Originally posted by Blue From the back, it looks like a giant SLR.
That might be because it IS a giant SLR.
Originally posted by magkelly The fact that just using one can make you nauseous maybe? Aesthetics is a big part of photography.
No camera has made me nauseous. Some have embittered me in other ways, especially those with naked gears hanging on the front: the Argus C3 (The Brick!) and especially the monstrous Kodak 35. [NOTE: I first spelt Argus here as Arbus. I guess the Arbus C3 would make users stick their heads into ovens.]
Aesthetics *can* be important. But nifty aesthetics draped over lousy functionality sucks. (Take my Loewy-designed Anscoflex art-deco TLR. Please.) For me, the tactile properties of a camera trump its prettiness or lack thereof. And sometimes ugliness can be helpful. I'll use a frightful-looking, intimidating setup if I want to capture nervous expressions on the subjects. (The Industar-58, ay yi yi.)
Just wait. So many people will throw out their ugly old cameras that the survivors will be worth a bundle. Ah, the next retro revival...