>>3428293>The design is perfect. The build quality is superb. The ergonomics and portability are great.I agree. But things changed in the '90s, even more so after digital. There used to be cameras that favoured portability and ergonomics (Olympus OM series, Pentax MX/ME, estc.), cameras that favoured smoothness of operation and precision engineering (Contax RTS series, Leica R), and lastly cameras for photojournalism/sports (Nikon F, Canon EOS 1/3).
But out of the 3 feature sets, only the photojourno features look good on paper to sell cameras: moar fps, moar AF points, moar matrix metering points, moar megapixels (for digital). Easy to quantify each functionality with a number on it, and easy to sell the next version that comes out with bigger numbers.
How can you advertise "better ergonomics", or "brighter screen", or "smoother, well dampened operation" to the average consumer that will order the camera online without even touching it first and seeing how it feels in their hand?
So you get the entirety of modern dSLR market cloned after photjourno cameras. Which is especially hilarious, when a beginner camera for instance advertises high fps, while having shit ergonomics and weather resistance - that'd you'd actually need in most scenarios requiring high fps.
On the bright side, this also explains the popularity if cameras like the X100, the GR series, etc., because people realised it's actually better to have a small camera that is fun to use and has good enough sensor, than chasing the numbers in the spec sheet. dSLRs are pretty much dead for anything apart from high-end photojourno cameras, which I guess is a return to normality.
