6 ms·

Agreed. I wonder why? Maybe professionals prefer the familiar ergonomics? Or there’s a certain prestige carried by the traditional camera silhouette? No id

Agreed. I wonder why? Maybe professionals prefer the familiar ergonomics? Or there’s a certain prestige carried by the traditional camera silhouette? No idea. And I can’t think of another analog-to-digital transition that also maintained its outer form so thoroughly.

sudosysgen 5y ago
Well, DSLR/MILCs really aren't that different from film SLRs. The sensor replaced the film to be exposed, and the battery replaced the film cannister. For mirrorless cameras the EVF replaced the reflex mechanism. Everything else is the same, so with similar design constraints it makes sense a similar form factor would emerge.
fleddr 5y ago
There are no other options I can think of. Sensors on full-frame DSLR/Mirrorless systems are large so you're going to have to keep a significantly sized rectangle clear. Assuming right-handed use, you're going to extend that rectangle to the right for a grip, that also need to have depth. Not optional as any of these cameras might see some very heavy lenses attached to them. You need a viewfinder, where the only logical option is on top. Same for flash connections. The only alternative is no viewfinder at all, just the back screen, but this can't be done because sports and wildlife photographers will always require an eye piece. All connections (video, mic, data, remote flash) have to be on the left as the right side is taken for the grip which typically features the memory card slots. The bottom of the camera has to be flat, it needs to support tripod use, video brackets and battery grips. Realistically, the battery chamber can only be at the bottom, given that all other space is already used. Concluding, the layout makes sense. You could move around connections but it doesn't change the shape of the camera, nor does it improve anything. So it's a logical timeless design, not really a prestige thing. As somebody else already said: the old design was not specifically analog, only the internals were.
- justinpowers 5y ago
  Thanks. This all makes sense. I guess the bigger surprise to me is that there wasn’t anything newly extraneous or improvable as a result of the transition. Electric guitars come to mind, they are largely the same except in two regards: The body is much shallower. This of course is due to no longer needing a soundbox. But further, it’s because a shallow body brings the strings closer to the player and puts the arm in a more comfortable position. The large deep soundbox not only became extraneous after the transition, it was also always a bit of an unavoidable hindrance in the first place. The body shape changed as well. This was due to aesthetic freedom as a result of not needing a soundbox. Cameras, on the other hand, could of course change the aesthetic for fun, but I guess there is no need for in-the-moment showmanship when it comes to camerawork and camera aficionados just don’t care for flash? ;) And maybe any change would just get in the way (though arguably some guitar shapes are inconvenient as well yet nonetheless desirable to some). In the end, I guess the physical limitations of the camera either are still present (like large telescopic lenses) or had already been condensed into a small enough size that they no longer hindered better ergonomics
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    The body of mirrorless current gen cameras is also substantially shallower than older SLR and DSLRs. This is because the system to bounce light to the viewfinder is no longer needed. Most of the rest of the form is constrained by physics and ergonomics, so it doesn't change due to this new technology.
    - astrange 5y ago
      That’s actually not true - lens design on SLRs can be very compromised due to the extra distance to the film, which isn’t necessary on mirrorless since it hasn’t got a mirror. This means mirrorless cameras have smaller lenses and can use all kinds of cheap older rangefinder lenses. People seem to think “SLR” means “film camera” though and don’t know that rangefinders exist.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
- sprobertson 5y ago
  > The only alternative is no viewfinder at all, just the back screen, but this can't be done because sports and wildlife photographers will always require an eye piece. I'm curious about what makes the eye piece a requirement for these particular photographers (and if/how it could be done away with).
  - justinpowers 5y ago
    I would guess it has to do with zero latency. And possibly easier aiming/coordination/stability with the camera and hands at not just eye-level, but also nearly right up against the eye, moving in unison with one’s head. Just a guess though. Sports television cameramen seem to do just find tracking the ball without using a viewfinder.
    - riceo100 5y ago
      In this particular camera and many other mirrorless cameras, the viewfinder is another digital display. My guess would be they’re required for making it easier to focus in direct sunlight. I tend to only use the viewfinder in this situation (on an a7s ii and a1)
      - bradlys 5y ago
        It’s also much more difficult to hold a camera at arms length to view the screen. When you hold up a camera to your eye and use the viewfinder - it’s a third point of contact. You’re also using your face to stabilize it. Trust me - they’d get rid of the damn viewfinder if it wasn’t often requested so much. Using the viewfinder is just a lot easier than the back of the screen in many situations. (Especially outdoors. Think about rain or whatever else going on getting on the screen)
  - perardi 5y ago
    That’s just ergonomics. You are shooting with a long lens. Unless you have the camera on a tripod/monopod, it’s much more stable to have the camera braced against your body with the viewfinder up against your eye, versus trying to hold 5 pounds of very long lens at arm’s length. (Nikon 200–500mm lens in this case. Trust me. Way easier to support that chonker when it’s held close to the body when running around to shoot rugby.)
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
> Maybe professionals prefer the familiar ergonomics? Not just pros. The manufacturer actually aims for the "prosumer" market. They do this, by building for the pros, but marketing to the prosumer. It works well. But expect the ergonomics to slowly morph, as the consumer base evolves. Big changes in familiar forms don’t usually work. I suspect that one reason Teslas sell so well, is because they don’t actually look very different from traditional ICE cars. I don’t think that whacky CyberTruck is gonna be very popular.
- sgt101 5y ago
  Wrt. tesla the interior (especially the dash) is a major sticking point for "petrolheads". Folks like the dials and levers on ICE - the touch screen and ikea style finish is quite dissonant.
  - franga2000 5y ago
    I don't care about the finish, but I find the touchscreen to be stupid, unusable and reckless or even dangerous choice, despite being a big fan of EVs. A touch screen is only ever the optimal user interface for general purpose computers and sometimes navigating through virtual 2D/3D space. In every other use case, dedicated controls are superior in every regard.
    - sgt101 5y ago
      It's a valid pov. I acknowledge what you say. On the other hand I find I hardly use any of the controls or readouts in the Tesla, just the speed limit really. The indicators are on the stick, and the wipers and lights are automatic. There's not much reason to go to the touchscreen on the move - apart from the change the audio.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
        There was that article that was linked here, a few weeks ago, by Scott Jenson[0], about his experience with a Tesla Model 3. The gist was that the climate control was so difficult to use, that it was actually a safety hazard. I’ve found that haptic feedback can be quite useful. But really, there’s no substitute for good old-fashioned, user-focused design. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30140984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30140984
axiolite 5y ago
> I can’t think of another analog-to-digital transition that also maintained its outer form so thoroughly. Keyboards. TV cameras. Hi-Fi stereo systems. Movie theatres. Desk telephones. Headsets & Ear buds 2-way radios. Magnetic tape. Automobile engines. (Coaxial) cable & tuners/receivers. Likely quite a lot more examples.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Well, DSLR/MILCs really aren't that different from film SLRs. The sensor replaced the film to be exposed, and the battery replaced the film cannister. For mirrorless cameras the EVF replaced the reflex mechanism. Everything else is the same, so with similar design constraints it makes sense a similar form factor would emerge.

fleddr 5y ago

There are no other options I can think of. Sensors on full-frame DSLR/Mirrorless systems are large so you're going to have to keep a significantly sized rectangle clear. Assuming right-handed use, you're going to extend that rectangle to the right for a grip, that also need to have depth. Not optional as any of these cameras might see some very heavy lenses attached to them. You need a viewfinder, where the only logical option is on top. Same for flash connections. The only alternative is no viewfinder at all, just the back screen, but this can't be done because sports and wildlife photographers will always require an eye piece. All connections (video, mic, data, remote flash) have to be on the left as the right side is taken for the grip which typically features the memory card slots. The bottom of the camera has to be flat, it needs to support tripod use, video brackets and battery grips. Realistically, the battery chamber can only be at the bottom, given that all other space is already used. Concluding, the layout makes sense. You could move around connections but it doesn't change the shape of the camera, nor does it improve anything. So it's a logical timeless design, not really a prestige thing. As somebody else already said: the old design was not specifically analog, only the internals were.

justinpowers 5y ago
Thanks. This all makes sense. I guess the bigger surprise to me is that there wasn’t anything newly extraneous or improvable as a result of the transition. Electric guitars come to mind, they are largely the same except in two regards: The body is much shallower. This of course is due to no longer needing a soundbox. But further, it’s because a shallow body brings the strings closer to the player and puts the arm in a more comfortable position. The large deep soundbox not only became extraneous after the transition, it was also always a bit of an unavoidable hindrance in the first place. The body shape changed as well. This was due to aesthetic freedom as a result of not needing a soundbox. Cameras, on the other hand, could of course change the aesthetic for fun, but I guess there is no need for in-the-moment showmanship when it comes to camerawork and camera aficionados just don’t care for flash? ;) And maybe any change would just get in the way (though arguably some guitar shapes are inconvenient as well yet nonetheless desirable to some). In the end, I guess the physical limitations of the camera either are still present (like large telescopic lenses) or had already been condensed into a small enough size that they no longer hindered better ergonomics
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  The body of mirrorless current gen cameras is also substantially shallower than older SLR and DSLRs. This is because the system to bounce light to the viewfinder is no longer needed. Most of the rest of the form is constrained by physics and ergonomics, so it doesn't change due to this new technology.
  - astrange 5y ago
    That’s actually not true - lens design on SLRs can be very compromised due to the extra distance to the film, which isn’t necessary on mirrorless since it hasn’t got a mirror. This means mirrorless cameras have smaller lenses and can use all kinds of cheap older rangefinder lenses. People seem to think “SLR” means “film camera” though and don’t know that rangefinders exist.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
sprobertson 5y ago
> The only alternative is no viewfinder at all, just the back screen, but this can't be done because sports and wildlife photographers will always require an eye piece. I'm curious about what makes the eye piece a requirement for these particular photographers (and if/how it could be done away with).
- justinpowers 5y ago
  I would guess it has to do with zero latency. And possibly easier aiming/coordination/stability with the camera and hands at not just eye-level, but also nearly right up against the eye, moving in unison with one’s head. Just a guess though. Sports television cameramen seem to do just find tracking the ball without using a viewfinder.
  - riceo100 5y ago
    In this particular camera and many other mirrorless cameras, the viewfinder is another digital display. My guess would be they’re required for making it easier to focus in direct sunlight. I tend to only use the viewfinder in this situation (on an a7s ii and a1)
    - bradlys 5y ago
      It’s also much more difficult to hold a camera at arms length to view the screen. When you hold up a camera to your eye and use the viewfinder - it’s a third point of contact. You’re also using your face to stabilize it. Trust me - they’d get rid of the damn viewfinder if it wasn’t often requested so much. Using the viewfinder is just a lot easier than the back of the screen in many situations. (Especially outdoors. Think about rain or whatever else going on getting on the screen)
- perardi 5y ago
  That’s just ergonomics. You are shooting with a long lens. Unless you have the camera on a tripod/monopod, it’s much more stable to have the camera braced against your body with the viewfinder up against your eye, versus trying to hold 5 pounds of very long lens at arm’s length. (Nikon 200–500mm lens in this case. Trust me. Way easier to support that chonker when it’s held close to the body when running around to shoot rugby.)

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

> Maybe professionals prefer the familiar ergonomics? Not just pros. The manufacturer actually aims for the "prosumer" market. They do this, by building for the pros, but marketing to the prosumer. It works well. But expect the ergonomics to slowly morph, as the consumer base evolves. Big changes in familiar forms don’t usually work. I suspect that one reason Teslas sell so well, is because they don’t actually look very different from traditional ICE cars. I don’t think that whacky CyberTruck is gonna be very popular.

sgt101 5y ago
Wrt. tesla the interior (especially the dash) is a major sticking point for "petrolheads". Folks like the dials and levers on ICE - the touch screen and ikea style finish is quite dissonant.
- franga2000 5y ago
  I don't care about the finish, but I find the touchscreen to be stupid, unusable and reckless or even dangerous choice, despite being a big fan of EVs. A touch screen is only ever the optimal user interface for general purpose computers and sometimes navigating through virtual 2D/3D space. In every other use case, dedicated controls are superior in every regard.
  - sgt101 5y ago
    It's a valid pov. I acknowledge what you say. On the other hand I find I hardly use any of the controls or readouts in the Tesla, just the speed limit really. The indicators are on the stick, and the wipers and lights are automatic. There's not much reason to go to the touchscreen on the move - apart from the change the audio.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
      There was that article that was linked here, a few weeks ago, by Scott Jenson[0], about his experience with a Tesla Model 3. The gist was that the climate control was so difficult to use, that it was actually a safety hazard. I’ve found that haptic feedback can be quite useful. But really, there’s no substitute for good old-fashioned, user-focused design. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30140984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30140984

axiolite 5y ago

> I can’t think of another analog-to-digital transition that also maintained its outer form so thoroughly. Keyboards. TV cameras. Hi-Fi stereo systems. Movie theatres. Desk telephones. Headsets & Ear buds 2-way radios. Magnetic tape. Automobile engines. (Coaxial) cable & tuners/receivers. Likely quite a lot more examples.