Traditional controls, Modern camera. Bad idea-ergonomically

Panasonic LX100

The essence of camera ergonomics is the number and complexity of actions required to control the device.

For many years of the 20^th Century the most popular enthusiast camera type was the single lens reflex. Most models used the classical shape and control layout made popular by Asahi  Pentax  as shown in the photo of my Spotmatic, still working after 50+ years.

This control system is basically dictated by the mechanical constraints of the inner workings of these cameras.

The aperture ring is connected mechanically to the aperture actuating mechanism so it has to be right on the lens.

The shutter speed dial is likewise connected mechanically to the shutter mechanism so it has to be located where those mechanical connections are easily made. 

Asahi Pentax Spotmatic showing traditional controls

The only direct mechanical operation on a modern camera is the zoom mechanism on lenses fitted with manual zoom. All other control inputs are actuated by electronically monitored micro motors or similar machines.

Any user interface module (button, lever, dial and others) can be located anywhere on or off the camera body and can be hard (a discrete physical module) or soft (touch screen or remote device).

This gives designers great freedom with the shape, configuration and control layout of their products.

You might therefore be surprised to find that some makers endow their cameras with a control layout the main features of which look remarkably like that of the Spotmatic.

Why they do this I can only guess. I am not privy to the machinations of the product development teams at any of the camera makers.

Here in some detail is why I think this is a bad idea.

LX100 changing the aperture.

Aperture ring

1. With the most popular type of lens which is a variable aperture zoom, the markings on an aperture ring are often incorrect.  For instance on the Panasonic LX100 which I am using in this post to illustrate my points, the lens aperture varies from f1.7 at  (equivalent) 24mm to f2.8 at about 50mm and above. If you set the aperture ring to f1.7 and zoom out the aperture will progressively change from f1.7 to f2.8.

2. Changing f stop on an aperture ring requires more actions, each more complex than is the case with a well designed [Mode Dial+Control Dial] control system. See the photos with this post.

The LX100 is particularly bad in this regard as the ring has only two serrated lands which never seem to be where my fingers want to find them.

Even if the aperture ring had serrations around the full circumference which should be the case, turning the ring still requires the whole left hand and at least two of its fingers to be recruited into the task of turning the ring.

But with the FZ1000 which I have chosen as an example of a camera with a modern control system I can change aperture with a small movement of just one digit (the right thumb in this case) with no other part of the hands or fingers having to move at all.  Fewer actions, each less complex.

3. One of the supposed benefits which I have heard given for the aperture ring is that the user can see the fstop reading engraved thereon. But in fact

a) the engravings on the ring are invisible in Capture Phase of use when one is looking through the viewfinder or at the monitor and

b) some of the time the engraved f stop indications are wrong anyway.

4. Once I get to f4 the fingers of my left hand turning the aperture ring bump into the fingers of my right hand holding the camera. So I have to shift grip with the right hand to allow the left hand to turn the ring further.

4. In the case of the LX100 the aperture ring turns the wrong way for value up. Other cameras/lenses have the same problem. My brain and I suspect most peoples, is wired to expect “value up” to be caused by => movement of the finger(s) on a lever, wheel, dial or touch screen. But on the LX100 value up is achieved by the opposite direction of movement at the top of the aperture ring.

The reader may think this to be a petty complaint. But I find over and over that my enjoyment of using a camera is strongly influenced by the degree to which I can smoothly and efficiently control the device without having to think every time I make an action which way the dial, lever, wheel or whatever has to be moved.

5. There is no possibility to pre set an aperture. With the [Mode Dial+Control Dial] system I can pre set an oft used aperture which will be applied very time I turn the Mode Dial to A.

6. The aperture ring is redundant. It is not required to be there. There is no aperture ring on Canon or Nikon ILC lenses. These makers figured out years ago that there is a better way to change aperture which uses fewer, less complex actions. This is the control dial.

Some camera makers put an aperture ring on some lenses but not others. That seems to me a sure way of keeping users confused. Fujifilm and Panasonic both do this. Sony sticks an aperture ring on its RX10 series cameras but not on others. Say what ???

Imagine if some motor cars steered with the wheel and others with the foot pedals. Would anyone think this a good idea ?   The death rate would be catastrophic.

FZ1000  Thumb adjusting aperture or shutter speed (mode dependent). You can see that only a very small movement of one digit does the job with no disruption to the grip of either hand.

FZ1000 basic hold, ready to shoot

Shutter speed dial

1. There is insufficient space on a dial to engrave all the speeds of which a modern shutter system is capable. Therefore there has to be an accessory dial somewhere on the camera by which these speeds can be accessed. If the accessory dial is required anyway, what is the point of the traditional shutter speed dial ??

2. Changing shutter speed with a dedicated dial requires the right hand to release grip on the camera shift up to get the thumb and index finger on the dial, turn it then shift back down to the regular position.

If a well located control dial is used only one finger (thumb or index finger depending on the particular camera) is required and it needs to move only a small amount with no other finger having to move. Fewer movements, each less complex.

3. The shutter speed dial is invisible with the users eye to the viewfinder.

A consequence of  2. and 3. is that changing shutter speed moves from Capture Phase of use back to

Prepare Phase of use. For slow contemplative work such as landscape this may be no problem but for sport, action, street, documentary, and many family photos particularly of moving children a much more responsive type of control system is desirable.

4. A shutter speed cannot be preset. The user has to go click-click-click----to reach any desired shutter speed every time.

5. Neither f stop nor shutter speed can be allocated to a Custom Mode setting.

LX100 adjusting shutter speed. The right hand has to change position to enable this.  More actions, each more complex.

Exposure compensation dial

These have become very popular of late. I see lots of models sprouting one usually on the right side of the camera top plate.  The idea is not a carry over from the “good old days” but an innovative ergonomic kludge thought up by the new brigade of muddle headed camera designers.

It is a kind of “traditional” control which is actually quite recent in the history of camera design.

1. The dial is invisible in Capture Phase of use while looking at the monitor or through the viewfinder. The best time to use exposure compensation is while looking at zebras in the viewfinder. 

These give a very good pre-exposure indication of the amount if any, of exposure compensation which is required.  Engraved markings on the dial are useless in this circumstance.

2. Auto cancel cannot be set.

3. A fixed purpose exposure compensation dial prevents that bit of camera real estate from hosting a control dial with user assigned function. For instance if a camera has a well designed twin dial control system the rear (or front if preferred) dial can be used for exposure compensation in P, A and S Modes. The dial can automatically revert to changing aperture or shutter speed (user set) in Manual exposure mode.  Easy peasy.

Photo courtesy of Digital Photography Review
Fujifilm X-Pro. "Film speed" window. An example of slavish obeisance to "tradition" regardless of  negative consequences for the user experience. See photo below.

Showing the little ASA film speed window on the Spotmatic. It is a fiddly nuisance to adjust.

Lift and turn ISO setting

One of the least user friendly control modules on an old fashioned  mechanical SLR is the lift and turn (ASA) film speed setting embedded in the shutter speed dial. This is a slow and clumsy way to change film speed but it didn’t matter much in the old days because you got to use the same speed for at least 36 shots. But on a modern camera where sensitivity (ISO) can be altered for every exposure this old system is ridiculously inappropriate.

But incredibly Fujifilm stuck one of these little horrors on its recent X-Pro and X100 models.

Oh…. But should you just possibly not like  changing sensitivity this way they provide you with a little wheel which can do the job.

The perversity of this passes belief.

No Mode Dial

One of the smartest control modules to appear on modern cameras is the Mode Dial. These started appearing on film SLRs around the beginning of the 21st Century.

Now even pro level camera like the Panasonic GH5 have one. The great advantage of the Mode Dial is that it can congregate access to ten or so Prepare Phase functions for still and video capture in one easily reached location.

Cameras lacking a Mode Dial have to find workarounds for access to all these functions. This will usually include menu diving or some extra levers or buttons or similar. These clutter up the camera and make access to the usual Mode Dial functions more convoluted than it needs to be.

Comment

My guess is that some camera makers stick traditional controls on their products in the quest for a unique selling point or at least a differentiator from the mainstream CanNikon models.

These traditional controls often find themselves on models targeted at enthusiast users.

This may or may not achieve some marketing traction. I have no way of knowing such things.

But I do know about camera ergonomics and  I can say that controlling a camera with traditional controls requires more actions each more complex than the same or better level of control with a well implemented Mode Dial+Control Dial system.

It may be that some traditionalist or enthusiast/purist/minimalist users might say prefer the traditional controls anyway.

Fair enough, people can enjoy their own preferences for their own reasons, whatever those may be.

The thing which I find disappointing is the assertion by some users and reviewers that such-and-such camera model with traditional controls has “very good ergonomics” when the writer has made no attempt to define what he or she means by that.

 Note on camera selection  I would like to have used a compact with good ergonomics to compare with the Panasonic LX100. The Canon G5X might have come close but this camera's many well documented performance inadequacies prevented me from buying it.

In fact to my great disappointment I have yet to find an advanced compact that I can fully recommend.