Reading mode: Light Dark

Will Canon ever produce a "beautiful" classic looking R camera?

Go to last post
Canon does have a sort of distinctive curvy look in all their digital cameras, if in a sort of non offending Toyota Corolla-ish way. I think other companies cameras often look better, except Sony. Ugh.

But I would like to see them do a QL17ish digital rangefinder style camera. With a fixed lens, or maybe RF but with a great little pancake lens for it.
 
Arcoril said:
Interpol said:
I care much more about what the insides of the camera can do than how it looks on the outside.

The beauty/aesthetics of a camera body are purely subjective and debatable. The functionality and capabilities of a camera body are not.
Click to expand...
Photography's a hobby for me. I have more fun with interesting looking cameras. Bodies and lenses are so good these days that if I'm taking bad pictures then I'm the problem.
Click to expand...
It's a hobby for me too. Glad you have more fun with interesting looking cameras. I suppose I might too (never really thought about it), but on the priority list of factors that affect my choice camera brand/body, how the body looks is at the bottom of that list.

Note that I am *not* talking about ergonomics, but design. There's a big difference.
 
I think Canon is function over form. Or form is defined by function. I would love it to look line Leica or Fuji, but what makes me want to shoot is not how the camera looks, but the subject I want to photograph

davidbindle said:
Is it just me? Canon is producing some technological wonders, but nothing that looks exceptionally beautiful that inspires me to pick it up and go shoot.

Could they seriously not produce something with chrome on it with some analog-style top dials?

Could they not produce a rangefinder "style" FF like Sony's A7C or Nikons Zfc or something based on the look of an old Canon film camera like an AE-1 or QL-GIII rangefinder... or their answer to the Fuji X100 V???

I think that if they would come up with the right "recipe" for a small, beautiful, analogue styled camera - packed with recent Canon technology - they would sell like hot-cakes.

Other opinions??

David B
Click to expand...
 
No, they won’t (IMO). For one thing, “analogue style dials” requires a complete change of UI. If you really want that, buy a Fuji (and they are now producing bodies with digital-style dials), or better yet, a classic film camera like an OM-1, Spotmatic, Nikon F or Leica. I still have two of those, and have owned many others. That’s the true analogue experience. I don’t need fake aesthetics to find inspiration.
 
Canon_Guy said:
davidbindle said:
Is it just me? Canon is producing some technological wonders, but nothing that looks exceptionally beautiful that inspires me to pick it up and go shoot.
Click to expand...
What does it mean "exceptionally beautiful" in regard of a camera?

In my subjective case the looks of a camera has zero influence on my motivation to shoot. Unlike IQ, ergonomics, functions.
Canon_Guy said:
Could they seriously not produce something with chrome on it with some analog-style top dials?
Click to expand...
That would make it exceptionally beautiful?
Canon_Guy said:
Could they not produce a rangefinder "style" FF like Sony's A7C or Nikons Zfc or something based on the look of an old Canon film camera like an AE-1 or QL-GIII rangefinder... or their answer to the Fuji X100 V???
Click to expand...
Each manufactures chooses his own distinctive design language. Canon chose his for digital cameras with EOS D10 and keeps it.
Canon_Guy said:
I think that if they would come up with the right "recipe" for a small, beautiful, analogue styled camera - packed with recent Canon technology - they would sell like hot-cakes.
Click to expand...
Based on what relevant objective information you assume the current design is not "right" while what you suggest would be "right"?
Canon_Guy said:
Other opinions??
Click to expand...
Yes - camera is a tool not an artifact to look at on the shelf.
Canon_Guy said:
David B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The “a camera is just a tool” argument to justify ugliness is lame at best. A hammer is a tool.

Some of us appreciate aesthetics (I guess you are not familiar with Braun design) you can have form and function in the same object. That is why I think the most beautiful cameras are Leica M, especially my Silver M9P.
 
robgendreau said:
Canon does have a sort of distinctive curvy look in all their digital cameras, if in a sort of non offending Toyota Corolla-ish way. I think other companies cameras often look better, except Sony. Ugh.

But I would like to see them do a QL17ish digital rangefinder style camera. With a fixed lens, or maybe RF but with a great little pancake lens for it.
Click to expand...
A digital Canonet would be great, but Canon cares more about function than anything else. (I love my 5D Classic though), that kind of thinking is reserved for Leica, followed by Fuji.
 
Agree with your post!

As an enthusiast Canon EOS shooter for over 30 years I bought a Sony A7C last year to replace my R6 when travelling. The look and size of the R6 with an L-lens just gave me a a feeling of sticking out in crowded places, especially when more and more people use their mobile phones for photos. I guess the Canon APC R-series is less intrusive, but the plastic look and feel of those cameras just feels too close to my 18 year EOS 350d.

I wonder how Apple would have designed a camera system... :-)
 
I would imagine I've got more cameras than most people here, and some of them certainly are things of beauty, and I do love them for that. I think the Art Deco Rolleicord I is just beautiful, for instance, and I love using many SLRs. Canonets, Retinas, Voigtlanders, lots of other Rolleis, you name it. But in all honesty, the looks of some of these modern cameras pretending to be traditional absolutely leave me cold - they don't look genuine, they look like pastiches to me, and I don't believe they do anything at all to improve handling.

Canon were actually one of the first to try this sort of thing in the AF film SLR days, with the EOS 50E/Elan IIe. And it was in no way an improvement in handling over the previous model, the 100/Elan, which basically set the pattern for every SLR and DSLR, and even most mirrorless cameras since. From pretty much all manufacturers.

So if Canon can make a beautiful camera, fantastic - but they won't achieve that by simply sticking a bit of useless chrome on, or adding dials that don't actually improve the handling.
 
CameraCarl said:
My camera is a tool; not a fashion statement. And I think Canon cameras look just fine. After all, I'm looking through them -- not at them.
Click to expand...
You.

And anyway, "analog style top dials etc" as described in the original post doesn't just mean aesthetics. It's about an old fashioned way to control the exposure triangle, a different experience. See Fujifilm X-T series vs X-H.

--
Luc
 
Last edited:
EmotionBlur said:
CameraCarl said:
My camera is a tool; not a fashion statement. And I think Canon cameras look just fine. After all, I'm looking through them -- not at them.
Click to expand...
You.

And anyway, "analog style top dials etc" as described in the original post doesn't just mean aesthetics. It's about an old fashioned way to control the exposure triangle, a different experience. See Fujifilm X-T series vs X-H.
Click to expand...
 
EmotionBlur said:
CameraCarl said:
My camera is a tool; not a fashion statement. And I think Canon cameras look just fine. After all, I'm looking through them -- not at them.
Click to expand...
You.

And anyway, "analog style top dials etc" as described in the original post doesn't just mean aesthetics. It's about an old fashioned way to control the exposure triangle, a different experience. See Fujifilm X-T series vs X-H.
Click to expand...
Exactly, as some of us still like good old metal dials vs. sh!t load of buttons. Simplicity is a beauty in itself. I want a modern version of my first camera: a Digital Canonet!



5a56127344234774b2209efcb2db6f53.jpg



--
Ray
 
Foskito said:
Canon_Guy said:
davidbindle said:
Is it just me? Canon is producing some technological wonders, but nothing that looks exceptionally beautiful that inspires me to pick it up and go shoot.
Click to expand...
What does it mean "exceptionally beautiful" in regard of a camera?

In my subjective case the looks of a camera has zero influence on my motivation to shoot. Unlike IQ, ergonomics, functions.
Member said:
Could they seriously not produce something with chrome on it with some analog-style top dials?
Click to expand...
That would make it exceptionally beautiful?
Member said:
Could they not produce a rangefinder "style" FF like Sony's A7C or Nikons Zfc or something based on the look of an old Canon film camera like an AE-1 or QL-GIII rangefinder... or their answer to the Fuji X100 V???
Click to expand...
Each manufactures chooses his own distinctive design language. Canon chose his for digital cameras with EOS D10 and keeps it.
Member said:
I think that if they would come up with the right "recipe" for a small, beautiful, analogue styled camera - packed with recent Canon technology - they would sell like hot-cakes.
Click to expand...
Based on what relevant objective information you assume the current design is not "right" while what you suggest would be "right"?
Member said:
Other opinions??
Click to expand...
Yes - camera is a tool not an artifact to look at on the shelf.
Member said:
David B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The “a camera is just a tool” argument to justify ugliness is lame at best. A hammer is a tool.

Some of us appreciate aesthetics (I guess you are not familiar with Braun design) you can have form and function in the same object. That is why I think the most beautiful cameras are Leica M, especially my Silver M9P.
Click to expand...
Apparently my point did not reach you.

I am very fine with any appearence of a camera if it does not compromise handling, usability and functions. I am attracted to get up from the sofa and go taking pictures by subjects to shoot. Not by the appearence of the camera bag, tripod leg, flash unit, polarising filter, lens caps etc. Any camera easthetics would not change it anyhow for me.

But I am of course very fine with someone who shoots because of the looks of his camera. It is as individual as it can be. Or better to say I don't care at all. It is everybody's matter.

And regarding the "ugliness". That is something very individual. There is zero relevant point in telling someone what is ugly and what is nice. I do not find my R6 nice from the aesthetical point of view and I don't mind at all. Same I do not find it ugly at all.

Leica M9P is a nice example of the form over function for me. Body like that would keep me from shooting since I would struggle with it.

You perceive this differently and that is absolutely fine for me.

In only shows how the importance of the form and function balance is highly individual.
 
I have my T90, EOS 1n and 5DIV in a display cabinet in my living room. But, but these are cameras I no longer use, and represent the best of the cameras I owned in each of three eras, manual focus film, autofocus film, and dSLR. To me they each have 'classic' looks, especially the T90. The cameras I use, R5, R and R7, are definitely NOT on display as they are in use. They don't have 'classic' looks, but who cares, they are currently the best cameras I own and each serves a distinct purpose, especially the R which has been converted for infrared.
 
Canon_Guy said:
Foskito said:
Canon_Guy said:
davidbindle said:
Is it just me? Canon is producing some technological wonders, but nothing that looks exceptionally beautiful that inspires me to pick it up and go shoot.
Click to expand...
What does it mean "exceptionally beautiful" in regard of a camera?

In my subjective case the looks of a camera has zero influence on my motivation to shoot. Unlike IQ, ergonomics, functions.
Canon_Guy said:
Could they seriously not produce something with chrome on it with some analog-style top dials?
Click to expand...
That would make it exceptionally beautiful?
Canon_Guy said:
Could they not produce a rangefinder "style" FF like Sony's A7C or Nikons Zfc or something based on the look of an old Canon film camera like an AE-1 or QL-GIII rangefinder... or their answer to the Fuji X100 V???
Click to expand...
Each manufactures chooses his own distinctive design language. Canon chose his for digital cameras with EOS D10 and keeps it.
Canon_Guy said:
I think that if they would come up with the right "recipe" for a small, beautiful, analogue styled camera - packed with recent Canon technology - they would sell like hot-cakes.
Click to expand...
Based on what relevant objective information you assume the current design is not "right" while what you suggest would be "right"?
Canon_Guy said:
Other opinions??
Click to expand...
Yes - camera is a tool not an artifact to look at on the shelf.
Canon_Guy said:
David B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The “a camera is just a tool” argument to justify ugliness is lame at best. A hammer is a tool.

Some of us appreciate aesthetics (I guess you are not familiar with Braun design) you can have form and function in the same object. That is why I think the most beautiful cameras are Leica M, especially my Silver M9P.
Click to expand...
Apparently my point did not reach you.

I am very fine with any appearence of a camera if it does not compromise handling, usability and functions. I am attracted to get up from the sofa and go taking pictures by subjects to shoot. Not by the appearence of the camera bag, tripod leg, flash unit, polarising filter, lens caps etc. Any camera easthetics would not change it anyhow for me.

But I am of course very fine with someone who shoots because of the looks of his camera. It is as individual as it can be. Or better to say I don't care at all. It is everybody's matter.

And regarding the "ugliness". That is something very individual. There is zero relevant point in telling someone what is ugly and what is nice. I do not find my R6 nice from the aesthetical point of view and I don't mind at all. Same I do not find it ugly at all.

Leica M9P is a nice example of the form over function for me. Body like that would keep me from shooting since I would struggle with it.

You perceive this differently and that is absolutely fine for me.

In only shows how the importance of the form and function balance is highly individual.
Click to expand...
Of course, aesthetics are completely personal.

The M9P is form and function at it's best. It has everything you need to compose and expose and nothing more. Less is more.

(Nice to see you are not attacking me as in the Sigma lens post)
 
Foskito said:
Canon_Guy said:
Foskito said:
Canon_Guy said:
davidbindle said:
Is it just me? Canon is producing some technological wonders, but nothing that looks exceptionally beautiful that inspires me to pick it up and go shoot.
Click to expand...
What does it mean "exceptionally beautiful" in regard of a camera?

In my subjective case the looks of a camera has zero influence on my motivation to shoot. Unlike IQ, ergonomics, functions.
Member said:
Could they seriously not produce something with chrome on it with some analog-style top dials?
Click to expand...
That would make it exceptionally beautiful?
Member said:
Could they not produce a rangefinder "style" FF like Sony's A7C or Nikons Zfc or something based on the look of an old Canon film camera like an AE-1 or QL-GIII rangefinder... or their answer to the Fuji X100 V???
Click to expand...
Each manufactures chooses his own distinctive design language. Canon chose his for digital cameras with EOS D10 and keeps it.
Member said:
I think that if they would come up with the right "recipe" for a small, beautiful, analogue styled camera - packed with recent Canon technology - they would sell like hot-cakes.
Click to expand...
Based on what relevant objective information you assume the current design is not "right" while what you suggest would be "right"?
Member said:
Other opinions??
Click to expand...
Yes - camera is a tool not an artifact to look at on the shelf.
Member said:
David B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The “a camera is just a tool” argument to justify ugliness is lame at best. A hammer is a tool.

Some of us appreciate aesthetics (I guess you are not familiar with Braun design) you can have form and function in the same object. That is why I think the most beautiful cameras are Leica M, especially my Silver M9P.
Click to expand...
Apparently my point did not reach you.

I am very fine with any appearence of a camera if it does not compromise handling, usability and functions. I am attracted to get up from the sofa and go taking pictures by subjects to shoot. Not by the appearence of the camera bag, tripod leg, flash unit, polarising filter, lens caps etc. Any camera easthetics would not change it anyhow for me.

But I am of course very fine with someone who shoots because of the looks of his camera. It is as individual as it can be. Or better to say I don't care at all. It is everybody's matter.

And regarding the "ugliness". That is something very individual. There is zero relevant point in telling someone what is ugly and what is nice. I do not find my R6 nice from the aesthetical point of view and I don't mind at all. Same I do not find it ugly at all.

Leica M9P is a nice example of the form over function for me. Body like that would keep me from shooting since I would struggle with it.

You perceive this differently and that is absolutely fine for me.

In only shows how the importance of the form and function balance is highly individual.
Click to expand...
Of course, aesthetics are completely personal.

The M9P is form and function at it's best.
Click to expand...
For you. And I am very fine with that. But not for me at all. I would struggle a lot with that camera.

And that is why we have the freedom to choose.
Member said:
It has everything you need to compose and expose and nothing more.
Click to expand...
For me it lacks a lot from what I regularily use on R6. Not mentioning lenses.
Member said:
Less is more.

(Nice to see you are not attacking me as in the Sigma lens post)
Click to expand...
Your post was pretty loaded. And I don't like if someone makes such strong statements with no objective facts to support that statement. That is why I asked you for it. Moreover if he is then trying to sneak out of a clear direct simple question just because he is not consistent enough to answer what he would inevitably have to answer. I would appreciate much more if you answered as simply as it is ("I don't have such comparison and I just assume").

No need to dig more into it for me. No offense please.
 
Last edited:
Canon_Guy said:
Foskito said:
Canon_Guy said:
Foskito said:
Canon_Guy said:
davidbindle said:
Is it just me? Canon is producing some technological wonders, but nothing that looks exceptionally beautiful that inspires me to pick it up and go shoot.
Click to expand...
What does it mean "exceptionally beautiful" in regard of a camera?

In my subjective case the looks of a camera has zero influence on my motivation to shoot. Unlike IQ, ergonomics, functions.
Canon_Guy said:
Could they seriously not produce something with chrome on it with some analog-style top dials?
Click to expand...
That would make it exceptionally beautiful?
Canon_Guy said:
Could they not produce a rangefinder "style" FF like Sony's A7C or Nikons Zfc or something based on the look of an old Canon film camera like an AE-1 or QL-GIII rangefinder... or their answer to the Fuji X100 V???
Click to expand...
Each manufactures chooses his own distinctive design language. Canon chose his for digital cameras with EOS D10 and keeps it.
Canon_Guy said:
I think that if they would come up with the right "recipe" for a small, beautiful, analogue styled camera - packed with recent Canon technology - they would sell like hot-cakes.
Click to expand...
Based on what relevant objective information you assume the current design is not "right" while what you suggest would be "right"?
Canon_Guy said:
Other opinions??
Click to expand...
Yes - camera is a tool not an artifact to look at on the shelf.
Canon_Guy said:
David B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The “a camera is just a tool” argument to justify ugliness is lame at best. A hammer is a tool.

Some of us appreciate aesthetics (I guess you are not familiar with Braun design) you can have form and function in the same object. That is why I think the most beautiful cameras are Leica M, especially my Silver M9P.
Click to expand...
Apparently my point did not reach you.

I am very fine with any appearence of a camera if it does not compromise handling, usability and functions. I am attracted to get up from the sofa and go taking pictures by subjects to shoot. Not by the appearence of the camera bag, tripod leg, flash unit, polarising filter, lens caps etc. Any camera easthetics would not change it anyhow for me.

But I am of course very fine with someone who shoots because of the looks of his camera. It is as individual as it can be. Or better to say I don't care at all. It is everybody's matter.

And regarding the "ugliness". That is something very individual. There is zero relevant point in telling someone what is ugly and what is nice. I do not find my R6 nice from the aesthetical point of view and I don't mind at all. Same I do not find it ugly at all.

Leica M9P is a nice example of the form over function for me. Body like that would keep me from shooting since I would struggle with it.

You perceive this differently and that is absolutely fine for me.

In only shows how the importance of the form and function balance is highly individual.
Click to expand...
Of course, aesthetics are completely personal.

The M9P is form and function at it's best.
Click to expand...
For you. And I am very fine with that. But not for me at all. I would struggle a lot with that camera.

And that is why we have the freedom to choose.
Canon_Guy said:
It has everything you need to compose and expose and nothing more. Less is more.

(Nice to see you are not attacking me as in the Sigma lens post)
Click to expand...
Your post was pretty loaded. And I don't like if someone makes such strong statements with no objective facts to support that statement. That is why I asked you for it. Moreover if he is then trying to sneak out of a clear direct simple question just because he is not consistent enough to answer what he would inevitably have to answer. I would appreciate much more if you answered as simply as it is ("I don't have such comparison and I just assume").

No need to dig more into it for me. No offense please.
Click to expand...
Whatever. I shared a post with an extensive review that supports what I said.
 
I don’t think Canon ever was the “beautiful” camera maker. I don’t think the AE-1 was a beautiful camera, so I don’t think Canon has much to fall back on.



I think Nikon had a beautiful look in the FM/FE cameras, and Leica and Contax made some beautiful cameras… Fuji makes some pretty cameras, but Canon EOS is, above all, functional and ergonomic… which matters more to me than just beauty
 
MarshallG said:
I don’t think Canon ever was the “beautiful” camera maker. I don’t think the AE-1 was a beautiful camera, so I don’t think Canon has much to fall back on.

I think Nikon had a beautiful look in the FM/FE cameras, and Leica and Contax made some beautiful cameras… Fuji makes some pretty cameras, but Canon EOS is, above all, functional and ergonomic… which matters more to me than just beauty
Click to expand...
The AE-1 absolutely wasn't, although the A-1 arguably was. T90, EOS 1 can make a case for more recent cameras, as can the minimalism of the EOS M, but going back a bit, the original Canonet is attractive, the Demi and Dial half frame models are too, the Pellix is quite attractive, and I love the look of the Canonflex and Canonflex R. And so me of the APS cameras were excellent looking, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Should Panasonic produce Rangefinder Style APS-C cameras and AI designed APS-C lenses for L-mount?
Replies
7
Views
339
Photongraphy
P
Light Pilgrim
What’s the Ultimate Camera Today for Pure Stills Photography?
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
603
sportyaccordy
S
B
Little 3D pop comparison project Canon L vs Sony
Replies
3
Views
1K
John Crowe
John Crowe
D
Something unique with classic analog cameras
Replies
19
Views
20
Gesture
G
joger
can's buy anything at SONY now - cash is piling up ( would spend immediately )
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
2K
joger
joger

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top