STOCKHOLM FURNITURE FAIR 2010
NEW YORK INTERNATIONAL GIFT FAIR 2010
DETROIT AUTO SHOW 2010
POSTCARDS FROM ASIA, PART TWO
CES 2010
This SLR concept, alas, is a prime example of what happens when a designer tries to "push the envelope" without doing any research. We've seen concepts that weren't awesome making the blog rounds before, but never one with as many flaws as this one, which is why we bring it up.
The design, which is essentially a monster lens without the camera body, is touted as being optimized for one-handed operation, which would supposedly make it more stable; the opposite is true. In actuality camera stability comes from three points--one hand on the lens, one hand on the body and the eyepiece pressed against your unmoving head. Taking away one of those points has the same effect as removing a leg from a table.
Other points:
Ill-considered ergonomics: a) removing the weighty camera body from a lens of this size will create balance problems and fatigue if you're shooting multiple shots, and b) how do you set this camera down during a long shoot--are you meant to stand it on the lens, or watch it roll across the table?
Camera life and maintenance: the concept is comprised of multiple moving parts, a maintenance no-no. Ask a pro shooter, particularly a travel photographer, what tends to fail first.
Inaccurate ideas: the ring-flash wrapping the lens is tagged as "optimal lighting," which it hardly is; any shooter will tell you a ring-flash is specialty lighting only good for certain situations--go to Flickr and search "ring-flash" to see for yourself.
Poor interface: A powerful element that distinguishes one camera design from another is its interface--the Canon G9, for example, has a dial on top for ISO, making it extremely fast and easy for the shooter to adjust for changing light. Having quick access to controls is often the difference between getting your shot or not. This concept appears to have given minimal thought to how to control and tweak a camera's various features, as indicated by an almost complete lack of buttons, dials and switches.
Out-of-touch with developing technology: The hubbub in photo tech is around the current work being done with water lenses--where focal points and apertures are determined by electrically-manipulated droplets of shape-changing water, rather than heavy pieces of shifting glass. This will make lenses smaller, not bigger.
We're all for pushing the envelope and experimenting with alternate forms; what worries us is when ill-conceived concepts get widely publicized--we feel it damages the credibility of industrial designers.
1 Hour Design Challenge
Stockholm Design Week 2010
Core77 + AAVA Mobile
Detroit Auto Show
Comments
minimal access to deep controls is a huge oversight, this might not be a bad solution for someone who doesn't need those advanced controls....say a child.
Kudos to you, Core, for being critical.
I'm all about the public floggings, but to his credit it would appear the bottom side of the camera is flat. This would at least take care of the rolling problem.
This is a students work. I think that it does not warrant the negativity in this post. Fine, it got some press elsewhere. Does it warrant a core77 post? No. From a site that is about the promotion of design and particularly student design, this is not very professional. Go and comment on the website where it was originally posted for sure. Credibility of industrial designers damaged? Yes. But more by the post above perhaps?
This is so true, web sites like Yanko design for example feature so many of those unrealistic under thought concepts that it gives a poor image of our discipline... That's a huge debate, blogs nowadays simply copy and paste anything they can find without using any sort of criticism.
Ouch, take it easy, he is just a student...
I agree on damaging the credibility of ID, but how about getting some credibility first? no one I introduce myself to knows what ID is and they always think its some kind of technical 2 year degree to design hydraulics or some sort of mechanical thing.
We need a better name for our selfs, there is no question what an architect does.
Whoa! Lot of anger there. We know concept designs are often impractical; I think it's worthwhile to reconsider the shape of cameras.
As for how to set it down on a table, it's pretty obvious from the second image that the bottom of the rim is flattened to prevent rolling.
I'm not blown away by this design but I really don't get the hostility...
the sad thing is the designer cant argue for his design...
I feel this was a smart and constructive critique of a new product concept. It's not like this students work was just dismissed. It was thoroughly and intelligently dismissed. And let's be honest, technical and technology issues aside...the overall look is kinda dated. This does not look like a future design concept, more of a camera concept some kid did 20 years ago...where's the heat?
I think your review of this concept damages the credibility of designers and design professionals. There is a lot of impracticality in concept work and there is rarely a good reason to not explore the potential of a new perspective on an old problem.
Since when is this a design review blog anyway, especially one that rips apart developing designers work with an almost whimsical aggression. Your post is completely unprofessional.
1a- you could use two hands and your head.
1b- it is flattened on the bottom so as not to roll.
2- agreed
3- if you move the ring of light back so it is indirect, it may work a bit better
4- the addition of slider controls or touch-sensitive controls on the side could be done with a GUI in the viewfinder.
5- Agreed- one day liquid lenses will pwn this thing, but not yet.
Well, as a photographer, this annoys me a little. Everything the post says is completely true. It seems like a well-developed design on a very flawed concept. Especially the ring light...LOL