>>2727259

sigma sd9

>>2727259
Canon 5Ds R

>>2727594
this is such a sad looking camera

I would probably say Canon T4i

>>2727594
this one is expensive and ugly af but at least is good iq, not?

>>2727612
it's a D4 sensor. very low nose and high dynamic range. not that that matters if you don't get the picture because the jacked up controls are extremely counter-intuitive

>>2727594
fucking ugly

>>2727609

why?

>>2727594
Man the Nikon FM and FE looks great why does the Df looks like that?
I mean the Olympus OM-D series looks great because it took inspiration from the original OM film cameras.

>>2727614

Tried one, the controls are bad but anyone who isn't a retard can make em work fine.

Canon 5D

>>2727649
Nikon had to keep their screw focus and flange focal distance otherwise their long line of lenses wouldn't be compatible.

>>2727649
>the Olympus OM-D series looks great because it took inspiration from the original OM film cameras
Yep, mainly because that's all it took.
Nikon's digital cameras are also saddled with system architecture dating back half a century that's been modified along the way to accept automatic mechanical aperture controls and indexing, camera driven autofocus, and then electrical contacts to do those things as well.
Which means that any F-mount camera's design starts with a big fucking box in the middle of it, around which all of the electrical componentry must be packaged.
I'm sure that given a clean slate Nikon could design a camera at least as pretty as the toy cameras, but their installed user base is too big for such a conservative company to risk offending by discontinuing development of their chosen system.

>>2727259
Contax N Digital.

It was the first FF camera, which is respectable, but it was broken in so many ways that everybody promptly forgot it the moment 1Ds was released a few months later.