It was the royal plural.
No, it was the universal plural, the 'we're all in this together' consumer
market of which we are a part, even if we claim to be somehow above all that.
I am unsure as to whether the modern form of the SLR, standard or EVIL, is the
way it is because it has slowly and organically developed into the best
possible shape for the purpose - or whether it is the result of 100 years of
marketing development. I suspect that it's a bit of both, considering how bad
some designs are in the hand. Certainly the sensor meant that a camera could be
a very different shape if we wanted and there were some amusing experiments,
especially by Sony but we swiftly reverted to camera designs that were typical
of 1990's film cameras.
The main argument against you is that the latest mirrorless cameras still have
something that looks like a prism on top.Utterly unnecessary element. Why? So
that it looks just like a proper camera only small.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Author/Publisher:
The SLR Compendium,The TLR Compendium
http://www.soultheft.com/storehouse_photopublish/
On 18/06/2014, at 5:54 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 6/17/2014 11:48 PM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
>> That's actually a significant point - we still haven't got used to digital
>> and so we want our cameras to look like film cameras and our output to look
>> like film. The things that you can do with digital are bloody amazing and I
>> suspect that we will only slowly fully explore its potential.
>
> Since I've beaten AG up over this kind of use of 'we', I must protest here,
> too, to be fair.
>
> I'm used to digital. I love it.
>
> I want my camera to be easy to hold and use, whether it looks like a film
> camera or not. It seems to me that the MILCs are mostly the shape and layout
> they are as a result of the necessary elements, not an effort to mimic film
> cameras.
>
> Like Chuck, I have no interest in my digital images looking like some film or
> other. In fact, when scanning, I tend to use ICC color profiles to minimize
> the difference between films.
>
> I'm not arguing that I am right and you are wrong, only that all the 'we'
> stuff isn't about my part of 'we'. It's about Andrew, and whoever else is a
> part of 'you'.
>
> Persnickety Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|