Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Size and Weight Comparisons of K-m Vs *ist DS

An *ist DS owner has posted a side-by-side comparison of his camera against his roommate's new K-m as below:-

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=30501298

The comparison is 3-dimensional, 3 photos of the Back View, Front View and Top View are shown (directly linked herewith).

As one poster who has responded said, the K-m is hardly smaller than the DS. And weight-wise, as others have already commented in the thread, the K-m can be felt even heavier than the DS, despite that the DS has a solid Penta-prism rather than a hollow Penta-mirror that used in the K-m. The K-m does have the in-body SR system, though.

A quick check on the official specs of the two camera bodies verifies well those user comments. The dimensions and weight of the two bodies are as follows:-

Camera Body
Dimensions ( W x H x D, in mm )
Reference Volume* (in ml)
Weight in Grams (without batteries and card)
With Four Sanyo Eneloop Rechargeable NiMHs and
a SD Card (Grams)
K-m
125 x 93 x 66 mm
767 ml
525 g
635 g
*ist DS
123 x 93 x 68 mm
778 ml
505 g
615 g
*Remark: The Reference Volume is a Cubic which is calculated for the worst scenario space occupation for the sake of easy comparison and reference. It is not the actual volume of the camera bodies which should be smaller.

So, as we can see, the K-m just beats the DS by a fraction of hair for its overall dimension but however the DS beats the K-m considerably more in the overall weight. In fact, the K-m is not the smallest *and* lightest APS-C DSLR on this planet, as far as portability is the key concern, not even only in the Pentax-land.

For the sake of an interesting further comparison, I tabular the size and weight specs of the K200D and K20D as follows:-

Camera Body
Dimensions ( W x H x D, in mm )
Reference Volume* (in ml)
Weight in Grams (without batteries and card)
With Batteries and SD Card (Grams)
K200D
133.5 x 95 x 74 mm
939 ml
630 g
740 g (Four Eneloops and Card)
K20D
142 x 101 x 70 mm
1004 ml (More than 1L!)
715 g
802 g

So, we verify once again the K200D is ridiculously large and heavy, particularly for an entry level DSLR. Similarly, Ned Bunnell previously showed us the size differences between the K-m and the K200D in his Blog, right before the K-m was out. In fact, the K200D is the most bulky entry level DSLR ever made on Earth. And, the K20D is awful large and heavy and the portability is not good. Nevertheless, it should still be noted from the above for one of the big disadvantages of using rechargeable AA (NiMH) batteries, that is, it introduces comparatively much more weight than any Lithium solutions (not even to mention the inferior battery performance and being less powerful).

7 Comments:

MJ said...

Who uses NiMH AA's anymore? Li-Ion AA's are readily available, cheap and useable between multiple components: camera body, flash, etc. I found it a plus to be able to use AA's back when I owned my *istDL. The 15 min charge time on the Energizer system also came in handy. Same 8 batteries produced over 40,000 shots and still showed full after 300+ shots.

RiceHigh said...

You, at least, for what you've just told me. :-)

PeterZheng said...

Hello Rice,

K-M has a SR function, which it cannot compare theirs weight to istDS, that the SR parts has weight 100g at least.

however, the K-M taken with AA batteries way, which is an error, if its weight and size is an important propaganda point.

Per Li-ion batteries are 80g (7.4V 1600mAh), as well as better discharge performance. and a 7.4V 1600mAh Li-ion batteries will be a smaller size than 4-AA battery.

Nobody would be willing to use the alkaline battery in the camera, although each 25g of weight.

Who hope that his own batteries are disparate and non-compatible between k20d/k10d and K-M?

Anonymous said...

I do not understand what drives you to write articles where you take so much time and effort to make fairly logical statements, do so much research and mix these in with what one might consider "white anting".

How about a serious, technical image test of the K-m instead of the spurious comparisons?

RiceHigh said...

When the most basic and factual things like size and weight are not important and considered "spurious", what else more "serious" and "technical" stuff you want to see? (and then could ever accept even more facts!)

Anonymous said...

Ah yes but the reference volume is 11 ml less in the K-m! Surely it must be a much better camera! Surely facts like these cannot be ignored! Actually they can because they are minor and trivial.

Making statements like "In fact, the K200D is the most bulky entry level DSLR ever made on Earth" makes it sound like there is a huge difference between Pentax and other manufacturers when there is not. This is what irritates me: you latch on to minor detail and use these as a lever to undermine what is a good product.

Pentax 200D 690 g (24.3 oz) Dimensions 134 x 95 x 74 mm (5.3 x 3.7 x 2.9 in)

cf.

Sony Alpha 638 g (22.5 oz)Dimensions 133 x 95 x 71 mm (5.2 x 3.7 x 2.8 in)

A whole I'd say wearing different pair of shoes on the day would make up the 1.8 oz difference in the weight. Presenting minor differences as of a major importance in my book is spurious. And I'm a qualified science journalist.

And by the way the K-m is an excellent camera.

Anonymous said...

Careful.. don't use common sense, it annoys him... ;)

Post a Comment

Related Posts

 
Creative Commons License
RiceHigh's Pentax Blog by RiceHigh is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.