What if a Nikon D700 was the size of a D40?

Nikon and Canon (and others) seem to think that "Pro" bodies have to be big and imposing. To many photographers (and picture takers) the appearance of the camera influences them as much as it's working specs. I too used to think this way, doing things like adding motor drives to my old film cameras, and battery grips to my newer digital cameras.

But then I moved to a different country where I didn't have a car, and I began to have to carry my gear bag on my shoulder instead of in the trunk. It was then that I began to see the benefit of lighter-weight gear.

I no longer use the motor drives and battery packs, there's a Canon Motor Drive 1 sitting next to my computer, and the MB D2-something from my D300 sitting next to it.

Maitani had a valid point when he created the OM series of 35mm cameras and lenses at a time when Canon and Nikon were manufacturing their old F1 an F2 models. Smaller, lighter, and of excellent quality, the OM was unique among professional SLR cameras. It's for this reason that I carry mainly an OM and a Leica rangefinder nowadays. Both of these cameras together weigh about the same, and take up the same amount of space in my bag as my "gripped" D300 and a medium zoom lens.

The technology exists now to put the D700 sensor in a camera like the D40/90, but Nikon (and Canon) builds their pro cameras big for a reason; Nikon pro cameras have always been big and heavy. Most D700 shooters are not pros (and not even "pro-sumers" as Nikon terms them), they are simply hobby photographers who think that a larger, heavier, and more expensive camera will help them take better pictures than a smaller, lighter and less expensive one. After all, if that wasn't true, what would be the point?

That said, I wouldn't mind picking up a D700 myself, but since I got back into film, my digital gear is seeing very little use.
 
Frontman said:
Nikon and Canon (and others) seem to think that "Pro" bodies have to be big and imposing. To many photographers (and picture takers) the appearance of the camera influences them as much as it's working specs. I too used to think this way, doing things like adding motor drives to my old film cameras, and battery grips to my newer digital cameras.

But then I moved to a different country where I didn't have a car, and I began to have to carry my gear bag on my shoulder instead of in the trunk. It was then that I began to see the benefit of lighter-weight gear.

I no longer use the motor drives and battery packs, there's a Canon Motor Drive 1 sitting next to my computer, and the MB D2-something from my D300 sitting next to it.

Maitani had a valid point when he created the OM series of 35mm cameras and lenses at a time when Canon and Nikon were manufacturing their old F1 an F2 models. Smaller, lighter, and of excellent quality, the OM was unique among professional SLR cameras. It's for this reason that I carry mainly an OM and a Leica rangefinder nowadays. Both of these cameras together weigh about the same, and take up the same amount of space in my bag as my "gripped" D300 and a medium zoom lens.

The technology exists now to put the D700 sensor in a camera like the D40/90, but Nikon (and Canon) builds their pro cameras big for a reason; Nikon pro cameras have always been big and heavy. Most D700 shooters are not pros (and not even "pro-sumers" as Nikon terms them), they are simply hobby photographers who think that a larger, heavier, and more expensive camera will help them take better pictures than a smaller, lighter and less expensive one. After all, if that wasn't true, what would be the point?

That said, I wouldn't mind picking up a D700 myself, but since I got back into film, my digital gear is seeing very little use.
Click to expand...

Not quite the same as a full 35mm sensor DSLR, but the e-p1 is very close to being the ultimate digital compact - especially seeing as it's actually available right now! Check my thread on using the E-p1 in Japan +impressions.
 
Hmmm... I held a D40 in my hands and, sorry, I cannot respect that camera body. It's too small for my hands!

What a nice thing it is to have a hefty camera in your hands. At least, to me. In fact, I like my D700 precisely because it's the right size (similar to the F100, smaller than the F5 and D3).

Sorry, cannot follow your tune this time, Akiva... ;)
 
I'll stick with my D700 as is.

And my R D1 as is....

And my Holgaroid, GF-1, D90, Nikon F, and my Yashicas as they are too.

What would be the fun of it if you could get one camera that did everything you wanted it to? Then you'd be stuck with one camera. :D
 
What if a Nikon D700 was the size of a D40?
Click to expand...
As others have already pointed out; unless you've got small hands, the D40 is a bit undersized. There's no place for your little finger to go. The consequence is that if you're shooting with larger and heavier lenses, the balance isn't there. Zooms like the 70-300VR or the constant 2.8 aperture zooms handle much better on a D90 body.
 
I have played with a D40 in a shop here and found it small .... on the other hand the D700 is to big and heavy for my taste. My old Nikon FM is about as good as it gets for a SLR (size-wise). :D
 
D40 is my favorite DSLR of all I've had (about 10 of them). Put full frame sensor and OM1 size VF (oh why no one has done this for any grade DSLRs) into D40 body, I'll definitely buy one for color.

Well, forget about D40.

Put full frame sensor in OM1 body. I'll buy one by selling everything other than my MP and Triumph. Well, again, still for color only.
 
Last edited:
Another one here thinking that a D700 in a FM3a or similar would be really really nice. In this respect, film shows its simplicity just with a few controls (vs the actual DSLR which have lots of things to tweak, and buttons accordingly)
 
If a D700 was the size of a D40, it'd all depend on:
The viewfinder
The amount of buttons on the darn thing

No SLR I've ever used beats my FM. Of course that's hardly comparable to my grandpa's M6…and I may cheat on my FM next year with a Kiev 4a…but since we're on the topic of SLRs here, nothing beats the FM for me.

IMO the less buttons the better, and the FM has a total of…3.
 
xxloverxx said:
IMO the less buttons the better, and the FM has a total of…3.
Click to expand...
Well, that seems a bit of an oversimplification... as far as I remember the FM at least had

shutter speed dial
aperture dial (on lens)
focus (on lens)
multiple exposure lever
film iso
dof preview
shutter release
self timer
battery check
rewind unlock button
rewind lever/back release
 
While we're at it... why not FF in a Rollei 35?

Seriously though, a smaller FF body would be nice... for my uses anyway (though I'm not too fond of the stubbiness of the D40). Like many here I think a FF FM3a would be fabulous!
 
Depends on the job.

For wedding or covering events, you need a serious-looking camera. Nikon has always been good at doing that. F3 + MD-4 is both awesome to look at as well to work with. So is D700.

For street, research, travel or hiking, I can see wanting full frame sensor in D40 body.
 
i think the size of the current lenses is the problem...

I can fit my m6 with a 1.4 lens inside a canon 35mm 1.4 lens pouch with room to spare.
 
A D700 down sized to that of a D40 does not excite me.

What would really excite me is a D700 with interchangeable viewfinders like the Nikon F, F2, F3, F4, and F5.
 
..... or better still the size of a LTM.

..... or better still the size of a LTM.

Even on a side by side photo, the D700 doesn't seem to dwarf the two LTMs shown here, by as much as it feels it should. But pick 'em up, and the difference is amazing.

I love my D700, but compared to the other two - a Leica 1 "Model A' and a IIIf, it feels like a brick, and an unwieldy brick at that.

Either of the Leicas will easily fit into a vest pocket and are so comfy and convenient to use, ... ahem .... that is until it comes time to load a new film. The D700 however, whilst a really great and much more versatile camera needs a small rucksack or wheelbarrow to haul it and it's 'stuff' around. ;)

Shown here, each with a 5cm lens, the Nikon weighs in at 2lb 14oz, the 'rangerfinder' IIIf is a 'svelte' 1lb 12oz and the lightweight 'rangefinderless' Leica 1 tips the scales at 1lb 1oz.

Bottom line I guess, is 'horses for courses'.:)

Leica.jpg


1AvD700.jpg
 
Who keeps cameras in their rucksack? Mine's wrapped around my wrist everywhere I go, and I don't need a bag for various lenses as I have my 35/2 on it the entire time.
I have big hands and honestly the D700 is a beautiful camera to hold. It feels solid and substantial and is well weighted. I used a D40 once and it felt horrible.
 
You actually keep a D700 wrapped around your wrist everywhere you go? :eek:

I hope you swap it from left to right arm at regular intervals, otherwise one side of your body is going to become vastly overdeveloped.

At least your D700 makes for a good weapon in the crowds you will 'occasionally' experience in Glasgow and London. :p

Yes the D700 is a fair old camera I admit - that's why I bought one. But it is a big camera compared to some others we have discussed, and not to my mind very 'wristworthy'.

And yes, I also know Glasgow and London reasonably well ....and many stations in between. I spent a lot of my life in the UK over the years and know what DSLR 'conkers' and crowds can be like. (See recent related postings) :(

Enjoy the D700 though, as I say, it is a good piece of equipment. ;)
 
I actually find the D90 about the right size for a digital SLR, easy to carry and not too small for average size man hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top