Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Jeremy Roussak on October 03, 2018, 04:35:29 am

Title: Ugliness
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on October 03, 2018, 04:35:29 am
A friend of mine was musing on camera sizes and why even his Fuji is bigger than his OM1 used to be. After a big of Googling, I found this illustration that the OM was pretty small.

His response was "Wow, the Nikon was an ugly thing". I can't say I disagree with him. I realise it wasn't primarily designed for aesthetics, but why was the superstructure on the Nikon so large and asymmetric?

Just curious.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: FranciscoDisilvestro on October 03, 2018, 07:01:22 am
I guess the size was due to the technology available at the time. There are at least 15 years difference between the Nikon F and the other 2 cameras.
The asymmetry was to accommodate a mechanical link with the shutter speed dial (it basically sits on top of the dial)
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: Rhossydd on October 03, 2018, 08:05:19 am
Possibly also worth noting that the Nikon had interchangable viewfinders, so it could be a plain pentaprism, metering head (with it's mechanical linkages mentioned above), or a waist level finder.
IIRC the Canon of the same period was just as ugly.
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: Telecaster on October 03, 2018, 02:27:29 pm
Remove the viewfinder/pentaprism (it is removable!) and the Nikon body is as symmetrical as the others. It's all but a clone of a Contax rangefinder. The lens mount is off-center left to right, though.

-Dave-
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: MatthewSaville on October 04, 2018, 05:07:21 am
A friend of mine was musing on camera sizes and why even his Fuji is bigger than his OM1 used to be. After a big of Googling, I found this illustration that the OM was pretty small.

His response was "Wow, the Nikon was an ugly thing". I can't say I disagree with him. I realise it wasn't primarily designed for aesthetics, but why was the superstructure on the Nikon so large and asymmetric?

Just curious.

Jeremy

Haha, they had to pick one of the ugliest Nikon prisms ever made, I guess! You can't win 'em all...

Google "gold plated nikon camera" if you want to see something truly sexy. Just as long as you like snake skin too haha! ;-)
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: phila on October 04, 2018, 06:27:25 am
The best looking camera ever?
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: Rob C on October 04, 2018, 10:05:09 am
A friend of mine was musing on camera sizes and why even his Fuji is bigger than his OM1 used to be. After a big of Googling, I found this illustration that the OM was pretty small.

His response was "Wow, the Nikon was an ugly thing". I can't say I disagree with him. I realise it wasn't primarily designed for aesthetics, but why was the superstructure on the Nikon so large and asymmetric?

Just curious.

Jeremy


Simple: the pentaprism top on the shown camera is the early Photomic.

The standard one was a lot smaller and more neat. I had both. You could interchange. There were also reflex versions of viewfinder available for the F series. Wonderful cameras; owe them a helluva lot.

Rob
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: epines on October 04, 2018, 12:21:27 pm
I think that Nikon is by far the best-looking of the three. Look at that midcentury styling, the asymmetry, that little bit of weirdness, the terrific fonts used.
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: KLaban on October 04, 2018, 12:30:36 pm
The best looking camera ever?

Nah, looks like a camera that found its way into the microwave.

Give me that Photomic any day.
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: 32BT on October 04, 2018, 12:31:48 pm
That Nikon strikes me as distinctly Wabi-sabi, whereas that Canon is just plain ugly. And no, please don't read anything into that, i have been a happy Canon user in the past.
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: Rob C on October 04, 2018, 02:38:50 pm
Beauty and the Beast, then:

Scanned by my daughter off a newspaper article; no negatives available, so pretty grotty repoduction. I think the lens was an 85mm that I had for a while, for the occasional catwalk event...
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on October 04, 2018, 05:04:25 pm
Do you still have that wig, Rob? Or is it a hat?
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 04, 2018, 07:34:53 pm
Do you still have that wig, Rob? Or is it a hat?

Damn, Eric, you beat me to it! 😀
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on October 04, 2018, 07:38:16 pm
... that Canon is just plain ugly...

Just goes to show that ugliness is in the eye of the beer holder.
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: phila on October 04, 2018, 09:25:02 pm
The T90 was an excellent camera! I both worked on them (in my previous existence as a camera technician) and shot professionally with one (after I changed to the 'better side' of the camera). In addition to its good looks (truely revolutionary at the time) the basic, curvaceous design - thank you Mr Colani, control wheel and LCD top display (first seen on the T70) are with us to this day, over 30 years later!  :D
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: Rob C on October 05, 2018, 04:10:05 am
Do you still have that wig, Rob? Or is it a hat?

Black velvet floppy cap, Eric. It was a British thing of the era, harking back to earlier years; retro-hip, then.

Bailey wears a similar one in his film on Cecil Beaton.

Far more elegant than today's miserable, egalitarian, ubiquitously plebian baseball cap which is all I can muster. Sic transit gloria.

(Gosh, I hope that's not political!)

;-(

P.S.

Check out second row, pic on the right:

http://www.bobgruen.com/files/johnlennon.html
Title: Re: Ugliness
Post by: eronald on October 09, 2018, 01:47:16 pm
Just goes to show that ugliness is in the eye of the beer holder.

Polly gets the biscuit. Show's over guys, the fat lady just sung :)

Edmund