-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Mirrorless Camera design according to Sexton and LL. Agree?
- Thread starter amalric
- Start date
But LCD are not only there for framing your pictures. They allows better menus and a bigger picture for reviewing. Also, if you are using the LCD at waist level, it is better to have a bigger one.
So to sum up, you are right : I'm not going to renounce to bigger OLED !
--
rrr_hhh
While I myself prefer the Pen type design (perhaps a viewfinder would be nice- but I already have one ;-) )..I think Olympus has to sell cameras, and wants to capture the DSLR market to greater degree. Many of the people shooting Canons, or Nikon or whatever, do not understand that form factor makes no difference (and some just feel more comfortable with it - like people who like the GH2 style). I think Sexton is forgetting that if Oly or Panasonic would/could make a small non-slr type camera at the same specifications as the GH2 or the OMD, would many convert, or believe the image quality could be the same as their humongous DSLR? I think the design of these cameras was driven by marketing...of which the M43 companies were fully aware. This might change in the future as new non DSLR cameras are introduced. I also think he was a bit off in lumping the compacts and 4/3 cameras together as maybe becoming extinct. I think there is so little difference in APS-C and 4/3 (except the size complexities of lenses) that the smaller form factor of 4/3 is a point in M43 favor...but eventually. What Canon does, will have a large bearing on a lot of this. I do kind of think that M43 is getting pretty well established and won't fade from existence for a long time. Canon is a late comer, but Oly/Panny are racing to capture as many DSLR defectors as possible before Canon strikes. That's all just my opinion and of course I've never been wrong ;-) ;-)
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/
Violins dont have to look the way they do, we have seen minimal electric guitars that dont look like a guitar, yet they make electric acoustic guitars, a paintbrush need not have the shape of the handle it does... Yet these forms remain. There is an aesthetic appeal to tools, and with that appeal comes taste.
One mans taste and opinion does not have any more weight than anothers.
I think a product that harks back to a "golden age" of photography has its place. We are living in a sterile time of "aerodynamic" cars, moulded plastic products that all look very similar... A wealth of "simplistic" design such as th iPhone, iPad etc. But there are many people who love ornate, love to decorate.
While the Bauhaus was a movement that reflected the industrial in Design, it is no more or no less important than the Deco movement etc. I work in Design, and the common trend currently is to simplify, that is what many designers are taught in school. However the average person doesnt always want it simple, they may want it complex, they may want it colourful etc.
The OMD is aproduct designed to appeal to a market. If it doesnt appeal to you, it was never meant to.
Ab
--
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
Rriley
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 21,846
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 474
this image was released with Sigma's SD1
quite a few Sigma users requested such a finish from Sigma, alas ...
--
Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'
Thank you. I have been a SLR owner for 30 yrs. What do you know?
You are just drifting, clueless, waiting for clues from marketing.
QED.
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Photomonkey
Veteran Member
Photomonkey
Veteran Member
I respectfully disagree.
Pleasing form is never objective and is not necessarily related to function.
The fact that you no longer care for designs that were at one time greatly admired does not mean that they are objectively inferior.
Moreover, I think many suffer from the belief that because technology has changed so much we must necessarily see radical new forms never dreamed of as we now live in the future.
You will note that the current FASHION is the re-introduction of viewfinders on cameras. Yet everyone ignores how we got to the ridiculous state of having LCD only viewfinders on our P&S cameras in the first place.
This came about directly from the video camera innovation of having a flip out screen to follow the action easily. This was a true innovation in the camcorder field and was adapted to the still camera field as an "improvement". Never mind that one could no longer hold the camera steady, never mind that one could not even see their subjects in bright sun, never mind that one no longer had mechanical controls to override WB and exposure errors viewed on the screen. The fact that phones are the camera of choice for so many marries perfectly with this near useless method of aiming a camera.
While it is arguable that new tech allows us to experiment, we should not be slaves to the new fashion that the product MUST be demonstrably different. I think we actually have to acknowledge that the eye level viewfinder design of sixties era SLRs was not too bad and that we still have yet to make a substantial change to the form factor that actually makes sense.
Photomonkey
Veteran Member
I actually have dreamed of a modular camera that would permit an EVF to be mounted either on the left or right or even be tethered. The shutter release would then occupy the opposite side for you "weird" guys.
Olymore
Senior Member
Surely the OM-D with its user configurable controls is embracing modern technology by allowing you to use it the way you like. I agree the implementation of this configurability could have been better or better explained in the documentation at least.
A serious question. Given that there seem to be good engineering decisions for including a hump in the OM-D what would you have changed ?
Is it simply the aesthetics or is it the functionality ?
Personally I would have added a control ring around the lens mount as well but that arguably is even more retro (copying the OM cameras)
A serious question. Given that there seem to be good engineering decisions for including a hump in the OM-D what would you have changed ?
Is it simply the aesthetics or is it the functionality ?
Personally I would have added a control ring around the lens mount as well but that arguably is even more retro (copying the OM cameras)
I think that the E-M5 is an excellent camera. I am discussing on a more abstract plane.
As mirrorless competion develops there will be different solutions offered, so again my metaphor is a prize of design. Try to imagine what will be the most efficient/likeable design in the future.
Marketing is here for the short term, but in the long term?
I have no definite ideas, and Sexton didn't propose one. I am perfectly happy with the main feature of m4/3 as a digital back for numberless lenses.
My own gripe is that I push too often inadvertently buttons while holding the camera, so I suppose that might be improved. I also prefer to have the camera in a large pocket, instead than in a bag, and yet a built in EVF.
But it seems to me that we are almost there. So who will get there first?
Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
Yaaawn. Do we really have to go over this again? Can't you get that the "hump" is function and not form? The hump means view finder is centered on the lens axis, much preferable. The hump is in case of many DSLRs and the Panasonic G bodies also a housing for the build in flash. That is not function? In case of the EM-5 the hump contains some parts for the stabilization system.
The hump means lower shoulders to the left and the right for better reachable top plate controls. There is a reason why on the comparably unergonomic NEX bodies there is no analog mode dial.
The hump has nothing to do with retro. The Panaonic bodies are contemporary designs akin to DSLRs (for functional reasons), whereas Olympus tried to style the EM-5 as a reminiscence to the analog OM cameras. No idea, where you see here all the retro design. Currently only Olympus are doing it, the rest of the ILC vendors refrain from retro.
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!
There are plenty of hump less m4/3 bodies available. There is no reason to start another tiresome anti hump campaign again. To date, the hump cameras are by far the better ergonomic solutions.
Thomas
The hump means lower shoulders to the left and the right for better reachable top plate controls. There is a reason why on the comparably unergonomic NEX bodies there is no analog mode dial.
The hump has nothing to do with retro. The Panaonic bodies are contemporary designs akin to DSLRs (for functional reasons), whereas Olympus tried to style the EM-5 as a reminiscence to the analog OM cameras. No idea, where you see here all the retro design. Currently only Olympus are doing it, the rest of the ILC vendors refrain from retro.
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!
There are plenty of hump less m4/3 bodies available. There is no reason to start another tiresome anti hump campaign again. To date, the hump cameras are by far the better ergonomic solutions.
--
Thomas
Kuppenbender
Senior Member
The X-pro 1 is double the price. Might be another factor.
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.
Art_P
Forum Pro
--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"
Olymore
Senior Member
Thanks for the comprehensive reply.
It takes a leap of faith for a company to break away from the accepted designs and they can get their fingers burned (Olympus E330, Pentax K-01 probably) so I don't expect too many radical departures from normal.
Now if Apple were to design a camera...
It takes a leap of faith for a company to break away from the accepted designs and they can get their fingers burned (Olympus E330, Pentax K-01 probably) so I don't expect too many radical departures from normal.
Now if Apple were to design a camera...
TrapperJohn
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 16,488
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12,288
In fact, the 'hump' which really isn't very large, may well be one reason the EM5 is selling so well. That may sound absurd, but there is history on this subject.
Oly's first low cost 4/3 camera was the E300, a square, boxy shape, and a slow seller. Within a year, it had been redesigned into the E500, the same exact camera but a more conventional dslr look. It sold like crazy, Oly's first real hit in the dslr market. The obvious conclusion is: the E300's somewhat unconventional shape put off a lot of buyers.
So we have the mini-rangefinder style, the Pens and GF/GX. While quite capable, they look for all the world like a P&S. And the Panny G/GH, sort of a dslr design, but they really look like a bridge camera.
And now the EM5, which looks like a proper dslr, just smaller. It has drawn a huge amount of attention, and a huge number of buyers. I'm sure a lot of that is the hot performance, but it's not that much better than the G3 or GX1, is it?
But, it looks like a serious camera. And that is probably a factor in people outside of the normal M43 camp buying into it. That gives them the confidence to consider it in the first place.
So while Sexton may have interesting ideas on the 'perfect' design, I will counter with the argument that the camera that gets used the most makes the greatest difference. In order to get used the most, it has to get into a lot of hands.
If that means altering the appearance to increase the number of buyers, without altering the performance or capability, so be it.
I'd say - who cares what it looks like, but the market appears to be saying that a lot of people do care what it looks like.
Oly's first low cost 4/3 camera was the E300, a square, boxy shape, and a slow seller. Within a year, it had been redesigned into the E500, the same exact camera but a more conventional dslr look. It sold like crazy, Oly's first real hit in the dslr market. The obvious conclusion is: the E300's somewhat unconventional shape put off a lot of buyers.
So we have the mini-rangefinder style, the Pens and GF/GX. While quite capable, they look for all the world like a P&S. And the Panny G/GH, sort of a dslr design, but they really look like a bridge camera.
And now the EM5, which looks like a proper dslr, just smaller. It has drawn a huge amount of attention, and a huge number of buyers. I'm sure a lot of that is the hot performance, but it's not that much better than the G3 or GX1, is it?
But, it looks like a serious camera. And that is probably a factor in people outside of the normal M43 camp buying into it. That gives them the confidence to consider it in the first place.
So while Sexton may have interesting ideas on the 'perfect' design, I will counter with the argument that the camera that gets used the most makes the greatest difference. In order to get used the most, it has to get into a lot of hands.
If that means altering the appearance to increase the number of buyers, without altering the performance or capability, so be it.
I'd say - who cares what it looks like, but the market appears to be saying that a lot of people do care what it looks like.
Excuse me? Who the F. are you? Some oddball evangelical M43rds user? I own a design firm and we work with some of the largest multinationals in the world.
While you show absolutely no business sense, are completely clueless about Marketing and yet are one of the most prolific agitators relating to the 43rds and m43rds product lines.
I will clue you into a little secret... I actually work with one of the leading camera companies marketing divisions. Unlike you I get first hand experience with their intentions.
When I TELL you if a product doesnt appeal to you it wasnt designed for you you are too dumb to even get the point. Do you ***** about bras as well? Do you visit victoria secrets website and moan about the latest underwire?
Do you drive a small car, then talk about how dumb big car makers are for not building you a small car?
Do you buy a blue shirt and ***** about the red shirts?
Do you buy a hot dog and moan about hamburgers?
You talk about owning an SLR for 30 years SO WHAT?? What has that got to do with the OMD camera? Hey I have worn shoes for over 30 years and I have never bought a pair of loafers, stupid loafer makers.
Most people here dont even know what marketing is, they confuse advertising and marketing, they confuse product development and marketing, they confuse research and marketing. You are no exception, except you are rude AND ignorant.
You show the worst characteristics of a convert, you really do.
--
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
Andy Crowe
Senior Member
First of all a little pet peeve - so he "could care less" about what a camera looks like on a tripod, he must care a bit then because there's still room to care even less than he does now. Personally I couldn't care less but that's just me 
Anyway old film cameras look the way they look because without automatic controls everything had to be quickly accessible while holding the camera in a shooting position.
Once automatic controls and then digital came around it became necessary to control more functions than it would be possible to have switches and dials, so the standard hold button and turn a thumb dial became common.
However some people still prefer to use dials and to have quicker access to shutter and aperture, so any camera that uses this layout will look somewhat retro regardless of what the body looks like.
The fact is that with a camera like the E-M5 the only thing retro about it is the metal top and angular design, the fact it uses large control dials just happens to be the same functional choice that old film cameras settled on. Even the NEX 7 looks rather retro modern due to the control dials and angular body metal.
As for the K01 which is held up as an example of a modern design, having played with one the ergonomics are terrible, with important controls like the mode dial being well out of reach with one hand and very awkward to control with the other. If there was an example of form over function it would be that, not any of the retro cameras that have there controls in easy to adjust positions.
Anyway old film cameras look the way they look because without automatic controls everything had to be quickly accessible while holding the camera in a shooting position.
Once automatic controls and then digital came around it became necessary to control more functions than it would be possible to have switches and dials, so the standard hold button and turn a thumb dial became common.
However some people still prefer to use dials and to have quicker access to shutter and aperture, so any camera that uses this layout will look somewhat retro regardless of what the body looks like.
The fact is that with a camera like the E-M5 the only thing retro about it is the metal top and angular design, the fact it uses large control dials just happens to be the same functional choice that old film cameras settled on. Even the NEX 7 looks rather retro modern due to the control dials and angular body metal.
As for the K01 which is held up as an example of a modern design, having played with one the ergonomics are terrible, with important controls like the mode dial being well out of reach with one hand and very awkward to control with the other. If there was an example of form over function it would be that, not any of the retro cameras that have there controls in easy to adjust positions.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum