..for the smallest and lightest DSLR bodies ever made, wins over both the size and the weight! >:-(
Camerasize.com has updated their database to include the new Canon EOS100D/SL1, in particular, I've checked the following:-
1. 100D Vs K-x:-
http://camerasize.com/compare/#448,229
The overall size of the 100D is a bit smaller, but the weight of the 100D is 30% less!
2. 100D Vs K-01:-
http://camerasize.com/compare/#448,285
The K-01, with the complete omission of the mirror, viewfinder and penta-mirror, has no real edge over the 100D in terms of size and weight. The K-01 is a bit smaller but it is yet 27% heavier than the 100D. The body material used is aluminium+plastic of the K-01 against the aluminium alloy+fibre glass plastic of the 100D. The Canon rules for the materials and technologies for how to cut most weight out of a DSLR body! So, how come Pentax could not give out her crown to some body else?!
Previous Related:-
Canon DSLR Diminished, Leaving Pentax and Others Behind!
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Logging you in...
Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
yeez · 624 weeks ago
I would do the same to show that little edge Canon has over Pentax :).
This blog is getting ridiculous.
xyz · 624 weeks ago
But because of its build quality it might also weight more.
OGL · 624 weeks ago
Joejoe · 624 weeks ago
And most of all it's certainly NOT smaller than Oly E-420.
And, the fact is that each company can claim stuff athat doesnt even make sense. For exemple, canon Sl1 is just smaller about 5.7mm on one side, 08mm on another, but stills thicker than k-x on the third one.
Claiming their sl1 is the smallest aps-c ever of all over the whole world and galaxy is sooo dumb considering the fact they just made something that is less than 5% smaller than a 5year old dslr.
But who decides what is significant in that size matter? Only canon did, even if their SL1 is still thicker than others dslrs!
as Pentax still can claim they made the Smallest stabilized DSLR EVER, and it stills true.
I just see a company wich is late about 5 years ,since every other company made compact dslrs for years, but as they claim it loud enought and lot of press do the same, it seems legit.. but its not lol
Just like apple stuff, They take existing things, claiming they are the first to, and names it a revolution.
Marketting ... Serie L class marketting
Andrew Munster · 624 weeks ago
Anonimity is Great · 624 weeks ago
"The Canon rules for the materials and technologies for how to cut most weight out of a DSLR body!"
People choose products that complement them. Some considers true handgrip, robust body, 11 AF points, 1.5 crop factor, and $100 less-expensive-when-new more importantly than 3% smaller, 30% lighter, flimsy body and plastic camera body EF mount (from what I can see; correct me if I'm wrong.) And that's fine. Whatever works, right?
Use whatever you like/need. But, please refrain making such hyperbolic sentences. Rather, why don't make detailed assessments of any products against their competitors, and promote the chosen product fairly. Don't they taught you that in any engineering school?
Lurker · 624 weeks ago
How small is small anyway? There is such such a thing as ergonomics. IMHO Pentax is still ahead in this regard.
fullframe · 624 weeks ago
Andrés · 624 weeks ago
agilchrist 4p · 624 weeks ago
Heiko · 623 weeks ago
I think your major motive is to call out: "Watch out Pentax, don't lose your cute-factor". I see. However - I doubt things will develop in this manor anytime soon. Although I could imagine Canon pulling it of, I don't think they are currently out to challenge a smaller niche-manufacturer on foreign ground. Think about the 100D as of a simplistic body catering to the needs of very undecided beginners, action-snapshooters and probably acting as a lie-low backup body that takes each and every Canon-shooters' lenses in a pinch, as well. Not a bad idea of Canon, actually. This thing might survive the next few years (in this form or another). After all, the 1000D was pretty much made out of the same stuff, just lacking video.
Yes, Canon is now selling a similarly-tiny body. compared to what Pentax did with a passion for years, already. Thing is: Other than that 40mm prime, Canon still won't sell you what's needed to keep that package small and complete. Pentax-shooters need not be irritated: We've been walking our ways with a bucket-load of all kinds of lenses ready in our pants' pockets! Sure, a body with full size '135 sensor would be nice. But mostly for "FA"-glass owners I recon. I will agree: I like that larger usable space in the viewfinder of older Pentax film bodies. What would really stir my blood: an aps-c body like the K5-IIs but with a magnified viewfinder optic and a more comfortable eye-point (Today I have to wear glasses for distant-focus, unfortunately - and taking them up/down every time I look through the camera viewfinder is really too annoying to bother!).
Now, I don't know if that is a doable, economically-sound exercise (APS-C body with "full frame"-like (optical!) pentaprism finder) - I would certainly welcome that kind of novelty in such a compact and tightly put-together package such as the K5 shows today. That's the thing about Pentax current "mainstream" dslr-system: It defines genuinely-usable miniaturization in the traditional form of a SLR. And unlike their main rival Olympus, who seemingly let their E-system die the noble death in order to make room for the µ4/3 "mirrorless" - lineup, Pentax' system is still alive and kicking!
I do wish they put a little bit more of an effort into it, though. Especially talking lenses: Apart from their "limited" range, everything seems to take distinctly different filter sizes. Paired together with a steep price-hike in 2010 (Europe) that put me off of any new lenses for quite a while! And I don't care about each 'new' camera every half a year - especially if they are irrelevant such as the K-01.
That said: The discontinued K-01 could have really found its place, as well - if it had had a slightly more serious execution. From what I know it didn't present itself with any portion of superior value as to tell-tale why that mirror had to be omitted. Plus it lacked y viewfinder - as did , and still does, the "Q". Bring on the next evolution! the k-01 might not be for folks like me - but - it followed the concept of not letting us mirror-slappers down by going astray. Using the same lenses means pleasing both sides of that "unified equation" -- actually that was and still is a very promising idea! Ricoh: Don't make Pentax lose their cool like Olympus did!
Just some thoughts I wanted to share, have a good one
Heiko