theory is this: The current manufacturers of DSLR's were previously film camera manufacturers, and have a vast arsenal of lens designs, a lot of customer loyalty, etc. With that in mind, it is very expedient for them to make a DSLR's that use those lenses, which limits how small the camera can be to some extent.

 

Added to that, perhaps is the thought in the back of their minds that in 10 years, all DSLR's will be full-frame-35mm-size, in which case, they don't want to abandon that lens line.

 

If you can make the electronics small enough, then the obvious platform for those small-sensor DLSR's would be something like Pentax' old 110-SLR, but that would be a hard market to start up from nothing.

[kelly_flanigan1]

As a given say same megapixels sensor drops in size physical size, the noise floor goes up, for a given same technology sensor. Thus if one has a full frame 24x36mm sensor, and goes to a 12x18mm sensor, an active single pixel is 1/2 the size; 1/4 the area. It also means the lens has twice the resolving power requirements in lines per mm, but same in arc angle; as the normal lens drops from 50 to 25mm. One also gets more warranty repair costs and returns with hot pixels, dirt on sensors with a removeable lens digital. There is a great Jim Bob Goober factor with a removeable lens digital. Notice how self cleaning sensors are now more common. Maybe you should look at an olympus 4/3 camera for size, they have removeable lenses.

[ilkka]

I have not taken measurements but I doubt there is much excess in size and weight when comparing Nikon D40, Canon XTi, Pentax *ist or Minolta 5D, for example, with something like Nikon FM. Even in the past, if you wanted a top of the line film camera, you had to accept something bigger and heavier, Nikon F2 or Canon F1, even more so when including the motor drive which comes built into modern cameras.

[joshroot]

The size of lenses is the larger problem, and has been a problem since the advent of AF lenses. A canon xti is one of the smallest/lightest SLR's I have ever uesd.

 

You might look into a pentax camera and some of their "limited" & pancake lenses. Or some of their older manual lenses.

[johnclinch]

I think this is what you want, Although it is still 3.58 inches tall

 

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE400/

 

sadly due to production constraints it will not be marketed in America

[mars c]

The obstacle is , the lens,

 

Most lens are almost 3" thick, if they make a 3" tall dslr, the flash will not have enough clearance, using conventional design, therefore they would have to design a new kind of flash, one that could popup much higher.

 

I really like to have a really small dslr, smaller than the xti, as long as the grip is thicker and deeper.

 

When canon , when...

[ronald_moravec1]

Check the Canon XTi.

[remco-jan.woldhuis]

Olympus E-400 is very small I think (and lightweight as well). It brought back memories to the OM days....

[leicaglow]

Also the Nikon D40.

[nolefan32]

My daughter's got two cameras, a Nikon D50 and a Nikon EM. The D50 is only slightly larger than the EM. And the D40 (as well as the Canon XTi and the entry-level bodies from the likes of Olympus, etc.) is smaller than the D50, so though I've not seen it next to the EM, I would venture it's probably quite comperable in size to that old, small SLR.

[godfrey]

The Pentax *ist DS is just a little bit bigger than a Nikon FM3a ... mostly thicker, not taller or

wider. It fits in the same small bag with lenses that provide the same mix of field of view that

I used to carry with the FM2 and FE2.

 

An advantage to the Pentax is that I don't have to consume extra space in the bag for the

motor drive or film, so it is effectively smaller.

 

Godfrey

[jeff_s]

"what is the obstacle to a very small size (3" in height) inter- changeable lens, manually intuitive camera"

 

I think lots of buyers don't really know what they want, but they want to feel like they're getting "A little bit of everything", and they want it for the lowest possible price. So you almost inevitably wind up with a wide-to-tele zoom lens with macro capability, a pop-up flash and several automatic modes plus token manual control. That flash BTW, is why these cameras are taller than you'd like.

 

The 45mm P-Nikkor should work on the D40 as it has the necessary electronics. But it's Nikon's only manual focus lens so equipped. I have one, it's a very nice Tessar-type design.

[robert_potts1]

Compact has pros and cons. I think the ideal size and shape for a camera is the Mamiya 7. I have a D80 which I use as a second camera and it works well for that. But it is too small with too many buttons too close together. It could have a bigger screen, bigger flash, and more importantly, a bigger battery. More little DX lenses would indeed help with the down sizing.

[phule]

<<Does the average consumer not appreciate the benefits of a really compact inter-changeable lens camera>>

 

5 years ago the "average consumers" were buying single use film point and shoots and letting them sit in the glove box of their cars or in their junk drawers for 6 months. I think you need to take a better look at the market place to understand what the "average consumer" is actually buying.

 

Your requirements represent a fraction of a fraction of a niche market. It's easy to delude ones self into thinking that you and all your photographer friends represent some substantial portion of a camera manufacturers customers, but the fact is you don't. Catering to your needs is too costly and offers too little (if any) return for companies to consider.

 

I'm not saying this is right nor am I saying that I wouldn't like an even smaller DSLR or a P&S with a larger sensor, but I just don't see it happening any time soon. I'd love to be proven wrong, however.

[harvey_edelstein1]

The Pentax K10d is very compact and still has a decent VF. Its also full of features. If size is so important to you look into th 4/3 system from olympus its the smallest arround.

[mark_amos]

Thanks everyone for the thoughts. I have researched the available cameras very well or I would not have posted, but I had not seen the Olympus E400, and I guess I can only complain about it not being imported to USA because that is in fact pretty much what I was describing. On first look, I'm impressed and will read more.

 

In reading the reviews, I realize that it is the pop-up flash that makes the Pentax and D40 a bit larger than I would hope, and this is the case for the new E400 also. While their overall sizes is similar to an FM3a, for example, the prisms with the flash are taller making it difficult to carry one in a very flat case. Although I rarely use flash, I admit that it would be handy to have one right there in an emergency, and I really doubt that anyone would make an entry or advanced amateur small dslr without a flash, but if it would make the camera shorter by leaving it off, I would have no problem with that.

[donald_bray]

There is an issue of physics at play in the size of DSLR's. Just about all packaged electronics are beholden to battery and display technologies. Batteries' packaged power capacity and performance adaptability is physical size dependant.

 

Optically, DSLR's comparatively big sensors require big optics to exploit them. Big optics require big frames to securely mount and provide adequate handhold.

 

Compare user's posture during photo composition with a P&S vs. DSLR. DSLR's provide tremendously more field of view through the pentaprism compared to the arms length P&S LCD field of view compositioner. Again, relatively big optics, again requiring adequate structure, are required to provide this field of view in DSLR's.

 

DSLR's may shrink in future with new packaged power technologies, or with new image capture technolgies. But their size will also always be related to usability: the 'man-machine interface'.

[Brad_]

It's a shame no one is willing to start fresh with a blank sheet of paper. And eschew the

notion that high-end cameras need to adopt the 35mm SLR form factor - which has been

around for 60 years.

 

The technology is here, time to muster up some imagination, coupled with novel engineering,

and create something radically different.

[nolefan32]

Brad, a couple of companies have done just what you suggest, develop cameras around a small, digital-only sensor, rather than trying to adapt a 35mm camera to shoot digital.

 

Check out http://www.photo.net/equipment/building-a-digital-slr-system/.Part of the way down the page is a section entitled "What Kind of Digital SLRs are Available?" The subsection called "small lenses, small sensors" outlines cameras which are just what you suggest.

[don_e]

David

 

 

35mm SLR form factor

 

 

--

 

Don E<div></div>

[Brad_]

<I>Brad, a couple of companies have done just what you suggest, </I><P>

 

Not to my satisfaction - it's still an SLR with a mirror that flops. There's so much more that

can be done starting fresh.

[al_kaplan1]

Something like the Olympus Pen F, a small half frame camera from the 1960's, had a fantastic set of lenses designed for it which should easily cover today's typical digital sensor. Equip it with a pelicle instead of a mirror, like the Canon Pelix of similar vintage. That would save on both weight and complexity as well as making for a much quieter camera.

 

The big question is just how much of a market is left for "manually intuitive cameras", whether digital or film?

[sprouty]

<I>"Does the average consumer not appreciate the benefits of a really compact inter-changeable lens camera"</I>

<P>

This is both the question and the answer, with emphasis placed on the term "average consumer".

<P>

There is absolutely no technical reason, if, as Brad stated, they started with a fresh sheet of paper. It was done in 1965(?) by Rollei and Petri. And they were fully manual cameras. Granted they were fixed lenses, but it hardly seems a stretch to accomplish integrating a lens mount.

[Brad_]

<a href="http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/

f934.cfm">This cam</a> surely doesn't qualify as a "small DSLR," but it's a great example of

starting with a fresh design. Though I'm not sure how your finger hits the shutter release

when hand-holding - scroll down halfway to the pic of the guy holding it.