Retro Styled Cameras

Orbster

Orbster

Messages
63
Edit My Images
No
What's the deal with all these retro styled camera bodies these days?

A camera is a means to capturing an image for whatever reason, be it a hobby or your living.

Having a modern retro style camera screams fashion victim and personally I'd say you're in photography for the wrong reasons.
 
Well I'm in photography for all the right reasons but I love the X Pro1. I don't have the disposable to get one, but if I did I would.
 
I own a x100.

I also own a d700, Gf1, 550d and d3100.

Who gives a damn why I chose to get the x100? It's takes pictures the same as all the others, just looks nice in the process.
 
Holding and using something that is nice to look at is a worthwhile reason for buying it.

You can't see what car you are in when you are driving it but majority of people buy a car on what it looks like don't they?
 
ernesto said:
Holding and using something that is nice to look at is a worthwhile reason for buying it.

You can't see what car you are in when you are driving it but majority of people buy a car on what it looks like don't they?
Click to expand...

Ditto clothing. we don't just buy the cheapest, most functional garments available. We're all fashion victims to some extent.

Plus, something totally overlooked is how some of these cameras feel to use. With the retro looks comes machined dials and knobs that have real mechanical integrity and are a joy to use.

I love my x100, shoot me!
 
I love my Oly Trip, and my Oly 35EC, and my Oly PenEE.
Retro? Yes please! Fashion? nah, they just happen to take great pictures.
 
whereas I actually like the look of my 20d. Is it old enough to be retro, must be close but tell me when it is as I will have to get rid of it - I'm no victim.
 
He can't be wrong, its only an opinion.
I'd like to know what the right reasons for taking pictures are though.

Sometimes I feel a similar way about photographers who shoot for money, like if you're doing it for somebody else to their brief, its not really your creation.
It is of course, you put yourself in a position to capture their idea, but...I dunno, it just seems like some part of the creative process goes missing, and it seems like "you're in photography for the wrong reasons" i.e...to make money....:lol:
 
viewfromthenorth said:
To judge why people are into photography based on their camera choice is shallow and silly. For example are you including all Leica users in this judgement?
Click to expand...

To a point maybe, if people have got more money than sense and buy a Leica without truly appreciating it for what it is then yes - victim.
 
ernesto said:
Holding and using something that is nice to look at is a worthwhile reason for buying it.

You can't see what car you are in when you are driving it but majority of people buy a car on what it looks like don't they?
Click to expand...

Not me, value and practicality were the only considerations.
 
gad-westy said:
Plus, something totally overlooked is how some of these cameras feel to use. With the retro looks comes machined dials and knobs that have real mechanical integrity and are a joy to use.
Click to expand...

That's a point I'd not considered.

I'll eat a small part of my own hat for that one.
 
I sometimes struggle to identify the retro-fashioning on some cameras - I think my brain just sees those design features as features (but saying that, I looked up the X Pro1 that Phil fancies - and I did think to myself "Oh, it's got a shutter-speed dial like my old film camera"). I saw this competition - Share your favourite book and win a retro camera which offers an Olympus E-PL1 as a prize but when I look at the camera (through the majik of the interweb), I see it as a modern m4/3 camera and do not identify its styling as retro at all.

A lot of camera design is 'legacy' anyway.

Have to admit though that the way that the OP feels about 'retro users', I do about Holga users . :exit:
 
gad-westy said:
Plus, something totally overlooked is how some of these cameras feel to use. With the retro looks comes machined dials and knobs that have real mechanical integrity and are a joy to use.
Click to expand...

This is why I will not upgrade from my 50D with its mode dial to the 1D C :D
 
Orbster said:
What's the deal with all these retro styled camera bodies these days?

A camera is a means to capturing an image for whatever reason, be it a hobby or your living.

Having a modern retro style camera screams fashion victim and personally I'd say you're in photography for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: I kinda agree with this. Producing a retro camera is a company's way to a niche and valuable market to old gits who love technology and the look of their past cameras. Certainly a type of fashion victim, no matter how good the camera?


:D
:exit:
 
Orbster said:
Having a modern retro style camera screams fashion victim and personally I'd say you're in photography for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

What? Are we back in the playground worrying what the other kids will say?

I don't care if someone thinks I'm a fashion victim. I don't care what anyone thinks of my camera, my car, my clothes... anything. I'm over 18 and I'll make my own choices and if someone else wants to make other choices that fine with me, I simply don't care about their choice or their opinion.

:D
 
Good design is good design: certain forms achieve a function so well that they are copied until there is paradigm shift and a better way of achieving a function is discovered.

Those, now familiar, designs go onto become perceived as classic, and are then viewed as being synonymous with quality.
 
ernesto said:
whereas I actually like the look of my 20d. Is it old enough to be retro, must be close but tell me when it is as I will have to get rid of it - I'm no victim.
Click to expand...

There is no way an EOS 20d can be considered retro; it follws the general EOS shape introduced by the Canon T90

In my opinion, a retro styled camera would have a shutter speed dial and an aperture ring on the lens. It probably wouldn't have a top plate LCD.
 
Retro would be canon A1, Nikon FM etc..

Whats the point to them? simply for me personally I like all my controls on the outside without having to navigate menu's, well most of my controls as no one has bothered with an ISO dial yet. Also I like the controls positive with well defined click stops on each setting that cant change when you put it in your pocket or a bag.

I guess I'm one of the guys who would have a Leica if I could afford it, not because of the name but because of the form and function of it and I also love the idea of the new mono version with its added sensitivity/low light capabilities and the fact that it saves converting to black and white after shooting.

In the end though retro camera's are a bit marmite, you either love them or hate them and are more likely to hate them if you grew up with the modern crop of camera's be they compact, DSLR or even the more modern film SLR's from the 80's onwards.
 
Orbster said:
Not me, value and practicality were the only considerations.
Click to expand...

Okay so you don't care what you look like or what anything else looks like that you buy and use, why is that so great?
Why are people who do appreciate aesthetics so bad?

I care about pretty much what everything looks like, it is important to me. Yes it has to function correctly and be designed well but looking right/appealing is a integral part.
 
Last edited:
Orbster said:
To a point maybe, if people have got more money than sense and buy a Leica without truly appreciating it for what it is then yes - victim.
Click to expand...

But if they're a street photographer or photojournalist who appreciates the small size, discrete and quiet operation of Leicas, X100's or XPro1's, that's ok then?
 
I have been in photography since 1955 and there has allways been an eliment of style in the designe and marketing of cameras.
 
You either think the design is good or bad, but it is part of the buying process. What it looks like is in important. There was thread I saw earlier which said 'see what the Canon mirrorless camera looks like', it didn't say come and look at the specs.

Aesthetics are a huge part of the design of the camera, and so aim the brand at certain types of people. Yes, some people don't care what the camera looks like, but for most it is a consideration. With their CSC cameras, Olympus have tended towards the retro style, maybe because when they did go a bit radical with the E330 it wasn't well received. Maybe they were just ahead of the time, because the layout looks very similar to what they have now, but now looking a bit more retro. :shrug: Yes, I know the underlying tech has totally changed.

Sony's CSC cameras have gone for a more modern look. And Panasonic are somehwere in between. :shrug:


As for Pentax, I'm no fashion victim by any stretch of the imagination, but I wouldn't be seen dead with this. A retro toy camera? :bonk:
 
The Pentax K-01 is a good example. It may well work as well or better than some alternatives but you don't see many people saying they have bought one.
 
People used to use watches with hands. Then somebody invented the digital watch and found you could add on all kinds of "cool" things like calculators and alarms and phonebooks.

Then everybody got bored of that and remembered that watches with hands actually work pretty well. And that they never really wanted a phonebook on their watch.

To adjust the aperture on a Nikon I have to remember whether it's front wheel or back and which way it turns. To adjust it on lots of compacts I have to go into the menu and fiddle there. On an X-Pro 1 I turn the aperture dial to the aperture I want.

Sometimes retro means realising that the first design was pretty good.
 
JonathanRyan said:
People used to use watches with hands. Then somebody invented the digital watch and found you could add on all kinds of "cool" things like calculators and alarms and phonebooks.
Click to expand...

And I've had Casio Databank calculator watches since the mid 80's, so I was cutting edge, and now I'm retro. :eek: :lol: All I've done is buy the same type of thing, and fashion has changed around, as usual. :lol:

Now I have to get them from America because they are so out of fashion here, :lol: and have been 10-15 years.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
But if they're a street photographer or photojournalist who appreciates the small size, discrete and quiet operation of Leicas, X100's or XPro1's, that's ok then?
Click to expand...

Correct-a-mundo!
 
thanks for clarifying. The Leica user can now rest easy that they are not a fashion victim or in photography for the wrong reason, phew.
 
ernesto said:
thanks for clarifying. The Leica user can now rest easy that they are not a fashion victim or in photography for the wrong reason, phew.
Click to expand...

Only some of them though.

The poncey rich kid that was bought one because his parents just bought the most expensive one they could find needs to fear my disdain.

As should anyone who views it a fashion accessory.
 
You seem to be quite bitter about what other people buy and why they buy them. Did you not get what you wanted as a child :)

I will repeat my question from previous page;

- So you don't care what you look like or what anything else looks like that you buy and use, why is that so great?
- Why are people who do appreciate aesthetics so bad?
 
ernesto said:
You seem to be quite bitter about what other people buy and why they buy them. Did you not get what you wanted as a child :)

I will repeat my question from previous page;

- So you don't care what you look like or what anything else looks like that you buy and use, why is that so great?
- Why are people who do appreciate aesthetics so bad?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed these points.

I think on a conscious level, no. I'm not too fussed what I look like within reason (I like to be reasonably tidy and smart if the situation dictates it, weddings, job interviews etc etc) but for the most part, so long as I'm comfy and what I'm wearing is practical then so be it.

I think I've failed to get my point across quite spectacularly here. What I was trying to illustrate is that I really dislike trends for trends sake and from a relatively uninformed (that is to say I don't keep up with the latest tech, I merely catch the adverts on mags occasionally) point of view, it seems that a few camera manufacturers are jumping on the "retro" bandwagon.

Appreciating aesthetics is no bad thing in itself but some cameras are marketed almost as bling and that brings me back to the trend argument.

You're right though, I didn't get everything I wanted as a child and maybe that has left a deep seated contempt for fashion, trends and fads.

I'm not down with "it" - "it", is down with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top