Why are the smallest Dslr's "entry level" ?

Something just occurred to me in my search for the smallest (or near so)
Dslr for EDC duty... they all seem to be "entry level"...

That seems very curious in that there must be millions of very skilled
advanced photographers world wide who would benefit from a professional set
up that has been considerably scaled down.

Even me, since I cut my teeth on a Nikon F, and shoot (mostly mediocre)
stills for my own pleasure, certainly don't need a boatload of advanced
features on a camera (just good glass).

But since I carry one 24/7 in often abusive environments, I sure could
benefit from a weather/dust /impact proof tank of a body in a very small
package.

Certainly the trend in video imaging ( which pays my bills) is heading that
way.

DP

Something just occurred to me in my search for the smallest (or near so)
Dslr for EDC duty... they all seem to be "entry level"...

A lot of people just don't feel adequate unless their camera is bigger
than everyone else's.

steve

John Smith wrote:
Something just occurred to me in my search for the smallest (or near
so) Dslr for EDC duty... they all seem to be "entry level"...

That seems very curious in that there must be millions of very skilled
advanced photographers world wide who would benefit from a
professional set up that has been considerably scaled down.

Perhaps you can point to the extra room for "scaling down" in this thing??
http://upload.pbase.com/image/75675280/original


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"John Smith" wrote:

But since I carry one 24/7 in often abusive environments, I sure
could benefit from a weather/dust /impact proof tank of a body in a
very small package.

In dog terms, you want a chihuahua with the physique of a pitbull.

Ain't gonna happen :^)

I have both the light Pentax K110D and the heavier K10D and can easily
appreciate the differences in price, features, and feel.

Mark² wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Something just occurred to me in my search for the smallest (or near
so) Dslr for EDC duty... they all seem to be "entry level"...

That seems very curious in that there must be millions of very
skilled advanced photographers world wide who would benefit from a
professional set up that has been considerably scaled down.

Perhaps you can point to the extra room for "scaling down" in this
thing?? http://upload.pbase.com/image/75675280/original


There a great many legitimate reasons why they are larger:

-One is...toughness. Many pros (sports sidelines, PJs and wildlife photogs)
often end up having to assume their gear is tough...so they build them
tough. This means heavier, reinforced bodies, and beefier non-metal parts.
-Also, when speed is important (like 8-10 frames per second), larger motors
are needed for shutter/mirror movements.
-Full, or larger sensor frame sizes mean larger prisms and prism housings.
-100% viewfinders also mean larger sizes.
-Next, you have larger, high-capacity batteries for prolonged shooting
sessions.
-More connections (studio flash, remotes, wireless, etc.).
-Scroll wheels
-Multiple information LCDs (the 1 series from Canon has an LCD on top, a
large screen on back, and an addition LCD read-out on the back.
-Stronger, heavier lens mounts, given the weight and stress put on them
using heavier glass.
-Everything is built for reliability, rather than low cost. This means they
don't skimp on materials.
-Rubber grips rather than thin, smooth plastic.
-Vertical grip with a full set of controls for portrait mode shooting...
-Heavier media doors, often metal, instead of plastic...
-Many house more than one memory card (1 series from Canon houses both CF
and SD).
-External buttons for more functions, offering faster handling than
menu-driven everything...

The list goes on and on.
When you hear people throw in their "trying to impress with size" lines, it
just means you've identified someone who is not particularly familiar with
the wildly varying capabilites and intended workloads they are intended for.

Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Mar 14, 5:42 pm, "John Smith" wrote:
Something just occurred to me in my search for the smallest (or near so)
Dslr for EDC duty... they all seem to be "entry level"...

That seems very curious in that there must be millions of very skilled
advanced photographers world wide who would benefit from a professional set
up that has been considerably scaled down.

Even me, since I cut my teeth on a Nikon F, and shoot (mostly mediocre)
stills for my own pleasure, certainly don't need a boatload of advanced
features on a camera (just good glass).

But since I carry one 24/7 in often abusive environments, I sure could
benefit from a weather/dust /impact proof tank of a body in a very small
package.

Certainly the trend in video imaging ( which pays my bills) is heading that
way.

DP

Well they can be made a lot smaller, like the Leica M8, problem is
then you have a Leica M8.

My wife and I have a 20D and a 350D, they both take pretty much the
same photos but the 20D is built much
better and will likely last longer. But I do like the small size of
the 350D much better. I put my 28mm lens on the 350D and it is not
much larger then a number of point and shoot cameras.

In time I am sure we will see smaller pro cameras, but it might take a
while.

Scott

On Mar 14, 11:42 pm, "John Smith" wrote:
Something just occurred to me in my search for the smallest (or near so)
Dslr for EDC duty... they all seem to be "entry level"...

That seems very curious in that there must be millions of very skilled
advanced photographers world wide who would benefit from a professional set
up that has been considerably scaled down.

Even me, since I cut my teeth on a Nikon F, and shoot (mostly mediocre)
stills for my own pleasure, certainly don't need a boatload of advanced
features on a camera (just good glass).

But since I carry one 24/7 in often abusive environments, I sure could
benefit from a weather/dust /impact proof tank of a body in a very small
package.

Certainly the trend in video imaging ( which pays my bills) is heading that
way.

DP


Two things:
All the pro features add weight, so it would be hard to get a D2X at
D40 weight.
Heavier cameras just handle better, it is easier to hand hold, some
small cameras actually shake when the shutter goes off, you can feel
it through your fingers.
Other observations,
The M8 Leica is not a light camera, probably heavier than most entry
level DSLRs.
The Olympus OM series cameras were probably then only light weight
cameras that operated like a much heavier camera. Likewise the Olympus
E1, a sweet camera to use, problem it was 4/3 and only 5mp.
I could hardly believe it when I weighed my M series Leica against an
OM1 the Leica was preceptably heavier.

Tom

Integral veridical grip on the pro models.

You may not have noticed but the latest pro model from Canon (1D mkIII) is a
bit smaller than its predecessors while also having a larger LCD than ever
before.

On Mar 14, 11:31 pm, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number
wrote:
Mark² wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Something just occurred to me in my search for the smallest (or near
so) Dslr for EDC duty... they all seem to be "entry level"...

That seems very curious in that there must be millions of very
skilled advanced photographers world wide who would benefit from a
professional set up that has been considerably scaled down.

Perhaps you can point to the extra room for "scaling down" in this
thing??http://upload.pbase.com/image/75675280/original


There a great many legitimate reasons why they are larger:

-One is...toughness. Many pros (sports sidelines, PJs and wildlife photogs)
often end up having to assume their gear is tough...so they build them
tough. This means heavier, reinforced bodies, and beefier non-metal parts.
-Also, when speed is important (like 8-10 frames per second), larger motors
are needed for shutter/mirror movements.
-Full, or larger sensor frame sizes mean larger prisms and prism housings.
-100% viewfinders also mean larger sizes.
-Next, you have larger, high-capacity batteries for prolonged shooting
sessions.
-More connections (studio flash, remotes, wireless, etc.).
-Scroll wheels
-Multiple information LCDs (the 1 series from Canon has an LCD on top, a
large screen on back, and an addition LCD read-out on the back.
-Stronger, heavier lens mounts, given the weight and stress put on them
using heavier glass.
-Everything is built for reliability, rather than low cost. This means they
don't skimp on materials.
-Rubber grips rather than thin, smooth plastic.
-Vertical grip with a full set of controls for portrait mode shooting...
-Heavier media doors, often metal, instead of plastic...
-Many house more than one memory card (1 series from Canon houses both CF
and SD).
-External buttons for more functions, offering faster handling than
menu-driven everything...

The list goes on and on.
When you hear people throw in their "trying to impress with size" lines, it
just means you've identified someone who is not particularly familiar with
the wildly varying capabilites and intended workloads they are intended for.

Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


I think it is a legitimate question. The problem is that the higher
end cameras have "wildly varying capabilites and intended workloads".
Effectively the same camera will work perfectly for portraiture,
sports, weddings and nearly everything else. Which is very good for
most circumstances, but does add size. After all, you need a certain
amount of room just for the LCD, the lens mount, the various controls,
and doors.

But the question is interesting. Are there any niche markets out
there that would justify a niche camera sort of like the astro-
photography market has its own infra-red version. That's a good
example. I didn't look it up, but I believe that camera comes with
the normal hotshoe because it is just a regular old camera with a
filter taken off. But the hot shoe is nearly worthless. Who's going
to take a picture of a comet with a flash? (and if they did, can I
borrow their flash?).

If one wanted a "scales down" camera that doesn't just turn into a
rangefinder, it is interesting to rethink what the camera could look
like. For example, there's no real reason the mirror/pentaprism needs
to stick up. What if one moved components to the left and right of it
to make the camera squarer on the top. It would then fit into a
smaller rectangle. What if it was a little thicker, could it them be
a little narrower? Would a small, discreet camera need a hot shoe?
If it did, where could you put it to minimize the size?

Granted, the camera would be somewhat of a novelty, but it is an
interesting thing to think about. Plus it might come with one of
those 45' lense adaptors and a fake mustache.

On 2007-03-14 21:28:36 -0700, Charles Gillen gillen@hisdotcom said:

"John Smith" wrote:

But since I carry one 24/7 in often abusive environments, I sure
could benefit from a weather/dust /impact proof tank of a body in a
very small package.

In dog terms, you want a chihuahua with the physique of a pitbull.

That would be a Scottish terrier. Somewhat bigger than a chihuahua,
smaller than a pitbull, but with similar physique, teeth of a German
shepherd. :-)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor