Ugly New Cameras (Page 2): He's entitled to his opinion and more importantly expressing ones opinion is the mainstay of forums like this. Fortunately, people are willing to stick...

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

lesdmd wrote:

Why is it necessary to make a blanket statement about “ugly”? It is in the eye of the beholder. If you do not like the esthetics, don’t buy it, or use it, or marry it.

He's entitled to his opinion and more importantly expressing ones opinion is the mainstay of forums like this. Fortunately, people are willing to stick their opinions out there for others to agree or disagree with.

You are of course right that ugly is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to agree with him but certainly others, particularly those responsible for the camera design do not. Pocket camera's due to design limits will not look like "customary" camera designs he desires.

My Nikon looks good, but doesn't fit in my pocket. My Panasonic FZ18 looks good and almost fits in my pocket, but not quite.

As for cars, the '30's and '40's cut the mustard, todays cars not so much.

Hip Coyote

I have a few Oly bodies. But my little
Silver OMD em5 mark 2 is a good looking camera. Add to that a silver lens and it’s pretty cool. I actually have had people stop me to ask what kind of camera it is. The bigger Em 1s? Not so much.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Lukabulla wrote:

....The DSLR so far have kept with good traditional lines ..

My guess is you're not quite old enough to have your photography roots firmly in the film era where brick-like was the norm. Your concept of what a "real" camera should look like has been influenced by what cameras looked like when you first started taking an interest in cameras.

Plasticky v rubbery is another issue. But it's still a matter of perception. Just because a material is shiny doesn't mean it's inferior.

MDI Mainer

Nostalgia for retardataire resign is not an accepted metric for beauty.

User ID

Lukabulla wrote:

I see all these new expensive cameras ..
especially the four thirds etc and notice how
ugly they look ..

Brutal designs , harsh square lines and corners.
Plastic looking ... dont look like high quality cameras at all .

Panasonic , Sony , Fuji .. are the worst .
They look ' cheap and nasty ' but are ' Expensive and nasty '

The DSLR so far have kept with good traditional lines ..

Eye of the beholder. Sx2BU. My sympathies, etc.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I don't care about "looks" in my cameras- I go for ergonomics. I want cameras that fit into my big "ugly" hands and where controls are well placed for efficient operation.

There's also a matter of experience and perspective. I worked for years, hand hed, with 4x5 press cameras, after those, just about anything else is "streamlined"! I still wonder who the genius was that designed in neck-strap neck strap hitches on my old Linhof Technika V.

Some decades back, when I worked mostly in medium format, The Mamiya RZ67 won several "industrial design" awards, probably based on its appearance- with the prism finder in place, it is one good lookin' rig. But, even with its good design grip, hand-holding that thing is like lugging around an anvil- add the motor-drive- forgetaboutit! Works fine on a tripod or camera stand.

User ID

Lukabulla wrote:

Yes , exactly .
Cars seem to have lost the flair of design of the 60's / 50's / etc..

Cameras of the 70's were of of Icon quality ... OM1 . Nikon F , as well as
the Japanese Rangefinders of that era ..

Will a Panasonic / Lumix G8 be seen as a Classic in 40 years time ?
I doubt it .

Quite obviously you dont see very well.

Its not any question of "the eye of the beholder". You contradict yourself. You see not with your eyes but with your memory and emotion.

(Download)

Hip Coyote

MDI Mainer wrote:

Nostalgia for retardataire resign is not an accepted metric for beauty.

I learned a new word! I assume you mean redesign. But I do disagree. I am not really into gear, but once in a while, do like the older silver cameras. Odd, back in the film days, I lusted after black bodies because they were professional cameras and actually cost more!

Of course, I am also the guy who laments selling his 68 Old convertible...what was I thinking? But, I also like new sleek, functional designs as well.

I have to sign off now. There are kids playing on my lawn and I have to go yell at them.

RonDavis Loc: Chicago, IL

Lukabulla wrote:

I see all these new expensive cameras ..
especially the four thirds etc and notice how
ugly they look ..

Brutal designs , harsh square lines and corners.
Plastic looking ... dont look like high quality cameras at all .

Panasonic , Sony , Fuji .. are the worst .
They look ' cheap and nasty ' but are ' Expensive and nasty '

The DSLR so far have kept with good traditional lines ..

Panasonic, Sony, Fuji (Canon & Nikon) are brand names with several new and older camera models and body styles.....which ones are you talking about? For reference....what models DO LOOK good to you?

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

camerapapi wrote:

I also disagree. My Olympus bodies are among the most beautiful cameras I ever owned.

I agree.

Lukabulla

Fuji XT-4 is not bad looking , though still has that plastic look ..
Olympus EM's look great
Canon EM50 .. looks ok just about
The above are ok ish ... but still dont have that Iconic James Bond era looks ..

I think today's cameras are designed to look cheap so as to regard them as a ' Throw away Item ' once a new model comes out ... Where as the OM1/2 etc were a designed to be a ' Camera for life '

The ones I dislike at the panasonic / Lumix G8 etc .

BebuLamar

Lukabulla wrote:

Fuji XT-4 is not bad looking , though still has that plastic look ..
Olympus EM's look great
Canon EM50 .. looks ok just about
The above are ok ish ... but still dont have that Iconic James Bond era looks ..

I think today's cameras are designed to look cheap so as to regard them as a ' Throw away Item ' once a new model comes out ... Where as the OM1/2 etc were a designed to be a ' Camera for life '

The ones I dislike at the panasonic / Lumix G8 etc .

Fuji XT-4 has the plastic look is it made out of plastic?
What kind of look is the James Bond era? Last James Bond movies was released last year? First one in the 60?

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

agillot wrote:

Just like some new cars !!!

Unfortunately, with the gas economy rules in place, they are all designed for aerodynamics rather than looks. It has the affect of making them all look similar.

BebuLamar

PHRubin wrote:

Unfortunately, with the gas economy rules in place, they are all designed for aerodynamics rather than looks. It has the affect of making them all look similar.

I doubt that even with cars they are not really care that much about aerodynamics. Don't you see new cars with very large faked grill?

User ID

Lukabulla wrote:

I see all these new expensive cameras ......

Brutal designs , harsh square lines and corners.
Plastic looking ... dont look like high quality cameras at all .

Panasonic , Sony , Fuji .. are the worst .
They look ' cheap and nasty ' but are ' Expensive and nasty '

The DSLR so far have kept with good traditional lines ..

Can read you like a book, actually more like a billboard, with all your ridiculously transparent Sour Grapes reactions.
.

(Download)