Did DSLRs have to look like film SLRs?

[keith selmes]

<p>The SLR cameras were pretty well designed for practical use, and the new DSLR was a straight replacement, so you could move to the new technology with minimal fuss. The sensor probably would be smaller than the film frame, so a slight mental adjustment was needed in using lenses, and you had to work out where the memory card went in.<br>

After that it was good to go. At any rate, I found shifting from an Eos 5 to an Eos D60 was just a few minutes of checking menu settings, and thankful for it.<br>

I wouldn't see any point in changing this on a full size DSLR.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I do wonder why Panasonic had to shape the GH1 so much like a mini DSLR. It's very awkward at that size. They were starting completely fresh with new technology, and I think they chose the shape to make it look like a DSLR for marketing, instead of designing the best shape for the job.<br>

I bought one, it's very capable, but I'm still grumbling about the package it's built in.<br>

Nice to CSC firms experimenting both with new bodies and retro designs, and not just aping a standard.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Guess no one's paid much attention to Sony's DSLRs, even the cheapies, with EVFs. As Chris said, DSLRs remind me of very early cars where the engine sat more less where the horse once stood. EVFs on models like Sony's NEX7 and the Fuji X-Pro 1 and XE-7 are curtain-raisers on post-SLR designs to come.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Sony DSLRs still pretty much look like any other SLR.<br>As was mentioned a number of times already in this thread, there is not much else you can do. There is no big difference between earlier SLRs and DSLRs, just a different 'sensor'. And the 'need' for a large screen on the back on DSLRs, c.q. no way to provide such a (pre)view on earlier SLRs.<br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benz-velo.jpg">Oh, and very early cars had nothing where before the horse(s) used to be. They looked like the then usual carriages, without the horse.</a> ;-)

[dcstep]

<p>Q.G. said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no big difference between earlier SLRs and DSLRs, just a different 'sensor'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The removal of the film canaster and the take-up reel is pretty huge. That free up a lot of space to be moved around freely. If DSLRs were designed with a clean slate approach, I think that they'd look substantially different than most do these days. Go further and get rid of the "reflex" part of DSLR by using an EVF, then the possibilities get much more variable.</p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"Guess no one's paid much attention to Sony's DSLRs, even the cheapies, with EVFs."</strong><br /> <br /> They look like slr's.<br /> <br /> <strong>"In the early days, probably yes, but now? No."</strong><br /> <br /> Then how?<br /> <br /> Internal combustion engines have pistons and valves and camshafts because of physics and engineering. The SLR evolved over years into what we know it as today. DSLR's look the way they do because of engineering, not because of aesthetics or marketing.</p>

[keith selmes]

<p>It feels to me there was a big jump in handling from the manual SLR to the AF and motorised electronic SLR. Getting a Canon Eos for the first time was like having plastic computer game that you could, incidentally, put a lens on and take pictures. The digital read out in the viewfinder was culture shock. Physically, the shape had changed to house the battery and motor, and provided the style of grip on the right that is now common. It also had the pop up flash on top. <br>

Internally, the DSLR is a lot different, with a lot of electronics crammed in there, but apart from being a bit thicker, it didn't feel much different to the film camera. If I'd gone straight from a slabsided heavy metal Praktica to an Eos DSLR, that would have been a bigger design change in handling and ergonomics and everything.</p>

[brian_m.1]

<p>Digressing slightly, there is the matter of size. DSLRs are getting smaller no doubt but would the public hire a wedding photographer who shows up with something that looks like a pocket camera but does everything the big boy do? I believe a lot of mirrorless cameras are already approaching that level. Something tells me he won't be taken seriously or command the kind of fees he expects.</p>

[mike dixon]

When wedding photographer Jeff Ascough was still shooting film, he used Leica M rangefinders (smaller than many large-sensor mirrorless cameras), but he still garnered respect and high fees. That's probably because (contrary to what's often proposed on web forums) the overwhelming majority of clients hire a photographer based on the quality of his or her work and customer service, not based on camera used.

[dcstep]

<p>Eric said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Internal combustion engines have pistons and valves and camshafts because of physics and engineering. The SLR evolved over years into what we know it as today. DSLR's look the way they do because of engineering, not because of aesthetics or marketing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, the Wankel engine is an internal combustion engine that doesn't have pistons, valves (in the sense of those on a reciprocating piston engine) or camshafts. The Wankel is shaped totally different from a reciprocating combustion engine.</p>

<p>There's no engineering reason for a DSLR to be shaped like an SLR. The current shape is "traditional" and done for marketing reasons.</p>

 

[EricM]

Two stroke's and a diesel's are different, too . Cars, planes, bicycles are all similar in engineering for a reason. But let's hear your example

instead of just a "no".

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"The current shape is "traditional" and done for marketing reasons."</i><br><br>The shape is mostly a matter of ergonomics, has evolved to create something we can hold and handle well. DSLRs are used the same way 'traditional' SLRs are. So they are made the same.<br>True that no longer needing space to house a film cannister gives some freedom. You could, for instance, chop the side where the cannister was off, but that would mean the display on the back has to shift towards where your hand and thumb-operated buttons already are. And since the cannister has been replaced by other things that need a space too, the shape of the DSLR remains largely as it was.

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>to make their DSLRs visually indistinguishable from their film cameras</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What does that mean? I dont see much resemblance between a Canon 1D and a Canon GIII. On the other hand, I dont see any reason that we need to make a Nikon d1x looks different from a Nikon F5. Even the name is chosen to be similar DSLR (vs SLR) when in fact the DSLR could be called by a toally different name like MILC (Mirrored Interchangable Lens Camera).</p>

<p>I guess the reason the DSLR were built and called that way because at the time, even digital cameras had many advantages over film cameras but film SLR still had many great things that the digital could not compare. Therefore manufacturers needed the DSLR which were not much different from the film SLR</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I remember when Olympus tried to deviate a little too far from the norm and almost got burned...</p>

[dcstep]

<p ><a name="00bXUe"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=788985">Eric ~</a> <img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /> said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Two stroke's and a diesel's are different, too . Cars, planes, bicycles are all similar in engineering for a reason. But let's hear your example instead of just a "no".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Two strokes and diesels may or may not have a different form factor from most of the ICs that we see in cars.<br>

Eric, I gave the example of the Wankel engine that has a totally different form factor from the typical internal combunstion engine that you reference. Another IC engine that has a totally different form factor is the rotary engines used in many airplanes. The usage determined the form that the engineering solved for, not the other way around.</p>

 

[EricM]

<p>David, instead of nit-picking, off-topic, I'm interested in hearing your other options of getting light through the lens and redirected, twice, to a view finder so that our dlsr's don't have to look like a slr.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p><strong>"Guess no one's paid much attention to Sony's DSLRs, even the cheapies, with EVFs."</strong><br /> <br /> "They look like slr's."</p>

<p>Actually looked at them, Eric? Their bottom-of the-line DSLR sports an EVF and looks very un-DSLR-like, much the same way Nikon and other makers tart up p&s models to look DSLR-like with fake prism bumps.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>What are you talking about Eric? I haven't nit-picked or taken us off topic anywhere. You're the one that strayed OT with your comment about IC engines.</p>

<p>My first post said we could get rid of the places where the film canaster and take up spool used to go. You seem willing to get rid of the R ("reflex") part of the formula, so it you're willing to use an EVF, it wouldn't be a DSLR, but it could be any shape desired, so long as you accept a cylindical shaped lens.</p>

<p>BTW, if we use an EVF, why do we need a stupid preview screen on the back of the camera. Can't all the information on the back of the camera go into the VF? I think someone said that we need to consider the shape partly because of the room needed for the preview screen. I think that a really good EVF could incorporate all the elements now found on the back of our cameras.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Their bottom-of the-line DSLR sports an EVF and looks very un-DSLR-like"</i><br><br>Which model/type is that, C?

[EricM]

<p>Please be more specific on which Sony dslr model you feel deviates from the look of an slr. I imaged searched <a href="https://www.google.ca/search?q=sony+dslr&hl=en&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=TSFnUbCEHon2iQLa4oGoCA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1536&bih=890">google</a> and then went shopping at <a href="http://www.vistek.ca/results/DigitalSLRs/cameras-camdslr-bodies-slr/Sony/Digital-SLR-Cameras.aspx">vistek </a> but they all quack and still look like slr ducks to me.</p>

<p> </p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"You're the one that strayed OT with your comment about IC engines."</strong><br>

<br>

It was a juxtaposition, an example. I could have refined it by saying four-stroke motors have rested on valves, cams and pistons and saved us a lot of typing. But instead you argued and countered with your rotary motor all the while not concluding your rebuttal with an example of a dslr that doesn't look like an slr.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Well Eric, let's simply agree to a misunderstanding. I led off early in the thread by saying that we didn't need a space for a canister and a take-up spool for film, so the space could be eliminated and/or moved to another location. Maybe you didn't see that.</p>

[EricM]

<p>Sounds good to me, David. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I remember when Olympus tried to deviate a little too far from the norm and almost got burned..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ditto, Harry. When I was considering my first dSLR I compared the then-current Nikons, Canons and the Olympus E-1. The Olympus had the best ergonomics of the bunch, despite seeming to lack an entire left side. In retrospect, they got it right. But the unconventional shape seemed to turn off a lot of people.</p>

<p>I got a Nikon mostly because it was compatible with my existing manual focus Nikkors. And soon realized the left side of the camera was mostly superfluous. The only thing my left hand did was to support the camera/lens, operate the zoom ring and, on manual focus cameras, the focus ring. The more conventional left side design actually got in the way with vertical holds, where there was a noticeable gap caused by the left side protruding beyond the left margin of the lens.</p>