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

[Roger Hicks]

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.

Good Lord: I never realized I was that far from normal. As Semilog points out, the opposable thumb is very useful, and I don't think I've ever had a camera slip out of a sweaty hand.

Cheers,

R.

 

[georadu]

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)

Agree, the retail price will not be lower because the extra cost reduction will have to go in chassis and body research.
You can't just make it smaller as you have to optimize the electronic boards, ensure cooling of the battery, sensor, electronics in a smaller body, put weather sealing in a more crowded place, pay more for assembly.
So yes, in the end you pay the same, the difference is that you have a smaller body and an extra choice. You can have a modern DSLR packed full of features or a small DSLR that can do one thing but is smaller and lighter and looks good (the looks... if they can get it right).

Think of it like the comparison of a home made desktop computer and a Mac Mini.
There are those who prefer the home made computer because they put 2 cards in SLI and water cooling and neon lights and buy expensive processors to overclock them. They use this machine for general usage but as an added feature they can play games at high res. It is expensive and big.
Also, there are those that do not want to play games. They build the home desktop PC with lower specs component. They can do general stuff like browsing, watching movies, write a document, but they can't play games. This machine is big but cheap.
And then there is the mac mini. It has the same lower spec components (mostly laptop components) but it is small and costs a lot more than the previous computer. What you pay for is miniaturization.
I don't take into account brand price because we pay it more or less regardless of who makes the device. For nikon you pay nikon brand, for canon the canon brand, for leica you pay leica, for apple you pay for the apple logo, for the home made pc you pay the brand for each component.

 

[thegman]

Much as I dislike the appearance of modern DSLRs, and much prefer the look of older SLRs or range finders, I'm happy to admit that I found my D7000 far easier to hold with one hand than just about any other camera.

But it's a mistake to equate that to 'modern design is better'. It's just one of a million design decisions that may be better or may be worse.

Personally I don't really buy into the idea that moulding a tool to the shape of a hand is necessarily 'ergonomic' in the way manufacturers wish us to think it is.

Take for example, at a gym, if you want to lift weights, the weights are attached to a simple bar, and that works pretty well. On the other hand, some designers may wish to mould hand grips to fit precisely with our hands. But our hands have evolved over thousands of generations to work well with tools, and none of those tools were designed to actually *fit* our hand.

What I'm trying to say is that it's easy to over-think ergonomic design and end up with something too rigid in how it's meant to interact with our hands, when in fact, the amazing dexterity in our wrists, fingers etc. will adapt to just about any tool extremely quickly and easily.

 

[georadu]

Much as I dislike the appearance of modern DSLRs, and much prefer the look of older SLRs or range finders, I'm happy to admit that I found my D7000 far easier to hold with one hand than just about any other camera.

But it's a mistake to equate that to 'modern design is better'. It's just one of a million design decisions that may be better or may be worse.

Personally I don't really buy into the idea that moulding a tool to the shape of a hand is necessarily 'ergonomic' in the way manufacturers wish us to think it is.

Take for example, at a gym, if you want to lift weights, the weights are attached to a simple bar, and that works pretty well. On the other hand, some designers may wish to mould hand grips to fit precisely with our hands. But our hands have evolved over thousands of generations to work well with tools, and none of those tools were designed to actually *fit* our hand.

What I'm trying to say is that it's easy to over-think ergonomic design and end up with something too rigid in how it's meant to interact with our hands, when in fact, the amazing dexterity in our wrists, fingers etc. will adapt to just about any tool extremely quickly and easily.

For this they can make an extra grip for the camera as someone mentioned before. Nikon did it for film SLR that were flat, Leica does it, Fuji does it, Voigtlander I think they still manufacture the extra grip, and it can go on.
It's not really the same thing as a built in one but it can be over 90% usable if well designed.

 

[tbhv55]

... because the marketing dept now rules the design dept ... and anyone working in sales is useless to man and beast

This would be funny, if it weren't so true...!😉😀

 

[thegman]

For this they can make an extra grip for the camera as someone mentioned before. Nikon did it for film SLR that were flat, Leica does it, Fuji does it, Voigtlander I think they still manufacture the extra grip, and it can go on.
It's not really the same thing as a built in one but it can be over 90% usable if well designed.

Yes, this is what I mean really, a grip is a grip, and does not need to be molded to a hand to work properly.

 

[Murchu]

Re: grip, I think so much has to do with the covering used. The vinyl leatherette of my M6 tended to get slippery, whereas the vulcanite on my M3 allowed a very firm grip regardless of warm weather/ sweaty hands. I suppose much of this probably has to do with absorbency, or lack of, in the case of the former.

Re: shape, I think where the classic slr/ rangefinder excels is in ease of carry, with the tubby slr excelling in being used carried in hand. The former suits me perfectly, as slung across the chest and resting under my arm to be drawn to the eye when needed, nothing is more preferable to me. Whereas with the tubby slr, your only real options in my opinion, are to carry it in hand with a wrist strap, or have some sort of sling/ black-rapid strap, both of which are vastly inferior to me for my style of photography which is as much looking/ walking/ seeing as it is shooting.

In all, I would argue if you shoot a big heavy kit, I can't imagine it is always withdrawn/ ready to shoot all the time. If it was, I can see many photographers requiring the attention of a good physio/ chiropractor/ orthopaedic surgeon at some point in life, so for me, the lost photo opportunities alone make the case for the value of a smaller kit, and in this case smaller classic-style digital slr. I'll leave others make the case for manual controls, in my case, its just my preference, as I'm sure it would be for many, if the option were offered.

 

[jsrockit]

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

Really? Any proof of this?

 

[jsrockit]

You misspelled MX 😛

I'll take one of those too!

 

[jsrockit]

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.

Uhmm, you better go back and read again... :bang:

 

[teleparallel]

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.

So many problems in there. Remove external connections and such is unlikely to reduce price. Have you seem the Raspberry Pi "motherboard"? It has it all, it is the size of a credit card, costs $25-35, and has almost everything you need for a full computer, leaving out just internal hard drive, external screen, mouse and keyboard. What make something cheap is not entirely it's components, but also how many you will produce, the assembly line, and how many you would sell it. It's very likely the the most expensive parts of a dslr are shutter mechanisms, pentaprisms, maybe back screens, external shells, camera processors... because they are special for cameras and nothing else.
Use different a processor for instance would not reduce the manufacture price, because you would need a new assembly line just to make this new processor. Canon, that i'm shure, for each have the same processor in all it's the models, including point and shoot. The current is the Digic 6 i think.
Nor reduce software would reduce the price too much, since you also would need to redesign it. Video is there because it's a simple step to add it, since cmos technology became good enough. Even Leica has it, now.

A super manual camera in the current market would not sell enough to make it cheap enough. A Full-Frame entry level is expensive as hell, and it is mass produced.

 

[furcafe]

I think you're on the money w/the distinction between carrying & shooting. IMHO, "modern" (i.e., post 1980s) cameras have become optimized for (right-handed) photographers who have the camera to their face most of the time, hence all the information that is presented in the VF of any current dSLR. In the "classic" (pre-1980s) era, especially w/RFs, VFs were mostly just focusing & framing devices, but this started to change w/the advent of SLRs & TTL metering. Unlike RFs, SLRs encourage a kind of "tunnel vision", so it makes ergonomic sense to present as much information in the VF as possible. A faint echo of this distinction is when Leica changed the size of the shutter speed dial in the M5 & then both the direction & size of the shutter speed dial w/the M6TTL to accomodate users who wanted to use TTL metering like on an SLR (from a couple decades earlier), i.e., while looking through the VF. I think this user paradigm shift was originally driven by professional users, especially photojournalists & sports photographers, who need to "keep their eye on the ball" when shooting, & that subsequently influenced cameras intended for serious amateurs.

Re: shape, I think where the classic slr/ rangefinder excels is in ease of carry, with the tubby slr excelling in being used carried in hand. The former suits me perfectly, as slung across the chest and resting under my arm to be drawn to the eye when needed, nothing is more preferable to me. Whereas with the tubby slr, your only real options in my opinion, are to carry it in hand with a wrist strap, or have some sort of sling/ black-rapid strap, both of which are vastly inferior to me for my style of photography which is as much looking/ walking/ seeing as it is shooting.

 

[jsrockit]

IMHO, "modern" (i.e., post 1980s) cameras have become optimized for (right-handed) photographers who have the camera to their face most of the time, hence all the information that is presented in the VF of any current dSLR. In the "classic" (pre-1980s) era, especially w/RFs, VFs were mostly just focusing & framing devices, but this started to change w/the advent of SLRs & TTL metering. Unlike RFs, SLRs encourage a kind of "tunnel vision", so it makes ergonomic sense to present as much information in the VF as possible.

Interesting. Maybe the reason I prefer rangefinders and mirrorless cameras shaped like rangefinders (with classic controls) is because I never bring my camera to my face until I'm ready to make a photo.

 

[furcafe]

Yes, it's definitely true for me, but I've been shooting mostly RFs & old-school SLRs from the time I started photography.

It's partially a chicken & egg situation. When RFs were dominant, i.e., no TTL metering, etc. existed, there wasn't much information that could be put in a VF even if someone wanted it, & even fancy framelines like on a Leica M were only good for approximate framing, so it didn't really make any sense to keep your M3, say, up to your face all the time. Those of us who like using these cameras naturally tend to use them like they were used in the 1930s-70s, i.e., ony bringing them up when actually shooting. That also happens to be the way they were designed to be used.

Once good, reliable SLRs like the Nikon F came along, things start to change, because now you could frame accurately, TTL or quasi-TTL metering is available, etc. There's more stuff to look at, so a user interface feedback loop develops & what was once the exception, having the camera up to your face, becomes the rule. Fast forward to today & many people don't even realize that lenses once had aperture rings on them.

As I wrote before, you can see little echoes of this shift in Leica's design decisions when they implemented TTL metering in the M5, M6, M6TTL, et al. This is why the change in shutter speed dial direction w/the M6TTL never bothered me, because when I use an M4 or whatever, I almost always have already set my shutter speed before I bring the camera up to my face. In contrast, when I use an M6TTL, I will change shutter speed, when necessary, when I'm looking through the VF. Hence, I never really noticed the difference in shutter speed direction until I read about the complaints from old-school users (this is also why I would never get an MP).

Interesting. Maybe the reason I prefer rangefinders and mirrorless cameras shaped like rangefinders (with classic controls) is because I never bring my camera to my face until I'm ready to make a photo.

 

[Frida]

It's coming; just a matter of time. And it can be done without removing a lot of the things we like like AF and rear LCDs. Just look at cameras like the RX1 and x100s; there's an interest in small, stylish, and capable cameras; we just need to wait.

 

[jarski]

methinks retro looking and feeling dSLR will appear sooner rather than later because traditional makers are facing changing customer behavior and markets. what used to be irrelevant niche may not be so for a long.

 

[georadu]

So many problems in there. Remove external connections and such is unlikely to reduce price. Have you seem the Raspberry Pi "motherboard"? It has it all, it is the size of a credit card, costs $25-35, and has almost everything you need for a full computer, leaving out just internal hard drive, external screen, mouse and keyboard. What make something cheap is not entirely it's components, but also how many you will produce, the assembly line, and how many you would sell it. It's very likely the the most expensive parts of a dslr are shutter mechanisms, pentaprisms, maybe back screens, external shells, camera processors... because they are special for cameras and nothing else.
Use different a processor for instance would not reduce the manufacture price, because you would need a new assembly line just to make this new processor. Canon, that i'm shure, for each have the same processor in all it's the models, including point and shoot. The current is the Digic 6 i think.
Nor reduce software would reduce the price too much, since you also would need to redesign it. Video is there because it's a simple step to add it, since cmos technology became good enough. Even Leica has it, now.

A super manual camera in the current market would not sell enough to make it make it cheap enough. A Full-Frame entry level is expensive as hell, and it is mass produced.

I agree about the expensive parts of the camera but all other not specific parts add up.
Removing external connectors (including both physical connector and supporting chip/s) helps on the price. I don't think PI uses the top components (nor do I think nikon/canon/leica does, but let's say they do 😀 ). The components that come with a long production life (you have to have a source of components for the next 5+ years), that are reliable for a long time are more expensive. I know how the guys acquire components where I work and it is not fun searching for them and have them available for a long time. The PI, you buy it, it breaks you buy another or fix it yourself, also next year they design and produce a new one. An expensive camera in warranty, you buy it, it breaks and they pay for what it breaks.... this gets expensive. So good components even for USB support are more expensive than in the PI, and add to total price. Plus there is a calculated risk of failure that you surely pay when you buy an equipment. So you not only pay for the chip supporting USB you also pay extra x% (very small) for the calculated risks. These add up in the end.
Also removing parts is not only for lowering the price but for getting the camera smaller. Classic SLRs were much smaller.
Software does not need a total redesign, nobody that have a working product does a total redesign except for extreme cases were they screwed up badly. You start from what you already have and try to remove, let's say, the parts I have mentioned earlier. This requires work and will cost for the first camera, for the next it becomes cheaper. Only one point on how it becomes cheaper is testing. To test extra features you have to pay guys/gals to do test planing, test management, then pay guys to write those tests, then pay guys to run the tests on different levels on different teams. Less features to test less persons needed... so software can reduce overall cost.
As for processor, think of it this way. Canon uses the same processors for all camera. But on the factory line after frequency/stability and other types of test some processors run stable full power/freq some don't. Canon instead of throwing away slower digics they use them in cameras that do not require a lot of processing power. So instead of a top expeed 3 or digic 6 that is needed in 1Dx or 4D, this camera will not need a top expeed3/digic6 that goes to the bin and this saves money. Canon are smart and seem to get this part very well, other not so sure.
As for video, besides the cmos sensor you need codecs, extra DSPs and so on. You also have to pay royalties for things like H246, Mpeg 4, HDMI. Video can be done easily, this is true, but it is not very cheap.
As for Leica... the price of the Leica M more than covers the price of video.
And as I said in a previous post, this cost will not reflect in the end user price. This cost saving goes into making the camera smaller. So you lose features that you might not need but gain a smaller body that you want.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I just put a guess here. I think that passing from a menu with buttons to dials like it happens when one changes from a compact digital to, say, a Fuji X-something it is more comfortable for a certain type of users but I am not sure that passing from controls like in a modern DSLR to those of a classical SLR, say a Nikon F, is really an great improvement. If you want the F-stops controlled with your left hand on the lens you can just put a lens with classical F-stop ring on most modern DSLR, then there is shutter speed, which in a classical camera was controlled via a dial on the top of the camera which you rotate either with your pointing finger, with your thumb or with both fingers, which is just what you do now using either the front or the back dial of the modern DSLR only more comfortably. One could think to replicate the OM controls, with both F-stop and shutter speed control on the lens barrel (I know that Om shutter speed ring was on the camera but you access it as if it was on the lens), but I think this would really only please us, the OM users...

GLF

 

[gavinlg]

It is definitely bound to happen soon. I really dislike the blob camera style too - one of the big reasons I like (and use) the fuji X-pro1. Flat body, compact, no unsightly or unnessecary curves, sits flat against my body when on a shoulder strap unlike my 5d III which, with its rotund shape, tends to rolls around on the strap and is generally just less pleasant to hold and use.

The fuji X cameras have been popular beyond any doubt - for such a traditional layout they have outsold every expectation any of the manufacturers had set for them. The om-d is another one - extremely popular and its literally all due to its form.

Nikon have the facilities to do something like this - pentax too. Pentax even has the limited screw drive lenses still in production which would suit something like this perfectly. Canon is more focussed on video and pro DSLRs, which for the most part still make up the great portion of the pro market.

 

[shadowfox]

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

Rogier

Sorry mate, it pains me to say that while I absolutely love the old Olympus when geniuses like Y. Maitani ruled, I have slowly grow to hate the current Olympus who seems to be stuck in a rut of non-innovation.