N
Nikon Bob
Guest
But it still wouldn't have a red dot!
Yea, but that has never been a problem for me.
Bob
But it still wouldn't have a red dot!
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.
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.What if a Nikon D700 was the size of a D40?
Well, that seems a bit of an oversimplification... as far as I remember the FM at least hadIMO the less buttons the better, and the FM has a total of…3.