Viewfinder Location: Which is Best ?

Viewfinder Location, Which is best ?

Built in to the camera ?  If so Where ? Top Left or in a Hump ?

Author Andrew S May 2013

Lumix GH3. Hump top with 2 Set and See dials, buttons, levers.

Introduction   Olympus recently announced their latest Micro Four Thirds camera, the EP5. This is Olympus' 11th M43 camera, only one of which, the  EM5,  has a built in viewfinder. In  promotional product photos, the EP5 is often shown with the accessory VF4 electronic viewfinder  attached.  Given the success of the EM5, I wondered what kind of thinking process led the Olympus product development people to produce yet another camera without a built in viewfinder.

Brief historical review   Once upon a time, way back in the good [?] old days of film,  designers had limited choice. There being no live view monitor, all cameras required a viewfinder of some description. Viewfinder position was mostly determined by the inherent mechanical properties of the camera type. So an SLR viewfinder was located behind the pentaprism which sat above the focussing screen and mirror box. The mirror box had to be approximately in the midle of the body to allow for the film cassette on one side and take up spool on the opposite side.  Rangefinder cameras like the Leica M series put the viewfinder in the top left corner to allow for the messsucher optics across the top of the camera.

The Digital Revolution brought live view on a Monitor screen which at first appeared to eliminate the need for an eye level viewfinder.  But many photographers came to realise that an eye level viewfinder is very useful  in four situations:

1. In sunny/bright light, when even the best monitors are difficult to see properly.

2. When a long lens is mounted the camera must be held steady to prevent camera shake. This is best achieved by pressing the camera against one's head, using the eye level view.

3. In low light levels with slow shutter speeds, the camera must be held steady.

4. When one wants to block out nearby distractions and concentrate completely on the subject and the process of making the photograph.

Lumic GH2. Smaller camera. Hump top with 2 Set and See dials, 3 levers, fewer buttons.

Smart Phones/Gadgets vs Cameras   These days there is a multitude of electronic gadgets which can take still photos or video of anything which is in front of, or in many cases, behind the device. If the camera as a distinct genus of device is to survive at all then the camera needs to bring things to the image capture experience which smart gadgets do not.  One of those things is an eye level viewfinder.  So my first proposition is that:

Every camera needs an eye level viewfinder   I have argued in another post on this blog that the best type of viewfinder is Electronic.

The next question is:

Should the VF be built in or an attachable accessory ?  

Arguments for the detachable VF might include:

1.  Making the VF separate gives the user a choice, to use it or not.

2.  Leaving it off  the main body of the camera allows a more compact size to be achieved.

Arguments for the built in VF include:

1. The cost of any particular model EVF (or OVF) is much lower if it is built in than supplied separately.  The extra cost of a separate EVF is a disincentive so many owners do not buy it. So for these users, there is no choice at the point of image capture.

2. A separate EVF is a Nuisance.  It is never on the camera when you want it. Conversely it will be attached when you don't want it to be, such as when you want  to put the camera back in it's bag. It has to be carried separately. To attach it to the camera it has to be located in the bottom of the camera bag somewhere and  removed from a protective pouch.  Cover plates have to be removed from the EVF and/or camera connector ports and eventually, the EVF pushed into place.

3. If the EVF is kept attached all the time it is subject to damage when being pushed in and out of a camera bag.  Then there is the obvious point that if it always attached it would have been better built in.

4. A well located built in EVF does not add much to the overall size of a camera body. Check out Sony's NEX 6 and 7 models for proof of this.

 

This mockup is slightly wider but has less depth than the GH3. The design allows 3 Set and See dials on top with revised, more ergonomic quad control layout near the shutter button and a JOG lever on the back.

All this leads to my second proposition which is:

Every Camera needs a built in EVF 

Which leads to the next question.

What is the best location for the EVF ? 

Until recently I believed the best place for any camera was top left, rangefinder style. However my ongoing work with camera mockups has led me to a somewhat more complex view. This is based on the proposition that there are two main types of camera user, Snapshootersand Controllers  (a.k.a. expert/experienced users). I think that a camera designed mainly for snapshooters will work best with the EVF top left. [Rangefinder look alike style]  A camera intended for use by controllers will make better use of the EVF in a hump [SLR look alike style]. Here follows my reasoning:

Before we go further I want to mention touch screen controls.  I have argued the case elsewhere on this blog that touch screen controls so beloved by manufacturers and reviewers are actually useless on a camera being used for hand held still photos.  

This schematic illustrates why more user interface modules can fit on the top of a hump top camera than a flat top design.

Selection of the best EVF position involves consideration of  User Interface Modules (UIM) and camera real estate. The designer can fit more UIM's on the top of a "Hump" camera than a flat top camera.  The diagram above shows why this is so. In the case of  a flat top design all the UIM's have to line up in a row. With the hump top, the EVF, Hot Shoe and Built in Flash are arranged front to back. In consequence, hump top designs can, if desired, fit three Set and See Dials  on top, while the flat top design has space for only one. Some cameras such as the Fuji X-Pro1/E1 have tried to fit a second Set and See Dial [Exposure Compensation] at the far right rear corner of the top plate. I have read many reports of this dial being accidentally bumped indicating it is in the wrong  place for a UIM controlling a critical exposure parameter.

The flat top style camera has less UIM's, is smaller and looks less intimidating than the hump top style. It is more suitable for the snapshooter. The hump top style can have more UIM's  making it more suitable for the expert/controller photographer.

This mockup has exactly the same dimensions (WxHxD) as the Nikon 1-V2. But with a more evolved ergonomic design it has a full complement of user control modules. There are three Set and See dials on top and the ergonomically efficient quad control layout near the shutter release button. In addition a JOG lever is provided on the rear. This mockup is a proof of concept, namely that a very small camera like this can have a full suite of hard UIMs if properly designed.

Left Eye-vs-Right Eye viewers    90% of people are right handed. Most of these are probably right eye viewers although I have not seen actual figures confirming this.  This leaves a substantial minority of people, perhaps 10% or so, who use the left eye for viewing.  My own situation is that I am a natural left eye viewer although I have trained myself to use the right eye with a camera. Left hand/eye photographers often complain on user forums that they are not catered for by camera designers. True. Nobody makes a left handed camera.  My own experience with left eye viewing is that most cameras are reasonably satisfactory except those which are very small, in which case the user's nose ends up pressing on the monitor or some of the control modules on the right side of the camera. Generous rearward projection of the eyepiece optical module (as seen in the photos of the GH3, GH2 and GH4 mockup above)  reduces but may not eliminate this problem.

What's Available ?

DSLR's   have an optical viewfinder, except for the Sony SLT types which use an EVF. But they all put the viewfinder in a hump. Unfortunately DSLR's are unable to reap the full benefits of hump top design. In the case of entry level models the hump is large in relation to the rest of the camera so there is only enough space for one Set and See Dial, placed to the right of the hump. With the mid to high level models there is an LCD panel [required because electronic view is absent from the optical VF] top right on the body, preventing placement of anything else there.

The Fuji X-E1 is a flat top design which has tried to squeeze in an extra Set and See dial top right (Exposure Compensation). But users report this gets bumped often, which you can see would be likely just from looking at the photograph. By way of contrast the Nikon CX mockup above is designed so the dials will be easy to turn when required but will not be subject to accidental movement.

Mirrorless ILC's  have their own design issues. A particular problem for MILC development has been uncertainty about the target buyer. This has led to some half baked designs which appeared to have been trying to appeal to both user groups but ended up satisfying neither.  One manufacturer, Panasonic appears to be moving in (what I consider to be) the right direction with it's latest and rumored new models. At the expert/controller end we have the Lumix GH3 which is a very good, if not quite perfect,  implementation of the hump top MILC.  At the other end is the recently announced Lumix LF1 compact camera with flat top and built in EVF top left.  Inbetween comes the yet unannounced GX2  (a M43 camera)  which is rumored to have the flat top, EVF top left layout. 

Conclusion I take the view that camera makers need to reconnect with the concept of a camera and make products which are distinctly different from photo capable gadgets. They need to deliver cameras which are clearly aimed at either snapshooters or experts, not some nebulous and possibly non existent group inbetween. Most of all they need to make cameras which are enjoyable to use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Touch Screen Controls Are Useless

TOUCH  SCREEN  CONTROLS  ARE  USELESS

On a hand held camera

Author Andrew S  June 2013

Sydney Harbour, Opera House, Bridge.  Lumix GH3, 35-100mm f2.8 lens

Introduction  The world is awash with touch screen devices, many of which can take photos. Presumably rising to the perceived challenge, or need or demand, or maybe just because they can, many cameras are now equipped with touch screen operating capability.  Reviewers and contributors to camera user forums frequently write negative opinions about any camera not thus endowed.

Ergonomic studies  I have spent the last three years carefully analysing ergonomic aspects of camera function with reference to viewing, holding and operating. I am particularly interested in the study of efficient ways by which a camera can be operated.  All the cameras which I have recently used and currently use offer touch screen controls and all work well, in the sense that the touch screen functions operate as advertised.

Camera held to the eye  Many cameras have an eye level viewfinder. In my opinion all cameras should have one or they risk becoming irrelevant flotsam washed away by the swelling tide of smart phones, tablets, phablets and other gadgets capable of making photos.

With eye level viewing, use of touch screen controls is essentially impossible for simple physical reasons.

Monitor viewing  Most cameras with interchangeable lenses are a "two hands" proposition. The left hand supports the lens, works the zoom and operates manual focus if required. The right hand holds the camera body firmly and operates, at a minimum, the shutter release button.

So which hand is available to work the touch screen controls ?  Neither is satisfactory. If the left hand is used it has to stop supporting the lens, make the on screen adjustment then return to lens support duty. Or the user adopts  one handed operation which is likely to produce camera shake. If the right hand is used for touch screen duty, it has to stop holding the camera and move right across to the left so the thumb or another finger can access the whole screen. If both hands are used then operating the camera becomes a juggling performance.

Camera work is much more ergonomic if the device  is designed with a comprehensive suite of hard control units which can be operated without either hand having to release grip on the camera.

Simple cameras designed for snapshooters don't need touch screen controls either. The snapshooter is better served by a camera which is highly automated, requiring the user to press the shutter release button and little else.

Finger Wharf Woolloomooloo. Lumix GH3, 35-100mm f2.8 lens

Tripod mounted use  The hands are now free from camera holding duty and can  operate a touch screen.  But why would one do this ? I don't.  Having practiced with the hard interface modules (buttons, dials, levers etc) until I am familiar with them, why would I switch to a different control modality just because the camera is on a tripod ?

I could imagine that a professional photographer or videographer who uses his or her camera on a tripod  most of the time, might find touch screen control quite useful and a preferred way to operate. But most of us use the camera handheld 99% of the time, when touch screen operation is either impossible or difficult.

Summary  I think that manufacturers have lost touch with the notion of a camera and with basic ergonomic concepts of camera operation. I believe they need to redefine a camera as distinctly different from all the smart phones, tablets, phablets, gidgets and widgets which proliferate in abundance. They need to stop marketing cameras with reference to features which the widgets do much better, like Wi-Fi, connectivity, streaming to social media and touch screens. They need to focus (pun intended) on features and capabilities which the phones and phablets do not offer.  These would include at the very least, I would think:  A decent electronic viewfinder in every unit, a comprehensive suite of hard interface modules on every camera designed for expert use, a zoom lens of decent quality, speedy, responsive performance for focussing and shot to shot times and image quality much better than any phone cam can offer.

Many recent camera releases completely fail to offer these basic features.

 

 

 

 

 

Mockup Lumix GH4 Camera

CONCEPT  LUMIX  GH4  CAMERA  [MOCKUP]

Ergonomic evolution of the Lumix GH3

Proof of concept by mockup

Author  AndrewS  May 2013

Introduction  Last month I wrote a piece titled "ErgonomicLogic of the Lumix GH3" on this blog. I rated the GH3 as having the best ergonomics of any camera which I have used in the last 50 years, but said that it could be even better with some further development. Since then I have been busy working on this project. The result of my labours is the mockup proof of concept "GH4" described in this article. This mockup incorporates just two features which significantly differ from the layout of the GH3. These are:

1.  The Parallel Handle  and

2.  The JOG lever.

There are some secondary changes which are consequential to the inclusion of these two features.

About Mockups  Over the last three years I have designed and built five mockup cameras to test my ideas about ergonomics at a physical hands-on level. I make the mockups from scrap plywood, shaped and glued. This method of construction allows me to test many versions of form, handle shape, layout and detailed location of user interface modules [UIM].

"GH4" Mockup Specification All my previous mockups have used the "Flat-top-EVF-on-the-left" type of design.  However the Lumix GH series cameras have all had the "Hump-top-small-DSLR-style" design so I used that for this project. The hump top does have significant  advantages. It allows the inbuilt flash to be in line with the optical axis in landscape orientation, the flash can be higher and the flash, hotshoe and eyepiece all occupy the same fore and aft space  which frees up width on the top deck for Set and See dials.

The mockup described here takes the already good  Lumix GH3 as starting point and tries to improve it's ergonomics, particularly in the Capture Phase of camera work.

I based the design on the "Parallel Handle" concept which allows the camera depth to be reduced and permits a different, more ergonomically effective layout of UIM's on the top right of the camera.  There is an all ways  (you can move it in any direction) JOG Lever accessible to the right thumb and an AF start back button.  Width has increased 5 mm over the GH3 to create more space on the right side of the monitor but depth has decreased 8 mm making the box volume of the mockup smaller. The fully articulated monitor is 92.5 mm wide,  the same width  as that on the GH2, 1 mm less than that on the GH3 and 2.5 mm more than the monitor on the G5. The height allowed for the EVF eyepiece is slightly less than that of the GH3, with an assumption that the eye sensor will be on the right side of the eyepiece, as found in the GH2. This allows a slight reduction in the height.

The shoulders have been lifted up so the upper part of the camera is "flat-top-with-hump-and-set-n-see-dials". Lifting the shoulders creates more vertical space above and to the right of the monitor. This has several benefits. There is more space for the JOG Lever. The shutter release button is higher, which allows the handle to be higher to fit a full five finger grip even with larger men's hands. The shape of the upper part of the handle is completely different with less gap between the right index and middle fingers. This has two benefits. It allows the right index finger to move more freely around the UIMs on the camera top and it helps with sculpting a full five finger grip.

All of these arrangements are entirely about form following function and function following fingers. The resulting shape does not conform to any preconceived style but has it's own conceptual and stylistic integrity based on functional efficiency. I showed it to a family member recently who pronounced it to be "the ugliest camera I have ever seen".  Oh well, I guess you can't win them all. She was unaware of the ergonomic mission of the mockup.

I have trialled the completed mockup on a wide range of actual or potential camera users, from 10 year old grandchildren through ladies with and without long fingernails, to men with large hands.  All declared themselves able to find a comfortable and secure grip on the camera with easy access to the key UIM's in Capture Phase without disrupting grip on the camera. Even the lady who didn't care for the appearance of the camera was able to hold it comfortably and securely, without strain.

This is possible because the design allows small hands to move up and large hands to move down on the handle providing each with a comfortable grip.

The Overview Photos  appear above. These are  general views of the Mockup showing it's overall shape. It is quite close in dimensions and user interface to the GH3, with improvements. The dimensions are below:

Camera	Width mm	Height mm	Depth mm	Box Volume cc
GH3	133	93.5	80	995
Mockup GH4	138	92	72	914

 The Mockup GH4  box volume is 8% less than that of the GH3.

Buttons on the GH3 measure 5.5 - 6.5 mm in diameter with approximately 0.75 mm projection. Buttons on the Mockup are 8 mm in diameter with 2.5 mm projection. Buttons on the GH3 have a smoothly rounded surface. Those on the mockup have a rough criss/cross surface. They are actually phillips head screws which have just the kind of prominence and surface feel which I want in a button. All the mockup buttons are positioned so they can be located and operated by feel but will not be pressed accidentally.  There are three set-n-see dials on the top deck. On the left is the Drive Mode Dial and to the right of the hump is the Main Capture Mode Dial, both the same as the GH3.

The JOG Lever and Recenter Button of the Mockup have replaced the AF/AE Lock button and Focus Mode Lever of the GH3 so the Mockup has a Focus Mode Dial top right and an AF Start/AF/AE/Lock button just where the thumb can easily find and press it but not so prominent that it will be pressed accidentally.

The hot ginger color was chosen to allow the contour shapes of the camera and handle to be seen easily in photographs and to provide a contrast with the black UIMs. Also I got bored with black and silver cameras.

The Layout Diagram Photo  is above.  There are 7 numbered buttons plus 4 positions on the Control Dial/4Way Controller Module. The function of each of these 11 control points can be user selected from a comprehensive list of options. I think this is the best approach. It allows each individual photographer to set up the camera to personal preference, then change it when experience and usage lead to a different approach.

One of the buttons can be allocated as access to a Q Menu. Or not, if preferred. One could be Motion Picture Start. Or not, if preferred.

The JOG Lever's primary function is to directly move the active AF (or MF) Area in Capture Phase of operation. It could also be used to navigate menus in Setup Phase or navigate around the playback image in Review Phase.

The Recenter  Button's  primary role is to return the active focus area to the center in Capture Phase with the AF(MF) Area highlighted, but it could also be used as a reset or return  button in Setup or Review Phases.

Primary function of the AF Back Button is to activate and hold (AFS) or continue (AFC) autofocus. It could also be configured for AF/AE Lock.

The Next Two Photos  show the Mockup beside a GH3, front and back views.   The Mockup has a parallel type handle which is wider than it is deep.  This encourages the layout of UIMs found on top of the handle.  You can see the hump on the mockup is a bit flatter on top and has more vertical sides than that on the GH3. This is to make room for the three  Set-and-See dials on the camera top. The hump could be spread out more to make it more streamlined, like that on the Lumix G6, but that would make it very difficult to fit three Set-and-See  Dials, so the Focus Mode setting would have to move to the Q Menu or a button.  This would work but I regard it as desirable for a flagship camera to have the Focus Mode always visible on a Set-and-See module.

The mockup lens shown is the same length and diameter as the lumix 12-35 mm f2.8.

Index Finger Shutter Button

Index Finger Button 1

Index Finger Front Dial

Index Finger Button 2

Front UIM group operation [Parallel Handle]  The four photos above show how the right index finger operates the four modules under it's control.  Notice the the number and layout of UIMs on the Mockup and compare this with  arrangements on the GH3. The distance between the center of the shutter release button on the GH3 and the ISO button is 24 mm.  For most people with merely normal finger flexibility, the right index finger has to stretch to it's maximum to reach back for the ISO button. It's not a bad arrangement but it can be improved.

The layout on the Mockup is quite different.  There are 4 instead of 5 UIMs and they are arranged in quad formation. The center of the shutter button is only 12 mm from the Front Dial. This is just far enough to prevent accidental activation of the wrong button. Buttons 1 and 2 sit to the right where they are easily located by feel and operated with slight flexion of the index finger.  They are also lower than the Shutter Button and Front Dial so they will not be accidentally activated.

 It is difficult to adequately convey a sense of the ergonomic difference between these two arrangements with words and pictures alone. That is why I make mockups which reveal the superiority of the parallel handle system.  Note also that the Shutter Button is raised 4 mm above the camera body surface and it has a squared off,  not-quite-sharp edge which makes it easy to find by feel and is obviously different from either the Front Dial or the buttons.  The Front Dial also has a not-quite-sharp edge with strong, sharp serrations which are easy to identify by feel. Both the Shutter Button and Front Dial are positioned and angled in three dimensions so the index finger finds them in just the right place.  Most camera makers set their buttons and other control modules more deeply into the camera body and shape them more smoothly. I assume this is done for styling reasons but the ergonomic effectiveness of these smooth, barely protruding buttons is not optimal. They work, but could be improved.

I would allocate ISO and Exposure Compensation to Buttons 1 and 2, so the four modules together act to adjust primary and secondary exposure parameters, but others will have their own ideas.  Of course AF can be activated with half press of the Shutter Button as usual.

Thumb Rest Position/AF start

Thumb JOG Lever

Thumb Recenter Button

Thumb Rear Dial

Rear UIM group operation [JOG Lever]  Above  is another set of four photos showing how the right thumb operates the JOG Lever, AF Back Button start, Recenter Button and Rear Dial, all without releasing grip on the lower part of the handle with the base of the palm. This set of UIMs, together with the Focus Mode Dial,  are allocated to primary and secondary focus parameters.

In rest position the interphalangeal joint of the right thumb lies against the thumb rest, just below the Rear Dial. This provides a very stable grip on the camera with little effort because the right hand is in natural half closed position. The camera just rests in the hand. The user does not have to squeeze the hand in order to attain a stable hold on the camera.

On the GH3 and many other cameras,  mirrorless and DSLR, active AF area is moved with the Control Dial/4Way Controller. This works but requires the right thumb to be dropped down nearly to the bottom of the right side of the camera. This in turn completely disrupts the right hand's hold on the camera.  The JOG Lever is a much more ergonomically elegant approach to the task of moving active AF area. It maintains grip with the right hand, is fast and requires minimal movement of the thumb.

Most exposure adjustments are made with the right index finger. Most on camera focus adjustments  are allocated to the right thumb.  Manual focus and zoom are operated by the left hand as usual.

Handle   Above  are photos of the Mockup and GH3 handles. On the GH3 photo there are two arrows pointing at the top section of the handle. The distance between them is 9 mm. On the Mockup handle there is no flat section at the top of the handle. Therefore the middle finger rests closer to the index finger. This in turn allows the UIMs to be reached by the index finger with less lateral stretching movement being required.

Height of the center of the shutter button from the base is 80 mm on the Mockup, 73 mm on the GH3.

Control Dial/4 Way Controller  I have left this in place using the same location and diameter as that on the GH3.  As there is more body width in this area I have been able to open up access to the dial so it is easier to operate. I would  leave access to the Main Menu System allocated to this dial as is the case with the GH3.  Using Menus is a Setup or occasionally Prepare Phase function so the Control Dial is an appropriate access and control module.

Other UIMs.  The Disp Button on the GH3 is located right in the middle of the rear section of the handle. This is a distinctly suboptimal place for a button. Disp can be allocated to one of the positions on the 4 Way controller, as this Module is no longer required for moving AF area.

Summary  The GH3 embodies significant improvements in ergonomics compared to previous models in the Lumix line of cameras.  But even good design can be improved. The "GH4" Mockup described here brings two features  to the design of  mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, the Parallel Handle and the JOG Lever, with their associated suite of UIMs.

All I have to do now is persuade someone who makes real cameras to adopt my ideas.

 

 

 

 

Nostalgic Camera Review Pentax Spotmatic

Pentax Spotmatic SLR Camera  Nostalgic Review

Are our modern cameras really better ?

Author  AndrewS  May 2013

 

Introduction  In the late 1960's and through the 1970's all my photos were made with a Pentax Spotmatic  SLR film camera. For much of that time I had only one lens, a Takumar 50 mm f1.7.  There was no such thing as a zoom lens for consumer cameras.

That was the heyday of street photography, an activity all but banned in these anxious times.  I made some of my all time favourite photos with that camera. You can see a few of them with this article.

Why review an (almost) 50 year old camera ?  This blog is about camera ergonomics.  Some modern cameras which I have used are dreadful kludges, with truly awful ergonomics. Others are not bad at all. I thought it might be interesting to compare the old with the new to get some sense of progress (or lack of it) in camera design over the last 50 years or so.

 

Description and Features  The Spotmatic is (you can still buy an old one on eBay) a mechanical single lens reflex camera which takes 35 mm perforated film in preloaded cassettes. Image size is 24 x 36 mm. Lenses are interchangeable, using the 42 mm screw mount which was popular with several makers in the 1970's. The really big deal which the Spotmatic brought to consumer photography in 1964  was Through the Lens Metering.  At first this required the lens aperture to be stopped down, which made metering a deliberative business. Open aperture metering arrived with the Spotmatic SP-F in 1973. Batteries are required for the exposure meter but everything else works manually. Despite the name, the meter is of center weighted averaging type, not a spot meter, although I believe an early prototype may have featured spot metering.

The camera body and lenses are very compact. Body dimensions are Width 143 mm, Height 92 mm, Depth 49 mm. The box volume is 645 cc. No current model "full frame" DSLR comes anywhere near this compact size. In fact no DSLR using the APS-C sensor size, which is less than half the area of 24 x 36 "full frame", is as small as the Spotmatic. Even the recently released Canon EOS 100D has a box volume of 735 cc.

You can still buy new cameras like the Spotmatic. For instance the FM10 is still in Nikon's current catalogue. This is an all manual camera made by Cosina for Nikon, having a list of specifications and features almost identical to the Spotmatic.

 

Image Quality  Most of the Takumar lenses were of excellent quality. Like many others, I mostly used Kodak TRI-X film, which gave decent resolution and  good sharpness. The film had excellent dynamic range and exposure latitude, which it needed, as exposure metering was not as accurate as one gets from a modern camera. Overall I like the appearance of prints made from my Spotmatic negatives.  They lack the absolute resolution of modern cameras, but have good tonal gradation and are plenty sharp enough for most purposes.

Performance  With no autofocus, no motor drive and no auto exposure system, you might be excused for expecting the Spotmatic to perform poorly.  But that is not the case. With a good understanding of the principles of camera operation and plenty of practice, the experienced user can in fact extract very good performance from this camera. One learned to preset focus and exposure when moving into a situation.  I would commonly use an understanding of hyperfocal distance to pre set focus distance and aperture.  With these presets, shot to shot times were determined by the speed with which one could operate the film wind lever. I found one shot every two seconds to be quite realistic.

 

Ergonomics 

Setup Phase  There being nothing remotely resembling a menu, Setup consists of reading the instruction manual and getting plenty of practice using the device.

Prepare Phase   This involves loading film and setting the film speed.  In many situations it would also involve presetting focus distance, aperture and shutter speed. These settings would normally be considered part of Capture Phasewith a modern camera. But they take a little longer with the Spotmatic.  This in turn means more anticipation is needed  so when the "decisive moment" appears, one only has to press the shutter button.

 

Capture Phase

Holding  The Spotmatic and many cameras like it have the "no handle" design which actually works decently well because there is no monitor (or anything else) taking up space on the back of the camera. This means the right thumb can be angled across the back, allowing the index finger to fall naturally onto the shutter button.

Viewing  The camera has a proper glass pentaprism and decent viewfinder optics giving a clear view of the subject.

 

Operating   The keyword here is simplicity. Focus is controlled by turning a ring on the lens with the left hand.  Aperture is changed with another ring on the lens barrel, also using the left hand. Shutter speed is changed via a dial on the top plate. To do this the right thumb and index finger have to move up a little from their basic positions, which disrupts grip with the right hand while shutter speed is being adjusted.  The exposure meter is activated and lens stopped down by pushing a little lever on the upper left (as viewed by the user) side of the lens mount. Film wind on to the next frame is achieved by swinging the rewind crank using the right thumb. 

All these actions are simple, direct and specific.  They just take a little longer to perform than the equivalent actions with a well designed modern electronic camera. This could be considered a disadvantage but with practice the camera is actually quite easy to use and quick to operate. The art of anticipation is an essential operating requirement.

Metering is perhaps the least endearing  part of this camera's operation.  It involves stopping down the lens then changing aperture and/or shutter speed  to move a needle (visible in the viewfinder) up or down. The process is a bit slow and in my experience the results not as accurate as a modern camera.

Review Phase  This involves finishing a roll of film, rewinding it into the cassette, developing the film then making prints. There is of course, no chance to review photos immediately after capture.

What did I yearn for  in the years I was using the Spotmatic ? Mostly I wanted to be able to change film speed in mid roll.  Some other capabilities came to mind at the time. Faster, more reliable exposure metering was one. Another was for some kind of film resistant to airport X Rays. That's about it, really. I never wished and still don't care much for the great majority of features found on modern cameras.

 

Comparison with modern cameras

What have we gained ?

Auto Exposure  Auto Exposure arrangements on modern cameras are a marked improvement on the clunky system employed by the Spotmatic.  Exposure is calculated then Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO set in the millisecond between half and full press of the shutter button.  Now we have Exposure Modes, with P,A,S and M available on a Main Mode Dial. We have one (or two, or three)  control dials for immediate adjustment to Aperture and Shutter Speed.  

These features greatly streamline exposure metering and setting of primary exposure parameters.  The curious thing is that some makers of recent model cameras do not seem to understand the ergonomic benefits of these technologies.  For instance most Sony NEX cameras have no Mode Dial, including the top of the range NEX7.  Fujifilm's (FujiFilm ???) X100/100s, X-Pro1 and  X-E1 have no Mode Dial and retain the same basic control layout for Aperture and Shutter Speed as that found in the Spotmatic and film era Leica M cameras. I struggle to comprehend why camera makers fit their products with an odd or antiquated user interface which prevents the user from fully enjoying the benefits of the  modern technology which they posess.

Autofocus  Any camera maker which failed to develop AF in the late 1980's and early 1990's was doomed to failure. For the snapshooter, AF is an imperative technology. However, for the expert user I think the  benefits of AF have been somewhat oversold.  I used manual focus cameras of one kind or another for 55 years and rarely in that time felt a pressing need for autofocus. However since the advent of autofocus I  have many times been frustrated and disappointed by the failure of a camera's AF to focus correctly or by the way AF reduced my options to preset focus manually by scale.

Ability to set active AF/MF area anywhere in the frame   This is something mirrorless cameras can do well and I regard it as a really useful feature.

Change ISO anytime  This is so obviously useful, no more need be said.

Video  Most cameras now do competent video. Some are capable of broadcast quality motion picture output.

Image preview/review  The benefits of image review immediately after making the exposure are obvious. However modern EVF's also allow a preview of the image which is about to be captured, with display of the effect of exposure compensation, white balance, etc.

Configurability I include this as a benefit but it could equally be seen as a curse. Modern cameras are so complex and have so many features and options that they must be user configurable. There is no option to avoid the options, so to speak.

 

What have we lost ?

Simplicity  Like innocence, once lost, simplicity cannot be regained.  Modern cameras have literally billions of possible combinations of menu items and user interface options. They are drowning in a welter of complexity.  The Spotmatic has  five user interface modules controlling camera operation, each with just one function.  This spartan interface is enough to get the job done.

Compact size, body and lenses   The Spotmatic is smaller than any DSLR on the market today, even those with the smaller than half frame APS-C sensor size. The lenses are also compact with no need for autofocus function.

Ability to pre set focus distance and aperture by depth of field scale  Some modern lenses especially primes for the 43 mm diagonal "full frame" imager size do have this facility. But most lenses these days are varifocals which by nature cannot use a focus distance scale. Even primes often lack a distance scale.

So, are modern cameras better than old ones like the Pentax Spotmatic ?   In my view, they are better in some ways, not so good in other ways. The Spotmatic and cameras like it, engage the user in a way which the modern electronic camera cannot match.  The Spotmatic does nothing automatically. In order to use the camera effectively one must learn about the principles of photography, understand the relationships between film speed, aperture, shutter speed, camera movement and depth of focus. The user must practice anticipating photo opportunities, preparing the camera ahead of time as the environment alters, anticipating subject behaviour and working the controls efficiently.

Could a digital version of the Spotmatic be viable ?  Technically, I guess it could be made but it would tick so few of the marketing boxes which camera makers and possibly buyers seem to regard as essential these days that I doubt it would sell.  

 

My Camera Must Have an Electronic Viewfinder

My Camera Must have an Electronic Viewfinder

Why I hate Optical Viewfinders

Author  Andrew S   May 2013

 

Abbreviations used in this article   ELV= Eye Level Viewfinder, BIELV= Built in Eye Level Viewfinder,  EVF= Electronic Viewfinder, OVF= Optical Viewfinder, MILC= Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera, DSLR= Digital Single Lens Reflex Camera, SLT= Single Lens Translucent Camera [Sony only].

Introduction  I sometimes read expressions of opinion by bloggers and contributors to user forums that EVFs are inferior to OVFs.  I present here a case for the EVF.

The argument for a BIELV  Before we get to debating the OVF vs EVF question, I want to summarise the arguments for having a BIELV.  Most cameras, mainly compacts and MILC's, do not have an BIELV.  I think they should because:

1. Options  The camera with BIELV gives the user the option to use it or not. There are plenty of situations (see below) when a BIELV is desirable. If it's not there the option to use it is denied.

 

2. Differentiation  The biggest current threat to the camera as a species of useful device is the smart phone which takes photos which are good enough for most user's requirements. So why buy a camera ? Because it has better image quality ? Yes, but the concept of image quality might be a bit abstract for a potential buyer who thinks their smart phone pix are OK.  But smart phones do not have an ELV. So there is an ergonomic selling point for cameras with  BIELV which most manufacturers have not fully embraced.   Fuji has fitted it's X10/X20 compacts with a BIOVF.  The first compact [I think it is the first] with BIEVF will be the [Panasonic] Lumix LF1 which was announced in April 2013 for delivery in June 2013.  I think that camera makers need to provide and promote their products with features which smart phones do NOT have, like a BIELV. Instead the latest crop of cameras appears to be marketing features such as wireless communications, which smart phones already do better.

3. Steady Cam  With eye level viewing a camera is much steadier  than when it is held out in front for monitor viewing. This can make a big difference to image sharpness with long lenses or in low light with slow shutter speeds.

4. Sunblock  Even the latest and best monitors are difficult to use in full sun. The preview image itself is often washed out and the camera data may be impossible to read.

5. Distractions  There are times when the photographer wants to talk to the subject, in which case monitor viewing is desirable. But when the photographer wants cognitive separation from the surroundings to concentrate fully on the subject, then eye level viewing is very desirable.

6. Clip Ons are a nuisance  If the only option for eye level viewing is a clip on OVF or EFV it will invariably be somewhere in the bottom of the camera bag, or left at home when required. Then there is the nuisance of finding the thing and clipping it on, by which time the subject will likely have wandered away. If the accessory viewfinder is left on the camera it makes the camera very tall,  difficult to get in and out of a bag with increased risk of damage to the VF or it's attachment to camera body.

So, having established that the BIELV is a good idea, let us specify what tasks it might reasonably be expected to perform. Having done this we can investigate whether the OVF or EVF is more effective  for each task.

 

BIELV Task List

1. Framing  Most EVF's offer 100% accurate framing, which comes as no surprise as they take data directly from the imaging sensor. Some high end DSLRs do likewise, but most DSLRs offer a reduced view of the subject. All "rangefinder" style OVF's have at best, approximate framing with the added problem of parallax error. Many cameras allow different image aspect ratios, which are easily represented in an EVF but not an OVF.

Best: EVF

2. Preview The preview experience offered by an OVF is fundamentally different from that of an EVF.  A good quality OVF provides  a  representation of  the scene in front of the camera. But I can see that without a camera. I want the camera viewfinder to provide me with an accurate preview of the photo which is about to be taken. This includes brightness, the effect of exposure compensation, highlight and shadow detail, color balance and sharpness.  A DSLR OVF can tell me about sharpness [a rangefinder OVF cannot] but the other qualities can only be conveyed by an EVF.  That is not to say all existing EVFs actually achieve the level of preview accuracy that I want. In fact I would say most of those I have used are one or two development generations short of  an ideal viewing experience, but the potential is there with technological development.

Best: Close call. I give it to the better EVF's right now. In a year or two there will be no contest.

3. Information/Data Displays  An  OVF cannot convey much in the way of information in addition to the framed scene. Manufacturers have used various strategies to improve the information visible on or near an OVF view. These include camera data beneath the image and various types of information projected onto the image frame.  An  EVF can be configured to give the user choice of  "DSLR" view or "Monitor" view with camera data beneath or superimposed on the image preview. A choice of grid lines can be displayed. Many other items can be displayed, or switched off by user choice. These might include highlight/shadow clip warning, focus peaking, electronic two way level gauge, histogram, camera shake warning  and any of a host of information icons which can be switched to display or not display by user choice.

Best: EVF

 

4.  Responsiveness/Refresh Rate   This is an issue when panning especially in low light, and is a major factor in following action with high frame rates and continuous AF.  An OVF refreshes at the speed of light [literally] so has the initial advantage. The limiting factor for a DSLR is the flipping mirror. With an EVF the limiting factors are the sensor read rate and EVF  refresh rate expressed as frames per second.  With present technology the flipping mirror can move faster than electronic processing. So for high frame rates the OVF is currently ahead. However DSLR/OVF technology reached it's full potential several years ago, but electronic processing speed is increasing every year.

Best: OVF  [for now]

5. Monitor/ELV segue  A fully electronic monitor/EVF system can be configured to provide the same information presented the same way in both the monitor and EVF.  This facility is not available with OVF.

Best: EVF

6. Focus operations

Autofocus:  An EVF can display the active AF area position and size, with AF confirmation. OVF's can provide a similar facility by means of projection/overlay. The EVF  arguably  provides a more integrated user interface.

Manual focus  An EVF enables automatic [or user selected] enlargement of the center or other part of the frame to aid MF accuracy. Other technical features such as focus peaking can be offered.

Best: EVF

7. View without switching on  OVF can, EVF can't.

Best: OVF

8. Size  The size of a DSLR  OVF is related to the sensor size. The apparent size of an EVF  preview image is unrelated to the capture sensor. This means DSLR's with 43 mm (diagonal) sensors provide big bright OVFs, but DSLRs with smaller sensors have smaller and less appealing OVFs. Micro Four Thirds camera with even smaller sensors can provide a  big bright EVF view just like a large DSLR.

Best: EVF 

9. Clarity/Sharpness  With present technology, the best and biggest DSLRs  and the best rangefinders have OVFs  providing the best clarity and sharpness. Budget  DSLRs are considerably less impressive. EVFs vary from excellent at the top end to awful at the budget end of the market. EVFs are improving but are not quite at the level of the best OVFs yet.

Best: OVF   

Conclusion  I don't really hate optical viewfinders, I just think they are last century's technology. The best ones still have an edge over good EVFs in some aspects of performance, particularly in the areas of responsiveness and refresh rate. I would also like to see better highlight/shadow detail in the EVFs which I have used recently, mostly in M43 cameras. In other respects the EVF  already provides many advantages. EVF technology continues to evolve while the OVF in it's various manifestations reached a development limit many years ago.