Functional anatomy of the camera Part 1 Basic Characteristics

Three wise cameras (mockups). Each has the features I require of a Proper Camera. Compact in front, Medium full featured upper left and Small full featured upper right

 

I have devoted a good deal of space on this blog to discussing the functional anatomy of hands. Now it's the camera's turn.

Basic shape I have been studying camera ergonomics and design from a user's perspective for the last five years. In that time I have used many different real cameras with a variety of shapes and styles. I have made ten full body mockups and five handle only mockups, each exploring some aspect of the shape and design of the hand held camera. On the way I explored several unusual approaches to the underlying concept of a camera's shape. Most of these ideas were discarded before completion of the mockup as each had some deficiency which I regarded as terminal.

Top/rear view of the three mockups

Through a process of refining my ideas via mockups and actual cameras I have come to the view that there are really only three basic camera types which make much sense to me. My reasoning behind this position follows.

The camera in a smartphone world The snapshooter who once used a standard compact camera now uses a smartphone. Sales figures show cameras, especially compacts, are down and smartphones are up. The people who buy any kind of camera in future will be those expert (or prospective expert)/enthusiast buyers who currently buy DSLR's and MILC's. Some people might think that the unique selling point for the camera as opposed to the smartphone would be image quality but I think it is the user experience. In a few years the better smartphone cameras will deliver image quality good enough for most users and uses. A well designed camera can provide a much more engaging experience for the user prepared to learn how to drive it fast and well.

The proper camera I call the camera which can deliver this type of user experience the proper camera. It has a built in electronic viewfinder (or OVF for DSLR's) of good quality, a fully articulated monitor, an ergonomic, fully anatomical handle, built in flash unit and a full suite of hard controls for the driver to operate. The user can adjust all primary and secondary exposure and focus parameters while looking continuously through the viewfinder and without having to shift grip with either hand. It has or can be fitted with a zoom lens covering wide angle to telephoto view. The lens could be fixed or interchangeable.

The user interface My studies show that the best user interface is based on the modern Mode Dial and Control Dial(s) system. The traditional system which locates ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture and Exposure Compensation on fixed function, set and see dials or similar modules, is slower and less efficient to operate, with no ready access to a novice's mode.

The modern camera places the shutter button forward, on the the inverted L style handle, not back on the camera body. This enables the designer to optimise the layout of user interface modules (UIM's) on top of the camera.


Some things are not so important
Having the largest possible sensor Camera makers at the moment are, or are rumored to be, rushing to produce "full frame" MILC's. Sony has done so. But when full frame is compared to smaller sensors, the only thing you can be sure of is that lenses for full frame will be larger and heavier (and usually more expensive) than those of the same angle of view and aperture for smaller sensors.

More pixels More pixels is better, right ? Nonsense. Increasing pixel count just makes for larger files and a selling point for the marketing people. Picture quality is determined by many other factors.

Spectacular high ISO performance The latest full frame cameras can shoot at ISO 409,600. Again, this is mainly a selling point for the marketing people. Yes that sort of capability is amazing to behold and will be useful for a small number of users but is of little value for most of us most of the time.

Convergence <> divergence

Throughout a large part of the 20th Century the shape of 35mm film SLR's was characterised by convergence. Most SLR's looked very similar and worked very much the same way. Some attempts to find a new shape for the 35mm SLR such as the ill fated Rollei SL2000 failed. There could have been many reasons for this but I think one of them was that the standard SLR design with prism on top worked much better ergonomically.

Now in the early part of the 21stCentury we are witnessing a period of divergence. Modern manufacturing technologies have enabled the production of cameras which can be almost any shape with almost any kind of user interface. Add to this the present market conditions which are pressing hard on makers to invent some kind of unique selling point which will, they no doubt hope, allow their brand to survive the impending extinction event which several commentators are predicting.

We have flat tops, hump tops and retro style in several variants, some ergonomically incoherent. We have DSLR's large, medium, small and smaller. We have MILC's in a huge range of shapes, styles and sensor sizes. We still have a profusion of models labelled compact despite the steep decline of this market sector.
This divergence is producing something approaching ergonomic chaos. We find many different approaches to body size and shape, handle size and shape, shutter button location and many different types of user interface. If cars were designed like cameras the road toll would be horrendous. By the time drivers figured out which pedal does what and where to find it, there would be dead people all over the place.

I think it is time for another convergence era. This is, of course my considered opinion with which others will feel free to disagree. However this opinion is backed by a good deal of experience and practical research.

The ideal proper camera I have specified in general terms the features which I want to see in my proper camera. The next question is......

"Is there an ideal or best shape/style/layout for the proper camera ?"

If one was to review the actual cameras on sale right now one might think the answer to this question would be "No", such is the diversity of concept and execution to be found on display.

But I think the answer is "Yes". My studies have taken me to the view that many cameras on the market today offer a suboptimal operating experience which could easily be improved with a more user focussed approach to ergonomic design.

Somewhat to my own surprise that design has, in the larger than compact size, turned out to be a hump top camera with handle which looks and in many ways operates like  a small to medium DSLR or MILC. I just followed the ergonomic logic of every aspect of the user interface and that is where the journey took me.

The three wise cameras Let us stay with hand held consumer cameras for this discussion, excluding large format and special/industrial purpose devices. I think that the great majority of user's requirements can be met with just three body shape/size configurations.

1. The compact. (mustard mockup) There may be some life yet in the compact camera market in the form of an advanced compact which meets my proper camera requirements, something which very few compact cameras currently manage.

2. Small full featured model (orange mockup) This would be very suitable for an entry/small interchangeable lens camera (ILC) or an entry/small superzoom type.

3. Medium full featured model (Gold mockup) There is no large full featured model, none is required. The medium sized version would be ideal as an expert/enthusiast/professional ILC or advanced superzoom.

Next - detailed descriptions