OT: DSLR ergonomics

A

andrealed

Established
Local time
9:26 PM
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
158
Why new DSLR that are used keeping the camera far from the face, viewing at the lcd screen, are not built as older TLR? I would add a hood too. I often shoot with a yashicamat and I realized that new digitals are made the way they are made just for "engineering lazyness"; I think a camera without film simply has not to be a grandson of the original Barnack design. There is no need to.
What camera brand would be the groundbraker?
 
Since the most expensive part of a digital camera is the sensor, it doesn't make sense to put one in anything but a very flexible design, like a mount with a huge lineup of lenses for it. A 6x6 or so sized digital sensor would cost more than a lot of cars do, and to put it in a TLR would be pretty pointless.
 
huh?

huh?

My *ist is smaller than an M body, and you keep to your face. (Uses VF, the LCD is not a live display). I always wondered quite the opposite, how do they expect your face to not to rub up against the display?

andrealed said:
Why new DSLR that are used keeping the camera far from the face, viewing at the lcd screen, are not built as older TLR? I would add a hood too. I often shoot with a yashicamat and I realized that new digitals are made the way they are made just for "engineering lazyness"; I think a camera without film simply has not to be a grandson of the original Barnack design. There is no need to.
What camera brand would be the groundbraker?
Click to expand...
 
If it is a DSLR, it has a reflex mirror and except for an Olympus, one must use the optical viewfinder.
 
smileyguy said:
What about the Rolleiflex minidigi camera: minidigi

Sounds like what you're looking for...
Click to expand...
Ok! A rollei minidigi, but the size of a Baby Rollei, would be my favourite digicam. Ok, let's go without the taking lens and you'll get my perfect digital camera. Or, with the taking, lens and the option to switch off the LCD to save energy.
I think this would be THE perfect street shooter!!
 
Hmm, how about one like that, only without an expensive digital sensor, cheap plastic construction, a crappy LCD screen, and poorly designed buttons and menus, and that uses an inexpensive strip of light-sensitive plastic that's rolled up in a tin canister and advances one frame at a time, and is available in hundreds of different types for various image properties? oh wait...
 
andrealed said:
I often shoot with a yashicamat and I realized that new digitals are made the way they are made just for "engineering lazyness"; I think a camera without film simply has not to be a grandson of the original Barnack design.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with the latter, but not with the first part..

It's true, that digital cameras still have to evolve in their form factor, just like cars transformed from looking like horse drawn coaches to hatchbacks..

But I don't particularly think that the TLR form factor is the way to go.. Waist level viewing gives a decidedly different perspective from eye level shooting. Being restricted to WLF only would be a step back in time instead of forward like with folding/tilting/rotating LCDs..
 
Today I was helping my uncle take photos of his paintings. He has a 30D, which is just the same as my old 20D for the most part, and I didn't realize how much I absolutely hate using that thing...its so uncomfortable to hold, and I have to take my glasses off and jam my eye against it to see everything, its just like looking at the world through a toilet paper tube. Thank goodness for range finders...
 
Crop sensor SLR viewfinders are terrible, that's one thing I'm definitely glad to be without. Full frame/film cameras usually have better ones, although the meter reading on mine is too close to the edge and I have to shove my eye against it also, unless I shoot on Av.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom