rulnacco
Well-known
I personally would really not be keen on that design at all.
Admittedly, I haven't used it. But it looks like it would be a nightmare to use in bright sun, rotating the camera for a portrait-orientation image would negate much of the advantage of the tilting screen, and having a viewfinder (either eye-level or waist level, as on a film Hasselblad), for the way I shoot allows me to sort of "shut out" the rest of the world and concentrate on what's outlined in the viewfinder. (It's my own preference, certainly, but I also hate using a screen--phone or camera back--to compose and focus, and don't get on at all with EVFs which, along with the expense of migrating to a new system, is why I haven't gone mirrorless.) And I'd be leery of using that, for a lot of what I shoot--where I and the things I am shooting are moving--without some sort of secure grip.
It would be interesting to see what possibilities of new design might be brought in, given the changes in camera technology. At the same time, it might turn out that keeping the design somewhat similar to traditional cameras *is* the best overall, functionally and ergonomically. You have to balance the needs of placing the lenses (which have grown larger and heavier over time) in a place where they balance best physically, the controls are well placed and sufficient without being overly complex or in places they're triggered/changed by accident, there has to be a place to put a screen where it can be protected when not in use but can be pivoted in useful ways (with the underlying structure for that to happen), the camera grip and shutter release are ergonomical, battery and card slot are protected but accessible, there is a viewfinder of some sort for the many photographers who prefer to use that method for shooting (which is still quite useful for many, many things) and is preferably located where it's comfortable for both right and left eyed shooters, and it all fits together in a package that is as reasonably compact as possible, while still being sturdy and ergonomic, etc.
Changing simply for the sake of change, without giving careful consideration to the usefulness (in a variety of environments and situations) and aesthetics of the camera, isn't really the best approach--think of how many truly horrible designs for consumer cameras were generated, particularly from the mid 80s to the early 2000s, where unlike pro cameras ergonomics and rapid usability in challenging circumstances was not the chief driver for camera design.
Again, I've not used this camera, but if I were to go mirrorless (and really, I'd definitely *like* to if I could afford it and could find one with an EVF that is as basic, configurable, and unobjectionable as possible) I'm really intrigued by something like the Leica SL2. Which seems at least to have been carefully designed with usability, capabilities, durability, minimalism (without being *too* minimal), and aesthetics in mind. I'm not sure there's a perfect camera--certainly not for everyone, and the SL2 surely has flaws I'm not aware of due to lack of familiarity--but it seems to me that design is getting close to what might be the optimal construction for cameras in general going forward. *All* camera designs will, because of the many factors that have to be weighed and balanced, be the result of compromises, there's no getting around it unfortunately.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Ok, for those thinking of designing a Tortoise or Armadillo Shell Camera... ...sorry to disappoint, but it's been done 
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Ok, for those thinking of designing a Tortoise or Armadillo Shell Camera... ...sorry to disappoint, but it's been done
I have seen photos of a 3D stereo camera made with a human skull with lenses in both sockets.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I’ve had the 907x since new (Oct 2020) and completely love it. True it’s not for everyone and does take a bit of getting used to (BTW the screen is fine in bright light, verticals are no big deal, and for horizontals you hold it like a 500C/M), but I’m glad I made the switch. Plus the fact that I can use it on my old Hasselblads is a bonus.
And honestly - at least in my case - I’ve been using cameras of one kind or another for over 45 years, so a bit of a change-up like this is fine and welcome.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
The Rolleiflex is my favourite camera because I like the WL. The 907x would be perfect for my needs and the digital back will work with my SWC. I don’t like the sell stuff on forums else I can raise funds for one.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I wonder if you can do the math for me. Which native AF lens for the 907x if cropped to a square would be equivalent to a 80mm on a 500C/M?
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Hmm maybe the 45, since then you’d be a 33x33 frame size. I‘ve never shot it like that so that’s just a guess.
But then again the 65 is a 50mm equivalent, so maybe the 65. You got me stumped
If I were to get only two lenses, it would be the 45P and the 65. They also have those new lenses (38 and 55) that are supposed to have better AF, not that it’s particularly mattered much to me.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Ok, for those thinking of designing a Tortoise or Armadillo Shell Camera... ...sorry to disappoint, but it's been done
Poor armadillo and tortoise never did anyone any harm. What an unpleasant fate.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Hmm maybe the 45, since then you’d be a 33x33 frame size. I‘ve never shot it like that so that’s just a guess.
But then again the 65 is a 50mm equivalent, so maybe the 65. You got me stumped
If I were to get only two lenses, it would be the 45P and the 65. They also have those new lenses (38 and 55) that are supposed to have better AF, not that it’s particularly mattered m
Thanks. I should just stick with what I already have and buy more 120 film.
Many (most?) of us graduated from 35mm SLRs to DSLRs (as opposed to the younger generations that started with smartphones but I don't want to open up that Pandora's box.)
Even though technically speaking a mirrorless camera doesn't have to mimic the form factor of the SLR, the ergonomics and operation are familiar to millions. Pick up a Nikon F4 or F5 and compare it to the original D1, and later D models, and now to the Z models, and the progression is natural and fluid. Muscle memory doesn't have to be re-trained, or at least it requires minimal retraining. And the SLR form factor was perfected/improved/refined over many decades.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Maybe some "retro" is needed because our culture does not always keep pace with our technology? Early Tesla automobiles had faux radiator grilles, and even "stick shifts", and it's taken some time for grille-less designs to become comfortable and familiar.
Am guessing that the original Olympus EM5 was successful enough to establish the "mini SLR" look as the defacto standard for mirrorless cameras. But more recently, Sony seems to have had success with the rangefinder(ish) A7C-series of FF cameras, so perhaps the situation is still evolving.
Am guessing that the original Olympus EM5 was successful enough to establish the "mini SLR" look as the defacto standard for mirrorless cameras. But more recently, Sony seems to have had success with the rangefinder(ish) A7C-series of FF cameras, so perhaps the situation is still evolving.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Well they do have a disclaimer on "ANIMAL PARTS". Hopefully, the animals lived a full life and we not sacrificed for this endeavor.
hap
Well-known
this is beautiful.I guess this is one of the few mirrorless cameras that doesn't fall into that 35mm SLR camera shape, though of course is does mimic a film-based predecessor (and allows you to use part of it on a film-based camera body):
Hasselblad 907x-2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
I think its striking design was one of the things that drew me to it. Not surprising, one of the big complaints about this camera was that it didn't offer an EVF, so maybe that adherence to a viewfinder-based camera is ingrained in some of us.
hap
Well-known
and some phony whirring so you don't step in their way.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Probably only works with very slow film.
panatomic
Member
It’s too bad we’re stuck with SLR-style mirrorless cameras. They could so easily design a camera with a “rotating back” that makes vertical battery grips unnecessary. The Hasselblad 907X is the form factor I’m thinking of. Cube-shaped with a rotating back, an EVF, and a side grip.
Bingley
Veteran
I agree w/ the OP’s observation. For me, the SLR form factor is a total turnoff in a mirrorless camera. It serves no mechanical purpose. I much prefer digicams that either follow an RF form factor or do something else.
rulnacco
Well-known
Ummmm, the 907X does not have a rotating back. In fact, that's one of the gripes I've had with Hasselblad digital backs in general all along--I mean, even if I could afford one. *None* of their backs can be rotated, even on cameras like the V series, which is definitely awkward to flop over onto its side for a portrait oriented photo with a digital back. (If you look previous in this thread, you'll see a user of the 907X responded to me that *it* at least is fairly easy to flip on its side for verticals--but you still have to flip it.)
My ancient Sinarback 54M can be rotated on a Hasselblad, and so can PhaseOne backs (at least those I'm aware of). But even with those, you actually have to take the back off the camera and rotate it before reattaching it--you can't just do like an RB/RZ67. (For the RZ67, Sinar--and I'd believe PhaseOne, too--made a rotating adapter that did allow you to rotate the back without removing it.) And of course having to do that potentially exposes the sensor to dust.
I'm all for rethinking and revolutionizing the design of mirrorless cameras--if it makes sense, and makes them easier and more ergonomic to use. But part of the reason DSLRs and the current batch of mirrorless cameras look the way they do is simply because of evolution. *Most* camera makers (I'd hope *all*, although the results don't always demonstrate it) have actually taken input from users onboard and refined their designs to something that generally works pretty well ergonomically. So whatever they do in terms of new design has to work *better* than the current form factor of most cameras, otherwise why bother?
And I'm not entirely sure that a rotating back, at least for a 35mm equivalent mirrorless camera, is going to be a superior solution. I can't see any way that wouldn't add bulk and/or complexity to the camera, to insert the rotating mechanism and the extra electronic infrastructure, and it might even require the sensor to be placed further back from the lens flange in order to accommodate the rotating mechanism--thus lenses would possibly require extensive redesign, and potentially the number of lenses that can be adapted to fit on the camera would be reduced. As more compact size and the ability to adapt practically any lens, in most cases, are advantages of current mirrorless bodies, I don't see us going away from that for now.
Still, I would love to see what creative minds come up with, if they can indeed rethink camera design in a way that makes things interesting and actually better than what we have today.
santino
FSU gear head
I think that people are so used to the look of SLRs that they expect a pro camera to look like an SLR. It’s time to change that!
bjorke
Designated Driver
A good handheld camera is hand-shaped (this is why phone cameras fail for so many people).
Operations should be obvious, linking abilities and affordances.
Ask Dieter Rams if you don't believe me.
That is why common design approaches persist. If there were strong advantages to other form factors (e.g., phone is not just a camera), forms would change.
Operations should be obvious, linking abilities and affordances.
Ask Dieter Rams if you don't believe me.
That is why common design approaches persist. If there were strong advantages to other form factors (e.g., phone is not just a camera), forms would change.