Now the 35mm (ish) SLR is dead (*) - why does its form-factor persist?

[panatomic]

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.

Imagine the RB/RZ67 if it was mirrorless instead. Or if a rotating back is too much complexity, let’s go with a square sensor that let’s you switch between aspect ratios and orientations.

 

[rulnacco]

Imagine the RB/RZ67 if it was mirrorless instead. Or if a rotating back is too much complexity, let’s go with a square sensor that let’s you switch between aspect ratios and orientations.

Yeah, I'm absolutely down with that--but we're talking medium format now. A rotating back on a 35mm format mirrorless camera would be...unnecessary, I think. I mean, with that format, you're basically *saying* you're going to shoot rapidly and handheld. Just rotating the camera, assuming it's got a good grip/vertical release is a lot quicker (and probably far less costly to manufacture) than farting around with a rotating back.

For medium format, it would be *brilliant* to actually have a full-size sensor, or a square sensor of good size, say at least 4.5 x 4.5 cm. How fantastic *would* it be to have a mirrorless camera with a proper 6x7 cm sensor and a rotating back??? And at a semi-reasonable price?

Maybe we'll get it one day, too--probably when pigs are not only flying, they're doing loop-de-loops while singing an opera aria, sigh.

 

[JohnGellings]

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.

Exactly...when digital cameras first came out you saw many form factors. However, once they became serious devices, they used a serious camera shape. Partly based on legacy products that would be used with those cameras (lenses), but also because it just works well. Changing things that work well isn't always a great idea.

 

[retinax]

An argument I've read is that long and heavy lenses handle easier with an on-axis viewfinder. I don't know if there is anything to it, I use relatively light and small lenses. I'd much prefer a viewfinder in the corner. Of course we do, this is rff.

 

[santino]

An argument I've read is that long and heavy lenses handle easier with an on-axis viewfinder. I don't know if there is anything to it, I use relatively light and small lenses. I'd much prefer a viewfinder in the corner. Of course we do, this is rff.

There was even a SLR with a viewfinder in the corner, I think it was Olympus and a sister model by Leica (both 4/3). The cameras looked nice and handled well.

 

[Evergreen States]

An argument I've read is that long and heavy lenses handle easier with an on-axis viewfinder. I don't know if there is anything to it, I use relatively light and small lenses. I'd much prefer a viewfinder in the corner. Of course we do, this is rff.

This is my experience with adapting SLR lenses to a DSLR vs adapting them to Fuji X-Pro cameras with corner finders. On-axis VF offers superior handling with long, heavy lenses.

And my preference is also for lighter, smaller lenses with a corner finder.

 

[Evergreen States]

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.

Say what you will about the aesthetics and trends that become tiresome, but Colani's plastic blob design was adopted by the industry and has persisted so for long because a large grip that conforms to the human hand offers a superior ergonomic experience for a 135 SLR over having to crimp your hand over a flat front panel with your pinky finger hanging off the bottom. If a mirrorless camera comes out with a similar year zero design as the T90, it ought to give the same attention to how the camera will be held and shot. The machine should conform to the operator rather than the inverse.

 

[CMur12]

The large grip on SLRs came about to accommodate a large battery pack, once they had to power auto-focus and auto-film-advance. Previous to that, smaller grips had been added, probably because they didn't want to add size and weight to the then-compact SLRs. The larger grips with battery packs were indeed a great improvement to ergonomics, but they also signaled the death of the lightweight, compact SLR.

- Murray

 

[Evergreen States]

The large grip on SLRs came about to accommodate a large battery pack, once they had to power auto-focus and auto-film-advance. Previous to that, smaller grips had been added, probably because they didn't want to add size and weight to the then-compact SLRs. The larger grips with battery packs were indeed a great improvement to ergonomics, but they also signaled the death of the lightweight, compact SLR.

- Murray

I can't believe I overlooked this vital part of the story, but yes, this is completely true. Though I'd argue that the lightweight, compact SLR survived. I used to have a Rebel 2000 and it was famously compact.