Ugly New Cameras (Page 5): You people have to get over this plastic look thing! It looks plastic because it is plastic new space age 21st century plastic! They last forever. Who on...

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

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 .

You people have to get over this plastic look thing! It looks plastic because it is plastic new space age 21st century plastic! They last forever. Who on this forum have dropped and busted up their camera? Very very few. Except change it’s good for you 🤓

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

agillot wrote:

Just like some new cars !!!

BMW "bucky beaver" grills .... anyone? Buhler anyone?

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

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 ..

"Brutal designs, harsh square lines and corners."

Would any of you guys who think all things relating to beauty are in the eye of the beholder plunk down $40,000 for this new car? (BMW, by the way.)

BebuLamar

StanMac wrote:

Remember, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don’t think many of us here buy a camera based on its looks.

Stan

Yes beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and I do buy camera based on its look.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

I've said the same thing about Glock. When I saw one for the first time, I thought, "Who the hell would buy a pistol made of plastic"? Now, a Colt 1911 is a "real man's pistol". However, the Glock became the 'goto' choice of most police forces due to its many features and advantages. Goes to show just how little I know and I suspect that it holds true for other things that I am old fashion about the way that they were built.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

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 ..

I think the Fuji X series cameras are the best looking cameras out there. Reminds me of film cameras from the 70’s.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Would any of you guys who think all things relating to beauty are in the eye of the beholder plunk down $40,000 for this new car?

Only if I could figure out a way to stuff a 289 and manual trans in it.
--Bob

Fotoartist wrote:

"Brutal designs, harsh square lines and corners."

Would any of you guys who think all things relating to beauty are in the eye of the beholder plunk down $40,000 for this new car? (BMW, by the way.)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

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 ..

Excuse my blunt disgust, but who the hell buys a camera because of what it looks like?

I buy technology for function, first. Form follows function. Good technology gets out of the way of its use and its user and just melds with the users brain during use. That means the controls and menus are properly placed, well structured, quick to set, and rich in features. It means a long time in hand before fatigue sets in. It means you can keep it to your eye without having to look for a control.

I've use nearly 20 brands of camera since the 1960s. I didn't give a damn what ANY of them looked like. I cared a LOT about what I could get from them.

The two classics that stand out are the Nikon F3 film camera and the Panasonic Lumix GH4 hybrid digital video and stills camera. They feel very similar in my hands, they do EXACTLY what they are designed to do, they are rugged as they need to be, and they did and do what I asked of them.

The F3 was the first Nikon F-series camera to get rid of all the niggles in the F and F2 series. I have an FTn, and as classic and literally bullet-proof as it is (https://www.flickr.com/photos/martsharm/4683329492/in/photostream/), it was among the most poorly designed from a functional point of view. Ask any living photojournalist from the 1960s and '70s... "The shutter release strains the index finger. The removable back is awkward to deal with when changing film. The meter finder is a dust magnet." The F3 cameras added a hinged back, moved the shutter release forward, and re-engineered the finder to FIT.

The Lumix GH4 was the result of Lumix engineers getting together with professional photographers and filmmakers all over the world, to find out what they wanted in a truly hybrid camera — one that could film a documentary interview on Monday, a product stills photography session on Tuesday, and a 48-Hour Film Project short on the weekend (I've done all these with it). They put 4K in a hybrid camera in 2014, before anyone else.

The Lumix GH6, introduced just last month, is an evolution of the GH4 and GH5. My kid has a GH5 we use to make short films (along with his twin's GH4 and my GH4). I will probably get a GH6 soon after Adobe provides ACR support in Lightroom Classic, Lightroom, Bridge, and Photoshop.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2022/02/22/panasonic-gh6-review/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiS-gt2V2lE

If anything, these cameras are as rugged as the cameras I used in the 1980s. The GH cameras have die-cast magnesium alloy chassis, just like the Nikon F3. They are dust sealed, weather resistant, freeze-proof. My GH4 has never overheated on 96°F days in bright sun, recording for over an hour continuously. It's been in three downpours, one of which caught me half an hour from my car, on a trail. I wiped it off and kept filming.

So keep the uglies coming, folks. I'm sure users of every other brand will jump in and defend their camera's ugliness as irrelevant to why they bought it. We use these tools for fun and profit. Do I buy a wrench because it looks like jewelry? No. I might buy a car IN PART because it looks good, but frankly, that has never been my interest. Cars are holes in the road we throw money into, and I'd rather throw money into a camera body I'll USE, or my kids' futures, or my retirement account.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Hmmmm. What difference does it make what they look... (show quote)

Lots of talk about who cares about looks vs works.
I have not read all comments.
Nikon made a huge deal and spent a bundle hiring some designer for their bodies and that is where that little red at the grip came from. I still see it on new Nikons.
Thus Nikon at least felt appearance did make a difference.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Fotoartist wrote:

"Brutal designs, harsh square lines and corners."

Would any of you guys who think all things relating to beauty are in the eye of the beholder plunk down $40,000 for this new car? (BMW, by the way.)

I wouldn't buy it because it is ugly (It is.). I would not buy it because BMW has a terrible reliability record.

howIseeit Loc: Kootenays, BC Canada

BebuLamar wrote:

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?

Second that one! The Lexus, in my quest for Ls is a prime example of that (awful) grill, for my taste anyway. The Lexus models past 2013 are no go. They might well be better in many respects, but not looks.
I do like a camera with a substantial heft, that has that satisfying feel in one's hands. Do believe that it also adds to stability when using manual FF lenses, well in my case on, now old D800/D2X/Kowa six.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

rmalarz wrote:

Results are far more important than the appearance of the camera. But, then again, I tend to pay more attention to concepts than gear.
--Bob

Earnest Botello Loc: Hockley, Texas

Bill_de wrote:

Beauty ...

https://knowyourphrase.com/beauty-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder#:~:text=The%20phrase%20beauty%20is%20in,words%2C%20beauty%20can%20be%20subjective.

---

Like I always say, one man's trash is another man's garbage.

pego101

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 ..

And the purpose of this post is .......

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

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 ..

Only because the DSLR came out before mirrorless. If it was the other way around, you'd think a DSLR was ugly...

bwa