On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 01:13:35PM -0500, Jeffery Smith wrote:
>
> I do wish that Pentax had kept the *ist dSLR size instead of getting
> bigger and bigger. The K-7 is really built like a tank, but it is more
> of a chore to carry than the *ist with a 40mm pancake.
Here's a post I made to the group at the time the K-7 was announced:
(I've updated the table to include the dimensions of the K-x)
W H D
K-7: 131 x 97 x 73 mm
K-x: 123 x 92 x 68 mm
*ist-D: 129 x 95 x 60 mm
K10D: 142 x 101 x 70 mm
K200D: 135 x 97 x 77 mm
MX: 136 x 83 x 50 mm
ME: 131 x 83 x 50 mm
LX: 145 x 91 x 50 mm
MZ-5n: 135 x 90 x 62 mm
MZ-S: 137 x 95 x 64 mm
PZ-1p: 152 x 96 x 74 mm
And a few comparisons from other manufacturers:
EOS 50D: 154 x 111 x 81 mm
EOS-1 Ds: 150 x 160 x 80 mm (includes battery grip)
D90: 132 x 103 x 77 mm
D300: 147 x 114 x 74 mm
D3x: 160 x 157 x 88 mm (includes battery grip)
E620: 130 x 96 x 59 mm
My observations, in no particular order:
o Digital cameras are much thicker than film bodies.
But a lot of this is because of the hand grip; if
you discount that, things look a lot closer.
o The PZ-1p was *enormous* for a Pentax film body.
o The K-7 is very close in size to the *ist-D, except
for the depth. So if you liked the size of the *ist-D,
you will probably be happy with the feel of the K-7
o The Nikon D90 is a pretty compact camera, too. Not
quite as small as the K-7, but definitely no behemoth.
o The K-7 is pretty close to the size of the Olympus E620,
except for the extra depth (most of which is probably
due to the register distance).
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
