Mẹo vặt đồ gia dụng

100-300mm lens on GH3, 300mm, f8, 1/500 sec, E-Shutter, sturdy tripod, cable release, no wind. The yachts are about 300meters from the camera. You can see the posts marked C and D. Just above the C and D is some writing. In the original converted RAW file at 200% on screen I can just read "Welcome to the Alfreds"   This picture has been reduced and compressed for the internet so you won't be able to make out the writing. I chose this subject as a test as it presents the lens with a mass of detail which has been rendered rather well.

 

Sample variation ? I did not have my original copy of the lens available but my distinct impression is that the second copy is better optically at all focal lengths. My experience across all brands is that sample variation is a fact of life particularly but by no means exclusively at the budget end of the price spectrum. The 100-300mm is remarkably inexpensive for a superzoom so I guess sample variation is not surprising.

The short and the long of it Using the lens toward the long end requires a more demanding technique from that which works well at the short end.

Challenges at the long end I recently tested and reviewed in this blog the Panasonic FZ200 which has the same angle of view at the long end as the 100-300mm on M43. Both kits present similar challenges at the long end making sharp pictures more difficult to achieve than they are at the short end. The problem is that everything is working against sharpness as the lens is zoomed out and subject distances increase. The main issues appear to be:

* Even with impeccable technique in ideal conditions and absolutely no camera shake at all,
a) The lens has somewhat lower resolution and contrast at the long end.
b) Optimum resolution is achieved at f8 whereas at the short end peak performance comes in at about f4.5.
* The effect of camera shake is greatly magnified at the long end and

* OIS is not able to counteract the effects of fast jitter typically produced when hand holding or even on a less than sturdy tripod. Panasonic OIS works well to stabilise the appearance of the preview image in the EVF mainly due to it's ability to compensate for relatively slow camera/lens movements.

* Atmospheric haze and heat distortion are significant detractors from image clarity as distance from the camera increases.

* Autofocus is a little less confident at the long end but simultaneously greater AF precision is required due to the small depth of field at long focal lengths.

* My tests show that the standard rule for minimum safe hand held shutter speed is too slow by about one EV step at maximum zoom. So the rule would indicate that a hand held shutter speed of 1/600 sec should be safe but I find that reliable sharpness hand held requires a shutter speed of 1/1250 or faster. Even at 1/1000 sharpness is not consistent at the long end. With slower shutter speeds I will get an occasional sharp frame but lots of unsharp ones.

Same subject as the photo below, different day and slightly different camera position. 100-300mm at 300mm, 1/500 sec, f8, cable release, E-Shutter, sturdy tripod. Sharp, clear, no artefacts.

100-300 at 300mm. Handheld, 1/1000 sec at f5.6, E-Shutter. Look at the top row of windows. The frames appear to be bent. This is one of the E-Shutter artefacts referred to in the text.

Optical performance

Resolution and contrast are excellent to outstanding at the short end. I rate the 100-300mm at 100mm as equal to the 35-100mm f2.8 with both at f4. It really is a top performer at this focal length right from maximum aperture.

In the middle of the focal length range, 150-200mm, it is excellent. On my tests the 100-300mm has better resolution than either the 45-150mm or 14-140mm at 140mm. Again there is little to be gained from stopping down apart from reduced corner shading.

Towards the 300mm long end resolution and contrast drop a little from excellent to very good. There is a definite improvement as the aperture is stopped down from f5.6 to f8. I found no benefit to further reduction in the lens aperture in fact on several of my test sequences resolution fell slightly at apertures in the f9-f10 range.

Corner shading is obvious at wide apertures, becoming less so as the aperture is decreased.

Flare is generally well controlled especially if the lens hood is ued which I recommend at all times. Veiling flare becomes evident if the lens is pointed directly into the sun or sunlight reflected off water. However shadow details are quite well preserved and can be revealed in Camera Raw.

Chromatic aberration and Purple fringing CA is corrected in Panasonic cameras so is not usually an issue. However small amounts of both CA and PF can appear at bright, high contrast edges. They are easily corrected in Camera Raw.

Distortion is minimal at al focal lengths.

Centering My copy appears to be well centered with no significant asymmetric unsharpness at any focal length as long as no pressure is applied to the inner barrel.

Bokeh is generally smooth although at some focal length/focus distance combinations I did see some tendency to a jittery appearance in out of focus backgrounds.

Artefacts with E-Shutter The following phenomena are mostly seen at maximum zoom. If the E-shutter is used handheld some curious artefacts can appear in the image. One type I have seen at low shutter speeds is horizontal bands of blurring across the image (landscape orientation). Another, seen at higher shutter speeds is a horizontal band in which vertical subject elements are distorted in wavy fashion. I attribute both these artefacts to camera/lens movement occuring while the E-Shutter is scanning a strip of pixels. It takes 0.1 seconds to scan the whole frame which is a long time in relationship to the shutter speeds required for hand holding a long lens.

The houses in this photo are 1.4 kilometres from the camera. Some afternoon haze present. 100-300mm lens at 300mm. Sturdy tripod, 1/500 sec, f8, E-Shutter, cable release. As usual there are details in the original which will not survive the passage to internet publication.

How to get sharp pictures at the long end

Hand held Key message: Fast shutter speed, careful technique.
Settings: Mechanical shutter, speed 1/1250 or faster, let the ISO come up to allow f8. OIS on (IBIS if Olympus).
Technique: Auto focus very carefully on a clearly defined part of the subject, make sure there is nothing in front of, behind or near the desired focus point to cause misfocus. I find that AF is more reliable than MF on the GH3, but even on a camera with peaking, hand held MF will be difficult as the enlarged image is jumping about so much. Do your relaxation exercises before shooting. Consciously relax the arms and hands. Adopt a comfortable posture. Breath in then out and at the point of full exhalation gently squeeze the shutter button.
Tripod mounted Key message: Keep the camera/lens absolutely still during the exposure.
Equipment: Use a sturdy tripod. My experiments with a lightweight tripod showed it is not stable enough. Wind will cause havoc even with a solid tripod. Use the aftermarket Collar/mount for portrait orientation. Trigger the shutter with a cable release or smart phone. If you use timer delay I suggest 10 seconds. The preview image appears stable on the monitor after 2 seconds but my results with 2 second timer have been inconsistent so I think there is still some residual vibration happening there which is not problematic at shorter focal lengths.
Settings: E-Shutter on, unless the exposure time is longer than 1 second in which case use shutter delay of at least 2 seconds (Panasonic) or antishock (Olympus). OIS/IBIS off.
Technique: For distant subjects choose a clear cool calm day or time of day with low air pollution.

100-300mm at 300mm, sun shining directly at the lens and sunlight reflected off the water also shining directly into the lens. this produced moderate veiling flare which was easily managed by juggling the sliders in Camera Raw. This photo also shows the character of the bokeh at f8.  I focussed on the front yacht.

Summary My original, very likely inadequate, evaluation of the Panasonic 100-300mm lens was that it was quite good at the short end and a bit soft at the long end.

My re evaluation reveals a much better lens which is really excellent at the short end and very good at the long end. The second copy may have been better than the first but I believe the main reason for the different result second time round is that I used more careful technique. The lens represents outstanding value for money and is one of the reasons for the M43 system's appeal.

My wish list for the Mk2 version I think the basic concept, focal length and aperture range are just fine. Some contributors to user forums have wished for a wider aperture and/or longer focal length. But those things would make the lens larger, heavier, more expensive and therefore less appealing to most users. So my wish list is:

* Same focal length and aperture range. Of course if the designers came up with a way to make the lens more compact that would be a bonus.

* A built in rotating tripod collar standard with every lens.

* Faster burst rate in continuous shooting. I think this will become a more pressing issue when users start mounting the 100-300mm on their GH4's. There are already reports that the advertised frame rate is not achievable with this lens.

* Some improvement in resolution/contrast at the long end would be welcome.

* Some improvement in zoom smoothness would be nice also.

* As a user I would prefer a lens with internal zooming like the 35-100mm f2.8. I would opt for this even if it meant the lens were slightly longer in the camera bag. A lens with internal zoom is easier to work with both on the tripod and hand held and is not subject to mechanical decentering by external force.



　

　

　

100-300mm at 300mm, hand held shot by the roadside. 1/500sec at f5.6. Sharpness is adequate for this type of shot  even though the shutter speed is quite slow for this lens.

Panasonic's first and the world's first electronic mirrorless interchangeable lens camera the G1 was introduced in 2008. Two years later the 100-300mm tele zoom arrived. This gives the M43 system a full range of zooms from the ultrawide 7-14mm to the super tele 100-300mm.

Review history I bought a 100-300mm three years ago, used it for over a year then sold it. I had become dissatisfied with pictures taken at the long end of the zoom range, many of which were not sharp. Several reports on user forums confirmed my own experience, namely that the lens was sharp at the short end but soft at the long end. Then I read some more reports suggesting the problems at the long end might be more about operator technique than outright optical capability.

So I bought another one and carried out a more comprehensive set of tests than I had done previously.

Picture courtesy of camerasize.com  Sometimes the picture tells the story. On the left Canon EF 200-400 f4 [with inbuilt 1.4xconverter] on 5D3. On the right 100-300mm on GH3. Same angle of view range, same aperture range.

Specifications The 100-300mm f4-5.6 OIS lens [H-FS100300] is compatible with the Micro Four Thirds format and works on both Panasonic and Olympus M43 cameras. With 67mm UV filter, front and rear lens caps fitted it is 145mm long. With the supplied lens hood reverse bayonet mounted the diameter is 88mm. These are the dimensions you need to fit into a camera bag. Mass with UV filter, front and rear caps and hood is 605 grams. The lens comes boxed with a soft pouch and operating instructions.

On the outer barrel are a focus ring towards the front and a wide zoom ring in the mid section. At the rear is an OIS on/off switch. There are no other user interface modules on the lens.

No tripod collar/mount comes with the lens and none is available from Panasonic.

Panasonic does not reveal in it's literature whether the lens is parfocal (stays in focus when zoomed) or varifocal (has to be refocussed after zooming). On my informal testing it appears to stay in focus on the monitor when zoomed however at the long end focus accuracy is very critical to sharpness so I always refocus after zooming. The lens is not weather sealed.

Closest focus distance is 1420 mm at the short end and 1485 mm at the long end. This enables one to zoom in on small subjects like little birds from a not-too-threatening distance,

The lens mount is metal as you would expect.

Diagonal angle of view is 12 degrees at the short end and 4.1 degrees at the long end. This is the same as a 200-600mm lens on a full frame (sensor 24x36mm, 43mm diagonal) camera.

GH3 with 100-300mm on Roesch tripod collar.

Comparison with full frame You can see in the photograph that although the 100-300mm is the largest lens in the M43 system it is dramatically smaller than its full frame equivalent. The closest full frame lens I could find for comparison is the Canon EF 200-400mm f4 [With inbuilt 1.4x converter] This gives effectively a 200mm f4 to 560mm f5.6 range which is a little short of the Panasonic lens but close. You can see them side by side in the photograph. The Canon lens is 3x as long, 7x as heavy and ...........19x as expensive. It had better be good.

Mechanical properties As the lens zooms the inner barrel extends by up to 57mm. Zoom action is a little uneven and slightly stiff although I notice this is improving with use. Autofocus is quick and accurate on the GH3, although AF is a little slower at the long end. OIS effectively holds the EVF preview steady for composition. I did not systematically test it's effectiveness at producing sharp pictures but see my comments about this in the next post.

Follow focus on moving subjects is effective on the GH3, using AF Continuous (not focus tracking), 1 Area center focus point and Burst Mode M which provides AF and live view on each shot. I have noted that with any M43 camera which I have used the 100-300mm gives a lower frame rate than other tele zooms, including the 35-100mm, 45-150mm and 14-140mm. In addition the shutter sound has a different cadence when the 100-300mm is used. I have no idea why this might be so. I have read that the aperture mechanism on the 100-300mm is slow but the frame rate is still slow even at maximum aperture. So, it's a mystery.

On the GH3 or G6 unsharpness due to shutter shock is readily produced with the mechanical shutter especially at the long end. For this reason I recommend use of the E-Shutter and a sturdy tripod for speeds slower than about 1/400 second.

I found when using the lens at the long end that it is very important to keep my fingers or any other source of pressure off the inner barrel. Pressure on the inner barrel deflects it out of proper alignment leading to softness along one edge of the frame. This could be a significant issue when handholding or with the lens placed on a bean bag or similar soft support.

After market tripod collar/mount Rudolf Rosch (with an umlaut on the o) in Germany, contact at info@roesch-feinmechanik.de makes a very nice aftermarket tripod collar/mount. It is beautifully made to very close tolerances and fits on the lens nicely. I paid E75 delivered to Australia. Payment is by PayPal. I think the 100-300mm really does need a tripod collar/mount as the body/lens combination is rather unbalanced on tripod using the camera tripod socket. On the GH3 this is 19mm from the front edge of the camera base but on the G6 the center of the tripod socket is only 10mm from the front, placing a lot of strain on the socket.

Although the Rosch product is as well engineered as you could wish there are still problems resulting from the fact that it is aftermarket and not incorporated into the original design. When handholding it impedes the left hand's grip on the lens and the ability to rotate the zoom ring. If you try to deal with this by rotating the collar, it bumps into either the handle or flash housing. So for hand held use, I leave it off.

The collar is at its most useful when shooting in portrait orientation. If the camera is mounted to the tripod via the tripod socket then flipped over for portrait orientation, substantial twisting force is applied to the camera base by the weight of the lens and the screw has to be tightened hard to counteract this. The aftermarket collar allows the camera and lens to be rotated while the collar and tripod mount stay in place, with all the weight balanced nicely over the top of the mounting point.

100-300mm on GH3 at 100mm, hand held, 1/1000 sec f4.5, OIS on. This picture has been reduced and compressed for the internet so some loss of original detail rendering will be inevitable. The houses are about 200 meters from the camera.  In the original file individual leaves on trees and blades of grass are rendered quite clearly. Apart from some explicit commercial, strategic or scientific purpose, I am not sure why anybody would want more information in a photograph.

Next Post, optical performance


　

 

Summary of abbreviations used:

UI = User Interface. Can be hard (buttons, dials etc) or soft (screen based).

UIM = User Interface Module. Refers to a button, dial, lever, switch collar, ring etc.

Set and See module. This is usually a dial, lever or switch. It has manufacturer predetermined function represented by permanently marked icons, numbers, words, etc. marked on the module. You set and see the selected parameter right on the dial. Repeater readouts of the set parameters might or might not be presented in the EVF/monitor.

Scoring In each subsection the maximum score will be gained if a camera allows the user to efficiently perform all the tasks , has all the hardware and positive factors with none of the negative factors. Total maximum score is 100.

Setup Phase [Max score 15]
Tasks Make Main Menu selections, Allocate My Menu items, Allocate Quick Menu items, Select Function Button and dial assignments, set up Custom Modes, set up other functions such as Wi-Fi.
Elements Has a Main Menu, My Menu with user selected items and a separately accessed Quick Menu with user selected items for Prepare Phase selections.
Most UIM's enable user selected function.
Content Menu headings and subheadings are logical, coherent, systematic and easy to navigate. Like items are grouped together.
User interface All items are clear, legible and easy to read. The process navigate>identify>select is easily learned and becomes second nature.
Negatives Main Menu confusing, contains mystery icons or items, not logically designed, like items scattered about in different submenus. No My Menu. Q Menu items not user selectable. No Custom Modes. Navigation complex or confusing. Setup Phase UIM's located where Capture Phase UIM's need to be.
Prepare Phase [Max score 15]
Tasks Set Main Mode, set frequently used modes (usually Focus , Autofocus, Drive), set less frequently used modes and other adjustments required in the minutes prior to Capture Phase.
Hardware Has dedicated set and see UIM's for the most commonly used Modes. Allows quick access to other modes and functions required in Prepare Phase, by Quick Menu button, Function buttons or other quick access portal(s) on body and lens.
User interface Clear graphics, icons and displays on monitor and EVF when navigating and selecting items via Q Menu, Function buttons or other portal. UIM's for Prepare Phase do not displace UIM's for Capture Phase from top value locations on the body.
Content Quick access portals allow adjustment of other modes and functions, for instance flash, metering, recording quality, image size, ISO (if set in Prepare Phase) shutter type, image stabiliser, display, burst/continuous rate, electronic level, elctronic shutter, grid lines, histogram ...............and many more, as user selected.
Negatives Any Prepare Phase items only accessible via main menu. Settings locked while camera is writing files to the memory card. Q Menu items, functions of buttons and other UIM's not user assignable. Prepare Phase UIM's located where Capture Phase UIM's need to be.
Capture Phase [Max score 65]
Holding [Subscore 20]
Tasks Hold the camera in a relaxed but secure grip with both hands with right index finger on the shutter button in relaxed position. Maintain this grip while carrying out the "operating" tasks below.
Hardware Built in ergonomic anatomical handle, inverted L type is optimal. Ergonomic thumb support. Diagonal type is optimal. Optimal shutter button position is forward, top left on the handle (as viewed by the user).
User Experience Handle and thumb support work together to allow the user's right hand to adopt the half closed relaxed posture in basic hold position. Shutter button location enables this optimal holding posture.
Negatives Absent or poorly shaped handle. Handle only available as accessory. Thumb support inadequate in position, elevation or orientation. Sub optimal placement of shutter button.
  Viewing [Subscore 20]
Tasks the operator can comfortably and clearly, in all conditions, view in the EVF or monitor the information listed below.
* Subject preview (live view) unobscured by overlays.
* Major camera data, displayed outside the preview image, in either landscape or portrait orientation, optimally below but possibly also above:
Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, Exposure Compensation, White Balance, Battery Status, Capture Mode in use, Remaining exposures on card. * Secondary camera data/displays, superimposed over the preview image:
Active AF Area position and size/shape, Grid lines, Histogram, Manual Focus Guide indications, others as user selected. Hardware There is a built in high quality EVF with high quality viewfinder optics and comfortable eyecup. There is a high quality monitor. Fully articulated type is optimal.
Content EVF and monitor gain up or down to represent exposure compensation. 100% accurate preview is provided.
User Experience EVF and monitor both provide the same information presented in the same way. There is a seamless segue from one to the other. Look in the viewfinder, see the viewfinder; look at the monitor, see the monitor. Optimally there is no perceptible EVF blackout time after each exposure.
Negatives EVF not built in, Camera data is only available superimposed over the preview image, EVF refresh rate slow, EVF delivers poor viewing quality in some conditions. Monitor fixed or only swing up/down.
  Operating [Subscore 25]
Task list While continuously looking through the EVF (or monitor, but the EVF is a more stringent test) and without shifting grip on the camera with either hand, Capture Phase requires that the following tasks be carried out smoothly and efficiently, without impeding the capture process. Obviously not every exposure requires every one of these tasks to be performed but the camera should be configured so it is possible to do so:
* Adjust primary exposure parameters: Aperture (f stop), Exposure Time (Shutter speed), Sensitivity (ISO).
* Adjust secondary exposure parameters: Exposure Compensation, Program Shift, AE Lock, White Balance.
* Adjust primary framing and focus parameters: Zoom, Initiate/Lock autofocus, Manual Focus.
* Adjust secondary focus parameters: Change position and size of active AF area, manual over ride focus, AF Lock. Hardware There are sufficient UIM's of appropriate design on body and lens with which to drive the camera as described in the task list. UIM's on the lens controlling zoom, focus and aperture (if fitted) are of circumferential type. UIM's on the body can be operated by the right index finger and thumb without having to shift grip.
User experience With practice the user can learn to drive the camera like a motor car. The user looks through the viewfinder (windscreen) at the subject (traffic ahead) and operates the device by feel without looking at it. With further practice the user does not have to think about the process of operating the camera any more than a driver thinks about operating a motor car.
Negatives The camera is configured so the user has to interrupt the capture process in order to change one of the parameters listed above. UIM's for Capture Phase are located in a physical position lower in the ergonomic hierarchy than UIM's for Setup, Prepare or Review Phase. The user has to enter a menu or shift grip or take the eye away from the viewfinder to adjust on of the parameters in the task list.
Review Phase [Subscore 5]
Task list Tasks which photographers might want to perform in Review Phase may vary greatly according to individual preference. Some photographers do little in camera review, others a lot. Ergonomically this is the least critical phase of use as the photo has already been captured. As a minimum I would list:
* Recall the last 1-9 photos captured and select one.
* Zoom into and move around in a review image.
* Jump from one image to the next or previous at the same level of magnification and the same location in the frame.
* Delete one/many.
Hardware The camera needs UIM's to enable the tasks above to be performed. These need to be located low in the positional hierarchy on the camera.
Content Comprehensive data about each image is available and efficiently recalled onto the monitor screen or in the EVF in the same form.
User experience The task list can be carried out efficiently.
Negatives Essential file data is not able to be recalled. It is not possible to scroll from one frame to the next at the same location and magnification. Auto review cannot be disabled. UIM's for Review Phase occupy high value locations on the camera which are better reserved for Capture Phase.

Red planet ?

In Part three of this 3 part series I will introduce a proposed evaluation schedule. If the reader has been following this blog the terms used in the schedule will be familiar. However the new reader will likely wonder where the material is coming from.

It's homework time I have done a lot of work on this over the last five years and posted my thoughts and findings on this blog. I will try to summarise these findings in this post but to fully appreciate what I am talking about I urge the reader to work through two key sets of posts as detailed below.

This blog started in February 2012. The first 14 posts from 28 February to 11 May describe the evolution of my understanding of the elements of ergonomics as they apply to cameras. Here I lay out my ideas about basic concepts of camera ergonomics and functional anatomy. you can find links to these posts under the Basic Concepts page tab at the top of the home page of this blog.

My first ergonomic review was of the Panasonic GH2 in May 2012.

The second key set of posts begins on 1 April 2014, with a review of my use of mockups to better understand the elements of ergonomics. This by the way is not an April fool's post, it just happened to get posted on that day. The next 16 posts to 19 April this year represent an update, review and elaboration of my original 2012 work. In these posts I go into considerable detail about a range of ergonomic issues including handles, shutter button position, control systems, control dials and much more. You can find links to these posts under the Design page tab at the top of the home page of this blog.

I particularly urge the reader to work, and yes it is work, through "Language and taxonomy of Camera Ergonomics" on 6 April and "The problem with likes" on the same date.

Brief summary of findings

There are 4 phases of camera use, Setup (prior to using the camera), Prepare (in the minutes before making pictures), Capture (the process of making pictures) and Review (which is pretty much self explanatory).

In the Capture Phase of use there are three ways by which the user interacts with the camera. These are Holding, Viewing and Operating.

in order to make the camera do his or her bidding the user must perform a series of Tasks in each of the phases and interaction modalities.

Completion of each task requires Actions. These can be examined by time and motion study. Anybody with access to a camera and a user can do such a study. It is just a matter of paying attention to every action required to make a camera work. This can reveal the number of actions required to perform each task. It can also examine the complexity of those actions and note the presence of any enabling actions required.

All evaluation systems have underlying assumptions. In this case some of these are:

* The camera is designed to be suitable for the expert/enthusiast user who wishes to take control of the process of picture making. Novices/snapshooters can use this camera perfectly well by setting auto mode and leaving menus, buttons etc at default settings.

* A Proper Camera is envisaged. This has an anatomical built in handle (by which I mean one which is shaped to fit the hand which holds it), a built in EVF of high quality, a fully articulated monitor, built in flash unit, ability to fit accessory flash units, zoom lens or ability to mount one, responsive performance and good enough picture quality for most users and uses.

* The evaluation schedule is written for a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC). For a DSLR substitute optical viewfinder (OVF) for EVF. A well designed MILC does have several inherent ergonomic advantages over the DSLR type. The EVF allows much more data and choice of data in the viewfinder, the EVF can be configured to look the same as the monitor and the segue from EVF to monitor can be seamless with a MILC but not with a flipping mirror DSLR.

* It is ergonomically preferable for camera operation to require the minimum number and complexity of actions.

* A well designed camera should be comfortable and secure to hold.

* Viewing arrangements should provide a clear subject preview in all operating conditions.

This is completely different from and unrelated to any consideration of an individual's likes, wants and preferences. It is also unrelated to any questions about style.

As a result of performing time and motion studies on many cameras and mockups I have come to the view that some types of arrangement for holding, viewing and operating provide clear ergonomic benefit over other types. This is reflected in the evaluation schedule.

In the next post I put forward a schedule for measuring camera ergonomics. The alert reader will notice that some things are missing from consideration. I have nothing to say about many of the features which festoon modern cameras. There is an endless list of these things including "Best moment capture mode", "Motion Snapshot Mode"......etcetera.....

I also do not refer to some features which some might regard as pertinent to the ergonomic evaluation. One of these is touch screen operation. The touch screen is inaccessible when looking through the viewfinder. My scoring schedule is deliberately biased towards operating in Capture Phase with the eye to the viewfinder. The reason for this is that I regard viewfinder operation as one of the cardinal features which differentiate the proper camera from other photo capable devices.

I am well aware that some users say they feel happy to use a camera in monitor view but I bet they will be considerably less happy when the sun is shining on the monitor or a long lens is fitted or they want to exclude noise (auditory, visual, emotional etc.) intrusion from the immediate environment or all three. The touch screen might be a workable alternative to hard UIM's in Setup, Prepare and Review Phases of use. My thinking is that having provided plenty of hard UIM's for use in Capture Phase one might as well use them in the other Phases as well.

Wi-Fi technology is improving and might well deserve inclusion in a subsequent update.

I don't do motion picture so will confine my evaluation to still photo. I would imagine that the videographer will often want to mount the camera to a fluid head, in which case it might be best driven from the touch screen. There are several websites devoted to the world of video, this is not one of them.

Maximum score allocations: This represents a judgement call about which aspects of camera use are the most ergonomically important. Obviously this is contestable but I think it is reasonable to allocate the highest priority to the process of operating the camera in Capture Mode. The actual numbers are somewhat arbitrary as they must be but they can be adjusted in the light of ongoing experience, should that be necessary.

Phase of use		Maximum score
Setup		15
Prepare		15
Capture	Holding	20
	Viewing	20
	Operating	25
Review		5
Total		100

　
　


　

　

　

The road to.................

 

Camera evaluation can be considered under four headings: Specifications, Image Quality, Performance and Ergonomics.

I often read reviews of camera gear which compare camera specifications. The implication is that if one has more pixels on the sensor or dots in the EVF or whatever, then it is presumed to be "better". My experience tells me that I have to actually test a camera in real world operation to find out if one delivers a different performance in some respect from the other.

Workable methods of measuring image quality and performance have been developed and are readily available for consumers. These measurements often include some system of numerical scoring. This information enables consumers to compare one camera with another and to engage in discussion with other consumers.

However when it comes to ergonomics no such measurement or scoring system is available. This makes it very difficult for consumers to evaluate any camera with respect to it's holding, viewing and operating qualities. Professional and user reviews of cameras lack adequate evaluation of ergonomics because there is insufficient language, taxonomy and system of measurement for ergonomics.

"Ergonomics is very subjective" When I started reporting my findings about ergonomics on this blog and on user forums, I several times received feedback stating that "ergonomics is very subjective" or similar words, and therefore apparently not a proper subject for analysis or comparison. Well, of course some aspects of ergonomics are subjective but so are aspects of image quality. Subjectively appreciated characteristics of any object or system can be measured and compared. Even something as arcane as "Personality" can be measured with substantial reliability.

Ergonomics is also objective Many aspects of ergonomics are determined by hard, observable, measurable factors. For instance: Does the camera have a built in viewfinder ? Does it have an anatomically shaped handle ? Can the user change key exposure and focus parameters while looking through the viewfinder and without having to shift grip with either hand ? The list goes on.... All these things can be readily identified. The tasks of operating a camera require actions. The number and complexity of these actions can be observed, listed and compared with the actions required to operate another camera.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? This has been a theological question of no relevance to anything in the real world since the middle ages. Unfortunately many discussions about image quality and performance are similarly irrelevant to 99% of real world photographic requirements. I read on user forums a statement that camera A with 4260 line pairs per image height is "better" than camera B which can "only" manage 3600 lppih. As both exceed the resolution of large format film the difference between them is of academic importance. Or I see one camera being put forward as "better" because it can shoot 60 frames per second and the other can "only" do 30 fps. A recent camera release offers ISO 409,600. Reviewers praise this amazing achievement, which, by the way is indeed amazing but of little relevance to the vast majority of photographs which the vast majority of photographers might wish to make.

For most photographs, most of the time, a large percentage of cameras (and quite a few smart phones) on the market right now will deliver good enough image quality and performance. Many on line forum discussions and manufacturer's specifications are no more relevant to the ordinary world than arguments about angels on the head of a pin.

So, what does matter ? Which characteristic does meaningfully differentiate between various camera models ? That is the user experience, including all aspects of ergonomics and the user interface.

Is it possible to measure and compare such things as "user experience" and "ergonomics". Until now the answer to this question has been "no". As a result us consumers are not getting a good deal from camera manufacturers. On my assessment, many cameras on the market today offer the user an experience which ranges from "truly awful" at one end of the spectrum to "could easily improve with better detail implementation" at the other end.

This is how I see things in the camera world at the moment.

1. Manufacturers, facing declining sales in all sectors are casting about for the next really good new idea (even if it is actually a recycled old idea) which might bring buyers back to the fold. Hence the multitude of new models, many of which have styling cues which reprise old film cameras. It seems to me that the product development people either
a) don't know which way to turn and have taken to churning out many different kinds of models presumably in the hope that some of them will gain favour with buyers. Sony is probably the most energetic exponent of this scattergun approach, or
b) have decided that their ship of state is sailing along quite well so they just reiterate the same old ideas with very small changes from one model to the next. This might be called the "It ain't broke so we don't need to fix it" approach, of which I would nominate Canon as the most prominent exponent.
2. The only group of people who can guide manufacturers towards the development of cameras which are enjoyable to use and will therefore sell, is the consumers.

3. The pathway to cameras which are more enjoyable to use is better ergonomics.

4. But designers, makers and consumers are all constrained by a deficiency of language about ergonomics and a complete absence of method by which the ergonomic capabilities of a camera can be scored and compared with another.

5. I take the view that until some reasonably acceptable method of scoring ergonomics is found then no sensible discussion about ergonomics can take place and consumers cannot provide reliable guidance to camera designers about the way forward.

6. Hence this present enterprise of mine, namely an attempt to devise a method of scoring camera ergonomics.

Some, perhaps, will argue this is not possible or even desirable. Some might say..."Everyone is different". Well, yes, but not to the extent they have the hands of a possum or a chimpanzee. The creatures who use cameras are humans who are more ergonomically alike than different.

What about likes, wants and preferences ? Of course everybody has these. However I want to be very clear about this: likes, wants and preferences can form the basis for a fertile line of enquiry which is completely different from and unrelated to an evaluation of ergonomics through time and motion studies.

An example: Bill might say "I really like camera A because it makes me slow down and think about the settings for aperture and shutter speed". On ergonomic analysis we discover that camera B requires less than half as many actions to change aperture or shutter speed and each of those actions is less complex than those required by camera A.

As objectively evaluated, camera B clearly has better ergonomics. This in no way invalidates Bill's preference. Bill can choose what to like and dislike for his own reasons whatever they may be.

However the converse also applies. Bill's preference does not invalidate ergonomic analysis by time and motion study either. They exist side by side. If Bill's preferences were shared by 99% of the population of camera users then designers could simply do whatever Bill recommended. But what actually happens is that the individuals in any group will have a whole lot of different preferences. Probably not many of them will want a camera which is slow to operate. They will have other priorities.

The message is spreading It did seem to me for a few years that I was a voice in the techno wilderness. But now it appears the mainstream camera commentariat is catching on. I close this post with a quote from Richard Butler, writing for Digital Photography Review on 24 April 2014. The context is a shooters experience report of the Sony Alpha6000.



"While shooting with the Sony a6000, I've spent a lot of time thinking about what aspects of photography I enjoy, and about what I demand from a camera as a consequence. Every day I read comments about how 'Camera X' is best because of the capability of its sensor or 'Camera Y' is, because of the lenses available for it. These are mostly arguments that relate either to specifications or the image quality that a camera produces. But what of ergonomics, handling, user-interface and shooting experience?

I found myself wondering whether the truism about 'the best camera is the one you have with you' shouldn't really be something like: 'the best camera is the one you enjoy shooting with enough to have with you.' The point being that, for me at least, the process of taking the photo is almost as important as the final result. Of course I want the results to be as good as possible, but I also want to enjoy the time spent using a camera, as well as the images I come back with."

My thoughts exactly.



　

　

　

　

　

Medium sized full featured mockup

In the last post I proposed that we need only three basic camera designs, compact, small full featured and medium full featured. This post describes them in more detail. These mockups assume a mirrorless configuration. The equivalent DSLR's would need to be taller and deeper to accommodate the mirror box and pentaprism/mirror.

Sizing them up You can see from the table below that the compact mockup is just slightly larger than a Sony RX100 (II) to allow for the EVF and a fully articulated monitor. But it is really diminutive for a camera with a full set of controls. I have fully described this mockup elsewhere on this blog site. Because of it's very small size the compact has a different shape and configuration from the other two mockups described here.

The small fully featured mockup is about the same size as a Panasonic G6 MILC. This basic design could accommodate a small superzoom model with fixed long zoom lens or a MILC suitable for sensor sizes ranging from 15.9 mm diagonal ("one inch") through 21.5mm (Micro 4/3) up to 28mm (APS-C). There is enough room for a Sony E Mount. This size would be suitable for an entry/ mid range model. It would suit smaller hands, but it is still very comfortable in medium/large adult hands.

The medium fully featured mockup is about the same size as a Panasonic GH3 MILC. This size could accommodate a superzoom with fixed lens having a very large zoom range or a MILC suitable for the enthusiast/expert/professional user. The increased overall size allows for a larger monitor, larger EVF, larger battery for more shots per charge and larger handle. It also has a twin dial design.

It could accommodate sensors up to 43 mm diagonal (so called full frame) and lens mounts up to the Canon EOS which at about 65mm outside diameter is the largest of the full frame mounts in current use. An adapter/spacer would be required if EF lenses were to be mounted due to their flange back distance of 44mm.

	Width mm	Height mm	Depth mm	Box Volume cc
Compact Mockup	102	61	41 with lens	255
Sony RX100 (II)	102	58	38 with lens	225
Small Mockup	118	81	65 no lens	621
Panasonic G6	120	81 excl hotshoe	70 no lens	680
Medium Mockup	131	89	80 no lens	933
Panasonic GH3	133	90 excl hotshoe	79 no lens	946

Key size determinants

On the back, the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the monitor are critical. Many modern cameras have such large monitors that there is insufficient space left for the control panel on the right side. This leads to small buttons which are too close together and too close to the right side of the body. The consequence of this is difficulty pressing the buttons cleanly and frequent inadvertent activation. In addition the thumb supports of many cameras are of inadequate size and are of the vertical type which is less effective than the diagonal type, which requires more horizontal space.

The monitors of both the small and medium full featured mockups are a little smaller than those found on several comparable actual cameras but still provide a sufficiently large monitor view. The benefit is a substantially larger control panel with larger buttons none of which is close to the right edge. 

On the front lens mount size and location relative to the left side (as viewed by the user) of the body are key. If the lens mount is moved over to the left, this opens up space for a properly designed ergonomic handle.

On top the hump top style allows the EVF eyepiece, hot shoe and built in flash to be lined up front to back. This in turn frees up horizontal space for set and see dials and other user interface modules. The designer can fit more useful stuff on the top of a hump top than a flat top.

The rear view shows a large enough but not over large monitor.  There are no UIM's near the right edge of the body.  Most buttons are 9mm diameter, significantly larger than you see on most cameras.  The JOG lever provides immediate and direct control of active AF area position. The thumb swings right to the rear dial and left to the JOG lever without the need to shift grip. The AF On button is located so it can be activated simply by flexing the interphalangeal joint of the thumb.  The Recenter button is to enable fast recentering of the AF area.  The 4 way controller is retained for menu navigation and/or to provide 4 more buttons. There is a substantial clear area for the thumb in rest position.

Top view shows the two set and see modules. On the left one I  would stack Focus Mode and Autofocus Mode.  On the right one I would stack Main Capture Mode on top and Drive Mode beneath,  plus an On/Off switch at the rear.  The quad control set on top of the handle is shown with actual distances between each module. The height and alignment of the four modules fits the position and direction of movement which the index finger wants to take.  In building the mockup the handle shape was determined first by shaping and whittling until it conformed to my hand. Then my index finger was placed where it wanted to go and the buttons and dial were located to suit.  The mockup has been tested by adults with various different sized and shaped hands and fingernail lengths. I works well for them all. Buttons 3 and 4 are for Prepare Phase actions.

This shows the critical relationship between the shutter button and front dial. The center of the shutter button and the top of the dial are at the same height relative to the side to side movement of the right index finger which takes place on an angled plane. Buttons 1 and 2 sit lower than the adjacent control dial and shutter button so they are not activated inadvertently.

This shows the inverted L shaped handle with quad control group on top. The function of all buttons can be selected by the user from a long list of options.  On the small full featured mockup there is only one (front) control dial. In this case the equivalent of button 12 is used like the "Alt" key on a computer. When pressed with the 4th finger of the right hand it temporarily reassigns function of a dial or other button.  Thus the front dial can be used to change both aperture and shutter speed in Manual Exposure mode.   Styling  Throughout the entire process of evolving the shape of these mockups I put function before fashion at every decision point. The "style" which has evolved has it's own appeal arising from the  functional integrity of the design.  I am not immune to the demands of styling however and have sought to give this mockup a chunky businesslike, no nonsense look in line with it's intended use. It is also, relative to some other recent designs, uncluttered with plenty of space for all  the control modules.

　

Three wise cameras (mockups). Each has the features I require of a Proper Camera. Compact in front, Medium full featured upper left and Small full featured upper right

I have devoted a good deal of space on this blog to discussing the functional anatomy of hands. Now it's the camera's turn.

Basic shape I have been studying camera ergonomics and design from a user's perspective for the last five years. In that time I have used many different real cameras with a variety of shapes and styles. I have made ten full body mockups and five handle only mockups, each exploring some aspect of the shape and design of the hand held camera. On the way I explored several unusual approaches to the underlying concept of a camera's shape. Most of these ideas were discarded before completion of the mockup as each had some deficiency which I regarded as terminal.

Top/rear view of the three mockups

Through a process of refining my ideas via mockups and actual cameras I have come to the view that there are really only three basic camera types which make much sense to me. My reasoning behind this position follows.

The camera in a smartphone world The snapshooter who once used a standard compact camera now uses a smartphone. Sales figures show cameras, especially compacts, are down and smartphones are up. The people who buy any kind of camera in future will be those expert (or prospective expert)/enthusiast buyers who currently buy DSLR's and MILC's. Some people might think that the unique selling point for the camera as opposed to the smartphone would be image quality but I think it is the user experience. In a few years the better smartphone cameras will deliver image quality good enough for most users and uses. A well designed camera can provide a much more engaging experience for the user prepared to learn how to drive it fast and well.

The proper camera I call the camera which can deliver this type of user experience the proper camera. It has a built in electronic viewfinder (or OVF for DSLR's) of good quality, a fully articulated monitor, an ergonomic, fully anatomical handle, built in flash unit and a full suite of hard controls for the driver to operate. The user can adjust all primary and secondary exposure and focus parameters while looking continuously through the viewfinder and without having to shift grip with either hand. It has or can be fitted with a zoom lens covering wide angle to telephoto view. The lens could be fixed or interchangeable.

The user interface My studies show that the best user interface is based on the modern Mode Dial and Control Dial(s) system. The traditional system which locates ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture and Exposure Compensation on fixed function, set and see dials or similar modules, is slower and less efficient to operate, with no ready access to a novice's mode.

The modern camera places the shutter button forward, on the the inverted L style handle, not back on the camera body. This enables the designer to optimise the layout of user interface modules (UIM's) on top of the camera.


Some things are not so important
Having the largest possible sensor Camera makers at the moment are, or are rumored to be, rushing to produce "full frame" MILC's. Sony has done so. But when full frame is compared to smaller sensors, the only thing you can be sure of is that lenses for full frame will be larger and heavier (and usually more expensive) than those of the same angle of view and aperture for smaller sensors.

More pixels More pixels is better, right ? Nonsense. Increasing pixel count just makes for larger files and a selling point for the marketing people. Picture quality is determined by many other factors.

Spectacular high ISO performance The latest full frame cameras can shoot at ISO 409,600. Again, this is mainly a selling point for the marketing people. Yes that sort of capability is amazing to behold and will be useful for a small number of users but is of little value for most of us most of the time.

Convergence <> divergence

Throughout a large part of the 20th Century the shape of 35mm film SLR's was characterised by convergence. Most SLR's looked very similar and worked very much the same way. Some attempts to find a new shape for the 35mm SLR such as the ill fated Rollei SL2000 failed. There could have been many reasons for this but I think one of them was that the standard SLR design with prism on top worked much better ergonomically.

Now in the early part of the 21stCentury we are witnessing a period of divergence. Modern manufacturing technologies have enabled the production of cameras which can be almost any shape with almost any kind of user interface. Add to this the present market conditions which are pressing hard on makers to invent some kind of unique selling point which will, they no doubt hope, allow their brand to survive the impending extinction event which several commentators are predicting.

We have flat tops, hump tops and retro style in several variants, some ergonomically incoherent. We have DSLR's large, medium, small and smaller. We have MILC's in a huge range of shapes, styles and sensor sizes. We still have a profusion of models labelled compact despite the steep decline of this market sector.
This divergence is producing something approaching ergonomic chaos. We find many different approaches to body size and shape, handle size and shape, shutter button location and many different types of user interface. If cars were designed like cameras the road toll would be horrendous. By the time drivers figured out which pedal does what and where to find it, there would be dead people all over the place.

I think it is time for another convergence era. This is, of course my considered opinion with which others will feel free to disagree. However this opinion is backed by a good deal of experience and practical research.

The ideal proper camera I have specified in general terms the features which I want to see in my proper camera. The next question is......

"Is there an ideal or best shape/style/layout for the proper camera ?"

If one was to review the actual cameras on sale right now one might think the answer to this question would be "No", such is the diversity of concept and execution to be found on display.

But I think the answer is "Yes". My studies have taken me to the view that many cameras on the market today offer a suboptimal operating experience which could easily be improved with a more user focussed approach to ergonomic design.

Somewhat to my own surprise that design has, in the larger than compact size, turned out to be a hump top camera with handle which looks and in many ways operates like  a small to medium DSLR or MILC. I just followed the ergonomic logic of every aspect of the user interface and that is where the journey took me.

The three wise cameras Let us stay with hand held consumer cameras for this discussion, excluding large format and special/industrial purpose devices. I think that the great majority of user's requirements can be met with just three body shape/size configurations.

1. The compact. (mustard mockup) There may be some life yet in the compact camera market in the form of an advanced compact which meets my proper camera requirements, something which very few compact cameras currently manage.

2. Small full featured model (orange mockup) This would be very suitable for an entry/small interchangeable lens camera (ILC) or an entry/small superzoom type.

3. Medium full featured model (Gold mockup) There is no large full featured model, none is required. The medium sized version would be ideal as an expert/enthusiast/professional ILC or advanced superzoom.

Next - detailed descriptions