When asked which cameras were most attractive and least attractive, people's reactions varied considerably. The Graflex (big, boxy), Canon AE-1 (35mm with the 70s strap) and the disposables were all rated most attractive by some and least attractive by others.
Two people reacted more to the camera's looks -- what Norman calls "visceral" attractiveness. Examples:
- Disposable: "it looked plain"
- Graflex: "looked interesting... different"
- Disposable: "dull to the eyes. (small and not flashy)
Two reacted more to its function and practicality -- what Normal calls "behavioral" attractiveness. Examples:
- AE-1: "sturdy"
- Disposable: "lightweight... practical"
- AE-1: "heavy and bulky... weighted more than the [Graflex]"
- Electro-35: "had options"
- Disposable: "very basic"
One person mixed them evenly, preferring the Canon AE-1 because it was "compact", "robust", "solid", "striking appearance", and disliked the Graflex because "it is very big and has [a] fixed lense [lens] to it."
What strikes me is that no one in our small group ranked cameras according to prestige -- what Norman calls "reflective".
Personally, of the cameras we saw, I'm attracted to the AE-1 because it fits my idea of what a camera should look like, which is partly looks and partly prestige -- the image of a real photographer -- and because I know it's a good, usable camera. However, back when I was given a chance to try the AE-1 and others, I preferred a Contax. The Contax has the same basic 35mm design, but is considerably less robust. However, I just liked the way it felt. (I like the fold-up camera with the Zeiss lens, but mostly in a historical way.)
Nowadays, I mostly take pictures of my children, so I use a pocket digital camera, and the Contax sits on the shelf.