The importance of camera styling and appearance

Again, my friend, I must thank you for the wealth and detail of information you have provided in this thread ... I'm sure we all appreciate your time ... I know that I've certainly learned quite a bit from this Forum, but not always useful information ... thanks again!

It is a bit of a shame though, as I like the extra 50mm on the D5 due to the smaller CCD, but now I have to balance that with what will likely be very poor low-light performance from the EVF/LCD ... it really is strange for those of us who have read, and re-read the info on the D5/D7 only to discover on the Xth read that I missed something ... =0)

I wonder how poor or not the EVF/LCD on the D5 will be in low-light?

So far, here in Canada the price differential will be as follows:

D7 = $2000.00
D5 = $1600.00
S304 = $1000.00

and then tax on top of that ... ah well, is the D7 worth the extra $400 is the real question ... bigger CCD to be sure, but I can't help but wonder exactly what the 3MP quality of the D5 will be like thanks to that lens ...

Kind regards,

Martin

The Man said:

The "Automatic Monitor Amplification" as it is called is only on
the D7, not on the D5.
Also, when the lighting is very low and the monitor automatically
increases gain it will switch to black and white but the sharpness
and detail is still outstanding. It's more than enough quality to
still be able to frame precisely and also manual focus.
If you are choosing between the D7 or D5 and money isn't the
primary consideration, I'd recommend getting the D7 if for no other
reason than the higher resolution. I may not always need the
5.2MP for what i'm doing, but having it allows me to do any
additional cropping or other work in Photoshop (which always
reduces the pixel count) and still have enough resolution or pixels
left over to be able to print what size picture I want. If I try
that on a lower 3.3MP camera I usually have to end up with a
smaller size final picture becaure with the cropping, etc, I've
reduced the file size enough that to get the quality I'm looking
for I can't get the print size I may want or need.
Other than the Automatic Monitor Amplification, the other
differences between the D7 and D5 are:
1. focal length of the lens on the D5 is 35-250mm compared to the
28-200mm on the D7. This is because of the difference in the CCD
chip size although the lens is actually identical to what is on the
D7.
2. 3.3MP CCD chip on the D5 as opposed to 5.2MP CCD chip on the D7
3. The D5 has a 256 segment Super Multi-segment metering where the
D7 has a 300 segment super Multi-segment metering. Both systems do
also read and meter for color.
4. The D7 has a 4x magnification switch for the LCD which also
helps while manual focusing, etc., the D5 doesn't have this feature.
5. Drive mode: the D7 can do 1.1 fps up to 7 frames in hi-res mode.
The D5 can do 1.6fps for up to 20 frames in hi-res mode.

I hope this helps

Martin said:

I would ask you one other question, but it may be outside the scope
of your knowledge considering it involves a difference between the
D5 and D7, if you look at Minolta's dimage site ... it seems to
indicate that the CCD does NOT gain up in low light situations on
the D5, only on the D7 ... have you read any remarks to this effect?

It would be a real shame, considering the otherwise slight
differences between the 5 and 7 ... but if low-light shooting takes
a hit on the 5, then I'll probably be happier with the 7 ... any
other comments regarding this point would be welcomed.

Thanks again!

Kind regards,

Martin

The Man said:

Martin said:

To follow up, but not in regards to the styling of the D7 as I
think digital photography is a progressive industry, and I feel
that the D7 has a progressive look to it ... so, no problems on my
end with respect to styling, I want great pictures! Period.

However, I would be interested to know your opinion on the apparent
AF speed, and possible EVF/LCD delay that has cropped up in another
thread ... if you could comment on your experience so far, I would
greatly appreciate your input.

Kind regards,

Martin

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MikeA said:

Egad, what will the "trolls" do if someone buys a Dimage 7 and
says: "I think this thing is beautiful?" Then, the "trolls" have a
serious problem. Cuz then they have to prove it's not beautiful.

Click to expand...

I just looked at that first head on picture, and the camera is ugly as sin. But if it performs as well as the specs suggest, that would be as silly a reason not to buy one ( when they become affordable ) as the fact that it's called 7 and not 8.

Yes, please post some pictures for us all to see first hand. Where did you get your D7, Japan? Did you just get back or were you able to take some pictures over there! Can't wait for your picture posting.
Mike

The Man said:

The "Automatic Monitor Amplification" as it is called is only on
the D7, not on the D5.
Also, when the lighting is very low and the monitor automatically
increases gain it will switch to black and white but the sharpness
and detail is still outstanding. It's more than enough quality to
still be able to frame precisely and also manual focus.
If you are choosing between the D7 or D5 and money isn't the
primary consideration, I'd recommend getting the D7 if for no other
reason than the higher resolution. I may not always need the
5.2MP for what i'm doing, but having it allows me to do any
additional cropping or other work in Photoshop (which always
reduces the pixel count) and still have enough resolution or pixels
left over to be able to print what size picture I want. If I try
that on a lower 3.3MP camera I usually have to end up with a
smaller size final picture becaure with the cropping, etc, I've
reduced the file size enough that to get the quality I'm looking
for I can't get the print size I may want or need.
Other than the Automatic Monitor Amplification, the other
differences between the D7 and D5 are:
1. focal length of the lens on the D5 is 35-250mm compared to the
28-200mm on the D7. This is because of the difference in the CCD
chip size although the lens is actually identical to what is on the
D7.
2. 3.3MP CCD chip on the D5 as opposed to 5.2MP CCD chip on the D7
3. The D5 has a 256 segment Super Multi-segment metering where the
D7 has a 300 segment super Multi-segment metering. Both systems do
also read and meter for color.
4. The D7 has a 4x magnification switch for the LCD which also
helps while manual focusing, etc., the D5 doesn't have this feature.
5. Drive mode: the D7 can do 1.1 fps up to 7 frames in hi-res mode.
The D5 can do 1.6fps for up to 20 frames in hi-res mode.

I hope this helps

Martin said:

I would ask you one other question, but it may be outside the scope
of your knowledge considering it involves a difference between the
D5 and D7, if you look at Minolta's dimage site ... it seems to
indicate that the CCD does NOT gain up in low light situations on
the D5, only on the D7 ... have you read any remarks to this effect?

It would be a real shame, considering the otherwise slight
differences between the 5 and 7 ... but if low-light shooting takes
a hit on the 5, then I'll probably be happier with the 7 ... any
other comments regarding this point would be welcomed.

Thanks again!

Kind regards,

Martin

The Man said:

Martin said:

To follow up, but not in regards to the styling of the D7 as I
think digital photography is a progressive industry, and I feel
that the D7 has a progressive look to it ... so, no problems on my
end with respect to styling, I want great pictures! Period.

However, I would be interested to know your opinion on the apparent
AF speed, and possible EVF/LCD delay that has cropped up in another
thread ... if you could comment on your experience so far, I would
greatly appreciate your input.

Kind regards,

Martin

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Giovanni said:

The perception about what it's ugly and what it's nice it's
strongly depending on the cultural influences.

Click to expand...

It certainly does. But even if it did not: I am constantly amused by the childishness of the whole "Waaaah! The camera is ugly! It offends my sensibilities!" mentality. What are these cameras? (Yes, even the "toy" purchased by the forum's latest "troll," with the endlessly changing juvenile screen names and the fake e-mail address.) "Ugly" or not, they're astonishing pieces of engineering, with miniaturized computing power barely imagined (or not imagined at all) at the dawn of the computer age.

Whether or not a given camera's sensor can produce results that rival photographic film, in the hands of an experienced enough person, the whole system -- camera, software, inkjet or other printer -- can produce prints whose color quality vastly exceeds the quality of any print I ever saw come out of a commercial color lab. I've seen dye-transfer prints that looked better; on the other hand, the photographer Jay Maisel has declared that his Epson 1270 prints look better to him than the expensive dye-transfer prints he used to order--at great expense.

What can this tell us? What have we got on our hands here? Answer: something amazing. Machines that might themselves be unattractive, but which provide their users with the capability of producing something beautiful. Considering that capability, it continues to amaze me that the equipment-weenies in these forums actually care how the cameras look on the outside. The mentality is baffling.

Clearly no such machine is perfect or gorgeous. But considering what they can do , the whining about how they aren't good-looking enough...well, it does come off simply as whining. What a bunch of spoiled-rotten brats we moderns have become. "I HATE the Space Shuttle! It's the wrong color! And those tacky window treatments! The world just isn't RIGHT FOR ME! Waaaaaaahhhhhhhh!"

SweetCharity said:

I am sure that Minolta will be heart-broken over your choice to not
purchase their Dimage 7. However, I think that your reasoning is
rather misguided.

Click to expand...

The appearance is merely a piece of the reasoning. And it is not my wish or intention to break Minolta hearts, merely to post an opinion in a discussion forum.

SweetCharity said:

Any digital camera will attract a certain amount of attention in
public.

Click to expand...

A Coolpix 990 will be more conspicuous than a CP880.

SweetCharity said:

Otherwise, cough up three grand for a Canon D-30 body, a few more
hundred bucks for a lens (maybe 2) and flash and get the hell off
Minolta's back.

Click to expand...

I'm not on Minolta's back. I have a D1X on order, to compliment my existing film Nikon gear (already have lenses and flashes and neg scanning equipment). Before you say it, the D1X is one big ugly lump of camera, rather like the F5. The F5 only comes out on business, I have a basic 2MP digicam for family stuff.

SweetCharity said:

Now, to address this Dimage 7 issue.

Its hot. Its happening. And it'll blow any other equally priced
camera out of the water (and probably a few higher priced digitals
too). The lens ranges from a 28mm to a 200mm with macro, and does
well in low light situations.

Click to expand...

For six months or so this will be true.

SweetCharity said:

I've seen some 11x14 photos produced from the Dimage 7 and let me
tell you, the clarity and color is un-f* ing-believable. I just
got mine and I love it.

Click to expand...

I don't disbelieve you, the specification speaks for itself.

SweetCharity said:

The Dimage 7 is far from a "kid's toy."

Click to expand...

But it looks like one.

Martin said:

It is a bit of a shame though, as I like the extra 50mm on the D5
due to the smaller CCD, but now I have to balance that with what
will likely be very poor low-light performance from the EVF/LCD ...

Click to expand...

You could just crop the D7's 5mp to get a digital zoom effect. BTW isn't this all a little off topic. We are supposed to be talking about how ugly the D7 is.

Where di you and The Man get your D7. I assume you're related. Please, let us know and see some of the pictures to compar!
Mike

SweetCharity said:

I am sure that Minolta will be heart-broken over your choice to not
purchase their Dimage 7. However, I think that your reasoning is
rather misguided.

Any digital camera will attract a certain amount of attention in
public. I was one of the original digital camera users, long before
removable memory. Anybody remember the Kodak 25? I can't tell you
how many strangers would walk up to me and ask me about my digital
cameras. And that was a somewhat normal looking camera by
comparison.

Its still a new arena. People are still curious. Get over it.
Otherwise, cough up three grand for a Canon D-30 body, a few more
hundred bucks for a lens (maybe 2) and flash and get the hell off
Minolta's back.

Now, to address this Dimage 7 issue.

Its hot. Its happening. And it'll blow any other equally priced
camera out of the water (and probably a few higher priced digitals
too). The lens ranges from a 28mm to a 200mm with macro, and does
well in low light situations.

I've seen some 11x14 photos produced from the Dimage 7 and let me
tell you, the clarity and color is un-f* ing-believable. I just
got mine and I love it.

The Dimage 7 is far from a "kid's toy."

Click to expand...

Hugo Martinez said:

Mr DooDah, or Carstairs, or Codpiece... or whatever other
name you choose to go by at this minute...

Click to expand...

I see the "gentleman" is at it again -- this time as "ballsout" (an entirely different login from another phony e-mail address -- before, it was "[email protected]"; now, he's "[email protected]"). The hits just keep on comin'...there's got to be an AOL chat room somewhere that would love to have this guy as a member.

The Man said:

Martin,

Click to expand...

The issue of noise has cropped up alot in regards to the Dimage.....what is your take on the noise level, and what was your last digital camera that you are using to compare the noise level?

Thanks

I'm really amazed at the amount of passion that this camera has evoked in people. Reading through this forum, it's clear that there is an emotional response (in both directions) that has been, most likely, amplified by growing expectations, hopes, worries (that it may not be everything we hope it could be, like the bargain of the year), and impatience. Personally, I feel that, for tools like this, beauty is a direct result of function. If this camera feels good in my hands, has all of the controls easily accessible to my fingers, is well balanced, relatively light weight, and has a bright-clear LCD and EVF, I will declare it the most beautiful camera ever made! Even the silver color, while not the present norm for higher end film cameras, may add to the function, with the (theoretical, don't know if proven by testing) reflective properites keeping the CCD cooler, and, therefore, less prone to digital noise.

Even though I only got my G1 4 months ago, I'm considering upgrading to a D7, if it meets it's promise, as I really hate using the LCD outdoors, and not getting any info on the settings by using the optical VF instead. With the 5MP, I will also be able to actually use the digital zoom for wildlife shots, and have enough resolution for decent prints, so, effectively having a 400mm zoom!

Anyway, what do I know about beauty? I rode around in an AMC Pacer when I was growing up!
-David

Icypeak said:

I'm really amazed at the amount of passion that this camera has
evoked in people.

Click to expand...

It's pretty strange. (Though the messages posted by the excruciatingly articulate "DogDoo" -- a.k.a. "DooDah" -- don't quite make it up the ladder to the "passion" rung.

Member said:

Personally, I feel that, for tools like this, beauty is a direct result of function.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Exactly .

Member said:

the optical VF instead. With the 5MP, I will also be able to
actually use the digital zoom for wildlife shots

Click to expand...

This has occurred to me as well, though of course with digital zooming we don't get the effect (compression of perspective, changes in depth of field at a given aperture) of having an actual 400mm lens.

Member said:

Anyway, what do I know about beauty? I rode around in an AMC Pacer
when I was growing up!

Click to expand...

Omigod. Geez, I'm surprised they even let you on dpreview.com.

only end result matter? Do you like beauty clothing? why buy different color of clothing? are they the same in END Result? How about food? does taste matter to you? or just the END RESULT?

Indeed, style isnt the the most important factor in buying a camera, BUT IT COUNT! IF end result is everything, what is END RESULT of a photo? what use of a piece of paper with color on it? we dont need it to survive, if you consider survive is our end result.

The Man said:

DooDah said:

There does seem to be a fairly busy thread in Minolta talk about
the ugliness of the Dimage 7 camera. appearance has been discussed
on a smaller scale in Olympus Talk too, regarding the 2100UZ.

Users of conventional cameras have held the opinion for years that
the small rangefinder cameras like the Leica have an advantage over
the 'in your face' SLRs in certain modes of photography - like the
candid for example.

If you, as a photographer, have to stand in public and tote your
camera, the last thing you need to feel is self conscious. The
particular styling of the Dimage 7, it has to be said, is quite
conspicuous, - no that's being too kind. The Dimage 7 is a
dog-ugly device looking more like a sci-fi weapon than a camera.
Even the Nikon 990 swivel style is wierd enough to attract
inquisitive glances from strangers. Camera sttling IS important.

The digital camera manufacturers are trying to be innovative - you
can't blame them for that. The conventional film camera styling is
largely dictated by the need to run a spool of film behind a lens.
Years of research has gone into camera ergonomics and they are
reviewed and rated according to their ease of handling. In digital
camera the shape is not constrained by the physical medium, hence
the new styles available. Fuji have had the Porsche styling house
design the successor to the 4700, nice try but that vertical shape
is still too much.

The styling of new digicams may well work in Japanese culture, but
if the case designs were styled in Italy, I am certain we would be
looking at very different cameras. The Dimage 7 styling is pretty
bad, particularly the side of the camera where the lens is - looks
like a piece of air conditioning duct work. Looks like a kids toy-
sc-fi weapon. I will not be purchasing one and the styling is a big
factor in that decision.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Martin wrote:

I understand your desire for the extra focal length, but consider for a moment that extra 50mm........its really not all that much of a difference. Also both cameras ( D7 and D5) have a 2x digital zoom in addition to the optical zoom. Now, I'm never a big fan of digital zooms, but when you take in account the lower power of the digital zoom - only 2x - in relation to the high resoultion of the CCD chip and the quality of the lens, your really not going to lose much quality at all if you realy need to take advantage of the extra zoom capabilities.

Of course, this also comes back to the point of features and price. I know in Canada prices are higher than here in the US and you must weigh the importance of cost against what features you need most. If you really need the 50mm additional zoom on the D5 over the higher resolution of the D7, wait till August and save the money, if the money is only a secondary consideration than by all means get the D7.

I don't think the low-light performance of the EVF/LCD of the D5 is going to be as bad as you may be imagining. Believe me, both cameras have very new technology on both the EVF and LCD and although the D7 takes it just a step further, don't discount what the quality is going to be on the D5.

I've read a few responses to my posts and i've had requests for sample files and if I've used the Raw file mode, the utility, etc.. So far I've only shot the camera in the high resolution uncompressed Tiff mode - I haven't tried the Raw file mode yet or the very complete utility that IS packaged with it to open and work with the Raw files. As someone asked if the utility comes with the camera as opposed to having to purchase it seperatly - it does come complete with the utility for both PC and Mac (which is great because I run both platforms) and it is very complete with great features. I have opened the utility and looked through the features although haven't utilized them yet - I'm hoping to find time this weekend for that.

As for sample images, give me a few days first. I want to test out the Raw files first and besides, once I have Raw files they will be easier to send since they are smaller file sizes than the Tiffs I currently have.

Martin45638 said:

Again, my friend, I must thank you for the wealth and detail of
information you have provided in this thread ... I'm sure we all
appreciate your time ... I know that I've certainly learned quite a
bit from this Forum, but not always useful information ... thanks
again!

It is a bit of a shame though, as I like the extra 50mm on the D5
due to the smaller CCD, but now I have to balance that with what
will likely be very poor low-light performance from the EVF/LCD ...
it really is strange for those of us who have read, and re-read the
info on the D5/D7 only to discover on the Xth read that I missed
something ... =0)

I wonder how poor or not the EVF/LCD on the D5 will be in low-light?

So far, here in Canada the price differential will be as follows:

D7 = $2000.00
D5 = $1600.00
S304 = $1000.00

and then tax on top of that ... ah well, is the D7 worth the extra
$400 is the real question ... bigger CCD to be sure, but I can't
help but wonder exactly what the 3MP quality of the D5 will be like
thanks to that lens ...

Kind regards,

Martin

The Man said:

The "Automatic Monitor Amplification" as it is called is only on
the D7, not on the D5.
Also, when the lighting is very low and the monitor automatically
increases gain it will switch to black and white but the sharpness
and detail is still outstanding. It's more than enough quality to
still be able to frame precisely and also manual focus.
If you are choosing between the D7 or D5 and money isn't the
primary consideration, I'd recommend getting the D7 if for no other
reason than the higher resolution. I may not always need the
5.2MP for what i'm doing, but having it allows me to do any
additional cropping or other work in Photoshop (which always
reduces the pixel count) and still have enough resolution or pixels
left over to be able to print what size picture I want. If I try
that on a lower 3.3MP camera I usually have to end up with a
smaller size final picture becaure with the cropping, etc, I've
reduced the file size enough that to get the quality I'm looking
for I can't get the print size I may want or need.
Other than the Automatic Monitor Amplification, the other
differences between the D7 and D5 are:
1. focal length of the lens on the D5 is 35-250mm compared to the
28-200mm on the D7. This is because of the difference in the CCD
chip size although the lens is actually identical to what is on the
D7.
2. 3.3MP CCD chip on the D5 as opposed to 5.2MP CCD chip on the D7
3. The D5 has a 256 segment Super Multi-segment metering where the
D7 has a 300 segment super Multi-segment metering. Both systems do
also read and meter for color.
4. The D7 has a 4x magnification switch for the LCD which also
helps while manual focusing, etc., the D5 doesn't have this feature.
5. Drive mode: the D7 can do 1.1 fps up to 7 frames in hi-res mode.
The D5 can do 1.6fps for up to 20 frames in hi-res mode.

I hope this helps

Martin said:

I would ask you one other question, but it may be outside the scope
of your knowledge considering it involves a difference between the
D5 and D7, if you look at Minolta's dimage site ... it seems to
indicate that the CCD does NOT gain up in low light situations on
the D5, only on the D7 ... have you read any remarks to this effect?

It would be a real shame, considering the otherwise slight
differences between the 5 and 7 ... but if low-light shooting takes
a hit on the 5, then I'll probably be happier with the 7 ... any
other comments regarding this point would be welcomed.

Thanks again!

Kind regards,

Martin

The Man said:

Martin said:

To follow up, but not in regards to the styling of the D7 as I
think digital photography is a progressive industry, and I feel
that the D7 has a progressive look to it ... so, no problems on my
end with respect to styling, I want great pictures! Period.

However, I would be interested to know your opinion on the apparent
AF speed, and possible EVF/LCD delay that has cropped up in another
thread ... if you could comment on your experience so far, I would
greatly appreciate your input.

Kind regards,

Martin

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Its as ugly as sin itself......... you have no taste.

Paul Pope said:

Its as ugly as sin itself......... you have no taste.

Click to expand...

EEEEEK! Merciful heavens! They've found us out, folks! NO TASTE! Not an extra-large closet full of Church shoes, all of them pointing north -- but instead, a couple of pairs of smelly tennis shoes! No collection of Jerry Garcia ties -- just a couple of "Dang, but this-here bar-BEE-cue shore is GOOD" bolo ties! No beluga caviar in the refrigerator -- just a half-eaten container of Lunchables, some pop-tarts, and the Tupperware container of...well, whatever that green stuff is. Beats me. (Stop me if you've heard all this before.)

EXPOSED BEFORE THE WORLD! NO TASTE! EEEEEEEEEK! I'M MELTING....MELTING.....!

... melting ........

Ok, well anyway, when you've got your tasteful camera, whatever it is, all dusted off and polished up and sitting on its alabaster pedestal in the glass case, let us know and we'll all stop by and positively drip admiration all over it. Bonus points if you have the sales receipt framed on the wall just behind it -- and thanks ever so much, as always, for sharing.

That is what my wife keeps telling me, so it must be true.
Actually I am 6 foot tall, fat, half bald with a long ponytail and
beard, and on top of that I am ugly to boot. Anything
but a Harley tee-shirt makes people nervous around me. If
I wear a tee-shirt with no pocket, people think I am dressed
formal, and enquire as to who died. With me behind it, no one
would ever notice that the camera is ugly. In other words,
who cares what other people think my camera looks like?

MikeA said:

Paul Pope said:

Its as ugly as sin itself......... you have no taste.

Click to expand...

EEEEEK! Merciful heavens! They've found us out, folks! NO TASTE!
Not an extra-large closet full of Church shoes, all of them
pointing north -- but instead, a couple of pairs of smelly tennis
shoes! No collection of Jerry Garcia ties -- just a couple of
"Dang, but this-here bar-BEE-cue shore is GOOD" bolo ties! No
beluga caviar in the refrigerator -- just a half-eaten container of
Lunchables, some pop-tarts, and
anyway> the Tupperware container of...well, whatever that green
stuff is. Beats me. (Stop me if you've heard all this before.)

EXPOSED BEFORE THE WORLD! NO TASTE! EEEEEEEEEK! I'M
MELTING....MELTING.....!

... melting ........

Ok, well anyway, when you've got your tasteful camera, whatever it
is, all dusted off and polished up and sitting on its alabaster
pedestal in the glass case, let us know and we'll all stop by and
positively drip admiration all over it. Bonus points if you have
the sales receipt framed on the wall just behind it -- and thanks
ever so much, as always, for sharing.

Click to expand...

Bob Williams said:

That is what my wife keeps telling me, so it must be true.
Actually I am 6 foot tall, fat, half bald with a long ponytail and
beard, and on top of that I am ugly to boot.

Click to expand...

Duuuude! Photo-biker chic! That is just, like, SO roadside attraction!

Member said:

formal, and enquire as to who died. With me behind it, no one
would ever notice that the camera is ugly. In other words,
who cares what other people think my camera looks like?

Click to expand...

"Oh, yeah? Think this is ugly? Wait'll you see the tattoo on my back depicting the fall of the Roman Empire. Go on. DARE me..."

The ugly camera thing is just too much. As a disabled plastics
mold setter, the plastic complaint is also bogus to me. I know
what you can do with plastic, and like I already said, my last
camera was plastic, and was returned without a scratch on it
after over 5000 images in 4 months. If you show your tat in
public, you will force me to post a self portrait! You don't
want to do that. As far as motorcycles go, I am disabled
because I get dizzy and fall down. For some odd reason, I
don't ride right now. There is hope left in the world tho.
Now, can we get down to the real issue? Real world photos
from real world people taken in modes designed to give the
camera a chance? Fragments hopefully, as my 56k connection
is already mad at the D-7.

MikeA said:

Bob Williams said:

That is what my wife keeps telling me, so it must be true.
Actually I am 6 foot tall, fat, half bald with a long ponytail and
beard, and on top of that I am ugly to boot.

Click to expand...

Duuuude! Photo-biker chic! That is just, like, SO roadside
attraction!

MikeA said:

formal, and enquire as to who died. With me behind it, no one
would ever notice that the camera is ugly. In other words,
who cares what other people think my camera looks like?

Click to expand...

"Oh, yeah? Think this is ugly? Wait'll you see the tattoo on my
back depicting the fall of the Roman Empire. Go on. DARE me..."

Click to expand...

Hi. I'm new to this forum. I ran across it thru reasearch into the MD7. I've been a Minolta user for about 30 years. I'm a retired research scientist who was engineering wide-screen military (black hole) projects. I have worked/designed many projects that were not pretty--BUT, they got the job done. Part of my job requirement was high resolution imaging of (extremely) wide-angle mirror systems. I have always insisted on Minolta equipment. I knew that I could depend upon the results.

So, what's the fuss about the esthetics of the camera body?

I've been awaiting a Minolta DC debut. The time is now, apparently, if only I could purchase one somewhere. I currently use the Minolta 9000-AF film-based camera and the Sony DSC-F505 DC. Photography was my business and is now my hobby. Hurry along, Phil.

By the way, I was published in the 1981 edition of the "Minolta Mirror," p.121, lower photo. I used an XD-11 and a bellows, with a reversed 50mm Minolta lens, adapter ring, and a filter. Sure weren't pretty, but it got the job done, right(?). In a hundred years or so, who will give a damn?.

So, I guess I'm utterly amazed at all of the input concerning the body cover. Don't forget what's inside--that's what counts--believe me; I know.

Okay, guys, and dogpoo, or whatever, go at it. Just thought I'd input this, as I feel my blood pressure rising quickly. Bye.

Sincerely,

Dave.

Bob Williams said:

The ugly camera thing is just too much.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is. Totally ridiculous.

Member said:

the plastic complaint is also bogus to me. I know
what you can do with plastic

Click to expand...

I can see why someone would feel under-confident in a machine if it "feels" flimsy. But the question is: IS it flimsy? At work they supply coffee in these thin plastic packages. I mean, THIN. And everyone uses scissors to cut the damned things open, because just about nobody is strong enough either to tear the plastic or even pull the package apart at the seams (the adhesive -- probably some other kind of plastic -- is very strong). So...is some control or compartment door (battery compartment, the cover for the panel containing the ports, etc.) liable to snap right off? Yeah, that would bother me.

Hey! How about they resurrect Bakelite and start making cameras out of it? Of course they'd be liable to shatter into a million pieces if they were sneezed on, but by godfrey they'd feel as if they were tough and solid.

And of course, they'd be beautiful. Imagine...this for the guy with the closet-ful of tasteful shoes: a Bakelite camera, shiny black on the outside, with the elegant styling that elicits such fond memories of the high design sense of the 1950s. (At which point the equipment geeks would start having arguments along the lines of "My retro is better than YOUR retro".