Preface
This post is aimed at cameras primarily intended for still photos, with video capability if provided being a secondary consideration. Cameras primarily intended for videography have a significantly different set of technical and ergonomic requirements. As I write this in 2026 we can see that camera makers have responded to this challenge by delivering lines of camera products for videography which are different in form, features and control layout from those intended mainly for stills with additional video capability.
Ergonomic evaluation and scoring is most relevant for cameras with a comprehensive set of interface modules (buttons, dials, levers, touch screens and similar) for full control over camera operation by an expert or enthusiast user.
I ignore Fully Automatic, Scene and Creative Filter Modes unless one of them is actually useful like auto panorama or auto focus stacking.
I assume that an interchangeable lens camera has a standard prime or zoom mounted and have not developed an evaluation schedule for lens ergonomics.
Introduction
I have owned and used many different kinds of cameras over the last 70 years. In the film era I used most types of camera that a consumer could buy. When the digital era came along I tried numerous compacts from most makers but my “serious” cameras were the Canon EOS 20 and 40D and other DSLRs of that era. I gave little thought to the question of ergonomics until in 2009 I bought a copy of the first Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC), the Panasonic Lumix G1. Although this was an important technological step forward it was a step backward as to the user experience.
In 2010 I bought an NX10, Samsung’s first MILC. This is almost exactly the same size as the Lumix G1 and the subsequent G2 and has a similar basic layout but provides a much more agreeable user experience. I wanted to understand why two cameras which are so similar in many ways could provide such a different user experience.
So began my voyage of exploration into the world of camera ergonomics.
I made numerous camera and handle mockups in wood, studied functional anatomy of the hands and fingers and took careful note of the number and complexity of actions required to control a camera’s primary and secondary exposure and focussing parameters.
I found that the design of the projecting type handle on the G1 and placement of the shutter button on the end of the handle facing up ignores where my fingers want to go and what orientation they want to adopt for optimal comfort and grip security. My index finger wants to find the shutter button about 15mm to the left of its actual position and wants it to be angled forward about 45 degrees The handle design and shutter button on the NX10 are different. It is not possible to appreciate this without actually using the camera, but the semi-parallel type handle on the NX10 is more comfortable as is the location and orientation of the shutter button.
The front control dial of the G1 is on the front of the handle near the top. In use the right third finger lies so close to that dial it is necessary to move the whole hand down in order to operate the dial.
Lumix tried to fix this problem on the G2 by moving the control dial to the upper part of the control panel on the rear of the camera. But this just replaced one problem with a different one. The re-located control dial on the G2 sits right under the thumb where it is easily pressed inadvertently.
The control dial on the NX10 is close to and behind the shutter button. In this location it is never obstructed yet is easily reached and turned by the right index finger without having to move any other finger at all.
The cross-keys on the rear of the G1 consist of 5 separate buttons. I found it impossible to locate and operate any of these by feel. The same controller on the NX10 is a rocking saucer type. Due to the shape and raised rim of the saucer, my fingers can easily find and operate this by feel.
I came to understand that substantial differences between cameras as to their holding, viewing and operating can result from a few major design decisions such as having or not having a viewfinder or a handle or numerous little features which in sum can make or break the user experience. It is often the case that the precise location, orientation and haptic form of buttons, dials or levers can greatly affect our enjoyment of making pictures.
Out of all this I evolved a systematic method of evaluation leading to a scoring schedule for a camera’s ergonomic performance.
One current model camera with almost identical width and height to the G1 and NX10 is the Canon EOS R10. This has a much higher level of specifications and performance than the G1 and NX10 and also much improved ergonomics. The G1 scores 52 on my scoring schedule, the NX10 scores 57 and the R10 scores 76. These numbers provide a shorthand way of describing and ranking the overall ergonomic appeal of various cameras which I think has withstood the test of time since I developed it 14 years ago (writing this in September 2026).
Evaluation
We can evaluate a camera with reference to four headings: Specifications, Image Quality, Performance and Ergonomics.
Workable methods of evaluating image quality and performance have been readily available to consumers for several years. These often involve some system of numerical scoring.
When I began my journey of discovery into camera ergonomics there was no generally accepted language or taxonomy of ergonomics as it applies to cameras. This made describing the ergonomic experience of using a camera very difficult and any kind of ranking impossible.
Taxonomy means naming, describing and classifying things into structured groups, so as to understand the relationships between different items.
I realised that there are six phases of use relevant to ergonomics. These are Setup, Prepare, Holding, Viewing, Operating and Review. Each of these can be further resolved by counting the number and rating the complexity of actions required to operate the device efficiently.
Here is an example to illustrate this concept of the number and complexity of actions required to carry out a task, in this case adjusting the lens aperture.
The “traditional” way to do this is to locate, grasp and rotate an aperture ring or projecting lands on the lens barrel, using the left hand. This process disrupts the left hand‘s role in supporting the camera and requires the whole hand and all the fingers in the process. If, as is often the case, the aperture control ring or lands are not 360 degree circumferential, the relationship between the grippy parts and the hand and fingers changes as the aperture changes and when we switch from landscape to portrait orientation. Some users say they “like” this and of course people are entitled to their own likes and preferences. But this way of adjusting aperture requires more actions each more complex than the one described below.
Most lenses designed for use by advanced and professional photographers have no aperture ring on the lens at all. The reason for this is that the “modern” way to change lens aperture is by rotating a front or rear control dial. This requires only one finger to move a short distance, does not disrupt our secure grip on the camera in the process, does not require us to look at the camera or controls while making the adjustment (we can look continuously through the viewfinder) and maintains the same relationship between camera and fingers at any aperture or camera orientation.
In the example above it is my experience that the modern way to adjust aperture is quicker than the traditional way.
However I do not evaluate ergonomics on the basis of time taken to carry out any task. The reason for this is largely that time will take care of itself. If a task requires few actions each simple, it will take less time to execute than one which requires many complex actions and will be less prone to errors in the process. Good ergonomics is not a speed contest.
Objections
Over the years there have been two main objections to my work on camera ergonomics.
The first is “its all subjective”. And therefore apparently not amenable to systematic description or scoring.
I have two responses to this
a) Much of the process actually involves objective description and observation. For instance, is there a viewfinder and if so does it have a soft contoured eyecup, does the rear screen articulate and if so in what manner, how many control dials are there and where are they and how does each relate to the functional anatomy of the hands and fingers, is there a discrete handle and if so what type, size and configuration, is there a thumb support and if so what is its size and shape, is there a thumb-stick and if so what is the exact haptic design, is there a control module on the top to the left of the EVF hump and if so how do we reach it, by shifting the left hand or the right hand. ?…… and so on.
In fact most of the items in my ergonomic evaluation and scoring schedule involve objective and readily measurable things.
b) Some of the items I score can be regarded as subjective or at least partly so. For instance, is the handle shape contoured to fit the hand, is it comfortable, does it feel secure without excessive need for grip force, can I locate and operate the buttons and dials by feel while looking through the viewfinder, do my fingers find buttons and dials where they want those controls to be, does using a control feel awkward and uncomfortable because of its location or haptics.. …….and so on.
Humans have been evaluating and scoring subjective or partly subjective aspects of life experience for as long as we have existed as a species. Even something as arcane as personality can be evaluated, characterised and scored with substantial reliability.
The second common objection is “its all about likes and preferences”.
To this objection I say that likes and preferences are expressions of the user experience which are separate from ergonomic evaluation. We can “like” a camera which has lots of shiny silver dials on top, or one which is black or white or big or small. That’s fine, nobody can dictate what another person might like or prefer. But the reasons people like things are personal, idiosyncratic and subject to change without notice or reason. They exist alongside the process of systematic ergonomic evaluation not instead of it.
For instance many years ago when I was much younger and stronger I “liked” going forth to make landscape photos with my Tachihara 4x5 inch wooden view camera, tripod, double dark slides, lenses, dark cloth and all the gear required to make photos with this apparatus. But it would score approximately zero on my ergonomic evaluation and scoring schedule. On one occasion I had ants marching up the tripod and into the camera before I could get it set up to make an exposure.
The six ergonomic Phases of use
Setup Phase
In this Phase we sit quietly with our new camera and the owners manual and figure out how to get all functions configured to our preference.
The main tasks for this Phase are setting button and dial functions, making main menu selections, allocating My Menu items and setting Custom Modes.
Desirable features include photographer-centric menus and sub-menus.
My suggested list of primary menu items is shown below. This would display with a single press on the Menu button. In practice each item would be identified by a pictogram in addition to words.
Quick Control, My Menu, Exposure, Focus, Image, Display, Controls, Drive, Stabiliser, Connectivity, Power, Storage, Setup, General, Review, Movie, Framing, Flash.
Contents include enough options to satisfy an expert user, clear graphics, easy navigation and searchable items. Explanation of the meaning and function of menu items is provided in camera if desired. Most dials and buttons allow user designated function. Access to menus is via a dedicated button.
Undesirable features include complex navigation, confusing menus, mystery items, unlike items collected together and like items scattered around different menus.
Prepare Phase
This is the minute or so in which we need to change several exposure and focus settings to ready the camera for a new subject type. The ergonomic task in this Phase is to efficiently alter many settings simultaneously.
For instance we might be photographing our child’s football game. Pre game group shots will be followed by pictures of the action. Each of these subject types requires a completely different set of exposure and focus settings.
The most efficient way to achieve this is via user configured Custom Modes. These are typically accessed by a [C(custom)] or [MR(memory recall)] setting on a Mode Dial or equivalent. Some cameras ask us to first access a summary screen or press a function button to access a User Profile or similar.
Problems arise when we have a camera with one or several fixed function controls (buttons, dials, levers etc) and also a custom profile of some kind. We cannot allocate the functions mediated by a fixed function control module to a Custom profile. The more fixed function control modules we have the more tedious is the process of shifting from one use case to the next. We have to remember which functions are not on our user profile and go round the camera altering each separately.
This is one of the reasons that professional cameras generally have no fixed function controls apart from a Mode Dial or equivalent and no aperture ring on the lens.
A second type of user interface useful in Prepare Phase is a Quick menu, populated with a limited number of user assigned items, typically 5-12 and accessed by pressing the button allocated to that function by the user. This can be used either instead of a Custom Mode when we want to change just one or a few settings or in tandem with a Custom Mode.
Holding
A camera for still photos is for the most part a hand held device so it is imperative that the user be able to have a secure, relaxed grip on it while simultaneously allowing efficient operation of the controls. After many experiments with different shapes and configurations of camera body and holding systems over the last hundred years or so, the industry has settled on the compact DSLR/MILC style with forward projecting handle and rear thumb support for most enthusiast/expert stills/hybrid consumer cameras. My own research on handles and holding supports this decision.
The starting point for good holding is the half closed relaxed position of the hand. The optimal handle and thumb support shape is that which fits into the hand, not the other way around.
The design must also create a platform on which key controls can be located for ease of use without compromising a secure hold. Typically these include shutter button, on-off switch, front control dial, rear control dial, mode dial, top function buttons, rear buttons and thumb-stick. Well designed cameras allow the user to maintain a secure comfortable hold on the device while simultaneously operating key controls without having to change grip with either hand.
I have found that it is not possible to properly appreciate a camera’s holding characteristics without spending several hours using it in a variety of situations, in landscape and portrait orientation.
Some cameras are offered for sale without a handle or with a just a token handle in the form of a mini-bump on the right side of the body and some have no thumb support or just a token one. You will notice that there is a thriving little industry which supplies these cameras with a variety of aftermarket handles and thumb supports of various kinds. From an ergonomic perspective these cameras would have been better served by inclusion of a proper handle and thumb support in the first place.
Viewing
Many modern cameras offer an excellent preview of the subject. We can evaluate this in terms of hardware, interface and content.
The most versatile screen is the multi axis type which can tilt up or down and face backward or forward in either landscape or portrait orientation, as seen on some high end Sony and Nikon models. A fixed screen is the least versatile. Touch screen functions are desirable.
The most user friendly eye level viewfinder is an electronic unit over the optical axis backed by good eyepiece optics and a comfortable, light excluding soft eyepiece. Electronic viewfinders can present the user with a close approximation of the final image which the camera will produce, including the effect of under or over exposure, not just a window on the world. I have repeatedly found that cameras without an eye level viewfinder become almost useless in bright light. A viewfinder which must pop up from the body for use is better than nothing but much less user friendly that a fixed, always ready, unit.
We want both the viewfinder and monitor screen to present current exposure settings in bright, clear, easily read form beneath the preview image, not overlaid on it.
Monitor and viewfinder can display as much or as little additional information about camera status as the user wishes. Any such information such as AF area or level gauge, is bright, clear and easily seen in landscape or portrait orientation.
The viewfinder and monitor will not blackout even briefly after each exposure.
Operating
The task which I use to evaluate cameras in this Phase is to adjust all primary and secondary exposure and focus parameters and framing while looking continuously through the viewfinder, without disrupting the grip of either hand.
Exposure parameters are aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity (ISO), exposure compensation, exposure lock.
Focus parameters are initiate focus, change position and size of AF area, AF lock.
To achieve this a camera needs sufficient but no more than sufficient controls with well implemented haptics which are within easy reach of the right index finger and thumb without having to disrupt grip on the camera.
Control modules are not co-located or stacked as this just invites inadvertent activation.
All control modules used in Operation Phase such as dials, buttons and levers are easily located by feel, while looking through the viewfinder.
Review
Tasks performed in this Phase include: Retrieve last picture, scroll between recent pictures, enlarge a frame as desired, scroll around an enlarged frame, check exposure, check focus, send photo(s) to another device. Most recent model cameras enable these tasks and many more so they receive maximum score for this Phase.
Maximum score allocations
I had to make a judgement call on this early in the process of developing a system for evaluating and scoring ergonomics. I figured Capture tasks are more important ergonomically than Preparation tasks with Review ranking lowest in this hierarchy.
So I allocate 65 points to Capture with 20 each to Holding and Viewing and 25 to Operating. Preparation gets 30 points with 15 each to Setup and Prepare Phases. Review has 5 points, for a total maximum of 100 points.
Scoring process
I hold all cameras to the same standard. This means entry level models will generally score lower than more upmarket ones although that is not always so. Some expensive models receive a low score because their design prioritises styling over function.
I allocate points by subtraction.
Points are lost if an ergonomically desirable feature is absent or an undesirable feature is present.
For instance if a camera lacks a desirable feature like a viewfinder or handle it loses points.
If it has an undesirable feature like a badly placed shutter or other buttons or confusing menu items it loses points.
If the principal task of a Phase cannot be done or requires more actions or more complex actions than good design can achieve, it loses points.
Progress
As of September 2026 I have evaluated and scored 56 cameras. Looking back over the total and subscores I think the exercise has produced a worthwhile set of results with the rankings very much in line with my experience of using each camera.
However I think the main benefit of this work has been the development of a systematic approach to describing and evaluating camera ergonomics, whether this is expressed as a numerical score or not. It is not “all subjective” or “all about personal preferences” as some might imagine.
Application of this approach can help consumers make better informed buying decisions and designers make cameras which provide an enjoyable user experience.
end
No comments:
Post a Comment