Mirrorless Camera design according to Sexton and LL. Agree?

[zxaar]

Can't resist a comment. Read Sexton and commented in the earlier thread. Now have read his update.

Apart from his less than convincing defense of calling the G1X sensor a APS-C one, the biggest problem with his original tome and his update is that Sexton does not understand the parametres of mirrorless camera design. You can build a small camera body around an APS-C sensor (for example), but you can't design a range of small lenses for it. For someone who sees himself as an expert in industrial design in general, and camera design in particular, that lack of understanding robs Sexton's work of authority and reduces it to speculation and mere prejudice like anyone else's.

I really doubt that you also understand things either. First of all people here love to claim how m43 sensor size is marginally smaller than APC size. By your simple logic the lenses on APC shall also be marginally bigger (but here people also love to boast how smaller sensor would keep their lenses small).

Further, the small sensor would result in small lenses is only ture when you decide to make smallest possible lenses . In that case what you says come into play. Many many times designing smallest possible lenses is not what designers are looking there are other factors too. And hence it is perfectly possible to have lenses for APC that are smaller than m43 format lenses.

Nobody is stopping m43 lens designers to make larger lens to increase in quality.

Further if you understood things well then you would know that there exist plethora of very compact lenses designed for FF of films.

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

 

[MAubrey]

Nonsense. The hump wasn't introduced for ergonomic reasons.

On the contrary, its a reasonable ergonomic solution to the challenge of left eyed vs. right eyed shooters. Rangefinders are great for right eyed photographers who can look around the camera, but leave left eyed shooters in the dark. a raised vf allows some kind of visibility regardless of how you shoot.
--
--Mike

 

[MichaelKJ]

MR has been a Sony fan for a long time. The NEX-7 is an excellent camera, but not one that interests me.

Given that he is primarily a landscape photographer, why shouldn't he be in love with the D800e? It is the first FF camera with MF IQ (or very close to it).

However, he also is a fan of the GH2 and has posted numerous photos taken with various Pany lenses. He doesn't have much interest in Oly, but did give the E-P2 a pretty positive review:

I did no formal testing per se, but found image quality to be on a par with the Panasonic Four Thirds cameras that I have been working with for the past 18 months. High ISO shots, up to about ISO 1600, were fine for non-critical prints, and up to ISO 400 produced exhibition quality images even in gallery sized prints.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/ep2.shtml

 

[Bill Wallace]

You really should give loafers a go, they're sweet!!!!!

Hell I don't even tie my sport/workout shoes half the time.....

Cheers...

--
Bill Wallace

http://bwallace.zenfolio.com/

"I'd rather laugh with the Sinners than cry with the Saints"

 

[tgutgu]

I did not say that the hump was introduced for ergonomic reasons, but for functional ones. Hump aside, the cameras with a hump (Gx, GHx, EM-5, Samsung N11) are ergonomically the best, because the hump design allows for better placement of controls.

So where is the nonsense?

The success of the EM-5 shows how popular the hump design is. The EM-5 has a small very functional design, compare this with the clunky X-Pro 1!

The X-pro 1 is double the price. Might be another factor.

To date, the hump cameras are by far the better ergonomic solutions.

Nonsense. The hump wasn't introduced for ergonomic reasons. There are only two rational explanations for its existence:

1. The optimum placement for a pentaprism

2. To make a camera look like one that has a pentaprism.

--
Thomas

 

[tgutgu]

I personally don't think we will see any m43 cameras with "left hand corner" built in EVFs any time soon, despite lots of people on this forum asking for it. Here is why I think this.

Despite the fact that the design inspiration for the m43 PENs is the PEN F, a camera with a viewfinder, it seems Oly are making very clear brand differentiation - PEN = add on EVF, OMD = built in EVF.

And therefore all Oly m43 cams with built in EVF will have the EVF over the lens axis, because they are aping the OM form. It would have been possible to make an EM-5 with a left hand corner EVF and without a hump, but the then flat top plate would have had to be quite a bit higher to fit the EVF on the left, and clear the IBIS components in the middle. But then it woudn't have looked like an OM! So this is a clear case of form dictating function, retro at its worst.

No, retro at its best, because it is a better functional design.

Panasonic on the other hand seem to have got settled into 4 product lines, 2 with built in EVF, and 2 without. So we can then forget the GFs and GXs in this discussion. The Gs are the "budget" built in EVF range, so are highly unlikely to get left corner EVFs because of the right angle prism/folded optics needed, which would add to cost. Which just leaves the GHs. These are now the only Panasonic line that look like "DSLRs shrunk in the wash", since the G3 went to "soapbar with EVF hump stuck on top". As someone has already mentioned, there is a marketing angle to this shrunk DSLR styling - its a form factor that will not be too alien to DSLR switchers/converts (or even to clueless consumers for whom DSLR shape = Pro).

And then regardless of all this, there is the consideration that a left hand corner EVF assumes that all potential customers are right eye dominant. Is this a safe asumption?

No.

--
Thomas

 

[Kuppenbender]

I did not say that the hump was introduced for ergonomic reasons, but for functional ones. Hump aside, the cameras with a hump (Gx, GHx, EM-5, Samsung N11) are ergonomically the best, because the hump design allows for better placement of controls.

These are ergonomically the best because they have a more pronounced grip. You could easily add the Nex 7 to your list o ergonomically superior mirrorless cameras.

So where is the nonsense?

None of your post makes any sense. The nonsense is everywhere. There is no ergonomic benefit to the functional necessity (in a camera with a mirror box and pentaprism) of a hump.

If you're using your left hand to press buttons or turn dials on the camera body then it isn't where it should be when taking a photo, which is supporting the lens barrel.

 

[axlotl]

HI amalric, thanks for posting . From the response it is clear many forum members have been considering this issue. I have gone further and conducted research looking for the optimum ergonomic design. I made a series of camera mockups to test ideas emerging from this work. You can read all about it on my Camera Ergonomics blog at http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.com.au

 

[zxaar]

you are as deluded as ever.

I agree 100% with you. There are so many other flawed arguments in that article it is laughable.

I can tell you right now that if Canon goes with their 4:3 sensor for mirrorless, that will become the defacto aspect ratio for mirrorless. And no matter what people think is the best size, we will end with a roughly M4/3 size sensor as the standard (just like APSC sensor are slight different sizes).

No chance. There will be no smaller than APC sized mirrorless, they all will be competing with Nokia 808 and its cousin. He is spot on when he says ,43 format will not survive.

5 years on and you and your 10 friends will be the only 11 people buying the defacto m43 format.

Back to your point. I am left eye dominant, and the Sony EVF is in a very bad position for me. I like to open my right eye sometimes to get a wider/better view and with the NEX, it is blocked.

People like what they are most comfortable with.

One other point. NEX has a big problem with longer lenses. For example, with my A55 and 70-200mm F/2.8 lens, most of the bulk is with the lens. A NEX 7 with that lens is virtually the same size and inferior (no IBIS, worse grip, etc). All it will take is for someone to see a NEX with a 250mm or 300mm lens compared to a Nikon 1 or M43 with similar lens to realize how flawed that system is. Heck, compare the size of their 50mm lens to the M43 45mm lens! Again, with if you are forced to use lenses that large, you might as well get a small DSLR or SLT!

I don’t have a dog in this fight, I still have not bought a mirrorless camera and it will be six more months before I do. Want to talk real retro stupidity, look at your QWERTY keyboard, designed more than 100 years ago to specifically slow the speed of typing down to prevent hammer-lock.

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

 

[odl]

I think my heels aren't designed properly, they just slip on and off Nothing against loafers personally.
--
alatchinphotography.com

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and
understand, while imagination embraces the entire
world, and all there ever will be to know and
understand.” - Albert Einstein

 

[FrankS009]

Zxaar: Thanks for taking the time to address my comments about Sexton. In the first place, I don’t claim to know or understand everything about camera design. But Sexton claims he does, and that is why I am critical in the face of what seems the obvious design constraint of larger sensors as a whole.

I don’t think your first point follows. De facto, from my observations most APS-C lenses seem to be more than marginally bigger than M43rd lenses. Take the kit lens on the NEX 7 for example.

Your point about smaller lenses resulting from smaller sensors only when manufactures decide to make the smallest possible ones is valid of course. But Olympus and Panasonic up and down the line do seem to make smaller lenses than APS-C ones in the same category. For example, this was the basis of Michael Reichmann’s fascination with the G1 as the Goldilocks of cameras and kit lenses in comparison to competing APS-C ones.

And it is indeed possible for M43rd manufactures to make bigger lenses than APS-C ones if they wanted to , but I don’t see them doing that. They seem to be finding ways of making smaller lenses of excellent quality. That is not to say that some larger FF and APS-C lenses are not of excellent and even better quality that M43rds ones. But excellent quality is not related to lens size as you imply, even in your next point.

Lastly there are indeed lots of compact lenses out there for different formats. But in his particular blog Sexton was talking about mirrorless cameras and their design.

In short, I think the argument still stands – it is a very old one indeed and not mine alone- and Sexton seems either oblivious to it. or ignores it because of personal prejudice. That is fine, to each his own; but not in the guise of expertise in industrial design.

 

[Everdog]

No chance. There will be no smaller than APC sized mirrorless, they all will be competing with Nokia 808 and its cousin. He is spot on when he says ,43 format will not survive.

5 years on and you and your 10 friends will be the only 11 people buying the defacto m43 format.

I remember when I had my first beer.

btw, with Canon, Panasonic and Olympus selling cameras with 4:3 AR sensors, and Nikon opting for smaller, who is going to sell all those APS mirrorless cameras with DSLR sized lenses? Pentax?

 

[amalric]

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

 

[odl]

--
alatchinphotography.com

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For
knowledge is limited to all we now know and
understand, while imagination embraces the entire
world, and all there ever will be to know and
understand.” - Albert Einstein

 

[amalric]

HI amalric, thanks for posting . From the response it is clear many forum members have been considering this issue. I have gone further and conducted research looking for the optimum ergonomic design. I made a series of camera mockups to test ideas emerging from this work. You can read all about it on my Camera Ergonomics blog at http://cameraergonomics.blogspot.com.au

Thank you, axlotl. I see that you are doing some serious work, and developing working hypotheses for more. By splitting categories of camera buyers, one can perhaps explain how this thread got chaotic.

M4/3 is perhaps the advanced format where more people from different walks of life and different photographic concerns collapse - so their expectations are widely different.

My OP was originally intended as a comment on a photographer's contention in LL, but I didn't really take a stance like DSLR Style or Rangefinder Style.

This is a much beaten dead horse coming to us from film times, and I am sure that within these two restricted categories, improvements can yet be made in their digital version.

However Sexton himself in his conclusion points to the Gestalt for digital not having yet been found, like Leica was for film, at last as a time machine, crossing almost a century.

Will it ever be found? I have no vested interest. The piece of equipment I have now is such a hotchpotch of different pieces, from different systems and ages that the result of the assembly looks like a steampunk locomotive.



So rather the opposite of the perfect, ultimate, shining piece of design

And so this thread... In the end we are drifting to what anthropologist Levy straauss observed about ancient Australian tribes:

Bricolage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricolage

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

 

[dgrogers]

I'm the opposite. I think the NEX 7 is hideous and the OM-D is one iof the best looking cameras I've seen. I'm not generally in to retro, though the typical SLR look is not very attractive and neither is the sliced brick look of cameras like the NEX.

And no, I don't think APS-C will win out in the micro world. 4/3 is the perfect size in this area. Just enough for some shallow depth of field and decent noise performance but small enough where there's a significant savings in lens real estate and quality for the dollar.

--
Completely infatuated with the "OMG"

 

[Banger]

Well, I think he talks biased self serving rubbish, in particluar the EM-5 is an outstanding product (despite what he says), in all respects with the possible exception of middling CAF performance.

But his biggest bit of sillyness is the pushing of APSC format products which when available in mirrorless camera bodies (there are some already), from Canikon et al, will mean a huge proliferation of camera lens mounts as opposed to the standardised u/43 lens mount which provides u/43 users with an ever expanding lens choice from various manufacturers.. Of course, it's possible that Canikon is scared of competing against u4/3 lens manaufacturers because they will have to lift their game significantly.

Time will tell......

Rob

 

[Art_P]

Does the number of native lenses in all the other systems combined yet surpass the number of native 4/3 lenses?

Not counting variations of the same lens, or those designed for APS w 4/3 mounts, we're at 25, if I counted correctly. Anyone care to count the number of lenses in the other systems?

--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

 

[PeterLeyssens]

Hi Amalric,

But Richard Sexton may have a point, starting from the Leica FF, against the excesses of retro i.e. where form prevails over function.

What do you think? Indeed the OM-D leaves me cold, and I much prefer the NEX 7 solution. I wonder also when Panny might abandon its faux-dSLR paradigm. for something more streamlined. a ' la LC1 ( or was it the L1?)

I think Sexton has a very valid point. I've used quite a few film cameras and many of them made sense: the Olympus OM-1/3/4, my Leica ii, even a monstrous Rollei 66. But switching to digital, I've felt comfortable with the user interface. I've used a few DSLRs (owned an E-410 once), a few compacts and now an E-P1. Except if something really revolutionary happens, regular compacts and DSLRs are all out for me. The E-P1 seemed like it was onto something: an interesting form factor (no fake prism hump, a decent mode dial) but only took a first step. There's plenty missing still.

For example, what's wrong with using your left hand for a control ? In the manual focus days, left was focus and right controlled everything else. Now that we have had AF for at least 20 years, one would think that at least one camera maker could've come up with something useful for half our claws to do ? Certainly now that cameras are light enough that one doesn't always need to use one to hold the camera up. Surprisingly, one of the two big players invented a camera with a big dial around the lens (Canon S90). Why doesn't a mirrorless camera maker slap one around the lens fitting to control shutter speed, diaphragm or ISO (perhaps moving between a few settings with a button near the left hand) ? There's nothing technical stopping them: if the camera needs to remain as thick, they can move the sensor forward with the lens bayonet.

To me, it seems like photographic technology is moving so fast that camera makers don't know how to handle it. Add to this that nobody dares to take a risk because launching even one bad selling camera can angry investors and rating agencies. Somehow, despite all the flux of news, there's no revolution happening in the photographic world. *

Peter.

• Yeah, I know that's exaggerated. I like the X-Pro's hybrid viewfinder. Large sensor compacts are interesting, too, but currently still immature (though the X2 looks interesting). Most other cameras (including the OM-D) to me currently seem to focus on a list of specs that should be appealing. I'm not claiming they can't make good photos: this thread is about UI design. Despite its limitations, I still like what my E-P1 produces and I will continue using it until I find a valid replacement that can take as wide a range of lenses.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
blog at http://lightchangesstuff.wordpress.com/

 

[jcuknz]

Makes him a joke to miss the obvious ...I have the G3 with the 014140 and it is about half the size and weight of a APS-C or NEX equivalent. A larger sized sensor bridge camera with interchangable lens for the rare occasions I want that feature.