Going to treat myself to a new camera

[mike]

i loved my GF1 too, that with a 20mm prime was my go-to travel cam for years.

I've now got a GM5 which is even smaller and has better low light performance, but lacks the charm of the gf1.

[rogerzilla]

It's a shame someone can't make a DSLR that is a lot smaller and doesn't look as if it's fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on its way down.  Why are they so huge?  You look a right tool carrying one around.  It's as if the iPhone was twice the size of a Motorola brick from the 1980s.

[Jaded]

What you mean is a DSLR that simply has a sensor and a rear display, none of the fancy pants stuff that is there.

[rogerzilla]

Yes.  It's not as if they even need the space to fit in a motor drive these days.  They all went massive with AF and never really went back.

[fruitcake]

I like my cameras big. And heavy. Big means plenty of space for controls. And heavy is steady. But  then, I wouldn't use an SLR for casual photography.

An SLR is a tool (a tool for making images). Ugly isn't an issue in a tool, because if the thing is easy to use and works well, we forgive its appearance (The corollary of this is 'if a thing doesn't work well, it doesn't matter if its pretty, it remains useless!')

[Ham]

It's a shame someone can't make a DSLR that is a lot smaller and doesn't look as if it's fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on its way down.  Why are they so huge?  You look a right tool carrying one around.  It's as if the iPhone was twice the size of a Motorola brick from the 1980s.

You mean like the 4/3 ?

ETA: Olympus were the only manufacturer who had the balls to design forward for the digital revolution, all others went with their existing formats to make people believe that there was continuity that really didn't exist. Anyhow, that's why CaNikon are so big.

[clarion]

If you want something SLR-y but not so stupidly big, try a Fuji X-T1 or Olympus OM-D EM-1.

[billplumtree]

And if you want something rangefinder-y, so neither SLR-y nor stupidly big , Fuji X-Pro or X-E2.

[fuaran]

If you want something SLR-y but not so stupidly big, try a Fuji X-T1 or Olympus OM-D EM-1.

Worth a look at the Lumix G7 as well.

[Ham]

Damn damn damn

I've just missed this https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2081787381/e1-camera-4k-uhd-interchangeable-lens-camera/posts/1296533

Wallet says "phew"

[rogerzilla]

It's a shame someone can't make a DSLR that is a lot smaller and doesn't look as if it's fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on its way down.  Why are they so huge?  You look a right tool carrying one around.  It's as if the iPhone was twice the size of a Motorola brick from the 1980s.

You mean like the 4/3 ?

ETA: Olympus were the only manufacturer who had the balls to design forward for the digital revolution, all others went with their existing formats to make people believe that there was continuity that really didn't exist. Anyhow, that's why CaNikon are so big.

Well, 24 x 36 format is ideal for DOF control.  Anyone who's shot medium format (I used to have a Bronica ETRSi and that was bad enough - a 6 x 7 format camera is a nightmare without a tripod) knows that there's never enough DOF available when you want it (getting enough generally means stopping down to the point where diffraction ruins sharpness, and using a tripod) and anyone who's used a cameraphone knows there's always too much DOF.

I see Nikon have started making a retro-styled DSLR, the DF, which is a great improvement, but it has a rather low-res sensor compared to a D610 or D750.  Not really enough as a film replacement (Kodak used to reckon ISO 100 film, which is what I use most of, is about 24MP equivalent although there are different considerations; film isn't as "clean" in mid tones but the grain is generally more tolerable than digital artefacts if over-enlarged).

[Jaded]

It's a shame someone can't make a DSLR that is a lot smaller and doesn't look as if it's fallen out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on its way down.  Why are they so huge?  You look a right tool carrying one around.  It's as if the iPhone was twice the size of a Motorola brick from the 1980s.

You mean like the 4/3 ?

ETA: Olympus were the only manufacturer who had the balls to design forward for the digital revolution, all others went with their existing formats to make people believe that there was continuity that really didn't exist. Anyhow, that's why CaNikon are so big.

Well, 24 x 36 format is ideal for DOF control.  Anyone who's shot medium format (I used to have a Bronica ETRSi and that was bad enough - a 6 x 7 format camera is a nightmare without a tripod) knows that there's never enough DOF available when you want it (getting enough generally means stopping down to the point where diffraction ruins sharpness, and using a tripod) and anyone who's used a cameraphone knows there's always too much DOF.

I see Nikon have started making a retro-styled DSLR, the DF, which is a great improvement, but it has a rather low-res sensor compared to a D610 or D750.  Not really enough as a film replacement (Kodak used to reckon ISO 100 film, which is what I use most of, is about 24MP equivalent although there are different considerations; film isn't as "clean" in mid tones but the grain is generally more tolerable than digital artefacts if over-enlarged).

This, in spades.