Ergonomic Roundup November 2013, Canon

Art  Deco Building. Still standing but for how much longer ?

 

Market Leader  Canon is the current market leader. Given this I think it is reasonable to expect Canon to have more funds for research and development than other camera makers. I think it is also reasonable to expect that Canon would have spent some of that R&D budget on developing the best possible ergonomics for it's cameras.  Unfortunately there is little evidence of this.  

My History with Canon  I started using Canon cameras in 1990, in the early days of the autofocus era and soon after Canon switched from the FD mount to the new EOS mount for it's SLR cameras. Since then I have owned and used 5 film SLR's and 3 DSLR's. I have owned 4 G Series advanced compacts and one small compact. By the way, the main reason I stopped using Canon DSLR's was their erratic autofocus accuracy. But that is another story.

DSLR  Canon has been using the same basic shape and control layout for 20 years. If this were absolutely the best possible arrangement, incapable of further improvement, then no further ergonomic development would be required.

But that is not the case. Canon uses the same basic shape and style for all it's DSLR's, large and small. I understand they might want to project a uniform and therefore easily recognisable corporate style, but big cameras and small cameras need to be shaped differently as they are all used by the same sized hands.   The smaller DSLR's in particular have cramped holding arrangements which could easily be fixed with a different shape.  The mid sized DSLR's have  generally decent ergonomics but they could easily be improved. I wrote about this with reference to the EOS 60D here.

Advanced Compacts - G Series  I have shown herethat it is possible to design a camera which is very compact but still has decent ergonomics. In other words, it provides pleasing, efficient,  holding, viewing and operating. Canon's G series cameras have been dancing around these three ergonomic essentials for years without having produced a single model which puts it all together. Handles, thumb support, control layout, control modules (dials, buttons etc) monitor (fixed or articulated) viewfinder (currently and for years a low quality item which does  not accurately preview the picture) are all items with which Canon tinkers from one iteration to the next without ever bringing all the elements into a coherent and satisfying whole.

Mirrorless ILC's  Last year with great fanfare, Canon announced it's first ever MILC,   the EOS-M. You might have thought that being last player to enter the MILC game, Canon would have analysed all it's competitors' offerings, identified their strengths and weaknesses,  and presented the world with a category killer product. What actually emerged was arguably the least appealing new camera release in world history.  They took an entry level DSLR, removed the bits for holding (the handle and thumb support) chopped off the bits for viewing (the viewfinder and articulated monitor) and deleted many of the bits for operating (dials and buttons). They then presented this to the market at the same price as the original DSLR. ........

And then  wondered why consumers avoided the thing in droves.

Summary  Canon once had a dynamic, adventurous camera division not afraid to venture into new territory with regard to technology and design. Now  they appear to have gone to sleep. The disaster of the EOS-M indicates that Canon has lost touch with it's actual and more importantly, potential customers. Further, the EOS-M  suggests there is a lack of understanding about basic ergonomics in Canon's product development team.  They are able to iterate slight upgrades of an already established line, such as their DSLR's,  but when presented with the challenge of a completely new camera concept as with the MILC, they failed completely.

Crystal Ball  I think Canon is in serious trouble. If cameras are to survive the onslaught of smartphones and other phablets and gadgets which can take photos, they need to be engaging and enjoyable to use. They need excellent ergonomics.

The DSLR has no future and Canon has no credible MILC  with which to replace the DSLR.

I believe Canon's market dominance today is the result of brand  strength  built up in the years 1990 to about 2005. Recent years have not seen the same development in conceptual appeal, image quality, performance or ergonomics. I think consumers will eventually tire of Canon's lack of innovative development and look elsewhere.  I suspect the only thing which has, until recently,  been saving Canon from disaster in the marketplace has been weak and inconsistent competition from the camera making opposition.