The Essence Of Camera Ergonomics September 2015

Samsung NX10  Beijing  You can make good photos with almost any modern camera.
In practice the main difference between them is the user experience, which is greatly affected by ergonomic factors in design and implementation of the control interface. 

One of the  more rewarding aspects of writing this blog is the feedback which I receive from readers. 

This can be challenging. Some time ago a reader suggested I summarise in “two paragraphs” my ideas about camera ergonomics. At that time I had accumulated enough material for a substantial textbook and found this request daunting.

But then I realised that if I have something useful and meaningful to say about camera design and operation I should be able to summarise the essence of it in a few words.

So here they are:

In one sentence

Of two cameras, the one which can be operated with the fewest, least complex actions has the better ergonomics.

In a short summary

Ergonomics is about actions

Camera operation requires completion of Tasks in the Setup, Prepare, Capture and Review Phases of use.

Each task requires Actions of the hands and fingers.

The number of actions can be observed (by anybody, it’s not quantum mechanics) and counted.

The complexity of those actions can be observed (by anybody) and recorded. 

These observations can be summarised as a score.

Holding, Haptics and Viewing  issues are also factors in the ergonomic analysis.

Ergonomics is not  about subjective experience, likes,  preferences, speed or head logic.

The Subjective Experience of owning and using a camera is separate from but complementary to the ergonomic analysis.

Each individual’s Likes and Preferences are also separate from yet complementary to the ergonomic analysis

Ergonomics is not directly about speed of operation     Speed to complete the various tasks is not measured in the ergonomic score which I have developed. However the camera which requires the fewest, least complex actions is likely to be the fastest to operate.

Ergonomics is about finger logic not head logic   You might think at an intellectual or logical level that one type of camera control design might be best only to find that when the actions of working the camera are actually counted that a different control design is more efficient.

No Definitional Agreement

Of course there is no general consensus among camera users or the industry about my definition or any other definition of ergonomics. 

I believe this is a serious impediment to effective camera design.

Without a broad, industry wide agreement about the essential nature of ergonomics, camera design is subject to fashions and whimsical variations without reference to the user experience.

The purpose of this blog is to stimulate discussion about these issues with the goal of encouraging consumers to tell manufacturers what design features are required for a good user experience.

In order to do that consumers need a set of concepts and language with which to investigate and communicate about ergonomics.

Example:  When operating the camera in the Capture Phase of use it should optimally be possible for the user to adjust all primary and secondary exposure and focus parameters while looking continuously through the viewfinder and without changing grip with either hand.

Compare and Contrast: Image Quality

As with ergonomics, there are subjective and objective aspects to our appreciation of image quality.

I often read on user forums comments such as: “I really like (…insert your favourite brand…) because I like their colors”  or

“I really like (..insert your favourite brand….) because of the luminous, almost three dimensional quality of the pictures”,

And so forth…..

These are subjective responses by users to some aspect of pictures which they have seen from various cameras on the basis of which a decision may be made to buy Brand X in preference to Brand Y.

But then along came some technical people who realised that most of the innate  imaging capability of a camera system is determined by the amount of luminance and chroma noise in RAW files.   

One organisation, DXO, has even come up with a system for scoring RAW image quality.

You can argue about the validity of this, and plenty of commentators, expert or otherwise, do so frequently.  But you cannot deny that DXO has done what some might have thought impossible, namely to put a score on something which might seem to be arcane and subjective.

That is not to dismiss people’s subjective impressions about image quality but to accept that the objective measurements and subjective impressions are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.

Compare and Contrast: Performance

Some time ago I posted a review about a camera which had some quite good qualities but which had  a RAW shot to shot time of 4 seconds.  That was an objective observation.  My subjective response was that the camera was so slow I could not recommend it. But I was taken to task by some owners of this camera who said they had no problem with the slow shot to shot times.

So even with performance which is easily measured there are objective and subjective aspects to the user experience.

The way forward

We now have systematic, objective  ways to evaluate a camera’s image quality and performance.

As yet users and reviewers are still using ad hoc, idiosyncratic, personal, undefined and unstated criteria for evaluating ergonomics.  This is confusing for designers, reviewers and users of cameras.

With this blog I am attempting to rectify that situation. I have developed a systematic way to understand, describe and score ergonomics based on observations which any camera user could make.

Further reading of which there is a great deal on this blog:

* You can find  Measuring Camera Ergonomics, Short Summary here, and

* Measuring Camera Ergonomics, Major Summary here.

* I have grouped posts on  ergonomic topics into pages which appear at the top of the screen on most browsers.

* Here is the link to Basic Concepts

* Here to Design

* And here to Measuring Ergonomics