Best-looking DSLR

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:31:24 GMT, "Aaron Blacksmith"
<Aaron@___Nospam.com> wrote:

>All of us have 24 hours/day.
>Some of us fill those days using ugly things.
>Some of us prefer to fill the days using beautiful things.
>Cameras can be quite ugly (like Olympus E-300), other cameras can be nice
>(like the Leica M4).
>Unfortunately there are no beautiful digital cameras...
>Aaron

What I miss I think are the satin chrome on brass finishes of the
better SLRs from the late 1970s and early 1980s. Silver-coloured
plastic just looks cheap as hell, like a kid's toy.
-Rich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

So what?
All these 3 cameras are excellent examples of successful industrial design,
since they combine unmatched functionality with high estethical values.
Aaron


"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:tbupipvvh38vnrgejgobl61222@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <Htnbe.22676$d5.167013@newsb.telia.net>,
> Aaron Blacksmith <Aaron@___Nospam.com> wrote:
>>3. Nikon FTn with 50/1.2 with motor drive and lens hood
>
> A camera with a finder that was last manufatured in 1974 with a lens that
> was first produced in 1978 🙂
>
>
> --
> That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
> could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
> by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
> -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency