A Little Nikon History Courtesy of B&H

Going through junk and clearing things out (still in my Swedish 'death cleaning' mode) I through out a corroded old EL body, and a power winder drive missing the bottom plate. I must have been hanging on to both for over 20 years.

 

If it makes you feel better, I've just thrown out a selection of 90's/early 2000s computer gear, with similar surprise about what I still had. There goes my 14.4K modem, an LCD panel designed to be put on an overhead projector, and a 800x480 digital photo frame... (Plus for some reason a large batch of web cams, one of which was firewire.)

 

I've still got the elderly camera kit, although it's possible I should ditch some of the ancient compacts. The plastic grip on my 300D has definitely got age-related stickiness (it comes to us all in the end).

For some reason, I was captivated by the colored stop numbers on the lens barrel!

 

Even before I was a Nikon guy, I always loved that about Nikkor lenses.

I don't think I've ever understood the concept of a "pretty camera" - although if I did, I'm not sure I'd claim the latest BlackMagic PCC (which has a bit of the F70 about it) would be it. I assume some people think otherwise based on the choice to offer the D3200 in red. I probably lean towards minimalist (while still exposing functionality clearly) where possible, one reason I don't like the Df's knobbly bits.

 

I concede that colour coding apertures ought to have some usability benefit, although not necessarily a legibility benefit. But it's been a while since I used my F5, and that's the only camera I own with an aperture direct readout, so I don't normally look at the aperture ring.

Pretty food tastes better, and, in some weird, architectural way, I suspect there's pleasure in handling a camera or any tool who's design addresses both aesthetic as well as functional criteria. We humans develop strange, even anthropomorphic relationships with our possessions. An insulated box with a roof will serve as shelter, yet we mostly live in homes which incorporate non-functional but pleasingly aesthetic features. I'm confident this very human trait extends to other items as well. This is why industrial design continues as a growth industry. Why do you think Jobs obsessed so much over the design of the i-phone?

Why do you think Jobs obsessed so much over the design of the i-phone?

 

Jobs(with Johnny Ive at his side) obsessed over every little detail, and sometimes unfortunately to the detriment of his products. In particular, his dislike of fans caused issues in both the first Macs and in the Cube. I have a couple of first-generation Macs(M0001-model) that came to me with a Kensington "System Saver"-a combined power strip and fan that "snaps" into the top handle and forces air through the vents in the case. I've fitted all my Cubes with base fans.

 

Still, the inside of something like a PowerMac G5 or a Mac Pro is a work of art. The G4 case is a wonderfully functional design, although not as "pretty" inside as the G5 and Mac Pro.

There is something about simple, functional, refined quality that impresses people who use tools.

.

.

?

?

Hadn't / haven't read the whole thread - just checked in passing between Ranch chores and entered the following on page 1 before I noticed p 2 and was on the way to the next task. 'According to the Nikon / Nikkormat Handbook by Joseph D. Cooper, published by EPOI the EL came out 1972'. Still have my ELW, an excellent camera also and it still works as well!

Believe me, I realise the importance of industrial design - I've been allowed to work on the complex software that makes my employer's products usable with relative impunity (other than my contract), but had to sign extra paperwork before I could see the bit of plastic that constituted the case design. Not that the outside of products aren't important, but it's a little frustrating given how much blood sweat and tears goes into the coding which seems to get ignored where leaks are concerned.

 

I'm a fan of design that's apparently simple but actually cleverly optimised (to the extent that I keep a running list of things I see that could do with fixing). I recommend The Design of Everyday Things as a good read: it points out niceties such as a toilet cubicle with a fold-down shelf that blocks the door so you can't leave items behind, and that the cradle for the handset on old phones (but often not newer ones) was designed so that if it fell on the floor, it couldn't accidentally hang up. I've got to say I likethe MagSafe connector (which I'm hoping to guess disappeared because Apple weren't inclined to license the patent for USB C, though that may just be cynicism) and the irregular fan on the MacBook Pro.

 

This is why I obsess about the control placement on cameras and why the mish-mash of interfaces on the Df riled me so much.

 

So... Exterior design of cameras, absolutely important. But looking nice? I don't really see it. The only times I've bought camera kit for its appearance, it was for items that deliberately looked cheap and not worth stealing.

 

For some reason, cars, on the other hand, can look appealing. But nobody's really making aerodynamic cameras, and in not aware of the curve of a woman's waistline (occasionally quoted as a car inspiration) ever making it into the moulds used for dSLRs.

I've got to say I likethe MagSafe connector

 

The original implementation with the T-shaped connector was great, but the "redesigned and improved" L shaped connector was, IMO, a poor idea from the beginning. It doesn't pull out that easily when you really need for it to, and either blocks ports or hangs off the back of the computer.

 

Fortunately, with the 2012 redesign Apple reverted to the T shape. Also, those of us still using computers(even very late ones) with the original style MagSafe can use the older T-type connector. Since I tend to just scatter them around rather than carrying chargers with me, I avoid a lot of wear and tear.

 

As far as car shape goes-I'm an MG nut, own a running and perfectly driveable MGB(aside from the fact that I think the head gasket went yesterday-I'll fix that next week once I do enough diagnostic work to confirm it and assuming I don't find something more serious when I pull the head) and have an MGA under restoration. The MGB is pretty much a straight-slabbed 60s design, but the MGA is a 1950s "curvy" design. I'd never really thought about the shape in profile before, but your observation is fitting in the context of that car.

"....but your observation is fitting in the context of that car."

Wax on, wax off.....;)

To be clear, I'm not generally observant enough to detect a woman's curves in a car - it's just reported that car designers use that as motivation (though some cars of the 1950s and 60s do look a bit anatomical). I assume it's subconscious, if it has an effect at all. As with a camera, I'm not usually in a position to see a car I'm driving, so I don't know that it's ever affected my purchasing decisions though.

 

I have noted cars that resemble male anatomy, although I sometimes just attribute that to the drivers. I suppose that also applies to some lenses - I've had people make quite a few lewd comments when zooming a 150-500 Sigma, especially with the hood reversed...

Edited June 1, 2018 by Andrew Garrard

To be clear, I'm not generally observant enough to detect a woman's curves in a car - it's just reported that car designers use that as motivation (though some cars of the 1950s and 60s do look a bit anatomical). I assume it's subconscious, if it has an effect at all. As with a camera, I'm not usually in a position to see a car I'm driving, so I don't know that it's ever affected my purchasing decisions though.

 

I have noted cars that resemble male anatomy, although I sometimes just attribute that to the drivers. I suppose that also applies to some lenses - I've had people make quite a few lewd comments when zooming a 150-500 Sigma, especially with the hood reversed...

 

They even follow current anatomical trends - hence the current fad for cars with Huge Ars*s!

 

I guess it will 'soon' get to the point where you can go order a new D950 (or whatever....) and the ergonomics will be tailored to the buyer. I'm thinking how easy it would be to 3D print outer body shells, so things like grip depth etc will fit. You've only got to look around your own family to see how hand size varies! One grip does NOT fit all!

 

Button reach is another issue. Left handed cam anyone??

 

Obviously there's only so-much leeway because of the underlying chassis but.....useful changes shouldn't be so hard.

 

...and yes Stuart they do.....:eek:

 

I've also noticed that the bigger Chelsea Tractors get, the smaller they are on the inside, kinda inverse Tardis. It's something to do with safety design.

For a while now, Glocks have basically been the king of handguns on the market in terms of sales volume and popularity. The issue with them is that a lot of folks, including me, find them extremely uncomfortable between the grip shape and the angle.

 

When Smith and Wesson decided to seriously enter the plastic handgun market, they actually included 3 different grip profiles to attach to the backstrap. They can be tailored somewhat to a person's preference with that.

 

I don't particularly care for plastic guns and don't own any, but I find that the S&W M&Ps handle and point most naturally for me of all the popular ones on the market.

One of the primary decision factors in the US Army's choice of the Sig Sauer P320 as its new handgun was its capacity to be optimized for different missions and users by substituting grips/frames/sights/etc. I'm wondering when this built-in customizing will trickle down into other hand-held technologies, like cameras? Rapid prototyping, 3D printing, and other technologies would seem to make this a possibility, even if an expensive one. To a certain degree we already do it with buildings, in that there are established modules for common features and much of design consists of selecting how those modules will fit together. We don't re-invent the elevator shaft, the restroom stall, or the coffee bar for every project, but we do fit them together in ways that best serve our clients' needs. It seems likely we'll get to the point where we do this with many consumer items.

Well, we've definitely got camera systems, at least outside the realms of the point and shoot. Arguably lenses, flash guns etc. count as "customisation". There are mirrorless systems (Olympus, I think?) with different grip options - and of course there are optional vertical grips for many dSLRs. Whether we get to the stage of the grip actually being customised with dentist's putty, I'm less sure.

The 'F' in Nikon F is for 'flex, as in reflex. So stated Nikon, via the photo magazines of the 1960's and 1970's.