 |
| Sony RX100(4) Modern compacts are capable of excellent picture quality even when, as here, subject brightness range is very high. |
The technology of small imaging sensors and zoom lenses has improved so much in recent years that current model compact cameras are capable of putting out images the quality of which would have required a full frame (24x36mm sensor) camera just a few years ago and medium format in the film era.
The ‘full frame’ Canon EOS 5D of 2005 had 13 Mpx and a DXO Mark score of 71. The Sony RX100(4) of 2015 has 20 Mpx and a DXO Mark score of 70.
The main challenge for the designers of these mini marvels is to upgrade their ergonomics.
Modern cameras have a multitude of features, capabilities and options for still photos, video and both simultaneously, jammed into a small package and sharing space with a large monitor screen.
Control of all those features and capabilities requires a suitably well configured user interface. But there is just not enough real estate available for all the modules which these cameras might reasonably need, given current design conventions.
In addition many compacts are so small they have little space for a decent handle and thumb support.
But the need to hold the camera steady at the point of exposure has never been so pressing. Small, light cameras with extremely pixel dense sensors tolerate camera movement from any source (camera shake, shutter shock, mirror slap) very poorly.
In their 2015 review of the Sony RX100(4) the editors of Digital Photography Review suggested in the section on handling that the camera needed “a little more of a rethink of the ergonomics”.
DPRs attention was mainly on the level to which the user could configure the various buttons and dials. I agree there is work to be done in this area. But that is only part of the story.
My main theme of enquiry is the physical design of the camera and its controls.
I investigate this by making mockups each of which explores ideas about camera design and establishes a proof of concept. There have been plenty of ideas which ended up in the bin. I keep the ones which appear promising.
I have no interest in ‘bar of soap’ style snapshooter compacts which are rapidly dying out in favour of smart phones.
Advanced compacts for expert/enthusiast/professional users are much more capable and sophisticated devices.
 |
| RX100 (4) on the left, Mockup11 on the right. |
Size
There is a range of sizes within the compact camera genre. My personal criterion for calling a camera ‘compact’ is its ability to be carried in a small pouch which can be attached to a belt or carried in a purse or small handbag.
Some people refer to the smaller of these cameras as ‘pocketable’. I never carry my camera in a pocket as all kinds of stuff which I would not want to find its way into a camera accumulates in pockets.
I understand however that some people do carry their compact camera in a pocket and that being able to do so is important to them.
 |
| RX100(4) on the left, Mockup 11 on the right |
Mandatory features
I take the very strong view that every advanced compact for use by enthusiast/advanced/expert and professional photographers should meet my criteria for a Proper Camera.
My assumption is that most photographers who never aspire to be more than snapshooters are or soon will be using smartphones. This is supported by industry sales figures which chart the collapse of the previously ubiquitous ‘point-n-shoot’ compact over the last few years.
The only people left using compact cameras are those expert/enthusiast/professional photographers who want an advanced model with full user control and high performance.
I am mighty displeased by the ongoing practice by some makers of offering compact cameras without a built in handle, or a proper thumb support, or a built in EVF, or a lens which is good enough for large prints or an articulated monitor or an imaging processor which permits fast operation with RAW capture.
I regard the failure to provide these things as an abomination and an insult to camera users. Some makers do provide all these things so there is no excuse for those who do not. I hope that buyers shun these half baked cameras in droves.
You can read more about this here but in summary the proper camera has the following features:
* A high quality zoom lens with a wide aperture across the focal length range. I appreciate that some people are attracted to fixed prime lens cameras but I have no interest in these.
* An ergonomically shaped, anatomical handle and thumb support.
* A built in EVF which is always ready for use (no need to pop it up).
* A fully articulated monitor.
* A full set of controls and an imaging processor suitable for advanced/expert/professional use. This includes a JOG lever for direct control of the active AF area position. It should also include a fully realised Mode Dial and twin control dial configuration.
 |
| From the left, Panasonic TZ80, Mockup14, Panasonic LX100. The mockup makes better ergonomic use of the available envelope of dimensions than the two production cameras. |
Basic design decisions
Making mockups is an interesting and revealing exercise. It makes me appreciate the design decisions which must be made to accommodate all the desired components for holding, viewing and operating.
This is a zero sum game where the opportunity cost of increasing the space allocated to one user interface module is offset by the need to reduce the space for other modules.
Dimensions and box volume
Model | Width, mm excl lugs | Height, mm | Depth, mm incl EVF on each filter and cap on LX100 | Box Volume,cc |
RX100M4 | 102 | 60 | 42 | 257 |
Mok 11 | 104 | 62 | 42 | 270 |
TZ80 | 112 | 66 | 39 | 288 |
Mok14 | 113 | 68 | 53 | 407 |
LX100 | 115 | 68 | 75 | 586 |
* The RX100M4, Mockup 11 and TZ80 each fit in a Lowe Pro Portland 20 pouch (with divider removed). In terms of ease of carrying the RX100M4 gains little over the Mockup11 and TZ80. However the improved ergonomic design of the Mok11 and the slightly greater size of the TZ80 enable significant ergonomic improvements, not fully realised in the case of the TZ80.
* The Mockup 14 is a bit larger, requiring a Lowe Pro Portland 30 pouch. This is still easily carried on a waist belt. The opportunity for an improved control layout is considerable.
* The packaging problem for the LX100 is the depth which with filter and lens cap is 75mm. This makes the camera difficult to fit in a standard camera belt pouch. The Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 5 bag which I do use can be fitted on a waist belt but is really on the upper limit of size which can be comfortably carried this way.
 |
| From the left, Panasonic TZ80, Mockup 14, Panasonic LX100 |
Rear of body
This hosts four main modules: EVF, monitor, control panel and thumb support.
Let us take these one at a time.
EVF I have used many actual cameras having a ‘flat top’ design style and EVF located top left as viewed by the user.
The critical ergonomic dimension of the EVF module is its height, including any eyecup, although this style of camera design leaves little room for a proper eyecup.
Camera reviews routinely tell us about the number of pixels or ‘effective pixels’ in an EVF. They do this because, in my view, the reviewers are lazy. So it is easy for them to regurgitate the pixel number provided by the maker.
This number is not entirely irrelevant but the physical size of the module and the ability of the eyecup to block stray light are much more important to the user experience.
Model | TZ80/100 | Mockup 11 | RX100(4) | LX100 | Mockup 14 |
EVF height (mm) | 12 | 14 | 15 | 17 | 18 |
Comment on user experience | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | Pleasant | Pleasant |
This is my personal evaluation of course but I read a lot of user reports and reviews and they are generally similar.
The 12mm EVFs on the TZ80 and TZ100 (they use the same unit) are entirely serviceable once one becomes accustomed to the small size of the eyepiece window. But they are just a bit small to provide a pleasing experience.
The pop up EVF on the RX100(4) has no eyecup at all, there being no way to include one in the popup design. So although it is 3mm taller than that on the TZ80/100 the overall viewer experience is just acceptable, no more. There are also issues with the disposition of the fingers of the left hand with this EVF type.
With the LX100 we come to a size which I find approaches pleasant to use. I have spent a lot of time with this camera and never felt the EVF impaired my user experience.
On Mockup 18 I have allowed 18mm for an even better viewing experience.
Monitor In the early days of the digital era monitor screens occupied a small proportion of the rear of cameras. But over the years monitors have grown and cameras have shrunk so that some models now have space on the back for nothing but the monitor, relying entirely on touch screen operation.
I have researched touch screen operation and come to the conclusion that it is at best an adjunct to the preferred mode of operating digital cameras which is via hard controls. You can read about it here.
Therefore there needs to be a balance between the space taken by the EVF, monitor, control panel and thumb support.
The height of the monitor will be given by h – evf = mon
where h = overall camera height, evf = EVF height and mon = monitor height.
This assumes the EVF is built in and fixed, not add on (which is an abomination) and not pop up
(which is ergonomically suboptimal).
The width of the monitor will be determined by the monitor aspect ratio and whether it is fixed, swing up/down or fully articulated, this being the most versatile and therefore preferred configuration.
Control Panel This is the area between the right side of the monitor and the right side of the camera body. On modern cameras it is the most crowded and ergonomically difficult part of the design due to the expectation that it will host many hard controls in a space insufficient for the job.
All the compact cameras I have used in the last few years try to jam more modules (buttons, dials, levers etc) into this panel than there is space for them.
The result is buttons which are excessively difficult to locate and operate by feel due to being small, flat, featureless and recessed or not recessed and prone to unintentional activation.
Control panel configurations which work reasonably well on larger cameras are not satisfactory when scaled down. This is an example of a general rule which I discovered early in my exploration of camera ergonomics namely that cameras do not scale up or down. They have to be designed to a articular size for effective operation.
No compact camera on the market today has a JOG lever but my mockups have been designed to accommodate one which I now regard as essential for all cameras for efficient control of the AF area position.
Thumb support A quick look at current model compact cameras reveals that many have neither a proper handle at the front nor a thumb support at the rear.
In my view that is a big mistake. Modern compacts have extremely pixel dense sensors and are very light.
The pixel density means they are very sensitive to any source of camera movement and the light weight means they have minimal inertia due to mass.
In plain language little cameras are not as easy to hold steady as larger ones and the penalty for movement is greater.
Perhaps in the early days of compact cameras this was not such a pressing issue as user’s expectations of the output from these cameras was not great.
However in the current era, the amount of detailed imaging information available from say, a Sony RX100(4) is quite remarkable but suffers substantially if the camera is not held steady at the point of capture. My work with this and other recent compacts shows that IS (OIS, VR, SS) can complement but not replace good practice in holding the camera steady.
Therefore a compact camera needs a proper handle and thumb support.
 |
| Both mockups rear view showing JOG lever correctly located for use by the right thumb without shifting grip. The shutter button has a fixed function. The function of the other buttons is user selectable from a long list of options. This makes initial setup a bit challenging but operation once setup very fast and streamlined. |
Front of body
This houses the lens and the handle and requires enough space between them for the fingers of the right hand.
Lens/lens housing On a compact this should have the largest possible diameter (to maximise the widest available aperture) which for practical purposes is equal to the height of the body.
The lens is best located very far to the left as viewed by the user to free up width on the right side for the handle. Some cameras such as the Panasonic TZ80 do this to advantage. This camera has a built in EVF so there appears to be no technical reason for placing the lens more centrally on the body.
Unfortunately many cameras do so, reducing body width available for the handle.
Handle There are in my view no compact cameras on the market at the time of writing with a decent handle. Even models like the TZ80 which does have a handle could easily fit a larger and more ergonomically functional one within the existing envelope of camera depth. It could be 4mm deeper and of a different shape for a considerable improvement in holding stability.
I have spent considerable time making various handles for my compact mockups. One of the advantages of a mockup is that I can try several variations and discard those which don’t feel right.
I have found that at the smallest size a mini handle as seen on mockup11 is the best option as there is insufficient space for a larger type of handle.
But when the size is a little larger but still in the compact range a more sophisticated, ‘inverted L’ type handle with more top plate controls can be used. I will show this on mockup14.
 |
| Both mockups showing the Alt button which is positioned so it will not be bumped accidentally but is easily pressed by the fourth finger of the right hand without having to release grip on the handle. |
Top plate
The top is like the Control Panel. There is not enough space for all the components which might reasonably find a home there. So the design must prioritise those modules which most need to be there.
On the left there is the EVF housing.
Moving right we will expect to find either a hotshoe or pop up flash module. Of the two I favour a pop up flash which I find more useful on a compact model.
Further to the right we will expect to find the shutter button with maybe a control lever in front, and a Mode Dial and On/Off lever or button close by. Good space utilisation will also allow inclusion of a Control Dial on the smallest model (Mockup11) and several more modules on the larger-but-still-compact version (Mockup14).
It has become fashionable to stick an Exposure Compensation Dial top right on compact cameras. This module is used to adjust a secondary exposure parameter in Capture Phase of use. This is suboptimal use of a set-and-see module. Several arrangements provide a more ergonomically efficient way to control exposure compensation. On a twin control dial camera one of the dials (user selected) can be used in P,A,S Modes. A lever in front of the shutter button can also be used, again user selected. A fixed set-and-see dial is better used for a Prepare Phase adjustment such as Drive Mode.
This is not mere personal preference, it is the outcome of many motion studies which I have done on a range of cameras.
The small (pocketable) advanced compact.
The most advanced example of this type on the market today is the Sony RX100(4). This little camera is capable pf producing remarkable image quality from a sensor about the size of the nail on an adult little finger.
But the camera’s ergonomics and the user experience could be substantially improved.
I built Mockup11 as a proof of concept, namely that with a marginal increase in size and no significant reduction in portability, a different design could deliver much improved ergonomics. It is by the way called Mockup11 because it is the eleventh full camera mockup which I have made.
Features of Mockup11
As you can see from the table above M11 is 2mm higher and 2mm wider than the RX100(4). Total depth and body depth are the same. The lens housing is 2mm greater in diameter so a slightly faster (smaller f number) lens might be possible.
Controls consist of Mode Dial + Twin Control Dials + JOG lever + Control Lever + 7 hard buttons each with user assignable function + Alt button such that [Alt] + Button > alternative, user selected function for that button.
There is a decent handle and a secure thumb support, pop up flash, built in, always ready EVF 13mm high, and a fully articulated monitor.
The 4 Way controller had to be removed and the monitor height reduced a little in order to make all this possible.
The Control Panel of M11 is actually 2mm wider than that on the RX100(4) so it would be possible to fit a 4 way controller and rear dial in there. But the Control panel of the RX100(4) is way too crowded for easy operation by feel, so the 4 Way controller had to go.
All up/down/left/right scrolling operations can easily be carried out with the JOG lever the function of which changes with camera use Phase (Menu, Capture, Review).
All the buttons and dials are large and easy to find and operate by feel, but none is placed where accidental actuation is likely to occur. All the buttons and dials are located where the fingers want to find them.
The monitor is 9mm lower than that on the RX100(4) but the same width. So the image preview/review will be a little smaller but a fully articulated monitor design is possible and of course the EVF can be fixed and always ready. The fixed monitor allows easier holding of the camera with the left hand which can also be used to shield the viewing eye from stray light and also help hold the camera steady at the optimal eye distance from the EVF eyepiece.
That’s it really. A bit of lateral thinking can lead to a dramatic improvement in the ergonomics and user experience of the very smallest advanced compact camera.
Now let us move a little up size but still within the compact realm.
The slightly-larger-but-still-compact advanced camera.
My ideas about this are embodied by Mockup14. This evolved out of some previous mockups which
I made exploring the idea that I could improve on the ergonomics of the LX100 yet arrive at a smaller overall size.
M14 is only 9mm wider, 6mm higher and 11mm deeper than M11. It fits easily into a Lowe Pro Portland 30 pouch (with the divider removed) with space for spare batteries, cards and lens cloth.
This is easily carried on a waist belt.
The relatively small increase in size allows a much more comprehensive set of controls to be used, placing this design up with full scale professional models in respect of the level of user control which can be achieved.
M14 has twin Mode Dials + triple Control Dials + Control Lever + JOG Lever + 10 hard buttons + [Alt] key giving direct access to 20 functions via the hard buttons.
There is a fully realised inverted L style handle with shutter button and quad control module on top.
The thumb support is large and of the optimal diagonal type.
The EVF is 18mm high allowing the same excellent viewing experience one would have with a large hump top model such as the FZ1000.
There is a pop up flash and the monitor is of fully articulated type.
The body is contoured to fit the hands which hold it with none of the sharp edges which seem to be fashionable in cameras these days.
The lens housing has a diameter of 61mm. If the sensor were of the ‘one inch’ type I imagine a wide aperture (small f number) lens could be fitted, probably f1.4 with a 3x or 4x focal length range.
Summary
The better compact cameras on the market today are mini marvels of image quality. Some also feature good performance.
But their ergonomics and user experience ranges from dismal to acceptable at best.
Current models lack fresh thinking about the user interface tending instead to reprise control layouts derived either from larger models (which do not scale down) or from point-n-shoot compacts (which are inadequate) designed for a user group which has graduated to smartphones.
Every one of them could be greatly improved with a fresh approach to all aspects of the controls and user interface.
In this post I present two mockups which represent a proof of concept that good ergonomics is possible in small cameras.
Good design costs no more to make than bad design.
I believe there is a strong place in the market for advanced compact cameras with excellent design which is entirely achievable with current technology.
Đăng nhận xét