Camera technology and design 2016

This photo was made with the latest 50 megapixel zooperkamera mounted on a super 20 kilogram tripod. The shutter was released by remote control from a dedicated off camera electronic module. Special post capture software was used to ensure maximum resolution.
Well...............not quite..............
It is in fact a hand held shot made 10 years ago with a Canon EOS 20D and a budget 70-300mm lens. The 20D maxed out at 8 Mpx. This version of the shot has been cropped a bit to 7.5 Mpx.
Does any of this matter ?   Of course not. The shot relies on the ship being berthed there on that day and the angle of the sun being just right for the subject.
Modern cameras are giving us more and more pixels which are of little relevance to most photographic needs but falling way behind on performance and ergonomic development.

I make no claim to expertise in camera technology, but I am a thoughtful camera user and can readily evaluate the effect of such technology on a camera's image quality, performance and user experience.

As we engage fully with the new year it seems to me that the design of many cameras has gotten stuck in a rut and some are going backwards.

If the image quality, performance and ergonomics  of these cameras had reached an apogee then lack of progress might simply be a sign that cameras had arrived at a point beyond which little improvement could be expected.

But they are in my view nowhere near that point. I think there is a great deal of room for improvement in most cameras.

Some are touted as new but on acquaintance are found to be little more than last year’s model with 1960s kitsch adornments.

We are increasingly seeing

* Camera centric instead of user centric design and implementation.

* Fashion given preference over function.

* Legend (or the myth of a legend) over logic.

* Style over substance.

* Marketing hype over capability.

* Nostalgia for some mythical ‘good old days’ over effective design in the here and now.

I was reading posts in a user forum yesterday and came across one titled “There are currently no cameras that I want to buy”.  The content and responses were of a jocular nature but beneath the humour I think there is a real issue namely that right now there are not many cameras that some of us would want to purchase.

It appears that the market for opportunistic snapshot devices has been taken over by smart phones.

The people still using cameras are expert/enthusiasts or beginners aspiring to expertise.

Therefore all cameras of all types and sizes should be specified and configured for expert/enthusiast use with a built in EVF, a proper anatomical handle and a full set of hard controls (buttons, dials, levers).

Beginners who think they don’t need or as yet don’t understand those controls can grow into the camera’s capabilities with practice.

Camera types

There are three common camera types:

The first two are interchangeable lens cameras (ILC)

1. Digital single lens reflex (DSLR). This type has just about reached the end of its evolutionary journey. Most supposedly new model DSLRs are really just moving the deckchairs around with minor changes of little import.  Some more pixels on the sensor perhaps, an upgraded AF module maybe. Some tinkering with the buttons to little effect.

2. Mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC).  I was an early adopter of this camera type. I bought a Panasonic G1 in 2009 and several models from Panasonic and Olympus since then.

My view now is that the MILC type was released to the market prematurely, before the underlying technology was sufficiently evolved.

On my analysis, there are three problem areas for the MILC type which have still not been fully resolved:

* Image degradation due to shutter shock. The currently available solutions to this problem are E-Shutter and electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS). But each of these brings its own problems.

A fully functional global shutter is required, but as yet no conventional still camera has one.

Panasonic recently stated they are developing one but there is no news about when it might appear in a consumer camera.

* EVF refresh rates. EVFs are getting better but still have some way to go. In burst mode (several frames per second) many cameras present the user with an EVF image of the previous shot made not a preview of the next one and EVF blackout rates are still too high on many cameras.

* Continuous autofocus with follow focus on moving subjects. Again this is improving with on chip PDAF on some cameras and DFD type CDAF on Panasonic models, but many MILCs are still quite unable to follow focus on a moving subject.

3. Fixed Zoom Lens Camera (FZLC)  This incorporates previously used categories like ‘compact’, bridge’ and similar.

I think that the future of cameras lies with this type because the best ones are highly competent and provide an all in one photo capability in a single device with no need to change lenses.

This camera type also has its problems, some shared with the MILC:

* There is no issue with shutter shock, at least none that I have seen reported, as these cameras use diaphragm type leaf type shutters in the lens.

* However the EVF refresh and follow focus issues also affect this camera type.

* The other issue for the FZLC type is that these cameras generally use smaller sensors than ILCs and small sensors provide lower image quality than large ones.  This relationship between small and large sensors will presumably always be true but when the picture quality coming off small sensors becomes good enough for just about any purpose the matter will become academic.

In the film days I used 4x5 inch (about 100  x 125mm) large format cameras for several years. These did indeed deliver better picture quality than the more popular 35mm (24 x 36mm film size) format but towards the end of the film era 35mm lenses, cameras and film were good enough that the large format became irrelevant for me and for most users and uses.

I think the same thing will happen in the digital arena.

Already digital cameras with the 34 x 36mm sensor are delivering picture quality equivalent to or better than 4 x 5 inch film and small digital sensors are outperforming 35mm film.

This is my 50 years old Pentax Spotmatic. You can see the little film speed window. It was and still is an awkward, fussy thing to adjust.

Manufacturers

Canon  keeps churning out ‘new’ models each of which is barely distinguishable from the previous iteration. If the previous models had reached the pinnacle of perfection that might be fine although it would also indicate no need for a new model.

Canon’s DSLRs are decent enough and work reasonably well up to a point but their ergonomics could be greatly improved.

Look at the new EOS 80D. The layout is, with minor changes the same as that of the last several models. The configuration of the shutter button, front dial and buttons behind the front dial could be greatly improved but Canon is not doing it.

The camera is large enough to greatly improve the configuration of the control panel (the right side of the back of the camera).  The rear dial should optimally be up behind the right shoulder, where it can be found on the Panasonic FZ1000 for instance. There should be a JOG lever (a.k.a. Joystick) for moving active AF area. There is plenty of space for one.  But again Canon is not doing it at this level of the model spectrum.

Canon’s FZLCs are a disgrace and in my view an insult to their customers.

Look at the G1X, G1X Mk2, G3X, G7X, G9X, G7X Mk2 and G5X. Each of these cameras especially the G3X with its long lens could benefit from a built in EVF but only one, the G5X actually has one.  

The model which most needed a built in EVF has not got one. Go figure.

Each could benefit from a fast processor so the camera doesn’t need a rest after each RAW capture but only one, the just announced G7X Mk2 has one.

Does Canon think its Powershot customers are idiots ?

Do Canon’s product development people think they have no need to make a competitive MILC ?

Photo courtesy of Digital Photography Review    dpreview.com
This photo of the 'newly re-invented' (???) Fuji X-Pro2 illustrates two awkward ergonomic issues.
First is that stupid little film speed adjustment window copied from 1960s era mechanical film cameras. The left side yellow arrow points to it.   What on earth were they thinking ?
Second, you can just see the front command dial at the yellow arrow on the right. In order for the user to operate this dial he or she has to release grip on the camera, drop the hand down so the index finger can get a purchase on the dial which is awkwardly oriented at 80 degrees to the direction the finger wants to move, turn the dial then return the hand to its normal position. It appears the 'designers' of this camera could not be bothered to learn camera ergonomics 101.

Fujifilmhas just announced the “newly re-invented” (whatever that means) X-Pro 2 with much fanfare. The basic design of the X-Pro 2 looks like something from a camera museum, which I suppose is the intention but the point of making a camera like this escapes me. It has no functional or ergonomic advantage over the modern DSLR style hump top shape with mode dial and control dial(s). I guess it is to photography what vinyl records are to Hi-Fi.

The X-Pro 2 has one excellent feature which I think every new camera should have. That is a JOG lever (a.k.a. Joystick) for direct  control of the active autofocus area.

It also has a feature so ill conceived as to defy belief. In the middle of the 20^th Century, SLR cameras had a shutter speed dial. On the upper surface of this was a little window indicating film speed as ASA or DIN.   To change the film speed setting you had to lift up the dial and jiggle it around to a new position which was difficult to see and awkward to get just where you wanted it.

It was the least user friendly aspect of a long gone generation of mechanical cameras which at best had only mediocre ergonomics.

And they copied it in the X-Pro 2 !!!  What on earth were they thinking ?

Leica  has a set of current models which in my view represent complete confusion about intentions and means in camera design. This is a camera maker which gives every indication of having no idea where it is going and therefore no idea how to get there.

Nikon’s  fortunes are tied to camera production more than any other camera maker.  You might reasonably expect therefore that Nikon’s product development, design and technology would be absolutely top of the range.

Indeed their DSLRs are probably the best you can get.  There is plenty of room for ergonomic improvement though, just as with Canon. Nikon’s DSLRs are good, no doubting that but they could be better designed with a more user oriented interface and better performance.

Nikon does have a presence in the MILC business. Unfortunately they chose to use the ‘one inch’ (8.8 x 13.2mm) sensor size which has proven to be a better match for FZLC cameras than MILCs.

The Coolpix line is similar to Canon’s Powershots.   Half  baked, with substandard performance especially when using RAW capture (in some key models RAW is not even available) and a suboptimal user interface.

I believe the just announced DL trio of models each with a 'One Inch' sensor is a step in the right direction for most photographers, namely away from ILCs and towards FZLCs. I will post more about this soon. 

Olympus  has again fallen into the trap of making cameras for fashion instead of function, for example the recently released Pen-F Digital. Presumably there will be some initial response from consumers beguiled by the visual appeal of the device but I expect that in due course the lack of development in performance and ergonomics will take its toll in the form of disenchantment with a product which works no better than the previous model or the one before that and the one before that.

The Pen-F digital, like the X-Pro 2, copies a feature from the 1960s which makes one wonder if the people responsible for this camera ever used it before it was released to the public. The original half frame Pen-F in the 1960s had a quite prominent film speed setting dial on the right side of the front (as viewed by the user) of the camera. The Pen-F digital of 2016 copies this dial but uses it for a different purpose. The problem is that the dial sits exactly where the third finger of the right hand wants to lie when holding and operating the camera.  New users have already reported this to be very uncomfortable which I must say anyone could have seen would be the case by simply looking at the position and prominence of the dial.  

Panasonic  I remain unsure why Panasonic bothers with cameras which must be a minuscule part of their overall enterprise. But if they are going to persevere with cameras they need to smarten up and do so pretty darn quick.

Where are the new generation sensors ? Where is the global shutter ? Where is the fast EVF refresh ? 

Where is the equal-to-DSLR-level continuous Autofocus ?

Panasonic has developed some good technology for aspheric lenses, image processing, sensor and autofocus capability.  But they appear to be stalled along with the rest of the camera industry at a point short of optimal realisation in all these areas.

I am invested in Panasonic cameras so I have a personal interest in this. I would like to see them put out fewer models each showing more real progress in the areas where I have identified deficiencies in the MILC and FZLC types.

Pentax—Ricoh  have just announced a new ‘full frame’ (24 x 36 mm sensor) DSLR. This might have been real news for Pentax users had it come 10 years ago. But now…….. ????

Samsung  appears to have abandoned the camera business. Fair enough. I imagine it was a loss maker from the start and they are probably better out of it.

Sigma  makes a few cameras but they are weirdly shaped, eccentric things each with a fixed prime lens and a very narrow range of capabilities.

Sony  like Panasonic is still in the camera business but I wonder why. Since their entry into still camera production about 15 years ago Sony has played hide-and-seek with it’s customers. It has repeatedly introduced then abandoned models and entire lines, such as the DSLR.

In more recent times Sony has made a big effort to establish a full frame (24 x 36mm sensor) MILC line, apparently with some success. But the A mount has languished, the regular E mount (APS-C) is getting little attention although the A6300 was recently announced but with a trio of FE mount lenses, go figure, and the FZLC lines are not getting much attention either.

Update 1,  June 2016: I bought a Sony RX100 Mk4 and have made many photos with it. Picture quality is very good even for very large prints and performance including autofocus is mostly very good also. There are ergonomic issues partly related tot he small size of the device and partly to design decisions which could be rectified in a subsequent model. 

Update 2,  June 2016: Sony brought out the RX10 Mk3 with a 24-600mm FLE lens which by all reports is very good at all focal lengths and apertures. Unfortunately there are problems with AF Single in low light and at the long end of the zoom. Follow focus on moving subjects is poor. The design perpetuates the ergonomic muddle seen on the RX10 Mk1 and 2.   
It's the same old story. The makers get some things right and others just get ignored. Again.

As I asked of Panasonic, where is the global shutter, where is the fast refresh EVF, where is the equal-to-DSLR-continuous autofocus ?  Sure they are working on several, probably all, of these issues and making some progress  but there is more to be done.

Summary 

I think all camera makers at the present time are pushing out too many not-really-new models and are excessively reliant on fashion in  (I believe)  an attempt to cover up for the deficiencies which burden their products.

They are also (obviously) trying to induce you to buy a new model. But if you already have a good camera which works well and which you enjoy using it might be worth holding onto it.

The latest crop of ‘new’ models gives little reason for anyone to trade up.

If the industry wants to move forward in convincing fashion it needs products with better ergonomics, better performance and global shutters.

I can’t help wondering if more co-operation and less competition might be part of the way forward.

Various innovative technologies have been proposed as the basis for improved sensor technology with global shutter including the Bosch graphene sensor, InVisage Quantum Film and the Fuji/Panasonic organic film. 

But none of these appears close to commercial production and if/when  that happens the technology will go first to smart phones, security cameras, self driving car sensors and similar industrial applications with consumer cameras well down the list.

Don’t hold your breath folks…………….

In the meantime there many cameras available which work well and give good results.

Andrew’s picks

This is a bit risky as individuals have their own ideas about the determinants of desirability in a camera. But I will have a shot at this anyway. The reader will understand that I have of course not used every camera model on the market so I have relied to some extent on reports from others in reaching these picks.

DSLR   If I were in the market for a DSLR I think I would be looking at a mid range APS-C  model from Nikon. The downside of this is the surprisingly limited range of  Nikon DX lenses. Unfortunately Canon APS-C buyers have the same problem with the limited range of EF-S lenses.

MILC   I am unable to find anything to recommend from this genre. I actually own a Panasonic GX8 which is one of the best MILCs available at the moment and I have recently also owned  a Panasonic G7.  These cameras are burdened by the issues to which I referred earlier in this post as are all MILCs on the market at the moment.

The Sony A7R(2) got camera-of-the-year award from several review organisations last year but I remain very sceptical about Sony’s commitment to anything or anybody. The A7R (2) still has performance and ergonomic issues and the FE lens line has only just in the last weeks seen the arrival of 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 lenses, which are as yet untested. As I read it existing FE lenses have a very mixed record with many reports of poor quality control and excessive sample variation. 

The more fundamental issue is the one I referred to above with the comparison between large format and 35mm film.

Basically, who needs full frame digital ? Who needs 42 Mpx files ? Who needs 80 Meg files ?

Sure, some professional photographers who need to output to a billboard 20 meters wide will need all those pixels. But for the vast majority of  enthusiast and professional users the capabilities of full frame digital are overkill.

FZLC  I can recommend one FZLC with very few reservations. That is the Panasonic FZ1000. This was Camera Ergonomics camera of the year in 2015. Our family has three of them. They have been used everywhere: the desert, the tropics, the arctic and antarctic and come through with flying colors.

For those who want to know, I do not recommend the Canon G3X as it does not have a built in viewfinder. I regard any camera with a 600mm (equivalent) lens without a viewfinder to be a useless piece of junk and an insult to users. It also uses the same processor as the other G—X models which have poor follow focus capability.

The Sony RX10 in Mk1 or Mk 2 versions has a conceptually muddled user interface, poorly designed handle, limited zoom range and poor follow focus capability.  

I can recommend the Panasonic LX100 with some reservations. It has a ‘traditional’ control set with shutter speed dial, exposure compensation dial and aperture ring on the lens. Some people, not necessarily those who have actually used the camera, think this is a wonderful thing but my ergonomic analysis shows that the [mode dial + control dial]  layout found on the FZ1000 provides a more streamlined user experience. In addition in the first year or so after release the LX100 appeared to have a greater than average number of problems as reported on user forums.

Apart from those two I see little that I could recommend. Many models from several makers look desirable on the specifications list  but are found in practice to be considerably less endearing with sluggish performance,  poor ergonomics and poor picture quality or all three.

Update 3, June 2016.  I can recommend the Sony RX100 (4) with some reservations about the ergonomics and user experience. But the image quality from the lens and sensor are so good that anyone wanting an advanced compact should seriously consider this camera.

Canon and Nikon seem to think that handles and viewfinders are ‘optional’ on FZLCs. I assume they are getting this idea from somewhere, maybe customer feedback of some kind, but possibly not. In any event they are wrong. The user of a camera with a viewfinder can elect not to use it at some times and to use it at other times, such as in bright sunlight.  The user of a camera without a viewfinder has no such choice.  

Some cameras have the option to add an accessory viewfinder which mounts in the hotshoe. This is another insult to users. The add on EVF costs about 10x as much as a built in one and once in place transforms a compact unit into an unwieldy one, higher than a DSLR with this stupid lump sticking up where it will get damaged if left on the camera and be a perpetual nuisance if it is removed every time the camera goes back in its bag.

The accessory EVF is one of the worst ideas ever to blight the camera industry.

Panasonic builds its EVFs into their cameras which is a hugely preferable arrangement. Some makers do get some things right, well some of the time anyway.

Oh, by the way the second worst idea in the camera industry is the accessory handle. When are the camera makers going to grasp (pardon the pun)  this ?  

Put a well designed ergonomic handle on the camera  at the outset. Job done. Thank you.

Do DSLRs have accessory viewfinders and handles ? No ?  Quelle surprise ! The best selling type of ILC has the viewfinder and handle built in. Could there possibly be a message there somewhere ?

ConclusionWell, that was a bit of a serve for the camera makers but I think they deserve it. Maybe we need fewer makers so the sales numbers and therefore R&D budget can be higher for those which remain. Maybe that might lead to better products, but really, I am not hopeful.