4 ms·

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. El

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.
        astrange 5y ago
        You can see a comparison at the top here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm Sony sells wide angle "pancake" lenses that beat the ones for SLRs at compactness: https://www.backscatter.com/Sony-E-20mm-f-2.8-Pancake-Lens https://www.backscatter.com/Sony-E-20mm-f-2.8-Pancake-Lens https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12082-USA/Canon_2509A003_Super_Wide_Angle_EF.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12082-USA/Canon_2509A... Though there's some small SLR lenses too, I think they distort more or it takes longer to figure out the optics - not an expert there.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Ken is mistaken about the size comparison, at least between that Leica and the Canon lens. The Canon is a wide zoom. Zooms with autofocus are of course going to be much larger than a manual focus, slow 21mm prime. (That prime is 3x as expensive, two stops slower, and lacking an autofocus motor compared to Sony's similar offering: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1126141-REG/sony_sel075uwc_21mm_ultra_wide_converter_for.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1126141-REG/sony_sel0....) I will also note that pancake lenses have been around since the sixties and I believe that there were pancake lenses compatible with DSLR lens mounts. Suffice it to say I'm not sure I can say I am convinced DSLR optics are disadvantageous vs. mirrorless optics. I wish Ken would cite some sources because on Google his claim is the first and only relevant one document that turns up for a few pages.
kalleboo 5y ago
The YouTube channel "Cathode Ray Dude" has covered some of the attempts by camera makers to take advantage of the new possibilities of digital sensors with new form factors that never caught on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpJBHjl9_VU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpJBHjl9_VU
formerly_proven 5y ago
Sony used to have a more straight-lined design in their cameras and very shallow grips. People didn't like that because the ergonomics are poor. That's why Sony cameras started to look more and more like a Nikon or Canon in each generation. DSLRs are actually fatter than film SLRs because in a film SLR only the film plate and back are behind the focal plane, which are thin (~3-5mm), while DSLRs stack the sensor board, main board, display etc. behind the focal plane, so they got 15+ mm behind the focal plane. Mirrorless cameras with IBIS tend to increase the back-to-focal-plane distance further due to more involved cooling and IBIS.
fleddr 5y ago
As others have mentioned, there's been some minor changes. Back screens have gotten a lot bigger, new viewfinders are digital, and mirrorless cameras are often a bit shallower. But it's true that overall the basics are the same. I guess the big difference between a guitar and a camera is that a guitar is performative. The guitar and its looks itself are part of the output, along with the sound it produces. Nobody looks at a photographer the same way, we tend to care about their output only. Personally, I don't find camera design to be boring, ugly or outdated in any sense. In fact, there's few products I can think of that are this well designed. The current layout and ergonomics are battle-tested across a timeline of about a full century.

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.
      - astrange 5y ago
        You can see a comparison at the top here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm Sony sells wide angle "pancake" lenses that beat the ones for SLRs at compactness: https://www.backscatter.com/Sony-E-20mm-f-2.8-Pancake-Lens https://www.backscatter.com/Sony-E-20mm-f-2.8-Pancake-Lens https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12082-USA/Canon_2509A003_Super_Wide_Angle_EF.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12082-USA/Canon_2509A... Though there's some small SLR lenses too, I think they distort more or it takes longer to figure out the optics - not an expert there.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Ken is mistaken about the size comparison, at least between that Leica and the Canon lens. The Canon is a wide zoom. Zooms with autofocus are of course going to be much larger than a manual focus, slow 21mm prime. (That prime is 3x as expensive, two stops slower, and lacking an autofocus motor compared to Sony's similar offering: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1126141-REG/sony_sel075uwc_21mm_ultra_wide_converter_for.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1126141-REG/sony_sel0....) I will also note that pancake lenses have been around since the sixties and I believe that there were pancake lenses compatible with DSLR lens mounts. Suffice it to say I'm not sure I can say I am convinced DSLR optics are disadvantageous vs. mirrorless optics. I wish Ken would cite some sources because on Google his claim is the first and only relevant one document that turns up for a few pages.

kalleboo 5y ago

The YouTube channel "Cathode Ray Dude" has covered some of the attempts by camera makers to take advantage of the new possibilities of digital sensors with new form factors that never caught on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpJBHjl9_VU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpJBHjl9_VU

formerly_proven 5y ago

Sony used to have a more straight-lined design in their cameras and very shallow grips. People didn't like that because the ergonomics are poor. That's why Sony cameras started to look more and more like a Nikon or Canon in each generation. DSLRs are actually fatter than film SLRs because in a film SLR only the film plate and back are behind the focal plane, which are thin (~3-5mm), while DSLRs stack the sensor board, main board, display etc. behind the focal plane, so they got 15+ mm behind the focal plane. Mirrorless cameras with IBIS tend to increase the back-to-focal-plane distance further due to more involved cooling and IBIS.

fleddr 5y ago

As others have mentioned, there's been some minor changes. Back screens have gotten a lot bigger, new viewfinders are digital, and mirrorless cameras are often a bit shallower. But it's true that overall the basics are the same. I guess the big difference between a guitar and a camera is that a guitar is performative. The guitar and its looks itself are part of the output, along with the sound it produces. Nobody looks at a photographer the same way, we tend to care about their output only. Personally, I don't find camera design to be boring, ugly or outdated in any sense. In fact, there's few products I can think of that are this well designed. The current layout and ergonomics are battle-tested across a timeline of about a full century.