Mẹo vặt đồ gia dụng

Measuring Camera Ergonomics Part 3 Scoring Schedule (revised and reposted)

Mẹo sử dụng đồ gia dụng 01:24

LX100

Summary of abbreviations used:

FLC = Fixed Lens Camera. FZLC= Fixed zoom lens camera.

ILC = Interchangeable Lens Camera.

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.

I rate changing lenses as just about the most ergonomically disruptive task which any camera user has to carry out.

So in the interests of reasonable comparison, the score for an ILC assumes the fitted lens remains in place.

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.

For ILC only: Mount an appropriate lens. I have not included this task in the scoring schedule. It is a task which must always be carried out with an ILC (unless just one lens is always left mounted on the body) and is never required for a FLC.

Scoring an ILC assumes the lens is not changed in order to achieve realistic comparison between ILCs and FLCs.

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, electronic 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.

Haptics All user interface modules are designed with great care to detail so as to ensure that those required to be located and operated by feel can be thus used. No control modules are prone to accidental activation. All dials and similar modules are easy to locate and operate by feel. Control modules can easily be distinguished from each other by feel.

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.

Đọc thêm »

Measuring Camera Ergonomics Part 2 Rationale (revised and reposted)

Mẹo sử dụng đồ gia dụng 01:15

FZ1000

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.

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.

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 numberof 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.

* From an ergonomic perspective there are two types of camera:

* Interchangeable lens camera (ILC)

* Fixed lens Camera (FLC)

The ability to change lenses is the defining characteristic of the ILC allowing great flexibility in the fitment of different lens types. But the process of changing lenses is so ergonomically disruptive that in order to compare cameras I have decided to assume that for scoring, an ILC will be used with just one lens.

In practice, FLCs have a huge ergonomic advantage over ILCs as they do not require the user to buy, carry and change multiple lenses.

* The evaluation schedule is written for a mirrorless camera with an EVF. For a DSLR substitute optical viewfinder (OVF) for EVF. A well designed 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.

Communications technology is improving and might well deserve inclusion in a subsequent update, although that is more a specifications/function/performance issue than an ergonomic one.

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

Đọc thêm »

Measuring Camera Ergonomics Part 1 Discussion (revised and reposted)

Mẹo sử dụng đồ gia dụng 23:28

Lumix LX100

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 most large format film photographs, 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 gettting 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.

Đọc thêm »

Blog On a Mission: Measuring Camera Ergonomics

Mẹo sử dụng đồ gia dụng 15:19

Add caption

I started this blog in February 2012. I had become frustrated by the poor handling and operating qualities of many cameras on the market.

I noticed that there was much discussion about and measurement of image quality and performance of cameras.

But there was and still is no systematic, widely (or even narrowly) accepted basis for evaluating, comparing and measuring the ergonomic aspect of camera operation.

So I worked on the problem, bought and used cameras and made many mockups of different design.

My self imposed mission and the mission of this bloghas been:

1. To study camera ergonomics and present my findings in a public place open to feedback from any source.

2. To raise awareness of issues relating to ergonomics among camera users, or at least the ones who find their way to this little blog.

3. To develop a taxonomy (the branch of science engaged in description, identification, nomenclature and classification) and language of camera ergonomics.

4. To develop a method of scoring camera ergonomics which is based on sound principles, workable, reasonably easy to utilise and which provides a meaningful comparison between cameras.

I had originally thought to write a book on the subject. Fortunately that did not eventuate. A book is far too static a vehicle for sharing results of an ongoing study, does not generate feedback and would have extremely limited circulation.

The first three items of my mission have been discussed at length on this blog over the last three years to the point that I feel reasonably confident that I have identified a workable schema for understanding camera ergonomics.

Now I want to take the blog further along the pathway to realising mission #4.

Over the last 3 years I have invented several different schemas for measuring and scoring camera ergonomics but discarded most as being too complex.

I had to find a schema which is meaningful and which separates the better performing cameras from the less engaging ones but which is not too complex to implement.

Likes, dislikes and preferences

A substantial part of my quest has been to unravel the nexus between ‘likes’ which are a valid aspect of human experience, and the process of systematic evaluation, which is a different kind of experience resulting from a more analytic engagement with the subject.

The next 3 posts are updated, edited and reposted versions of previous posts in which I present Discussion, Rationale and the Scoring schedule in detail.

The 6 posts which follow present ergonomic scores of cameras which I have used.

All the matters presented including the scores and the basis on which they rest, are contestable of course, that is the nature of discovery.

However my impression is that the scoring system ranks cameras in a meaningful fashion.

Đọc thêm »

Cameras and Connectivity

Mẹo sử dụng đồ gia dụng 17:26

The right balance, FZ1000

Where is the camera industry going or failing to go ?

This post has been prompted by my observations of a 12 year old family member on recent outings.

He has an interest in photography.

On the first outing he borrowed an i- Phone, figured out how to use it in a few minutes then proceeded to snap photos which he immediately forwarded to his friends.

On the second outing he borrowed a Panasonic FZ1000, figured out how to use that in a few minutes and was soon snapping away with the zoom lens at full stretch.

The two big drawcards for the FZ1000 were:

1. That long zoom which enabled photos not possible with the smartphone.

2. The built in EVF which enabled him to easily see image preview and playback on a bright sunny day when the monitor was just about useless.

He actually managed to get a couple of in focus shots of birds in flight at the free flight show at the zoo.

But then he hit a roadblock. The FZ1000 cannot be used to transmit its own photos to the internet. It may have been possible to do so with a smartphone app. But he had no interest in this level of gadget complexity and frankly, neither do I.

It seems to me that most camera makers are not paying attention to their customers desires regarding usage practices.

I think camera users in the digital era probably fall loosely into the same two groups as they did in the film era.

The Majority

When film was king, there was a large group of camera users who made their snaps then took the exposed film to a mini lab for processing and printing.

In the digital era I think that this same group snaps pictures with a smartphone then uploads them to social media, cloud storage, email or other online virtual place. A few of these people visit a photo booth where they can have prints made of a small number of special photos.

I think most people in this group will not be interested in a camera which cannot communicate like a smartphone.

Professionals and enthusiasts

A very much smaller group of film users developed and printed their own film in a personal or shared or hired darkroom. Professionals paid someone to process their film and supervised someone to print it.

In the digital era this same group shoots RAW, downloads photo files to a computer, converts and edits them in Photoshop or similar software and may even own a printer, although printing is mostly done by a Pro Lab.

People in this group might not mind that the camera cannot communicate directly with the mobile phone network.

However I bet that if it did so that feature would get plenty of use.

It seems to me there are unlikely to be enough professionals and enthusiasts in the world to buy enough cameras to support the existing camera industry if it continues to make products without built in, native wireless communication which works just like a smart phone.

Most camera makers are dragging their heels on this issue. Sales figures for most camera types have been in decline for several years.

I suspect that if most camera makers continue producing minor variations on their established camera themes year after year then they will go broke. Just like Kodak, an employee of which actually invented the digital camera, presenting Kodak with a huge new technology which it failed to develop.

Plenty of ordinary peoplewould like to have a camera with advanced (but easy to use) capabilities, especially a long zoom lens.

Many of them don’t realise it yet, and therefore will not request one when asked, but when they do get that long lens they will also need a built in EVF to aid in holding the camera steady at the long end of the zoom and to obtain clear image preview and review in bright sunlight.

Very few of them have much interest in all that tedious business of RAW capture, conversion and editing. They also have no interest in the egregious ergonomic burden of changing lenses.

So, what is required ?

Basically a hybrid camera/zoom lens/EVF/smartphone device which performs all image capture, filing, editing and communicating on a single piece of ergonomically designed multifunctional equipment which is easily portable. Preferably one which does not require 350 pages of operating instructions.

Is that so difficult ? All the requisite technology has already been invented and is in regular use.

Can you get one of these things ?

I think the answer to that question at the moment is…………….almost………….but not quite.

The Samsung Galaxy Camera was described on release of version 1 as a true hybrid zoom compact camera/smartphone. It has a long zoom lens and runs on the Android Jelly bean operating system.

It has not had particularly good reviews as a camera and it has no EVF and apparently the version 2 does not offer 3G/4G so presumably it cannot make phone calls. So it falls short on all functional measures.

However Samsung appears to be heading more or less in the right direction.

The Panasonic Lumix CM1 is a hybrid camera/smartphone which runs on Android 4.4. It provides phone functionality and features a very large (for a smartphone) camera sensor of 15.9mm diameter.

The lens has a fixed focal length and there is no EVF.

So this device also falls short of my proposed specifications, but shows that Panasonic is also thinking about ways to merge the functionality of camera and smartphone.

Would it not be ironic if Samsung or Panasonic became the camera market leader, and in the process redefined the concept of a camera. ?

I think it could happen.

Ken Olsen of Digital Equipment Corporation is often quoted as having said in 1977 “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home”

He got it wrong and Kodak got it wrong and I think that most camera makers are getting it wrong at the moment also. They appear to be focussed (pardon the pun) on making cameras with ever increasing pixel count and video performance (4K….8K…in a world full of 2K TV screens) which few people need or want.

They missed the current craze for “point of view” video popularised by Go Pro, millions of whose products adorn a multitude of skate boards, helmets, bikes, selfie sticks and almost everything else.

Perhaps they need to pay more attention to the technology usage practices of 12 year old children.

In due course, we shall see how this plays out in the market place.

Đọc thêm »