Digital Reflex Camera concept puts the viewfinder on top, everything else in a tube
By Darren Murph 
posted August 14th 2010 7:11AM
posted August 14th 2010 7:11AM
posted August 14th 2010 7:11AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Bravo! Holding my Nikon D700 + Nikkor 24-70 or even 70-200 (about 3kg total) isn't an easy task with present "classical" form of body designed for film instead of CMOS sensor. For me keeping classical film form of digital cameras is purely idiotic.
@Pasha
Im sorry 'bravo' that thing just looks ridiculous, I hope for the love of god that cameras don't take the form of that thing!
@machazna
They should make cameras like sniper rifles.
If you think about it, it makes sense.
Just looked up the M40 on wikipedia - according to which is the standard issue USMC sniper and weighs about 7kg.
I'm not a gun nut, and I don't know a lot about cameras, but I can see some similarities. A sniper needs to be able to hold the rifle steady and make accurate shots, a bit like a camera.
@petehix It's been done, sort of. The Russians produced the Zenit Photoshiper. An SLR with a 300mm lens and a rifle stock support/trigger.
Was used quite a bit by the KGB, apparently.
@arem *Photosniper (or Fotosniper as well)
@arem
Heh! I did not know that
http://microsites.lomography.com/zenit/fotosniper/img/cover.jpg
Needs more foregrip ;)
@petehix
The problem with this is the LCD. You'd never be able to see a normal LCD in direct sunlight.
@Pasha
Where do I attach my flash?
@Pasha
also they holding it to their body. not head height. you'll get some nice chest hair shots from that perspective or some nice up nose ones for sure!
@Pasha
I completely agree. Camera design is still based on the limitations of old film cameras... Digital cameras have far fewer limitations - you can shape it almost any ways, put the view finder almost anywhere and hold it any way that is comfortable. Unfortunately most digital cameras are still based on the old design of film cameras.
This particular ones is kind of wacky, but it at least breaks the mold.
@machazna
right now, that camera is seeing more than was intended for its use
@Hazdaz
I agree with this. We (by which I mean camera manufacturers) should be making cameras to suit OUR bodies, not adjusting the way we use our bodies for cameras.
I for one find cameras very difficult to hold and adjust the settings. If they were shaped more like xbox/ps3 controllers (I've said both, so as not to get in an argument) then they'd be much more comfortable.
@Pasha : I like how gently she holds the tube. :)
I smell Vagina Cam. And yes, it stinks.
Very niche use. Ugly betty?
@Rod
An older Sony camera I have did this as well, by design.
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/Images/frontview.jpg
I quite enjoyed the versatility of that camera, as you could hold it level with your eye, down, or up when you needed to get an over the crowd shot and easily look into the viewfinder. It still works quite well, but for quality, the Canon and the glass is my default. Hey! that old model even had Sony's "Night Shot" AKA night vision.
The gay community's favourite new toy. HamsterCam.
From the makers of the Shake-Weight!! Lol
Introducing: Comfort B-Gone!
Totally useless in direct sunlight. 'Nuff said.
@ebbek No. Not enough said. Why?
@Dusse
Fact: Sunlight reflected in the viewfinder makes it more or less impossible to see what you are trying to take a picture of.
Fact: The design of this camera is such that it is almost impossible to use it in way where sunlight will not reach the viewfinder.
'Nuff said now?
So... how do I take a portrait-orientation photo?
@arem well, if the whole angle of the tube could rotate 90 degrees somehow, it would be a lot less awkward holding this camera to snap a portrait shot than with a "regular" camera.
One thing .. what if i want to take a portrait photo ? how am i gonna hold it ??
This is totally ridiculous !! .. This does not give you the feel of DSLR !!
I have a feeling that someone will be on the floor, looking straight at the viewfinder (effectively making the lens etc. pointing upwards), and take pictures of places they're not supposed to...
Oh sweet, I always wanted a dick camera.
@Gaius
From the makers of Dick Towel...
Kinky.
This is why tripods were invented! Also many over 20$-cheapos allow for an almost effortless 360 degree movement in all axises (well 90 or sometimes 180 for switching between the X and Y).
Finally,a big camera guys don't mind walking around with in their pants! Photographers can now have that big equipment look they've always desired...
the new hasselblad
oh well, kudos for originality at least..
Where's the foreskin, uhmm, I mean the folding down rubber lens hood?
@the bandit
LMAO, I don't even understand that, but it made my day!?!?
is it me or does that make it a lot easier to photo up a girls skirt???
WTF? dud calm down!!!!!!
Just make this into the shape of a "U" then you will have the perfect up-skirt camera. It would be on every13 year old boy's wish list. Otherwise I couldn't think of any normal person would want this.
safe sex
I can't wait to see what horny Japanese Businessmen on the subway will use this for!
haha her scarf looks so stupid on the pic
@the bandit Never explain the joke to those that don't understand.
It's camera for your vagina, anal and oral pleasures !
Decades of experience led to the design of "traditional" SLRs and point-n-shoots. Then some ninny decided we didn't need optical viewfinders anymore, after all, who cares about composition or framing? Next up are the one-hand video cams like the Flip -- genius! Everyone knows that holding a gadget in one hand with the arm outstretched is much more stable than holding it with both hands. Shake? Oh, we'll fix that in software.
What's next, cameras with no displays or controls? Just point it in the general direction and the 'puter inside will do the rest.
@Ed T
"Decades of experience led to the design of "traditional" SLRs and point-n-shoots."
Nonsense...
It had far less to do with "experience" and much, much more to do with the limitations of film technology. With film, you need to have your viewfinder in a certain position to get an image because of the optics involved... with an LCD viewfinder you can put it anywhere. Same deal with the whole limitation of the shutter and film location. Now with a CCD it can go almost anywhere.
Camera design today, for the most part, is still using the method of placing the different components where their analog counterparts used to be. Why? If it makes sense to change it up, then why wouldn't you? have the camera better fit the human body, not the other way around.
Now I am not in any way, shape or form saying that this phallic-shaped camera is the way to go, but it's at least very different.
@Hazdaz People get confused about this often. Image sensors and film have precisely the same limitations in terms of placement and proportion in regards to the lens. Shutters have basically the same issue, though if you're making a shutterless digital camera then you can get around that (however, what difference in design would that produce?). Unless someone has created a new kind of light that works in mysterious ways, sensor location and shutter location are pretty locked down in respect to the lens.
And professionally speaking, why would anyone want to look and compose through an LCD viewfinder? It's not nearly as clear, it uses more power, and it's not as direct as looking through the lens with your own eyes. I would greatly prefer not to shoot through the proxy of sensor > image processor > digital display. Besides, you would then need to control brightness of that display either through a manual control or some kind of automatic control that never quite works the way you want it to.
I'm not saying modern day SLRs are perfect, but they do what they do damned well. Very much form follows function, not form follows film.
@Hazdaz you keep posting this BS as if you fail to realize that DSLRs have the same optic limitations of film SLRs. Light still goes thru the lens, into a mirror, then a pentaprism then to the viewfinder that is NOT an LCD screen. behind the mirror is the CMOS/CCD sensor, right where the film used to be. all of those items are still required because pro photographers still demand them. not because they are used to them and they are from the film age , but because no other camera design is better. show me another design with detachable lenses an great ergonomics in a cost effective design.
its plain and obvious that a camera without detachable lenses and no optical viewfinder does not need to take the same shape, we see this everyday in cellphones. your attempt at dismissing the need for a traditional DSLR shape comes across as either desperate attention getting or severely misinformed.
Come on, technophiles. Not everything has to be dirty. It just looks like a huge inhaler to me.
@Jason B
A huge inhaler that also happens to look like a huge sausage link if you carry it in your pocket
@Jason B: ...
imagine how that thing looks in your pocket... Kind of flattering; it makes you look like you have a big ol' DI... Oh sorry that might be inappropriate.