Just want to point out your accessibility icon is blocking the text on mobile.
Edit: and now im getting 403 inaccessible resource.
Edit 2: Works on my computer, still not on mobile. It appears clicking the handicap /accessibility icon on mobile flags the user as a bot or something. Other than scroll, that's the only thing I interacted with on the webpage.
Which Canon or Nikon? There are a number of different mirrorless cameras from the three major manufacturers of full frame cameras, not to mention other camera systems like APS-C or Micro 4/3. There is not a generic brand advantage from one manufacturer to another.
An A1 would not be your first Sony camera even if you decided to buy Sony. It's a professional camera, and it's professional in the sense that it has features needed by professionals. It won't automatically make your pictures any better if you use it vs. something less expensive. If you have mad money, then go for it, but understand that you're more or less just burning cash for next to no reason.
For an amateur (i.e. anyone who is inclined to ask which camera to choose by brand name), all three brands have cameras that are more than sufficient to meet your needs. Among Sony full-frame devices, the current gen choice would be an A7 IV. Or if you're smart, you'd save yourself some money and buy an A7 III instead.
The main question is not "which brand makes the best camera" but, "which brand has the lenses I want." And the proper way to think about lenses for an amateur is to think about their speed, focal length (zoom level), price, and "convenience" -- weight, size, weather sealing.
Right, I understand the concept, and I suppose I should have been clearer. Compared to the same level camera by Nikon or Canon, why did you choose Sony?
I used to shoot with a D2X (dating myself here), and at the time Sony was not a serious contender at this level, at least among anyone I knew or any research I did. Everything was Nikon or Canon. Sony and Fujifilm seem to have some excellent cameras these days and I’m interested in what drew you to Sony versus the equivalent from Nikon or Canon?
Also, have the workflows improved on any of these in the last 15 years or is it still dump raw from the physical card to the computer and edit? Anything that lets you sync to a cloud storage when plugged in after a day of shooting?
There are some cloud sync workflows but the size of the raw files has also grown substantially over the years. Raws on my rx100 are 20+MB and the raws on the 50mpix cameras are correspondingly larger. In general I have found that Sony is not so good on the software side. It remains fastest, at least as of two years ago, to sync with a physical cable or with an SD card drive.
Sony is very much a serious contender now. For a number of years they were the undisputed leader in a few areas, mainly value for money and autofocus performance. Everyone complains about Sony menu ergonomics although I personally don't find it to be much of a hindrance. There seems to be some evidence that canon and Nikon are catching up on some of the performance metrics.
On the other hand, for a long time Sony suffered from a shallower catalog of lenses but that grows less and less true by the day. For example they just released a trio of enthusiast compact prime lenses that according to reports I've read rival the best lenses of this type through history.
On the dpreview article about the camera you can see some spec sheet-level comparisons.
I've previously owned Nikon gear and currently own quite a bit of Canon gear, but it was time to upgrade to mirrorless. I have extensive professional experience with both digital imaging and filmmaking going back decades.
A variety of things made the A1 a better overall fit for my unique mix of needs and interests. At the extreme high-end of current mirrorless cameras (>$5k without lenses) any major brand's latest flagship will very likely far exceed the needs of almost all users.
If you don't already know why you'd choose one brand's flagship over another, you probably shouldn't be considering any flagships. Frankly, these are highly specialized, complex and esoteric tools that are also incredibly expensive.
I recommend starting out with more mainstream models which are already supremely powerful and quite a bit less expensive than top-of-the-line models. Check out recent mainstream model reviews at DPReview.com - a highly credible source of objective comparisons.
Professional digital cameras are a mature and highly competitive market that's changing frequently. No major brand is overall "better" than another. It's more about finding the best fit between your needs, skills, budget and preferences within a certain price and application segment. Any camera/lens combo represents a set of trade-offs between a dozen or more variables including light sensitivity, shutter speed, zoom, depth of field, video capabilities (resolution, frame rate, bit rate, compression, etc), weight, size and flexibility.
I have the Sony A1 and Nikon Z7. Started to get into wildlife photography when the pandemic started and the Z7 autofocus failed me. I would take 30 photos of a bird in flight and 1 would be in focus. So I purchased the A1 which can track a bird's eye in flight perfectly. I'm sure the Z9 is a great camera but its too late and too large for my taste.
I've previously owned Nikon gear and currently own quite a bit of Canon gear, but it was time to upgrade to mirrorless. I have extensive professional experience with both digital imaging and filmmaking going back decades.
A variety of things made the A1 a better overall fit for my unique mix of needs and interests. At the extreme high-end of current mirrorless cameras (>$5k without lenses) any major brand's latest flagship will very likely far exceed the needs of almost all users.
If you don't already know why you'd choose one brand's flagship over another, you probably shouldn't be considering any flagships. Frankly, these are highly specialized, complex and esoteric tools that are also incredibly expensive.
I recommend starting out with more mainstream models which are already supremely powerful and quite a bit less expensive than top-of-the-line models. Check out recent mainstream model reviews at DPReview.com - a highly credible source of objective comparisons.
It's a mature and highly competitive market that changes constantly. No major brand is overall "better" than another. It's more about finding the best fit between your needs, skills, budget and preferences.
Yes, it did. Still using it to this day! But I did not disassemble it all the way. I had to get to the motherboard to fix a broken screen flex cable as well as change the SD card reader, and took the opportunity to explore a bit more.
The general architecture of the device was identical. However, the motherboard of the A1 seems significantly more complex and cluttered. Beyond that, the structural elements are much more intricate in the A1 and are skeletonized, certainly in an effort to save weight. Generally speaking however, it's crazy how the overall designed stayed so similar.
It was a joy to disassemble and put back together. It was clear that it was designed to be serviced.
Cool! For years I had a box with the parts of a Sony walkman that I had disassembled and was going to put together again 'one day'. The box got lost during a move and I was secretly relieved. It went real well until that one screw and then 'sproing' instant Japanese puzzle.
I got better at that sort of thing over the years but this camera looks extremely fragile and sensitive to dust once you get to the guts of it, you'd need a very clean environment to work in.
The way these cameras are designed, dust getting in is sadly inevitable in the field - every time you change a lens, there is no helping it, dust will accumulate. As a result there was a small amount of dust inside already when I opened it despite taking very good care of it and regularly cleaning the sensor.
Indeed, the camera is made in a "sandwich" architecture, where the shutter is layered onto the sensor, which is layered onto the IBIS unit, itself layered onto the motherboard.
Since the sensor has to move substantially to stabilize, and that the shutter is connected to the motherboard without any sealing at all, there is more than enough clearance for dust to get into the motherboard, and it will inevitably happen.
Because of that I expect the guts to be very dust resistant (otherwise we'd see them dropping like flies), because there is really no way of protecting against dust ingress through the lens mount.
The electronics itself seemed fairly robust - thick, high quality PCBs. The most sensitive component, the sensor, is encased behind a (removable) glass protective layer. There were no unnecessary cables inside, most electrical connections were done with spring-loaded contacts that would connect to the appropriate PCB.
That being said, the shutter and the IBIS system did look very fragile, like a Japanese puzzle indeed. I wouldn't attempt any repair that required messing with them.
My brother repairs this stuff regularly, I'll ask him if he has any usable tips on working on this sort of device. Though he usually only starts seeing them after they've been in the field for a while. At his recommendation I got an alpha here and so far it has been amazingly robust.
Hopefully, I will never need those tips anymore, but I'd love to hear about your brother's experience with it! Congrats on the Alpha, hopefully you take many great photos on yours - I've taken a few dozen thousand on mine and it's still going strong!
They mention they've disassembled similar cameras in the past and are aware of the costs, so either they know how to put it back or (unlikely) they don't care about it. But it's not something unexpected for them.
kolarivision are almost certainly capable, as they offer specifically UV and IR conversion services which usually require fully disassembling the camera to remove the factory filters and install a new one. Rebuilding DSLRs and mirrorless cameras is literally their business bread and butter.
It's incredible to me to that while this, a slightly older DSLR, and a classic SLR film camera all have similar silhouettes and ergonomics you can watch the digital technology replace the insides over the last 25 years.
It's a stark comparison to see the ribbon cables and stacked daughter boards under the rear panel here where the film reels used to live. No greater takeaway here, just incredible to see a common form stay similar in many ways externally, yet have it's internals so totally overhauled.
Well, DSLR/MILCs really aren't that different from film SLRs. The sensor replaced the film to be exposed, and the battery replaced the film cannister. For mirrorless cameras the EVF replaced the reflex mechanism. Everything else is the same, so with similar design constraints it makes sense a similar form factor would emerge.
Sensors on full-frame DSLR/Mirrorless systems are large so you're going to have to keep a significantly sized rectangle clear.
Assuming right-handed use, you're going to extend that rectangle to the right for a grip, that also need to have depth. Not optional as any of these cameras might see some very heavy lenses attached to them.
You need a viewfinder, where the only logical option is on top. Same for flash connections. The only alternative is no viewfinder at all, just the back screen, but this can't be done because sports and wildlife photographers will always require an eye piece.
All connections (video, mic, data, remote flash) have to be on the left as the right side is taken for the grip which typically features the memory card slots.
The bottom of the camera has to be flat, it needs to support tripod use, video brackets and battery grips. Realistically, the battery chamber can only be at the bottom, given that all other space is already used.
Concluding, the layout makes sense. You could move around connections but it doesn't change the shape of the camera, nor does it improve anything. So it's a logical timeless design, not really a prestige thing.
As somebody else already said: the old design was not specifically analog, only the internals were.
I guess the bigger surprise to me is that there wasn’t anything newly extraneous or improvable as a result of the transition.
Electric guitars come to mind, they are largely the same except in two regards:
The body is much shallower. This of course is due to no longer needing a soundbox. But further, it’s because a shallow body brings the strings closer to the player and puts the arm in a more comfortable position. The large deep soundbox not only became extraneous after the transition, it was also always a bit of an unavoidable hindrance in the first place.
The body shape changed as well. This was due to aesthetic freedom as a result of not needing a soundbox.
Cameras, on the other hand, could of course change the aesthetic for fun, but I guess there is no need for in-the-moment showmanship when it comes to camerawork and camera aficionados just don’t care for flash? ;) And maybe any change would just get in the way (though arguably some guitar shapes are inconvenient as well yet nonetheless desirable to some).
In the end, I guess the physical limitations of the camera either are still present (like large telescopic lenses) or had already been condensed into a small enough size that they no longer hindered better ergonomics
The body of mirrorless current gen cameras is also substantially shallower than older SLR and DSLRs. This is because the system to bounce light to the viewfinder is no longer needed. Most of the rest of the form is constrained by physics and ergonomics, so it doesn't change due to this new technology.
That’s actually not true - lens design on SLRs can be very compromised due to the extra distance to the film, which isn’t necessary on mirrorless since it hasn’t got a mirror.
This means mirrorless cameras have smaller lenses and can use all kinds of cheap older rangefinder lenses. People seem to think “SLR” means “film camera” though and don’t know that rangefinders exist.
What did I say that was not true? Despite what you've said, it's still true that a through the lens view is possible with shallower cameras due to the advent of the digital camera. Actually I don't see how your comment contradicts anything I wrote.
I said, "most of the rest of the form is constrained by physics and ergonomics," and that still seems true? At a minimum, if digital camera construction has substantially changed the constraints on lenses, this fact has not led to a significant change in their overall form, to the best of my knowledge. If digital sensors substantially changed the physical possibilities, then perhaps it is ergonomics preventing them from changing.
Ken is mistaken about the size comparison, at least between that Leica and the Canon lens. The Canon is a wide zoom. Zooms with autofocus are of course going to be much larger than a manual focus, slow 21mm prime. (That prime is 3x as expensive, two stops slower, and lacking an autofocus motor compared to Sony's similar offering: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1126141-REG/sony_sel0....)
I will also note that pancake lenses have been around since the sixties and I believe that there were pancake lenses compatible with DSLR lens mounts.
Suffice it to say I'm not sure I can say I am convinced DSLR optics are disadvantageous vs. mirrorless optics. I wish Ken would cite some sources because on Google his claim is the first and only relevant one document that turns up for a few pages.
The YouTube channel "Cathode Ray Dude" has covered some of the attempts by camera makers to take advantage of the new possibilities of digital sensors with new form factors that never caught on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpJBHjl9_VU
Sony used to have a more straight-lined design in their cameras and very shallow grips. People didn't like that because the ergonomics are poor. That's why Sony cameras started to look more and more like a Nikon or Canon in each generation.
DSLRs are actually fatter than film SLRs because in a film SLR only the film plate and back are behind the focal plane, which are thin (~3-5mm), while DSLRs stack the sensor board, main board, display etc. behind the focal plane, so they got 15+ mm behind the focal plane. Mirrorless cameras with IBIS tend to increase the back-to-focal-plane distance further due to more involved cooling and IBIS.
As others have mentioned, there's been some minor changes. Back screens have gotten a lot bigger, new viewfinders are digital, and mirrorless cameras are often a bit shallower. But it's true that overall the basics are the same.
I guess the big difference between a guitar and a camera is that a guitar is performative. The guitar and its looks itself are part of the output, along with the sound it produces. Nobody looks at a photographer the same way, we tend to care about their output only.
Personally, I don't find camera design to be boring, ugly or outdated in any sense. In fact, there's few products I can think of that are this well designed. The current layout and ergonomics are battle-tested across a timeline of about a full century.
> The only alternative is no viewfinder at all, just the back screen, but this can't be done because sports and wildlife photographers will always require an eye piece.
I'm curious about what makes the eye piece a requirement for these particular photographers (and if/how it could be done away with).
And possibly easier aiming/coordination/stability with the camera and hands at not just eye-level, but also nearly right up against the eye, moving in unison with one’s head. Just a guess though. Sports television cameramen seem to do just find tracking the ball without using a viewfinder.
In this particular camera and many other mirrorless cameras, the viewfinder is another digital display. My guess would be they’re required for making it easier to focus in direct sunlight. I tend to only use the viewfinder in this situation (on an a7s ii and a1)
It’s also much more difficult to hold a camera at arms length to view the screen.
When you hold up a camera to your eye and use the viewfinder - it’s a third point of contact. You’re also using your face to stabilize it.
Trust me - they’d get rid of the damn viewfinder if it wasn’t often requested so much. Using the viewfinder is just a lot easier than the back of the screen in many situations. (Especially outdoors. Think about rain or whatever else going on getting on the screen)
You are shooting with a long lens. Unless you have the camera on a tripod/monopod, it’s much more stable to have the camera braced against your body with the viewfinder up against your eye, versus trying to hold 5 pounds of very long lens at arm’s length.
(Nikon 200–500mm lens in this case. Trust me. Way easier to support that chonker when it’s held close to the body when running around to shoot rugby.)
On many cameras you can set the viewfinder to match the prescription of your eye-glasses. I need glasses to see data displayed on the rear screen, but can easily read the viewfinder data without them. Saves a lot of faffing around
Exactly the opposite for me - possibly für to astigmatism, I only use the rear screen, as then I can use glasses, but I don't see sharply through the viewfinder and with glasses it's just uncomfortable.
My wife is a pro, she's actually in a bit of a hole over this issue.
Her eyesight has changed, the focus correction on the eye piece is not working well for her now (it has limited correction range) and her glasses are in the way. Using the back screen is difficult outside because of the sun and speed. Also strength; holding a camera with a big lens at arm's length all day is hard for her.
So - contacts, which she hates and her eyes react badly to.
She might have to pack up, which would be very upsetting for her having built a business and because she get's a lot out of her work.
The sun can both outshine the brightest screen, and blind the photographer's eyes. Using a viewfinder avoids both those issues.
The alternatives in strong sunlight would be a rigid hood around the screen (which exist as accessories), or a fabric hood covering the screen and photographer (like what early photographers used).
> Maybe professionals prefer the familiar ergonomics?
Not just pros. The manufacturer actually aims for the "prosumer" market. They do this, by building for the pros, but marketing to the prosumer.
It works well.
But expect the ergonomics to slowly morph, as the consumer base evolves.
Big changes in familiar forms don’t usually work. I suspect that one reason Teslas sell so well, is because they don’t actually look very different from traditional ICE cars. I don’t think that whacky CyberTruck is gonna be very popular.
Wrt. tesla the interior (especially the dash) is a major sticking point for "petrolheads". Folks like the dials and levers on ICE - the touch screen and ikea style finish is quite dissonant.
I don't care about the finish, but I find the touchscreen to be stupid, unusable and reckless or even dangerous choice, despite being a big fan of EVs.
A touch screen is only ever the optimal user interface for general purpose computers and sometimes navigating through virtual 2D/3D space. In every other use case, dedicated controls are superior in every regard.
On the other hand I find I hardly use any of the controls or readouts in the Tesla, just the speed limit really.
The indicators are on the stick, and the wipers and lights are automatic. There's not much reason to go to the touchscreen on the move - apart from the change the audio.
Comparing this design to Apples laptop/iPhone design really shows how different the engineering styles are...
Nearly everything in this camera is standard off the shelf stuff except the CPU, sensor and plastic mouldings. Whereas nearly every component in an iPhone is designed by/for Apple - even down to custom inductors used in the power supply. Remember the 'L-shaped' WiFi chip!
I think it's a case where high volume + high margin allows world leading engineering, which nobody else can catch up with because they will never manage to get high volume before they have engineered an awesome product.
Unrelated, but that accessibility button is anything but, at least on mobile. It obstructs the text. I don't understand how a team could add these "accessibility" widgets and then think to themselves "a job well done" after.
It also doesn't enable anything that a person needing it wouldn't already have a browser extension for. The whole idea of sites implementing their own accessibility menus is misguided...
It's being disassembled for a full spectrum mod, and according to [0] it helps with precise sensitivity range for IR, UV, low light etcetera photography.
So if there are only pros to this mod, why don't manufacturers do it by default?
If you're using the camera for regular photography, you need to attach an IR/UV blocking filter to all of your lenses, or else you'll be taking pictures of IR/UV in addition to visible light, and color reproduction may be distorted.
Sensitivity to colours outside the visible spectrum can cause colours to appear incorrect relative to what the human perceives. Imagine two objects whose visible spectrums are the same, but whose IR or UV spectra are different. They’d look the same to a human, but different to such a modified camera.
Full-spectrum mods are something you want in an astrophotography camera, but they're not something you want for regular photography.
So to use the camera for normal things like portraits, wildlife, landscapes, product shots, or basically anything other than taking pictures of the sky you need to get a set of (expensive) filters to go on the lens to block the excess light and restore normal color rendering.
On film SLR cameras, mechanical parts (shutters, film motors, etc.) generally fail faster before electronic parts (e.g. auto focus, light meters) fail.
I've disassembled dozens of different phones and laptops, some of them many times, but even looking at this being taken apart stresses me out. I have 4 cameras from the A7 series (mk 1-3) and each of them has a small issue that on anything else, I would've fixed long ago, yet I haven't as much as taken a screw out of any of them. The sheer amount of flex cables and daughterboards is kind of terrifying...
78 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] threadEdit: and now im getting 403 inaccessible resource.
Edit 2: Works on my computer, still not on mobile. It appears clicking the handicap /accessibility icon on mobile flags the user as a bot or something. Other than scroll, that's the only thing I interacted with on the webpage.
PS: the 403 could be the “Hacker News effect” =] too much traffic. I hope the server will be available again soon, it’s a very interesting read/view.
https://petapixel.com/2022/03/05/sony-alpha-1-teardown-the-i...
An A1 would not be your first Sony camera even if you decided to buy Sony. It's a professional camera, and it's professional in the sense that it has features needed by professionals. It won't automatically make your pictures any better if you use it vs. something less expensive. If you have mad money, then go for it, but understand that you're more or less just burning cash for next to no reason.
For an amateur (i.e. anyone who is inclined to ask which camera to choose by brand name), all three brands have cameras that are more than sufficient to meet your needs. Among Sony full-frame devices, the current gen choice would be an A7 IV. Or if you're smart, you'd save yourself some money and buy an A7 III instead.
The main question is not "which brand makes the best camera" but, "which brand has the lenses I want." And the proper way to think about lenses for an amateur is to think about their speed, focal length (zoom level), price, and "convenience" -- weight, size, weather sealing.
I used to shoot with a D2X (dating myself here), and at the time Sony was not a serious contender at this level, at least among anyone I knew or any research I did. Everything was Nikon or Canon. Sony and Fujifilm seem to have some excellent cameras these days and I’m interested in what drew you to Sony versus the equivalent from Nikon or Canon?
Also, have the workflows improved on any of these in the last 15 years or is it still dump raw from the physical card to the computer and edit? Anything that lets you sync to a cloud storage when plugged in after a day of shooting?
Sony is very much a serious contender now. For a number of years they were the undisputed leader in a few areas, mainly value for money and autofocus performance. Everyone complains about Sony menu ergonomics although I personally don't find it to be much of a hindrance. There seems to be some evidence that canon and Nikon are catching up on some of the performance metrics.
On the other hand, for a long time Sony suffered from a shallower catalog of lenses but that grows less and less true by the day. For example they just released a trio of enthusiast compact prime lenses that according to reports I've read rival the best lenses of this type through history.
On the dpreview article about the camera you can see some spec sheet-level comparisons.
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a1-review/2
A variety of things made the A1 a better overall fit for my unique mix of needs and interests. At the extreme high-end of current mirrorless cameras (>$5k without lenses) any major brand's latest flagship will very likely far exceed the needs of almost all users.
If you don't already know why you'd choose one brand's flagship over another, you probably shouldn't be considering any flagships. Frankly, these are highly specialized, complex and esoteric tools that are also incredibly expensive.
I recommend starting out with more mainstream models which are already supremely powerful and quite a bit less expensive than top-of-the-line models. Check out recent mainstream model reviews at DPReview.com - a highly credible source of objective comparisons.
Professional digital cameras are a mature and highly competitive market that's changing frequently. No major brand is overall "better" than another. It's more about finding the best fit between your needs, skills, budget and preferences within a certain price and application segment. Any camera/lens combo represents a set of trade-offs between a dozen or more variables including light sensitivity, shutter speed, zoom, depth of field, video capabilities (resolution, frame rate, bit rate, compression, etc), weight, size and flexibility.
A variety of things made the A1 a better overall fit for my unique mix of needs and interests. At the extreme high-end of current mirrorless cameras (>$5k without lenses) any major brand's latest flagship will very likely far exceed the needs of almost all users.
If you don't already know why you'd choose one brand's flagship over another, you probably shouldn't be considering any flagships. Frankly, these are highly specialized, complex and esoteric tools that are also incredibly expensive.
I recommend starting out with more mainstream models which are already supremely powerful and quite a bit less expensive than top-of-the-line models. Check out recent mainstream model reviews at DPReview.com - a highly credible source of objective comparisons.
It's a mature and highly competitive market that changes constantly. No major brand is overall "better" than another. It's more about finding the best fit between your needs, skills, budget and preferences.
The general architecture of the device was identical. However, the motherboard of the A1 seems significantly more complex and cluttered. Beyond that, the structural elements are much more intricate in the A1 and are skeletonized, certainly in an effort to save weight. Generally speaking however, it's crazy how the overall designed stayed so similar.
It was a joy to disassemble and put back together. It was clear that it was designed to be serviced.
I got better at that sort of thing over the years but this camera looks extremely fragile and sensitive to dust once you get to the guts of it, you'd need a very clean environment to work in.
Indeed, the camera is made in a "sandwich" architecture, where the shutter is layered onto the sensor, which is layered onto the IBIS unit, itself layered onto the motherboard.
Since the sensor has to move substantially to stabilize, and that the shutter is connected to the motherboard without any sealing at all, there is more than enough clearance for dust to get into the motherboard, and it will inevitably happen.
Because of that I expect the guts to be very dust resistant (otherwise we'd see them dropping like flies), because there is really no way of protecting against dust ingress through the lens mount.
The electronics itself seemed fairly robust - thick, high quality PCBs. The most sensitive component, the sensor, is encased behind a (removable) glass protective layer. There were no unnecessary cables inside, most electrical connections were done with spring-loaded contacts that would connect to the appropriate PCB.
That being said, the shutter and the IBIS system did look very fragile, like a Japanese puzzle indeed. I wouldn't attempt any repair that required messing with them.
I wonder if they managed to put it back together again.
It's a stark comparison to see the ribbon cables and stacked daughter boards under the rear panel here where the film reels used to live. No greater takeaway here, just incredible to see a common form stay similar in many ways externally, yet have it's internals so totally overhauled.
Maybe professionals prefer the familiar ergonomics?
Or there’s a certain prestige carried by the traditional camera silhouette?
No idea. And I can’t think of another analog-to-digital transition that also maintained its outer form so thoroughly.
Sensors on full-frame DSLR/Mirrorless systems are large so you're going to have to keep a significantly sized rectangle clear.
Assuming right-handed use, you're going to extend that rectangle to the right for a grip, that also need to have depth. Not optional as any of these cameras might see some very heavy lenses attached to them.
You need a viewfinder, where the only logical option is on top. Same for flash connections. The only alternative is no viewfinder at all, just the back screen, but this can't be done because sports and wildlife photographers will always require an eye piece.
All connections (video, mic, data, remote flash) have to be on the left as the right side is taken for the grip which typically features the memory card slots.
The bottom of the camera has to be flat, it needs to support tripod use, video brackets and battery grips. Realistically, the battery chamber can only be at the bottom, given that all other space is already used.
Concluding, the layout makes sense. You could move around connections but it doesn't change the shape of the camera, nor does it improve anything. So it's a logical timeless design, not really a prestige thing.
As somebody else already said: the old design was not specifically analog, only the internals were.
I guess the bigger surprise to me is that there wasn’t anything newly extraneous or improvable as a result of the transition.
Electric guitars come to mind, they are largely the same except in two regards:
The body is much shallower. This of course is due to no longer needing a soundbox. But further, it’s because a shallow body brings the strings closer to the player and puts the arm in a more comfortable position. The large deep soundbox not only became extraneous after the transition, it was also always a bit of an unavoidable hindrance in the first place.
The body shape changed as well. This was due to aesthetic freedom as a result of not needing a soundbox.
Cameras, on the other hand, could of course change the aesthetic for fun, but I guess there is no need for in-the-moment showmanship when it comes to camerawork and camera aficionados just don’t care for flash? ;) And maybe any change would just get in the way (though arguably some guitar shapes are inconvenient as well yet nonetheless desirable to some).
In the end, I guess the physical limitations of the camera either are still present (like large telescopic lenses) or had already been condensed into a small enough size that they no longer hindered better ergonomics
This means mirrorless cameras have smaller lenses and can use all kinds of cheap older rangefinder lenses. People seem to think “SLR” means “film camera” though and don’t know that rangefinders exist.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm
Sony sells wide angle "pancake" lenses that beat the ones for SLRs at compactness:
https://www.backscatter.com/Sony-E-20mm-f-2.8-Pancake-Lens
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12082-USA/Canon_2509A...
Though there's some small SLR lenses too, I think they distort more or it takes longer to figure out the optics - not an expert there.
I will also note that pancake lenses have been around since the sixties and I believe that there were pancake lenses compatible with DSLR lens mounts.
Suffice it to say I'm not sure I can say I am convinced DSLR optics are disadvantageous vs. mirrorless optics. I wish Ken would cite some sources because on Google his claim is the first and only relevant one document that turns up for a few pages.
DSLRs are actually fatter than film SLRs because in a film SLR only the film plate and back are behind the focal plane, which are thin (~3-5mm), while DSLRs stack the sensor board, main board, display etc. behind the focal plane, so they got 15+ mm behind the focal plane. Mirrorless cameras with IBIS tend to increase the back-to-focal-plane distance further due to more involved cooling and IBIS.
I guess the big difference between a guitar and a camera is that a guitar is performative. The guitar and its looks itself are part of the output, along with the sound it produces. Nobody looks at a photographer the same way, we tend to care about their output only.
Personally, I don't find camera design to be boring, ugly or outdated in any sense. In fact, there's few products I can think of that are this well designed. The current layout and ergonomics are battle-tested across a timeline of about a full century.
I'm curious about what makes the eye piece a requirement for these particular photographers (and if/how it could be done away with).
And possibly easier aiming/coordination/stability with the camera and hands at not just eye-level, but also nearly right up against the eye, moving in unison with one’s head. Just a guess though. Sports television cameramen seem to do just find tracking the ball without using a viewfinder.
When you hold up a camera to your eye and use the viewfinder - it’s a third point of contact. You’re also using your face to stabilize it.
Trust me - they’d get rid of the damn viewfinder if it wasn’t often requested so much. Using the viewfinder is just a lot easier than the back of the screen in many situations. (Especially outdoors. Think about rain or whatever else going on getting on the screen)
You are shooting with a long lens. Unless you have the camera on a tripod/monopod, it’s much more stable to have the camera braced against your body with the viewfinder up against your eye, versus trying to hold 5 pounds of very long lens at arm’s length.
(Nikon 200–500mm lens in this case. Trust me. Way easier to support that chonker when it’s held close to the body when running around to shoot rugby.)
Her eyesight has changed, the focus correction on the eye piece is not working well for her now (it has limited correction range) and her glasses are in the way. Using the back screen is difficult outside because of the sun and speed. Also strength; holding a camera with a big lens at arm's length all day is hard for her.
So - contacts, which she hates and her eyes react badly to.
She might have to pack up, which would be very upsetting for her having built a business and because she get's a lot out of her work.
The alternatives in strong sunlight would be a rigid hood around the screen (which exist as accessories), or a fabric hood covering the screen and photographer (like what early photographers used).
Not just pros. The manufacturer actually aims for the "prosumer" market. They do this, by building for the pros, but marketing to the prosumer.
It works well.
But expect the ergonomics to slowly morph, as the consumer base evolves.
Big changes in familiar forms don’t usually work. I suspect that one reason Teslas sell so well, is because they don’t actually look very different from traditional ICE cars. I don’t think that whacky CyberTruck is gonna be very popular.
A touch screen is only ever the optimal user interface for general purpose computers and sometimes navigating through virtual 2D/3D space. In every other use case, dedicated controls are superior in every regard.
On the other hand I find I hardly use any of the controls or readouts in the Tesla, just the speed limit really.
The indicators are on the stick, and the wipers and lights are automatic. There's not much reason to go to the touchscreen on the move - apart from the change the audio.
The gist was that the climate control was so difficult to use, that it was actually a safety hazard.
I’ve found that haptic feedback can be quite useful.
But really, there’s no substitute for good old-fashioned, user-focused design.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30140984
Keyboards.
TV cameras.
Hi-Fi stereo systems.
Movie theatres.
Desk telephones.
Headsets & Ear buds
2-way radios.
Magnetic tape.
Automobile engines.
(Coaxial) cable & tuners/receivers.
Likely quite a lot more examples.
Nearly everything in this camera is standard off the shelf stuff except the CPU, sensor and plastic mouldings. Whereas nearly every component in an iPhone is designed by/for Apple - even down to custom inductors used in the power supply. Remember the 'L-shaped' WiFi chip!
I think it's a case where high volume + high margin allows world leading engineering, which nobody else can catch up with because they will never manage to get high volume before they have engineered an awesome product.
So if there are only pros to this mod, why don't manufacturers do it by default?
[0]: https://kolarivision.com/articles/full_spectrum_conversion/
Full-spectrum mods are something you want in an astrophotography camera, but they're not something you want for regular photography.
So to use the camera for normal things like portraits, wildlife, landscapes, product shots, or basically anything other than taking pictures of the sky you need to get a set of (expensive) filters to go on the lens to block the excess light and restore normal color rendering.
Source: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=192477...