Why are DSLRs so bulky?

[ken_morano]

<p>I would truely like to take the plunge into the world of DSLRs. Unfortunately, I find the size of them to be intimidating. What takes up all the space in these things that makes them bigger than a manual focus film SLR?</p>

<p> I can understand the lens barrels being fat if they must contain focusing motors and gyros (are there really spinning gyros in there?) And for the body, sure, they require some extra battery power but that still doesn't account for the bulk does it? I mean even a D40 is fat.</p>

<p> Will I ever see a DX sized camera body as compact as my Contax 159mm?</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Ken, modern DSLRs are packed full of electronics. In fact, if you took one apart, you'd think it's a miracle that the thing works at all, and this is only possible due to technological innovations in very large scale integration of semiconductors and clever packaging.</p>

<p>Part of the bulk is also necessary to house everything; an adequately robust chassis to withstand day-to-day useage without damage.</p>

[godfrey]

<p>I have the Panasonic L1. In terms of body size, and not counting the protrusions of the grip on the front and the eyepiece on the back, it is almost identical in width and height to the Leica M4-P I carried for a long time. It's 10mm thicker in the center of the body ... it is an SLR so it has to have room for the swinging mirror. And it weighs about the same. <br /> <br /> The standard lens is huge compared to a Leica RF lens but then Leica RF lenses are not auto-focus with optical image stabilization and a 14-50mm f/2.8 focal length. Fitted with an Olympus ZD 25mm f/2.8 (normal for the format), it's quite similar in the hand to that Leica M. <br /> <br /> <img src="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/panasonicL1_olympus25/content/bin/images/large/080510_mixed_5104048.jpg" alt="" /> <br /><br /> But yes, as Michael said, DSLRs are bulky because they have so much stuff packed into them. Including a big battery to run all that power-hungry stuff. <br /><br /></p>

[f._simmons]

<p>I can only assume that the camera companies are responding to that kind of thinking. The new mirrorless cameras from Panasonic and other companies that utilize the micro 4/3 system are designed to be a compact dslr with an electronic view finder. Personally, I like mirror cameras, so I will deal with the bulk.</p>

[godfrey]

<p>The mirror box of an SLR adds to the bulk, both by requiring room for its own bulk and space for pentaprism/pentamirror assemblies, and by reducing the amount of space for other components packed into the body of the Micro-FourThirds cameras. </p>

<p>I've got no problem with it, personally. I like the feel and balance of the L1, E-1 and E-3 bodies. But I also like the slim, light G1 and GF1 bodies. Each has its advantages and a niche in my kit.</p>

[jim_momary]

<p>Size is relative. Below, see an example of some stuff in my closet.<br>

Electronics <strong><em>should</em></strong> take up less space than mechanics, so I'd offer ... a huge rechargeable Li-Ion battery is bigger than a button cell and dictates some neccessary dimensions of the body. Power hungry circuits also need to disspate heat, cramped quarters are problematic for that.</p>

<p>Same argument over a rangefinder vs. an slr from earlier film days.</p>

<p>Jim</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>Digital SLRs are bulkier than film SLRs?</p>

<p>Maybe not so much......</p><div></div>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>I can understand the lens barrels being fat if they must contain focusing motors and gyros (are there really spinning gyros in there?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Today the term gyro is loosely used to discribe anything that senses motion. IS system today don't use spinning gyros. Instead they use multple accelerameters to to get the motion detection information the IS system needs. Todays accelerameters are mciroscopic in size, consume very little power and an don't have a spin up time before they work. Accelerameters cannot do everything a spinning gyro can but it can do everything the IS system needs.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And for the body, sure, they require some extra battery power but that still doesn't account for the bulk does it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ask yourself why do DSLR need more battery power?</p>

<ul>

<li>They have an image esnsor.</li>

<li>they have memory chips designed to temporarily store image information until it is ready to be written to the Flash memory.</li>

<li>They have electronics to write and read information on the flash memory card.</li>

<li>They have ielectronics to run the LCD display on the camera, </li>

<li>They have a computer to read and process the image data from the sensor. </li>

</ul>

<p>Thats a lot of parts that were not in manual focus or even film SLRs. More parts means they require more space, power, and a larger battery to drive it all. My old Pentax P3N manual focus camera has only an exposure meter, and electric shutter and electric aperature controls. Everything else was mechanicall. The entire electrical load was handled by 2 coin sized watch batteries.</p>

<p>Early on for DSLRs the memory, inage sensor, image CPU and other electronics were alll purchased from multiple vendors and as a result the cameras got larger. However that said if a company puts in the effort to design custom chips to combine memory, image CPU and display the size can be reduced. However that takes effort, time, and money. Unfortunately the industry has focused its time and money on features (video for one) and better sensors. etc instead of size.</p>

<p>The new m4/3 system from Panasonic and Olympus has really stired up the market and grabed market share from the bigger companies. Mainly they did thisby making significantly smaller cameras by greater integration of the electronic and by ellliminating the mirror and optical viewfinder which were not really necesary when many people were use to using the display on point and shoot cameras.</p>

<p>Granted mirrorless cameras are not that good for some things but they are getting the industry to shift its focus away from more pixels and features. Now a lot of camera makers are looking into mirrorless designs and other ways of reducing size.</p>

<p> </p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Modern dslrs are bulky because folks are fatter today. Ie the basic red beans and rice factor. Many old folks that are not "stuck" on 35mm or young folks are sometimes today using 4/3 rds digitals as a protest against bload. </p>

[lisahorton]

<p>The "entry level" DSLRs these days are getting pretty comparable to film SLRs in size, although still a bit heavier. I believe that the reason the mid range DLSRs are so big is because customers want them that way. Look at a 50D compared to a 500D, for example. The 50D is quite a bit larger, the size difference seems greater than the feature/capability difference.<br>

It seems not unusual to see reviewers and forum posters praising the large bodies and marking down the smaller bodies for being small. Bigger cameras are more impressive and for some people, I think that counts. Also, it seems like camera hobbyists are more often male, and men do tend to have larger hands, so I think that's definitely a factor.<br>

Like you, I prefer a smaller body, I find the small SLRs fit my hands better and are much more comfortable to use. I want a 7D that's the same size & weight as a 500D :)</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>As a DSLR-phobe I have always assumed that the DSLR is bulky becuase it is basically a make-over of the SLR rather than a new design that the digicam is. But even there my Panasonic FZ50 is nice and bulky compared to some SLRs I got rid of recently. Perhaps it comes with the territoryas others have suggested reasons above, though the Micro4/3rds could be showing the way if photographers can recover from viewfinder sickness and accept high definition EVFs and AF as the modern way to find focus/frame. Of those two options it is an either/or situation. If you have an efficient AF system which can be used in a highly selective way then the HD EVF is not really needed, which is only needed becuase AF is perhaps not selective enough to work the way we use our eyes on a ground glass screen. Note there is often a wide difference between need and want. Could be the wanting is delaying progress.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Older AF film slrs were also rather large if you bought a big one. There was nothing small about my EOS1 with E1 booster and nothing small about the Nikon F5. The Nikon F3 was smaller until one fitted the MD4 motor drive and then the camera was huge.</p>

[parv]

(Also duplicated at http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WKSF if anybody is interested.)

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Not all DSLRs are big. My Sony A350 and the Canon Rebels are really pretty small and light. Full Frame cameras tend to be pretty heavy though (my Canon 5D, Nikon D3's, Canon 1D's, Sony A850's and A900's). And the lenses tend to be bigger and heavier too.</p>

<p>There is a full frame camera that is pretty small and light -- the Leica M9, but at $7000 it's pretty pricy and it's a digital rangefinder, not a DSLR.</p>

<p>Part of the problem is I think that the full frame cameras tend to be the "professional" bodies and they are "built tough" which means heavier materials. Once full frame sensors are common in more lower end cameras I think you will see lighter weights too.</p>

[dg1]

<p>A lot of film SLRs were bulky too. Exceptions were there like the Olympus OM and Pentax MZ-S (which had to be one of the most elegant and svelte auto SLRS ever made), but there's also a range of differences in DSLRs. <br>

I use a Panasonic G1 and an Oly E1 both with legacy manual focus lenses. The G1 usually with an industar- 69 28mm f/2.8 LTM lens adapted from a russian chaika half frame camera. I know the G1 isn't technically a DSLR, but within my application it works much the same and actually better for manual focus. Anyway it is considerably more comfortable and lighter than the Fed2 rangefinder I had and handles very nicely and has no more heft than my old Bessa R. Unfortunately I can't compare it to a Leica!<br>

The E1 with an OM prime, is compact overall, and the body while certainly thick, is short and well balanced. Overall lighter than many of the film SLRs. <br>

But I suppose you'd have to look to the micro 4/3rds format right now to find something akin in size to your Contax. I suggest the panasonic G1 would do it if you can adapt to an EVF instead of mirror optics.</p>

<p> </p>

[godfrey]

<p>The G1 is about the same thickness, a little shorter on the long edge, and a little taller than a Leica M. The viewfinder eye piece and grip add a little bulk to both front and back. The G1 body is also about 20% lighter than a Leica M film body. </p>

<p>Much smaller than my Nikon F3 was. Or my Contax 139.</p>

[hjoseph7]

Not all DSLRs are bulky. For example if you take some of the older manual film cameras such as the Olympus OM-4, the Nilon FM2, FE2, or the canon AE1 these cameras are not bulky at all comparing them to the newer AF and digital cameras. The bulk come in when you got automatic film advance, pop-up flash, complicated electronics, such as menus, Histograms etc.

[tim_bosley1]

<p>Depends on your perspective....<br>

Someone yesterday wrote how they appreciate the Pentax 67 over modern medium format camera's.<br>

I have the opposite torn: the ultra thin pocketable units- no matter how handy leave me guessing if I even got the subject in the frame.<br>

Not to worry. We will all be using cell phones in the future.</p>

[ken_morano]

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses.</p>

<p>I see that I had dismissed a whole generation of 35mm film bodies that, prior to the digital age, did indeed, get "bulkier" as built-in flash, electronics, motors, and greater battery power took over.</p>

<p>I guess I was recently a liittle discouraged when comparing the Nikon D500 to the D90. There were some nice features on the D90 but why oh why did it have to be so much bigger than the 5000? (okay it has a motor inside). All that heft and it's stil a DX size!</p>

<p>The irony isn't lost on me that on one hand, I want discrete buttons (which takes up room) and, I want a small body.....</p>