4 ms·

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 rectan

by 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
      What did I say that was not true? Despite what you've said, it's still true that a through the lens view is possible with shallower cameras due to the advent of the digital camera. Actually I don't see how your comment contradicts anything I wrote.
      - astrange 5y ago
        You said most of the rest of the camera can’t change, but lenses are part of the camera and can change.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        I said, "most of the rest of the form is constrained by physics and ergonomics," and that still seems true? At a minimum, if digital camera construction has substantially changed the constraints on lenses, this fact has not led to a significant change in their overall form, to the best of my knowledge. If digital sensors substantially changed the physical possibilities, then perhaps it is ergonomics preventing them from changing.
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.)

by fleddr 5y ago

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
    What did I say that was not true? Despite what you've said, it's still true that a through the lens view is possible with shallower cameras due to the advent of the digital camera. Actually I don't see how your comment contradicts anything I wrote.
    - astrange 5y ago
      You said most of the rest of the camera can’t change, but lenses are part of the camera and can change.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        I said, "most of the rest of the form is constrained by physics and ergonomics," and that still seems true? At a minimum, if digital camera construction has substantially changed the constraints on lenses, this fact has not led to a significant change in their overall form, to the best of my knowledge. If digital sensors substantially changed the physical possibilities, then perhaps it is ergonomics preventing them from changing.

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.)