Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Ugliness  (Read 1503 times)

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8061
Ugliness
« 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
Logged

FranciscoDisilvestro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1511
    • Frank Disilvestro
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #1 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)

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2984
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #2 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.
Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #3 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-
Logged

MatthewSaville

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • Astro-Landscape Photographer
    • Astro-Landscapes.com
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #4 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! ;-)
Logged
"My first thought is always of light" - Galen Rowell

phila

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 320
    • www.philaphoto.com
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2018, 06:27:25 am »

The best looking camera ever?

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22755
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #6 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

epines

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 316
    • ethan pines photography
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #7 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.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1852
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #8 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.
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #9 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.
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22755
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #10 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...
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 04:42:54 pm by Rob C »
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17797
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2018, 05:04:25 pm »

Do you still have that wig, Rob? Or is it a hat?
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 15308
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #12 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! 😀

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 15308
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #13 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.

phila

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 320
    • www.philaphoto.com
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #14 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

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22755
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #15 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
« Last Edit: October 06, 2018, 07:53:00 am by Rob C »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6629
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: Ugliness
« Reply #16 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
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald
Pages: [1]   Go Up