Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by Donde, Sep 21, 2017.
Who'd a thunk it...the etymological term for that phrase is "retronym".
For many of us, the term is still just "camera."
That stuff that came along after you were in the business for a few years.
Meh. Digital cameras still get presented as "D" SLRs.
The majority of digital cameras have a shape similar to that of cameras designed to run 35mm film between two spools. Cameras that don't have these spools but adhere to the traditional shape are by definition retro since for reasons of functionality there is no necessity for them to have this form.
With the exception the form is fitting to the hands. Just because there is a different "medium" inside and has similar design. Doesn't mean they are copying something from the past if the form factor is the same. Film cameras don't need the SLR type form. Look at the original Brownies, TLR's, 6x6 Hassleblads, Bronicas all use spooled films but different form factors. The basic 35mm design is easy for people to handle.
I wonder how future alien archaeologists would picture (no pun intended) the users of our d slr cameras? One eye beings with thirty fingers?
I could fill a thesaurus with how much I despise film.
First and and Foremost...lack of profit margin.
The instrument has not yet been invented that could measure my utter indifference to this.
I didn't mention SLR, I have a bunch of 35mm cameras that aren't reflex or system type. The point is that most digitals resemble one or another of the 35mm type cameras, they having been the type of film cameras with the lion's share of the market and so with familiar and trusted designs that have continuing appeal. Cameras that had other spooled film formats were a much smaller part of the market and less interesting for the makers to continue/copy. What really clinches it though is that instant film cameras didn't and don't have similar designs to 35mm cameras: they look different because what's inside is different.
Separate names with a comma.