[er1kksen]

"Where we're going... we won't need glass."

*holds out hands with two Takumars ripped off their mounts*

Hahahahaha.

Come to think of it, that movie really does a great job of channeling lovecraftian atmosphere into a modern space-action movie.

[fractal]

What surprises me is that Sony has been producing the ugliest DSLRs.. and for some time now. Surely their marketting can do better than this.

[pingflood]

I really wonder why people are so concerned with DSLR looks. Are they a fashion accessory or a tool?

[krypticide]

I think it'll be nice to see smaller cameras with bigger sensors (bigger than micro 4/3). I prefer having maximum DOF range in as small a package as possible. That's why the Epson and Leica rangefinders are pretty appealing to me, except for the price...

[fractal]

I really wonder why people are so concerned with DSLR looks. Are they a fashion accessory or a tool?

Surely you can distinguish between a good looking DSLR and an ugly one. And yes, of course they are also a fashion accessory.. if you have not noticed, Pentax has made their K-x in different colours!

[pingflood]

Surely you can distinguish between a good looking DSLR and an ugly one. And yes, of course they are also a fashion accessory.. if you have not noticed, Pentax has made their K-x in different colours!

I can appreciate the camera as an art object, but when it comes to DSLRs (which I consider tools to get a picture) I just worry about function -- how it looks is entirely irrelevant.

That said, I do like to possess some "beautiful" cameras like my Leicas in great part because of the way they look and how finely machined and engineered they are, so I can see the appeal. But a DSLR is a soul-less, beauty-less tool in my eyes and I doubt I'll ever see that differently.

[juu]

The key question to me is 'when'. Concepts are nice, but give us an estimate for when you will actually launch it. And a lens road map.

[Ratmagiclady]

I really wonder why people are so concerned with DSLR looks. Are they a fashion accessory or a tool?

I doubt many really prioritize the looks department, but everyone can have an opinion on em, so it makes good conversation?

To some eyes, appearance can relate to good design. We've got millions of years of instinct that bring us to finding things that fit our hands well attractive, for one. Things having a harmonious appearance is kind of a good sign, not that it always holds true.

Colors and the like can be more about attention-getting. (Or attention-avoiding) How we relate to display and adornment. If you notice how people associate various colors with women and children (and toy-like-ness) ...some even seem to find their masculinity affronted by brightly-colored cameras even existing: (Often being "Women will like that," kind of dismissively) ...basically, there's a lot of communication in there.

So, I'd say it's important enough to mention, not that it's really 'what counts.' My K20d seemed pretty odd-looking at first, but the look kind of grows on you. And I mostly see him from the back, anyway.

For the kinds of photography I do, it's actually usually pretty important to provoke as few particular responses to the camera as possible: black or possibly subdued colors is darn useful, that way: people tend to have a mental shorthand for 'camera' which generally involves black. (black doesn't tend to get as much attention, either: the eye's attracted to shiny and metallic things, which is usually not what I necessarily want. Also, I surely noticed when I was working that chrome cameras didn't help too much in terms of getting much respect from fellow photogs, tended to trigger the sexism pretty often back then. )

Colors of things basically can mean a lot, particularly within a given culture: When some dude's wearing like a bright Hawaiian shirt, often what he's saying is, (apart from, "Hey, look at me," ...also,) "Don't be put off by my behavior, I'm being playful." Their antics might get a smile, there, whereas if someone behaved that way in a business suit, it might even be kind of alarming. It's all signals, whether we're conscious of them or not. People relate to this kind of stuff as an expression of personality quite naturally and in ways that are complex to analyze, but which can be pretty deep and fun.

Brightly-coloured cameras have a playful element to them, as well: it's pretty unlikely a fashion-conscious gal is really thinking a lavender camera is really going to go with her outfit, but it could help defuse any notions that 'This is serious business, me photographing you,' (Barbie and My Little Pony colors also mean 'playful' in a lot of ways to gals. )

Me, I mostly go about things in a 'being a bit of a dull bird' in various ways. There's more reasons for that than photography, but it works pretty well, there. I don't need to be in social competitions with my subjects.

From a 'that's a pretty thing to look at' standpoint, though, one can appreciate aesthetics. We're photo people, after all: we're all about the appearance of things.

I'm personally having trouble seeing the point of having such a small camera when the lenses begin to dwarf it.

I guess they'll keep doing it until the consumer decides they are too small, the same thing happened with cell phones.

[juu]

The point is that WHEN combined with a pancake lens, it becomes semi-pocketable.

When NOT combined with a pancake lens, the size advantage over a DSLR become negligable, but the ergonomics suffer.

Is that a good trade-off for some people? Yes, for example for me. For all people? Not really.

[unixrevolution]

I'm personally having trouble seeing the point of having such a small camera when the lenses begin to dwarf it.

I guess they'll keep doing it until the consumer decides they are too small, the same thing happened with cell phones.

Likely, we'll end up with a circular camera the size of the lens mount with a touch screen and shutter button.

[Clicker]

I really wonder why people are so concerned with DSLR looks. Are they a fashion accessory or a tool?

I don't think anyone here mentioned this on the forums as yet?




engadget

[RioRico]

I give you: the Pentax K-y !!

Sensor Size: 21x21mm (AP-SQ)
Sensor Area: 441mm^2 (vs 419mm^2 on APS-C)
Sensor Resolution: 15.35 mp
Lens Mount: KAF2
Lens Type: DA or any prior
Body Weight: 320g

And it's a nice fashion accessory.

[unixrevolution]

I give you: the Pentax K-y !!

Sensor Size: 21x21mm (AP-SQ)
Sensor Area: 441mm^2 (vs 419mm^2 on APS-C)
Sensor Resolution: 15.35 mp
Lens Mount: KAF2
Lens Type: DA or any prior
Body Weight: 320g

And it's a nice fashion accessory.

I'd buy that. Not in Pink though.

And I don't think K-y is the best name for a DSLR.

[pingflood]

I hope it's environmentally sealed.