On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 07:24:59AM -0500, David J Brooks wrote:
>
> Never tried the K7. As long as its bigger than the istD, which i found
> to small for my liking.
> I'm used to the big bulky cameras, like my D series, they seem to fit
> short stubby hands like mine.
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.
If you thought the *ist-D was too small, you may feel
the same way about the K-7, although the restyled grip
should make the K-7 feel better in the hand.
o The Nikon D90 is a pretty compact camera, too. Not
quite as small as the K-7, but definitely no behemoth.
--
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.
