What does ergonomics mean in mirrorless?

[GerrySiegel]

<p>It must be a problems for engineers all the time. Was the Volkswagen Beetle Original ergonomic. Hardly, but the price and accessibility under the hood (trunk actually) was ergonomic. The battery under the rear seat was quirky. Small cars seem to have solved a lot of the challenges. <br />What about mirrorless cameras? What do you miss and what needs work you want to see for average size fingers and wrist strength?.<br /> I enjoyed the rear screen LCD on my Panasonic Lumix GH2 and still appreciate the fold and twist design. But I was always bumping the White Balance button for some reason. And my thumb never found a home. Now let's take a close look at the new E-M1. Notice that the little extra room for the thumb keeps it free of the center panel of controls. Also notice that the play button is closer to the center panel for changes than the old location. So what am I suggesting. Just that little stuff means a lot. I look to see the mirrorless folk use more logic and user guidance in their future models. Here is a back end derriere view of the Lumix GH2 and the Olympus E-M1. Any other thoughts for the design teams now at work in Osaka and Kyoto?</p><div></div>

[johnw63]

<p>Gerry,</p>

<p>I think what you see are that the major "improvement" of going mirrorless, being smaller and lighter, is at odds with finger ergonomics. Keeping room for your fingers and making it small enough for those that really want that size is not going to result in the best button layout. It's all about real estate. </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>The problem with the white balance button in the G3 and GH2 is that it is relatively in a slightly different postion to the earlier FZ50... never had a problem with the FZ50. But on checking I discovered the right hand button has a different function on the FZ50 It is tea time but I will check it out later :-) read the manual to find out what the FZ50 button is used for.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>For me, Ricoh should be the industry standard for P&S and compact system ergonomics. Their approach to control layout offers the most sensible melding of ease of use for novices and customizable controls through re-assignment of multifunction controls. Many features can be quickly accessed with just the right hand thumb and forefinger, without even needing to balance the camera in the left hand.</p>

<p>The "My" preferences options are terrific - with one switch you can quickly move from settings suitable for low light grab shots to another for deliberate shooting of stationary subjects to another for bracketed special effects photos for quickly sharing online. The user configurable options are versatile without being overwhelming or interfering with routine use by novices.</p>

<p>And the cameras feel great in the hand. I like a fair sized finger nub grip but not the full sized intrusive grip so common on dSLRs. But Olympus and others offer equally good grips, a compromise between the non-ergonomic soap-bar approach of the Nikon J-series and the weapon-like massive grip of the dSLRs.</p>

<p>The only thing I'd change would be Ricoh's traditional oval/lozenge shaped shutter release button. One of the few things I really do like about the Nikon 1 system ergonomics is the primary shutter release button. It's big, with a nice, distinct two-stage feel, clean release, not mushy and imprecise. And the video button is well designed too. The rest of the Nikon 1 system ergonomics are pretty much awful. I've adapted to the camera through practice, frequent use, sheer force of will, and not a little cussing. The Nikon 1 system's strengths are quickness - quick shutter response, AF response, good but not great shot to shot response - and speed, including the ability to shoot full resolution raw up to 60 fps (with some restrictions). That's the main reason it has at least a cult following, despite the generally aggravating ergonomics.</p>

<p>Regarding articulating screens, I was indifferent to them for awhile, but more recently have begun to reconsider. I never expected to adapt so thoroughly to using the rear LCD more often than an eye level finder. Now that I've modified my candid shooting style to primarily using the rear screen, including overhead and down low for pet snaps and odd perspectives on landscapes, I can see why articulating screens can be a good thing.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I wonder if we will really get used to touch screen interface. I suspect that the generation that grew up on touch screen phones will take to them naturally. For those who were weaned on DSLR style, having a few knobs to turn with click stops is nice. The GH2 had one twist knob in rear which you pressed to activate EV plus and minus. Never took to that much. I like the natural feel of the front wheel doing duty as f stop and shutter and Ps adjustment and rear doing EV adjustment. <em>Or</em> vice versa... The dioptric adjustment is a little fiddly on Olympuses. Not quite up to stuff. Lumix is fair-- I wear glasses but hate wearng them when viewing so far. even with astigmatism and a little other junk forming..Why can't they take a lesson from other outfits. Small points ,true enough!. I added a longer eyecup and the added relief helps some. Or I better learn to look with my "good eye" which sure has changed in five short years. Yep. looking at these items we got what we call nitpics, but little nitpics are what make us upgrade and spend filthy lucre. Ciaio, gs</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I would enjoy a touch screen as long as it was user configurable. I don't want to be locked into the manufacturer's notion of how a touchscreen should be used. It should be highly configurable to accommodate lefties and disabled folks, and not be locked into defaults that would unintentionally alter settings.</p>

<p>Merely transposing physical controls to a touchscreen with icons substituted for the physical interface is just silly and doesn't take advantage of the unique capabilities of a touchscreen. There are already too many apps for mobile devices that make this mistake. Another common mistake is locking users into a specific gliding, sliding or swiping motion. For example, a slider for volume, brightness, contrast, etc., should be user configurable to let the user choose whether the orient the slider vertically, horizontally, diagonally, and where they want it onscreen. Anyone who has suffered some motor skill disability would appreciate this type of user configurable operation.</p>

<p>One thing a touch screen would be great for is to quickly zero in the single AF sensor point. That would be great for isolating a subject in a crowd, or for ensuring accurate macro focus. The physical controls for this function are usually slow and awkward.</p>

<p>A touch screen would be ideally suited to any adjustments that work within generalized, loose parameters. For example, let's say you preset the upper and lower range for ISO, shutter speed and aperture, to suit action, DOF or low light situations. A simple X/Y axis type manipulation could enable the user to quickly zip a finger in a diagonal direction to bias the exposure toward a faster shutter speed if desired for one frame, shallower DOF for another, or higher ISO for another. Nikon's Smart Program metering mode offers this flexibility, but the exposure biasing is done via front and rear wheels. A touch screen could substitute for dedicated front/rear wheels.</p>

<p>But if inadvertently touching the screen somewhere produces unintended actions, it's not a useful improvement to the user experience. It's just another manufacturer-dictated design paradigm that imposes itself onto the user rather than serving the user.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I bought an Olympus E-PL1 mirrorless mft when it came out. The resolution was a vast improvement over P&S's. Of course I was mistaken about the ability to carry easily as you can't wear it on your belt like a Canon S95 P&S which I bought later on just for that purpose to replace my older Elphs. I always like carrying a camera. Only P&S's have been easy to do that and I will to give up some IQ just to have a camera with me. Of course now that I bought a smart phone, I don;t carry the S95 any more. </p>

<p>All three had ergonomic problems. The E-PL1 kept going into movie mode due to a poor ploacement of the movie button. The menus drove me crazy. The S95 that had manual and RAW modes, great for a P&S, also had wheels for hand adjustment. The problem is that depending on whether you're in A mode or S mode or another mode, the wheels shifted their purposes. It could be ISO thisd time and exposure compensation in another mode, I couldn't keep track of what they'd do under each mode of operation. P&S's are a pain to focus and the delay when shooting flash between pressing the shutter and actual getting it to snap is frustrating. Smart phone cameras are lousy in a lot of ways that we all know about but at least it's mthere all the time.</p>

<p>Are the new mirrorless any better? I wonder. After decades of making SLR's (both film and digital) you'd think the manufacturers would finally get this type right. But it seems like there's always something wrong ergonomically. Maybe it's done deliberately so you buy the next model thinking that that's the one!</p>

[carbon_dragon]

Ergonomics are about being designed to be safe and easy to use, as well as intuitive. This is taken very seriously in

aircraft flight decks where a bad design can cause injury and loss of life. Designing a good interface takes experience,

time, and a lot of testing and good examples are often the result of slow evolution (Leica) or radical innovation. I don't

think there is anything special about mirrorless cameras that makes them inherently better or worse than other types

other than reduced size and weight. In fact smaller size can make the controls harder to place. My Nex7 is pretty good

except for placement of the movie key and a tendency of the exposure compensation dial to get jogged.

[thomas_k.]

<p>My hands are probably slightly larger then average. I dislike holding compact cameras for them not resting in palm of my hand. I can only hold with 3 fingers with bottom of the camera hanging in void - no way I can use my thumb to adjust settings unless I hold camera in my other hand. Personally, I wish cameras would stop shrinking in size.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Next morning and with the persistant drizzle, must be five days now, not much light in my workshop but with the FZ50 and the Gh2 together it is obvious what the problem is .... that lovely big LCD of the G&GH .... which has stolen a lot of the 'hold space' on the back of the camera ... but it is nice and after a couple of years the white balance doesn't bother me ... I'm in AWB except when by Tungsten and I have learnt to notice the menu in the EVF when I do hit the button</p><div></div>

[jcuknz]

<p>"Lex ...One thing a touch screen would be great for is to quickly zero in the single AF sensor point. That would be great for isolating a subject in a crowd, or for ensuring accurate macro focus"<br>

I can assure you that the G&GH are wonderful in this respect with the added advantage of being able to adjust the size of the focus area to a very small size ... it makes using AF much more precise and a joy to use ... I never think of manual focusing EVER! :-)<br>

Of course there is always a drawback and hand holding a 280 AoV it can waver off the subject.<br>

Here the building is sharp but not Madam.</p><div></div>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>The design of the mirrorless system cameras reminds me of the way mobile phones developed. All the manufacturers were racing to make the smallest handset. Then the iPhone came out and now they're all racing to make the the handsets bigger and more user friendly. </p>

<p>The Olympus EM1 seems to have made a step in the right direction, sacrificing size for comfort and usability. I have the E-PL5 and, whilst it's a very compact camera with great image quality, it's a pig to handle simply because of its size.</p>

<p> </p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>Any other thoughts for the design teams now at work in Osaka and Kyoto?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the E-M1 control layout is great. Having the camera on/off switch on the right hand side would be the only thing I am missing right now.</p>

[john_mcmillin]

<p>How often do you turn off your camera? I usually just let mine go to sleep after inactivity. Oh, it's not mirrorless, so the battery lasts for hours. But I'm much more worried about turning off a camera by mistake, when I need it powered up and ready. The area around the shutter button is precious real estate, that ought to be reserved for controls you use often. So I prefer a power switch out of the way, on the left upper surface.<br>

Steve Jobs didn't like power switches at all, he though they were superfluous. I concur, but I like the E-M1's switch because it's a direct copy of the light metering switch on the OM-2S film camera. It's like a friendly wink to us original OM owners!</p>