Yes, in the article that spawned this thread, the writer says "Canon doesn't make “pretty” cameras. Take the R5 Mark II or
EOS R6 Mark III—neither of those cameras is particularly good-looking."
I find this an odd comment. When i look at my R6ii and R6iii (or even my recently sold R5) I don't see them as ugly, but fine looking cameras. I don't know if an tool or device can ever be called "pretty" or that they should ever be designed in such a shallow way. I consider my R6ii/iii to be a pinacle in technology, ergonomics and user interface.
My first Canon was an AV-1, my camera evolution grew in proportion to my Photographic skill and photographic need. I soon progressed to requiring 2 bodies (AE-1 Program and an A1) and that approach stuck with me for the rest of my photographic journey. I remember the T70 and T90 well, they were cameras I desired, but never actually purchased because there wasn't any particular feature that was pressing other than looks and feel.
When the AF revolution came, the EOS 650 was my next camera and I used that in tandem with my AE-1 Program. One camera body for the new EF lenses and the other for the rest of my lens catalogue on FD. The older FD cameras were quite harsh to handle and we used to buy the Canon leather pouch to protect them, but also soften the handling. You don't see many of these about becuase they have mostly rotted away. But the case contributed heavily to the look and feel of those early cameras (TEC?). These days our cameras already have this ergonic feel baked in because of their poly carb shells and rubber grips. Can you imagine trying to fit a leather case to a R5ii? removing cards, operating the rear buttons and LCD would be a nightmare, let alone the AV plugs along the left edge of the camera. It would look more like a camera thong than a carry case! Plus the pouch would be huge to hold the "now very common" 24-70/2.8 lens.
When I came to finally replace my FD mount cameras, it was the Eos 33. A fine looking camera that had all the features I wanted.
My first DSLR was the EOS 300D, which was a very basic enthusiast / entry point camera. I found the basic features a compromise, but the images were amazing and the ability to instantly see my images as well as flexible iso values every shot was a revelation (using film / slide limited me to the same iso for the fill of the cartridge, usually 36 images on a roll. On came the 20D, 5D, 40D, 5DII, 5DIII.
These days my R6ii/R6iii look and feel like an evolution from that T70/T90 body shell. I think we have gotten used to how smooth and asthetically pleasing our current Canon cameras already are. I'm not sure what metric or brand the article writer is judging the asthetics of, But I can't see me ever liking the specifically alien Lecia or Hassleblad hertiage asthetic. Nikon don't look much different to Canon, apart from a red colour flash on the body work, there is little between them if you put them in front of a non photographer. If you tape the name / brand...it's hard to spot the difference.
I've noticed that a number of car brands are going for a very functional asthetic over style. Many are choosing big and brutal design language over style and elegance. However, for such big objects that are clothed in a way to hide their mechanicals and have more styling space available, Cameras just don't have the handling space to waste a lot of industrial design in making a camera look "beautiful". I suggest that an over styled camera will look weird, cheap and inelegant by it's nature of having too much pointless plastic.
We also have to consider that a camera body is only half of the story. With such a vast array of different lenses, each will swing a look or a vibe. A RF 100-300mm f2.8 is an impressive lens from a size and prescence point of view. However, If I put one before my non photogaphic wife and put an old EF 400mm f2.8 LIS next to it, she would only see a slight difference in bulk. Not necessarily the design difference. So form really does follow function.
Compare either lens to a 50mm f1.8 and the contrast is stark. At that point we stop being aware of the camera and start to only view the lens prescence.
What I find so extraordinary about the new VCM L lens range is that they all pretty much look the same, feel the same, weigh the same and handle the same and they currently range from 14mm through to 85mm. It seems while cars have gotten bigger, our lenses have gotten smaller and neater.
The problem Canon has with the whole "Vintage" steam punk / hipster "retro" vibe is "how does the camera behave in the wide eco-system?"
Sure, Canon can make a few consumer lenses that look good in a brochure and hope that's the bundle the newbies buy. But outside of that visual narrative, there is no where else to go, other than the regular non-vintage / retro gear that looks sleek, modern and intentional.
I think an overly retro R8ii would probably deter me from buying one if it was very retro and looked odd with my current 24-70/2.8. It would also look like vanity is overwhelming a functional role. I really like the R8, it's stripped down and a great travel camera. Ultimately, the battery, lack of some ergonomics and a weak resolving EVF are what limited me from using it in a more professional camera. But as a travel, discreat or backup camera it's pretty amazing.
So I probably wouldn't buy a R8ii because I don't currently have a need for such a small camera. Even less if it was over styled / very vintage or retro looking that looked at odds with the lenses that I would put on it (my old FD 70-210 f4 is a very different looking lens to my current 70-200/2.8).
If Canon's take on retro is pre-FD / rangefinder, post FD but pre EF then non of the current lenses will look right. Even a modern camera cage or L bracket will look odd. If Canon chooses the EF era for it's interpretation of retro, then the lenses are mostly poly carb and rubber. So they kind of all look the same if you squint (assuming the non White lenses). If this is the case then it's pretty easy to deduce that Canon's design blueprint will be the Eos 3000 or Eos 300D as their vintage study. Which puts a 20 year old camera (in my own middle photographic journey years) into their retro framing. Which would make a young hipster consider this camera as old / vinage / retro looking and my really old camera gear as near ancient antiquity....a bit like me.
