What were they thinking?

<p>This involves ergonomics on cameras on and other photo devices. I am retired now, but one of my former careers was as an aerospace engineer on programs like the B-1B nuclear bomber and the F-22 stealth fighter. An absurd example would be to locate the nuclear weapon countdown button right next to the "coffee warmup" button. Absurd because there is no coffee warmup button. But the orginal mission of the B-1 was a low altitude penetration to the target. The crew seating arrangement was pilot-copilot in front with large windows, and defensive and offensive system officers side by side behind them in a compartment with no windows. It was soon discovered that flying very fast very low under computer control with no visual orientation resulted in frequent airsickness for crew seated behind the pilots. The rear seaters complained and the fix for the B-1B was to give the rear seaters their own windows on each side of the plane. Unfortunately, the windows were tiny triangles located below knee level and were totally useless. The rear seaters dubbed them "day-night indicators". Poor design.</p>

<p>On cameras, I label some designs as minor annoyance, major annoyance, or totally useless. To prime the pump, under minor annoyance, I would place Kodak Retina folders due to needing the RF to be returned to infinity before closing lens cover, and locking the camera when the film counter reaches a certain threshold. Under major annoyance, I would put film loading of Leica screwmounts, the VF/RF location of Voigtlander Prominents and Vito III, and changing the ISO on Nikkormat FTn's. Under totally useless, I would place the viewfinder illuminator of the Nikon F3.</p>

<p>Another major annoyance is the way one turns on the meter on Minolta SRTs. I always forget to turn it off after shoooting, which results in a dead battery. Same with Canon F-1, and FTb.</p>

<p>Another minor annoyance is having separate RF and VF on Leica screwmounts.</p>

<p>I would like to hear your complaints.</p>

<p>The soft command dial detent springs on Canon's prosumer/consumer model bodies, easily allowing unintentional mode changes when slinging camera on and off of shoulder. The thin darkslide slit on Hasselblad film backs. I wish there were a stepped guide or a slightly wider opening.</p>

<p>The meter switches on many early Japanese SLR's; they're on the left side so that they have to be operated by the hand that's usually attending to the focus and aperture adjustment, and many need to be slid upwards to operate, another awkward manoeuvre. Give me the Praktica right-index-finger operation, right beside the shutter button, any day.</p>

<p>Any non-TLR camera that has a meter you must remove your eye from the v/f to look on the top deck. Surprisingly common in the '60s. If I use one of those, I just bring along a hand-held meter and treat it as meterless.</p>

<p>Any camera whose viewfinder has a reduced field of view when the shooter is wearing glasses.</p>

<p>A flash on the bottom of the Rolllei 35</p>

My most expensive 35mm camera, a Leica M2, has one annoying quirk: with the shutter uncocked, the FLASH can be still

be tripped if you press the shutter release. My several other 35mm cameras that are far cheaper don't have this problem.

However, I'm also annoyed by SHUTTER LOCKS; my Bessa L and Ricoh CR-5 SLR require the advance lever to be moved

away from the body to release the shutter. (I'd rather risk wasting a single frame of 35mm film than risk losing a good shot

trying to fumble the advance lever 15 degrees on an already-cocked shutter.)

<p>Ever try to take a vertical picture with the waist level finder of a Praktica FX? How about the Vito's that won't fire without film in them. How about any of the hordes of scale focus cameras that have no means of actually focusing the picture accurately at near distances? Who would design a fantastic professional camera like the Canon T90, and not include a PC cord connection? Early Nikons that make you waste a frame if you use MLU. I could go on and on.</p>

 

<p>Leica M4 has a convex window over it's frame counter that makes it hard to read because there is always something bright reflecting from it. Together with the fact that the numbers on the dial run from right to left, it's a major annoyance to me.</p>

<p>I fear James, that you may have opened a can of worms here! I wholeheartedly agree with your list, and can only add the Rollei SL, which has it's meter switch on top next to the shutter release. Forever turning on the meter instead of firing the shutter. As Louis has mentioned, those WL finders can be a problem, elegantly solved by cameras like the original Asahiflex and the Praktina FX with their separate direct vision viewfinders.</p>

I always thought that 620 film was an odd idea. Sure the slightly smaller spool allowed a slight reduction in camera size,

but not enough IMHO to be useful. I mean how larger would a Kodak Chevron (if any) be if it had been designed to take

120.

<p>My two favorites are eye cups that don't fasten by threads. The "slip on" type, that does more "slip off" than slip on. I've lost every one of these I've ever owned.</p>

<p>Number two is the "snap on" type lens shade that Nikon (among others) made, the ones with the two silver removing buttons. I've also lost most of these I've ever owned. Maybe they were meant for studio use only?<br>

What idiotic design both on these items.</p>

There may be trade offs involved in these design decisions that are not evident at first glance. For example the Retina cover closing at infinity makes for a more compact camera and case, even with a special compact UV filter in place than would otherwise be true. My pet peeve is the discontinuance of the interlock that prevented the shutter release from working if the film did not actually turn the sprocket because of improper loading. Another pet peeve is the introduction of light seals around the film loading door.

<p>For me its the position of Canon's On switch on some bodies. For example, on the T90 (btw why the heck does Canon label on-off L and A?) its on the back near the bottom. I often turn off the camera when I'm doing a walkabout since I don't want to accidentally fire off a few shots. But then I miss shots since I have to switch the damn thing on. Would've been much easier to locate the on-off switch somewhere near the right index finger, like on a 350D for example. The 5D has the same problem.</p>

<p>The Kodak Ektra? Pretty much Kodak's Edsel. Too big, too heavy, too many features, incredibly quirky.<br>

Reflex finders on folding cameras? Even a lens-free frame finder is better. Simple folding Gaililean finder isn't that challenging either.<br>

620 film isn't as nuts as 828 was.<br>

Kodak Autographic film? I suspect almost nobody used the feature, it was so tedious to use. Scribe on the carbon paper backing (without tearing it), then expose to the sun for just the right amount of time.<br>

Of course, then there's the 1990's equivalent of Autographic film -- imprinting the date on the negative! Just ruined two rolls of film with a used Pentax ZX-7 because it arrived with the stupid thing turned on! I'm not just turning it off, I'm taking out the battery!</p>

Aerospace engineers.

<p>I am totally sympathetic to the OP, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Again, am I the only one who remembers Microsoft BOB™?</p>

<p>A physical anthropologist teacher of mine had stories about his days in "human engineering" testing during the Korean war. I don't know the whole story, but apparently the early versions of one of the jet aircraft used in Korea (I thought it was the F-86) had an button to deploy the ejection seat that, in the phrase often used by sports car reviewers, 'fell easily to hand."</p>

<p>Apparently, some of the first efforts at an armored personnel carrier for Korea had so much vibration inside that the troops stumbled out disoriented. They also tested, according to the stories, a very expensive ear plug for artillery men and found that it was less effective than a cotton ball.</p>

<p>I am sure that things will continue to be overlooked until actual practice (a kind of technological selection) forces re-examination of design. The greater the consequences, the sooner this happens.</p>

<p>Aside from the eye cups that fell off (I spent more money replacing mine than the cost of the camera when new) the other gripe (same manufacturer) was the screw on hot shoe. I lost two of the beasts and several times they got loose and I almost lost my flash. </p>

<p>Oh hadn't realized we could include non-camera related WTFs. In that vein, the "ribbon" in the current Microsoft Office Suite ranks right up there. Ever tried to find keyboard shortcuts in MS Office these days? </p>

I remember MS Bob. What an abomination. And, by the way, my earlier jab at aerospace engineers was meant to be a light-hearted "payback" for having to deal with a bunch of them for nine years as an editor. Whew -- glad that's over.

<p>TLRs (or any other camera) where one has to look at the front of the camera to see the f-stop and shutter speed. For tripod work my Rolleicord is great, but for hand held I prefer my Yashica D.</p>

<p>Waist-level viewfinders that are too small to see anything in.<br>

APX film.<br>

Anything by Seattle Filmworks.<br>

...other than that, I enjoy the quirks.</p>

Any camera (and there are many) where you cannot change film without de-mounting from the tripod or quick-release plate because either the release button is covered or the back/bottom cannot be removed. More broadly, any LCD screen. Digital display is inefficient for quick reference which is why it was abandoned on car speedometers and other gauges and never adopted for race cars and aircraft. All LCDs have done is slow down photography and create something new to break. Finally, I would credit every single thing about the RB67 as being an ergonomic nightmare, except that it has no LCD.

I have read that smaller cameras were only the pretext for the 620 format, and that the real reason was to create a new incompatible standard that would lock people into Kodak. Certainly there were 120 cams as small as the smallest 620s.

<p>Assuming non-photographic frustrations are fair game, how about:</p>

<p>Various paths, steps and egresses, say between the street and commercial mall parking lots, too often ill-planned, catering to all the regulations, but lacking common sense. As an example, very often a change in elevation is addressed <em>solely</em> by a wheel chair ramp: standing at the end of the lower level parking lot, with a street level destination say 20 feet in front of you and 8 feet higher, you're invited to walk maybe 200 feet left and right along wheel chair ramps. No direct steps are provided.</p>

<p>What typically happens is able-bodied people start blazing trails through the bark mulch and clambering over the shrubs.</p>