"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:fqn8ti$1qao$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> Physics implies that heavier objects have greater inertia. Therefore are
> the expensive dSLRs heavier because they are easier to hold still?
>
> I have never seen this mentioned anywhere.
>
I doubt that they are specifically designed to be heavy, but the extra
weight can be helpful if only a minor amount of shake is present.
On the flip side, the extra weight can actually contribute to shake if you
become tired of holding it.
Peter Jason wrote:
> Physics implies that heavier objects have
> greater inertia. Therefore are the expensive
> dSLRs heavier because they are easier to hold
> still?
>
> I have never seen this mentioned anywhere.
>
>
Most DSLR's have image stabilization now so I would think that is a
non-factor. For shots that require low light and long exposures you
should be using a tripod anyway so it is still a non-factor.
"Backspace" <me@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:v_Fzj.46116$pM4.30124@pd7urf1no...
> Peter Jason wrote:
>> Physics implies that heavier objects have greater inertia. Therefore are
>> the expensive dSLRs heavier because they are easier to hold still?
>>
>> I have never seen this mentioned anywhere.
> Most DSLR's have image stabilization now so I would think that is a
> non-factor. For shots that require low light and long exposures you should
> be using a tripod anyway so it is still a non-factor.
Actually only a relative few have built in IS but those that do not can add
it by buying IS lenses of course.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:01:50 +1100, "Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com>
wrote:
>Physics implies that heavier objects have
>greater inertia. Therefore are the expensive
>dSLRs heavier because they are easier to hold
>still?
>
>I have never seen this mentioned anywhere.
It could be somewhat due to the weight, but I think it's more the fact
that heavy DSLRs tend to be bigger. The bigger size gives more area
for your hands to grip, more surface contact between your hands and
the camera, and helps you stabilize it better.
In article <fqn8ti$1qao$1@otis.netspace.net.au>, Peter Jason says...
> Physics implies that heavier objects have
> greater inertia. Therefore are the expensive
> dSLRs heavier because they are easier to hold
> still?
Don't forget biology. It is easier to freeze a light object in mid-air
than a heavy one (muscles start trembling after a while when holding a
heavy object).
--
Peter Jason wrote:
> Physics implies that heavier objects have
> greater inertia. Therefore are the expensive
> dSLRs heavier because they are easier to hold
> still?
>
> I have never seen this mentioned anywhere.
>
>
Take any camera, screw a (small leightweight) tripod on it, don't deploy
it, but skip it to the rear, just over your shoulder and you have got a
stable, still mobile camera.
The inertia moment is maximum and it is still lighter, than if all the
weight were in the camera.
"Lazlo Lebrun" <lazlo_lebrun@laszlomail.com>
wrote in message
news:fqo6ai$d1h$02$1@news.t-online.com...
> Peter Jason wrote:
>> Physics implies that heavier objects have
>> greater inertia. Therefore are the
>> expensive dSLRs heavier because they are
>> easier to hold still?
>>
>> I have never seen this mentioned anywhere.
> Take any camera, screw a (small
> leightweight) tripod on it, don't deploy
> it, but skip it to the rear, just over your
> shoulder and you have got a stable, still
> mobile camera.
> The inertia moment is maximum and it is
> still lighter, than if all the weight were
> in the camera.
>
> Laszlo
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:fqn8ti$1qao$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> Therefore are the expensive
> dSLRs heavier because they are easier to hold
> still?
You could use double sided tape to add lead weights to the base of tour
camera. Let us know how you get on.
Are heavier dSLR cameras better? 
Linear Mode
