About camera Aesthetics

[lubitel]

Here's a blog I found about Cameras and aesthetics.
what do you think?

http://pindelski.blogspot.com/

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

But he missed out the Olympus OM series!

 

[Poptart]

Very bloggy.

 

[jaapv]

I rather like the looks of the ZI.

 

[Kyle]

I rather like the looks of the ZI.

As do I. I think its very classy, and I find myself staring at photos of it more than Leicas lately.

 

[vincentbenoit]

I happen to share the opinion that the silver Zeiss Ikon is an inexcusably ugly camera. Now this doesn't make it a bad tool...

 

[jlw]

Very bloggy.

Exactly. Blogspew is blogspew regardless of the nominal subject, but any serious consideration of aesthetics has to go beyond "here's what I like" and offer some sort of systematic rationale.

 

[vsolanoy]

I personally don't see anything wrong with the aesthetics of the Ikon... to each their own I guess.

 

[wlewisiii]

What jlw said.

William

 

[airds]

>>> Headed, of corse, by the chrome Leica M2. The most perfect blend of form and function ever designed.

Function?? A bottom loader !??? No way Jose.

 

[Jocko]

I don't think you can go far wrong if form follows function. I'd argue that something which does the job well succeeds aesthetically. But that doesn't mean it fits in with fashion or predetermined ideas of elegance. It is simply something that is good in itself - something that works.

 

[Arr Eff]

I stopped reading at "the raw sensuality of the advance lever"...
PL

 

[kvanderlaag]

This guy sounds like he's really getting off on these cameras he's talking about, aesthetically. It also sounds like he's an English major trying too hard to impress with flowery description of cameras that actually aren't all that impressive to look at.

The M2? Nice, but a bottom-loader nonetheless.
The Contax II? I guess, but the addition of the lightmeter didn't make it any uglier, AND made it more practical to use. It was kind of...a brick, as he accused the ZI of.
The Rollei? Obviously, but a TLR is still a TLR.
The Canon SLRs he praises aren't actually that pretty. I have a TX that's pretty similar, and while I'm fond of it, it's because it's easy to use, not because it's particularly pretty.
The Pen-F, while a camera I covet, is something of an asymmetrical, lopsided monstrosity.
The Super Technika is not something you aspire to own because it's pretty, that's for sure. Definitely not.
While I do find the Pentax ME and the Spotmatic absolutely gorgeous, it's NOT because of their "Zeiss-like angles," which I'm failing to find in their designs. It's the slim band of chrome and the slightly rounded curves on the ME that get me, and the austere beauty of the Spotmatic.

I'm also a fan of the Nikon F cameras he seems to detest so much -- the angular pointy-prism and straightforward design are simplistic, and functional.

Let's not forget that the ZI looks an awful lot like some Leica M cameras. The form isn't that far off, and the function is the same, so what is there to complain about, really?

Again, truly reminds me of someone who makes up for poor communicative skills and an outright lack of fashionable sense and aesthetic knowledge with awfully large, descriptive words.

 

[ywenz]

I played around with the Zeiss IKon for the first time at a camera shop over the weekend. No doubt it was ugly, it was also extremely light. Felt like it was made out of plastic.

Absolutely no comparison to the Leica in terms of build quality.

 

[Trius]

I agree with Jon and jaapv. But I haven't handled the ZI, and a huge part of aesthetics for me is handling, feel, etc. And as for omitting the OM? He lost me right there, especially considering that the Pentax ME looks like a design ripped off Maitani.

Earl

 

[yossarian]

Notice that in addition to skipping the OMs there's no mention of the RTS/RTS II--
that shoots his credibility right there. In addition, most of his choices are relatively
modern. How can you have such a list and not include at least one Tropical camera?
Teak and brass--it doesn't get any more beautiful.

 

[Kyle]

I played around with the Zeiss IKon for the first time at a camera shop over the weekend. No doubt it was ugly, it was also extremely light. Felt like it was made out of plastic.

Absolutely no comparison to the Leica in terms of build quality.

Heavy doesn't necessarily equal higher quality. The ZI is made of high quality, lightweight materials.

 

[zpuskas]

It isn't particularly appealing. Certainly no Leica or Contax G2, but it ain't a Zorki either. Hey, if we all agreed on what's good design we'd all be ....well, boring.

 

[jlw]

I don't think you can go far wrong if form follows function. I'd argue that something which does the job well succeeds aesthetically.

I guess I'd take the counter-position that if something does the job well enough, its aesthetics become irrelevant... except to aestheticians, of course.

For example, "doo-doo" is extremely successful at removing solid waste from the body efficiently in a compact and resource-conserving form. But to say it succeeds aesthetically as well would be really stretching the limits of any aesthetic system... unless you're going for the Turner Prize, of course...

 

[dostacos]

owning a gaggle of ME supers, spotmatics and pre-meter Pentaxs I would have to say he missed the boat, the all black are all better looking than the chrome ones.

as for SLRs hmmm, any all black Nikon Fs would be my choice for looks.