Retro Styled Cameras

Orbster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really, you shouldn't care.

I retired at 49 with more money than I'll ever spend and I could easily afford a gold plated Leica for every day of the week but instead I use a used 5D or a used G1. The fact that I choose not to buy brand new Leicas shouldnt make me any sort of anti comercialism hero and neither should the decision of others to buy an expensive camera open them to the critisism of others.

Really, get over it :D
 
Camera manufacturers sole aim is to make money. If they can increase their profits by getting on a bandwagon they will. That bandwagon will only roll if it is what the consumer wants which takes us back to the retro designs. If people didn't want them they wouldn't buy them.
However, I still don't believe wanting something that looks nice AND works functionally well is a bad thing. Cameras such as X10, X100 look very nice (to me) but they are backed up by working very well. Yes, Fuji could have made another square, faceless camera that functions identically but why?

While we have the violins out, I didn't get much as a child either but I have always appreciated the aesthetics of good design, trends and fashions.
 
woof woof said:
I retired at 49 with more money than I'll ever spend and I could easily afford a gold plated Leica for every day of the week but instead I use a used 5D or a used G1.
Click to expand...

Why am I thinking of this man when I read that :)

153941d1261666508-thought-counts-christmas-time-0.jpg
 
Dorset eh? That explains the lack of affinity with trends and fashions :)
 
Orbster said:
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.
Click to expand...


I think you've articulated your point much better here than in your original post, and while I can see your point, I don't necessarily agree.

I bought an X10 as I liked it's picture quality due to the large sensor, the size of it, the fact it had an optical viewfinder and the twisting zoom lens. I also like the styling of it, but if it had been non-retro in design, I'd still have got one. Interestingly, the XPro1 is being marketed as a street photographers camera, which makes sense.

But is the styling of these retro, when Leica (and more recently Voigtlander) have been making rangefinders to a similar design continously for 80 or so years?

And if course this style of camera has certain benefits over SLR's, so it's not necessarily a case of style trumping functionality.

However, I do appreciate your point about the more money than sense brigade brandishing expensive cameras that they have no clue how to use, but bought them simply ebcause they were expensive / fashionable.
 
I find it a little strange that people who strive to find beauty in objects,buildings,people and landscapes can't appreciate the looks of some of these "retro" look cameras. Anything that make you want to use your camera more is only a good thing in my book. I don't even own one, don't have any urge to buy one, but can see why people want them!
 
Personally I don't like the retro styling of the cameras. The Fuji, Leicas and the like are just not for me. I can't see the point of a black & white only to be honest (but that's my opinion) but if people want to buy and use them then that's up to the individual. I think it's pretty insulting to the people who own them to call them 'fashion victims'. I do think however, the gold plated, diamond studded, or Porsche and Ferrari badges for ridiculous amounts are too over the top and the people buying them are more likely to become 'robbery victims' than anything else. I can't see the need to put a different badge on and charge a ludicrous amount extra for it. Maybe the people buying them are the 'fashion victims' the OP was on about.

I'm a 'scooter riding mod' and into the sixties and eighties music so you can't get much more of a retro fashion, but I'll stick to my dslr's and you guys can have whatever camera you want.
 
Last edited:
The Panasonic and Leica cameras that were virtually the same, but one had a red badge that said Leica, and the other didn't, guess which one was the cheaper? ;) I have no doubt that the Panasonic version sold the most by a fair amount because people either didn't know there was an alternative, or didn't know/care who Leica are/were. :shrug: But for those to whom it made a difference, that was some more cash to get off them. ;) :lol:

The Pentax and Samsung cameras that were again, virtually the same. Most people will go for a brand name they know, even if they have to pay a bit more. :shrug:

There's normally a style of camera for all different camera types.

I think a lot of the Fuji buyers are quite happy that the cameras are styled the way they are, rather than the Sony, and now Canon, functional design. ;)
 
Part of my reasons for buying an x100 was because of its vintage-style design. Not because I had some hipster tendencies but rather because I love the classic ergonomics. I can't be bothered fiddling around with menus to change things - I love that my shutter control, E-Comp and aperture ring are physically at hand. If I shot anything other than manual this might not matter as much granted.

Some will say modern cameras have better functionality but I'm yet to find a good value point and shoot or mirrorless that doesn't frustrate me with menus and virtual controls rather than good old fashioned physical knobs, dials and viewfinders.

I also subscribe to the Jobs school of thought regarding design... good aesthetics twinned with good ergonomics add immensely to the user experience.
 
Last edited:
decigallen said:
I also subscribe to the Jobs school of thought regarding design... good aesthetics twinned with good ergonomics add immensely to the user experience.
Click to expand...

I would like to agree with this but I have an old 20d and I really love using it (more than any other camera I have tried - admittedly only tried about 10 or so but they were of very varying kinds)
The ergonomics of it are what make me love using it, is it aesthetically pleasing - probably not to many (but don't tell it I said that!)
 
What bothers me more is that so many professional companies are writing their content in some sort of 'Hipster-english' that as standard has to be punctuated by the words 'awesome,' 'rad' and twee words like 'fuzzy.'

Radlab/TRA are among the main offenders. Despite being very able actions their sales pitch and action-naming convention is nauseating

Makes me hark back to a time of needless jargon.
 
decigallen said:
Part of my reasons for buying an x100 was because of its vintage-style design. Not because I had some hipster tendencies but rather because I love the classic ergonomics. I can't be bothered fiddling around with menus to change things - I love that my shutter control, E-Comp and aperture ring are physically at hand. If I shot anything other than manual this might not matter as much granted.
Click to expand...

+1

Don't have an X100, but rather more why I still enjoy shooting with my film cameras, though also why I like using MF lenses (with a aperture ring) on digital. For the most part, dedicated controls stay where you expect them to be and don't suddenly change their function because you're in the wrong mode.
 
I still think the new Canon EOS M should look like the old Canonet with viewfinder.
 
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...

I thought of this when I saw a poster advertising the Fiat 500 - "the new season's colours" - but that car really is marketed as a fashion piece.
 
Most Retro camera can be very easy to use in the basic manual mode...or A/S priority.

on the X10 You can even do a quick prefocus in manual mode using the AFL/AEL button.
or In other modes I use the same button to lock exposure (on/off)

Either which way it speeds up working.
 
I've had a few folk recently comment on the M9's looks, never happened with any other camera really unless I had the 300mm f/2.8 on it. The M design hasn't really changed much in 50+ years though. Getting rid of a lot of the tacky plastic would help aesthetics of modern cameras.
 
Laudrup said:
Getting rid of a lot of the tacky plastic would help aesthetics of modern cameras.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate please? As silly as it may seem, I can't think of a model (other than really low-budget 'bargain bin' models) with either excessive or obviously tacky plastic (Holgas and the yellow Pentax linked to earlier in the thread excepted)
 
weybourne said:
Can you elaborate please? As silly as it may seem, I can't think of a model (other than really low-budget 'bargain bin' models) with either excessive or obviously tacky plastic (Holgas and the yellow Pentax linked to earlier in the thread excepted)
Click to expand...

For me , what it means is todays cameras, even top end pro bodies have a lot of plastic on them, even if it is just a casing over a metal chassis, when you go back to the late seventies must 35mm cameras were solid metal with little or no plastic on them.

I still love my RZ more than my Nikon digital just because of the feel and build of it compared to my Nikon's, and I love my Nikon'sa lot.lol
 
Davec223 said:
For me , what it means is todays cameras, even top end pro bodies have a lot of plastic on them, even if it is just a casing over a metal chassis, when you go back to the late seventies must 35mm cameras were solid metal with little or no plastic on them.
Click to expand...

Mmm - I'm not so sure - I've just been taking a look at my 50D and I don't think it has that much plastic on it - no more than I recall my KR-10S having - that model is 1982 - not quite late 70's but when I compare pictures of it to the Olympus OM-1 & OM-2 (early to mid 70's), it doesn't look that plasticky compared to them either.

The differences that I do notice are the more rounded body, prism housing and top/bottom plates and a particular type of matte finish - all finishes/stylings that weren't as easily achievable in the 70's in metal but were achievable using plastic. There are fewer leather/fabric coverings nowadays - replaced with rubber/synthetic rubber type materials.

Obviously my 50D has displays/screens that weren't present in cameras from the 70's - but then it is a digital camera and not a film camera.

By way of contrast, look at these old models:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/s-demir/6979445991/in/pool-camerapedia/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/s-demir/6944007191/in/pool-camerapedia

http://www.flickr.com/photos/n6nkn/148874122/in/pool-camerapedia

http://www.flickr.com/photos/goodimages/130121201/in/pool-camerapedia/
 
I think it is just that a lot of the old cameras were more obviously made of metal in the same way that a Leica is today. The fact that a lot of them were silver helped make it more obvious.

However, it is not the 1950s and plastics are not new/to be suspicious of. :)

What is wrong with using good quality, hard wearing plastics even if they are there to cover the magnesium/other metal body?
Making the metal parts of a modern DSLR more obvious in the way they were on old cameras would completely ruin the aesthetic for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top