Camera Labs

Dug out my old Olympus OM-2N, a "full-frame" film-camera from 1975. This is in preparation for some lens-testing with macro lenses. I finally decided to have a go at testing macro-lenses at what they were built for: magnifications at or below 1:3!
But the big question was: where do I get a suitable test-target for this with super-fine resolution (best around 50-100 lines per mm) with high contrast?
That's when I decided to try out Ilford Pan F Plus, an ISO 50 (!) film with a reputation for high resolution and low noise. So next week I'm going to shoot some Siemens-stars with my (t)rusty old Oly and see whether I can produce a slide that is suitable for this purpose.
Gripping both cameras - the Oly in my left and the D300 in my right - it struck me how light and small the Oly was. I put it on a scale and it weighed 720 g incl. a 50/1.8 lens, whereas the Nikon with 50/1.4 weighed in at 1240g, a plus of 520g! Without lenses the bodies were 550g vs. 930g - still a huge difference.
The next shock came, when I looked through the viewfinders: The fullframe OM-2N had an ovf that was 1.5x as large as the D300 in each dimension and slightly brighter than the D300 despite the D300 being equipped with a bringhter lens And you could more clearly evaluate dof on the OM-2N than on these much too transparent screen of the D300.. Oh boy!
I wish they could have mounted a FF sensor in there and used the space where the film was stored in the OM-2N for the electronics on one side and the battery on the other side and keep the manual winder for those who prefer to travel light. For those with high-speed ambitions a motor drive already existed...
I wish that 35 years later electronics and miniaturization would have given us a fullframe DSLR with the size and weight (and elegance) of the old Olympus OM-2N.
[/rant]

Olympus OM-2N vs Nikon D300 31936 by Thomas, on Flickr

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Interesting comparison, but maybe would be more useful if the film camera has closer specs? How many fps does it do? And the AF accuracy?

Turning it around, what if you went down in the SLR range? Would it be closer if you used a D3xxx for example?

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Nah, I'm talking fullframe here in the Oly and APS-C in the Nikon. And the d3xxx does not even have a pentaprism.
The smallest Nikon FF is 1000g body only
Sizes compare as
147x123x77mm for the D700 and
136x83x50 for the OM-2N

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Thomas, we think alike here! I also would really really like to see something like this!

Electronics don't really take much space, there is no problem putting a lot of nice stuff inside that body.

_________________
Canon 5D MkII -|- Sigma 24mm f/1.8 | Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Lensbaby Composer
Canon A-1 -|- Canon 28mm f/2 | Canon 35mm f/2.8 | Canon 50mm f/3.5 Macro

My thoughts why the newer cameras are so much bigger...

1) Electricity. Older cameras didn't need as much as newer ones so the batteries need some space.
2) Built-in flash. Takes some space.
3) Ergonomics. As far as I remember the Canon T90 was the first one having the "classical modern design every DSLR has nowadays". The grip gives the extra safety holding the camera.
4) The lenses are bigger as well - the electronics, the motor etc. aer stuffed in it.

But yes: I guess it's possible getting DSLRs smaller.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466

I still think the feature set is unfair. While I'm not familiar with the film camera and lens, that doesn't have AF does it? Or many of the other features we regularly use today. Maybe something like the Leica M9 is a fairer comparison, prism aside.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

The features you mention in terms of the camera body does not use very much space. That just isn't the problem.
Just look at the Olympus E-420, it's tiny. Same size as the OM-2N and with some minor modifications you could fit a bigger mirror as well as bigger sensor within that thing.

I think the lens would grow far more than the camera itself in terms of size and the functions/quality we seek.

In some ways I think its more important to bring the NEX-7 specs out here, save a few things there is very little that takes this apart from the A77, which is a full blood DSLR in terms functions.

_________________
Canon 5D MkII -|- Sigma 24mm f/1.8 | Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Lensbaby Composer
Canon A-1 -|- Canon 28mm f/2 | Canon 35mm f/2.8 | Canon 50mm f/3.5 Macro

Let's just cut it bit by bit:
(1) motor drive: As I said: just leave the mechanical winder in there: I don#t need 4-8 frames per sec. And if so , give me the motorized grip (did 5fps then!). Very easy!
(1b) with no motorized actuation of the mirror/shutter the battery could just be used for the electronics -> no prob with small batteries.
(1c) built in flash: For what, when you can go to ISO 6400 easily today? Just make it an accessory, brings its own batteries and is more powerful. The OM-2N did not even have a hot-shoe for flash as standard.
(2) AF: Well, the vf-screen is sooo much better than the junk you get in standard DSLRs where I would never do MF. And you could even change the screen to something you prefer. Nikon offers that only in their D3 line-up. Lenses are running smoothly, a joy to focus.
(2b) Ok I love AF, but this is mostly in the lenses today, so I have no prob to accept a 50/1.4 AF-S on the Oly-body. No need to make the body any bigger
(3) Grip: Never missed one on my OM-2N even with a bulky 50-250 zoom.

And this all in a metal 520g full-frame body.

But now to the unique features:
The Oly measures the light hitting the sensor during exposure - not before!
This system even works with flash, shutting the flash off in real-time when enough light has hit the sensor!

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Oh and one cautionary remark:
I want a full-frame penta-prism viewfinder - like the one in the OM-2N. This is a determining factor of size and weight - and joy to look through: Clear, large, contrasty, true to color and unpixellated!

This is not comparable to something smaller than FF or only penta-mirror or (shudder) an evf.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

I have an old Edixa (FULL manual) here and I can say the same thing here: The viewfinder is just great - I haven't seen any digital camera with such a good viewfinder.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466

Some other comparisons:
Leica M9 = 139x80x37mm, 585g. So this is in the ballpark of the OM body, but does not even have a TTL-viewfinder. The majority of the OM-body is only 30mm deep
Canon 5DII = 152x114x75mm, 810g (probably not incl. battery)
Sony Alpha 850: 156x117x82mm, 850g (probably not incl. battery)

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

I agree, modern DSLRs are bigger for a number of reasons, including the desire for a larger grip and the necessity of a hefty battery to power the screen, sensor and processor.

But I too have looked at older film SLRs and found their size very appealing. I never had an OM, but I did have a Pentax MX and ME Super, which were comparable in size. I loved their form factors, which I guess is partly why I also love this renaissance of ILCs.

I think long term, ILCs will satisfy those who want small bodies with big sensors, while DSLRs will cater for those who want a bigger, traditional shape with an optical viewfinder. Sadly I don't think we'll see a traditional DSLR with an optical viewfinder that's as small as these classic SLRs, so Thomas, if you want a big optical viewfinder, you're gonna need a big body!

I may have found a solution!






It's not perfect.....

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

This reminds me of a vague comment from some Canon senior manager or such. At the time, when asked about Canon's plans for mirrorless, the reply was along the lines that people are looking for smaller high performance cameras, but it didn't necessarily have to be mirrorless. The implication many people took from that was that Canon could look at smaller mirrored systems. We'll have to wait and see on this one.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Hi Thomas,

Your thread prompted me to get out my OM-2 for the first time in many many years. Taking the motorised winder off did indeed result in a surprisingly small camera but I immediately missed the grip when holding the camera in my right hand. I then compared the view through the viewfinder with my Zuiko 50mm lens stopped down to f/5.6 to match my Canon lens, zoomed to 50mm and open at f/4, but with a polarising filter fitted. Brightness through the viewfinder was comparable (not too surprising as the 5D2 is a full-framer) but the larger size through the OM-2 was a surprise and with the 50mm lens in place the perspective through the OM-2 viewfinder was pretty much an exact match with the naked eye view.

Why should this be? Maybe the more compact geometry of the OM-2 body makes it easier to give a bigger magnification?

Bob.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.