Traditional camera shapes are wrong...
Posted:
Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:54 pmby the foto fanatic
Re: Traditional camera shapes are wrong...
Posted:
Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:06 pmby gstark
As a design exercise, interesting.
Hopefully the practicalities of the design are better than the English expression displayed on the site.
Re: Traditional camera shapes are wrong...
Posted:
Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:55 pmby Reschsmooth
Interesting. However, given the physical relationship between focal length and parameters, I wonder what the implications are for different focal lengths, memory cards, etc. If, for example, I have an 85 1.4, will this be a different 'camera' to a 70-200 2.8? If so, that would mean swapping memory cards or using multiple cards. That would not be efficient.
Re: Traditional camera shapes are wrong...
Posted:
Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:04 pmby photohiker
I don't think so. Well, maybe, but not in the way he's suggesting.
Holding a tube up to you eye, having no limb to body bracing? Perhaps he's invented a new stabiliser too?
Re: Traditional camera shapes are wrong...
Posted:
Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:21 pmby aim54x
Obviously not an engineer.....lenscap that includes flash and AF illuminator....not at that thickness (where is the flash tube and capcitor)!! Nor can you make a effective viewfinder loupe that is so small.....Why
AA batteries? Why position the batteries there? Where are my interchangeable lenses? Where is the circuitry if the optics are so large...or is this a design for a teeny sensor "not-so-compact"?
Maybe this design student should spend some more time thinking things through before publishing such fantasy....
Re: Traditional camera shapes are wrong...
Posted:
Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:29 pmby aim54x