 |
| Photo made with Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 camera. I believe that fixed zoom lens cameras like this are the way forward for the great majority of photographers. This camera comes close to being truly 'universal' with good ergonomics and performance in a wide variety of situations. |
Unscored features
From an ergonomic perspective the worst part about using an interchangeable lens camera (ILC) is having to buy, carry and change lenses. I deal with this problem in my protocols by not scoring it. I evaluate an ILC with, usually, a standard zoom lens mounted. I leave the reader to be aware that changing lenses is an experience which most camera users wisely avoid by either buying a FZLC or by mounting a zoom lens to their ILC and leaving it there.
There are also ergonomic aspects to carrying camera gear however I do not score these as they are not locked into the design of the equipment.
I do not score a host of features which modern cameras often have. These include art filters, special effects and a range of capabilities such as auto panorama.
My evaluation and scoring is biased towards still photo capture. Someone using a camera mainly for video might have somewhat different priorities, such as for touch screen capability, see below.
I do not score touch screen capability. I am aware that some reviewers and users rate touch screen ability highly and complain loudly when it is not provided.
My own ergonomic work tells me that for still photos while looking through the viewfinder touch screen capability is not useful. I am well aware that many Panasonic cameras, several of which I own and have used extensively have a feature called ‘Touch Pad AF’ and that some users say they really like it. That’s fine, people can like whatever they choose. But ergonomic evaluation is not about likes and preferences and it is not about opinion polls.
Legacy features
Some readers might be a little surprised by some of the camera features which I regard as ‘legacy’.
But many cameras currently on the market suffer from impaired usability as a result of retaining or re-introducing features which have been superseded by new technologies which allow more efficient camera operation.
I do try without apology to be forward looking unlike the designs of some current model cameras which seem to be stuck in a mid 20thCentury time warp.
The list is a bit like apples and wheelbarrows as it mixes features, technologies and usage but with that in mind here goes: in no special order,
* Mechanical focal plane shutters. These things are the curse of modern high resolution cameras. Their operation shakes the camera during sensor exposure leading to impaired picture sharpness. This is not of itself an ergonomic problem but it is impeding acceptance of mirrorless cameras which do have significant ergonomic advantages.
The solution is a global shutter which starts recording light on all pixels simultaneously then stops recording all pixels simultaneously. Global shutters exist but not yet in consumer still cameras with CMOS sensors.
* Optical viewfinders. Electronic viewfinders have many advantages. These include 100% accurate view, brightness indicates exposure variation, seamless segue from eye level to monitor view, user selectable data which can be displayed or not as desired, histogram, peaking, zebras………..the list goes on.
But EVFs are not yet universally used in cameras. This is largely because of data processing issues, leading to EVF blackout after exposure and slow refresh times compared to optical viewfinders.
Presumably technological advances will solve these problems but it has not quite happened yet. Soon, maybe. I still regard the OVF as a legacy feature which has not quite been ousted yet.
* Chimping on the monitor is not required if an EVF is used.
* Flat top styles. Advanced hump tops allow a more efficient user interface and control system for cameras larger than pocketable size.
* Top plate LCD screens. These were required in the SLR film days but are now redundant. More information displayed more clearly can be presented in the EVF or monitor.
 |
| How not to do it. Some camera reviewers and commentators are infatuated by all those dials and levers. But when it comes to actually using the thing a well implemented modern control system with mode dial and control dial(s) requires fewer actions, each less complex. |
* Traditional controls, particularly an aperture ring on the lens, shutter speed dial on the top plate and an exposure compensation dial on the top plate. I have extensively investigated this and found that operation of a camera with a ‘retro’ style control layout requires more actions, each more complex than one with a well designed Mode Dial + Control Dial system. Twin dial systems are even better if well implemented.
There are plenty of cameras with badly designed Mode Dial + Control Dial systems which muddies the waters on this issue.
The appeal of the traditional control layout appears to be mainly intellectual or at least cerebral. The idea of one control for the aperture, one for the shutter speed and one for exposure compensation is logical and conceptually simple. But cameras work by finger logic not head logic and when put to the test of motion analysis the modern system proves more efficient.
* The myth of ‘direct controls’. This is often presented on user forums as a reason for someone preferring the ‘traditional’ control system. Manual zoom is still often a ‘direct’ control, with mechanical connection between the zoom ring and the cams which move the various lens elements. But just about everything else on a modern camera is ‘fly by wire’ with electronic connections and motorised actuation.
* Fixed monitors. There is in my view simply no excuse for manufacturers to continue making cameras with fixed monitors. It is akin to supplying motor vehicles with solid rubber tyres after the invention of pneumatic ones. Unacceptable.
* Monitors and EVFs using monitor style, with camera data superimposed over the lower part of the preview/review image. This just makes both the data and the lower part of the image difficult to see properly. All cameras should provide the option to set monitor and EVF both to ‘viewfinder style’ with key camera data beneath the preview/review image in bright numerals on a black background.
* Real metal construction, particularly on exterior surfaces. Structural polycarbonate in one of its many forms is much more durable, less prone to scratches, dents and marks.
* Use of the 4-way module to adjust active AF area position. One of the benefits of modern autofocus systems is that the active AF area can be placed anywhere in the frame.
The best way to quickly and efficiently move the AF area is with a JOG lever (a.k.a. Joystick) .
This is a module which can be pushed up/down/left/right to move AF area without the need to first press any other module or button.
The best location for a JOG lever is just to the left of the right thumb in basic hold position so the thumb can easily move the lever without disrupting grip with either hand. All three of my mockups presented in the previous post have this feature.
The JOG lever also supersedes both the touch screen and the 4-way module as a control for moving AF area.
* ‘Focus and recompose’ becomes redundant when the AF area can be moved quickly and efficiently.
* APS-C (27-28mm diagonal) sensor size. This was a stop gap sensor size introduced in the early days of digital as early full sized (43mm diagonal) sensors were too expensive for consumer cameras.
The problem for APS-C is that if you want substantially better image quality than Micro Four Thirds can offer you need to move up to ‘full frame’ (43mm diagonal sensor).
On the other hand if you have a ‘full frame’ kit and want a substantially more compact kit comprising body and several lenses, you need to step down to Micro Four Thirds.
This is not directly an ergonomic issue of course, but there are ergonomic consequences of carrying larger and heavier equipment than is required.
Of course, one solution might be for camera makers to make their APS-C models their main professional line with full frame (43mm) sensor cameras relegated to the position currently occupied by medium format models.
* Rectangular sensors. From an ergonomic perspective, circular sensors make the most sense. The user never has to turn the camera 90 degrees for portrait orientation. Cropping decisions can be made post capture. UIMs for Capture Phase use can be efficiently located on the lens barrel.
* Interchangeable lenses are the 20thCentury way to provide a range of angles of view. Increasingly the 21st Century solution to this problem is the zoom lens. Carrying and changing lenses is a complete ergonomic kludge. I look forward to the day when the great majority of photographic requirements will be met by cameras with a fixed zoom lens.
Feedback from readers about the camera ergonomic enterprise
Over the years I have, as you might imagine, received various kinds of feedback about my work on camera ergonomics. I have sorted this feedback somewhat loosely into four categories:
1. Constructive. Several respondents have provided valuable observations and insights about my reviews and designs which have helped me to move forward in constructive ways. Here is an example:
In several posts on the blog I described why the shutter button forward on handle was preferable to shutter button rearward on body top. One respondent pointed out that the top/rear shutter button on body does in fact have one advantage which is that it allows the right wrist to be held approximately straight when the camera is at eye level, whereas the forward shutter button on handle forces the wrist to tilt forward. After pondering this I realised it is possible to have the advantages of both arrangements by canting the handle back 10 degrees. The mockup in the photos has this feature.
2. Narcissistic. These responses come in various forms. One is ‘ergonomics is subjective’. Another is ‘everybody is different’. Each of us is unique and special. The problem with responses of this type is that they provide no information or guidance of any kind to a camera designer.
3. Nihilistic. Several respondents have put to me the view that I am, like Don Quixote, engaged in a noble but doomed enterprise. These people also provide no useful input to help a camera designer, or user or anybody else.
4. Idiosyncratic. These people respond from their personal experience without considering much else. So I have been told in response to one of the mockups ‘the control dial should go in front of the shutter button, not behind it’. I have in fact investigated many relationships between the various control modules on top of a camera and found some arrangements ergonomically successful, others less so.
In the specific case of that mockup I put the shutter button where my index finger felt most comfortable and relaxed, on the basis that the finger will spend more time on the shutter button than the control dial. The dial went in the next most comfortable position. With all my mockups the fingers are made comfortable first, the controls come later, positioned where my fingers want to find them. There is no general rule that ‘this’ should go in front of ‘that’.
Nikon puts the control (command) dial in front of the shutter button but badly so, on a different level and different plane. Canon puts the control dial behind the shutter button but also badly, too high (usually) and with excessive separation from the shutter button. Neither gets it right because the detailed implementation is poor.
Next: Scoring specifications and schedules
Đăng nhận xét