Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best-looking DSLR

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 8:33:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
of DSLRs. It's prism housing makes it look
rakish, it has the angles of a stealth fighter
and it's body texture makes it look
more expensive than it is. It has a serious look,
less soft than it's competition. And, if someone thinks
the look of the camera doesn't matter, read what Tiffin
wrote about it's "glimmer glass" filters where they tried
to say the shimmering look of the filter make models "feel
better."

The Canons, 20D and Rebel XT are a bit too smooth,
a little too rounded. Kind of like a Japanese sedan.
They don't have the rugged, more costly look of the Nikons,
even thought the 20D isn't flimsely constructed.

The big Nikons and Canons are a bit to hulking to be
called attractive. Same thing with the Fuji S3.
Anything with a big battery grip is out of the running.
The Kodaks aren't bad. The new one has a more traditional
looking prism housing.

The Olympus E-300? It looks like an SLR with a brush cut.
Compactness does count for something though. The pricier
E-1 is a nice looking camera. It is well-proportioned and
it was nice to see Olympus tried to keep something revolutionary
in style around (a nod to the daring E10 and E20s which at least
attempted to prevent SLRs from returning or retaining the "flat faced"
look they've always had).

The Konica-Minolta 7D is an interesting looking DSLR. It's controls
are large, two big horizontal wheels on either side of a traditional
looking SLR shape. The texturing on the gripping surfaces also helps.
The spatter-paint on the housing top also helps, but the overhanging
top housing is kind of Nikon FMish.

The Sigma SD9 is a plain-looing DSLR, very business-like and it costs
like it. It's got the same overhanging brow as the Minolta and a very
cluttered back which must make it "egonomically-challenged" when in
use.

Pentax's istDS is a kind of looks "hybrid." It's got smooth lines,
but they terminate at sharp angles, so it's a combination Nikon-Canon
look, but IMO, the Nikon looks better. It's also got two large
control knobs on either side of the top, like the Minolta. Overall,
it looks pretty good.

Sony is the oddball company here. They have at least five cameras
with more than 7 million pixels and no DSLR!

More about : dslr

Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:19:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
> of DSLRs. It's prism housing makes it look
> rakish, it has the angles of a stealth fighter
> and it's body texture makes it look
> more expensive than it is. It has a serious look,
> less soft than it's competition. And, if someone thinks
> the look of the camera doesn't matter, read what Tiffin
> wrote about it's "glimmer glass" filters where they tried
> to say the shimmering look of the filter make models "feel
> better."

O my
April 25, 2005 11:56:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
> of DSLRs.

And why would ANYONE care what the camera looks like unless they are just a
poser? All I care about is what do the prints look like.

--

Stacey
Related resources
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 12:52:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> RichA wrote:
>
>
>>Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
>>the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
>>of DSLRs.
>
>
> And why would ANYONE care what the camera looks like unless they are just a
> poser? All I care about is what do the prints look like.

Enjoying the aesthetics or design of a camera and enjoying or excelling
at photography are not mutually exclusive.

I prefer workhorse cameras which are not aesthetically pleasing to most
people, but pleasing to me becasue they are function driven designs.

Others enjoy that 'brassy' look that a lovingly used metal camera might
acquire after 15 or so years of use.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:56:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:56:35 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
>> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
>> of DSLRs.
>
>And why would ANYONE care what the camera looks like unless they are just a
>poser? All I care about is what do the prints look like.

Why not have both? Cost is certainly not a big deal now that they all
price out like each other? It's like a car. Some drive them as
trasportation, others like other attributes too.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 2:21:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:g69p61lnbo40e8f3ie929to4pdnad038tp@4ax.com...
> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
> of DSLRs. It's prism housing makes it look
> rakish, it has the angles of a stealth fighter
> and it's body texture makes it look
> more expensive than it is. It has a serious look,
> less soft than it's competition. And, if someone thinks
> the look of the camera doesn't matter, read what Tiffin
> wrote about it's "glimmer glass" filters where they tried
> to say the shimmering look of the filter make models "feel
> better."

I always thought the F-117 was a clear violation of the old adage, "Looks
right, flys right."
>
> The Canons, 20D and Rebel XT are a bit too smooth,
> a little too rounded. Kind of like a Japanese sedan.
> They don't have the rugged, more costly look of the Nikons,
> even thought the 20D isn't flimsely constructed.

The Canon cameras could also be said to have the smooth, fluid look of an
Aston Martin DB-9
>
> The big Nikons and Canons are a bit to hulking to be
> called attractive. Same thing with the Fuji S3.
> Anything with a big battery grip is out of the running.
> The Kodaks aren't bad. The new one has a more traditional
> looking prism housing.

Courtesy of Sigma...
>
> The Olympus E-300? It looks like an SLR with a brush cut.
> Compactness does count for something though. The pricier
> E-1 is a nice looking camera. It is well-proportioned and
> it was nice to see Olympus tried to keep something revolutionary
> in style around (a nod to the daring E10 and E20s which at least
> attempted to prevent SLRs from returning or retaining the "flat faced"
> look they've always had).

The E-300 isn't appreciably more compact than the Canon 350D/RebelXT. The
Canon measures out at 127 x 94 x 64mm, the Oly at 147 x 85 x 64, the lower
height due to the lack of prism or mirror box on top of the camera.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 5:48:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Enjoying the aesthetics or design of a camera and enjoying or excelling
> at photography are not mutually exclusive.
>
> I prefer workhorse cameras which are not aesthetically pleasing to most
> people, but pleasing to me becasue they are function driven designs.
>
> Others enjoy that 'brassy' look that a lovingly used metal camera might
> acquire after 15 or so years of use.

Chicks dig bad-ass Nikons.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
April 26, 2005 5:48:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I want a dSLR that looks like a Topcon Super DM


"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:116r7fh3bjk9fa4@corp.supernews.com...
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Enjoying the aesthetics or design of a camera and enjoying or excelling
>> at photography are not mutually exclusive.
>>
>> I prefer workhorse cameras which are not aesthetically pleasing to most
>> people, but pleasing to me becasue they are function driven designs.
>>
>> Others enjoy that 'brassy' look that a lovingly used metal camera might
>> acquire after 15 or so years of use.
>
> Chicks dig bad-ass Nikons.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
April 26, 2005 6:14:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <3d5edjF6lf3qbU2@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>RichA wrote:
>
>> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
>> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
>> of DSLRs.
>
>And why would ANYONE care what the camera looks like unless they are just a
>poser?

I find candids to be a different experience, when using a pro-looking
SLR versus a camera that looks "ordinary." A medium format reflex
camera at waist level would be invisible. Not germane to the
discussion, perhaps, but, there are reasons to consider what a camera
looks like, depending on the situation.

Back in the day when I was a shutterbug (been out for a long time,
getting back in now), I would get thrown out of places, have film
confiscated, etc., with my Nikon F or Canon AE1.

A camera that costs $1000 or $1500 like the current crop of DSLRs is
going to be noticed. A Sony Cyber or Canon Powershot is going to be
invisible. Something to consider, perhaps.

You could probably leave a Rollei or Argus laying around and have it not
be stolen. You'd better keep your eye on that D70 or 20D.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:15:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" wrote ...

> And why would ANYONE care what the camera looks like unless they are just
> a
> poser? All I care about is what do the prints look like.

Look at the OP's posting history. This is just one of many such threads
started in recent days.

Rob
April 26, 2005 6:17:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d4k3cn$hpk$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>I prefer workhorse cameras which are not aesthetically pleasing to most
>people, but pleasing to me becasue they are function driven designs.

I know several people who still use Speed Graphics, including one person
who is responsible for quite a lot of the photos of the Dallas and
Austin music scene from the 1980's on, who uses a Speed Graphic with a
Polaroid back. There's something about a press camera that says
"unpretentious, but serious, photographer" or something like that.

There's also the fact that Polaroid 4x5's are pretty damn awesome
exposures, megapixels be damned.
April 26, 2005 6:21:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <e5ydnQdw-v_bAvDfRVn-vw@rogers.com>, Darrell <spam@this.eh> wrote:

>
>I want a dSLR that looks like a Topcon Super DM
>

I want one that looks like a Kodak 126 Instamatic, with a flash cube.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 8:06:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote, trolling as usual:
> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop

Frankly, I have never thought much about it, being a photographer who
creates and sells images. Since you asked, I took a few of my SLRs, and a
few P&Ss and had my wife photograph herself in a mirror. The shots all
turned out great because of the subject and the lighting. If your concern
is the appearance of your machine rather than the ergonomics, adaptability
or image quality, I regret to inform you that your sexual physical appendage
will not be enhanced by the Nikon logo on your camera.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 8:43:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:56:35 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> And why would ANYONE care what the camera looks like unless they are just a
> poser? All I care about is what do the prints look like.

It's around my neck all the time, it's what people see when
they look at me -- why wouldn't I care what it looks like?

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:55:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:17:26 GMT, fishbowl@conservatory.com (james)
wrote:

>In article <d4k3cn$hpk$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>I prefer workhorse cameras which are not aesthetically pleasing to most
>>people, but pleasing to me becasue they are function driven designs.
>
>I know several people who still use Speed Graphics, including one person
>who is responsible for quite a lot of the photos of the Dallas and
>Austin music scene from the 1980's on, who uses a Speed Graphic with a
>Polaroid back. There's something about a press camera that says
>"unpretentious, but serious, photographer" or something like that.

What you've said is exactly what a photographer in Toronto using
an Linhof view camera told me. There is no menace with them, like
there can be with an SLR and a long lens pointing at someone. It's all
perception, but perception counts. Same thing with twin-lens
reflexes.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:22:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

james wrote:

> In article <d4k3cn$hpk$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>I prefer workhorse cameras which are not aesthetically pleasing to most
>>people, but pleasing to me becasue they are function driven designs.
>
>
> I know several people who still use Speed Graphics, including one person
> who is responsible for quite a lot of the photos of the Dallas and
> Austin music scene from the 1980's on, who uses a Speed Graphic with a
> Polaroid back. There's something about a press camera that says
> "unpretentious, but serious, photographer" or something like that.

You can rent Speed Graphics here ... and I just might for the next
Haloween party ... with film. Just need a source of those little bulbs
and a fake soggy cigar.

You want polaroids, check Elsa Dorfman's sight. Those are high
definition! http://elsa.photo.net/

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:27:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d5edjF6lf3qbU2@individual.net...

> And why would ANYONE care what the camera looks like unless they are just
a
> poser? All I care about is what do the prints look like.

It makes a big difference. My colleague has a D70 and I have a 20D. When we
are out hiking, I constantly am approached by hot babes, asking me to
photograph them, while my colleague has to be content to take pictures of
bugs and plants.

Or maybe it's that I have a lens hood, and he doesn't.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:31:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3d5edjF6lf3qbU2@individual.net:
> RichA wrote:
>> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
>> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
>> of DSLRs.
> And why would ANYONE care what the camera looks like unless they are
> just a poser? All I care about is what do the prints look like.

It's like asking why anyone would care what someone looks like. Everyone
says it's Better to just get to know someone and not judge based on their
appearance. Nice idea, but I don't know anyone who actually operates that
way (even though a few claim to). People are just more interested in good
looking cameras. I never had anyone ask me about my Dimage 7, but
strangers ask about my D70 all the time. And my Optio S4i because it's so
tiny.

My personal semi-irrational prejudice is that a silver body digicam is a
toy. It's not completely irrational because all the pros I know use black
body DSLRs and low to medium level consumer digicams tend to be silver.
All the cheapo digicams I've had before going DSLR were silver. And I
thought the Digital Rebel in silver did indeed look pretty cheesy (though
obviously the pictures were just as good as the black version). But that
might just be my prejudice at work.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 10:08:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sizer wrote:

> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
> My personal semi-irrational prejudice is that a silver body digicam is a
> toy. It's not completely irrational because all the pros I know use black
> body DSLRs and low to medium level consumer digicams tend to be silver.

The only time this is of any importance is when shooting where the
subject area has glass that might reflect equipment. Better have as
much black as possible, inlcluding pants, shirt, socks shoes, hair, skin
color...

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 10:13:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <_5tbe.17017$44.15086@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3d5edjF6lf3qbU2@individual.net...
>
> > And why would ANYONE care what the camera looks like unless they are just
> a
> > poser? All I care about is what do the prints look like.
>
> It makes a big difference. My colleague has a D70 and I have a 20D. When we
> are out hiking, I constantly am approached by hot babes, asking me to
> photograph them, while my colleague has to be content to take pictures of
> bugs and plants.
>
> Or maybe it's that I have a lens hood, and he doesn't.

Whoweee! War kin I git one a dem dare lens hood thangies?
April 27, 2005 12:51:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Xns964489B42AAF8sizernospamcom@216.40.28.85>,
Sizer <sizer@nospam.com> wrote:

>My personal semi-irrational prejudice is that a silver body digicam is a
>toy. It's not completely irrational because all the pros I know use black
>body DSLRs

There are relatively few situations where a black camera is allowed and
a silver camera is not allowed, but in those situations, you're stuck if
you don't have a black body. The only two I experienced personally,
were World Championship Tennis (I shot a championship between McEnroe
and Connors), and horse racing.

I'm really enjoying my (silver) Powershot A85. To be honest, I was more
excited about getting it, than I was my 20D, if that makes any sense.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 2:05:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Htnbe.22676$d5.167013@newsb.telia.net>,
Aaron Blacksmith <Aaron@___Nospam.com> wrote:
>3. Nikon FTn with 50/1.2 with motor drive and lens hood

A camera with a finder that was last manufatured in 1974 with a lens that
was first produced in 1978 :-)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 11:27:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Who cares what they look like! You got to much time on your hands...

--
_______
Pat
________
tecserv_1
--------------------------------------------
"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:g69p61lnbo40e8f3ie929to4pdnad038tp@4ax.com...
> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
> of DSLRs. It's prism housing makes it look
> rakish, it has the angles of a stealth fighter
> and it's body texture makes it look
> more expensive than it is. It has a serious look,
> less soft than it's competition. And, if someone thinks
> the look of the camera doesn't matter, read what Tiffin
> wrote about it's "glimmer glass" filters where they tried
> to say the shimmering look of the filter make models "feel
> better."
>
> The Canons, 20D and Rebel XT are a bit too smooth,
> a little too rounded. Kind of like a Japanese sedan.
> They don't have the rugged, more costly look of the Nikons,
> even thought the 20D isn't flimsely constructed.
>
> The big Nikons and Canons are a bit to hulking to be
> called attractive. Same thing with the Fuji S3.
> Anything with a big battery grip is out of the running.
> The Kodaks aren't bad. The new one has a more traditional
> looking prism housing.
>
> The Olympus E-300? It looks like an SLR with a brush cut.
> Compactness does count for something though. The pricier
> E-1 is a nice looking camera. It is well-proportioned and
> it was nice to see Olympus tried to keep something revolutionary
> in style around (a nod to the daring E10 and E20s which at least
> attempted to prevent SLRs from returning or retaining the "flat faced"
> look they've always had).
>
> The Konica-Minolta 7D is an interesting looking DSLR. It's controls
> are large, two big horizontal wheels on either side of a traditional
> looking SLR shape. The texturing on the gripping surfaces also helps.
> The spatter-paint on the housing top also helps, but the overhanging
> top housing is kind of Nikon FMish.
>
> The Sigma SD9 is a plain-looing DSLR, very business-like and it costs
> like it. It's got the same overhanging brow as the Minolta and a very
> cluttered back which must make it "egonomically-challenged" when in
> use.
>
> Pentax's istDS is a kind of looks "hybrid." It's got smooth lines,
> but they terminate at sharp angles, so it's a combination Nikon-Canon
> look, but IMO, the Nikon looks better. It's also got two large
> control knobs on either side of the top, like the Minolta. Overall,
> it looks pretty good.
>
> Sony is the oddball company here. They have at least five cameras
> with more than 7 million pixels and no DSLR!
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 4:17:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> The Konica-Minolta 7D is an interesting looking DSLR. It's controls
> are large, two big horizontal wheels on either side of a traditional
> looking SLR shape. The texturing on the gripping surfaces also helps.
> The spatter-paint on the housing top also helps, but the overhanging
> top housing is kind of Nikon FMish.

That overhang is a main contributor to the high viewfinder brightness of
the 7D.

While I have 'nits' with some parts of the 7D, overall it is a very good
feeling camera in the hands ... and I have pretty big hands.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 6:31:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

All of us have 24 hours/day.
Some of us fill those days using ugly things.
Some of us prefer to fill the days using beautiful things.
Cameras can be quite ugly (like Olympus E-300), other cameras can be nice
(like the Leica M4).
Unfortunately there are no beautiful digital cameras...
Aaron


"ol' coot" <pboch@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lllce.14781$dh.1063@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Who cares what they look like! You got to much time on your hands...
>
> --
> _______
> Pat
> ________
> tecserv_1
> --------------------------------------------
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:g69p61lnbo40e8f3ie929to4pdnad038tp@4ax.com...
>> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
>> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
>> of DSLRs. It's prism housing makes it look
>> rakish, it has the angles of a stealth fighter
>> and it's body texture makes it look
>> more expensive than it is. It has a serious look,
>> less soft than it's competition. And, if someone thinks
>> the look of the camera doesn't matter, read what Tiffin
>> wrote about it's "glimmer glass" filters where they tried
>> to say the shimmering look of the filter make models "feel
>> better."
>>
>> The Canons, 20D and Rebel XT are a bit too smooth,
>> a little too rounded. Kind of like a Japanese sedan.
>> They don't have the rugged, more costly look of the Nikons,
>> even thought the 20D isn't flimsely constructed.
>>
>> The big Nikons and Canons are a bit to hulking to be
>> called attractive. Same thing with the Fuji S3.
>> Anything with a big battery grip is out of the running.
>> The Kodaks aren't bad. The new one has a more traditional
>> looking prism housing.
>>
>> The Olympus E-300? It looks like an SLR with a brush cut.
>> Compactness does count for something though. The pricier
>> E-1 is a nice looking camera. It is well-proportioned and
>> it was nice to see Olympus tried to keep something revolutionary
>> in style around (a nod to the daring E10 and E20s which at least
>> attempted to prevent SLRs from returning or retaining the "flat faced"
>> look they've always had).
>>
>> The Konica-Minolta 7D is an interesting looking DSLR. It's controls
>> are large, two big horizontal wheels on either side of a traditional
>> looking SLR shape. The texturing on the gripping surfaces also helps.
>> The spatter-paint on the housing top also helps, but the overhanging
>> top housing is kind of Nikon FMish.
>>
>> The Sigma SD9 is a plain-looing DSLR, very business-like and it costs
>> like it. It's got the same overhanging brow as the Minolta and a very
>> cluttered back which must make it "egonomically-challenged" when in
>> use.
>>
>> Pentax's istDS is a kind of looks "hybrid." It's got smooth lines,
>> but they terminate at sharp angles, so it's a combination Nikon-Canon
>> look, but IMO, the Nikon looks better. It's also got two large
>> control knobs on either side of the top, like the Minolta. Overall,
>> it looks pretty good.
>>
>> Sony is the oddball company here. They have at least five cameras
>> with more than 7 million pixels and no DSLR!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 6:31:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:31:24 GMT, "Aaron Blacksmith"
<Aaron@___Nospam.com> wrote:

>All of us have 24 hours/day.
>Some of us fill those days using ugly things.
>Some of us prefer to fill the days using beautiful things.
>Cameras can be quite ugly (like Olympus E-300), other cameras can be nice
>(like the Leica M4).
>Unfortunately there are no beautiful digital cameras...
>Aaron

What I miss I think are the satin chrome on brass finishes of the
better SLRs from the late 1970s and early 1980s. Silver-coloured
plastic just looks cheap as hell, like a kid's toy.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 8:15:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

So what?
All these 3 cameras are excellent examples of successful industrial design,
since they combine unmatched functionality with high estethical values.
Aaron


"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:tbupipvvh38vnrgejgobl61222@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <Htnbe.22676$d5.167013@newsb.telia.net>,
> Aaron Blacksmith <Aaron@___Nospam.com> wrote:
>>3. Nikon FTn with 50/1.2 with motor drive and lens hood
>
> A camera with a finder that was last manufatured in 1974 with a lens that
> was first produced in 1978 :-)
>
>
> --
> That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
> could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
> by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
> -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
!