Reading mode: Light Dark

E3 Ugly?

Go to last post
The primary problem is the OP has no concept of what is ugly and what is not ugly.....Michael Moore is UGLY, in fact "butt ugly", Striesand is UGLY, the YUGO is UGLY, yo mama is ugly but the E3 is simply a mechanical device designed for a specific purpose that it does acceptably well, but UGLY, NO!
--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.
 
Maybe I'm not attuned to the finer points of cosmetic differences in cameras, but what makes you (or anyone) say it's ugly?? It looks like a typical SLR (or D-SLR) camera. Now some of the Sony cameras, that were quite strange looking, THAT I can understand someone saying "ugly". But seriously what is there about the E3 that says "ugly" to some people?? And no, it does not matter to me at all. Just curious to know.
--
Galleries: http://www.koo22images.com/-/koo22images/
 
LOL - they TRIED to match the styling as best they could with the E400 and you have to admit that for a plastic DSLR it gets pretty close :)

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 
as long as the images are beautiful.

JimB

--
It all started long ago and far away with a lowly OM-G

The OM of Getto cams
 
people posting here care other wise they wouldn't be loosing time posting! The E-1 it's beautiful, but the E-3? Man!!!! Sooooo long developing a camera that it must be beautiful from the inside though :)
 
Bill Force said:
The primary problem is the OP has no concept of what is ugly and what
is not ugly.....Michael Moore is UGLY, in fact "butt ugly", Striesand
is UGLY, the YUGO is UGLY, yo mama is ugly but the E3 is simply a
mechanical device designed for a specific purpose that it does
acceptably well, but UGLY, NO!
Click to expand...
I do appreciate the education ....but do you have to slam the YUGO ??
It's beauty was in it's spartan looks and quality!

:)
Bill Force said:
--
' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out
of what you do have'.
Click to expand...
--
'We all have it, but how do we use it?'
 
koo22 said:
Maybe I'm not attuned to the finer points of cosmetic differences in
cameras, but what makes you (or anyone) say it's ugly?? It looks
like a typical SLR (or D-SLR) camera. Now some of the Sony cameras,
that were quite strange looking, THAT I can understand someone saying
"ugly". But seriously what is there about the E3 that says "ugly" to
some people?? And no, it does not matter to me at all. Just curious
to know.
--
Galleries: http://www.koo22images.com/-/koo22images/
Click to expand...
Personally I think it is very beautiful as it looks professional (exceptin' the IS logo) and looks to be very ergonomic. It looks to be well thought out as far as placement of controls.

I think it may be an intuitive thing (perception or not of mechanical beauty) that someone like me might have. I love things mechanical, and I think it gives a bit different perspective.

As for the Sony A700 - I think it is the most clunky, odd looking camera I have seen in a long time. I am sure it will do well for Sony/Minolta fans - but the looks would make me pause even it proved to be the best picture taker around. Really reminds me of some of the early Japanese cars.

--
'We all have it, but how do we use it?'
 
Yes, it's one ugly looking camera (even when it was a prototype back early this year)and thank God I switch to NIkon and now they release the most handsome camera ever built (D3) so far... Oly loose it this time.
 
PerL said:
Why cant they make them like this anymore? Image this camera but with
a FF-sensor instead of film, with the small manual focusing Zuikos....
Click to expand...
It was probably a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it since many don't know the answer.

The main problem with doing just that is that of sensor pickyness. The sensors have "deep" light wells, which means the light rays have to strike it at a right angle (or at least almost). Film cares a lot less about the angle.

When someone invents a less picky sensor, wonderful things will happen.

Of course, things that used to be made of metal are made of plastic just for profit these days...I'm hoping rising ecological awareness combined with newfound appreciation of machines that are actually built to last will take care of that one given time.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/iskender
 
Adam-T said:
.........Next to the E1 - but then the E1 was one of the coolest
looking cameras out there EVER
Click to expand...
This is pretty much my opinion, too. It's big and Olympus have done better with many past models (E-1, 500, 400, 410, 510). However, I still like it better than the competition, even if it is big.

A bit more on this in another thread I started some days ago: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1022&thread=25261787

--
http://flickr.com/photos/iskender
 
the OM-X series were some of the sweetest cameras ever designed. I bet something similar could be made today as a digital camera but the market demands that cameras now are full of gizmo features. Real craftsmanship is not tolerated much anymore...

... but I do think the E3 is handsome ;)
--
~ Martin ( http://www.mpolanic.com )
 
What is going on here? You guys take beautiful pictures, with balanced compositions, therefore you should know something about good design! Didn’t anybody here study design in school?

The E-3 is a great looking camera, with multiple planes that are layered in a complex, but stylish manner. It has flowing lines along adjacent controls, angled planes which offset what could have been a boxy design. Scattered buttons, switches, dials throughout which make it interesting and of course provide shortcuts for less menu scrolling. The camera is designed to fit your hand comfortably, so the engineers made it mechanically and functionally sound, then the designers had to make that function comfortable and visually stylish at the same time. It felt very comfortable when I held it a couple of days ago. It looks great!

I had a art teacher in college that believed the expression, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” was hogwash. He believed this wasn’t true at all, something is beautiful or it isn’t. Now you’re going to say, “Who is he to judge if something is beautiful or not.” If you have to ask if something is beautiful, you don’t know. If you think something ugly is beautiful, that is your prerogative, but it is still ugly. You can love something that is ugly.

Maybe some of you haven’t seen the E-3 from enough angles. The E-3 brochures show it in different positions.

Take it from me. The E-3 is a good looking DSLR. If you want to look at a ugly DSLR, look no further than the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III. Square, boxy, clumsy, boring, plain and about as graceful as concrete cinder block!

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos1dsmarkiii/

--
Stay Well,
Pete K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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