Panasonic LX10 an ergonomic appraisal

LX10

And the camera it could and should have been

September 2016

The mockup. Marginally larger but very much better ergonomically. The lens is as far to the left side of the body (as viewed by the operator) as possible opening up space on the right for a proper handle.

At  Photokina this year Panasonic announced several cameras.

One of these is the LX10/15 billed by Panasonic as “The ultimate compact camera”, with a “polished look” and a “sleek compact body”.

The blurb continues with …..“The aperture ring allows direct intuitive control of the aperture”….

I was looking forward to this camera’s arrival but am now disappointed. They messed up the ergonomics.

This post is not a review of the camera but some observations and comments about its ergonomics based on photos, early hands-on reviews and my experience with advanced compact cameras.

I feel reasonably confident that Panasonic will do a decent job with the picture quality, lens, autofocus and performance.

My concerns are with some obvious ergonomic mistakes which in my view should never have been allowed to appear in a supposedly advanced compact camera from a major manufacturer.

From the left, TZ80, Mockup, RX100(4)   Each fits comfortably in a Lowe Pro Portland 20 belt pouch. 

Market position

In the age of ever more sophisticated smartphones there are still some people who prefer to use a camera for taking photos.

* Many of these are expert/enthusiast users who enjoy the process of operating a well designed camera and will be mightily alienated if the device is not well designed as unfortunately is the case with the LX10.   Online forums already have posts from disappointed users.

* These people want a camera which is really compact, able to be carried in a pocket or small pouch on a belt so it is ready for use at any time.

* It must make better photos than a smartphone.

* It must have very good performance especially in low light levels and with sometimes difficult subjects such as children at play.

TZ80, Mockup, RX100(4) rear view

The scaling problem

Cameras do not scale up or down. The designer cannot effectively take a design and scale it up or down and expect it to have an efficient user interface.

This appears self evident to me as the hands which operate the device stay the same size.

The corollary to this is that very small cameras need a fresh approach to design.

Unfortunately camera designers appear not to understand this so we repeatedly see very small models which have a control layout just like larger models. The result is tiny buttons, cramped holding surfaces, and fiddly operation.

The Proper Camera

I take the view that to be worth buying and using, a camera must be different from a smartphone. The process of using a camera needs to be distinctly different from that of a smartphone.

If not what is the point ?  

My concept of the Proper Camera encapsulates the attributes I think a camera must have.

These are:

* A decent handle and thumb support so the user can get a grip on the thing

* A fixed always ready EVF (not pop-up)

* A fully articulating monitor

* A Mode Dial

* Twin control dials

* A JOG lever to move the active AF area instantly

* A zoom lens

* Built in flash

* A full set of hard controls for the expert/enthusiast user.

LX10  ergonomic mistakes

1. There is no EVF and no way to fit one. The Sony RX100(Mk 3 and 4) each have a built in EVF. I have a Mk4 and I can confirm that this is better than no EVF but not as user friendly as a fixed, always ready type.  I live in Sydney Australia where bright sunny conditions are normal making image preview almost impossible with the monitor on any camera.

It seems likely that the EVF was omitted to  keep the body size down.  I understand this but would very much prefer a slightly larger body with an EVF.

As it stands the LX10 is not a competitor for the RX100(3/4).

2. The aperture ring is a big mistake. 

* This camera has a Mode Dial and two control dials. My studies on similar cameras (such as the TZ100 and LX100) show that changing aperture with a control dial requires fewer actions, each less complex than performing the same task using an aperture ring.

* The design of the ring fitted to the LX10 is most unsatisfactory. The only way for the fingers of the left hand to get sufficient purchase to turn the ring is by engaging with the two small serrated lands.  The relationship of these lands to the fingers of the left hand will be different for each aperture setting and for landscape or portrait orientation, left hand over or left hand under holding style.

The aperture ring on the LX100 has the same dismally inadequate detail design. As a result I almost always used this camera in P Mode. Working the aperture ring was just so awkward.

(and working the shutter speed dial was worse so I rarely tried to use Shutter Priority AE)

Yes, I know people spring to the defence of the aperture ring on user forums and say they think it is a good idea. But I wonder if these people actually use the camera or just talk about it in an abstract fashion.

* The lens aperture varies with focal length. So if an aperture between f1.4 and f2.8 is set on the ring it will often be wrong depending on the focal length. If you set f1.4 then zoom out to the longest focal length the actual lens aperture will be f2.8 but f1.4 is showing on the ring.

The whole idea of an aperture ring on a modern electronic camera with a variable aperture zoom is ergonomic nonsense.

3.  There is no proper handle and the front of the body is smooth like the TZ100. In their efforts to make the body “sleek” they have made it difficult to hold. In my view there is no excuse for this sort of styling affectation. Do people buy this thing because it looks “sleek” ?  I don’t know, maybe some do but the result is an ergonomic kludge.

4. The monitor swings up but not down. That on the RX100(4) swings both ways.  Fully articulated would be even better.  A swing down monitor is very handy for overhead shots.

5. The 4way controller is not one of Panasonic’s best designs. In the photos it appears to be very similar to that used in the TZ100 which is just serviceable but the type used on the FZ1000 is the same size but much easier to locate and operate by feel.

6. In his ‘First Impressions” review of the LX10 on Digital Photography Review Richard Butler makes the following observations:

……The second odd decision is the way Panasonic makes use of the camera's command dial on its right-hand shoulder. In manual and shutter priority mode it controls shutter speed. In program mode it controls program shift. In aperture priority mode? Nothing.

But that's fine, you can customize its function to be exposure compensation. Well, fine until you move back to shutter priority mode or manual, at which point can no longer change the shutter speed. At all.

And just to top it all off, Panasonic is the only manufacturer remaining that won't let you use exposure comp in manual mode with Auto ISO, so the dial suddenly becomes non-functional.

This failure by Panasonic to allow the user to allocate sensible functions to the control dials is completely incomprehensible to me. Did the people allocating dial functions ever use the camera ?

7. Last, Panasonic perseveres with its 20^th Century auto ISO algorithms in the 21^st Century. It is way past time Panasonic fixed this to allow ISO and therefore shutter speed to vary with lens focal length and to allow the user to set a minimum shutter speed for each focal length.

Mockup in hand. The grip is secure with both the third finger of the right hand and the thumb well supported. The top control dial is immediately adjacent to the right index finger on the shutter button. The JOG lever is immediately to the left of the right thumb for easy access and operation. The entire user interface forms a coherent ergonomic whole.

Mockup rear view. All the controls are quite substantial, designed to be easily located and operated by the fingers but with minimal risk of accidental button presses. The JOG lever does the work of a 4 Way controller when required.

There is a better way

Over the last five years I have made 13 plywood mockup cameras to test my ideas about ergonomic aspects of design.  When making a mockup  I specify a set of dimensions then evolve the shape by experimenting with different configurations. So for instance if I find a handle is not right I remove it and start over.  I do not determine the shape with drawings but by experimenting with the relationship between various shapes and the functional anatomy of my hands and the hands of other family members.

My answer to the problem of the small-enough-to-be-pocketable  advanced compact camera is shown in the mockup seen in this post.

I realised very early in the design development process that simply shrinking a larger model would not be satisfactory. So I took a different approach to produce a design which is still clearly a camera but with a user interface which I have not seen on any existing camera to date.

The mockup provides a secure hold on the device with a substantial, carefully shaped handle and thumb support. All the buttons and dials are decently large and easy to find by feel and operate.

It has a Mode Dial + twin control dial layout. The control dials are easy to find and operate by feel without having to change grip with either hand.

The built in EVF has a vertical height of 14.5mm which is sufficient for a decently functional viewing experience.

There is a substantial JOG lever correctly placed for easy access by the right thumb without having to move any other finger. The JOG lever allows direct control of the AF area position in capture phase of use and has the usual functions of a 4 way controller in other phases of use such as scrolling around menus. 

There is a built in flash unit and the monitor articulates. I suspect that in practice a fully articulating monitor might require an extra 2-3 mm depth in the body of the camera.  The monitor is slightly smaller than that on the Sony RX100(4) but quite adequate I think.

 The final shape and configuration of this mockup arose from basic ergonomic principles guided by the functional anatomy of human hands and an understanding of the tasks required to operate a modern electronic camera and the actions required to carry out those tasks.

It is ergonomically and functionally coherent.  It was made possible by thinking outside the usual box which appears to constrain camera design in the current era.

It is only marginally larger than the Sony RX100(4) but in production would provide a very much better user experience.

Obviously the mockup looks a bit rough but it would clean up quite well in a production version. 

As to the shape and the “style”, form follows function as it should.

If the camera makers had the courage to step just a little outside the conventional envelope with a production model like this mockup, I think they would be pleased by the positive response from consumers.