Measuring Camera Ergonomics, Progress to June 2016

This picture was made with a Sony RX100mk4, a very small camera capable of big results. Fortunately it works well in P Mode with the camera making good selections of Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO sensitivity. Unfortunately this goodness is offset by a less than engaging user experience if one wants to take more control of camera operation.

I started this blog in February 2012 to share my thoughts about and investigations of camera ergonomics. I realised that it was possible to develop a systematic approach to understanding and describing ergonomic factors in the user experience.

In due course this led me to develop  a method for scoring camera ergonomics.

I believe I am the only person to have published such work in publicly accessible media, in this case Google Blogger. 

I have of course no idea what camera makers produce or publish in house.

However the ergonomic realisation of actual cameras is inconsistent. Some models are quite good, others dreadful with incomprehensible omissions or errors.

This leads me to believe that none of the camera makers has a clear corporate grasp of what constitutes good ergonomic practice in camera design.

They seem to me like travellers heading for an unknown destination.

It is a possibly trite but nevertheless true aphorism that the traveller who does not know his or her destination is always lost.

In terms of the ergonomic realisation of their products all the camera makers appear lost to me.

I suspect that if one of them accidentally produced an ergonomically perfect camera (assuming such a thing might be possible) they would be unaware of this and just as likely to turn the next model into an  ergonomic kludge.

Don’t believe me ?

In October 2013 Nikon produced the D610, a well sorted DSLR described by one reviewer as having ‘tried and true” operation.

The next month they produced the Df, apparently based on the same innards as the 610. This had a very different and much less efficient user interface. The best the same review team could say about it was that it was “rather pretty”. Ouch.

My impression from this is that while Nikon got the ergonomics of the D610 mostly right their designers appear not to have understood what exactly are the general principles which determine that rightness. 

In consequence when pushed out of their comfort zone of same old, same old standard layout DSLRs they were all at sea, not knowing what to do.

The same thing happened with the original Nikon 1 V1 camera body which offered some design elements completely at odds with the hands which had to operate the device.

I don’t want the reader to think I am picking on Nikon here. All the camera makers have made similar mistakes when they venture out of a well established comfort zone.

Anyway, back to the Camera Ergonomics blog…..

I studied functional anatomy and did motion analyses on the operation of a wide variety of cameras and in due course evolved a language and conceptual structure for understanding, describing and measuring camera ergonomics.

I have published all this material in extensive detail on this blog.

You can read a series of posts about discoveringcamera ergonomics here. 

The posts describe my discoveries but there is nothing exclusive about these. Anybody with hands and a camera can make the same discoveries.

You can find a series about measuring cameraergonomics here.

Throughout this enterprise the three most common objections which I have received by way of feedback have been, in essence:

1) ‘Everyone is unique and different’. Therefore you cannot describe, evaluate or score camera characteristics in any way which is relevant to all users.  A little reflection will soon reveal that this objection is not sustainable for two main reasons:

a) If it were true then it would not be possible for any manufacturer to make any camera at all. Or if they did make a camera it would suit only one buyer in all the world. Clearly this is not the case.

b) It may be true that each person seems uniquely individual to his or her mother but to the maker of a motor car or camera or power tool or any other device they are very much more alike than different. To be sure,  hands vary in size and length/width ratio but not to such an extent as to invalidate basic principles of camera or car or power tool design.

In fact all human hands free of defect, deformity or disease have an opposable thumb, four other fingers and a characteristic shape and functional capability.

If you want to see ‘different’ check out the hands of a possum or a kangaroo.

 

2) ‘Ergonomics is subjective’.  My experience shows that there are subjective and objective elements to the description and evaluation of ergonomics.

a) Some questions such as ‘is the EVF large enough for comfortable viewing ?’ and ‘is the handle comfortable ?’ clearly involve subjective experiences.

This does not mean they are beyond evaluation, understanding and scoring. There is abundant precedent for successful evaluation and scoring of subjective factors. Even ostensibly arcane qualities like ‘personality’ and ‘beauty’ can be reliably rated and scored.

b) Many of the specifications in my scoring schedules are amenable to objective evaluation. For instance ‘Can all primary and secondary exposure and focussing parameters be adjusted while looking continuously through the viewfinder  without changing grip with either hand ?’ Although this specification may seem a bit complex at first sight it can be broken down into steps and evaluated by motion study using direct observation. It is quite objective and the extent to which a camera meets this specification can be evaluated and measured.

3) ‘That’s just your opinion’.  The corollary to this would be ‘And my different opinion is just as good as yours’.

The problem with this is that we live in a world permeated by social media which encourage everybody to say, without any knowledge or information or deep thought whether they ‘like’ some idea or person or thing.

This has the effect of reducing opinions to the level of  chatter, unhelpful to the work of evaluating an enterprise.

I am very happy to debate any of my proposals on their merits but I do ask that countervailing views be backed by robust observations and analysis.

The other issue with opinions and likes is that a person might really like a camera for reasons which are unrelated to ergonomics, see below:

The fashion show

I once showed one of my mockups to a lady who said “that is the ugliest camera I have ever seen”.

The mockup in question was #12 with which I am rather pleased. It is very comfortable to hold and has a nice set of controls for the expert/enthusiast user. It would make a very good M43 body or general  purpose fixed zoom model.

People are of course perfectly entitled to pick their cameras, cars, partners, lunch, whatever on the basis of perceived beauty or fashion.

In the case of cameras lots of chunky big silver dials seem to be in fashion at the moment, scattered about on the top and sometimes other places on the camera body where they foul the fingers trying to operate the device.

I regard matters of appearance and style as being separate from and unrelated to ergonomic considerations. When evaluating ergonomics or making a mockup I pay no attention to any particular notion of appearance or style.

Nevertheless, as I look at my mockups it is clear that they do have their own style which arises naturally when form is allowed to follow function. They are not forced into a pastiche of some revered designer’s creation which may or may not have been successful in 1964.

This is Mockup #12. Is it ugly ? I neither know nor care if someone thinks so. However it is very nice to hold and all the controls are in just the right places.

Are my camera ergonomic scores useful ?

I need to make it clear that the overall score is not intended to stand alone.

The process of assessment, evaluation and scoring involves four elements.

1. The groundwork of understanding ergonomics without which the whole process of evaluation and scoring cannot be understood.

2. The framework and specifications which provide a set of reference points against which evaluation and scoring can be conducted.

3. The narrative which describes how well each camera meets the requirements of each specification set.

4. The subscores and finally the overall score.

The camera scores

I have now published an ergonomic score for 17 cameras.

By the way I bought and paid for 16 of these myself and subsequently sold them via eBay to some lucky buyers who got really good gear at a very attractive price. One of the cameras was borrowed from a family member.

As I look over these scores I ask myself : ‘Do the narrative,  the  subscores and overall scores provide a useful summary of the experience I had when using each camera ?

And I think the answer to that is ‘yes’.

Further I think the exercise of evaluating and scoring camera ergonomics is sufficiently useful that I will continue to do it.

Of course there will be those who look at the list and protest that their favoured model was not given a fair score or that camera A got a better score than camera B when it is obvious that camera B is better.

However ergonomics is just one of the four pillars of camera evaluation, the others being 

Specifications/Features, Image Quality and Performance.  So a camera model could make really good pictures but provide a frustrating user experience and vice versa.

Deal breaker problems

Some cameras suffer the burden of  one or a few problems or defects which are so egregious they render that model unsuitable for rational purchase.

I call these ‘deal breaker’ problems.

For instance the Canon SX60 has a flat 4 way controller which I found impossible to locate and operate by feel. This alone would exclude it from contention if I were recommending cameras to a friend. But the SX60 scores reasonably well for a consumer fixed long zoom type because the total score is the sum of the sub scores and within each sub score there are several elements to consider.

So a model such as the SX60 with a deal breaker problem scored higher (56) than the P900 (50) which  scored in the acceptable range in all categories with no deal breaker issues.

So the Ergonomic score has to be taken in the context of all the other factors which might be relevant to the ownership experience with any camera model.

Camera Ergonomic Score Summaries

In rank order  June 2016

Camera	Setup Phase Max 15	Prepare Phase Max 15	Capture Phase			Review Phase Max 5	Total Max 100
			Holding Max 20	Viewing Max 20	Operating Max 25
Sony A3500	5	5	12	7	8	2	39
Nikon 1 V2	7	6	12	10	8	3	46
Panasonic GM5	10	10	4	10	12	2	48
Nikon P900	10	6	13	11	8	2	50
Sony RX100 Mk4	8	12	7	9	11	5	52
Panasonic LX100	10	8	11	10	10	5	54
Fuji X-T1	10	9	9	13	10	4	55
Canon SX60	10	9	16	11	6	4	56
Panasonic TZ110(ZS100)	12	13	4	10	15	5	59
Panasonic TZ70(ZS50)	12	13	6	11	20	2	64
Panasonic TZ80 (ZS60)	12	12	7	10	19	5	65
Panasonic G6	11	10	14	14	14	3	66
Panasonic GX8	10	12	12	18	14	5	71
Panasonic FZ300/330	10	12	18	18	16	5	79
Panasonic G7	10	13	18	18	17	5	81
Panasonic FZ1000	10	13	17	18	20	5	83
Panasonic GH4	10	13	18	18	19	5	83

Comment on the score summaries

May I reiterate that these scores mean very little without an understanding of the concepts and framework upon which they are based and the narrative which summarises the reasoning behind each subscore.

Several of the low scoring models work reasonably well if left on the fully automatic mode setting which tends to disguise operational deficiencies.

In last place we have the Sony A3500, a budget hump top MILC the only attractive feature of which was its amazingly low price point. Unfortunately almost everything else about it was unappealing.

The next group, including Nikon 1 V2, Panasonic GM5, Nikon P900, Sony RX100Mk4 and Panasonic LX100, with scores from 46-54, all work decently well in Auto or Program mode where there is limited requirement for adjusting primary and secondary exposure and focus parameters during Capture Phase of use as the camera does most of this automatically.

But if you want to use Shutter Priority or Manual Modes or adjust ISO setting or exposure compensation manually, one of the higher scoring models will provide a more streamlined user experience.

Two models here, the Panasonic LX100 and Fuji X-T1, feature a hybrid traditional/modern control layout with aperture ring on the lens, shutter speed dial and separate exposure compensation dial.  

Some reviewers and contributors to user forums praise cameras having this type of control layout as being ‘intuitive’, providing ‘direct control’ and ‘superior ergonomics’. But every time I run motion studies on the actions required to operate a camera these hybrid/traditional models fare poorly.

You have to experience trying to operate one of these cameras in Shutter Priority Mode to get a feeling for this. The control type is logical but slow to operate.

Moving up the score table, the Canon SX60 has a very nice inverted L shaped handle but a woeful set of controls the worst of which is the flat, almost unusable 4 way controller.

The designers of the Panasonic TZ100/ZS100 forgot to put on a handle or thumb support. What on earth were they thinking ?

The less expensive TZ70 and TZ80 are both easier to hold and use with a decent handle and thumb support.

The Panasonic G6 is very similar to the G5, both representing a welcome recovery from the ergonomic disaster of the G3.

The G7 shows significant further improvement and would have scored even higher with a better Cursor Button Module.

On my evaluation the G8 is a step backwards for Panasonic’s M43 lineup with numerous errors of user interface implementation which in my view should never have gotten into production.

The FZ300 is an improved version of the FZ200 with better designed controls all round but not quite in the same class as the FZ1000.

The only two cameras to score over 80 are the FZ1000 and GH3/4 (the GH3 and 4 have the same body). I still use the FZ1000 regularly and it is my preferred all purpose camera. 

Both the FZ1000 and GH4 are a pleasure to use but both could easily be improved further with detail improvements to the handle and controls including addition of a JOG lever.