Maybe professionals prefer the familiar ergonomics?
Or there’s a certain prestige carried by the traditional camera silhouette?
No idea. And I can’t think of another analog-to-digital transition that also maintained its outer form so thoroughly.
Sensors on full-frame DSLR/Mirrorless systems are large so you're going to have to keep a significantly sized rectangle clear.
Assuming right-handed use, you're going to extend that rectangle to the right for a grip, that also need to have depth. Not optional as any of these cameras might see some very heavy lenses attached to them.
You need a viewfinder, where the only logical option is on top. Same for flash connections. The only alternative is no viewfinder at all, just the back screen, but this can't be done because sports and wildlife photographers will always require an eye piece.
All connections (video, mic, data, remote flash) have to be on the left as the right side is taken for the grip which typically features the memory card slots.
The bottom of the camera has to be flat, it needs to support tripod use, video brackets and battery grips. Realistically, the battery chamber can only be at the bottom, given that all other space is already used.
Concluding, the layout makes sense. You could move around connections but it doesn't change the shape of the camera, nor does it improve anything. So it's a logical timeless design, not really a prestige thing.
As somebody else already said: the old design was not specifically analog, only the internals were.
I guess the bigger surprise to me is that there wasn’t anything newly extraneous or improvable as a result of the transition.
Electric guitars come to mind, they are largely the same except in two regards:
The body is much shallower. This of course is due to no longer needing a soundbox. But further, it’s because a shallow body brings the strings closer to the player and puts the arm in a more comfortable position. The large deep soundbox not only became extraneous after the transition, it was also always a bit of an unavoidable hindrance in the first place.
The body shape changed as well. This was due to aesthetic freedom as a result of not needing a soundbox.
Cameras, on the other hand, could of course change the aesthetic for fun, but I guess there is no need for in-the-moment showmanship when it comes to camerawork and camera aficionados just don’t care for flash? ;) And maybe any change would just get in the way (though arguably some guitar shapes are inconvenient as well yet nonetheless desirable to some).
In the end, I guess the physical limitations of the camera either are still present (like large telescopic lenses) or had already been condensed into a small enough size that they no longer hindered better ergonomics
This means mirrorless cameras have smaller lenses and can use all kinds of cheap older rangefinder lenses. People seem to think “SLR” means “film camera” though and don’t know that rangefinders exist.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm
Sony sells wide angle "pancake" lenses that beat the ones for SLRs at compactness:
https://www.backscatter.com/Sony-E-20mm-f-2.8-Pancake-Lens
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12082-USA/Canon_2509A...
Though there's some small SLR lenses too, I think they distort more or it takes longer to figure out the optics - not an expert there.
I will also note that pancake lenses have been around since the sixties and I believe that there were pancake lenses compatible with DSLR lens mounts.
Suffice it to say I'm not sure I can say I am convinced DSLR optics are disadvantageous vs. mirrorless optics. I wish Ken would cite some sources because on Google his claim is the first and only relevant one document that turns up for a few pages.
DSLRs are actually fatter than film SLRs because in a film SLR only the film plate and back are behind the focal plane, which are thin (~3-5mm), while DSLRs stack the sensor board, main board, display etc. behind the focal plane, so they got 15+ mm behind the focal plane. Mirrorless cameras with IBIS tend to increase the back-to-focal-plane distance further due to more involved cooling and IBIS.
I guess the big difference between a guitar and a camera is that a guitar is performative. The guitar and its looks itself are part of the output, along with the sound it produces. Nobody looks at a photographer the same way, we tend to care about their output only.
Personally, I don't find camera design to be boring, ugly or outdated in any sense. In fact, there's few products I can think of that are this well designed. The current layout and ergonomics are battle-tested across a timeline of about a full century.
I'm curious about what makes the eye piece a requirement for these particular photographers (and if/how it could be done away with).
And possibly easier aiming/coordination/stability with the camera and hands at not just eye-level, but also nearly right up against the eye, moving in unison with one’s head. Just a guess though. Sports television cameramen seem to do just find tracking the ball without using a viewfinder.
When you hold up a camera to your eye and use the viewfinder - it’s a third point of contact. You’re also using your face to stabilize it.
Trust me - they’d get rid of the damn viewfinder if it wasn’t often requested so much. Using the viewfinder is just a lot easier than the back of the screen in many situations. (Especially outdoors. Think about rain or whatever else going on getting on the screen)
You are shooting with a long lens. Unless you have the camera on a tripod/monopod, it’s much more stable to have the camera braced against your body with the viewfinder up against your eye, versus trying to hold 5 pounds of very long lens at arm’s length.
(Nikon 200–500mm lens in this case. Trust me. Way easier to support that chonker when it’s held close to the body when running around to shoot rugby.)
Her eyesight has changed, the focus correction on the eye piece is not working well for her now (it has limited correction range) and her glasses are in the way. Using the back screen is difficult outside because of the sun and speed. Also strength; holding a camera with a big lens at arm's length all day is hard for her.
So - contacts, which she hates and her eyes react badly to.
She might have to pack up, which would be very upsetting for her having built a business and because she get's a lot out of her work.
The alternatives in strong sunlight would be a rigid hood around the screen (which exist as accessories), or a fabric hood covering the screen and photographer (like what early photographers used).
Keyboards.
TV cameras.
Hi-Fi stereo systems.
Movie theatres.
Desk telephones.
Headsets & Ear buds
2-way radios.
Magnetic tape.
Automobile engines.
(Coaxial) cable & tuners/receivers.
Likely quite a lot more examples.
Not just pros. The manufacturer actually aims for the "prosumer" market. They do this, by building for the pros, but marketing to the prosumer.
It works well.
But expect the ergonomics to slowly morph, as the consumer base evolves.
Big changes in familiar forms don’t usually work. I suspect that one reason Teslas sell so well, is because they don’t actually look very different from traditional ICE cars. I don’t think that whacky CyberTruck is gonna be very popular.
A touch screen is only ever the optimal user interface for general purpose computers and sometimes navigating through virtual 2D/3D space. In every other use case, dedicated controls are superior in every regard.
On the other hand I find I hardly use any of the controls or readouts in the Tesla, just the speed limit really.
The indicators are on the stick, and the wipers and lights are automatic. There's not much reason to go to the touchscreen on the move - apart from the change the audio.
The gist was that the climate control was so difficult to use, that it was actually a safety hazard.
I’ve found that haptic feedback can be quite useful.
But really, there’s no substitute for good old-fashioned, user-focused design.