Sunday musings: make the D700 better by throwing out 80% of its features

Andrew Garrard · June 22, 2011

<blockquote>Let me try to sum you up: if a function cannot be expressed as a physical dial, switch or button, it should not exist. End of story. Full stop. Period.</blockquote>

I don't think Simon went quite that far. I'd certainly object if the camera had a separate dial for image quality, base and maximum auto-ISO, manual lens setting number, multiple exposure number and order, world time, AF fine tune, etc. - it would get hard to hold very quickly.

<blockquote>Here's a challenge for anyone (inspired by the Christopher Hitchens challenge*): find me a feature that cannot be expressed physically that would make any camera significantly more useful. I bet you can't.</blockquote>

A feature that the camera has already? White balance fine tuning, folder naming, image comments/copyright, time and date (practically). Never having used one, how does the aperture ring work on variable-aperture AI zoom lenses?

A feature that the D700 doesn't already have that I'd find useful? Split-screen live view (or at least, position controls for each sub-view).

simon_crofts · June 22, 2011

I'm confused - focus is usually controlled on the lens

</blockquote>

That would be for a manual focus film camera. I was talking about an autofocus film camera. Cameras like the Contax G2 evolved to stage where the autofocus was controlled by a button on the back of the camera - the right thumb.

and shutter speed and aperture are each controlled by one dial - and the same dial in manual, aperture priority or shutter priority.

</blockquote>

Yes, that is what I was saying was the case in film days. No longer.

If you disable the "silly" exposure compensation button by enabling easy exposure compensation, rotating the dial you aren't using changes the exposure compensation. I don't use easy exposure compensation precisely because this needs you to think about what you're doing.

</blockquote>

I'm using exposure compensation constantly, for every frame. I couldn't possibly not use the easy exposure compensation. If I did, I would be forced to use only manual mode. Or switch to fully programme mode and matrix metering, which I hate. Without easy exposure compensation, metering modes that leave you in control - centre weighted and spot - would be effectively unusable.

So, that means, that in aperture mode, the front dial is aperture, and the rear is exposure compensation. In shutter priority and programme mode, exposure compensation unexpectedly switches to the front dial. And in shutter priority, what had been exposure compensation dial now becomes the shutter speed dial.

That is not good design, it's just utter confusion.

If I thought that the Leica ergonomics would let you control an autofocus hand-held 300mm f/2.8 properly, I'd agree

</blockquote>

Personally I have no interest in having a camera designed to be operated singlehandedly to make it easy to work a 300mm f2.8. I just want a camera that works well with the more standard range of focal lengths (and can be used with longer ones if necessary). Perhaps if there is a need for them to come out with a specialist design for sports/wildlife photographers, something like the D2H only with ergonomics designed for long lenses.

At the moment, they have made their cameras have awful ergonomics for general use presumably as a compromise to keep sports/big long lens shooters happy. Since they don't seem to be achieving either of those objectives and just producing something with bad controls for everyone, maybe they should rethink.

On the plus side for Nikon, Canon seem to be worse!

Karim Ghantous · June 22, 2011

I'd certainly object if the camera had a separate dial for image quality, base and maximum auto-ISO, manual lens setting number, multiple exposure number and order, world time, AF fine tune, etc.

</blockquote>

My POV: image quality can be restricted to three settings: RAW, JPEG and both. Manual lens setting: I don't use the feature but you have a point! Multi exposure: I don't use it. ISO: Just set it on a dial. I don't use auto-ISO but obviously you do.

White balance fine tuning, folder naming, image comments/copyright, time and date (practically).

</blockquote>

WB: if you only shoot RAW, it matters not. But you have a point if you shoot JPEG. All of the other options can be done via computer (like many iPod features can be changed within iTunes).

Andrew Garrard · June 23, 2011

Simon - I doubted I'd persuade you. :-) (If I sound argumentative, please appreciate that I'm just presenting an opposing view, not claiming that yours is - at least for you - invalid.)

<blockquote><blockquote>I'm confused - focus is usually controlled on the lens</blockquote>

That would be for a manual focus film camera. I was talking about an autofocus film camera. Cameras like the Contax G2 evolved to stage where the autofocus was controlled by a button on the back of the camera - the right thumb.</blockquote>

And the G2 had a dial on the camera that can be used to manual focus - and change ISO. Manual focus camera or not, with an AF-s lens the focus ring is useful for fine-tuning focus. I doubt many on this forum never use manual focus, and when you do it usually needs to have finer control than aperture adjustment. For what it's worth, I wouldn't necessarily object to an aperture ring placed further forward on the lens, but given that the left hand is already busy trying to zoom and control focus while doing most of the work of supporting the lens, I imagine it would have the potential to be more confusing than leaving it to the right hand.

<blockquote><blockquote>and shutter speed and aperture are each controlled by one dial - and the same dial in manual, aperture priority or shutter priority.</blockquote>

Yes, that is what I was saying was the case in film days. No longer.</blockquote>

I remain confused about what you've done to your camera to make this statement invalid. On my D700 (for which I've not swapped main and sub command dials), the front dial always controls aperture (if I'm in a mode that allows aperture to be controlled) and the rear dial always controls shutter speed (if I'm in a mode that allows the shutter speed to be controlled). Easy exposure compensation is another matter (as you address below), but what I've said is true.

<blockquote>I'm using exposure compensation constantly, for every frame. I couldn't possibly not use the easy exposure compensation. If I did, I would be forced to use only manual mode. Or switch to fully programme mode and matrix metering, which I hate. Without easy exposure compensation, metering modes that leave you in control - centre weighted and spot - would be effectively unusable.</blockquote>

I use exposure compensation frequently as well (I can't vouch for changing it every frame, but it's a lot). My experience is that using a finger down the exposure compensation button while I spin the rear dial with my thumb is not a great hardship. Presumably it is for some people, or "easy" exposure compensation wouldn't have been added. I'm not saying that the easy compensation isn't very useful for you, but I doubt that having to hold down a button to "shift" the rear dial onto exposure compensation is more awkward than using program or manual mode. But then, my SLR training (such as it is) was with an Eos 300D, which only has one dial, so I'm used to using buttons to change the meaning of a dial.

I'm not inherently against the idea of a third dial on the camera (perhaps mounted vertically, between the LCD and the shutter button. I'm also not against the idea of giving the dials two modes depending on whether they're pressed in (like the Panasonic GF1). Or even letting the dials tilt out of plane, like the Sony-Ericsson P800 (or some computer mice). More control under the hand is a good thing. But it'll all make the camera bigger, less robust and more expensive.

<blockquote>So, that means, that in aperture mode, the front dial is aperture, and the rear is exposure compensation. In shutter priority and programme mode, exposure compensation unexpectedly switches to the front dial. And in shutter priority, what had been exposure compensation dial now becomes the shutter speed dial.

That is not good design, it's just utter confusion.</blockquote>

I understand your confusion (which is why I don't use easy exposure compensation). I think the problem here is that easy exposure compensation is considered the exception rather than the rule, and therefore the camera isn't designed around it. The problem is that there are effectively four parameters to exposure (shutter speed, aperture, ISO, exposure amount relative to what the meter thinks is correct) and the camera only has two dials. Going to three dials lets you control, as needed, any three of these parameters and let the camera deal with the remaining one - but you can't fix the meaning of all three dials without losing one of the modes. The D7000 has "quick ISO", and honestly I'd be far quicker to want that on a dial under my right hand than the exposure compensation (although frankly that's because the ISO button on the D700 isn't in a right-hand-friendly place). You could have four fixed-function dials, but there comes a point when having a dial that's directly under your thumb and a button that's easy to find is actually ergonomically better (besides, what about flash exposure compensation?) I assume you don't have a keyboard with a separate set of keys for the capital letters...

<blockquote>[Leica getting it right] Personally I have no interest in having a camera designed to be operated singlehandedly to make it easy to work a 300mm f2.8. I just want a camera that works well with the more standard range of focal lengths (and can be used with longer ones if necessary). Perhaps if there is a need for them to come out with a specialist design for sports/wildlife photographers, something like the D2H only with ergonomics designed for long lenses.</blockquote>

SLRs in general are better with longer lenses; rangefinders are better with shorter lenses (if the field of view fits in the finder). If you want a camera that's very good with limited lenses, the M9 and X100 exist (as do a range of compact system cameras, especially with lens adaptors). Taking an SLR and then making its functionality worse with the precise feature that gave SLRs the advantage over rangefinders seems unlikely to happen. Too many people like using even a 200mm lens. Speaking as someone who only often uses one lens small enough to have my left palm under the camera (50mm prime - I barely touch the body with my left hand with my 14-24, 28-200, 85 f/1.4, 90 f/2.8, 135 f/2, 150-500, 200 f/2 or 500 f/4) I consider a small lens to be the exception rather than the rule.

<blockquote>At the moment, they have made their cameras have awful ergonomics for general use presumably as a compromise to keep sports/big long lens shooters happy. Since they don't seem to be achieving either of those objectives and just producing something with bad controls for everyone, maybe they should rethink.</blockquote>

I always assumed that Nikon body designers spent all their time with normal primes. That's probably why the aperture ring was ever at the back of the lens, why screw autofocus motors were ever considered an option, why there are useful controls that are only accessible by the left hand, and it's the only explanation I've got for the autofocus mode selector not having moved to the back for the camera years ago. (Yes, I know it physically moves the focus screwdriver, but there are electromagnets...)

That said, the "awful" ergonomics of the D700 don't seem to be getting in the way of all that many people. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. I'm really not sure I'd find a third dial for exposure compensation any easier than the current mechanism; I encourage you - without trying to tell you how to use your camera - to ignore the easy exposure compensation and treat it as a feature for people who leave the camera in program mode, and use the exposure compensation button instead. I find holding down a button with a finger I'm not using anyway to be the lesser of two evils.

<blockquote>On the plus side for Nikon, Canon seem to be worse!</blockquote>

Some of the new Canons have most of the controls on the right, which is good, and I like the big rear dial on the pro Canons. I never liked the dial above the shutter (so you have to hop which finger you're shooting with) though, and the DoF preview button on the left-hand-side of the lens mount is even more inconvenient than Nikon's M-S-C switch. My worst case of ergonomics was on an Eos 620 which I was trying to use in manual mode (with infrared film); I shot the whole lot at the same aperture because I actually failed to find the M button - it just didn't occur to me to look there on the camera!

Incidentally, usability is a field that interests me, so - how ever much I try to dispel Simon's arguments (always, I hope, by saying we have the best of several bad options, never by saying that Simon hasn't found an issue; if it sounds otherwise, my apologies) - I'm interested to hear how people are getting using their cameras and where things can be improved. Not that I work in camera design, but all information is an education and I'm grateful to Simon (and others) for sharing their experiences.

Andrew Garrard · June 23, 2011

<blockquote>My POV: image quality can be restricted to three settings: RAW, JPEG and both. Manual lens setting: I don't use the feature but you have a point! Multi exposure: I don't use it. ISO: Just set it on a dial. I don't use auto-ISO but obviously you do.</blockquote>

Again we have the problem - any single person can probably have 99% of what they do mapped permanently to a small(ish) number of physical dials, but the dials won't be the same for everyone. All you can do is make it programmable, or make it easy to remove features, and too many unused dials just makes matters worse. Knowing which finger to move to adjust a setting is the important thing; worrying about where the finger is located is actually not the ergonomic advantage you'd expect. Ever thrown rubbish into a laundry bin? The action and the location are often logically distinct. The cheaper bodies have one dial in part because for some users, that's enough for most of what they do. The high end bodies have more dials, but even for a pro there's only so much you can control in parallel and instinctively (you run out of fingers). I agree a physical aperture dial (or a function button on the lens like the Samsung CSCs) brings the left hand into play, but since I also claim my left hand is busy, we're back to needing some kind of virtual mapping of the meaning of dials.

<blockquote>WB: if you only shoot RAW, it matters not. But you have a point if you shoot JPEG. All of the other options can be done via computer (like many iPod features can be changed within iTunes).</blockquote>

I'm against having to use a computer to set up the camera - I use too many operating systems on too many machines to be in favour of anything other than plain file copying. In fact, I never use anything other than a card reader, although this may change if I start focus stacking macro images. Besides, I really think it's useful to be able to change comments, copyright and (especially, since I always forget) date in the field. Give the camera a bluetooth connection and an Android/iPhone app and I might reconsider, but I doubt it.

Karim Ghantous · June 24, 2011

Andrew, I think this thread is about to effectively expire, but at least you're one of the few people who actually appreciate the discussion. So I thought I'd throw a few extra comments back at you.

Besides, I really think it's useful to be able to change comments, copyright and (especially, since I always forget) date in the field.

</blockquote>

Changing comments - I may have time to write down comments in a notebook but I usually don't. I certainly won't have time to use the camera's own text input system for comments while I'm shooting. But time or no time, I see no point in entering text like that. How annoying!

Copyright info - I set it once and it stays there forever. I think mine reads 'Copyright by Karim D. Ghantous'. If the law says you must include the year (even though it's in the filename and/or metadata!) I'd change it once a year. That's it.

Changing date: what do you mean? You mean like going travelling? I'd rather hook it up once every now and again to the computer and let the computer change that. I set my computer's clock to update automatically via the net.

I think I'll forget about progressive ideas and start film-vs-digital threads in future. They're much more friendly.

Andrew Garrard · June 24, 2011

Thanks, Karim. I always like talking this kind of thing out, even if I don't end up in the same place as my interlocutor; if nothing else, I'm far more willing to accept something that annoys me if I know that it's there to help someone else, rather than because a designer did their job poorly. I admit that I've never actually used the comment or copyright features myself (as you say, they're a bit fiddly - although maybe the next camera will have a touch screen...) - but I can imagine that, at some point, someone's going to say "quick, I need some publicity shots of this event to send off to a newspaper in ten minutes" and I'm going to want to fiddle in the camera. For now it's a hypothetical for me.

As for the time-and-date, yes - I'm referring to travel and summer time changes. I tend to go on holiday, away from a computer (especially mine), and just before I take a load of photos I realise that they'll be recording the wrong time/date. Even if I ever hooked my camera to a computer, I'd need specific software for all platforms. I'm still standing by this one being set on the camera. But I admit I don't use it often, so - if not everything has to be done via a dial, and we're not back to the "I don't need an LCD on my DSLR" days (they tried that, it didn't sell) - I doubt it's a major problem.

<blockquote>I think I'll forget about progressive ideas and start film-vs-digital threads in future. They're much more friendly.</blockquote>

Shun will love you! (Now, where's my Velvia 3200?)

lex_jenkins · June 24, 2011

"I think I'll forget about progressive ideas and start film-vs-digital threads in future. They're much more friendly."

</blockquote>

That's an interesting interpretation of "progressive": advocating removing features and limiting choices.

mike dixon · June 24, 2011

I think he's using Newspeak.

ShunCheung · June 24, 2011

The copyright date feature is the easiest thing to implement. All future high-end DSLRs should have a GPS built in, which also provides the time in additional to coordinates. Optionally you can use that time to adjust the clock inside the camera (that feature is already available with the GP-1 GPS unit), and the year from the clock will be used to update the copyright message as the year turns over.

simon_crofts · June 24, 2011

Manual lens setting: I don't use the feature but you have a point!

</blockquote>

I use manual lenses a lot on the D700, but have never used the manual lens setting, or at least, only to test it and decide that it's not worth bothering with. It doesn't change much on the camera, beyond record the aperture used in EXIF data. Manual lenses work pretty seamlessly without touching anything on camera. That's plus points for the D700, but I don't think any extra control is necessary (happily).

I remain confused about what you've done to your camera to make this statement invalid

</blockquote>

Sometimes the "aperture" dial is changing aperture, sometimes its doing something else. No matter how you programme it, it's no longer a dedicated aperture dial. I haven't done anything the camera to make it that way, it's the way it's designed.

My experience is that using a finger down the exposure compensation button while I spin the rear dial with my thumb is not a great hardship.

</blockquote>

Using an exposure mode where you're reasonably in control, like centre weighted, you would have to be pressing the exposure compensation button pretty much constantly. It's virtually impossible to do this while taking pictures, unless perhaps you used your middle finger to release the shutter and forefinger to hold the compensation button down. That's not practical, and your forefinger would eventually drop off. The alternative would be to find some way of nailing or gluing the compensation button down.

That said, the "awful" ergonomics of the D700 don't seem to be getting in the way of all that many people. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good

</blockquote>

The ergonomics are really based around forcing people to give up and leave the camera on programme mode and matrix metering. That's what most people end up doing. It doesn't promote good photography or the photographer being in control.

I'm really not sure I'd find a third dial for exposure compensation any easier than the current mechanism

</blockquote>

A third dial would be great, but the more critical point is to have dedicated aperture and shutter speed controls. And controls that aren't these silly little dials - proper controls that you can move from minimum to maximum aperture with a single motion, where there is an end-stop at either end of the range, and where you can physically see at a glance (or, even better, if they really want to take a step forward instead of a step back, feel), what the aperture and shutter speed are with the camera switched on or off and without having to activate an LCD and read some numbers.

I always assumed that Nikon body designers spent all their time with normal primes.

</blockquote>

I use the Nikon almost exclusively with primes, and, as I hope is clear by now, the ergonomics for prime shooters is awful. The fact that, apparently, it doesn't even work for people who use long heavy zooms, means that it is just bad design that doesn't work for anyone.

simon_crofts · June 24, 2011

Sometimes the "aperture" dial is changing aperture, sometimes its doing something els

</blockquote>

BTW, the various functions on this rear command dial are often duplicated by the autofocus point selection arrows on the back. For example, flicking through pictures in playback mode. This kind of duplication is unnecessary - they've put in an extra control with limited functions.

Again, it can cause confusion. For example, if you were reviewing pictures but are interrupted and have to take a picture quickly and unexpectedly, and rotate the command dial to change shutter speed or alter exposure compensation (a bit of a lottery which of those happens, unless you can remember which mode you left the camera in), then sometimes I find that, instead of changing exposure, the camera just cycles through pictures. Of course, I should have disengaged playback befor trying to change the shutter speed/compensation, but if there were dedicated compensation/shutter speed/aperture controls, I wouldn't be making that mistake. When I raise the camera to my eye in a hurry and rotate that dial, one of three things could happen. Which isn't good enough.

Perhaps I could disable the command dial for altering settings in the menu or pictures on playback. I would have to check the options. But I get fed up having to spend so much time reprogramming these controls to make at least a bit of sense, and they never get there. I don't want to reprogramme controls, I want them to make sense in the first place.

Karim Ghantous · June 25, 2011

"I don't need an LCD on my DSLR"

</blockquote>

It's almost valid - except that I need to check histograms and previews. But I'll take it further (I've said this before): get rid of the top LCD. All you need is the rear one. The 'i' button is truly a great improvement.

proper controls that you can move from minimum to maximum aperture with a single motion, where there is an end-stop at either end of the range

</blockquote>

Yes! Good idea. Better idea: to hell with the control wheels, just give us back the shutter speed dial. Thanks, Nikon. Oh, you're welcome. No, really, don't mention it. While you're at it, kill the G lens line. Yep. Beautiful. Thanks. Yeah, you too! Ha! Nice. Okay. Bye!

I use the Nikon almost exclusively with primes, and, as I hope is clear by now, the ergonomics for prime shooters is awful.

</blockquote>

I haven't noticed this. I guess I just 'put up with it' without thinking? Well I have a need to use the AiS 105/2.8 Micro soon so we'll see.

simon_crofts · June 26, 2011

ergonomics

I haven't noticed this.

</blockquote>

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I just meant ergonomics in terms of the handling of the physical controls, not the shape of the camera. I like the shape and feel of the camera body, controls apart, I think that's well designed... In fact, the D700 generally an amazing bit of kit, a wonderful camera. Just the controls (now pretty much Nikon standard) that aren't good.

Bringing back the shutter speed dial etc. would be a great starting point. If they can improve on the 'old' system, then I'm all for progress. bring on innovation. The problem is they abandoned the decades of evolution in camera controls and replaced it with something - a bit rubbish.

But give a bit of thought, it might even be possible to produce something better than the old shutter speed/aperture type controls.

lex_jenkins · June 26, 2011

How would a shutter speed dial on top of the camera, a la F3, FM, etc., be an improvement over the thumbwheel that's been standard on most AF film Nikons and dSLRs for many years?

I used conventional 35mm SLRs for decades, most of which had the top-mounted shutter speed dial (the Olympus OM system being the exception, tho' I never owned a Nikkormat). No way I'd want to go back to that. The thumbwheel shutter speed control is far better, especially on the bodies with integrated vertical grips.

I appreciate classic design and function as much as any curmudgeon, but some of you fellows seem to be disremembering the realities of the bad ol' days from behind that gauzy veil of nostalgia.

joseph_wisniewski · June 26, 2011

How would a shutter speed dial on top of the camera, a la F3, FM, etc., be an improvement over the thumbwheel that's been standard on most AF film Nikons and dSLRs for many years?

</blockquote>

It's not. The good old FM, F3, etc. shutter speed knobs were straight mechanical shafts that led right into the shutter mechanism. That's why, as shutter mechanisms evolved, the knobs sort of moved around the camera. I have two cameras in my collection that have multiple knobs, one that selects between curtain openings for the high speed, one that selects low speeds by doing a "two step" motion with the widest curtain opening. Even the FM2n, one of the nicer mechanically linked shutter speed dials, often required a two finger "pinch and twist". While changing it with one finger was possible (depending on your strength, the condition of your fingertip, and the callouses on your finger) it was not advisable, as it would quickly wear a groove in your finger (literally. Then you form a callous).

From an ergonomics standpoint, looking at joint and tendon loading, reach distance, control actuation accuracy, the single rear command dial is radically superior.

But that's nowhere near as severe a case as the aperture dial around the base of a lens. That's another leftover from the days when mechanical controls were placed near whatever it was that they were supposed to be controlling.Now, you have certain people who have no idea, at all, what they're doing make statements like this...

While you're at it, kill the G lens line. Yep. Beautiful. Thanks. Yeah, you too! Ha! Nice. Okay. Bye!

</blockquote>

The normal holding position for a moderately heavy lens is with the left hand forward of the lens/camera system's center of gravity, while the right hand is behind the center of gravity. Ther's a name for that. It's called "balanced", and it introduces something called "stability".

On any moderately heavy lens, using the aperture collar puts the left hand behind the center of gravity, along with the right hand. When you support something entirely from one side of the center of gravity, you create something called "torque". Now, I can understand why a lay-person like Karim might not grasp the subtle implications of this, like how...

<ul>

<li>The only way to counter that torque is is with tension on the right hand, employing both radial deviation (bending the wrist towards the thumb) and heavy flexion (bending the fingers inwards). The flexion is especially heavy on the first two fingers. The radial deviation compresses the main wrist joint (the radial-ulnar joint) because there are no such things as "deviator" muscles: deviation is accomplished by employing the flexor (bend the wrist down) and extensor (bend the wrist up) muscles simultaneously. The human body isn't built to do that for any length of time, we have all sorts of neuromuscular safety systems to keep from operating "opponent" muscles simultaneously.</li>

<li>The movement from the relatively neutral "hand under lens" position to the "hand under camera body" position increases supination (outward rotation) and flexion (outward bending) on the left wrist, while at the same time demanding operations of the flexor and extender tendons on the first finger and thumb (to work the aperture ring), and dragging the camera baseplate across the extended carpel tunnel (tendons tensed and vulnerable) and median volar nerve.</li>

</ul>

I actually had a physiologist I worked with on some of that look this over. We made some measurements, but never got far enough to make a really decent paper out of it.

Placing the aperture ring and shutter knob where they can be connected by short shafts to the aperture and shutter mechanisms in the camera or lenses, when we have the technology to move them to better locations is just plain insane. It's like telling someone that they have to drive the car while crouched down under the hood because the throttle control has to be mounted on the engine, and the steering wheel has to be mounted close to the front wheels.

Car makers learned about control linkages and ergonomics many decades ago, because when you lose control of a car, people die. Screwed up controls on camera only injure you slowly, so no one notices. But make no mistakes about it, it does injure you. Karim might as well be going around actually punching people, because his "improvements" bring nothing but pain and misery.

Karim Ghantous · June 27, 2011

Simon, I agree with you overall.

Karim might as well be going around actually punching people

Unluckily for you, I have huge influence at Nikon. Everyone listens and acts on my ideas without discrimination. Nothing is revised, nobody changes their minds. Ever. Violence, though, is not something I use in vain. Kindly retract that comment. Thank you!

lex_jenkins · June 27, 2011

"...might as well be going around actually punching people, because his "improvements" bring nothing but pain and misery."

</blockquote>

It's more like drinking too much rum punch:

<ul>

<li>Very sweet and appealing at first. ("Hey, I lurv the spartan design! I like the manly way it breaks my fingernails to adjust the shutter speed...")</li>

<li>Then there's that warm gauzy feeling, like nostalgia. ("Hey, man, I love you... no, no, I lurv you, like Annie Hall lurv... I mean it man, I really, I lurrrv you, man, and I'm not just saying that because I'm drunk...")</li>

<li>And the next day that horrible hangover, and misplaced blame. ("Oh, gawd... my fingers and wrists are aching... it can't be the horrible ergonomics. This Exacta with 500mm f/8 Girl Watcher Spiratone lens is one of my oldest friends, it'd never treat me like this. It's gotta be all those newfangled wasabi almonds I ate last night...")</li>

</ul>

Andrew Garrard · June 27, 2011

Gosh - I assumed this thread had died... To Simon, first:

<blockquote>I use manual lenses a lot on the D700, but have never used the manual lens setting, or at least, only to test it and decide that it's not worth bothering with. It doesn't change much on the camera, beyond record the aperture used in EXIF data. Manual lenses work pretty seamlessly without touching anything on camera. That's plus points for the D700, but I don't think any extra control is necessary (happily).</blockquote>

Providing information for a non-CPU lens gives you better flash control and enables matrix metering - and allegedly improves spot and centre-weighted metering as well. I use a spot meter a lot, but - since I usually want to capture the moment - I mostly rely on the matrix meter. The times when it's wrong are the exception, not the rule, for me. I agree that this setting needs changing infrequently, though - I mentioned it only as something that does not merit a dedicated control, and I guess we'll agree to differ on whether it has a place at all.

<blockquote>Sometimes the "aperture" dial is changing aperture, sometimes its doing something else. No matter how you programme it, it's no longer a dedicated aperture dial. I haven't done anything the camera to make it that way, it's the way it's designed.</blockquote>

I understand - the dial does have a function other than setting the aperture, when you're in a mode for which you're not setting the aperture anyway. It appears that you want the dial to set the aperture or do nothing, but that you explicitly enabled easy exposure compensation so that it does not do nothing.

<blockquote><blockquote>My experience is that using a finger down the exposure compensation button while I spin the rear dial with my thumb is not a great hardship.</blockquote>

Using an exposure mode where you're reasonably in control, like centre weighted, you would have to be pressing the exposure compensation button pretty much constantly. It's virtually impossible to do this while taking pictures, unless perhaps you used your middle finger to release the shutter and forefinger to hold the compensation button down. That's not practical, and your forefinger would eventually drop off. The alternative would be to find some way of nailing or gluing the compensation button down.</blockquote>

I accept that a nice compromise might be to have it possible to map the Fn button to exposure compensation (and, as I've said on countless occasions, ISO - there's no reason why any of the buttons shouldn't be interchangable), which would mean the index finger could stay on the shutter. On the other hand, many operate the front dial with an index finger anyway. I don't have an enormous issue with using the middle finger on the shutter button, since this is what Eos users have to do anyway if they want to use the front dial - but I admit to preferring the Nikon configuration. Still, if you're really adjusting the exposure compensation so quickly that you need a finger on the shutter the whole time, I can see that the ergonomics aren't ideal for you.

What's the alternative, though? If there's an additional exposure compensation wheel on the back of the camera, it's going to be hard to control them simultaneously with the thumb. If it's on the top of the camera, your finger is off the shutter anyway. My best suggestion would be a GF-1 style dial that has a different mode if pressed in, but I doubt that's easy to use with gloves. Presumably what you'd like is for the front and back dials to be (presumably) shutter and exposure compensation exclusively, and have the aperture under left-hand control. Which you can do, so long as you don't have a G lens.

Of course, as discussed (and I'm thankful to Joseph for his detailed back-up on my position, slight rudeness to Karim aside) there are plenty of reasons not to rely on the aperture ring on the lens. I don't object to it as an option, though, and it's clearly, in part, a cost-cutting measure. Perhaps we could pay a premium and limit G lenses to variable aperture zooms (for which a fixed aperture on the ring is unhelpful - not having a non-G variable aperture zoom, I still don't know how this works). For your case, Simon, I feel your pain that you might get slightly better ergonomics if you're restricting yourself to the subset of lenses for which an aperture ring makes sense, yet all new lens designs are G.

<blockquote>The ergonomics are really based around forcing people to give up and leave the camera on programme mode and matrix metering. That's what most people end up doing. It doesn't promote good photography or the photographer being in control.</blockquote>

Respectfully, take that back! :-) I have no claims to being a good photographer, but I very rarely use program mode (not that there's anything wrong with it, if you have a finger on a program shift dial, especially if you have a camera with no effective auto-ISO), nor is there anything wrong with use of the matrix meter, especially when capturing the moment is more important than placing portions of the scene into zones. Each tool has its place.

<blockquote>A third dial would be great, but the more critical point is to have dedicated aperture and shutter speed controls. And controls that aren't these silly little dials - proper controls that you can move from minimum to maximum aperture with a single motion, where there is an end-stop at either end of the range, and where you can physically see at a glance (or, even better, if they really want to take a step forward instead of a step back, feel), what the aperture and shutter speed are with the camera switched on or off and without having to activate an LCD and read some numbers.</blockquote>

The "silly little dials" can be used with one finger/thumb. It's very hard to turn the aperture ring on most lenses I've seen with one finger. The same is certainly true of every shutter speed wheel I've met - they have to be stiff so you can't knock them while the camera is turned off. Put the shutter speed wheel from my Bessa on a D700 and you'll have finger and thumb off the shutter while adjusting it. If you want to see what they're set to without turning the camera on, leave the camera switched on - I believe it'll last a very long time like that. Failing that, you'll see when you look through the viewfinder, because the information is visible there. This doesn't help if you're shooting blind from the hip, but I'm prepared to accept that this is a scenario for which a Leica is a better choice than an SLR.

I wouldn't turn down a little haptic feedback when bouncing off the end of a range, though.

<blockquote><blockquote>I always assumed that Nikon body designers spent all their time with normal primes.</blockquote>

I use the Nikon almost exclusively with primes, and, as I hope is clear by now, the ergonomics for prime shooters is awful. The fact that, apparently, it doesn't even work for people who use long heavy zooms, means that it is just bad design that doesn't work for anyone.</blockquote>

I accept that the design is not perfect for everyone (or possibly anyone). There are improvements that could be made, although the trick is making the usage better for one person without making it worse for another. I think it's harsh to the Nikon team to accuse them of bad design, though - there's compromise in every scenario, and the fact that you've had some compromises imposed upon you by the fact that some lenses don't work perfectly doesn't mean that a solution that solves your problem would make the camera better for the majority of users.

I would like to see exposure compensation as something that can be assigned to the Fn button, along with ISO and a few other settings. I don't think this would compromise anyone. I'd like the camera to buzz (not beep) when I bounce off the end of the range of something I'm setting with a wheel; this would add a little to the cost, but I doubt it would hurt anyone. I'd like the option of a GF-1 style press-and-roll mode for the dials, if this has no appreciable effect on reliability.

I would like to see a thorough ergonomic study to show that a third dial on the camera is actually significantly useful before thinking about paying for it, or putting up with the reduced reliability from another hole in the case. I don't deny that an aperture ring is a good thing on some lenses, but I also think it's a vanishingly small case. Perhaps Nikon should have made the AF-S f/1.4 50mm a non-G lens. Perhaps they'll do this with a new f/1.2 - if it's a premium line anyway.

<blockquote>BTW, the various functions on this rear command dial are often duplicated by the autofocus point selection arrows on the back. For example, flicking through pictures in playback mode. This kind of duplication is unnecessary - they've put in an extra control with limited functions.</blockquote>

Well, the joystick lets you move quickly between images in thumbnail playback. Moving between single images is an obvious extension of this. When zoomed in, the joystick is occupied, so the thumb wheel is the obvious solution. I regularly use both, and when I hand the camera to someone else to show them some images, they also tend to use both. I've just got into the habit of brushing the shutter release as I pick the camera up, to switch out of image review. The only solution is, again, a camera with a lot more unique controls, many of which are unused a lot of the time; I'm not convinced that's an improvement, and if the camera had more dials, I'd want them all to be programmable anyway...

I think we can accept that what you want from a camera is not exactly what I want from a camera. That's not to say that the D700 is perfect for me, or that your needs are in any way invalid, but if Nikon made a camera purely to your specifications (or mine) I suspect they'd lose a lot of sales. What they've made is a flexible camera that's pretty good in a lot of different scenarios. If these don't match the scenarios you need - and there's no reason to believe that they should - then obviously you should try to find a camera that does what you want. If Nikon therefore lose a sale, I'm sure they'll try to find a way to make the camera fit your needs as well as everyone else's - but what they can't do is make it fit your needs to the exclusion of everyone else's. That's not bad design, that's commercial compromise.

simon_crofts · June 27, 2011

While changing it with one finger was possible (depending on your strength, the condition of your fingertip, and the callouses on your finger) it was not advisable, as it would quickly wear a groove in your finger (literally. Then you form a callous).

</blockquote>

The rear dial on the D700 is essentially similar to a shutter speed dial, except the position has changed, you can only access a small amount of the dial, they have buried it in the body - you can't grip it both sides if you want to to get a good grip, and you can only rotate it a bit at a time, you have to make several motions to rotate any distance. Try rotating the rear dial with sweaty fingers in hot weather, it can get really hard. And it has a whole range of other functions attached to it.

At the moment, I have a swollen thumb, from operating this dial. I have a photoshoot tomorrow, and I'm taking a different camera, to give my thumb a chance to recover. It can't be that wonderfully ergonomic.

I agree that the position and design of the FM series dial wasn't perfect. It was pretty darn good, but could be improved upon. Yes, it's position was partly dictated by mechanical linkage. It's possible to improve it. It would be great if they had done so. Also being a mechanical linkage, there were more restrictions on the tension and smoothness than would be possible with a redesign. Ideally a redesign would also have a physical marker so that you could feel it's approximate setting without having to look at either dial or LCD. A click-into auto position would be good. There are quite a few improvements they could have made, including changing position, if only they'd thought about it. Just burying three quarters of the dial in the body, and giving it a whole host of other functions was a huge step backwards.

<blockquote>I can understand why a lay-person like Karim might not grasp the subtle implications of this</blockquote>

Joseph, I don't think your insults towards Karim do you any justice at all. I don't see your website or your work figuring anywhere prominently in Google. A little odd, if you are so wonderfully experienced as you seem to think you are.

<blockquote>Providing information for a non-CPU lens gives you better flash control and enables matrix metering - and allegedly improves spot and centre-weighted metering as well.</blockquote>

Andrew, I mentioned that I don't like matrix metering, but that the camera seems to be trying to force people to use matrix metering, and programme mode, so I guess that answers that.

The providing of information for non-CPU lenses can't possibly improve spot and centre-weighted metering - that is based on a misunderstanding of how spot and centre-weighted metering work. A spot reading is either right or wrong - it gives you the mid-grey setting for the spot you measure off. If the camera changes what it is telling you if it knows that you have a different focal length on, then that would mean that the camera was not working properly.

It appears that you want the dial to set the aperture or do nothing, but that you explicitly enabled easy exposure compensation so that it does not do nothing.

</blockquote>

Yes - only the camera forced me to use this dial also for exposure compensation (and also for various other functions). If there was a dedicated dial for exposure compensation that was separate, I would be very happy using it.

I was shooting a wedding the day before yesterday. On two occasions I had to take pictures quickly, and when I tried to change the aperture fast, it scrolled through pictures instead. Result: missed photographs. You can tell me that that is operator error - it happened because I was reviewing pictures, and in my rush dabbed the shutter release button quickly, not long enough to bring it out of playback mode. But for me, it was a failure of the camera.

I have taken 170,000 picture over the last 3 years on my D700 and my D2X (which had similar controls). I am still struggling to get on top of these silly controls, and they still keep managing to catch me out. I think I am a pretty technical minded person, it's hardly surprising that the vast majority of people give up and use programme mode and matrix metering.

The weekend before, I took my Fm2 along to a wedding and fired off a few films. It was a total delight - I just picked it up, and it just worked, frame after frame. Even after several years of non-use, the controls were quick, easy and intuitive.

nor is there anything wrong with use of the matrix meter, especially when capturing the moment is more important than placing portions of the scene into zones

</blockquote>

Personally, I actually think there is a lot, from the photographer's point of view, that is wrong with using matrix metering. It has its place, but ultimately, I think it really isn't a good approach for a photographer who wants to get good results. But that's a whole different can of worms. It does seem to be the case that Nikon seem to assume that everyone will use it, that is part of the philosophy behind their cameras, and that is not a good thing. Fine for amateurs, maybe OK for sports photographers. It has its place. But not a good general approach for someone who wants to do well and stay in control.

or putting up with the reduced reliability from another hole in the case

</blockquote>

There are soooo many holes in that case that I don't think anyone would notice another one. But, if it's a problem, there are an awful lot of holes that aren't really needed. Let's get rid of that exposure compensation button for a start...

Andrew Garrard · June 27, 2011

Hi Simon. Firstly, I hope your thumb recovers. I've found my D700 wheels to be no less comfortable than the other electronics with similar interfaces, but I accept that nothing like this is ever perfect. The best interface of the sort that I can think of is the large wheel on the back of the higher-end Canons (which is probably why the iPod had something very similar), but it's probably more RSI-inducing than the Nikon approach. The scroll wheel on my Razer mouse is quite nice... The problem, I suspect, is that it needs to be firm enough to avoid it moving when knocked accidentally, which means that the wheel can't protrude too much and has to be fairly stiff. I suspect there's been a lot of research into the optimum amount of force required, but it's clearly a compromise. If only photographers could be persuaded not to use gloves, some kind of capacative "is this a thumb" detection would probably be a solution... Anyway, I agree that burying the dial isn't a perfect solution, I'm just not convinced that I've seen a better one. That said, I've never used an FM (all my SLRs, Canon and Nikon, have hidden dials - except my Pentax 645, which doesn't have dials at all) and I've been tempted to keep an eye out for one, so maybe I should reserve judgement.

I admit that the off-centre shutter speed dial on some rangefinder cameras gives some interesting tactile feedback. The existing dials do, of course, click, but the Nikon assumption is definitely that you're prepared to look at the readings in the finder rather than do everything by feel (at least with G lenses). I still think it's a big ask to expect the dials to be entirely fixed-purpose - not every use of the camera relies on the same few controls as an FM supports. I'm not sure I could reliably set everything from 1/8000s to 30s by feel, or f/1.4 to f/64 without some visual feedback, especially on different lenses and at different magnifications. Knowing "three clicks from the end" is another matter - so I support adding the "end-of-range" buzzer that wouldn't reduce flexibility. You could even electromechanically grip the wheel so that it didn't go any further (without a lot of resistance). Visual feedback from the dial is less important - however inconvenient an LCD or a number in a viewfinder is, it's no harder to read than small writing on a shutter dial or on an aperture ring that's half hidden under the prism.

Regarding the spot and centre-weighted metering: yes, I'm confused as well, which is why I said "allegedly". Nonetheless, this is a claim that the D700 manual makes (page 210). Unless I'm mis-reading it and it's specifically talking about flash.

I have enough training in usability that I'll never claim that an issue is entirely "operator error" - the camera (or any other device) should be designed so that "operator error" is very hard to achieve. I'm surprised that you try to make an exposure adjustment before half-pressing the shutter and trying to focus on the subject - possibly Nikon's engineers would be equally surprised - but that doesn't make what you're doing wrong. It's hard to say what to do about that without either having separate controls just for image review (I do try to to move the focus point before activating autofocus, and occasionally have the problem that the camera isn't listening to the joystick, which is the reverse of your issue) or just suggesting that you don't review images on the camera. Again, the answer may be more configurability, not less - if you can tell the camera to stop using the dials for scrolling through images (at the cost of not being able to scroll while zoomed) then this particular problem goes away.

I would contend that people use program mode and matrix meter because they're told to - it's the next step up from green square/dummy mode (especially on a film-based SLR which can't shift ISO) - not because the other modes are unusable. Depending on what you're doing and the effect you're after, it's far from a bad starting point, especially when you can override the result once you've looked at the histogram on the LCD. Sure, a spot meter and manual mode might be your friend for mapping everything to the desired zone for your image of Yosemite, or metering subjects under relatively fixed conditions, but sometimes automation really helps. I have enough to do running around to frame things and, sometimes, hitting manual focus on the subject's eye before they move. I'd argue that, much of the time a fully manual approach is useful, you're better off with a view camera than a DSLR anyway. (Is that contentious enough?)

Nikon do try to ensure that their cameras do something sensible when a beginner first uses them - they have to, or they'd never sell anything. I think we'll have to agree to differ (with the understanding that I don't necessarily rate my photographic skills) on whether there's a decent amount of control left. It sounds as though - despite the time you've put into your DSLRs - you're very stuck in a way of working that doesn't suit them. Not that there's anything wrong with this; it's the camera's job to accommodate you, but I'd hesitate to call Nikon incompetent just because it fails to do so perfectly.

As for holes, button holes (heh) are less an issue than large slots. Actually, my D700 just got dropped off with Nikon because its leatherette was peeling. Maybe something will change on the next generation, and I look forward to seeing what it is.

Thanks again for the lesson in how other people use their cameras. I hope the raised tempers in this thread don't put people off the subject; while I may want to defend a particular decision that Nikon may have made if I can see the benefits of it, it's still valid to be struggling with something. Nikon may even be listening. Or at least, Karim might. :-)

simon_crofts · June 27, 2011

I'm surprised that you try to make an exposure adjustment before half-pressing the shutter and trying to focus on the subject - possibly Nikon's engineers would be equally surprised - but that doesn't make what you're doing wrong.

</blockquote>

I think that's another interesting illustration. Nikon's engineers ought not to be surprised that I might take pictures without first half-depressing the shutter. The first thing I and many other people do when faced with the Nikon's default arrangments, is disable the autofocus when half depressing the shutter. You really oughtn't to have a shutter release button that defines both the exposure and the autofocus. That only works if your subjects are always mid-grey, or (perhaps) if you're not too fussy about exposure and don't mind relying on the camera deciding everything through matrix metering. Again, with the default option, Nikon seem to be assuming you will let the camera decide exposure ie. matrix metering.

So, I would only be half-depressing the shutter button before taking pictures if I wanted to take an exposure reading. In fact, I did try to half-depress the shutter button as I raised the camera to my eye, but I only did so to try to get rid of the playback mode. Unfortunately I was also trying to dial in the exposure/aperture settings as quickly as possible and probably hadn't given the camera long enough to turn off playback first. The camera doesn't like it when you try to do both simultaneously, the result being blurry pictures taken at a closed down aperture.

This particular issue may not be the end of the world - but it's yet another example of how a non-tactile dial which is used for multiple functions leads to missed pictures. And again an illustration of Nikon's starting premise that users must be using the cameras auto modes, with the ability to "programme in" some elements of control, rather than the other way round.

It sounds as though - despite the time you've put into your DSLRs - you're very stuck in a way of working that doesn't suit them

</blockquote>

I may be "stuck" in that way of working, but I think that my way of working is very close to the "default" for an awful lot of professionals and serious amateurs, and I'd be surprised if Nikon don't know that. If you look at most medium format cameras, as well as the Leicas etc., an awful lot of them are designed with clear control of aperture and shutter speed, an exposure compensation dial, centre weighted metering, and an aperture priority mode thrown in. Good clear access to these basic controls are pretty much the mark of a professional camera, a lot of pros and advanced amateurs work like that, and I'm sure Nikon know about it. They must have take a conscious decision to start with a layout and default controls aimed at the amateur market/beginners, and try to make enough compromises and customisation to make it acceptable in the professional world.

Andrew Garrard · June 27, 2011

<blockquote>I think that's another interesting illustration. Nikon's engineers ought not to be surprised that I might take pictures without first half-depressing the shutter.</blockquote>

Perhaps I should say surprised that you tried to take a picture with the LCD still showing something. But I appreciate that it wasn't something you were trying to do deliberately, and the camera should be designed to catch your mistakes for you. I'm not claiming that the Nikon solution is perfect, but I am unconvinced that peppering the back of the camera with more dedicated controls will make it easier to use.

<blockquote>I may be "stuck" in that way of working, but I think that my way of working is very close to the "default" for an awful lot of professionals and serious amateurs, and I'd be surprised if Nikon don't know that.</blockquote>

(Incidentally, "stuck" was supposed to express sympathy for your predicament, not criticism, in case it came across wrongly.) While I'm sure that Nikon are aware of your means of working - otherwise quick exposure compensation might not be there - I still struggle to see how they could improve your workflow without potentially impacting a significant portion of their market, with the possible exception of releasing some new non-G lenses for shortish primes and fixed-aperture zooms.

As for professional cameras... my Pentax 645 has no dials (other than the lens's aperture ring). The 645N has dials (including an exposure compensation one on the left, where you can't reach it). The 645D has two buried dials and an exposure compensation button, like the D700, and so does the H4D series (the V series has nothing at all, but buttons) and the Mamiya DM series, both with the exposure compensation buttons in much weirder places than the D700's. The M9 uses the rear scroll wheel for exposure compensation as well as scrolling through images and menu navigation (the M8 only let you do this through a menu) - and, of course, centre-weighted or bust, but I challenge you to change exposure compensation and shutter speed in parallel and, of course, there's no shutter priority mode. The S2 has a fixed shutter speed dial, but a (single) rear dial for everything else. It appears that fixed dials are a thing of the past - it's not just Nikon. Which isn't to say that they don't have advantages, but it appears that every modern camera (newer than, say, the F4) has found it worth putting at least some of the controls to multiple uses, and dedicated exposure compensation dials seem to be pretty rare (excluding the G series Canons and the X100).

I use exposure compensation a fair bit, although I'll admit that I also often use the matrix meter and therefore don't have to use it as much as it sounds like you do. But then I also tend to tweak the exposure in RAW processing anyway, so I never rely on it being perfect. I would be a much better photographer if I spent more time placing the exposure where I wanted it, but I'd also miss a lot of shots that I wanted to keep - Nikon, who are arguably known for having the best metering system in the business, have put a lot of money into making it possible for me to work this way.

Incidentally, I usually (not always) leave the shutter button autofocussing; there are so many focus points on the D700 that it's unusual that I want to focus independently, and focus-and-recompose is mostly a thing of the past. Things move on. Mostly.

I'm not going to dispute your claim that a lot of professionals and serious amateurs have the same workflow that you do - I have no evidence either way. All I can say is that I, personally, don't seem to have any difficulty tweaking the exposure compensation for the zone I want using the exposure compensation button, that I don't miss having the aperture ring on the lens, and that I think I'd find the camera more awkward to use if it had a lot of dedicated dials rather than a few customisable ones, but that just means we're different, not that you're wrong.

That said, I'm sure you're right - Nikon have to design a camera that's easy to use for a novice, or they'll just be returned, and the reviewers will pan their obscure interface. There are lots of different kinds of professional shooters, and you can't accommodate all of them perfectly; it's much easier to accommodate all novices. Of course, Nikon also have a problem that Leica don't: Nikon have to make the D3100 novice-friendly, and make the D3x similar enough to the D3100 that their users have an upgrade path which feels familiar. There is no novice-friendly Leica (unless you count rebadged Panasonic compacts). Unfortunately, beyond making the camera as customisable as they can (or slightly less so, in some cases that I whinge about), there's not much that Nikon can do to make a perfect camera for everyone, especially if that includes doing some research to decide whether the proposed layout is actually going to work in reality.

simon_crofts · June 27, 2011

As for professional cameras...

</blockquote>

I wasn't trying to say that medium format cameras etc. have perfect control systems. I meant that using centre-weighted and maybe spot metering, is more or less the standard among cameras aimed at the higher end of the pro market outside the world of DSLR's, and that their controls (there will always be exceptions) have tended to work around the logic of clear access to aperture and shutter speed, and usually exposure compensation too.

But you're probably right that some of the most recent digital ones have been moving towards the logic of DSLRs with dials. I suspect they're focussing their energies on trying to turn out integrated digital backs that can compete, and logical controls may not have been top of the priority. I suspect the same may might be said for Nikon and Canon too.

The M9 uses the rear scroll wheel for exposure compensation as well as scrolling through images and menu navigation (the M8 only let you do this through a menu)

</blockquote>

Having said that, the lack of ready access to exposure compensation on the M8 has been one of the biggest criticisms of it. Otherwise, the controls seem pretty good, and get good reviews. The M9 seems to have largely addressed the problem, it really on the face of it looks an example of good German design in terms of layout. I haven't tried it at length in practise, so can't comment on whether there are any foibles I might not like.

If the exposure compensation is on the dial on the back, that may not be absolutely perfect as a separate dial, but I'd be happy with it. At least it wouldn't be in the same dial used (in different modes) to control shutter speed. It looks like a good, clean, well designed system.

Nikon should just copy it, and add autofocus button on the back, and they would be there!

joseph_wisniewski · June 28, 2011

Simon - The rear dial on the D700 is essentially similar to a shutter speed dial, except the position has changed, you can only access a small amount of the dial, they have buried it in the body - you can't grip it both sides if you want to to get a good grip,

</blockquote>

Nikon tried that on the 8008. I kind of liked it, but I guess they thought picking up another 4 3 square CM of top panel real estate for buttons and displays was worth going to the recessed thumb wheel.

and you can only rotate it a bit at a time,

</blockquote>

Actually, you can "rotate it a bit" more than you can an FM2. I just tried a little experiment, and the results are going to shock you. With the camera at eye level, and employing a comfortable control stroke (well, there's no way you can call a shutter speed operation on the FM2 "comfortable", but best I can do with my thumb behind the extended film advance lever)...

<ul>

<li>FM2n - 4 clicks</li>

<li>D3 - 6 clicks (that's the same mechanism as D700).</li>

<li>D90 - 8 clicks</li>

</ul>

By using a more awkward operation of taking the camera away from my face and coming down with finger and thumb on top of the dial, I was able to get 6 clicks out of the FM2, but that also involved bringing my elbow out away from my body. By the same toke,, with a rolling motion on the thumb, I can get the D3 up to 8 clicks.

Dang, I should have checked N8008 and F100 while I was at it!

Now, keep in mind that the FM2 has 13 shutter speeds, full stops from 1 second to 1/4000 second. The D700 has a range from 30 seconds to 1/8000 second. You'd have to expand the FM2 dial to 19 positions to get that. Either it would be more difgity, with smaller increments between And, if you wanted the D700's 1/3 stop setting ability, you'd have to make it a 55 position dial.

you have to make several motions to rotate any distance.

</blockquote>

Just like an FM2.

Try rotating the rear dial with sweaty fingers in hot weather, it can get really hard.

</blockquote>

Just like an FM2. Hey, I've been doing this stuff for a long time...

And it has a whole range of other functions attached to it.

</blockquote>

That's not like an FM2, because the camera doesn't have a lot of other functions. But...

<ul>

<li>The ISO control is attached to the shutter speed dial</li>

<li>And, if you want exposure compensation on an FM2, that's how you do it</li>

</ul>

Have you got a better suggestion on what to do with exposure compensation, bracketing, ISO, and white balance? It's one thing to complain about "a whole range of other functions attached to it" and quite another to suggest an improvement.

At the moment, I have a swollen thumb, from operating this dial.

</blockquote>

Not doubting you, but have you checked against another D700 to make sure your dial isn't unusually stiff? (that happens frequently, especially when the rubber on the back creeps, an annoying characteristic of Nikon cameras in hot weather). Also, are you operating it in full stops, like an FM2, or 1/3 stops, the way most people run a more modern camera?

You might also look into the "1 step sdp/aperture" option on f5, the func button. I know people who spend a lot of time changing shutter or aperture who find that to be Godsend.

There are quite a few improvements they could have made, including changing position, if only they'd thought about it

</blockquote>

So, you're saying that a company that has a reputation for spending more on ergonomics research and design, and doing a better job of it than any other camera company, didn't "think about" the location for one of the camera's primary operating controls?

So, where would someone who had "thought about it" have placed the control?

OK, back to the FM2...

A click-into auto position would be good.

</blockquote>

They called that the FM3a

Andrew, I mentioned that I don't like matrix metering, but that the camera seems to be trying to force people to use matrix metering, and programme mode, so I guess that answers that.

</blockquote>

The metering mode switch seems to click into the "spot" and "center" positions exactly as easily as it clicks into matrix metering. In fact, since matrix metering is the center position on the switch, if it's bumped or rubbed while drawing a camera out of the bag, you're twice as likely to have it move to a different setting as you are in center weighted or spot modes. I don't see where the "force people to use" it part comes in. Same with the "P" mode. It's no easier or harder to get into than the "S", "A", or "M" modes.

The providing of information for non-CPU lenses can't possibly improve spot and centre-weighted metering - that is based on a misunderstanding of how spot and centre-weighted metering work. A spot reading is either right or wrong - it gives you the mid-grey setting for the spot you measure off.

</blockquote>

Sorry, Simon, but the only "misunderstanding" is yours. The metering cells are in the prism housing near the eyepiece (above it on an FM2, to either side of it on a D700) and they "look" down into the focusing screen through the prism exactly the same way your eye on the viewfinder does. To accommodate the f4-5.6 "kit zoom" style lenses, or the use of f2.8 "pro" lenses with up to 2x teleconverters, modern Nikon, Canon, etc. focusing screens are set op to accommodate f5.6 lenses. The focusing screen only scatters light over about a 10 degree cone (2*arctan(1/f5.6/2). That's half power, you actually get some scattering out to about 20 degrees, but it's greatly diminished compared to the central 10 degree cone.

This is the same reason that one half or the other of the split image focusing aid on an FM2 blacks out with f5.6 lenses, and is a pain at f4, because Nikon aimed the prisms at about a 15 degree spread.

So, when you shoot with a faster lens, the exposure sensors can only pick up that lower central portion of the light. The camera thinks you have less light than you really do, so it boosts exposure a bit.

This has been a problem with camera design for decades, well understood by the camera designers. It's the reason that Nikon added a max aperture tab on their lenses back in the 70s (although only the FA, FG, and F4 had the feeler needed to access that tab) and why Leica went from 1 cam to 2 cams, to 3 cams on their R series, and then added ROM chips and data contacts to the lenses on a manual focus film SLR with R8.

Even the oldest, darkest, widest scattering angle focusing screens from 50 years ago had this problem. They didn't have it to the same extent, with a dark enough screen, you could have a camera with only maybe half a stop metering discrepancy between an f1.4 and f4 lens. But by the time the K2 screens on FM2, FE2, and FA came around, it was a major problem.With the screen in the D3/D700, there's 2 full stops of discrepancy between the exposure readings with a manual lens configured at f1.2 and at f8.0.

Lock your camera down on a sturdy tripod, mount up a manual focus lens, fill the finder with a neutral wall, and configure the lens for 50mm f1.2, f1.4, f1.8, f4, f8, and f22. You'll be in for quite a surprise. Oh, and check f2.5, that's kind of amusing on a D3, because there's an error in the compensation table. Don't know if they fixed that on D700.

If the camera changes what it is telling you if it knows that you have a different focal length on, then that would mean that the camera was not working properly.

</blockquote>

Actually, the focal length setting tells you the approximate exit pupil location of the lens, and that determines how fast light falls off on either side of focus screen center, so it's needed for the center weighted exposure algorithm, as well as compensating the spot meter when you select a zone farther away from the center one. So, a change in exposure reading when you change the focal length setting means that the camera certainly is "working properly".

it's hardly surprising that the vast majority of people give up and use programme mode and matrix metering.

</blockquote>

I take it that you have some sort of market research, or at least a decently performed survey, to support that claim about what the "vast majority" of people do?

On two occasions I had to take pictures quickly, and when I tried to change the aperture fast, it scrolled through pictures instead. Result: missed photographs. You can tell me that that is operator error - it happened because I was reviewing pictures. I have taken 170,000 picture over the last 3 years ... The weekend before, I took my Fm2 along to a wedding and fired off a few films. It was a total delight - I just picked it up, and it just worked ...

</blockquote>

OK, let's look at this rationally, shall we? 170,000 pictures in 3 years. Can we assume that's all weekend work? That's 1130 a weekend. Now, you're comparing "a few films" (frames, or rolls) on an FM2 to over a thousand frames on a D700 or D2X. And you had a problem with not being ready to shoot on the D700 because...

<ul>

<li>You were reviewing images!</li>

</ul>

How do you review images on an FM2? On the light table or contact sheet, days after the wedding. So, there's no "failure of the camera". If you use it like an FM2, it's a "better" FM2.

<ul>

<li>Set the D700 to single stops on the shutter. It now moves up to 6 stops in one stroke of the thumb, instead of 4 like the FM2.</li>

<li>Don't use review while you're engaged in an attention intensive shooting task, and you won't ever have that "failure of the camera" problem again.</li>

<li>Figure out how many shots you miss on an FM2 because you hit the end of a 24 or 36 exposure roll and had to rewind and load new film. Hint, that 1130 shot weekend of yours is thirty-two 36 exposure rolls. Provided you are satisfied with the same emulsion and you don't have to change a roll early as you go outside or switch from flash to available light.</li>

</ul>

It does seem to be the case that Nikon seem to assume that everyone will use it, that is part of the philosophy behind their cameras, and that is not a good thing.

</blockquote>

OK, that's the third time you've made that claim. How do you justify it? Nikon's "philosophy" seems, to me, to be to make every last metering mode and every last exposure mode work better than it ever has before. They've improved center weighted mode, they've improved spot weighted mode. Ever look at the test Modern Photography used to do to map the exposure patterns of center weighted exposure systems. They were typically "bat wing" style patterns, emphasizing some pretty strange parts of the frame.

There are soooo many holes in that case that I don't think anyone would notice another one.

</blockquote>

And yet, they're all sealed better than the much smaller number of holes on an FM2, or F3.

Joseph, I don't think your insults towards Karim do you any justice at all.

</blockquote>

And I think it's rather strange that you singled that out, while...

<ol>

<li>Making much worse insults of your own towards me.</li>

<li>Blasting the Nikon engineers with accusations that they have not "thought about" important control designs or placements.</li>

<li>Continually employing highly prejudicial language or wild hyperbole, such as Nikon "forcing" people to use program mode or matrix metering.</li>

<li>Ignoring that any slight I may have made to Karim was incredibly mild compared to the vitrol that he's poured into this conversation. </li>

<li>Claim to speak for the "vast majority".</li>

</ol>

But hey, that's part of the human condition.

Sign In

Sunday musings: make the D700 better by throwing out 80% of its features

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in