Using mockups to explore camera ergonomic design

Mockups 2014. I will discuss these in detail in subsequent posts. Older models towards the rear, most recent versions at the front.

 

A brief personal history

 Background I have been using cameras for 60 years. The first was my father's Baldafix folding medium format rollfilm model which I was allowed to borrow sometimes when I was 10 years old. Since then I have owned and used almost every kind of camera ever invented. I became interested in ergonomics around 2009. I bought a Panasonic G1, the very first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera [MILC], after having used Canon SLR's and DSLR's since 1990. I could see that mirrorless was the future for interchangeable lens cameras but there were several problems with the G1's user interface (and image quality and performance, but this blog is mostly about the ergonomic issues). The G1 had the appearance of a scaled down L1, a 4/3 format DSLR. I realised that cameras are not scalable for the rather obvious reason that the hands which operate them stubbornly remain the same size no matter how large or small the camera might be.
I bought a Samsung NX10 which was the same size as the G1 but was much nicer to hold and operate. I realised that the problems with the G1 were not caused by it's small size relative to DSLR's but were due to design issues.

To investigate the nature of these problems I began making mockups.

The mockups I made these from scrap plywood lying about in my garage. I did complete cameras and also basic handle modules. I had very few preconceived ideas about the proper shape of a camera. The benefit of mockups is that nothing is disallowed, anything can be tried. I dreamed up and experimented with several avant garde shapes but none of these made it to completion, for the reason that none of them was practical. My most recent designs look very ordinary with hump top and handle like a small DSLR. I arrived at this shape because it works well ergonomically. The difference between my mockups and most actual cameras lies in the detailed realisation of the concept.

I now have 5 handle modules, 8 lenses (mostly peanut butter jars in various sizes) and 9 camera bodies. I also made a mockup of the Sigma dp2 Quattro just to discover for myself how one might hold and operate this odd looking device.

Ergonomics and camera makers I like to understand cameras in terms of product development, picture quality, performance and ergonomics. My impression is that camera makers are good at dealing with problems which are conceptually straightforward but technically difficult, such as picture quality and performance. But they often flounder when attempting to deal with problems which are conceptually difficult even though solving these problems may pose few technical problems. In this category I would put product development and ergonomics.

Ergonomics and camera users I am constantly surprised by the extent to which users appear to tolerate suboptimal or sometimes frankly dreadful ergonomics in their cameras. There are many well established metrics by which technical image quality and performance of cameras can be described and compared. But there is a paucity of words and taxonomy with which to describe ergonomics. So we read inane comments in camera reviews like "it feels good in the hand". I think that we are unable to describe, think about, discuss or analyse any subject such as camera ergonomics until we have the words and taxonomy with which to do so. Hence this blog which is one user's attempt to rectify the deficiency.

Next, Basic design decisions

Nikon 1 V3, Where is Nikon going with the 1 series ?

Nikon 1 V3
Photo courtesy of Digital Photography Review dpreview.com

Where is Nikon Going with the 1 System ?

Background  Last year our household acquired a Nikon 1 V2 camera with 10-100mm zoom lens. It has proven useful in a wide variety of situations. It caught the eye of two other family members, both ladies, who also bought the V2 with 10-100mm lens. One wanted to photograph her children at play and sport, the other wanted to capture photos of nature and wildlife. My wife is the main user in our household. She uses the V2 for general photography and tried it for photographing birds.

Long lens rumors  But the 100mm focal length is not long enough for most birds. So she was very interested when rumors began to surface of a new 70-300mm lens for the Nikon 1 system. At the long end this lens provides a diagonal angle of view of only 3.4 degrees. This is ultra telephoto territory.

The lens is real  In due course the rumors were found to be true and the 70-300mm lens was announced.  Although the aperture range is a modest f4.5-5.6 this allows the lens to be remarkably small. It is only 108mm long when collapsed for carrying. In one product  Nikon  democratised the super telephoto zoom lens and began to realise the benefits of the small, 15.9mm diagonal sensor in the 1 series. If this lens has good optical properties and very good VR (it will need to be good) it will make sport, action, wildlife and bird photography accessible to thousands of photographers who could never afford an 800mm lens for a full frame camera. Bravo Nikon.  

Nikon 1 V3 with accessory EVF and handle.
Photo courtesy of Digital Photography Review   dpreview.com

Now for the camera  An ultra telephoto lens is not the easiest thing to use so the 70-300mm will need a suitable camera behind it. My wish list for improvements I wanted  Nikon to make in updating the V2 to the V3 include:  A larger, more ergonomic handle for secure grip, a larger, better quality EVF and a more enthusiast/expert oriented user interface. A bit more dynamic range and a bit less high ISO noise would have been welcome.  The orange mockup shown in the photos represents my vision of the design direction in which I would like to see the Nikon V cameras go. The one thing I did not wish for was more pixels. At 14 Mpx the V2 has plenty.

So, what did we get ?    The V3 has more pixels.   And it  costs more.  A lot more if you want the handle and EVF.  There is no doubt in my mind that if you want to use the long lens you will very definitely need the handle and EVF.

And what did we lose ?  They removed the handle. Oh, they left a little bump where the handle used to be.  But the bump will be of little use with a long lens mounted.  I notice that compared with the V2,  they also moved the lens axis to the right (as viewed by the user) making it difficult to fit a decent handle anyway. The accessory unit sits offset to the right when mounted.  And they removed the EVF.   And they fitted a smaller, less powerful battery. The V2 uses the EL21 with 1485 mAh. The V3 uses the EL20 with 1020 mAh. And they changed the memory card from standard SD format to the Micro SD format. What was that about ? It's a camera not a smart phone. There is plenty of space for a standard SD card.

What on earth were they thinking ?   I understand that there is a place at the entry/budget end of  the market for little cameras without handle or built in EVF.  There are several of these in Nikon's 1 series lineup already.   But the V  is the premium model in the lineup.  Done right I think the V3 could appeal to a large cohort of enthusiast users who would welcome the opportunity to benefit from the high speed technology inside the V cameras and the ultra telephoto lens possibilities opened up by the 70-300mm.

My thoughts on the V3   This looks like a camera which doesn't know what it wants to be. In my view it needs to be a fully featured mini DSLR style model with all the features and capabilities of a mid range enthusiast DSLR/MILC but in a smaller size. This is entirely possible as the V2 and my mockup demonstrate.  The V3 makes no sense to me at all.  When optioned up with the handle and EVF it is way too expensive. Even then the package is not appealing. The slip on EVF will be vulnerable to damage if left on the camera and a perpetual nuisance if carried off the camera. The accessory handle if fitted duplicates the shutter button, wasting valuable camera top real estate and sets up a confusing and ergonomically suboptimal configuration of front command dials.

 

On the left my mockup with ye olde peanut butter jar lens which by coincidence happens to be almost exactly the same size as the new Nikon 1 series 70-300mm lens. On the right a V2 with 10-100mm lens. 

Notes on the mockup  The orange mockup embodies my ideas for  the ideal small yet fully featured camera suitable for beginner or expert/enthusiast users.  It is the same height as a V2, 11mm wider and  16mm deeper although  a lens if mounted  determines total depth.  Something very close to this would describe the camera which I wanted the V3 to be. It has a fully anatomical handle and thumb support, forward shutter button with quad control layout including command dial, fully articulated monitor and a full suite of hard interface modules for hands on control of the device.

 

Rear view of the mockup beside the V2. They are actually the same height although the angle of view here makes the mockup seem taller. The mockup is much nicer to hold. It doesn't need to be orange, I just wanted you to notice it. It actually started life painted mid gray, but that was too dull and boring.

What about the 1 series ?   At this point neither my wife nor I know what to think about the Nikon 1 series. We could keep the V2 and mount the new 70-300mm lens and we might do that.  The problem is that we have no confidence in the direction (or lack of direction) which Nikon appears to be taking with it's 1 series. Why is the V3 not a full featured all inclusive unit ?  Why is Nikon  dithering about with accessory EVF and handle on it's top model ?  We want to feel some confidence that we know and Nikon knows,  where it is going with the 1 series so we can get on board with the system or drop it and go elsewhere.  

Is Nikon deliberately overpricing and  underspecifying it's V series to protect DSLR sales ?  Are these inexplicable (to me) changes moved by styling considerations ?  I am confused.

It defies logic that a camera maker would go to all the effort and expense of  developing  a new line of cameras then deliberately disadvantage  those cameras in the marketplace. My personal view is that the 1 series has great  potential which Nikon is not fully exploiting with it's product lineup. 

In the meantime..............  We have been using a Panasonic FZ200 which has a superzoom lens with a diagonal angle of view at the long end of only 4.1 degrees, almost as narrow as the 70-300mm. The FZ200 also knows what kind of camera it is trying to be (do everything) and it half succeeds (or half fails depending on whether you are an optimist or pessimist)  falling short on several  key image quality and performance metrics.

We shall see......................

Canon G1X Mark II, Thoughts about the concept

Sydney, Circular Quay, early evening.

 

Engineering triumph or missed opportunity ?

One of Photography's Really Good Ideas:   Consider the following:

1. According to data from camera makers, occasionally revealed by one or other photo commentator, the average number of lenses purchased for each  DSLR is 1.4 and for each MILC 1.3.  A few buyers purchase many lenses which means the majority buy their camera with a kit zoom and never remove it. This majority is not utilising the benefits of an interchangeable lens system. This substantial number of users would be better served by a camera with fixed, built in zoom lens IF  that option delivered tangible benefits such as greater zoom range, larger lens aperture, smaller size or lower price.

2. Without the impediment of a lens mount between the lens and body, a fixed, built in zoom lenses can collapse back into the body of the camera. With good design this could possibly  enable any or all four of the benefits cited above.  

This is the  really good idea.  A fully featured camera with picture quality,  performance  and ergonomics equal to a DSLR or MILC but in a smaller package offering a better  (greater zoom range, wider aperture, smaller size)  lens than your average kit zoom.  This camera would have a fully auto mode  suitable for novices but would also have the performance to appeal to expert and professional users.

If this concept camera can be built and really is such a good idea where are all the models built to this specification ?  They are distinguished only by their almost complete absence.

Olympus has the Stylus 1 which appears to be headed in the direction which I suggest but it's small sensor means picture quality is not in DSLR/MILC territory.

Maybe designing and building the lens is more difficult than one might imagine. Maybe the manufacturers don't want to take sales away from their own ILC's.

Photo courtesy of imaging-resource.com
G1X top view

 

Canon's interpretation, the G1X   The first version of this model was announced in January 2012.   Canon's promotional literature at the time touted  the G1X as  "creating a prestigious new category".....  it was....  "the finest compact Canon has ever produced" ....."revolutionary"....."designed to produce DSLR levels of image quality and performance in a highly portable metal body"...... "the perfect  complement to a Professional DSLR"..... and on and on for several pages of  extravagant  prose. 

It all sounded pretty good so our family bought one. OOPS !   Big mistake.   After all the hype, the reality was  extremely disappointing.  All aspects of operation were frustratingly sluggish including autofocus, shot to shot times and all adjustments.  Close ups were not possible. The optical viewfinder was a carry over from many previous G cameras. It revealed only about 60% of the area of the actual captured picture, had parallax error and provided no camera data at all. There were ergonomic issues. The front control dial was inaccessible without completely changing grip with the right hand.  The picture quality was OK but nothing special.  Highlight clipping of JPG's was common.  The lens was decently sharp but slow of aperture and slow in operation. The video button often got pressed accidentally.  I wrote a review of the camera for this blog but found myself unable to identify more than one  positive thing to say and never published it.

The G12 also in the house at the time was a more user friendly device.

Canon's material  read  as though they were trying to implement a realisation of my really good idea  but somewhere along the way they lost the plot and produced a half baked disappointment instead.  My list of improvements which I wanted to see in any follow up model  included  almost everything.

The G1X DXO Mark score was 60 which is reasonable but several cameras with smaller sensors scored higher. The thing desperately needed a good EVF, improved operating speed, a lens with wider aperture, faster operation and closer focus, a more ergonomic handle, better control layout  and better ergonomics. The one thing the G1X did get right was the fully articulated monitor.

Now the G1X (II)  It seems Canon is having another try at the same concept. Again there is a wealth of promotional literature, this time in the form of an  illustrated brochure entitled  "Story of the PowerShot GX1 Mark II Development"  This time the promotional material  talks about  the  creative efforts of the "large team" at Canon headquarters to solve various technical problems. Apparently putting two dials on the lens and making one of them clicky and the other one smooth was one of those problems.

The brochure  says that ..."unrivalled technology was used to create the new flagship model"....... Since the erstwhile flagship model sank even before encountering rough seas, let's follow the brochure further........."with the birth of the Powershot G1X MarkII, Canon's philosophy and technology are embodied in one camera".....

....."Photographers and survey results from users provided a vast amount of feedback and Canon's engineers improved everything they could".....There is a lot of explanation and praise for the engineers on the subject of the lens the sum of which appears to be that they increased the zoom range (both wider and longer), increased the aperture by about 1 stop (a bit more at the long end) across the range and got it to focus both closer and faster.  All this sounds very good and just what the customers ordered.

The brochure then goes on ...."Canon's  R&D team was particularly conscious of the camera's viewfinder operation".... ..."the optical viewfinder does not necessarily lead to great viewer satisfaction. The EVF was introduced to solve this: it offers 100% coverage and it can display a variety of shooting information"   All this might be true if the camera actually had a viewfinder. They got rid of the totally inadequate old OVF from the G series and replaced it with...........nothing.  For a team "particularly conscious of the.....viewfinder operation.." this seems like an extraordinary decision.  Now you have to buy a large, expensive accessory item if you want a viewfinder.  With the EVF mounted the camera's height is 114mm which is greater than most mid level DSLR's.   Compact ???

Now the brochure moves on to the control rings around the lens. The original G1X had a control dial in front of and below the shutter button. This was poorly positioned and difficult to operate with the right index finger. The course of action which seems most ergonomically logical to me would have been to raise and deepen the handle, put the shutter button front left on the handle  and a control dial just behind the shutter button,  Canon DSLR style. Canon has been doing layouts this way for years, why not continue the same theme on the G1X ??  Maybe because it's "DSLR Style" not "Compact Style"  I don't know.   What actually happened is they removed the control dial altogether. So now they had to find some place for a replacement and selected the lens barrel. Why the lens barrel ? Maybe because they reduced the size of the right side of the camera and handle so much there was no place else for it to go.  The brochure says    "With composing the image through the EVF in mind, it is easier to shoot if the controls are around the lens"   My comment on this:

a) the camera actually doesn't have an EVF and

b) who says it is easier to shoot if controls are centered around the lens ?  My ergonomic studies would preference using a well positioned control dial just behind a forward located shutter button, just like a Canon DSLR.  Presumably Canon doesn't believe it's DSLR's are difficult to use.

The brochure then spends several pages detailing the development of the lens and image processor which all sounds fine and perhaps an opportunity for the engineers to come out from the back rooms for a moment of recognition.

There is reference to  the multi aspect ratio sensor which is an excellent idea and one I appreciated on my Panasonic GH2  several years ago, but why did they not include 16:9 ratio ?

The brochure concludes with reference to ergonomics  ....."Ergonomically strong emphasis is placed on handling and in particular the operation and material quality of the dual control rings"   We are back on the clicky and smoothy rings again  which appear to have provided great exercise for the design team.  

Unfortunately, on the subject of ergonomics, they forgot the handle. Well, they included just a flat little quasi handle. If you want a handle which provides actual grip you have to buy it separately (in some markets but apparently it's included in other markets, go figure).  Why don't they just put a proper handle on the thing and stop messing around ?  It would not add any depth which is already determined by the lens.  If properly designed it would make the camera much easier to hold and operate.  Olympus is another maker which does this silly dance with the handles.  They  make some cameras (for instance EM5, EM10 but not EM1 which they got right, go figure)  with the shutter button  in the rearward position on top of the body  (instead of the more ergonomically logical position  on the handle)  then deprive the body of a proper handle but offer one as an accessory.  When the accessory handle is fitted the right index finger and third finger are pulled apart as the third finger tries to go forward on the handle and the index finger tries to go back onto the shutter button.  I do keep going on about this  and the reason is the camera maker's (several of them) persistent use of sub optimal ergonomic layouts.

The mockup referred to in the text below.  The design is such that anyone from men with large hands, women with long fingernails to children from age around 10 can hold and operate it comfortably. With a lens having the specifications of that in the G1X a camera like this could appeal to a wide spectrum of users.

 

Camera design as football     It looks to me as though Canon has brought the ball to the half way line, sent the entire "large (engineering) team" out to lunch and brought on the marketing team. 

Camera design as camera design   The original G1X  was a depressingly half baked device. The only thing I felt positive about was the fully articulated monitor.  The Mark II version needed and got a complete re design. Unfortunately they stopped half way through the process and to make matters worse downgraded  the fully articulated monitor to the less versatile  flip up/down type. There is no built in EVF, no built in handle and there is insufficient space on the right side of the body for a comprehensive suite of controls to suit  the camera's target, expert/enthusiast user group.

I think they half baked it. Again.

It appears the Mark II  has landed uncomfortably in the same no man's land as the original. It is not really compact in the sense that the Sony RX100 is compact. But neither does the whole camera fully exploit the potential benefits of the lens (assuming the lens is as good as it's maker claims). Without the EVF viewing will be unsatisfactory in sunny conditions. I have never yet encountered a camera with a monitor capable of  providing a clear view on a sunny day in Sydney. With the EVF it will be as expensive as and taller than a DSLR. In any configuration it will not be as comfortable in use as a camera with a well designed ergonomic handle. 

Another way  I would like to see the G1X cameras grow up a bit in size and a lot in usability. The orange mockup shown in the photo is 3mm wider, 6mm taller (but with a built in EVF) and the same depth from the monitor to the front of the lens. The EVF eyepiece protrudes back another 6mm. The lens shown on the mockup has a diameter of 55mm, that on the G1X is 65mm in diameter. There is plenty of space on the front of the mockup for the larger diameter lens. Although slightly larger than the G1X(II) without EVF the mockup fits my criteria for a Proper Camera.  It has a fully anatomical ergonomic handle, comfortable thumb support, forward shutter button and control dial, built in EVF, fully articulated monitor and a full suite of controls for expert use.

I do not understand why Canon has not configured the G1X  like the mockup.  Although it would be about the same size as a small MILC with kit lens, no existing ILC kit lens has the combination of 5x zoom range, wide aperture and compact dimensions found in the G1X.  The approximately comparable EF-S 15-85mm lens for Canon DSLRs with 28mm diagonal sensor is a much larger, heavier, expensive lens and still only manages an aperture range of f3.5-5.6.

Maybe Canon does not want to compete with it's own DSLR's.  The problem is that the G1X (II) might not compete with anything.  There are plenty of  compact Micro Four Thirds cameras out there many of which perform very well with a kit zoom and make a more compelling case for the expert user.  Maybe Canon has gotten hung up on the "compact" concept and a set of design conventions  (habits ?)  which traditionally express the compact camera genre.

I think there is a large market segment out there which is Canon's for the taking but might be grabbed  by another  maker while Canon is slowly half cooking the G1X.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Panasonic FZ 200 Superzoom User Review

At full zoom, focal length 108mm. The yacht in the foreground is about 250 meters from the camera. I used a sturdy tripod for this shot.  Several others, but not all of them,  made hand held with careful technique were of the same quality.

Does this camera point to the future ?

Brief history of Panasonic superzooms  I don't know if Panasonic invented the superzoom category but they have certainly persevered with the concept since the FZ1 of 2002. This camera featured a 2 (yes, 2) Mpx sensor, 12x constant f2.8 zoom,  monitor and built in EVF.  It set the basic formula for a succession of models to follow.

The FZ200 with 24x constant f2.8 zoom was announced in 2012 and was followed in 2013 by the FZ70 with more pixels and an extraordinary 60x zoom range.  Having experienced the challenges of getting sharp results at the long end of the 24x zoom I suspect the main benefit of the 60x ultra zoom lies in the marketing.

This review comes at a time which  I assume to be near the end of the model run for the FZ 200 given Panasonic's history of regular updates. It is still worth reviewing however as it is interesting and may be a pointer to the future of cameras in general.

The FZ200 in hand. It's about the size of an entry level DSLR or MILC with zoom lens and provides a similar operating experience.

 

Why the FZ 200 ?  One of our family members is interested in birds and wanted a camera which might be readily portable, modestly priced and perhaps capable of photographing birds.  Searches of available products led to the FZ 200 which looked promising as a good all rounder. The 24x constant  f2.8 zoom lens looked attractive too.

The march of progress  If this camera had appeared a few years ago it might have been hailed as the 9th wonder of the modern world. It packs a truly remarkable set of specifications, features and capabilities into a compact, modestly priced  unit, easily carried in a small camera bag.

Why superzoom ?  Hands up all those who like changing lenses. No hands ?  Two perhaps ? Maybe there is a little group of camera users out there the members of which actually like changing lenses. But the other 99.9% of us regard changing lenses as a chore and a bore and wish we had a camera with a single zoom lens which covered virtually all possible requirements. Bring on the superzoom.

FZ200 Top Rear view. Looks like a medium level ILC and works like one too.

 

FZ 200 overview  I don't know if this is the best superzoom camera available as I write but it is certainly one of the leading group. It is about the same size and mass as a Panasonic G6 with kit zoom lens. It comes with a full set of features including built in EVF, fully articulated monitor, proper handle on which you can get a firm grip and a control layout basically the same as that found in a DSLR or MILC.  It is comfortable to hold and operate, responsive and versatile. It delivers decent picture quality in most circumstances.

So, why doesn't everybody rush out and buy one ?  I will come to that shortly.

Specifications  You can read all the details in the manufacturer's published data. I mention just a few.  You can make still photos or video.  You can follow focus on a moving subject. In camera auto HDR and panorama stitching are available. Novices can use the fully automatic [iA] Mode. Experts can use one of the P,A,S,M  Modes.  RAW or JPG (or both)  capture is available. The RAW files are supported by Photoshop Camera Raw 8.3.  There is a built in flash unit and the lens has an optical image stabiliser.

 

Weather conditions were atrocious for photography with a heavy misty haze over the harbour. But the FZ200 with a little help from Photoshop Camera Raw (PsCR) has cut through the haze quite well and delivered a decent result. 

Picture Quality

Lens  This is the star feature of the FZ 200. It is I believe,  the first 24x zoom with constant f2.8 aperture offered on a consumer camera. It covers a diagonal angle of view from approximately 82 degrees at the wide end to 4.1 degrees at the long end, sufficient, I would think for the great majority of purposes.  Given it's specification the lens is remarkably compact. No manual zoom is available. Motorised zoom can be activated either with the lever on the front of the shutter button or the one on the left side (as viewed by the user) of the lens housing.  A standard screw in 52mm filter can be fitted and a standard removable lens cap is provided.

Optically the lens is very good for a 24x zoom but is not in the same class as any of my Micro Four Thirds system zooms, each of which it must be said offers a much smaller zoom range.  Resolution and contrast in the center of the field are good at the wide end and middle of the zoom range, with both falling away towards the long end. Edges and corners are soft at f2.8, cleaning up noticeably when stopped down to f4. Optimum aperture at all focal lengths is f4. Reducing the aperture further produces a loss of resolution, presumably from diffraction at the lens diaphragm.

In general photography using the lens at the wide end and middle of the zoom range, clear sharp photos are readily achieved in most circumstances. The long end is a different story.

For most general photography the FZ200 makes sharp, clear photos with good highlight and shadow detail.

 

Difficulty achieving sharp pictures at the long end of the zoom  On my first outing with the camera I made several fairly casual hand held photos at the long end and found them quite unsharp. In due course I discovered there are several factors working against the achievement of sharpness at full zoom. These are:

* The lens itself loses contrast and resolution towards the long end. This is  easily shown using chart tests with the camera mounted on a sturdy tripod.  The lens also has more chromatic aberration, purple fringing and local flare around bright subject elements at the long end.

* Autofocus is not quite as confident at the long end as the wide end.

* Subjects  shot at the long end are often at distance when atmospheric haze and heat distortion come into play.

* But the main problem is camera shake. Imagine a 600mm lens on a full frame DSLR. This has the same diagonal angle of view as the FZ200 at full zoom extension. The full frame kit weighs 5.5 Kilograms which is 8.5 times as much as the FZ200. It is also much longer giving it  much greater  inertia. In plain language this means the full frame kit is easier to hold steady,  provided you have some means of supporting the lens.  When I was experimenting with ways to hold the FZ200 steady I rested myself and the camera on a large rock, slipping one finger under the lens housing so it wouldn't be scratched. I could easily see the EVF preview image bouncing with the pulse in that finger. The OIS system in the lens is not good at responding to small sharp movements like this.

Strategies for sharpness  After some experiment I came to the following conclusions:

* Don't even think about viewing on the monitor at full zoom.  Use the EVF.

* A lightweight (1 Kg or less) tripod, particularly in any kind of breeze is worse than no tripod at all.

* With the camera on a monopod, I found there was poor harmony between camera movement and the OIS, resulting in jerky corrections of the preview image in the frame. Not recommended.

* Best sharpness was achieved with the camera firmly mounted on a large, sturdy tripod and  two second timer delay applied to the shutter release. However the whole point of a camera like this is to leave the heavy gear including tripod at home.

* Here are some strategies which I find improve the number of keepers with  hand held use.

* Always view through the EVF.

* For every exposure, breath in, then out and gently squeeze the shutter button at the point of full exhalation.

* Acquire a small bean bag. Rest the camera on the bean bag on something solid like a table or a rock.

* Lie on the ground with both elbows on the ground, camera to the eye. Your arms and body/head make a kind of tripod to steady the camera.

* Check the shutter speed.  Even with OIS on , I recommend using 1/500 sec or faster.  Most of my full zoom pictures made with a slower shutter speed were not really sharp.

* Use an aperture of f4.

Other lens issues  I found flare to be  reasonably well controlled and not a problem in most conditions even with the sun in frame.  Chromatic aberration and purple fringing will appear towards the edges of the frame especially at the long end. These are readily correctable in PsCR.  Distortion, possibly corrected electronically in camera, is minimal in output photos including RAW.  OIS keeps the preview image steady in the viewfinder if one uses good camera holding technique.

 I would prefer manual zoom as I find it faster and more precise. Some early models in the FZ series had this feature but in order to fit a zoom ring the lens barrel had to protrude further from it's housing.

Close up  In saying that I found close up capability a bit disappointing I feel  like the child in Charles Dickens' novel who asked for more. As in..... you have 24x zoom, you have constant f2.8, you have excellent AF, you have OIS...you  want  More..?     The lens can be brought very close to the subject at the wide end but as one zooms the minimum focus distance increases markedly, even with the lever set to the macro position. I solved this small problem by putting a 52mm close up filter in the camera bag and mounting it when I want to photograph small things without having to get excessively close to the subject.  

Noise  Raw files processes through PsCR at default settings show virtually no chroma noise at any ISO level.  Luminance noise (grain) is another matter.  This is evident in darker tones even at base  ISO and as expected increases as the ISO setting rises. Testing the FZ200 against the other cameras in the house at the time gave the following:

Each of the combinations below gave approximately the same luminance noise level. The sensor size given [in brackets] is the approximate diagonal measurement of the sensor:

Panasonic FZ200,   ISO800         [7.7]

Nikon P7800,        ISO 1250      [9.3]

Nikon 1 V2,          ISO 1600      [15.9]

Panasonic GH3,    ISO 3200      [21.5]

Subjectively I found the FZ 200 files best at ISO 100 and 200 and quite satisfactory for most purposes up to the Auto ISO maximum of 400-500. 800 is fine if big enlargement is not contemplated. I would try to avoid higher levels.

Dynamic range  (shadow and highlight detail) I found this to be quite good.  At low ISO settings the camera is able to hold detail in bright white clouds and shadows in dark rocks in the same frame. Shooting RAW enables significant highlight recovery not possible with JPG capture.

Colors  appear to be generally accurate with a tendency to cyan rendition of blue skies.

JPG vs RAW   I shot many frames of JPG+RAW and found that in every case I got better results from the RAW files after processing through Photoshop Camera Raw.  JPG's at ISO 400 and above do not treat human faces kindly with smearing of details in skin and hair and JPG artefacts.

Performance

The camera is generally brisk and responsive. It rarely slows down or impedes the picture taking flow.  It responds promptly to all user inputs.

In good light, single shot, single AF and AE on every shot, RAW capture, Sandisk 95MB/Sec card, shot to shot time measured over 20 shots was 1 second.

In burst mode at 5.5 frames per second, AF-C, JPG capture, at full zoom, the camera managed follow focus on cars moving towards or away from the camera at 60 kph, with 65% of frames in sharp focus. 

EVF refresh time is prompt with a  blackout time after each shot which I guesstimate at about 0.2 seconds.

Autofocus speed is very quick in good light and the wide end of the zoom, slowing noticeably in low light or at the long end of the zoom. Accuracy remains good however. The only occasions when I found the camera focussed on something unintended could be attributed to user error, for instance not making the active AF area small enough and placing it over the selected subject.

AF area position and size can be quickly changed with the eye to the viewfinder.

Manual focus is available, with zoom focus assist and an analogue distance scale and hyperfocal distance display in the EVF or viewfinder.

Ergonomics

Holding  There is a substantial handle which makes the camera easy to hold securely. The thumb support is small but useful.  If I were redesigning this camera I would move the shutter button about 10mm to the left (as viewed by the user) to allow a more natural position for  the index finger and a more definite support notch for the third finger. I would also make the thumb support about 5mm more prominent. Just nit picking really, as the camera provides a good holding experience.

Viewing  The monitor is fully articulated and of good quality. The EVF is a little smaller than  one might find on an ILC but is clear and  sharp with generally pleasing colors and good highlight/shadow detail. 

EVF and monitor are both adjustable for brightness, contrast/saturation and color balance. Both can be set to SLR style (with key camera data beneath the image preview) or monitor style (with camera data overlaid on the image preview).  At default settings I found skies tended to appear cyan and faces tended to ruddy red in color. Both  issues easily retcified with the adjustments available.

Some reviewers have complained about the absence of an eye proximity sensor to switch automatically from monitor to EVF view. In fact the camera does switch automatically from EVF to monitor view, just not by means of a proximity sensor. If the monitor is turned inwards, the EVF is active. If the monitor is swung out, it becomes active. Easy.

Operating The FZ200 is generally easy and enjoyable to operate. All the main controls are well located and designed.  Buttons have the correct amount of elevation. The rear dial has just the right amount of resistance. The 4 way controller has raised, sharpish edges which are easy to locate by feel with the eye to the viewfinder. Primary and secondary exposure and focus parameters can be adjusted in Capture Phase while looking through the viewfinder.  With a combination of Q Menu and Fn buttons with user assignable function, all the main adjustments required in Prepare Phase can be made readily.

One review (dpreview.com) complained that the rear dial was difficult to turn. Maybe that was a one off or a problem fixed during production. Another  review (imaging-resource.com) complained that too many actions have been assigned to the rear dial. This dial usually has dual function, controlling aperture or shutter speed depending on which Main Mode is set and exposure compensation if pushed in till it clicks. This is fairly standard Panasonic practice and is better implemented on the FZ200 than some other cameras I have used. When MF is selected via the slider on the left side of the lens housing, the rear dial is additionally used for shifting focus. The screen and EVF clearly indicate whether the dial is set to change aperture, compensation or MF. Push/click to rotate through the functions.

If I were redesigning this camera I would add a front dial behind the repositioned shutter button. The body is easily large enough to host a twin dial layout which would answer the criticism above and allow a more streamlined functional interface.

Comment   Is the FZ 200 good enough to supplant an interchangeable lens camera with 3 or 4 lenses ?  I would think that for many users who are not concerned about ultimate image quality the answer to that question would be yes. It is a very capable camera with a huge zoom range, generally good picture quality, good performance and good ergonomics.

The camera's main limitations derive from

1. The very small sensor required to permit a wide aperture superzoom lens in such a compact package and

2. The difficulty holding such a lightweight, compact camera sufficiently steady at the long end of the zoom.

Enthusiast photographers and those wanting to make large prints will find these limitations restrictive and will likely stay with their DSLR or MILC.

Future Prospects  There is much talk on internet forums these days about the impact of disruptive innovations on the camera world. The smartphone revolution has shaken up the camera industry like nothing ever seen before and there is more to come. Bloggers are wondering when or if the MILC will overtake the DSLR as the most popular interchangeable lens camera type.  But.......

Imagine a near future in which the 7.8mm sensor used in the FZ200 acquires one or two exposure value steps better noise performance and improvements in image stabiliser technology allow more reliably sharp pictures at full zoom.  Such a camera could make both the  DSLR  and  MILC obsolete for the majority of amateur photographers.

Bring it on................I hate changing lenses.................