Best-looking DSLR

[James]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Xns964489B42AAF8sizernospamcom@216.40.28.85>,
Sizer <sizer@nospam.com> wrote:

>My personal semi-irrational prejudice is that a silver body digicam is a
>toy. It's not completely irrational because all the pros I know use black
>body DSLRs

There are relatively few situations where a black camera is allowed and
a silver camera is not allowed, but in those situations, you're stuck if
you don't have a black body. The only two I experienced personally,
were World Championship Tennis (I shot a championship between McEnroe
and Connors), and horse racing.

I'm really enjoying my (silver) Powershot A85. To be honest, I was more
excited about getting it, than I was my 20D, if that makes any sense.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Htnbe.22676$d5.167013@newsb.telia.net>,
Aaron Blacksmith <Aaron@___Nospam.com> wrote:
>3. Nikon FTn with 50/1.2 with motor drive and lens hood

A camera with a finder that was last manufatured in 1974 with a lens that
was first produced in 1978


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Who cares what they look like! You got to much time on your hands...

--
_______
Pat
________
tecserv_1
--------------------------------------------
"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:g69p61lnbo40e8f3ie929to4pdnad038tp@4ax.com...
> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
> of DSLRs. It's prism housing makes it look
> rakish, it has the angles of a stealth fighter
> and it's body texture makes it look
> more expensive than it is. It has a serious look,
> less soft than it's competition. And, if someone thinks
> the look of the camera doesn't matter, read what Tiffin
> wrote about it's "glimmer glass" filters where they tried
> to say the shimmering look of the filter make models "feel
> better."
>
> The Canons, 20D and Rebel XT are a bit too smooth,
> a little too rounded. Kind of like a Japanese sedan.
> They don't have the rugged, more costly look of the Nikons,
> even thought the 20D isn't flimsely constructed.
>
> The big Nikons and Canons are a bit to hulking to be
> called attractive. Same thing with the Fuji S3.
> Anything with a big battery grip is out of the running.
> The Kodaks aren't bad. The new one has a more traditional
> looking prism housing.
>
> The Olympus E-300? It looks like an SLR with a brush cut.
> Compactness does count for something though. The pricier
> E-1 is a nice looking camera. It is well-proportioned and
> it was nice to see Olympus tried to keep something revolutionary
> in style around (a nod to the daring E10 and E20s which at least
> attempted to prevent SLRs from returning or retaining the "flat faced"
> look they've always had).
>
> The Konica-Minolta 7D is an interesting looking DSLR. It's controls
> are large, two big horizontal wheels on either side of a traditional
> looking SLR shape. The texturing on the gripping surfaces also helps.
> The spatter-paint on the housing top also helps, but the overhanging
> top housing is kind of Nikon FMish.
>
> The Sigma SD9 is a plain-looing DSLR, very business-like and it costs
> like it. It's got the same overhanging brow as the Minolta and a very
> cluttered back which must make it "egonomically-challenged" when in
> use.
>
> Pentax's istDS is a kind of looks "hybrid." It's got smooth lines,
> but they terminate at sharp angles, so it's a combination Nikon-Canon
> look, but IMO, the Nikon looks better. It's also got two large
> control knobs on either side of the top, like the Minolta. Overall,
> it looks pretty good.
>
> Sony is the oddball company here. They have at least five cameras
> with more than 7 million pixels and no DSLR!
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> The Konica-Minolta 7D is an interesting looking DSLR. It's controls
> are large, two big horizontal wheels on either side of a traditional
> looking SLR shape. The texturing on the gripping surfaces also helps.
> The spatter-paint on the housing top also helps, but the overhanging
> top housing is kind of Nikon FMish.

That overhang is a main contributor to the high viewfinder brightness of
the 7D.

While I have 'nits' with some parts of the 7D, overall it is a very good
feeling camera in the hands ... and I have pretty big hands.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

All of us have 24 hours/day.
Some of us fill those days using ugly things.
Some of us prefer to fill the days using beautiful things.
Cameras can be quite ugly (like Olympus E-300), other cameras can be nice
(like the Leica M4).
Unfortunately there are no beautiful digital cameras...
Aaron


"ol' coot" <pboch@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lllce.14781$dh.1063@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> Who cares what they look like! You got to much time on your hands...
>
> --
> _______
> Pat
> ________
> tecserv_1
> --------------------------------------------
> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:g69p61lnbo40e8f3ie929to4pdnad038tp@4ax.com...
>> Well, even with the silly red mark, I pick
>> the D70 as the best looking of the current crop
>> of DSLRs. It's prism housing makes it look
>> rakish, it has the angles of a stealth fighter
>> and it's body texture makes it look
>> more expensive than it is. It has a serious look,
>> less soft than it's competition. And, if someone thinks
>> the look of the camera doesn't matter, read what Tiffin
>> wrote about it's "glimmer glass" filters where they tried
>> to say the shimmering look of the filter make models "feel
>> better."
>>
>> The Canons, 20D and Rebel XT are a bit too smooth,
>> a little too rounded. Kind of like a Japanese sedan.
>> They don't have the rugged, more costly look of the Nikons,
>> even thought the 20D isn't flimsely constructed.
>>
>> The big Nikons and Canons are a bit to hulking to be
>> called attractive. Same thing with the Fuji S3.
>> Anything with a big battery grip is out of the running.
>> The Kodaks aren't bad. The new one has a more traditional
>> looking prism housing.
>>
>> The Olympus E-300? It looks like an SLR with a brush cut.
>> Compactness does count for something though. The pricier
>> E-1 is a nice looking camera. It is well-proportioned and
>> it was nice to see Olympus tried to keep something revolutionary
>> in style around (a nod to the daring E10 and E20s which at least
>> attempted to prevent SLRs from returning or retaining the "flat faced"
>> look they've always had).
>>
>> The Konica-Minolta 7D is an interesting looking DSLR. It's controls
>> are large, two big horizontal wheels on either side of a traditional
>> looking SLR shape. The texturing on the gripping surfaces also helps.
>> The spatter-paint on the housing top also helps, but the overhanging
>> top housing is kind of Nikon FMish.
>>
>> The Sigma SD9 is a plain-looing DSLR, very business-like and it costs
>> like it. It's got the same overhanging brow as the Minolta and a very
>> cluttered back which must make it "egonomically-challenged" when in
>> use.
>>
>> Pentax's istDS is a kind of looks "hybrid." It's got smooth lines,
>> but they terminate at sharp angles, so it's a combination Nikon-Canon
>> look, but IMO, the Nikon looks better. It's also got two large
>> control knobs on either side of the top, like the Minolta. Overall,
>> it looks pretty good.
>>
>> Sony is the oddball company here. They have at least five cameras
>> with more than 7 million pixels and no DSLR!
>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:31:24 GMT, "Aaron Blacksmith"
<Aaron@___Nospam.com> wrote:

>All of us have 24 hours/day.
>Some of us fill those days using ugly things.
>Some of us prefer to fill the days using beautiful things.
>Cameras can be quite ugly (like Olympus E-300), other cameras can be nice
>(like the Leica M4).
>Unfortunately there are no beautiful digital cameras...
>Aaron

What I miss I think are the satin chrome on brass finishes of the
better SLRs from the late 1970s and early 1980s. Silver-coloured
plastic just looks cheap as hell, like a kid's toy.
-Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

So what?
All these 3 cameras are excellent examples of successful industrial design,
since they combine unmatched functionality with high estethical values.
Aaron


"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:tbupipvvh38vnrgejgobl61222@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <Htnbe.22676$d5.167013@newsb.telia.net>,
> Aaron Blacksmith <Aaron@___Nospam.com> wrote:
>>3. Nikon FTn with 50/1.2 with motor drive and lens hood
>
> A camera with a finder that was last manufatured in 1974 with a lens that
> was first produced in 1978
>
>
> --
> That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
> could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
> by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
> -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency