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

M

mfunnell

Shaken, so blurred
Local time
10:40 PM
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
2,595
(*) except Pentax
Back in the day, as it were, the form-factor of 'serious' cameras seemed a kind of form-follows-function thing. 'Box' cameras, view cameras, folding cameras, press cameras, TLRs, 35mm RFs etc. and - eventually, and particularly, the 35mm SLR - the type of camera that "everyone" (to a 1st approximation) thought of, for many decades, when they thought of "a serious camera".

(Sure MF SLRs showed more variation, but they weren't what "everyone" thought of.)

The RF looked the way it did, mostly, to provide the baseline for the RF mechanism, the 'look' of the TLR was rather determined by the two lenses (and focusing screen). Etc. The 35mm SLR 'look', of course, was mostly that way because of the mirror box, focusing screen etc. Cameras mostly "looked like that" because they mostly had to.

Form following function.

But now in this "new age" of mirrorless cameras? Really? Why do so many of them look 'just like' or 'very like' good old-fashioned 35mm SLRs? I mean: no mirror (duh), no mirror-box, no focusing screen etc. etc. And yet, so many of them look very like the 35mm SLRs of yore. Think: Canon R-series; Nikon Z-series; most Fujifilm X-series (the ones that aren't explicitly trying for "the RF look") etc.

Is this simply a marketing thing? That is, a marketing directive to "Make it look like 'the everyman' idea of 'a serious camera'?"

Or is there still a 'form follows function' thing operating? They do need somewhere in the camera to put all the 'stuff' for eye-level finder EVF screens etcetera, after all.

Or is this just a straight-up lack of imagination?

I really don't know. But I'm kind of inclined to go for the last: the 'styling' of even the most up-to-the-minute cameras seems quite consciously modelled on the cameras of yore, from times now seen as long past. I mean: if we're going to have totally new cameras, based on totally new technology, wouldn't "form-follows-function" lead to something, well, totally new? It has before. Why not now?

Or maybe not. I sure don't know! 🤷‍♂️ 😂
(I guess I'm just trying to distract myself.)

...Mike

P.S. I’ll concede that the cameras most people use - phones - are rather different. But even though I use ‘em, I don’t rate ‘em as “serious cameras”. But maybe I’m wrong to do that 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Last time I got excited about a "difference" in camera design was the first time I saw Luigi Colani's 1986 Canon T90 design that was different from what had been but is now what almost every SLR looks like. Otherwise, meh. A RF looking design is probably as usable as anything for mirrorless cameras.
 
My best guess is because of ergonomics.

A camera is a box of some sort (big or small, thin or thick). Once you add a lens on it, it becomes a question as to how to hold and use it. SLR ergonomics have been evolving since 1950s and has reached perfection in some sense.
 
wlewisiii said:
Last time I got excited about a "difference" in camera design was the first time I saw Luigi Colani's 1986 Canon T90 design that was different from what had been but is now what almost every SLR looks like. Otherwise, meh. A RF looking design is probably as usable as anything for mirrorless cameras.
Click to expand...
The T90 was a big change and, overall, I think a good change - though not to everyone’s taste (of course, nor should it have been).

It is hard to imagine just how the added camera complexities (post-T90; AF systems etc.) would have been managed so well without that example for using electronic settings and controls.

…Mike
 
mfunnell said:
The T90 was a big change and, overall, I think a good change - though not to everyone’s taste (of course, nor should it have been).

It is hard to imagine just how the added camera complexities (post-T90; AF systems etc.) would have been managed so well without that example for using electronic settings and controls.

…Mike
Click to expand...
In a real way , I think that it was good that Canon made that leap before they did their jump to AF and even though I was a Canon shooter in those days, I still tend to think they were right to abandon FD for EF because, unlike Nikon's F mount, there was no real room to grow left in the FD mount. That said, my Nikon F4 from only a couple of years later straddles the two eras perfectly.
 
p.giannakis said:
My best guess is because of ergonomics.

A camera is a box of some sort (big or small, thin or thick). Once you add a lens on it, it becomes a question as to how to hold and use it. SLR ergonomics have been evolving since 1950s and has reached perfection in some sense.
Click to expand...
Yes: but my question is whether that “perfection in some sense” still applies, now the requirement for an optical, through-the-lens, view; a moving reflex mirror; a focusing screen; etc. have all gone away?

I don’t know for sure, but I am asking if this is still required by function or whether more imagination might produce something better, now such constraints have gone away.

I can’t say: my imagination isn’t up to it :(

…Mike
 
I still have my Nikon Coolpix E4500, a very practical swivel-body design. It was a small sensor camera but it could be scaled up.

The SLR style was very ergonomic when using manual lenses (I think Olympus nailed it with the shutter ring behind the lens mount, an arrangement I found most intuitive).

Any radical departure from the current status quo would need Apple-style $$$ marketing to gain market acceptance IMO.
 
Personally, I think the one major benefit of the SLR styling is that it's equally bad for everyone, regardless of which eye they prefer!

As a right-eyed shooter - especially one who wears glasses! - I much prefer the "rangefinder-style" convention of having the viewfinder at the very end of the camera as it allows me to get my eye right into the viewfinder and not smash my nose into the back of the camera in the process. When I first started using Fuji's X cameras, I had an X-Pro 1 and an X-T1; between the optical viewfinder and viewfinder position, I much preferred the X-Pro in use over the X-T1. As a result, when I needed an upgrade, I went for the X-Pro 2 instead of the X-T3 that was available at the time. It just feels right.

I'd argue this is even more important in a world with screens - especially touchscreens! - on the back of cameras. Nothing quite like having your nose leave smears (or accidentally changing a setting) because of a legacy SLR-style design. I was always cleaning the screen on that X-T1, but I've never had that issue with the X-Pros.

However, I concede that there's nothing equivalent for left-eyed shooters; you guys are losing out in all situations, I guess.
 
Yep. I was thinking about it. Because I almost hate SLR for VF in the middle. But. As mentioned above. It is which eye is dominate.
So, placing it in the middle allows sales for any of two eyes. And in case in rare occurrence of the third eye it is bingo.
 
My guess is because there are so many people who have this conceptual reference point for focal lengths and the results they give implanted in their brain. Medium Format (e.g. 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x9) makes for think and I won't even get into the LF options.
 
I think the shape works for the majority of people. They like a big grip and they like the VF in the middle. One reason why the SLR design still works for mirrorless is it allows for larger EVFs. The rangefinder design does not really unless you make a bigger rectangle.

I prefer the rangefinder style myself, but clearly I'm in the minority (except for in this forum).
 

Bill Pierce's thread "Noses" is worth another read :)​

Noses

Most small cameras have a viewfinder eyepiece that is in the center of the camera. That means that if the camera also has an LCD, your nose will leave smudges on the LCD when you use the viewfinder. However, some cameras have an eyepiece on the upper left hand corner of the body, the most well...
rangefinderforum.com rangefinderforum.com
 
It makes you wonder how - in early camera design - if Human Factors was more a subconscious; albeit, intuitive consideration rather than the science it is now; and placement of critical controls which fell with easy reach of the hand was the by-product of that; although, it appears HF was around at the turn of the 1900's:
drillingcontractor.org

A brief history: the evolution of human factors, human performance - Drilling Contractor

Get oil and gas drilling news, videos, ebooks & more with the official magazine for the International Association of Drilling Contractors...
drillingcontractor.org
 
While just a bit off-topic I'll submit that one of my favorite cameras of all times was the completely uniquely designed Sony R1 that looked like nothing before it. Easy to hold with a huge grip, eyelevel viewfinder or articulating top mount LCD that could be used like a Hasselblad if you wanted, a huge Zeiss lens with a great usable focel length range and fast aperture, and a great sensor for it's time. Unfortunately, like the Voigtlander Epson R-D1(another favorite) they just never updated it with better/larger sensor or image stabilization so it is now just a fond memory.
 
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.
 
Reading through this, I am a little surprised that there's not been more digital cameras mimicking the MF SLR form factor. It seems like a no-brainer considering the popularity and widespread use of tilting screens like that 907x.

Or, here's a ridiculous idea if there's a camera manufacturer brave enough to do it: imagine a MF SLR with the screen fixed in place where the ground glass would be, and interchangeable prism finders or WLF w/ magnifiers like the good ol' days...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom