Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mirrorless cameras - (often) form over function?
#2
I disagree on "if you know one DLSR, you can use all of them" - except if "using" means "set it to the green symbol and just bang on". But what to do with the humungous "Pro" models which come without a green symbol?

Instead of going into comparison lists, I just wonder what your reason was to open this thread? The discussion is ongoing since the first designer came up with the idea of pulling more batteries into a camera which was consuming more and more energy, then designed a grip around the battery compartment.

Old Minolta and Practica bodies also were rather edgy - cheaper to manufacture, like Sony as well.

DSLRs dictated a form which is difficult to use for left-handed people: Ok, that goes for many things. But although the appearance more or less looks the same, usability is more than button and dial layout.

As many functions as cameras have these days - how could these functions become a form?

And also: back in the day there were major companies with a lot of lookalike bodies and few others. Rollei, Contax, Mamiya, Hasselblad tried other concepts, none was more successful than the average SLR. Modular cameras from Canon, Nikon, Rollei, Pentax never made it to mass market - did their owners care?

If the function is only "take a picture/movie", your smartphone already is up to the job, less form is close to impossible. Have you ever been asked by Canon or some manufacturer "Klaus, what functions do you need in one of our cameras?" There never was a kickstarter concept. All designs had to prove their value in sales numbers - good form and function became secondary important, specs lists made the decisions...
  


Messages In This Thread
RE: Mirrorless cameras - (often) form over function? - by JJ_SO - 07-12-2019, 05:55 AM
RE: Mirrorless cameras - (often) form over function? - by davidmanze - 07-14-2019, 08:53 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)