WOA - that Pana L1 looks good!!!!

reminds me to check my messages before posting. ;)
To my defense: It's pretty late here, got to get some sleep. :)
--

'Art is a collaboration between God and the artist, and the less the artist does the better' - Andre Gide
 
There's a reason for the classic position of the shutter dial on
top and aperture on the lens barrel, and it isn't ergonomics.
These positions were mandated by direct mechanical linkage between
the dial/ring and the thing it is controlling.
That was one of the things that was so clever about Mr. Maitani's Olympus OM design. Moving the shutter speed dial to the lens mount allowed the OM to be much smaller than its competitors and also provided an ergonomic edge. I'd really love to see Olympus go back to that configuration. I hate grabbing for a knob on top of the camera to change the shutter speed. It's much more natural to slip your left hand back from the focusing/zoom/aperture rings to a shutter speed ring.

Still, it took Panasonic to bring the aperture ring to the 4/3 system. Maybe there's hope for more ergonomic changes.

-Rob
 
So yes, press a buttom and the mirror will flip to let you have a
live preview trough the sensor but you lose the optical viewfinder
and must use the back LCD (fixed unlike the E-330's LCD).
Will this not perform an excellent mirror lockup procedure to reduce mirror vibration? In other words, when you flip the mirror up, you can still compose your picture (unlike every other SLR) on the LCD. I think that would be pretty cool, and very usable even hand held. Mirror lockup hand held in difficult to say the least with a traditional SLR.

I like the look of this new cam, but worry about the price it might be.

--
Cheers,
Dave.
 
It is clearly designed to be an "upscale" 4/3's camera. That doesn't mean I'll be able to afford it or that once I learn more about it, I will want it (both could go either way), just that I'm not worried!

I know it's gonna cost more that the Oly, the question is only how much more?
--

Some see the cup as half empty, others see the cup as half full. Personally, I see the cup being knocked over.
 
I know it's gonna cost more that the Oly, the question is only how
much more?
Do you really think so? It doesn't seem like something that's destined to carry a high price to me. Panasonic's line of digis have been very reasonably priced, IMO, and this seems like something in keeping with that ethic. Time will tell. I just wonder how long we're going to have to wait.

-Rob
 
Well, I don't think it will necessarily be EXPENSIVE, but I do think it is going to occupy a different, less competitive niche from its cousin the Oly 330 and from the description and the pedigree of the lens I don't think it's going to be cheaper!

No question the Leica version (if there will be one) will be grossly overpriced. But hopefully Paneica has learned it's lesson and will build in some REAL advantages into it. People are smarter now, their not gonna accept the difference in prices if the Leica marque gets the Pretty one and the Panasonic marque gets the ugly one, and that's the only difference.

I'm hopeful about this because the Panasonic version is a darned pretty camera. The Leica version would definitely have to offer some real product differentiation.

WOW! This just occured to me! It would seem that this body just might make a pretty good platform for a digital Rangefinder camera!
--

Some see the cup as half empty, others see the cup as half full. Personally, I see the cup being knocked over.
 
Ooops .... what a nice looking thing! It looks classic and it even
has a shutter dial. Kudos Panasonic!
I agree it looks nice, but...

There's a reason for the classic position of the shutter dial on
top and aperture on the lens barrel, and it isn't ergonomics.
These positions were mandated by direct mechanical linkage between
the dial/ring and the thing it is controlling.

But with electronic linkage you can put the controls anywhere,
including where they are most easily accessed. See the 2-dial
control layout of many DSLRs, including the Oly E1.

Panasonic/Leica chose fashion over function.
Not quite!

--For any of us who grew up using small cameras - SLRs and rangefinders - the shutter speed dial is in exactly the right place; with a few quirky exceptions, the place it's always been ever since miniature cameras were introduced by Leica in the 1930s. I, for one, wouldn't want it any other place. It is thoughtful, user-friendly design for the broadest-possible customer base. In addition, there isn't a better place for it on the camera than next to the shutter release where it can be turned with right thumb and forefinger at a moment's need while holding the camera by the lens barrel so that the iris can be afterwards adjusted quickly as well. If anybody knows good ergonomic design, it's Leica, whom I'm sure had a lot of input into this camera's design, if not directly then certainly by the example of eighty years experience in making the best-thought out cameras on the market, which Panasonic has wisely learned from.

Deecy//



http://www.flickr.com/photos/provocative/

http://tomdeecy.blogspot.com/
 
--For any of us who grew up using small cameras - SLRs and
rangefinders - the shutter speed dial is in exactly the right
place
That's not really the problem. The aperture control is. With touch-up focus and zooming, your left hand is busy enough as it is. No need to put aperture there when you can get your right thumb into the action.
If anybody knows good ergonomic design, it's Leica
Leica ergonomics are stuck in the '60s. I'd pick any modern 2-wheel (D)SLR over any Leica.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
 
That's not really the problem. The aperture control is. With
touch-up focus and zooming, your left hand is busy enough as it is.
No need to put aperture there when you can get your right thumb
into the action.
I've been shooting with 35mm cameras that have an aperture ring for about 35 years and can only recall bumping it accidentally on one or two occasions. It clicks, for one thing, and the other rings don't, so you immediately have a tactile feedback thing going on that tells you it's not something that it isn't. I always liked the shutter speed ring on Olympus OM cameras because of the tactile thing they had, too. Hard clicks from speed to speed, but then when you hit 1/60 and lower the clicks had a "grainy" kind of geared feeling that let you know you were getting into slow shutter speeds. It was like a big warning sign. Something like that could be built into 4/3 cameras pretty easily and it would be a huge benefit to shooters.
 
Ooops .... what a nice looking thing! It looks classic and it even
has a shutter dial. Kudos Panasonic!
Panasonic/Leica chose fashion over function.
Actually, I think they've chosen ergonomics over fashion. Having an aperture ring on the lens and a proper shutter dial at the top was standard for many many years. I like it like that and wish others would follow.
 
Actually, I think they've chosen ergonomics over fashion. Having an
aperture ring on the lens and a proper shutter dial at the top was
standard for many many years. I like it like that and wish others
would follow.
agreed.

i have no idea how someone can say that real manual controls is fashion over function. i don't need a dial of functions and program/scene modes. i need shutter speeds, apertures, focus, wb, and maybe zoom: the things that actually, directly control the functions of the camera.

it was standard for years because it worked, and it worked well.
 
yeah, lets hope this one is a little cheaper.

3000 bucks, without a lens? for an epson, it might as well be a leica.
 
i have no idea how someone can say that real manual controls is
fashion over function.
I have no idea why anyone would think that these controls are any more "real" or "manual" than others. The aperture and shutter are both electronically controlled and activated just like every other current DLSR.
it was standard for years because it worked, and it worked well.
No, it was the standard because in the days of mechanical linkage it was the most practical implementation. Once mechanical liminations were out of the picture almost everyone abandoned these control positions. (Do you want a lift-and-turn ISO setting control as well? How about a self-timer that's a little lever you push down that slowly clocks back up?)

--
Erik
 
I have no idea why anyone would think that these controls are any
more "real" or "manual" than others. The aperture and shutter are
both electronically controlled and activated just like every other
current DLSR.
and more than 20 years ago, they had the same kind of controls in electronic cameras as well. have a look at the older nikon cameras, like the fa. it has electronic shutter (so electronic shutter speed) and even controls the f-stop from the body for program and s-priority modes. i'm willing to bet that had they wanted to use controls like today's standards, they could have.
No, it was the standard because in the days of mechanical linkage
it was the most practical implementation. Once mechanical
liminations were out of the picture almost everyone abandoned these
control positions.
and once people developed the electronic guts of those early techno-cameras 20 years ago, many cameras did away with manual controls entirely. quite a few lacked any way to control shutter speed, other than exposure compensation dials. manufacturers started to add more and more features tragetted at the amateur consumer. i'd rather have my controls where i want them than a bunch of features i don't need.

look, a lot of it is personal preference. i don't find the manual controls on modern slr's practical at all. i find them uncomfortable to use. if you don't, that's fine. that's your preference. mine happens to be this style of control. it works for me.
(Do you want a lift-and-turn ISO setting
control as well? How about a self-timer that's a little lever you
push down that slowly clocks back up?)
those aren't primary control mechanisms. i'll set my iso (and wb) just fine with a button. i think i've used the timer on my camera twice, and both times were for mirror lockup. aperture and shutter speed and focus i use nearly every time i shoot a picture. some controls are simply more important than others.
 
(Do you want a lift-and-turn ISO setting
control as well? How about a self-timer that's a little lever you
push down that slowly clocks back up?)
Now that you mention it, yes I do! In those days, we called it the ASA, and it with the iso setting controlled that way,you NEVER had to navigate thru a menu to remind yourself what the ASA/ISO setting was. A quick glance would tell you. within a fraction of a second, you knew what you wanted to find out and you were free to shoot. No menu,no special mode setting to enter, just galnce and go.

And the self timer was great! Again, NO menu, no fumbling, just a simple push on the lever and you were ready to go! Once you got the feel for your timer, you could quickly set the timer for for the full clock time or half the clock time.

True, those controls were less automatic than the new controls, BUT, they were MUCH MUCH faster and provided better/faster feedback on what the current settings are. I don't care, how the controls are set up, but once the modern cameras provide me with the information I need to make a shooting decision in a TIMELY manner, then I'll shut up!
--

Some see the cup as half empty, others see the cup as half full. Personally, I see the cup being knocked over.
 
you raise good points.

i've always found it kind of ironic that manual settings are often faster than their "more convient" automatic counterparts. i know that when i'm shooting next to people with auto cameras, i'm just as fast if not faster with my old full manual camera.
 
Even if I don't like the 4/3ds, this new thing is really nice - that classic style of aperture/shutter speed controls is a nice thing.

--



http://zoom.tinkle.lt
 
There's a reason for the classic position of the shutter dial on
top and aperture on the lens barrel, and it isn't ergonomics.
These positions were mandated by direct mechanical linkage between
the dial/ring and the thing it is controlling.
i own a camera that has the shutter speeds in ring-form on the lens. i promise you, there is no place to put a battery in it, either. granted, the shutter is also in the lens...

but many, many 35mm slr's also had lens-barrel shutter speed rings. it's not JUST because of mechanical linkages, either. modern slr's have very few controls on their lenses. generally, it's a very tiny focus ring that's not really designed to be used frequently, and a huge zoom ring. now, lots of p+s digicams control zoom on the camera body. why don't slr's?

because, suprise, we shoot with two hands. one is on the lens, the other the body. so having a control, or controls, on the lens barrel is a perfectly acceptable and ergonomic way to go. but placing a LENS control on the camera body, frankly, is counter-intuitive. and i don't (personally) find the modern electronic controls ergonomic at all. i have large hands, and i have to really scrunch up my finger and thumb to use them.

sometimes, for some people, the practical, intuitive controls are also more ergonomic.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top