The groupthink here is uncanny. "Retro is for hipsters! I need my ERGONOMICS!!" Maybe don't bolt a 2lb lens onto the camera and ergonomics become less of a problem. Get a neck strap and a thumb grip.
You don't use a new-retro body for 12 hour event shoots. You don't use a new-retro body for wildlife safaris. You use it for walking around town, vacations, small friends/family gatherings, where you're only shooting for a few hours at a time. Deep grips are less of a concern when you're not trying to keep the 3.5lb camera+lens combo in your hand for hours on end. I shot Fuji for 6 years (never for long events because I shoot for pleasure) even with the "big" 16-55 and I never once worried about ergos until I started considering switching systems and saw a lot of DSLR users whining about ergos.
Average people are intimidated by ugly black DSLR-like cameras. They scream "professional" and "paparazzi" to many. In my experience, most people don't act natural around them. When they notice your scary black camera is pointed at them, they turn away, or they frown - at best. Retro cameras on the other hand, usually get a look of curiosity or amusement, in my experience, and people tend to continue doing whatever they were doing. I've had many approach me and ask if I'm still shooting film in the day and age of digital. People seem to think film shooters are doing it for the joy of photography and not because they're trying to snap a creepy photo, and that makes them much more comfortable around retro-looking cameras.
Look, if you shoot events or do actual work with your camera, where all-day comfort and convenience truly matter, then a retro body isn't for you! And that's OK! There is a type of person in this world, and in this community, that love to rag on things that aren't for them - as if things that aren't for them, shouldn't be for anyone. It's sad, really.
If you think about it, the world of photographers have gotten so far away from the 60's ethos, or even 80's-90's ethos of carrying a camera around to capture moments from life itself -- that it's no wonder that none of these people are left to talk about this stuff online. Like I said in another post, I used to carry a camera daily until the mid-2010's when shooting film wasn't really feasible anymore.
I have also noticed throughout my life from let's say the early 2000's until now, that the type of people who are photographers, are actually kind of "techy" people who lack aesthetic sensibility. People seem to have been drawn to the field since the inception of AF because of an interest in the technology and specs, etc. When you go into a camera store, still, it's like a d***-measuring contest about who knows what specs better. I really don't admire the work of 99% of these people who claim to be photographers. I don't really see them as artists. Sony products definitely appeal to these people. It's all about the "tech." But they use ugly cameras and take ugly photos. Real artists don't want anything to do with those people -- or more broadly, with the overall space. I would say in general, photographers are lame. Part dorky, part creepy. The lowest of the "artists," for sure. Ironically, you can meet a lot of writers, painters, anything else, who shoot better photos than these people. I don't think this demographic is the crowd that Canon and Nikon are appealing to -- nor are they the ones they should be surveying for the marketing potential of this camera.
Upvote
0