[emilyy]

When you buy a digital camera, what do you care much, the quality or the good looking? I like shopping, especially shop some electronic items, such as MP3/MP4, cell phone, digital camera and so on. When I shop a digital camera, I cared much more on the looking than the quality or the item’s brand. Do you agree with me?

Perhaps the famous brand items has good quality, but they are very expensive and don’t have a good looking. When I search digital camera on Google, there is a fantasy result. Lots of online shop sell cheapest OEM digital camera with a good looking. And the specification is also detailed. When I compare them with the brand, there are some advantages, such as price, shape and functions. I click one online shop casually. There are lots of choices. It makes me surprise. Based on practicability, I also care the quality of the item. And I also worry about the reality of the shop. I worry that they will cheat me. Have anyone bought such OEM digital camera from online shop? I hope I can get some guidance, such as warranty, shipping, return and so on. Thanks.

[jct us101]

The main problem that I have is that I always look at the visual aspects of the camera before I buy it. This has led me to many cameras from Canon that I have ended up not liking. The K10D from Pentax originally didn't look like a great camera to me, but has definitely grown on me, but what I like is that I looked at the technical aspects first, instead of what I did with the 4 Canon DSLRs I've owned.

[HGMonaro]

looks are a very low aspect of my selection criteria... leave that for your clothes and haircut!

[k100d]

personally, i don't want an ugly camera. i think the rebels are disproportionate. and the nikon dxxx dx look too big for their lens mounts. and the canon 1d's? look like two bricks with a lens mount.

[lithos]

looks are a very low aspect of my selection criteria... leave that for your clothes and haircut!

You bother worrying about what your clothes and haircut looks like? With a name like HGMonaro, I thought you'd be a real bloke...maybe a pair of stubbies and a bluey.

I'm definitely function over form. Which rules out 99% of the point-and-shoots for me.

If Pentax makes a camera that looks like Tommy Lee Jones, but but performs like Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive, hell, it's a winner for me.

They should bring the sloped top-plate back, though. Be a good design signature like...like, dangit, I had a million examples of signatures five minutes ago, but can't think of one now. Anyone care to help me? I find this stuff interesting. Doesn't have to do with cameras.

Well, like the low pentaprisms of Canon cams. Or Leica's red dot, except being functional rather than just raising the price.

[Photo Tramp]

I rely on the quality of goods, and the functions I need to preform. Looks has nothing to do with a camera being good or not. Look at the spec sheet and compare how the camera is made, and what functions it has to other cameras of the same type. Look at the price points of each and see which one has the most bang for the buck. The HELL with what the thing looks like. How it performs, and how it produces is the key to buying a camera. (I will add) how it feels in your hand, this is a definite point to look at.
If your just going to buy, by looks alone you're sure not serious about what you want.

[dave sz]

quality first appearance second with EVERYTHING I buy...

[HouseOfHorla]

It helps if it looks good, but I really couldn't care less if it looked like a durable cardboard box as long as it shot what I wanted. Functions and buttons are a great way of getting stuck into photography and bypassing having to think about things, but you can't beat knowing your kit and juggling ISO, f/stops and speed to get what you want.

[VF-19]

There's two criteria that I look for in a camera:

1) Does it feel comfortable in my hands

2) Does it do what I want (whatever it is)

I like my K10D because it feels comforable in my hands (no hand cramping, and it's not super heavy), and it does what I want!

[legacyb4]

Looks do matter in relation to ergonomics; I'd be as bold to say that good "looks" generally means that design and placement of controls have been thought through on placement and shape/look which impacts overall look.

[Sailor]

What does a "good looking" camera actually look like?

Jer

My criteria

1. Quality
2. Function
3. Features
4. Ergonomics

While I do care what my camera looks like, it's not a primary factor in choice.

Although, being an old MX user from the film days, I tend to like bodies that are a bit smaller. The K100D was perfect size wise but just didn't have the features and functions I wanted.

The K20D, without the grip, is a near perfect size camera even though it's a bit larger than I like.

[HGMonaro]

You bother worrying about what your clothes and haircut looks like? With a name like HGMonaro, I thought you'd be a real bloke...maybe a pair of stubbies and a bluey.

I didn't mean me! However, the stubbies and bluey is not a good look either!

[KungPOW]

The only camera I would not own due to its looks is the gemstone encrusted K-m.

That was just stupid.

Ok. I would also pass on a pink Holga....

Of the top DSLR camera builders, none of them make a camera I would not own because of how it looks.

[Stratman]

The only thing that has to "look good" to me is the images the camera produces, I couldn't care less if the camera looks good....Although I think my K10D is beautiful, hehe, especially with a nice old Takumar mounted on it !!