I have been complaining about the size bloat in DSLR cameras for a few years now. I was willing to put up with it when they were new but come on now. Let's do a reality check for a second and see where we are in 2012.
A few posts back I had a lot of good things to say about the Nikon D7000. One of the positive things was size. Yea I think the button placement could be a little better for but for the most part the overall size is in the ballpark of reasonable. I say this because it is not completely ridiculous compared to the F3 and FE side by side with similar lenses attached. It's a bit thicker and more blobulous but that's okay by my reasoning as it has a "motor drive" (ha there is nothing to drive), it has a built in polaroid back (screen), and a built in wireless flash controller. In my mind that is a reasonable deal.
One of the reasons I never replaced my D2x's that disappeared was that the D200 was so much smaller and did not have a meaningful sensor discrepancy compared with the D2x. I was sort of happy. Then came FX or full frame, back to the D3. Grrr - these things are giant and the D700 a little less so but only due to lack of vertical grip.
I wasn't really interested in another DX camera after the D3 came along until the D7000. It's performance is fantastic and comparable in many ways to older pro mastodon sized bodies. I don't need frame rate and that "buffer size" thing that all the internet nerds constantly bring up is not an issue in my real world shooting situations. I swear I have never ever ever had to wait on the D7000 shooting 14 bit RAW+Large JPEG.
I swear these armchair quarterback idiots that complain about the D7000 buffer size being "non-pro" must sit there and hold the shutter release down while not actually taking images of anything while doing the same thing with a D3s for like 5mins strait. Idiots. Forgive me if you actually shoot things like this for a living and actually use the crazy number of 8 FPS frames you can shoot on a D3s - you are not an idiot - you are just a special case that is out of the norm.
That brings us to the punch line. What's my beef then? Well, ummm, yea, the D7000 is DX and those film cameras are like well FX. Let's see what the big physical constraints here are…
- The prism - yep the film bodies have those in FX size.
- The mirror box - yep the film bodies have FX sized those to.
- The lens mount distance and diameter - check.
- The film chamber and take up - ohhhh - ummm - hmmm.
- The sensor and electronics? Uhhhhhhh - Leica does FX and it's the same size as a film M camera. Well it's a little thicker but I already gave DSLR's a gimmie for that screen and such at the beginning.
So I am fine with the D7000 for now. I am okay with DX as I am not an FX is the only way you can shoot pictures nut case. The issue is that I want sensor parity with the big cameras for numerous reasons. One of them is I only want one set of lenses. There are other reasons but let's cut to the chase. I want a D7000 sized camera with an FX sensor. I want it from someone other than Leica. I want to be sort of back where we started with the same capture medium size.
After that - I want smaller but not too small to be comfortable. Up next is my thoughts on a reasonable sized D7000 kit.