DSLR- When & What - Size & Weight

[Peakbagr]

I've been sitting on 2 Olympus film camera bodies(OM-1 and Om-3) and a multiple lenses, accessories etc. Also about 15k of color slides. I now shoot my outdoor photographs with a very small 5Mp point and shoot.
My OM's are small, light and bombproof, and I've been drooling over the features and photos of the much larger DSLRs discussed here and on some of the camera forums.

I've been discussing the 'when to jump into the pool' with a good friend that just got a beautiful DSLR Canon Xi and she loves it. As nice as it is, though, its size and the case to carry it and lens is large.
I was attracted to the Olympus DSLRs(e410 and e510) due to their size and weight and because of Oly's great glassware. But I'm not sold on the 4/3's camera format.

I love the features of the new EOS 40D, but its approaching 30 oz empty and seems like a lot of camera to lug on the off trail hikes I favor.

Does anyone think that the rapid advances in electronics will allow full-size sensors and many of the Rebel or EOS 40D features to appear in a smaller, DSLR? Or like the first few iterations of digital movie cameras, it will take a decade or more for them to become small and portable?

Right now, I'm thinking about an inexpensive Olympus E-410 and don't get
"lensed into" a whole system. And then in a few years, jump into a more sophisticated DSLR as they get smaller with more features.
This is a tough one.

Grumpy's post from the other thread below:



I like that term, "lensed into" one system or another. I think it does describe how many (or most) of us wind up with whatever array of SLR gear we have.
As it happens, I am lensed into Nikon, and am happy with that situation, myself. The D3 camera body is very attractive to me, since the (nearly) "full"-size sensor would expand my world at the wide angle end of things. I also like the idea of being able to select (change) sensor formats, the 100% viewfinder coverage with high eyepoint and the improved autofocus setup.
For hiking, I pine for the day when a true top quality compact comes on the market that has an optical viewfinder, no perceptible shutter release lag time, decently sized sensor, shoots in RAW format, is weatherproof, can run on off-the-shelf AA Lithium batteries and retails for $99.95. (OK, I'm being unreasonable about the price, but the rest is for real.)

 

[BorealChickadee]

You've been reading my mind. Only my SLR setup is Minolta. Maybe someone will have happy news for us but the last I heard it wasn't around the corner.

 

[darren]

I thought we talked you out of the 2X crop factor?

One comment on jumping in now. I waited for a full frame DSLR for years and years. It never came. Finally I said screw it and jumped in and got the Canon D20. Here it is years later and while Canon does have full frame DSLR, it is still big bucks and I am still not ready to make the leap. So, I am still waiting for the cost to come down. However, I so glad that I made the jump to digital when I did. I have had years of enjoyment and while it is still not the full frame I want, I have still had plenty of enjoyment from what I have. I guess what I am saying is that my leason is that if you wait until exactly what you want is available, then you will never get anything. It is better to be 80% happy now than 100% happy never.

One note is that I was already lensed into Canon.

As for size, the Canon XTi is very small for a DSLR. Too small for my hands. The E410 is like 375g vs like 500g for the XTi. Is that 125g really a big deal? That is 4.4oz. or 1/3 of a beer can. That doesn't sound like much. It is just a mouthful.

You are right on the size of the 40D. Taking my 20D and lenses on a hike is a decision. It is not a no brainer like throwing a P&S in your pocket.

- darren

 

[kmorgan]

Since starting to carry my Rebel XT I don't hike without it. I wear it strapped across my chest most of the time or use a binocular harness to keep it handy.

Since I started doing this I shoot any where from 40 to 110 pictures on a typical day hike.

When the weather turns bad or I'm bushwhacking I'll take it off and stow it in my pack. For me it's worth it.

Kevin

 

[DougPaul]

The Canon DR XTi is certainly one of the lighter (18 oz) and smaller DSLR bodies available at this point.

The lenses are also pretty heavy too. The Digital Rebel kit lens (zoom, eFL 28-88mm) is pretty light at 7oz. Many of the non-L series lenses are a pound or more. (A spot check suggests that the L-series lenses are generally heavier.) Image stabilization also adds significantly to the weight of a lens.

I suspect that the DSLRs are and will continue to be designed with features a higher priority than light weight and small size. In fact, weight and size have certain advantages. If you want small and light, you most likely will have to stick to P&Ses.

Doug

 

[forestgnome]

If your lenses are Nikon, then get a Nikon body. The camera is just a lens holder.

My lenses are Canon, so my body is Canon. I'll soon be getting a new Rebel XTi. Why is small a bad thing for hikers? When I shoot with my wildlife lens, I feel like my lens is the essence and the body is a little appendage of the machine.

 

[MichaelJ]

Agreed. Many people (myself included) don't like the XTi for the fact that the only control display on it is the big LCD and the whole "turn it off when you put it up to your face" is kind of wacky. But that said, if I was looking to replace my original Rebel with a body to continue to take hiking, it's what I would get. After lugging the Rebel for 4 days on my chest above 10K in Colorado, I can say that I'll take a small, light camera body anytime if it can take as good pictures as I want (and the XTi is more than good enough for hiking).

Now, I'd love a 30D or 40D, but that would not be a camera I'd take on a hike unless it was a photo-only hike, with a bunch of lenses, dropping pack to get the camera out and shoot. That'd be the "home" camera.

Oh, and my recommendation is to go ahead and pay the extra for full-frame *lenses* in the hope of someday using them on a full-frame camera. I didn't do that; I have a 17-85mm IS EF-S lens, which means it's sized for the 1.6 crop factor and has mechanicals placed in such a way that it could not be used on a full-frame. It was the right choice for me, but someday it may be a lame duck lens.

 

[Grumpy]

If your lenses are Nikon, then get a Nikon body. The camera is just a lens holder. ...

This was true in the days of film. It does not apply in the digital age.

When you acquire a digital SLR camera body, you not only are buying a mechanism for holding a lens and sensitized material, you are getting the "sensitized material" as well -- both its sensitivity capacity and actual format (size). You also are buying a sophisticated exposure and image evaluation-processing system that deals with issues like changing "white balance" (color temperature), subject contrast, etc.. There is a mechanism that provides automatically for focus. There probably is automation to help control your flash. Even beyond that, you also are buying a certain level of post-exposure processing for the "sensitized material."

I agree with Darren. At some point in time those of us who want to stay involved with photography are going to have to "go digital." I finally have done that with my own gear within the last year or so, although I've been shooting digital professionally for the last six years. But the choices are many, confusing and invariably costlty at this point.

The Nikon D1H and D2Hs cameras that I carry daily for work and play are big, heavy hogs. The D2Hs body without lens or battery weighs in at 2 lb, 6 oz. The modern zooms are likewise big and heavy. I have three that are in my working bag: the 17-35mm weighs in at over 26 oz.; the 28-70mm at 33 oz, and the 70-200mm at more than 49 oz. Add a flash, and I easily can have a 6 lb load hanging around my neck while more is in the bag dangling from my shoulder -- not comfortable.

Interestingly, this is comparable to what a similarly capable film kit built around the Nikon F5 body would cost me in terms of weight and bulk. My older Nikon F3HP film camera body stripped of its motor drive and lens is a little lightweight at about 25 ounces. It is the only film camera I still own, and it stays around mostly for sentimental reasons.

I have retained my old "prime" autofocus lenses. The Nikon D40x camera body is scaled down in size and weight, at 16 oz and will accept them. Combined with my 24mm (10 oz) and 85mm (13 oz) I'd have a pretty versatile kit that would be relatively hiker-friendly. (Maybe I should consider getting a lens in the 50-60mm range to replace the 85mm.)

But as a hiker what I really continue to wish for is a pocket size digital camera with large sensor, optical viewfinder, great zoom lens (28-105mm "equivalent"), virtually no shutter release lag time, good fill flash capability, great weatherproofing, ability to run on ordinary AA Lithium batteries, and the option to shoot in RAW format.

G.

 

[DougPaul]

But as a hiker what I really continue to wish for is a pocket size digital camera with large sensor, optical viewfinder, great zoom lens (28-105mm "equivalent"), virtually no shutter release lag time, good fill flash capability, great weatherproofing, ability to run on ordinary AA Lithium batteries, and the option to shoot in RAW format.

Me too...

Still waiting for the Canon A-series camera with the zoom from the SD-800 (28-105mm)...

Doug

 

[Mongoose]

My Nikon D80 is actually lighter than the old Nikon F3 film camera I used to lug around. My D80 feels so delicate though that I really baby it when I'm hiking. The F3 on the other hand could take tons of abuse (not that I purposely abused it). I'm still happy with the D80 though.

Even with all the new cameras coming out, I would buy one now and stick with it for a while. Learn to use it well and you'll always be happy with it. I used to use an F3 until a few months ago. The F3 is around 25 years old, yet I still loved taking pictures with it and never thought about buying a newer film camera. There were newer cameras far more advanced than the F3, yet the F3 did what I wanted and I knew it so well it would have been pointless to upgrade.

Don't keep waiting for a newer and better camera, because there will always be newer and better cameras about to come out.