Why are DSLRs so Big?

[unfocused]

I've been reading with interest the many comments here about the desirability of a mirrorless system, with small size being one of the desired traits.

Well, recently I took a look at my old Canon F1 (which is on semi-permanent loan to my daughter as a decorating accessory in her apartment). I had forgotten how tiny it is compared to a 7D or a 5DIII. And, that got me wondering why are DSLRs so big?

The F1 used a reflex mirror, so we can't blame the size on the mirror housing alone. It was a "full frame" camera, so it's not the sensor. Perhaps the electronics require more space. But, then again, the F1 had to have two cavities, one for the film cassette and one for the exposed film. That was wasted space that DSLRs don't need. Yes, the DSLR battery is much larger than the little dime-sized battery that powered the F1 for decades. But, a DSLR doesn't require any of the mechanics needed by a film camera for advancing the film.

The new SL1 shows that Canon can pack most of these electronics into a smaller body.

So, I'm just wondering how we ended up with these supersized DSLRs. Is it just a styling convention – people expect a bigger camera for the price? Maybe it makes people feel more like a "pro" if they have a big camera body?

Will we see DSLRs start to shrink in the coming years? I wonder if Nikon's new retro camera will be the same size as their old SLRs.

Just some random thoughts and questions thrown out there for discussion.

 

[gfoulk]

I think it's ergonomics. The 7D or 5D feel much better in my (average size male) hands than the smaller Rebels. It's more comfortable, the balance is better, and the controls easier to manipulate. Sure, I could do without the size or weight, but it's definitely superior when it counts most, which is to say when shooting. If there was a significant demand to make top-tier DSLRs more compact, I think we would be seeing products that meet it; as you say, it's not likely for any technical capability reasons.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As Canon stated, they were able to reduce the size of the SL1 by developing a new package for mounting the sensor as well as further miniaturization of the electronics. Its small enough now so that I find it difficult to use.
How big of a LCD display did your canon F1 have ? How many buttons? Not to mention joystick and control wheels. You can combine them down to fewer controls, and with touch screens, maybe some of them can go away.

 

[danski0224]

I wouldn't want to go smaller than the 5D series body, and even that with even a 100mm lens I find difficult to control balance handheld. It is worse with something like a 180mm macro lens.

I prefer the 1 series ergonomics (size and eye relief) much more. Too bad they are so expensive. I think the Canon 5D series camera guts installed in a 1D form factor, and priced comparable to a 5D + grip would sell reasonably well. Not sure on the battery style, but the bigger batteries in the 1D series wouldn't hurt. I'd still buy one with the standard 5 series battery.

I haven't checked out an M series camera, but it just seems silly in principle except when used with smaller lenses.

 

[sjschall]

I think it's ergonomics. The 7D or 5D feel much better in my (average size male) hands than the smaller Rebels.

+1

Holding a Rebel, then holding a 5D, there's just no comparison.

 

[RLPhoto]

I like the big chunky grips when I'm working with them all day but I like the older SLR styles for more everyday use because of the compactness.

 

[eli452]

It is the ergonomics imho. The size allows for bigger LCD screen, top and back wheels, joystick, and multitude buttons to work with. Also the balance with bigger lens is improved. My 7D feels much nicer to hold and operate then my old 400D (and the 7D is gripped with L bracket).

 

[bchernicoff]

I think we ended up here due to the size of the electronics in early DSLRs.

The Sony a7's show that a full frame camera could be made much smaller. It should be possible to make a DSLR as small as your old F1.

 

[Halfrack]

Film cameras didn't have crazy people running around shooting 1080P video on them. Basically you're taking the most important and size inclined things and stacking them together - lens mount, mirror box, shutter, sensor, heat sink and lcd (with some overlap).

Yes, the overall form factor is based on those 35mm canisters and the take up for exposed film, but would you want something like a Lytro to hold on to?

On the flip side, my biggest complaint on the mirrorless/ EOS-M camera is the lack of battery space - that tiny little battery has to power so much.

 

[kyamon]

Most of the volume is taken by the battery - I think they only use the fact that the cameras necessarily have to be bigger to also improve the ergonomics.
The F1 has a battery half the size of a quarter, in a 1D X a third of the camera is battery.

 

[stephan]

Ergonomics:

When I last purchased a DSLR, I went to a shop, had them give me both a 60D (gib body) and 600D (small body) with same sensor and processor. As soon as I handled them my Hands chose the bigger body as the better camera.

I now have a grip on it 'cause it handles even better with that.

 

[trof2]

I would be careful of selecting an appropriate benchmark for comparison. Sure, your F1 may seem a bit smaller at first, but to make it more relevant to current standards, you'd have to add on a motor drive and a bulk back. Maybe a flash, too. In the end you'd end up with this 10-pound beast.

If you think of it in these terms, the miniaturization of camera tech has achieved wonders already!
Could they shrink it further? Of course, but the more it gets miniaturized, the more costly the assembly. I think quality and durability of the electronics suffers as well.

The mirror assembly is not really a factor limiting the physical size, as much as the basic system parameters like the flange distance, and a bit of a thickness for the sensor, circuit board, and LCD under the hood. I'd say if you reduce the battery bulk in the handle, the flash and its capacitor, you'd get to about the same size as the F1.

You should also keep in mind that a lot of pro equipment doesn't particularly emphasize portability as a feature. You don't really see many architectural photographers complaining that their cameras don't fit in their purses. Most of the time, the pro camera camera is just one thing in a van full of other crap.

 

[bchernicoff]

This is what Nikon is up to, BTW. It looks fairly compact to me: http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/04/this-is-the-nikon-df.aspx/

 

[iron-t]

I loved the size of (and most things about) my Panasonic GF1, but overall much of the size advantage came from the half-frame Micro 4/3 sensor. That combined with the short flange means small lenses. To me, if it doesn't fit in a jacket pocket, it might as well have maximum image quality, ergonomics and durability. 5D3 fits the bill perfectly.

 

[Ruined]

Why are DSLRs so big? Try putting a 70-200 f/2.8 on a Sony A7 and see how well it balances and handles

Large & heavy full frame lenses need a large body otherwise it is a royal pain to try and grip the camera body + balance the lens.

 

[distant.star]

.
Like most of us here I have no idea what has driven the DSLR form factor to the place it now occupies. Also like the rest of us, my ignorance is no barrier to speculation. A few ideas, and perhaps some combination of these may play a role in explaining why we now are where we are...

1. Balance. Considering a body like the 5D you have to put a big battery on one side. Add to that the need for a comfortable grip, even more gets put on that side (shoulder LCD, etc.) -- so without something on the other side, the imbalance is too great. Maybe it's just a ballast issue.

2. Lens size and use. In the film days, most of us used a 35mm or 50mm prime most of the time. Ordinarily, a short telephoto zoom was usually the only other possible lens. News/sports photographers would probably add a motor drive and the sports guys would have a big lens or two -- but that was the exception. Today, half the serious photographers are parading around with a big 70-200, and many frequently use larger lenses. Such lenses would dwarf the old smaller bodies. Again, a sense of balance.


3. Value perception. Buyers like to feel they're getting something substantial for their money -- and bodies like the 5D3 get traded for a LOT of money. The greatest techno whizbangery is nice, but if it doesn't feel like "quality," the buyer will balk. Words like "plastic" and "flimsy" and "toy" get tossed around when a product is perceived as insubstantial. Marketing devils work hard at achieving the right balance in this area, much to the annoyance of design engineers who tend to value function over all.

One thing I know is that I like how my 5D3 feels when I'm using it -- my S95, not so much!

 

[brad-man]

They're big so we can impress the ladies. Ohhh, you're going to shoot me with THAT!

 

[unfocused]

Interesting comments and actually, somewhat surprising to me. Reading the threads about mirrorless cameras you'd think that the whole world wants a smaller body. Yet, on this thread it's clear that a lot of DSLR owners like their chunky boxes (yes, I'm in that camp) and many of us add a battery grip to make it even larger.

I think we ended up here due to the size of the electronics in early DSLRs.

The Sony a7's show that a full frame camera could be made much smaller. It should be possible to make a DSLR as small as your old F1.

This, I think is probably closest to the truth. Those early Kodak/Nikon and Kodak/Canon hybrids were huge, so clearly things have come down in size.

I admit to a bit of bias here, as I have serious doubts that mirrorless will ever supplant DSLRS. I don't really buy into the idea that the smaller size of a mirrorless makes it that much more desirable for many photographers.

 

[dr croubie]

Be thankful it's not a Graflex RB Series D


My 7D is tiny by comparison.

But then, put my 7D next to my Agat 18K and that's a whole other size down again (for the same image-area too)

 

[brad-man]

Well, I think different people are looking at the question in different ways. Many, myself included, would appreciate a smaller, lighter camera for transporting. Whether that means packing for a flight or just walking around with a shoulder bag all day, it's about comfort and convenience. The other group, myself included, is considering the ergonomics while actually shooting. More weight for better balance and more stability, and more controls to avoid taking your eyes off of your subject and dealing with menus. What we need is a transformer camera...