MILC 4th Birthday Report Part 3 Panasonic

MILC FOURTH BIRTHDAY REPORT

Part 3, Panasonic Lumix G-with-EVF cameras

Author AndrewS November 2012

Introduction  I have allocated a separate section of this report to Panasonic for three reasons. First, the only camera gear I now own, with more to come,  is Panasonic Lumix bodies and lenses so I have given considerable thought to various questions about Panasonic M43 equipment. Second,  Pansonic has been in the MILC-with-EVF  business longer than other makers and has produced more models providing  substantial material for study.  Third, the G5 and GH3 models show clear signs of  improved ergonomic design.

Panasonic M43     Panasonic was first cab off the [EVF] MILC rank and has released the most new models which can use the greatest range and variety of lenses. There are four camera lines: the GF series for compact upgraders, GX series for enthusiasts who prefer a camera without EVF, G-with-EVF-but-without-a-letter series for GF and GX upgraders, superzoom upgraders and DSLR downsizers. The top of the range GH series are hybrid still/video cameras for expert/enthusiast and professional users. The forthcoming GH3 is aimed at the high end of the ILC market.

Concept: All the above may sound like the moves of a company with a vision to conquer the photographic world. But as I write this Panasonic appears to be in fairly deep financial trouble and making a loss on it's camera division. No doubt there are many reasons for this but I want to highlight just one, which has to do with the conceptual integrity of it's G/GH-with-EVF cams. I have been wondering for some time why MILC's and Panasonic M43 cams in particular have not made more inroads into CaNikon's DSLR hegemony. I believe there are  issues related to concept, implementation, performance and marketing.

The ill fated Lumix L1. I have never held one of these but you can see straight away there are many ergonomic problems with this camera. Like the On/Off switch where the thumb rest should be and the rows of identical buttons right and left of the monitor that the user would never locate by feel.

Panasonic's first [4/3 System] DSLR was the L1 of 2006. For reasons known only to themselves, Panasonic and Olympus with the same-inside E330, designers chose to use a sideways mounted focus screen and reflex mirror system.  This provided no functional or ergonomic advantage over the standard  DSLR shape. Were they trying to make a DSLR which looked like a rangefinder ?  I doubt many buyers would have realised it was a DSLR, or in fact understood what it was.  In the words of  Digital Photography Review's Simon Joinson,  the L1...."failed to translate into actual sales". There were various problems: it was too expensive, the EVF was "dismal" and the live view "clunky". But I think the other, more fundamental problem might have been that  the camera lacked conceptual integrity.

Panasonic's next offering  in the 4/3 DSLR system was the L10, about a year later. This looked like the standard layout DSLR which it was. Simon Joinson described the L10 as having "excellent handling and ergonomics"  and offered the view that the L10 "...is designed perfectly and fits your hand very well." High praise indeed.  But it was also "shockingly overpriced" which probably ensured buyers would go elsewhere.

At this point Panasonic made two major decisions, one I believe was  absolutely right, the other a mistake. I say this with the benefit of hindsight of course. It is always easier to evaluate the merit of some decision when one has had the opportunity to consider the outcome.

The really good decision was to drop the 4/3 DSLR format altogether and embrace the newly developed, mirrorless, Micro 4/3 format. Panasonic was never going to gain market share from CaNikon while it tried to play them at their own game. They needed to start a new game with a potentially disruptive innovation and had the corporate courage to do so.  In any event they no doubt saw the writing on the wall for the traditional DSLR camera type. This meant building an entire new system from nothing. Bravo Panasonic [and Olympus].

Photograph courtesy of Digital Photography Review
You can see the G1 is a scaled down L10. Not shown in this picture is a superzoom which is also the same shape but scaled down even further. This might have pleased the corporate stylists possibly keen to portray a unified image but was a backwards step ergonomically

The bad decision, in my view, was to make the first M4/3 camera, the G1, the same shape and style as the L10 but scaled down in size. I think this strategy erred in two ways.

First it lacked conceptual integrity. The G1 is not a DSLR. In fact the whole point to the very existence of the G1 is precisely that it is NOT a DSLR.  In any taxonomy of camera types Micro Four Thirds would occupy  a different genus with different characteristics and potentialities.  So, why did they make it look like a little DSLR ?  I don't know so here comes a bit of speculation.  I think that there might be a perception in the minds of some consumers that  a "proper camera" looks like a DSLR.  I imagine Pansonic identified this from surveys and so decided  to make the G1 this shape. But I think this was a  mistake even though it may have seemed prudent at the time. Why? Because CaNikon has successfully trained consumers to accept the perception that "Bigger is Better", and therefore, presumably "Smaller is less capable."  And Panasonic was selling smaller. My hypothesis is that many consumers simply could not accept the proposition that the smallest ever DSLR look-a-like camera was worth  their consideration. Especially  when it cost more than an entry level DSLR from one of the established makers and failed to provide better image quality.

So in two steps, Panasonic moved from the L1 which was a DSLR but did not look like one, to the G1 which was not, but looked like, a baby DSLR.  If they were trying to confuse their customers they could hardly have done a better job.

The second error was to scale down a larger camera. Engineers can scale down the size of a camera's components.  But the hands which use the device do not scale down at all. They remain obstinately the same size regardless of the device.  If you look at a photograph of the G1 beside an L10 you will see the two appear almost identical apart from their size. While the L10 received a good rating for ergonomics, the G1  was my wake up call to the ergonomic deficiencies of MILC's. This was Panasonic's version of the mistake Rollei made with the SL2000F, which I referred to in Part 2 of this MILC review.  Small cameras can be designed to have excellent ergonomics. But this requires a shape which is completely different from that of large cameras. The purpose of my camera mockups project has been to explore what exactly is that shape.

In Part 5 of my camera ergonomics series on this blog titled "Introduction to some basic concepts" I introduced the idea that some challenges are conceptually easy but technically difficult to solve. Others are the reverse, technically easy but conceptually difficult. Camera Ergonomics falls into the latter category. My perception of camera makers is that they are good at solving technical problems but very much less effective and often appear to flounder rudderless in the face of conceptual challenges.  Panasonic is not alone in this. I rate all current MILC's as having ergonomic deficiencies, some more glaring than others.   It costs no more to produce a camera with good ergonomics than one with bad ergonomics so cost is not the issue.

Implementation:  I won't bore you with every detail of  the history of Panasonic's implentation of MILC's but some key issues may be of interest.

Let's start with handles. The handle on the G1 was such an egregious mismatch with my hand it set me on a path of research into camera handles and holding. I discuss these matters and others including functional anatomy at length in previous articles on  this blog. Briefly the G1 uses a  projecting handle when it needs a parallel handle.  This could  be realised by shifting the lens axis across to the left and redesigning the layout of the right side of the body. Panasonic kept the same handle design with the G2, G10, GH1 and GH2. There were small but worthwhile detail improvements on the GH2 which improved the handling qualities of that model, but the basic structural problem remained.  With the G3 the handle was reduced to a vestigial bump which proved to be an ergonomic step backwards. The G5 saw the lens axis moved left and the handle redesigned to be wider with the shutter release button inset further from the right side. There is also more shaping for the fingers and a more angled thumbrest. This is a hybrid projecting/parallel handle which is an improvement over that on the GH2 and a sign that Panasonic is starting to get the message about ergonomics. The GH3 would appear from the published photographs and early reviews to be a further step forward in handle design.

Next,  let us investigate mode dependent scroll wheels. I regard these as of such importance to the operation of a modern electronic camera that I gave them a whole article on this blog in June 2012.   Panasonic's adventures with scroll wheels remind me of the 1955 Hitchcock movie "The Trouble with Harry".  Harry was dead, you see, and nobody could work out where to put him. Just like Panasonic has been unable to work out where to put their scroll wheels, some of which might as well have been dead as they were well nigh inaccessible. The G1, 2 and GH1 have the scroll wheel upper front on the handle where it is blocked by the middle finger in normal hold position. So to operate the scroll wheel the user has to support the camera completely with the left hand, shift grip with the right hand so the right index finger can access the scroll wheel, make the adjustment then return all hands and fingers to normal positions. With the G10, G3, GH2 and G5  the scroll wheel was sent to the back, upper right. On the G3 the wheel is almost completely buried in the thumb rest so to operate the wheel the user has to flex the thumb metacarpo phalangeal and interphalangeal joints, release thumb opposition, support the camera with the left hand and press on the wheel with the very tip of the thumb, just beneath the nail bed. This is awkward, inefficient and  painful on repeated use. The wheel on the GH2 and G5 is a little more exposed so is easier to operate. However the serrations on the wheel are too broad and smooth. This means the wheel is dificult to operate reliably with the interphalangeal joint of the thumb held straight. Bending the joint leads to more reliable operation of the wheel with the pad of the distal phalanx of the thumb, but this produces more disruption to the grip. With the G5 there is a little control lever just behind the shutter release button indicating that they figured out this is a good place for a  UIM.   With the GH3 they finally, at last,  on their eighth try at a MILC-with-EVF,   put a scroll wheel behind the shutter button which is where it should have been all along. Better late than never, I guess.

A few observations about Four way controllers [Cursor Buttons in Panasonic Operating Instructions] are in order.  From the G1 to the GH2  Panasonic used the "Five Buttons" type of module.  Samsung's first MILC  the NX10,  used the "Rocking Saucer" style module.  I used the G1 and NX10 together for a time and discovered the rocking saucer type to be very  much easier to locate and operate with the thumb by feel.  The difference is like night and day. The thumb can easily find the clearly delineated edge of a rocking saucer if it is correctly shaped. But even after six months of diligent practice with the GH2, I cannot reliably find and operate the five buttons on that camera without looking at them.  The G5 has a modified rocking saucer module which is much easier to use. It could be further improved if the edges of the saucer were slightly more prominent.  Of course if these cameras had properly located and designed JOG levers they wouldn't need four way controllers at all.

Camera design and political policy  In Part 2 of this review I alluded to a similarity between camera design and policy development in politics. Both camera designers and political policy makers refer in their promotional material to the use of consumer surveys in the process of developing their way forward.  The problem with this type of discovery is that it reveals respondents' current likes, wants, anxieties and preferences.  As I discussed in Part 2 of my initial series of articles on this blog, these are transient, idiosyncratic and often unformulated. They can be useful in evaluating consumer's responses to a policy or product and this can inform a marketing strategy. However they are an unreliable basis for the design itself.

So What is my prescription for Panasonic and the other MILC makers ?

I think they need to do four things

1. Establish a consumer directed culture in head office and all the branches.

2. Make  products which have conceptual integrity.

3. Ensure excellent ergonomic implementation.

4. Commit to vigorous effective marketing reaching out to potential buyers.

Maybe the camera makers think they are already doing those things but from my perspective as a consumer that does not appear to be the case.

If  I  were the Great Panjandrum at Panasonic and perhaps they are fortunate I am not, I would structure their camera lineup as listed below, with no cameras above basic compacts lacking an EVF .  I know that the GF and GX series M43 cams are big sellers for Panasonic so they probably have to keep M43 cams without EVF in the lineup. But I find them to be irritating little things, hard to get ahold of and almost unusable in sunlight or with a long lens fitted.  Still, some people love them........

From the bottom:

Cameras without EVF, small sensor

* Standard compacts without EVF while there is still a market for them.

Cameras with EVF

 * Small sensor:  

* Travel Zooms, SuperZooms.

* Advanced Compacts, like LX7 but with EVF.

* Four Thirds Sensor  [13.0 x 17.3mm] Each of  these cams uses the latest and best sensor available. They differ in size, features and operational capabilities.

 *  High performance fixed zoom lens compact with EVF. The camera which the Canon G1X failed to be.

*  Small Micro Four Thirds interchangeable lens camera with EVF.

*  Larger, but still compact, pro style Micro Four Thirds interchangeable lens camera with EVF.

Rationale  Maybe the people at Panasonic believe their battle is with CaNikon and I guess that would be true at one level. But I think their real test is to reach out to and engage with photographers who use cameras for the purpose of making photographs. They need to make and market products which are enjoyable to use, which handle well and operate in harmony with the user's intentions. This means they need to concentrate on the photographic fundamentals of image quality, performance and ergonomics, which devolves to holding, viewing and operating.

Cameras these days are festooned with  announceable gimmicks, many of which add little or nothing to the process of making photographs. But the design elements which I am proposing all enhance the photographic experience. These include a straightforward menu system, built in EVF,  built in pop up flash for backlit subjects, proper ergonomic handle, ergonomically designed, located and configured UIM's, good swing out monitor, good lenses, and all this in a compact package. The marketing speil might be "Real Cameras for Real Photographers" or something like that.

I very much doubt many camera users would care if their camera contained mirrors and prisms or electronic imaging modules, just as many car buyers neither know nor care whether their vehicle drives the front wheels or the rear. These things exercise engineers, not consumers.

Some "non core" features may well be important for buyers who find them useful and so the makers need to include them. These could include things like Wi-Fi, GPS etc.

Shape and Style  My vision of the shape and style which provides conceptual integrity and ergonomic excellence is realised by the mockups which appear in the attached photographs.

Panasonic G cams-vs-Mockups, Dimensions and Volumes

Body	Width  mm	Height mm	Depth  mm	Box Volume   c.c
G5	120	86	70	722
Small Mockup	123	82	61	615
GH2	124	90	74	826
GH3	133	93	82	1014
Large Mockup	141	90	71	901



On the left is the G5 with Lumix 14-45mm zoom lens. You might not realise it from the photo because they are a different shape and one is silver which makes it appear larger,  but the mockup on the right actually has smaller dimensions and box size than the G5, but better ergonomics.

 Small EVF camera  The photo shows a Panasonic G5 next to my small mockup. The mockup is a little wider and lower than the faux DSLR shape of the G5. It is not as deep because the EVF eyepiece does not have to protrude so far back for comfortable viewing with the right eye. Left eye viewers are not well catered for by either design style but at least the "EVF left" setup is no worse for lefties than "EVF on lens axis".  It's  box volume is smaller yet the mockup provides significantly better ergonomics. The handle is taller, wider and more shaped to fit the right hand. There is much more space on the top deck for control modules. The thumb rest and control panel on the back are larger and better shaped for holding and operating. All the buttons can be larger. There is space for a JOG lever which I regard as a "must have" for an ergonomic camera as it is by far the best UIM which I have yet encountered for rapidly moving active AF area and it can be used to speed up item selection in menus and playback.

On the left is a GH2 with Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 pro grade zoom. The mockup on the right is the same height as the GH2 but has less depth and 16mm more width. It fits easily into the same space in my camera bags. Their handling qualities are like night and day. For a small increase in size over the GH2  the mockup [which is still smaller than the GH3] has dramatically improved handling and operating characteristics. [well, it would if it were a real camera]. The genuine, non patented, non optical peanut butter jar lens appears to be large enough for an f2 version of the 12-35mm lens should anyone ever choose to make one. 

Pro Style EVF camera  I don't yet have a GH3 to photograph so the GH2 which is not really "pro grade" will have to suffice for the moment. My large mockup is aimed at the market position occupied by the GH3. The mockup is a little wider and lower than the GH3 with less depth. This gives a layout with the advantages described above for the small mockup with significantly less box volume than the GH3. When developing the shape of the mockups I was very careful to ensure that large, medium or small hands could hold and operate the camera easily by moving up or down the handle.

Mockup evolution  The mockups were developed "in the hand". The only measurements approximately preset by measured dimension were the body depth,  lens mount diameter, allowance for the monitor and control panel.  The rest I grew in somewhat organic fashion to fit my average sized adult male hands, adding and removing pieces of wood until everything felt right.

Mockup styling  The resulting shape of the mockups was not predetermined but arose naturally from the design process.   This gives the mockups their unique shape which has conceptual integrity. I have no idea whether people will find their shape pleasing on first sight but I bet they will find the  handling qualities of a real camera designed this way very pleasing indeed.  I liken the process of designing these mockups to that which resulted in the early SLR's of the 1960's. They had the shape which resulted inevitably from their mechanical function. People have gotten accustomed to that shape but they can just as readily come to favour a different shape if it provides significant handling and operating benefits, which it can do if implemented properly.

MILC 4th Birthday Report Part 2, Concept, Implementation , Ergonomics

MIRRORLESS INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERAS      [MILC]

Fourth Birthday Report   Part Two

Ergonomics, Concept and Implementation

Author  AndrewS   November 2012 

Ergonomic Evaluation   This is the second part of my review of current MILC-with-EVF cameras.  I have owned and used Samsung NX, Panasonic G/GH and Olympus EM5 cameras and lenses. I have also made, remade and modified  numerous camera mockups. I discovered many things about ergonomics from all this and have published my findings about ergonomic principles and the operation of specific cameras in many articles on this blog. It is quite possible to make some observations about the ergonomic operation of a camera using information from product photographs, listed specifications and published user feedback. I have used these  sources of information for my comments on some of the cameras referred to in this article.  I am not beholden directly or indirectly to any maker or vendor of photographic products.

Personal Bias ?  Some readers may think the material which follows is just Andrew taking the opportunity to air personal preferences.  Fair enough,  that is inevitable with any opinion piece.   However the presentation is informed by years of hands on experience which I hope will make it useful or at least interesting for those who read on.

Photograph courtesy of camerasize.com
On the left Canon EOS 5D2 [43mm sensor] with 24-70mm f2.8 lens, In the center, Canon EOS 60D [27mm sensor] with 17-55mm f2.8 lens, On the right, Panasonic GH3 [21.5mm sensor] with 12-35mm f2.8 lens. Each of these combinations gives the same field of view range [the 17-55 has slightly less FOV than the others] and aperture.  

Photograph courtesy of camerasize.com
Same camera bodies as above. On the left, 70-200mm f2.8 lens, In the center 70-200mm f4 lens, On the right 35-100mm f2.8 lens.  The 35-100mm on the GH3 matches the 70-200mm on the 5D2 for field of view range and aperture.  There is no exact match for the 60D so I included the 70-200mm f4  for an approximate comparison, albeit with smaller FOV and aperture. These two photos show that lens size is the main contributor to total kit size particularly if longer lenses are included.

Concept and Implementation     In this essay I will consider each maker's MILC-with-EVF offerings from two perspectives:

* Conceptual Integrity.

* Ergonomically Coherent Implementation.

What do I mean by conceptual integrity ? Perhaps some examples will help explain the idea. Through the 1970's and 80's most 35mm SLR's looked very similar. Many medium format cameras were based on the original Hasselblad shape and also looked quite similar.  Then Rollei had the (not so) bright idea to make a 35mm SLR in the form of a medium format camera. This emerged as the SL2000F of 1981, followed by the 3003 in 1985. These cameras flopped in the market place, no doubt for various reasons, but I believe one of those reasons was that the basic concept was wrong. A user interface which worked just fine at medium format size did  not downscale to 35mm size at all. The engineers could downsize the components but not the user's hands.

Here is another Rollei themed  example. One of the most famous cameras of all time was the Rollieflex 2.8F rollfilm Twin Lens Reflex. This was an excellent, some might say sublime, example of conceptual integrity and well designed implementation.  Then someone made a plastic, mini, digital version scaled down to 75mm height. I don't imagine this was ever intended to be more than a conversation piece but apparently it did make pictures. This example is a bit silly but it is a gross example of a product with poor, in this case laughable,  conceptual integrity.

For a more recent example let us consider the Panasonic L-1 of 2007 and its twin-under-the-skin Olympus E-330. These were 4/3 system DSLR cameras. Instead of  the standard top mounted prism and viewfinder arrangement they had a sideways mounted focussing screen and system of mirrors leading to a viewfinder over towards the left side of the camera (as viewed by the user). Why did Panasonic and Olympus adopt this design ?  It did not work any better than a standard shape DSLR and the user interface was not an improvement. Maybe they were trying for a more compact package.  Did they want it to look like a rangefinder ?  Who knows ?   In any event buyers failed to embrace the idea and it was discontinued.   I think at least part of the problem was a lack of conceptual integrity.  I will return to the ongoing problems [well, I think they are problems] with conceptual integrity being experienced by Panasonic in Part 3 of this review.

Readers will bring their own experience and opinions to this type of discussion so I do not ask  the reader to agree or disagree with anything I write but to use this material as an additional source of ideas [if such be desired] about camera design and consumer choices.

 
Leica   

Concept: Leica has been making M-rangefinder ["messsucher"] cameras since the M3 of 1954. The current model M9 operates in essentially the same fashion but with an electronic sensor instead of film.  These cameras are mirrorless and have interchangeable lenses. I am very familiar with  M Leica and SLR film cameras featuring all manual control, having used them for many years. They require regular practice to attain the level of skill required for best results and as a result are satisfying to use. The main controls for primary Exposure [Aperture, Shutter Speed] and Focus [Manual Focus by ring and scale] operate by direct mechanical connection with tactile and kinesthetic feedback to the user. Cameras configured like this made perfect sense in a  mechanical world.

Implementation:  Mechanical aspects of the Leica user interface work just as they have done for almost 60 years which is no bad thing. However some of the electronic functions are poorly implemented.

In all my years of using film cameras I yearned for one improvement to the way cameras operated. This was the ability to magically change film speed in mid roll. Then along came digital and the magic became real. The ability to change ISO any time moved "film speed" up from  Prepare Phase to Capture Phase along with the other primary exposure parameters.  Or at least it could if implemented effectively. But some camera makers just don't get it.

To alter ISO on the M9 you have to press and hold the ISO button which is one of 5 identical buttons on the left side of the monitor screen and while so doing  rotate the control dial on the right side until the desired value is reached. To do this you must stop taking photos, lower the camera from the eye, shift grip with the left hand from the lens to the left side of the body, shift grip with the right hand to get the thumb onto the dial, find the ISO button,  push and hold the button while turning the dial then return your hands and fingers to the capture position.  Lest the reader think this ergonomic deficiency might be a Leica problem, check out the recently released Nikon D600, which has almost exactly the same ISO button arrangement.

Fujifilm    Fuji's entries in the MILC contest are the  X-Pro1 and X-E1.   I have some hands on experience with Fuji cameras. I owned an X10 compact for several months and have had the opportunity to use an X100 owned by a family member.  Unfortunately some of the design problems which I encountered on those two cameras have been transferred across to Fuji's MILC's.

Concept:   Fuji's MILC's are fully electronic but  the X-Pro1 in particular is styled and configured to reprise an M Leica. It's a look-a-Leica.   However unlike the Leica which still uses mechanical lenses, the Fujis are all electronic devices. For a  mechanical camera the lens focus ring, lens aperture ring and shutter speed dial are located where found because of their mechanical connections.  The arrangement has conceptual integrity. But an electronic camera can assign any type and location of UIM (user interface module) to operate any function.  If the layout of a 1950's era mechanical camera has attained such ergonomic perfection that improvement is not possible then so be it, all cameras should have that design. But improvement is readily possible in the electronic era. So why look backwards ? Of course some camera buyers will declare they consider the retro look and layout really cool, or maybe hot, whatever, but I think it just lacks basic conceptual integrity. The X-E1 with it's all electronic viewfinder is a more versatile proposition [it can accept macro, zoom, very wide angle and telephoto lenses which rangefinders cannot accommodate with an optical viewfinder] but the lens aperture and shutter speed controls are still in the same place.

Implementation:   I mention just a few of the many implementation problems with these cameras. The lens axis is inset from the left side of the camera (as viewed by the user) about 75mm. This makes sense on the X-Pro1 [but not the X-E1] to keep the lens out of the OVF field of view. But it also leaves insufficient room on the right side for a proper handle. When the maker gets around to offering telephoto lenses for these cameras the lack of a handle will become a real issue. The rear control dial, which doesn't actually have a function in normal Capture Phase, is located where the right thumb will press on it in normal hold position. Fuji put the rear dial in the same place on the X100 and X10 leading to a brisk trade in aftermarket thumb rests. Simply relocating the dial slightly to the left and ergonomically shaping the thumb rest built into the camera would easily fix all this. The 4 way controller is of the "5 buttons" type. The buttons on this type of UIM are difficult to locate and operate by feel. the "Rocking Saucer" type is much more user friendly. The AF button is the bottom one of three [X-Pro1] or four [X-E1] identical buttons on the left side of the monitor. You have to press this to start the process by which the active AF area can be moved around the frame. But to do so you must go through a task sequence similar to that described above for changing ISO on the M9. It means, in effect, that one of the operational advantages of the mirrorless design has been neutralised by poor and completely unnecessary UIM design.  

Sony     Sony Corporation has a history of innovation. Their cameras have often been leaders in the technnology race, not always backed up by good implementation.

There are currently  two NEX-with-EVF cameras, the NEX 7 and NEX 6. 

Concept:  I regard the  Sony NEX cameras, especially those with EVF as the most unambiguous current expression of the MILC genre.  They are not a reprise or pastiche of some other camera type. They are not emulating a DSLR or a classic rangefinder or somebody's favourite 1980's film SLR.  Their design directly expresses the unique characteristics of the new camera genre, the MILC.  Bravo Sony. 

Implementation:  Here we find many problems.  NEX cams use the 28mm diagonal sensor size. So, while the bodies are miracles of compact engineering the lenses must fit the sensor and thus are about the same size as any other maker's lenses designed for that size sensor and appreciably larger than Micro Four Thirds lenses. If the achievement of smallness was an integral part of the NEX project [and the bodies surely leave one in no doubt about that] then the lenses are a constant impediment to realisation of that goal. Actually I do not see smallness past a certain point to be an inherently virtuous characteristic. Cameras which radically downsize become difficult to handle and create their own design problems. For  instance the NEX 6/7 rubber eyecup protrudes beyond the top and left side of the body where it is likely to get snagged every time the camera is placed in or removed from it's carry bag.

There are many issues with the user interface, both hard [buttons, dials etc] and soft [menus].  The first round of  NEX-without-EVF models had a user interface stripped of  most hard UIM's. This may have been satisfactory for the snapshooter never wishing to leave one of the "All Auto" modes.  But Sony and most other MILC makers apear not to have understood initially that many buyers who wanted a camera with interchangeable lenses also wanted the level of user control over camera operation which came as standard with a DSLR.  The early models had a user interface which was extremely frustrating for the controller. Later models including the 6 and 7 do acknowlege the requirements of controllers but the user interface of the 6 and 7 has been laid over the top of  [in the case of scroll wheels and Mode dial, literally on top of]  the original physical and electronic architecture from the 3 and 5 making for a combination lacking coherence.  Consider, for example, the function of  the AEL AF/MF button. As described in the Digital Photography Review NEX7 report, the behaviour of this button is defined by no fewer than four menu options on three menus, with the resultant function "....not entirely obvious from the manual...." I regard this as completely unacceptable especially given that it is easy to create a user interface in which button functions can be set in direct and simple fashion from a list.

In a recently published review on his SansMirror website, Thom Hogan wrote  "To put it simply the the NEX menu system is a mess."

There are also specific issues with the physical user interface.   My studies of functional anatomy applied to camera design, which you can read about elsewhere on this blog, indicate that the best finger to operate a scroll wheel is the right index, as it has high tactile and kinesthetic sensitivity and is the only one not required for holding the device. There is enough space on the NEX cams for a scroll wheel in the optimum location just behind and at the same height as the shutter release button. But with the NEX7, Sony's designers chose to allocate no scroll wheel to the index finger but three scroll wheels to the thumb. This makes the user interface ergonomically unbalaced. The thumb must stop gripping the camera while trying to manage three scroll wheels. Meanwhile the index finger sits there doing nothing. With the NEX6, they finally got the message that a Mode Dial is a really good idea for an electronic camera but then stuck it on top of and on the same axis as  the thumb operated scroll wheel where it might be bumped off  position inadvertently. Then there is the location of the video button about which there have been many complaints on user forums. 

Nikon   With it's long and proud history of making well regarded cameras one might have expected Nikon's first foray into the mirrorless sector would be with a product which achieved excellence in all ways including ergonomics.

Concept:  One might have expected the new MILC to clearly define  an upgrade path on the "Nikon Way" with a coherent and familiar user interface from compact to MILC to DSLR.  But no, they came up with the 1 series which appeared to have been designed with no connection to other Nikon products at all, apart from the adapter for existing lenses.

Implementation:     Then they gave the 1 series truly awful ergonomics making one wonder whether anyone at Nikon actually understands the basic principles of functional anatomy and user interface design. My question is, how could they make cameras, many well regarded, for 75 years yet be unable to transfer (mostly) good ergonomics from the established product line to the new ?  I don't pretend to know the answer to this question but I do have a theory about it. The shape and layout of early SLR designs were dictated by the mechanical and optical relationships between the various parts. Thus the lens mount, flipping mirror, focus screen, pentaprism, film pathway, wind on and rewind cranks and shutter release button were all located where they had to be for their mechanical or optical connections to function. The height and depth of the camera body were determined by the need to make room for the film and the flipping mirror. Each new model made small iterative changes to the details without changing the basic SLR architecture. But when confronted with the task of designing a completely new camera from a blank sheet with no set mechanical requirements, the designers appear to have found themselves completely adrift, without a book containing  basic principles of ergonomics and guidelines as to how they should proceed.

Canon   Canon was the last of the major camera makers to release a MILC, four years after the Panasonic G1.  Canon's product development people had abundant opportunity to examine all the competition, identify the strengths and weaknesses of each then deliver a category killer product.  What we got was the most underwhelming, derivative, uninspiring new MILC of them all.

Concept:  I struggle to identify any clearly expressed concept  behind the EOS-M.  It looks like they took an EOS 650D, chopped off  the useful parts for holding and viewing then  priced it the same as the 650D.  Is that a concept ???   

Implementation:  Actually I shouldn't even be commenting about it here as I elected only to deal with the cameras having a built in EVF, which the EOS-M  lacks. It lacks almost everything else too, such as a handle, decent thumbrest, any chance of attaching a viewfinder, built in flash, swing out monitor, Shooting Mode Dial, suite of hard UIM's  or fast autofocus.  Maybe it is just a "toe in the water" exercise for Canon which appears not to have noticed that there are a lot of other toes in that particular water and many of them look, and operate, almost exactly the same as the EOS-M.  Presumably Canon has a range of follow up product options on the launching ramp and ready to go, so we shall see what comes next.

Olympus M43     Olympus was a founding adopter of the Micro Four Thirds format but in the first three years produced 7 camera models with not a built in EVF to be seen.  Maybe they were trying to protect their existing 4/3 format DSLR line.  The OMD-EM-5 may be the product which turns Olympus' camera fortunes around, with a lot of help from Sony, which supplies the sensor and has become a significant investor in Olympus Corporation. The EM-5 is clearly designed to be a highly competent all rounder, able to take on almost any photographic challenge. And it almost succeeds, despite problems with concept and implementation.

Concept:  This is a very modern, all electronic digital MILC for the 21st Century yet someone at Olympus thought it would be a good idea to make it look (somewhat) like one of their 1980's OM series SLR film cameras. In my assessment the result is conceptual dissonance between the image and the reality. It is not a 1980's film SLR so why make it look like one ?  I bet the majority of potential buyers for the EM5 neither know nor care that it looks somewhat like an OM4ti.

Implementation:  The conceptual dissonance inherent in the EM5 has ergonomic consequences. There is no room for an inbuilt flash. The control modules are small and cramped, making several of them awkward to operate. There is no built in handle so you have to buy one as an accessory. Having done so the top deck of the camera is cluttered up with three scroll wheels and two shutter buttons, taking up valuable camera real estate which could have been used more productively.  I bought an EM5 earlier this year and was impressed with it's image quality and some of it's advanced features.  But I sold it  because, despite spending a lot of time and effort trying to learn it's unique characteristics,  I could not engage with this camera's user interface.  Every time I went to use it,  I felt like a student sitting for an exam and repeatedly failing.

 Pentax    Pentax has two MILC's, the Q/Q10 and K-01, neither with EVF unfortunately. The Q is like a small sensor compact but with interchangeable lenses some of which are designated "Toy" lenses, which might be a clue as to the Q's place in the camera world.

The K-01 appears to be an attempt to produce a MILC but keep faith with the scattered tribes of K mount lens owners. Then they got a guy who does furniture and jewellery to design it. Hmmmmm....

Ricoh    Ricoh's entry into the MILC sector is the  GXR with it's unique system consisting of base module with handle, controls and monitor, [but without built in EVF]  plus interchangeable lensor [lens plus sensor] modules. If you want to buy a new lens you must have the sensor which comes with it in the same module.  There has not been a rush of buyers to embrace this concept.

I see camera design as having parallels with  politics. Designers and policy developers have to be seen as innovative yet safe, as dramatised in the 1980's British TV programme, "Yes Minister". I suspect that Sir Humphrey Appleby might have described the Pentax K-01 and the Ricoh GXR as "courageous", the kiss of death for any policy thus described.

Samsung   I really don't know why Samsung bothers with cameras, the production of which represents a very small fraction of one percent of total  corporate product output. I bought a Samsung NX10  soon after it's release in 2010. It had better image quality and better ergonomics than the Panasonic G1. I used this and it's slightly updated successor the NX11 for two years with a variety of lenses, some of which were of good quality. But after boasting it was going to conquer the world of MILC's, Samsung failed to deliver the goods and was soon overtaken by the best of the MILC crowd.  These days it's not clear to me as a consumer what Samsung Imaging's intentions might be regarding camera development. Will they persevere with the NX line ?   I can't determine this from Samsung's press or product releases and have moved to M43 where there does appear to be a committment to making cameras.

Panasonic  is last on my list and because I have quite a bit to say about Panasonic's adventures in MILC land it gets all of Part 3 of this fourth birthday review.

Mirrorless ILC's Fourth Birthday Report Part 1 of 3

MIRRORLESS INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERAS

[MILC]

Fourth birthday report:  One user's view of progress in the MILC world

Part One [of three]: Design, Size , Quality

Author AndrewS      November 2012

In the beginning   In  2004, Seiko Epson/Cosina announced the world's first rangefinder digital camera, the Epson R-D1, able to accept interchangeable Leica M and L mount lenses.  It was discontinued in 2007 with no successor.  In 2006, Leica introduced it's first M series camera with an electronic sensor, the M8, but this still had manual focus and lens operation.   The Panasonic G1 was announced for Photokina in September 2008. This was the first all new, electronic MILC with EVF and autofocus.  At the time of writing there have since then been  57 new MILC models from 10 manufacturers. In the same period there have been 63 new DSLR's from 6 manufacturers.  

Author's perspective  I am an enthusiast/expert amateur photographer with over 50 years experience. I used  film SLR's then DSLR's for many years but became disenchanted with two aspects of the DSLR experience. One was the size and weight of camera bodies and lenses. The other was persistently erratic and unreliable autofocus with my chosen brand, Canon. So I bought a Panasonic G1 hoping it would solve both my problems, which it did. Unfortunately the G1 was burdened with ergonomic deficiencies. It was, in fact the camera which sparked my interest in camera ergonomics and eventually the creation of this blog. 

I originally gathered the material for this essay to plan a way forward with my own camera kit. However I  realised that others  might be in a similar situation so may be able to glean something useful from my thoughts.

This essay is an opinion piece referenced to my personal requirements. These are, in brief,

* I make photographs of a wide variety of subjects including family, architecture, landscape, street, social documentary, sport/action, workplace documentary and others. So my requirements are for a compact, versatile photographic kit which can tackle just about any task.

* For many years I used single focal length lenses because there were no zooms available for the consumer photography market. Now we have access to a range of zooms with excellent quality so I use them for their convenience.

* I mostly shoot RAW,  process images in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)/Photoshop and I like to make prints. If a camera is not supported or is poorly supported by ACR then it holds no interest for me.

* I do not do video. That's just a personal idiosyncrasy, I am a still photo person.

* I do not use touch screen controls to operate the camera. I have plenty of experience using cameras having a touch screen capability but find this is not in harmony with my style of camera use, which mostly involves viewing through the EVF.

*  I live in Sydney Australia where the weather is often fine and sunny so for outdoor photography I regard an eye level viewfinder as essential. The technology of electronic viewfinders [EVF] has improved so much in the last few years that I no longer have any interest in optical viewfinders.  I will not buy a camera without a built in EVF.  Some people prefer cameras lacking an EVF, some insist on an optical viewfinder.  That's fine, nobody can be told what to like.

* I like to engage with my photographic equipment in a harmonious fashion, so for me, good ergonomics is very important. I will not buy a camera which I consider to have inferior ergonomics, and that, unfortunately includes most MILC's on the market today. Please refer to the many articles on this blog for detailed discussion about camera ergonomics.

Why was the MILC invented ?  I am just a consumer with no personal knowlege of anybody in the camera manufacturing or marketing business. So this is just my guess, but there appear to be two main drivers of the MILC.  First, they did it because they could. Specifically the image quality of  EVF and Monitor screens developed to a level which made them viable alternatives to the optical viewfinder.  Second, Canon and Nikon had a stranglehold on the DSLR market, so it made sense for Panasonic, Olympus and others to outflank CaNikon with a disruptive innovation. Please refer to my essay about disruptiveinnovation elsewhere on this blog.

Panasonic G5 a Micro Four Thirds System Camera, easy to hold and operate showing good ergonomics can be achieved with small ILC's

Where does the MILC fit into the photographic world ?    This has been a real challenge to designers and manufacturers because at exactly the same time as the MILC was introduced,  phone cams started to make massive inroads into the snapshooter market for compact cameras. My personal experience is that the MILC has been competent enough to replace the DSLR and compactenough to replace the advanced compact in my camera kit. My view is that the (D)SLR type camera has reached the end of it's evolutionary course and will gradually be replaced by a range of MILC type cameras which provide greater opportunities for design innovation. I don't think fixed lens cameras [advanced compacts, superzooms etc]  will disappear but they will evolve to provide better image quality and photographic control than a phone cam for discriminating photographers wanting to travel light.

What characteristics of MILC's could make them more appealing than DSLR's ?

* Full time live view in EVF and Monitor with seamless transition from one to the other. Current EVF's still have less highlight and shadow detail compared to the best OVF's but they are improving with each iteration. I would much rather use the big, bright, clear EVF on the Panasonic G5 sitting on my desk than the OVF of any entry level DSLR.

* Full and selectable complement of camera status and other data on and/or under the EVF and Monitor image.

* Fast, sensitive, accurate, reliable autofocus using single AF, single area settings with selected brands.  My hands on experience of MILC's is limited to Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji  and Samsung. Of these four  Panasonic has most reliably delivered  simultaneous speed and accuracy.

* Ability to place the active AF area almost anywhere in the frame, with full accuracy and reliability.

* Size and weight. I will discuss this further below. 

The concept of Good Enough image quality  For many years I chased image quality with increasingly large, unwieldy film cameras. It started with an SLR, then a better one, then better lenses, then a Leica M6, then various medium format kits and eventually 4x5 inch large format. One day after an overnight hike with the 4x5 kit, tent, etc.....etc....which stretched my physical capabilities to the limit and gave me chronic back pain which remains my constant unwelcome companion,   I had an epiphany about "Good Enough"  image quality.  If a camera kit provides good enough image quality for my purposes then I don't need and cannot make use of any more.

Good Enough image quality in the digital era   Pinned to the display board next to my desk as I type this essay are some large prints. The largest I can squeeze out of my Epson 4880 printer, in fact. They look pretty darn good to me and I am very critical of print quality. I would have no hesitation  in upsizing them to poster prints. The source of these images is a Micro Four Thirds sensor measuring just 13 x 17.3 mm in size. Only a few years ago the proposition that such high quality prints could originate from so small a sensor device would have been in the realm of science fiction.

MILC design  When designers of the MILC  threw out  the flipping mirror, focussing screen, pentaprism and a lot of other stuff essential to a DSLR,  they opened the door to the possibility of  a revolution in camera shapes, styles, configurations and sizes. The MILC can literally be any shape at all without the constraints of the SLR design. Some MILC designers have started to make use of this freedom to create new camera shapes [Sony NEX], others have reprised a shape [Panasonic and Olympus faux DSLR] or controls [Fuji look-a-Leica] from the past,  even if that shape or user interface is not required and may actually inhibit full  functional and  ergonomic expression of the MILC concept.

MILC sensor sizes  MILC's come in a variety of sensor sizes, as below:

* 24x36 mm, Diagonal 43 mm. Crop factor 1.0.  Leica M9 and derivatives

* APS-C (Sony) 15.8x23.6 mm, Diagonal 28 mm. Crop factor 1.5.  Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Samsung.

* APS-C (Canon)  14.9x22.3 mm, Diagonal 27 mm. Crop factor 1.6. Canon.

* Micro Four Thirds  13x17.3 mm,  Diagonal 21.6 mm. Crop factor 2.0. Olympus, Panasonic.

* Nikon CX  8.8 x 13.2 mm, Diagonal 15.86 mm. Crop factor 2.7. Nikon 1 series.

* "1/2.3 inch" 4.55x6.17 mm, Diagonal 7.12 mm. Crop factor 6.0.  Pentax Q.

The question of size in MILC 

Body Size   MILC's were initially and are still being promoted for their small size, compared to DSLR's. Compact dimensions are indeed a potential characteristic of the MILC but smallness can be taken to ergonomically counterproductive extremes. Hands stubbornly remain the same size no matter what camera they are holding.  There is therefore a size range below which further reduction just produces a device which is difficult to hold and operate.  Still, there is much interest on user forums about the question of camera size. There is even a website,  camerasize.com   which is devoted to the subject. The best part of this website is the Camera Body Plus Lens section which shows that lenses are the greatest contributors to the bulk of a multi lens kit.

The width of a camera body is determined at the rear by the width of the monitor and the space allocated by the designer to the control panel and thumbrest. At the front,  width is influenced by the diameter of the lens mount and the distance of the optical axis from the left (as viewed by the user) side of the camera. The designer's decision about the size and type (parallel or projecting) of the handle, if any, also affects camera width.

Camera height is determined by the height of the monitor and EVF eyepiece, plus flash unit if included.

Camera depth is determined mainly by the handle, if fitted, flangeback distance, monitor type and rear projection of the EVF eyepiece.

Note that nowhere in this list does sensor size appear as a determinant of body size, except as it relates to the lens mount.  

Lens Size  While body size is determined by a range of factors, lens size is closely related to sensor size.  Lens design is highly dependent on the laws of physics and optics which means in essence that bigger sensors need bigger lenses and it will ever be thus. So if some wonderful new optical invention permits lenses to be made smaller then all shall benefit  and the larger sensor > larger lenses relationship will remain.

Sensor Size  So now the question is "What is the smallest sensor size which will give me Good Enough  image quality from cameras in production right now ? "

And the answer for me is:  Micro Four Thirds.     I refer specifically to the Olympus OMD-EM-5 which I have tested and which I rate the first M43 camera the image quality of which is good enough for all my requirements. I expect that most, possibly all (maybe not the  entry level models without EVF) subsequent M43 releases from Olympus and Panasonic will have at least this level of  image quality.

What is the best MILC system choice ?    Straightforward question, simple answer:  For my requirements, Micro Four Thirds.

Why ? Because the sensor is large enough to give me the image quality I want but small enough to allow the designers to make a really high quality lens system which is much more compact than anything from the APS-C group.  This choice is also a bet on the future . I expect that we will see further gains in image quality from electronic sensors such that sizes larger than M43 will only be required by professionals who now use "medium format" gear.

Readers with different photographic requirements will very likely come to a different conclusion about their preferred system.

The outlook for  DSLR's   My view is that the DSLR as a camera type has no future at all for two reasons.

The first is that the DSLR has reached the end of it's evolutionary journey. There is no technological development which will allow the DSLR to match the MILC on seamless transition of live view from monitor to EVF.  Note that Sony SLT cams can do this but I think the SLT variant of the DSLR genre is also an evolutionary dead end. It uses the standard DSLR flangeback distance. Neither the standard DSLR nor SLT types adjust focus directly on the image capturing sensor when eye level viewing. And neither can be as compact as the MILC type.  On the other hand I expect that ongoing technological developments will allow MILC's to match or exceed the performance of DSLR's in every respect.

The second is production cost.  Consider this. A  DSLR  needs  all the stuff in a MILC  except the EVF module,  PLUS:  flipping mirror, sub mirror, phase detect AF module under the mirror, focussing screen, pentaprism or mirror, light meter module near the pentaprism and  optical viewfinder. All the optical and focussing elements in this imaging chain have to be mechanically aligned with great precision or they will give incorrectly framed or focussed images.  In effect a modern DSLR is two cameras in one, an SLR in OVF mode and a MILC in live view mode.  I believe that either now or in the near future EVF modules will be cheaper to fabricate and easier, therefore cheaper,  to assemble than the optical/mechanical components of an SLR.  

Prospects for MILC's with 27-28 mm sensors  Sony NEX, Pentax K-01, Canon EOS M, Fuji X-Pro/X-E1 and Samsung NX use this sensor size.        In his April 2012 review of the Olympus EM5 for Digital Photography Review, Richard Butler wrote "........spending twice the money and moving up to the bulk of full frame is the only way of gaining a significant step up [in image quality] from the EM5".     Think about it.    By moving up from M43 to APS-C you get at best a slight improvement in image quality, or in some cases none,  but a very noticeable increase in lens size and therefore kit size, weight and cost. So, do MILC's with 27-28 mm sensors have a future ?  Some people will say, yes of course they do. But I am not so sure about that.

However, there could well be a place in the market for a modular MILC with a large sensor, square so the body never has to be flipped over, about 45 mm in diameter,  for professional photographers requiring the highest possible level of image quality. This could be the modern equivalent of the original 56 x 56 mm Hasselblad film camera of the 1950's.

What improvements do MILC's need to make ? 

* Further improvement to the appearance and refresh rate of  EVF's for a more natural viewing experience.

* Eliminating shutter shock as a cause of image degradation. Please see my articles about  this subject elsewhere on this blog. The ultimate solution would appear to be the much anticipated but as yet unrealised "global shutter", which refers to a process by which all the data from an imaging sensor is read off simultaneously, so that a mechanical shutter is not required. Until the advent of the global shutter there are some options available for M43 users. The Panasonic G5 and GH3 have an electronic shutter option and the Olympus EM5 has the "AntiShock" feature.

* Follow focus capability. Selected MILC's have extremely fast, sensitive, accurate contrast detect autofocus, which is more effective in single shot mode than the majority of DSLR's which use the inherently less accurate phase detect AF when eye level viewing.   But effective follow focus on a moving subject has been beyond the capability of MILC   AF systems until recently. This has begun to change. Nikon's V series cams have a composite on chip AF  system which can follow focus at very high frame rates in good light. The Olympus EM5 and Panasonic G5 can  follow a subject moving at fairly constant speed in good light with decent accuracy, using just the on chip CDAF system with fast refresh rate. MILC makers need to get up to speed  on this aspect of AF technology to compete effectively with mid and upper level DSLR's.

* Preset manual focus by scale. Once upon a time, before the electronic technology blizzard struck the camera world,  an SLR lens had scales for aperture, focus distance and depth of field engraved on the barrel. If you wanted to preset the focus distance to, say, 3 meters you simply rotated the focus ring, checked what aperture was required for the desired depth of field and set the aperture to suit. Easy. But now that is impossible with most [not all, some can do it] lenses for MILC's.  It might be possible to achieve the same thing electronically. I believe most camera bodies probably know the current focussed distance of the attached lens and should therefore be able to display this on an analogue scale on the monitor and EVF.

* Ergonomics  I have been surprised and disappointed by the generally poor ergonomic design of MILC's to date, even from corporations which have been making cameras for many decades.  Hence the existence of this blog. In my view, all the MILC makers have much work to do in improving the ergonomic function  of their products. I discuss this issue further in Parts 2 and 3 of this fourth birthday review and in many camera reviews and articles on this blog.

My choice of camera kit   I am currently using Panasonic Micro Four thirds cameras and zoom lenses as they are the best available fit with my requirements.  Bodies; G5, GH2,  Lenses: 7-14mm, 12-35mm, 14-45mm, 100-300mm and 45-150mm.  I plan to upgrade to a GH3 body and  add the  35-100mm f2.8 lens when these become available in Australia.

Summary  The photographic industry is currently being buffeted by challenges the like of which have never been seen before. These are being driven by new technology, new consumer expectations and  a new world order of commercial dominance. The MILC has an integral role in the industry's response to these challenges.