New and improved controls on new Nikon cameras?

<p>My first Nikon camera was a FM2, with standard manual controls. The aperture ring is on the lens, where it should be, and you will never forget. There is a single dial on the right that you turn to change shutter speed. The same dial also controls film speed, which in the old days, was set once when you loaded the film. The beauty of this simplicity is that all the three most critical controls and frequently used settings can be easily adjusted without taking your eyes off the VF. However since the day when Nikon AF cameras came out, this simplicity has been lost. The same design has been maintained to the current digital bodies. May be it is about time that Nikon revisits this issue and re-discovers the charm of simplicity of its old cameras and redesigns its new cameras. I have several ideas:</p>

<p>1. In the new Canon S90, they introduce a ring around the lens mount that one can set to control a number of frequently used features. How about Nikon does the same and add a control ring to the lens mount so we can set it to control aperture?</p>

<p>2. The one dial on the right side is packed with the so called "program modes" that many never use. This is a big waste of space, considering that in a MF camera this dial can control two of the most important photography parameters. I think the P-M-A-S can stay on that dial, but the rest should be replaced by a set of frequently used functions, which could be shutter speed or ISO (if there is enough room), exposure compensation (Canon has that for the G11), or AF modes.</p>

<p>3. Create a another dial on the left to control either shutter speed or ISO. </p>

<p>The goal is to make change of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO easy (without having to leave the VF). The current way of changing a lot of setting requires you to hold a button and then turn the dial is time consuming, will force you to take your eyes of the subject, and one has to keep track of which turning wheel is doing what.</p>

<p>Clearly each one of us has different preferences for how to redesign the controls. I hope we can at least agree on one thing that it is about time for Nikon to re-think its design and lets share our ideas here!</p>

<p>Maybe not for me, I think it's fine.... I prefer a slight change in the af-ex lock would be good</p>

<p>With modern Nikon cameras, you set the aperture with the front command dial and the shutter speed with the rear command dial (the direction and functions can be reversed in the menu). All lenses are the same, and if you change lenses, the aperture you last set is used with the new lens.</p>

<p>Pretty neat, eh? And on cars, you press the skinny pedal on the right to go and the fat one on the left to stop. You don't need a buggy whip any more ;-)</p>

<p>I think you are making an assumption that people normally shoot in all manual mode. I think that is not the case. I shoot in AV 90% of the time and I rarely have to dial changes to my settings, and I rarely use auto ISO. However, I would like Nikon to redesign or introduce a FX cam the size of a FM3A or D40...I would live with fewer buttons and dials even.</p>

<p>CC Chang --</p>

<p>Me thinks not. With the current generation of Nikon DSLRs, save the D3000 and D5000, there is never any reason to take your eye off the viewfinder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The goal is to make change of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO easy (without having to leave the VF). The current way of changing a lot of setting requires you to hold a button and then turn the dial is time consuming, will force you to take your eyes of the subject, and one has to keep track of which turning wheel is doing what.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I shoot a D300s and everything is where I expect it to be. QUAL, ISO, and WB are large, easy-to-get-to buttons, which, when pressed, allow me to change those settings with a quick turn of my main dial. When in M, I have one dial set to change shutter speed, and the other to change aperture...again, without my eye leaving the VF. These TWO dials are the reason I won't ever go to a CANON DSLR...there's too many buttons to press in order to change the simplest of settings, (although they are getting better). </p>

<p>There is no need to change current Nikon DSLRs... they've been relatively the same since, like you pointed out, the first AF SLRs. All you'll end up doing is screwing up the people that took the leap years ago in order to satisfy your throwback craving for a DSLR that has the controls of the, (now antiquated), FM2.</p>

<p>Stop complaining and just learn the "new" Nikon body. You'll be glad you did when you figure out how simple they really are.</p>

<p>RS</p><div></div>

<p>For the most part Nikon's control paradigm works fine for me. It's the main reason why I stayed with Nikon rather than switching to another system when I added a dSLR several years ago. It seemed intuitive, as if Nikon had already asked me for my preferences and implemented them to my specifications. The control design paradigms chosen by Canon and most others seemed non-intuitive to me.</p>

<p>Shutter speed controlled by a thumb wheel, aperture with the wheel under the index finger. I tend to use mostly flex-program mode and manual, so the current controls are fine. I assign exposure compensation as desired for one-finger adjustment. Most of my preferences for other features have been added to more current models, including more flexible auto-ISO including auto-ISO with flash.</p>

<p>Using the left hand mostly to support the camera (and adjust the zoom) rather than expecting it to perform multiple functions works for me. I found it very easy to adjust from left hand adjustment of the aperture to using the right forefinger to control the aperture.</p>

<p>As Lex suggested, DSLR's are now right-handed cameras. The vast majority of manual focus cameras were really left handed. (focusing took the most manual dexterity and holding the camera properly required you to use the left hand to focus). Now almost all controls are accessed with the right hand.</p>

<p>Aperture Ring: It's a throwback from when you set the aperture on the lens with the aperture ring. That went away a long time ago. I have a Canon A-1 (1978), where you turn the aperture ring to the 'O' mark to have the camera control aperture with dials. Most annoying, it's easy to knock the aperture ring off the 'O' mark inadvertently, and mess up the shot.</p>

<p>I change ISO much more often than I change shooting mode (continuous, single, etc.), so it would be cool to have a one turn dial for that, kind of like the setting the ISO on old film cameras.</p>

<p>I like the press and turn system, since it keeps you from accidentally spinning a dial and throwing a setting off. I think the button placement is very natural and intuitive, such that I don't have to take my eyes off the viewfinder to change most settings.</p>

<p>Between Nikon and Canon, I tend to think in more budget oriented models, Canon has a propensity to place more controls on the buttons, rather than Nikon, but Nikon tends to place buttons better.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Stop complaining and just learn the "new" Nikon body. You'll be glad you did when you figure out how simple they really are.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Lucky that you have a D300s. From D90 down, there is no second dial on the left, and for the D90, ISO is controlled by a small button on the lower left side of the camera back together with four or five other buttons with identical size and shape. </p>

<p>Beside FM2, I have owned F100, N80, D70, D80, and D90. Just for the digital dSLRs, I have used them for more than 10 years and doing very well. I am not "complaining" as if I were too dumb to figure out how to use a camera. I posted this as a mental exercise, which I hope Nikon engineers can frequently do. There may be other ways to do things. For example, Leica, does that ring a bell? C’mon be open-minded.</p>

 

<p>I've grown to like the front command dial and rear command dial. Many smaller Nikon cameras only have the rear command dial, which controls the aperture when the camera is set to 'A' mode. My little Nikon P6000 is this way, and I like it just fine. My old Canon Pro1 had a ring around the lens that controlled the zoom function, which was nice, but it was not a mechanical coupling, but an electronic one, so the response was not linear and just approximate. I sold that camera 4 years ago when I bought the Nikon D70s.</p>

<p>I don't mind Nikon's 2 control wheels. They work quite well and allow me to control apeture and shutter while looking in the view finder. I don't mind my FM2 either or even my F801. Even my old Canon EOS1 and EOS100 had seperate wheels for controll apeture and shutter.</p>

I don’t understand people that post things like this waxing lyrical about the old manual cameras.

 

My first camera was also an FM2 and I only bought a digital camera two years ago. I can use my D700 in exactly the same way with the same lenses as my old FM2 including using the aperture rings if I want (which I don’t). All the three most critical controls can still be easily adjusted without taking my eye off the VF. I’m really not seeing an issue here.

<p>CC Chang --</p>

<p>Lets look at a few quotes from your last post</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Beside FM2, I have owned F100, N80, D70, D80, and D90.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>From D90 down, there is no second dial on the left</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ummm... I have owned a D70, D70s, and a D90 in addition to a D200 and currently my D300s. ALL of these cameras have TWO (2)...yes, please count them...TWO dials on the left. If you'd owned them, you'd know this. The ONLY Nikon DSLRs that don't have TWO dials are the D3000 and D5000...which I mentioned in my last post. And, although the little buttons take some time to get used to, they're well placed on the D90...like the D300s, all you need to do is get used to them.</p>

<p>So, Please...if you're going to post, stop posting BS, and post facts. </p>

<p>As for your "exercise"...I'm sure Nikon Engineers have thought about many ways to build cameras...the current design of Nikon's DSLRs is about as intuitive as it gets. Again, I will emphasize that Nikon's 2 dial system is why I didn't ever go to Canon when I moved to Digital...it's simple, easy, and takes absolutly zero thought on my part when I'm on a shoot.</p>

<p>Please..just go out and get used to it. It hasn't changed for 15 years, and I think all of us that have been with Nikon since the advent of DSLRs would be disappointed if it did change. After all...if it isn't broken, why try to fix it.</p>

<p>RS</p><div></div>

<p>Dear C.C.,</p>

<p>I think Nikon has you where they want you, ready to buy a "higher level" camera, which does offer what you are looking for.<br>

Nikon is a commercial company and they are not likely going to offer all of the features in all of the cameras. That would get them out of business quickest.</p>

<p>Give you guys another idea taken from the design of the Panasonic G2:</p>

<p>There is a dial/switches cluster on the right that allows you to not only control the PMSA, movie, etc, modes, but also other commonly used functions such as different frame rates, timer, and bracketing. One the left is another dial/switch that allows you to control everything you need for the AF. Isn't this better than pressing a button and then turn a dial? The dependence on buttons is OK as long as the buttons are big enough so that you can easily press them when wearing gloves or if you don't have large hands. If Nikon is interested in shrinking the size of the camera without any compromise in features, there may be better ways of doing things.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is the picture for the right dial. </p>

<p>PS, I know Panasonic listens to their users. We discussed the idea of the left dial on line extensively and they changed it from the G1. In G1, the left dial could only control three functions: AF, AFC, and MF, what a waste of space, and I am glad that they have changed it.</p><div></div>

Two things I'd like to see moved on my D700:<br>

<br>

1) The ISO control. Okay, "moved" is a bit much, but it would be nice if it could be mapped to the Fn or preview buttons. It's very convenient where it is *if* you can get your left hand to it, but when you're hand-holding a 500mm lens (even a Sigma zoom) there's precarious juggling involved. I tend to rely on auto-ISO far more than I'd like to.<br>

<br>

2) The autofocus mode control. Okay, it's on the front so that it can be mechanically linked to the focus screw, but it's in a damn silly place if you want to change your mind in a hurry - and I can never tell by feel which mode it's in. (Yes, Canon put their DoF preview button in the same place on the low-end EOS cameras, and that's a stupid idea as well - how on earth are you supposed to hold the camera so you can get at that?)<br>

<br>

The control ring on the s90 is a great idea (although it would help if the camera were a bit more able to keep up - and cost less!) but it only works because a compact camera is supported under the body. If you're holding the camera by the lens, any left-handed controls are unusable.<br>

<br>

What you *could* add to a digital camera, which you can't do with a 35mm, is a tripod socket on the left of the body (like the one on the Pentax 645) for portrait shooting - if you moved the sockets, of course. I'm a little surprised I've not seen anyone do this yet, but maybe tripods are considered old technology.

<p>The only change, that would be welcome, is a 'one hand' (right) iso change. Now Ik have to take my hand from lens and press left the iso button. I thought the F5 had 3 buttons on the exposure button panel, so that is possible, with mode, iso and EV and than with the iso at the back wheel.</p>

<p>The D50 only has one dial as does the d40/x, D60, D3000 and D5000. The old film F50 did have any dials just push buttons to change shutter and apeture. My old EOS600 only had one dial and there was a button market M on the fron of the body by the lens mount. This was pressed while the dial was turned to adjust the apeture in manual mode.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>3. Create a another dial on the left to control either shutter speed or ISO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ON my D2X shutter speed is controlled by a "dial" on the right rear. Perfect, as aperture is controlled by one on the front right. ISO, WB and Qual (Jpg, RAW, etc) are buttons below the rear LCD. Again, Perfect. For landscape tripod us the top deck is often hard to see/get to.</p>

<p>1. The purpose of the design is to sell more cameras. The only way to make Nikon to change their design is not to buy any cameras that is not designed the way you want. I believe they wont change just because most people here are satisfied with the way they do now</p>

<p>2. There is a pretty good solution for C C Chang: Get a Leica M9</p>

<p>I'm a Nikon user a very long time. I inherited a couple of Olympus OM-1, 2 s (still working fine, shooting film sometime with ). I wonder, if Olympus was able to manufacture a beautiful and very small Full-Frame film camera, like the Olympus OM-1, 2, (a jewel ) with the biggest view finder ( bigger I ever seen ) and a smallest prism sticking out of the body. Why camera manufacturers not able to produce a similar size or close to it FF digital cameras to day, when technology and precision advanced significantly, instead they produce giant, behemoth cameras, twice the size at list, of the OM-1 or FM, FE, etc. ? Even with a separate attached motor drive on the OM or the FM is much much smaller then the D300, 700, never mind the D3s. I just can't get it, and don't blame on my lack of technical knowledge. Mechanical and electronic engineering, electrical, and radio and communication technology knowledge, for a 50 years. And one more to add. Why Leica able to produce a small digital FF camera to day. Don't tell me, it has no mirror box. The camera still as small as the film bodies where. Or, the DSLR body, bigger the 24x36 size and smaller then the Nikon D3.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hope we can at least agree on one thing that it is about time for Nikon to re-think its design...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are always things that could be done better - but I see no need to reminisce about the by-gone design of an FM2 or similar. I got to the era of "main and sub-command dial" Nikons rather late (2004 with a D70 and 2005 with an F5) - it's by far better and handier than the old aperture ring and shutter speed dials. Information in an FM2 viewfinder is scattered around three sides - I much prefer the current design of having everything available in one line under the viewfinder. The top-panel LCD lets me see all relevant parameters - no need to search around the camera. I don't really see the need for a QUAL button on my D200/D300 - and I sure miss the dedicated bracket button that the D200 has on my D300. All in all, I must say that to me Nikon has gotten the design pretty much right - very intuitive. <br /> I like the ergonomics of the D200 and D300 - and of the F5 and F4 before them; the D70 already felt too small in my hands. I was never happy with the design of the FM/FM2/FE/FE2/FA bodies - very hard to hold - and Leica has yet to move away from the same poor ergonomics of their M bodies. If I would like to see one thing, then it is that the successor of the D300/D300s would have a pro body with built-in battery grip - in a slightly smaller package than the current D3/D3s - and with the same controls as the current MB-D10 battery grip.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why camera manufacturers not able to produce a similar size or close to it FF digital cameras to day, when technology and precision advanced significantly, instead they produce giant, behemoth cameras, twice the size at list, of the OM-1 or FM, FE, etc. ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good question! After reading most of the responses from royal Nikon users here, one clear possibility is that people are already used to it; thus, there is no user demands for change. </p>

<p>However if one takes a look at the new SONY NEX3 and NEX5, it is shocking how small an APSC interchangeable lens camera can be without any great compromises in IQ. Clearly a bigger camera is easier to hold and can host more buttons/dials for easy access to frequently used features, but how big is too big? NEX3/5, NX10 and the m4/3 cameras have thus far not yet posted a threat to Nikon's pro level of cameras as these small cameras target mostly the entry level dSLRs, such as the D3000 and D5000. With the recent announcement from Nikon that it is building a new mirror-less camera and that D90 and D300 will soon be replaced, it seems that we are at an interesting cross road to see some innovations coming coming from Nikon, as well as Canon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but how big is too big?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say that the current pro-DSLR is about as big as they should come. My question rather is: how small is too small? The one reason why a DSLR can't be as small as an OM-1 is simple - there are a few more things that need to fit into the body. Not even Leica was able to maintain the diminutive size of their film bodies when they stuffed a sensor in there. And the desire to have a large LCD screen in the back (3" or so) requires the camera to grow a tad or two. The NEX3/5 are definitely not something I would purchase - I wouldn't know how to hold them properly. I own a Sony DSC R1 - which has a 1.67 crop factor sensor and is about the minimum size I can tolerate. The EVF of that camera is a catastrophe if one tries to capture anything that moves - there is certainly a gigantic space for improvement. The length of the screen blackout of this mirrorless camera is enormous - a better processor could certainly do wonders there.</p>

<p>I really do not see the need to shrink DSLR bodies any further - in particular not if the lenses can't be shrunk along with them. Some of the Leica M lenses show what would be possible in size reduction if the mirror box was eliminated - mostly for wide angles though.</p>