Ugly New Cameras (Page 8): Burtzy, I hope you understood that I was writing directly about the subject being discussed. Just as homely parents can produce handsome children, so too...

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Burtzy wrote:

Well this thread has certainly ranged far afield f... (show quote)

Burtzy, I hope you understood that I was writing directly about the subject being discussed. Just as homely parents can produce handsome children, so too, can homely cameras produce handsome images. But I agree totally with what you wrote.

Burtzy Loc: Bronx N.Y. & Simi Valley, CA

I wasn't picking on any post in particular. I was just observing how widely this post has diverged from the original post. I think that everyone who commented were simply drawing their own analogies to the subject matter. I found it amusing. It was like listening to the first person and the last person in a game of telephone.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Burtzy wrote:

I wasn't picking on any post in particular. I was just observing how widely this post has diverged from the original post. I think that everyone who commented were simply drawing their own analogies to the subject matter. I found it amusing. It was like listening to the first person and the last person in a game of telephone.

Well thats par for the course on this site.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Burtzy wrote:

I wasn't picking on any post in particular. I was just observing how widely this post has diverged from the original post. I think that everyone who commented were simply drawing their own analogies to the subject matter. I found it amusing. It was like listening to the first person and the last person in a game of telephone.

After several pages it gets a bit boring so most diverge.
Just normal.
Same things over and over for 4 pages so to liven it up it veers a bit.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I personally could care less about how a camera looks. The only things that matter to me is how it performs and the quality of the images.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

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 kind of agree with you in a way, but ergos are much more important than appearance - how well it fits in your hand and do your fingers reach all of the buttons and wheels? What is the eye relief like (do you have to press your face on the camera to see the whole viewfinder for dslr or mirrorless)? Olympus always had the better looks going back to the classic OM days...the OM-1 has borrowed much of that look**. I think Sony is the worst in the looks area with that boxy appearance. Sony wastes a lot of space on the top deck. Same for Fuji looks but Fujis have better quality construction and better ergos. Nikon to me has the best ergos with handsome looks - DSLR and Z. I never liked Canon ergos (and EVFs) but haven't tried the new R models. Looks are important for marketing brochures but do little out in the field. It's like we judge people on looks only and are then called "shallow" ... I guess we're all shallow photogs here

** I remember many years ago (film days) at a NYC camera show one guy told another at the Olympus booth "Olympus is good for women" pointing out the "feminine" appearance of the camera with its diminutive size ie., men with big hands won't like it.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

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.

International tests have shown that facial beauty/ugliness is a universal thing. Shown a display of various faces, people from around the world picked out the same faces as beautiful and ugly. Yes, there are some cameras I would avoid because of their appearance.

AndyT Loc: Hampstead, New Hampshire

To each his own as they say. What is ugly about this?

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

AndyT wrote:

To each his own as they say. What is ugly about this?

I always thought the PEN-F series - both classic and digital - are attractive, compact designs. Perfect for travel or discreet street photography. They have a niche and are attractive as well. Usually I prefer all black bodies but chrome is good looking as well.

AndyT Loc: Hampstead, New Hampshire

chrisg-optical wrote:

I always thought the PEN-F series - both classic and digital - are attractive, compact designs. Perfect for travel or discreet street photography. They have a niche and are attractive as well. Usually I prefer all black bodies but chrome is good looking as well.

I agree

Hip Coyote

AndyT wrote:

To each his own as they say. What is ugly about this?

Is that your photo? Nicely done. I'd have gone for the PenF except not water resistant. It is a nice looking piece of kit.

MrPhotog

larryepage wrote:

...By the way, do any of you remember when Olympus had the audacity to introduce a film camera (a SLR, as I recall) with the lens offset to the left side instead of in the middle, "where it was supposed to be?" I no longer remember the exact model, but it generated quite an uproar at the time.

Olympus Pen F.

At the time Olympus was making the top-of-the line 1/2 frame cameras. Since the image was vertical, the mirror moved 90 degrees different from full-frame SLRs which had a horizontal image. There was no pentaprism on the top of the camera. The mirror reflected light coming through the lens to an optical system located to the right of the lens, this bounced the image up, and to the left, giving an erect image in the viewfinder, directly over the image area on the film. The location of the inverting system made the camera appear slightly elongated.

if it is still online, here is one for sale on eBay. the pictures show the back of the camera.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/373898288822?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1RT89qFu7S_2Z5wcv8w8n8A97&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=373898288822&targetid=1599090334777&device=c&mktype=&googleloc=9016149&poi=&campaignid=15275224983&mkgroupid=131097072938&rlsatarget=pla-1599090334777&abcId=9300697&merchantid=6296724&gclid=CjwKCAjwiuuRBhBvEiwAFXKaNJht8vbMA-qMdmTZARahKtwxqAFMnxzpqETy3IOoYfCZ9D2OIUoVwRoCwNQQAvD_BwE

I think this was one of the last, if not the very last, 1/2 frame 35 mm SLRs that Olympus made. If so, then their next model would be their full-frame OM-1, which was smaller than other SLRs at that time, and started a movement toward 'compact' SLRs.

AJFRED Loc: Alabama

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 .

There is sort of an analogy here, with music. Lovers of classical music grouse about “heavy metal” sounds. But, as I have learned, all music was new, once. Somebody probably sneered at Beethoven, for example. So, new things don’t have to blindly conform to older notions of how the “good old days” were. Tastes change as generations appear and disappear.

goldenyears Loc: Lake Osewgo

AndyT wrote:

To each his own as they say. What is ugly about this?

Nothing at all ugly about that camera. Nothing beautiful either. Its looks functional... like a good camera should.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

Do we buy our cameras for their external beauty?
I don't. I think optical performance and capability are much better reason.