This is the way how K-01 should look...

[renatoa]

<p>In all cases except pancake lenses the camera size is not decided by body, but by the lens<br>

Any issues related to legacy mount and mirror cage depth are no more relevant in this design...<br>

<a href="http://www.yankodesign.com/2012/02/16/traditional-camera-shapes-are-wrong/">http://www.yankodesign.com/2012/02/16/traditional-camera-shapes-are-wrong/</a><br>

Just imagine this body ending by a K-mount in front... and dream...</p>

 

[mggm59]

<p>Some good ideas, but I don't think the ergonomics are right for comfort and shake reduction. For casual users, maybe, but I don't see myself holding a 300-400mm or more lens at an airshow for hours on end that way (the weight cannot disappear, if it has a large sensor and a long reach, and such a large frontal lens it WILL weight at least a couple pounds.</p>

<p>And try making a vertical shot... and look at your wrist position. And when you carry the camera, nothing helping you keep it without effort.</p>

<p>A typical example of designers thinking they know better than users and companies that worked in the field for decades ( I remember designers pretending they could design better aircraft... a joke).</p>

<p>Durability-wise I see also some obvious problems that just designing on a CAD system will not highlight. The swiveling flash and rear piece will need a ribbon cable with lots of lines to bend 90° or even 180°, in some cases conducting large quantities of electricity (a flash discharge is quite strong, and the condenser for it would probably not fit in such a thin piece, apart for the fact that a parabolic reflector wouldn't too, so the flash design is completely unrealistic, unless it uses not-yet-existing LEDs with such power that it can be kept that thin). Having had several Psions with a similar arrangement I can assure I would never buy anything like that. They ALL had problems with the flat cable after a couple of years (I am suspicious of articulated screens for the same reason, although I din't hear horror stories about this, maybe because in the end most of the times the screen is left flat).</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Thanks for sharing. Canon once made a camera like this, the Epoca. see:<br>

<a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1986-1990/1990_ab-jet.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1986-1990">http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1986-1990/1990_ab-jet.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1986-1990</a><br>

I don't recall it being a great success, although I have seen them in use once or twice.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

At least the Canon was designed with human hands in mind. The overly-fat-telescope design looks like an absolute sod to hold steady - perhaps it needs a shoulder pad and extended viewfinder a la RPG-7?

[gib]

<p>I often wonder when design will separate from film tradition completely. This design is intriguing.</p>

 

[peter_e]

<p>"I often wonder when design will separate from film tradition completely."<br>

Early digital cameras had exactly done that. Remember the Nikon Coolpix 900. Since then, we have seen designs more and more reverting to the film camera body. This is an example of Darwinian selection--clearly the film camera body is preferred by photographers for cameras with a finder. The other direction cameras have gone is the smartphone: flat with a big screen and no finder, a shape that fits in a pocket.</p>

[patrickwells]

<p>I can see my hand blocking light on one side. Half a vignette? Or moving buttons unintended.</p>

 

[shots worth sharing]

<blockquote>

<p>clearly the film camera body is preferred by photographers for cameras with a finder.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This may just be the QWERTY phenomenon--the tendency to stick with the familiar despite theoretical drawbacks.</p>

<p>My concern is very practical--set a cylinder down on a raised flat surface and it will probably roll off. </p>

[mfophotos]

<p>That camera looks like it was designed by someone that's never photographed anything. </p>

[mggm59]

<p>More than the QWERTY effect I would say it's the Boeing effect: all planes look alike because it is the most efficient shape with the current technology. Our hands are made that way, and are not likely to change any time soon, I feel ergonomics show that the current shape works best.</p>

<p>With the film there was a need for a larger left side, the proof that it is not that effect that keeps a similar shape with digital is that the left bulge is disappearing now, to leave just enough space for a three finger grip for short lenses (K5 docet).</p>

[sattler123]

<p>I agree with Mark. I don't think the inventor is a photographer at all. While I agree that the look and feel of today's DSLRs is very much derived from the film days, this new design will not catch on with photographers. Where do you put filters? That's just one of the many issues with this design.</p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>My issue with this idea that cameras are shaped like they are because of film cameras is forgetting cameras like the Ricoh Mirai and the Yashica Samurai. If they could look so different then all cameras could. Perhaps they look too different and people like traditional SLR shaped cameras. So it's not film's fault, it's people's fault.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Yes, a DSLR of today looks pretty much like a film SLR body. No, a film SLR body did not get to look the way it does because it holds a roll of film. It's because of the ergonomics of the human hand, eye and body being used to securely hold and manipulate the instrument and its controls in an efficient manner for aiming, viewing, and making specific adjustments needed for photography. The prism technology for SLR VF design remains essentially the same, as does the housing for it fitting into the scheme addressing the above considerations.</p>

<p>I think I know the actual origin of this new camera design idea. The designer was knocking back some beer right out of the can, and each chug was feeling really right and good to him. As he gulped he thought- "Wow- how pleasurable. This feels like a good position to hold whatever- even a camera, if it's shaped like this....!!" </p>

[renatoa]

<p>Michael, this was funny :) Me too I noticed the tin can resemblance.<br>

Well, there are ergonomics and ergonomics... For me I can tel that for 20 years I don't like to keep a SLR in hand when taking a picture. Always I feel more comfortable with a video camera lateral grip and an eye viewfinder at 45 degrees up. Not the point and shot lateral LCD style of modern cameras.<br>

Also I like the vertical TLRS way of handling, and I dream to an Exakta style camera with top LCD. The tiltable LCD of today some cameras is not exactly the same feeling.</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>Based on sales models, the log design has not been a 'hot' item. It looks like a cool tool, but consumer users prefer smaller, lighter weight, and cheap. My Hasselblad defies the tube, tho, and I love it - but I am a contrarian. </p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>So... where does the Pocket Wizard plug in again? Maybe I missed one of the most important features I need on a camera... ;-)</p>

[pj_vesterback]

<p>Looks to me like they gave as much consideration to ergonomics on the D-Can as he did on the K-01. I'm guessing neither camera was designed by a someone who actually uses a camera.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I could write a 20 minute long post on why that's a horrible design for a camera and why that designer's thinking is horribly flawed, but suffice it to say that this is a design study and would not be whatsoever conducive to ergonomic shooting.</p>

[tom_price1]

<p>That thing looks stupid and a telephoto on it would transform it into a long tube.</p>