Why hasn't someone made a DSLR with classic shape and controls?

[Phil_F_NM]

This same conjecture comes up every so often with the same viewpoints and desires brought up. We all wish for a full frame digital Nikon F2 or F3 or FM/2/3a or SP/S3/S2. Or Canon F1n (hell, even the ability to use FD/FL lenses on DSLRs today), or Pentax LX, MX, or Olypmus OM1/2/3/4. Some folks out there may even want a Minolta digital. 🙂

Yes, cameras are more rounded ergonomic blobs but those blobs stick to the hand much better than a Nikon F2 with a classis fast lens on it. The ergonomics are so good that it isn't as painful to shoot for 10 hours with one of the modern film SLRs or any of the DSLRs as it is to do the same with an older angular "classic" build SLR. If the manufacturers of those old chunky bricks had the ability to create the ergonomic profiles of the T90/F4 and successive SLRs they would have done so decades prior.

Over the last month I've been shooting a Nikon D3 using only manual focus Ai and AiS lenses. I added a DK17-m, provided by Dave Lackey. Have a 28mm and 50mm graciously provided by Calzone and Sanmich, respectively. I shopped around and found a few other very top-end Nikkors for almost nothing as well. Yesterday, I stuck a Canon EC-B focusing screen into the D3. With the focusing screen and the user profile I have created for my manual lenses, I now am shooting the very best manual DSLR I think I could dream of.

Hands down, nothing comes close to the programmability of modern DSLRs and some of the best ones allow the user to create a personal profile that allows one to shoot exactly the way they want. So now I feel like my D3 is a digital version of my old F4s with a J screen and a better light meter.

While I would love a full frame Nikon SP, I think those days are gone and in spite of my love for that system as well as the Leica M, I'm realy thankful for the technological wonder of cameras such as the D3 and the customization that engineers built in to it. So I would take the digital SP out for a "Sunday drive" but for working, I prefer a camera that is comfortable in the hand for hours at a time and has all the ability and function of a modern DSLR.

Phil Forrest

 

[Contarama]

Style and fashion. Film SLRs were moving in this direction. Most DSLRs are derivative of film SLR designs. The hard-edged, simple shapes of the 1960s to early 1980s went more and more rounded and ergo as film SLRs moved into the 1990s. The DSLRs that came after just went a bit further. It has all been a continuous evolution. The goal on the part of the manufacturers has been to make the cameras ergonomic and more capable, easier to work.

RF cameras were essentially dead in the water by 1980 (except for Leica M), and saw very little change or development for 20+ years. Then they went through a small revival in the late 1990s. That's why the current RF cameras and mirrorless-faux-RF cameras look like the older 1960s-1970s RFs.

I admit to my own like of older, simpler cameras, and I love my Nikon F. But that's mostly nostalgia. In all honesty and practicality, the E-1 DSLR is a far better design in use than the Nikon F or any other classic SLR was. It's simple, has all solid and useful features, and has little cruft and glitz in the way of convenience automation features that complicate understanding it.

G

Plastic was the enabler!

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Plastic was the enabler!

Those first ergonomically contoured cameras were metal chassis covered with plastic, like the Nikon F4.
If plastic is the culprit, shouldn't we be pointing the finger at Kodak and Argus for the bakelite cameras? 🙂

Phil Forrest

 

[Godfrey]

Those first ergonomically contoured cameras were metal chassis covered with plastic, like the Nikon F4.
If plastic is the culprit, shouldn't we be pointing the finger at Kodak and Argus for the bakelite cameras? 🙂

Never had an F4, but I recall it having a magnesium skin and steel chassis. I could be wrong, but I know that is the case for my Olympus E-1, E-5 ... most of the middle tier and up SLRs, actually.

Plastics are used on the lower end cameras. First time Nikon used plastics was for the EM, a steel chassis with polycarbonate skin. It was/is very tough and durable, really.

Canon's AE-1, often celebrated as an icon of the classic SLR, was indeed almost entirely made of plastic.

G

 

[Contarama]

That is when the proto big clunky SLR cameras started getting big and clunky when they went to a bunch of plastic stuff. Leica kept making metal bodied traditional type of designs and guess what? They were high dollar. They still use metal for bodies in pro level Nikons but they are big and clunky design. Probably has a lot to do with space required by the components of the camera I imagine. IMHO plastic ruined a lot of things in more ways than one. Bakelite was a "proto plastic" to new but it pointed them in that direction...cut the costs increase the profits.

 

[wblynch]

It'e easier to mold plastic into non-descript blobs. And it's easier to stamp metal into hard-edged square boxes.

Cameras used to be made to last decades or centuries. Now they are made to last 18 months.

Metal does not fit into that model.

 

[Keith]

It'e easier to mold plastic into non-descript blobs. And it's easier to stamp metal into hard-edged square boxes.

Cameras used to be made to last decades or centuries. Now they are made to last 18 months.

Metal does not fit into that model.

Not a DSLR but I was amazed to discover when I got my little Sigma DPM that the skin of the camera is metal and it's held in place with philips head screws!

I don't quite get why Nikon haven't done it ... it's obvious the DSLR market is shrinking courtesy of the new mirrorless wonders. A retro design would sell them a lot of cameras IMO.

 

[ruby.monkey]

The classic SLR shape is bloody awful to hold on to and operate one-handed. It's almost like the designers went out of their way to design something that's almost guaranteed to cause cramp and slip out of even a slightly sweaty hand. The blobs took over because they fit a normal human better.

I'm not counting the F4 - that was designed for basketball players and Disney characters.

 

[hudsong]

"Blobs" are the in thing.... just look at modern automobiles...

Oh man, I have never before heard a more accurate and hilarious way to speak about the current design trends. 😀

 

[semilog]

I'd much rather have a FF digital Pentax LX. 😀

You misspelled MX 😛

 

[semilog]

The classic SLR shape is bloody awful to hold on to and operate one-handed. It's almost like the designers went out of their way to design something that's almost guaranteed to cause cramp and slip out of even a slightly sweaty hand.

This is the second thread in as many days where I have been forced to pose the following questions:

The classic body shape is basically the same as a Leica M. Did Winogrand not take enough pictures? Was he limited by hand cramps? Do photographers not have opposable thumbs?

 

[Rogier]

Call me for a Olympus OM-1 with full frame sensor 🙂

Rogier

 

[olakiril]

Try mounting a 70-200 2.8 on a Nikon FE and you will see why you need that grip.

Now, I actually don't use these humongous lenses myself, but I see a need for both the photographers and the companies that need to have a new product every year.

I would love a digital FE, and I wouldn't even mind the lack of an LCD. Raw, aperture, speed, ISO and manual focus. At least that's how I can focus more on the subject.

But how many are we? I would argue enough to have some profit, but only justifiable when other, even larger market niches have been served. Then again, Nikon could make such a camera for much less than what Fuji asks for their top model, and this is where I get puzzled.

Now I should utilize the tools that I already have, because the previous thoughts only obstruct any vision.

M.

This is the second thread in as many days where I have been forced to pose the following questions:

The classic body shape is basically the same as a Leica M. Did Winogrand not take enough pictures? Was he limited by hand cramps? Do photographers not have opposable thumbs?

 

[semilog]

Try mounting a 70-200 2.8 on a Nikon FE and you will see why you need that grip.

For years, I shot sports with an AIS 180/2.8 ED. On an FE2 and an FM2.

Yes, I preferred having a motor with grip attached. Classic SLRs did offer that option, you know.

 

[sparrow6224]

Y'all that been dissin' contemporary DSLR body design don't acknowledge that it's contiguous with where film SLRs were when digital came in. My Nikon F100 and my D700 are hardly distinguishable from five feet and even the controls lay out with very different demands are rather similar. The F5 and the D3 the F6 and the D800, etc. RAngefinders didn't change much from 1970 to 2000. SLRs did.

 

[ChrisN]

Pentax SLRs; 30 years apart. Focus ring in the same place (+ auto focus in the digital if you want it), aperture ring the same (at least for the FA lenses). The shutter speed and exposure compensation controls are much easier to use in the digital, as they can be programmed into the front and rear control wheels, as you wish. In the LX these both require three finger manipulations, and taking the eye away from the viewfinder. Both are weatherproof.

I do wish the K5 had the big bright viewfinder that the LX enjoys!

 

[peterm1]

This sucker does not quite have the looks of a traditional SLR but it certainly has the controls. In particular it has a shutter speed dial and a lens aperture dial "just like a real camera". Its a classic and I love mine. Just like an ol' timey camera you can either leave both dials in the "A" position for full program shooting, or you can manually adjust the aperture dial for aperture priority or manually adjust the shutter speed dial for shutter priority. Or you can adjust both dials for full manual control. Its a really nice camera that when it was new sold for over $3000 with its standard Leica designed zoom lens.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/camera/review/127/page_2.html

http://www.photographyblog.com/news/panasonic_dmc_l1_photos/

 

[georadu]

I recently got a D600 because of the smaller sizes and lighter weight for a full frame sensor DSLR. I know there are full frame DSLRs that are "better" but for my personal use I really don't need them.
I like how it fits in my hand but comparing it to my FM10 it is still very large in size.
What I would like removed is:
- mic in, audio out, hdmi out, wifi/gps connector, usb connector -> this will remove some PCBs and processors/DSPs also some software => smaller, lighter and cheaper
- auto mode, auto mode w/o flash, scenes, U1/U2 (these are somewhat useful) -> this will remove more software and will require less processing power => cheaper
- video mode, I know it's hip and some use it with amazing results but I would like it removed as I want a photo camera -> this will remove some software some processors/codecs/DSPs => cheaper, lighter and smaller
- in camera picture editing that I think only marketing department uses -> removes more software, removes some of the hardware that does this => cheaper, lighter, smaller.
This is all I can think right now.
If they make a DSLR that only takes pictures without other software bells and whistles that will require even more hardware, it will fit in a classic shaped SLR.
I don't want to say they should remove the current line of DSLRs but also make something for those interested in photo. They can sell both of them and they will not take over each other's market.

But as always marketing department "rullz" and they usually suck, not only for customers but also for the engineers that makes the product. And what is sometimes even worse is that program managers that used to be engineers, forgot how they felt and how stupid some requirements, that were coming from upstairs, sounded.
And this is why we dont have a photographic only tool that fits in a smaller SLR body.

 

[Highway 61]

I would love a digital FE, and I wouldn't even mind the lack of an LCD. Raw, aperture, speed, ISO and manual focus. At least that's how I can focus more on the subject.

But how many are we? I would argue enough to have some profit, but only justifiable when other, even larger market niches have been served. Then again, Nikon could make such a camera for much less than what Fuji asks for their top model, and this is where I get puzzled.

This is exactly what I have been writing and saying for years.

Since this didn't come out, I bought a D700 eventually, and bought it second hand at the lowest price I could find, because I never (and never will) use the idiotic rattling built-in flash, the continuous shooting mode, the multizone AF, the bracketing, and many other gadget things I for sure don't need to take photographs. For me it's RAW with manual focus Ai-S Nikkor primes, weight centered metering (I tried matrix a little bit but the results were similar if not lesser), A or M modes, and that's all.

So I'm forced to carry a heavy bulky blobby camera around just for using it at, say, 10% of what it offers, marketing wise.

Yet the results are beautiful, and I was lucky enough to get that camera in mint condition with less than 2500 actuations, this is what counts at the end of the day.

Of course the large black and yellow strap screaming "D700" is still in the camera box and has been immediatly replaced with an AN-1 leather strap... but this didn't reduce the size and weight of the thing...

 

[rluka]

smaller, lighter and cheaper

I'm doubting that the price would be much different than if the features are there though, especially at this stage of DSLR development.

There will likely be disparity between the price cut from reducing feature and the price consumers would accept to pay for a camera without the bell and whistles (less is more doesn't work in doing price haggling)