Why can't (or won't) Canon make cameras like this anymore?

Unregistered.Coward wrote in post #12800500
And what's up with these cell phone now days? Tiny little multi-tasking devices. Give me the big old brick, something you could bash a head in with.

The size of DSLRs is justified, like everyone else has already said. They pack quite a lot of electronics in them.

You can keep your clunky looking AE1....I'm quite happy with my sleek, all metal 1DIV. You get what you pay for in nearly every situation. The 7D has a metal under the plastic surface as did my old 40D.

Magnus3D wrote in post #12800712

/ Magnus

Simply GOR-GEE-US!!! She even looks beautiful when she's dressed!!

Plus she fits into the hand like a glove!

After using my 5D Mark II, I bought an AE-1 and thought the AE-1 was a toy camera... I gave it to my dad since he's still shooting 35mm.

Magnus3D wrote in post #12800844
Yeap, many of them do look like that under the plastic and faked leathery skin. Except for the cheaper lowend cameras such as 550D which have a plastic skeleton instead of a magnesium alloy one. That pic above shows a Canon EOS 1D Mark IV "skeleton". Pretty sweet! and it reminds me a bit of The Terminator hehe.

/ Magnus

What? Do you know what word skeleton actually means?

Rebel bodies are:

550D skeleton is stainless steel chassis.

Blame the T90...

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #12800023
I want to see a return to these solid, metal bodies.

The Canon AE-1 was clearly, definitely not a completely metal camera. Much of the body pictured in this thread was made from plastic, and not from metal.

One of the major controversies from the 1970's, when the AE-1 was introduced, was that there were large amounts of plastic used in its construction. The AE-1 had plastic top and bottom covers, which were manufactured to appear as if they were metal. At the time, it was fashionable to criticize the AE-1's use of plastic. 35 years later, many AE-1's remain as sold as when they were built.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #12800664
That's a valid observation. The first rebels weren't digital at all.

But they were made with cheaper materials.

I guess I'm just ahead (or behind) the times.

Most of you seem happy with bigger. The people have spoken?

Have you seen the size of the camera in your avatar pic?

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #12800825
Is that really what they look like? Holy smokes. I like that.

PERVERT

Carlwashere wrote in post #12801099


The size of DSLRs is justified, like everyone else has already said. They pack quite a lot of electronics in them.

Hmm, my phone takes pictures, recives wi-fi signals, makes calls, has built in GPS and can output music in stereo with it's headphone jack. Yeah, no way they could make a DSLR any smaller!

I'll bet that phone doesn't have the capabilities of shooting DOF like DSLR's and 35mm SLR's do. I know because I've tried. No DOF at all with a camera phone.

The older cameras have an infinitely better look than the new ones, there's no doubt about that. It would be really cool to see them go "retro" with a newer body or some sort of collector's edition.

In fact, I think it would be uber cool if Canon created and marketed a new body with the "retro" theme, not only in aesthetics but "getting back to basics" when it comes to features as well. Get rid of the video, automatic modes, articulating screens and all of that nonsense, and just make a pure camera that takes unbelievable pictures in a nice retro body.

Pentax already has some retro looking limited primes. I was thinking it would be pretty cool if Pentax make a digital K1000 clone to go with it.

It wouldn't be for everyone, but the success of the X100 shows there are a lot of people who just want a simple, but powerful camera.