Size does matter « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Size does matter

(15 posts) (11 voices)

Tags:

aesnakes

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 138
offline

Hi Everyone, thought Id bring this up because it seams like a big discussion around my group of friends and at the office I work at. I work in film and television so since the D90, 5D2, 7D, D7000 etc have come out everyone is joining me in my camera infatuation. Everytime I mention how awesome the low light capabilities of the D3s and coming up the D4 the response it...well who wants to carry around the large square bodies for these cameras..I have to say I agree, money is not the concern for me to choose between the D4 or the D800 but its the size and weight. I liked carrying around my D800...it felt perfect for the size and I didnt mind the extra weight even for vacation photos. I used a D3s with the 70-200 and the 300 2.8 and I have to say it was too cumbersome. I cant see myself carrying that thing around to capture great photos, stills for BG matte painting and video plates...even though I would rather the ISO over the MP.

Does anyone else feel this way? What really is gained in these huge bodies? it cant be the sensor or ISo gain, it has to be speed and processing this speed. I dont think Im a wimp, I happily carried my D700 and 70-200VRII all day long.

Posted 1 year ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

While another thread probably has the answer, I find the bulk allows one to hold the camera steadier. I love the size and feel of the D3s and find it balances better with lenses like my 300 2.8. Also the heft might reduce weak points that the D700 has making it more likely to survive falling out a moving vehicle (not that most people are that careless but it has happened and the camera has been "fine")

I somewhat agree on the cumbersome... I love my 300mm 2.8 but it is a bit weighty for the streets...

Posted 1 year ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

for me it's also a question of size, but in my case it's d3s which is smaller. I have rather big hands, and can't imagine using camera w/o battery pack, and d700 + battery pack is actually a little bit bigger than d3s. not to mention the rock solid construction of a monoblock. instead having two parts that will more than likely fall apart when the camera hits the ground, and... that happened to me two times during the last two days. yesterday, my wife dropped my d3s from coffee table and today I accidentally pulled the strap and the whole combo (d3s+N70-200+tc17) felt into trash bin under my desk.

Posted 1 year ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

There are ups and downs to both designs. The D700 is great because it is slightly smaller, without the grip. I also like the D700 with grip because it has the second set of buttons for adjusting the focus point when shooting vertically, something the D3 series of cameras oddly lacks. Of course the downside, as adamz pointed out is the two piece design of the D700 + MB-D10. I found the MB-D10 combination very solid with the D300, but not so much with the D700. There seems to be some flex between the body and the grip, which was not the case with the D300, where it was snug. Hopefully the grip for the D800 fits tighter to the body.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I'm in the same situation as adamz - my hands cramp if I try to hold smaller bodies. I also prefer the balance it adds. Good balance can make a camera feel lighter and be used longer.

The real question is "how much larger is the full body/body with pack" - .5-1 lbs if that? In reality it is not that much especially when you have 2.8 glass on it and a bag full of lenses.

I think it is preference for most though. Many like the D7000 size, but I can not stand it and my hands cramp instantly - to each their own.

Posted 1 year ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Size indeed does matter. I seem to prefer portability now, especially when I know I might go into a crowded place. I feel as if my camera were any bigger, I wouldn't like that. I don't think I'd get a camera any larger than a D7000. Any bigger and I feel that it'd be too heavy to carry. I don't do any photography professionally or live off of it, so it's no big deal for me. If I do carry a camera, it's for my own enjoyment.

Posted 1 year ago #
jerl

preferred member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 425
offline

I'm going have to agree with you aesnakes, I'm a little bit disappointed about the rumored coming fx updates. I don't have any use for the 36 MP of the D800, but I could definitely use the speed and the iso power of the d3s and d4. But, personally for me, I would rather have a smaller, lighter body without a grip than a bigger one. For event work and nature work, it's not a big deal, but I can't see myself carrying such a large camera casually, or when I'm on a trip.

Situations like this make me feel that Nikon (and other manufacturers) should offer a small range of customizable options- in this case body size and sensor type. We're getting to the point where everyone wants something slightly different in a camera, and that there's no single model that could satisfy everyone, so offering a bit of customization might be a good way to make more people happy.

Posted 1 year ago #
aesnakes

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 138
offline

Yeah i agree with everyone here, I dont like the size of my D7000, but I liked the size of the d300s and D700. I felt the D700 didnt fit well in my casual camera bags with the grip on like the think tank retrospective series. It fits in my huge bags but I dont want to carry those all the time...I dont know I'll wait and see...I do have a d800 on pre order through my dealer but I can always change if I can deal with the size and weight.

Posted 1 year ago #
Pierre

preferred member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 1,023
offline

I like the size and weight of my D700 but have to admit that it is reducing my mobility. Travelling by car is no problem but climbing mountain with it or walking very long distance is a real problem and I am sure I would be able to go much further with lighter equipment. To me the weight is the biggest concern. I usually carry the 24-70 and 70-200 F2.8 + tripod, spare battery, flash and water among other thing. In most cases, I often end-up carrying my wife stuff as well. Soon I may add a D4 to the set and surely will have to let-go some of the stuff or locations.

Posted 1 year ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

Over the past 2 weeks, I have been shooting the great Sedona, Az region (leaving this Thursday Jan 5) and carried a good portion of my photography gear on the many trails I explored. Was the gear at times "cumbersome," yes sure it was; but the real issue that worried me was not the weight or size, but would I have the right gear with me given a setting I came upon to photograph. For me their is nothing more frustrating to be at a location and knowing I did not bring the right "stuff" because of its size or weight. The bottom line for me is, if you want to take a shot that you invision, then "cowboy up" and do what is necessary to get it done. Those that cry foul should just stay home and flip their favoriet photography magazine...if you get my meaning.

Posted 1 year ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

Sounds like the rattlers didn't get you then golf? :-)

For me a battery pack is obligatory on my humble DX's to make them heft right so if anybody out there is looking to get rid of their nasty big FX, I'll swap a D90 for it....

Posted 1 year ago #
jerl

preferred member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 425
offline

Well, according to the latest update, the D4 is designed to be substantially lighter. I'm interested to see what that means and what it will feel like. If it's true, then the really good news is that Nikon is seeing size and weight as a potential issue, and is seeking to improve on it.

Posted 1 year ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

jerl said:
Well, according to the latest update, the D4 is designed to be substantially lighter. I'm interested to see what that means and what it will feel like. If it's true, then the really good news is that Nikon is seeing size and weight as a potential issue, and is seeking to improve on it.

Probably to ease the pain for the people who want a D700x

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I agree with Golf - "cowboy up". The difference between a D3 and D700 is a half a pound. a D3 and a D7000 a bit over a pound. Glass is where the weight is. I'm not going to a 55-200 over my 70-200 or a 18-55 over a my 12-24 and 28-70 Tokinas and throwing in my 105 and fisheye (that I haven't used in months) for good measure. When I want to go light walking around I take either all or just one from my X100, D300 (with grip), 35mm, 50mm & 85mm combos.

Actually anyone who has done any real hiking/backpacking you know the real weight comes from clothing, bags, shoes, food, etc. that you carry. 1/2 lb is a minor concern vs the cost ($) difference of it.

Just like anything, the more you use it, the stronger you get and the more use you are to it.

Posted 1 year ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Someone ought to mention that there's a bit of "VR" that comes with a little more mass. It's harder to shake a really massive camera, which can be an advantage. (I'm trying to talk myself into a D4.)

Posted 1 year ago #