The classic 35mm camera body was designed to deliver frames of 35mm film to a point behind the lens, while keeping the other parts of the film in complete darkness. Now that film isn’t an issue though, is that still the best shape? Maybe something closer to a video camera, with the shutter release sort of trigger-like would be better? That might be easier to hold stable when shooting with a slow shutter speed. It seems to me that innovation hasn’t kept up with the removal of this major constraint.
Part of it, I’d guess, is that new cameras still accept the old SLR lenses. The sensor is where the film is, and the rest of is probably built up on a similar body as the film cameras.
Some have tried different forms including video camera shape with flip out screen. But the 35mm format still does make sense. The cylindrical lens is still considered the best way to get great shots, so that form does not change. Also we do like a large screen to view our photos on and also to frame the shot, so a flat rectangular piece on the back for a screen.
By “camera” do you mean SLRs? It functions much the same as film cameras but it has a sensor instead of film. You still need the same basic structure for the phase detection autofocus mechanism, the flipping mirror, the pentaprism, viewfinder, etc. Space that used to be taken up with film is taken up with batteries or electronics.
Technological inertia? Cameras are camera shaped because that is what everyone is accustomed to.
Same as the QWERTY keyboard. It works well enough and people are used to it.
Adding: I take most snapshots with my phone now, which is not very camera shaped.
The SLR form has been refined over the years to be the compact, efficient and easy to hold shape that it is.
There have been a couple of attempts to build DSLR-grade with interchangeable lens mounts in different asymmetrical shapes, and they’ve not gone over well because they’re hard to hold and just not “camera shaped.”
My digital SLR still works with EF-mount lenses from 1989. There’s something to be said for backwards compatibility.
As others have mentioned, the internal geometry of the typical SLR has not changed considerably in the digital era. The CCD sensor just goes where the film used to be. The mirror, prism, viewfinder, lens mount, and such are all constrained by the focal characteristics of lenses designed for 35mm camera bodies.
On the other hand, point-and-shoots with relatively tiny lenses have changed drastically since the film era. There are all kinds of geometries.
He’s got to be; most P&S cameras these days are only constrained by the need for a big viewscreen and a lens; many have off-center lenses, and most are considerably less bulky than an equivalent film camera would have been.
I think my current P&S could fit entirely INSIDE my 1999 P&S camera.
Another thing to keep in mind is that those SLR lenses push the center of gravity out past the front of the body so you need to be able to grip the camera* (as opposed to just holding it with a few fingers) with either one of both hands. When you had film rolling from one side to the other, that soft of came naturally, but it works very well and I’m sure that’s part of the reason they stuck with it.
*Not just because of the weight, but also because you may have well over a thousand dollars of camera equipment in your hands. And, once you’ve spent that much, you’re also thinking about camera shake a lot more than when you’re just snapping a pic with your cell phone.
For most cameras, the use of lens plus detector plane is still the norm, because it’s simple and straightforwards and easy to build and align. Why complicate things with extra folding mirrors or odd asymmetric lenses unless there’s a good reason. The Polaroid SX-70 was a great piece of engineering, and it folded to a flat non-camera-appearing shape. But it required very special parts, assembly, and testing. All of those add to cost.
We can now make plastic aspheric lenses cheap, but they tend to be symmetrical (so that it doesn’t matter how they’re assembled. Even odd things like full-field cameras and cameras where the wavefront is intentionally distorted (so it’s insensitive to defocus) are still shaped like lens + filter + aperture + “film plane”.
There are some strange cameras, like the eyeball-shaped camera where a fiberoptic plate transmits the image from the rear surface of a ball lens to the detector plane – probably the c loswest thing to an eyeball yet proposed, and it focuses equally well at all angles. But it’s still a specialized piece of equipment that costs a lot to make.
Most cameras today are phones.
Some cameras are largish rectangles in comparison to 35mm cameras — medium-format Hasselblads, Rolleiflexes, Rolleicords and the Mamiya C330 that were designed mainly as waist-level cameras.
But whether medium-format or 35mm, all are best held with both hands, and going digital didn’t change that. So an eye-level camera can’t be round and they can’t be square, for what’s the point of a lot of depth? Which leaves smallish rectangular with a round lens at the front.
Waist-level viewing is still possible with eye-level digital cameras that have hinged viewers, and unlike Hasselblads and Mamiya C330s — especially the Mamiya with a twin-lens telephoto lens attached — they don’t weigh a ton.
Even so, some digital “35mm-reflex” designs are too small to hold comfortably.
Hell, yes. My camera with 8x optical zoom is about the size of a pack of cigarettes, only slimmer. The resemblance between it and my 35mm camera from 1985 is minimal.
When you get real serious about your ‘Brownie’ you will realize that it is all about the glass.
YMMV
True… although I think the OP was getting at more serious photographic equipment than the rather crappy cameras that come on most smartphones.
And yes, I have a Galaxy S5 with it’s 16 mp camera, and my 12 MP Canon P&S blows it away in terms of photo quality. And the 5 year old T2i DSLR blows both of them away even today.