Cameras We Don't Need

Paper Bark. Lumix GH3 with Lumix 14-140mm lens

 

The Future of Cameras,  Part 4 of a 4 part series

Many cameras on the market today are promoted as having characteristics which are of dubious relevance to the craft of good photography. In  no particular order here are some of my pet peeves:

* Really Small  One version of this is "We squeezed the biggest sensor into the smallest camera body"  As if smallness was an intrinsically virtuous attribute of a camera. Of course what usually happens is you get a teensy little thing with no handle, no viewfinder, no articulated monitor and a limited set of tiny, poorly designed controls.

But look !!  It scores 3500 line pairs per image height on the IQ comparometer widget measurbator thingy. 

Wow!! For people who want to spend the rest of their lives photographing test charts this camera is just the thing.

As it happens I have shown to my own satisfaction here  that it is possible to build decent ergonomics into a small camera. But very few actual small cameras on the market today are remotely close to ergonomic excellence.

* Retro Styling  Why ?  Have today's camera designers run out of ideas ?  Why do they think that shaping a modern electronic camera vaguely like someone's supposedly favourite camera from the 1980's is a good idea ?  The user interface requirements of a camera which has a huge monitor covering it's back side and several million combinations of  control module options are going to be rather different from those of  a 1980's film camera.

* Lots and Lots of Pixels  More is better, right ? Nonsense.  For the great majority of photographic purposes 8 megapixels does a fine job. Some professionals with specific requirements for very high image resolution will need and use lots more pixels but for most of us enough is enough.  I am getting from my 16Mpx Micro Four Thirds cameras about the same level of image information as I achieved with medium format film several years ago. More pixels per sensor demands better and therefore more expensive lenses, more in camera processing power and more computer power with little guarantee of detectably better picture quality in most circumstances.

* Larger sensorCamera makers seem to be rushing to produce full frame cameras at the moment, presumably in the hope of generating better per unit profit and presumably seeking to upsell existing customers to something "better". I think they are launching a kite which will not fly well. Professionals  may need the amount of information contained in a full frame image but they are using full frame already.

* Touch ScreensYes, I know, some people say they love their touch screens. I don't get it. I have done an ergonomic analysis of trying to operate a camera while looking through the viewfinder and it just doesn't work for me. My anatomy is the same as anyone else's.

* Funky Features  Modern cameras are often loaded to the gills with these in numbers beyond counting.  Art filters, Motion Picture Snapshot Mode (or some such), Best Shot Mode (as if the camera could figure out better than you which is the best shot of a sequence).......and  on and on....... Some of these cameras are burdened with slower shot to shot times than I could manage in 1969 with an all manual film camera.  They would serve their users better by putting the camera's processing power to more effective purpose.

* Digital SLR cameras  This is a bit unfair to DSLR's as there is nothing wrong with them as a camera type. They are just a manifestation of 20th century technology and we are now well into the 21st century. Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras [MILC]  have less parts and the parts which they do have are more amenable to mass production (ie. electronic vs optical/mechanical). Therefore they are inherently less expensive to make. They are lighter and more compact. They have many desirable features relating to operation and the user interface.  When they have resolved the issue of follow focus on fast moving subjects  (some of them are almost there)  I believe it will be game over for the DSLR.  Soon.

* Cameras without an EVF   If a camera does have a viewfinder the operator has the choice to use it or not, depending on the circumstances. But if the camera lacks a viewfinder that choice is lost. Smartphones lack viewfinders. The presence of a viewfinder  needs to be one of the defining characteristics of a camera.

* Cameras without an ergonomic handle and thumb support  Ergonomic shaping is another feature by which cameras need to distinguish themselves from smartphones. Ergonomic excellence should be a feature of every camera but so many of them are dismally awful.

Summary  I think most of the camera types and models on the market today will or should disappear from the photographic universe. Us consumers need less models and less different types of camera, probably from fewer manufacturers. We need cameras which are better  designed with excellent ergonomics. Cameras which are a pleasure to use.

The camera business is currently undergoing the greatest changes in history. Making the transition from film to digital was difficult enough but a minor event compared to the present situation.

The challenge to established cameras comes from three disruptive innovations. One, the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera comes from within the industry.  The other two are from outside the camera industry. These are the photo capability of the smartphone and the internet.

It will be interesting to see which if any of the camera companies rises to these multiple challenges.  Apple Camera, anyone ?

The Future of Cameras

Plenty of imaging capability from a hand held micro four thirds camera with consumer
10x superzoom lens.

 

Desirable Characteristics of Cameras

The Future of Cameras,  Part 3 of a 4 part Series

Review  In the previous two posts in this 4 part series I offered some thoughts about camera user groups and also non user groups, then briefly explored the nature of the user experience.

Good Cameras  Now I want to explore what qualities and characteristics make a good camera. Specifically, what kinds of cameras provide a satisfying user experience.

Engagement    The key word is engagement. The user is encouraged by the interface  to engage with the device in a collaborative picture making process.  Using the camera is enjoyable. That does not necessarily mean simple or easy in the sense that a snapshot device is easy. It means the device is designed for optimum picture making performance by a practised user.

But what about the novice user and the aspirational snapshooter ?   Fully automatic Mode saves the day. The beginner can start on fully auto then graduate to the user control modes with more experience.

Characteristics of individual cameras

The Proper Camera  The first step on the road to good ergonomics is the proper camera. This the term I use to encapsulate some key characteristics which I believe every camera should have. These are the primary features by which a camera can be distinguished from a smartphone or some other multifunction device which happens to be able to take photos.

I described it more fully  here  but to summarise, the proper camera has:

* An ergonomic body the shape of which conforms to the hands  and fingers of ordinary humans. It has an anatomically shaped handle and thumb support.

* A responsive, good quality built in electronic viewfinder. Yes, an electronic one, not an optical one. Read more about this here.

* An articulated monitor.

* A built in flash and with cameras above compact size, the ability to use accessory on and off camera flash units.

* An ergonomic user interface. This enables the user to quickly perceive and adjust primary and secondary exposure and focussing parameters while in the Capture Phase of use, without having to remove the eye from the viewfinder and without having to substantially shift grip with either hand on the camera. 

* Responsive performance. The camera must respond immediately to the user's control inputs and not impede the flow of the picture taking process.

Note that many cameras on the market today do not meet my Proper Camera criteria and in my view are damaging the reputation of cameras generally, thereby driving even more people to use smartphones.

Camera line-ups   I think  there are far too many slightly different models of camera on the market today. In many cases the multitude of different types and models is confusing. Well, it's confusing to me and I know a lot about cameras.  Furthermore it seems to me that many of these models are not clearly targeted to one of the user groups which I outlined in the first part of this series.

Here is my suggestion for a consumer camera line up which might be offered by one of the major manufacturers:  Note again I believe they should ALLqualify as Proper Cameras using my suggested criteria, including the compacts.

1. Compacts:  with two levels of specification

* Entry

* Expert/professional. Yes professionals use compacts too.

As envisaged by me a major manufacturer would offer just two compacts in the lineup at any time. Not twenty as is sometimes the case at present. This would enable  manufacturers to concentrate their energies on fewer products each properly executed and it would help  consumers make a choice.

2. All in Ones  (a.k.a. bridge cameras) I think this type of camera has a big future. Why ?  Because the key to good camera design is good ergonomics and the least ergonomically desirable feature of interchangeable lens cameras [ILC's] is changing lenses.  I hate changing lenses and I bet many people do also. So if photographers can get a versatile range of focal lengths, good quality and good performance in a camera which does not require changing lenses, then they will go for it. The feasibility of bridge cameras has greatly increased in recent years with the improvement in performance of small imaging sensors and cost effective fabrication of aspheric lens elements, which allow zoom lenses to be made smaller.

I think three levels of specification could be appropriate for this class of camera:

* Entry

* Expert/Enthusiast

* Professional

3. Interchangeable Lens Cameras   In my proposed and predicted camera universe these will all be of Mirrorless type [MILC].  I think two levels of specification would be appropriate for this class of camera:

* Expert/Enthusiast.  Beginners can happily use this level of camera on  Fully Auto Mode. They can then graduate to the user control modes without having to buy a new camera body to get decent ergonomics and performance.

* Professional. There is likely room for two sub levels in the professional category, for instance one model for high speed, sport/action and another  model for high resolution.

So, that gives us a total of about 8 camera models across the entire line up of a major manufacturer.

I think that most of the models offered by camera makers in their current line-ups are just product clutter. There are really not enough different user groups and not enough different operational requirements to justify the profusion of models which we see at present.

You might ask,  why not ?  Why should the makers not produce a plethora of models as long as somebody is willing to buy them ?   Two reasons:

*  Too many models increases the cost of every camera as each generates  R&D expenditure.

* The process of churning out many models prevents designers and makers from fully developing the ergonomic design, user interface, function and performance of any of them. Us consumers are subjected to a stream of sub-standard products which are a credit to no maker and damage the reputation of the whole camera industry.

* I could add a third reason, namely that less and less consumers are in fact buying cameras. Camera designers, product developers and makers need to review their entire product portfolios, with a view to making better products, not more products.

Next:  Cameras without which the photography world will be a better place.

 

 

 

 

 

The User Experience

Feed Me
This is hardly an example of excellence in bird photography. However I got the shot only because I had in my hand a light, compact micro 4/3 camera and lens combination at the time. This is a 5.4 Mpx crop of the original frame.

 

The Future of Cameras, Part 2 of 4

In the good old days  way back when when we used film, way back near the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Eastman Kodak  created the marketing slogan...."You press the shutter, we do the rest"...  With this slogan and the Box Brownie camera,  Kodak created the snapshooter.

Prior to this you almost needed a degree in physics and chemistry to make any kind of photo at all.   In due course the Box Brownie was replaced by the ubiquitous film compact camera. This in turn gave way to the digital compact camera and then to the smart phone. 

No longer do snapshooters need any kind of  separate camera at all.

The Snapshooter  User Experience  In the smartphone era, the snapshooter does not want to carry a separate device just in case they want to make a photograph.  More easily than any camera the smartphone can genuinely be carried in a pocket and be ready for use in a second or two.

The user does not want to engage with the smartphone camera's technical imaging function. He or she just wants to view on the screen, swipe to bring up the camera function and press. Selected pictures can be quickly uploaded to any accessible cyber location.  This type of photography emphasises spontaneity, speed, convenience and connectivity.

The Camera User Experience  If my analysis is correct snapshooters will not need to buy cameras at all. Therefore they will not do so. In fact, already smartphones suit the snapshooter's requirements better than the great majority of cameras.

This means the only users who will buy a separate, dedicated camera are the Aspirational Snapshooters, Expert/Enthusiasts and Professionals.

Way back in those good old days of film the snapshooters used compacts and the other three groups mostly used single lens reflex cameras.  The key feature of an old style, all manual SLR was that in order to operate the thing effectively you had to engage with it. You had to learn about apertures, shutter speeds, film speed and depth of field. You had to practice using the device to gain sufficient competence to drive it effectively.

I take the view that while camera technology has changed, some things have not changed. One is that cameras today still use the same primary exposure and focussing variables that cameras have always used.

Another is that people's aspirations about photography are much as they have ever been. Some are casual about it, others more intense, involved and engaged.

Consider also that camera user's functional anatomy has not changed at all. Their eyes, hands fingers and brains work exactly as they have done for thousands of years.  

In the Capture Phase of  use, the user has to do three things: Hold the camera securely, Viewthe subject and key camera data and  Operatethe device. This means adjusting the  primary exposure variables (Aperture, Shutter Speed, Sensor gain) secondary exposure variables (Exposure Compensation, White Balance) primary focus variables (start/lock AF, MF) and secondary focus variables (position and size of the active AF/MF area, AFS/AFC). 

The user who wants to take control of all this requires three things: A camera which makes these adjustments readily achievable in capture phase, a desire to do so and sufficient practice to enable all these things to be observed and adjusted effectively while making photographs.

For many years, camera makers have promoted their products as being ......."So easy to use"..........I think they have been barking up the wrong gum tree.  Those who want easy to use will get a smartphone. In the past, they got a compact camera which operated on fully automatic.

The key to enjoying the experience of using a camera is engagement with the process.

In the next post I will describe the characteristics of cameras which facilitate this engagement.

Who Uses Cameras ?

Casual snapshot made on my early morning walk. Lumix GH3 with Lumix 14-140mm lens.

 

The Future of Cameras, Part 1 of 4

Declining Camera Sales  The total number of cameras sold each year has been declining for several years. I read recent reports that the decline has now started to affect interchangeable lens cameras (ILC) as well as compacts. Despite or perhaps because of this manufacturers are pushing onto the market cameras which feature a multitude of different types, styles, specifications, sizes, sensor sizes and technologies.  To a somewhat jaded consumer like myself it looks as though they are blindfolded, throwing out  lots of different product variations in all directions hoping that one of them appeals to enough willing consumers to make it viable.

Getting the Cart before the Horse   I read a lot of analysis and discussion on websites and user forums about cameras. All manner of things are discussed, such as size, pixels, control layouts, styling and much more.

But it seems to me there is little to be gained by these discussions if we are unaware of the intended user and that user's requirements for a camera.

I am just a consumer with no inside knowlege of any camera maker or vendor.  But it seems to me that over the last few years many new product releases advertise a selling point which has nothing to do with the likely requirements of many actual users.  Like, it comes in 100 color combinations, or it's really, really small, or it has some ridiculously large number of pixels in there somewhere.  I will return to this in Part 2 of this little series.

Groups of Camera Users  This is a simplification, of course,  but  I think it provides a useful basis for thinking about the kinds of cameras which people might want to buy and keep on using.

I propose that there are four main groups of people who make photographs and three groups who use cameras.

Those who use smartphones

These are mostly snapshooters.  Here we find  people who don't want to be bothered with apertures, shutter speeds and all that technical stuff. They have better things to do. These people make photos in opportunistic fashion. Pictures are incidentalto the day's events. This is by far the largest number of people who make photos of some kind. They use smartphones in a casual way and rely on the automaticfunctions of the device.

Having said all that I know that some professional photographers use smartphones sometimes. Fine, but the smartphone is not their main tool of work.

People who use cameras   

Camera users relate to the capture process in a different way from smartphone users.  Their picture taking is  premeditated.  Making photographs is integral to the day's events. It is one of the events.

I  identify three groups of camera users.  These are Aspirational Snapshooters, Enthusiast/Experts and Professionals.

Aspirational Snapshooters still have their camera set to the [green camera symbol] or similar automatic mode on the dial. But they have aspirations. They want to learn more about using a camera on one of the "expert" modes.  Maybe they plan to attend a photography course some time soon. Manybe they aspire to better results, getting published or winning a photo competition.  These users will often select a DSLR or advanced compact bristling with buttons and dials which for the moment remain underutilised.  Maybe their self esteem is boosted by using an advanced camera.  My point is this group will select a somewhat advanced camera model not a simplified model which can only be used in point and shoot mode.

The Enthusiast/Expert group is fairly self explanatory. These people are interested in the process of making photographs and like to work diligently to improve both their competence in the process of image capture and the quality of their results.

Professionals have to make money from their photography so as a group they tend to be more pragmatic about equipment choices than the other user groups. They are little affected by marketing hype and more interested in using equipment which reliably gets the job done.

Each of the user groups is likely to use cameras in a deliberativefashion, thinking about the process of camera work as a means to the imaging outcome. Professionals and Experts do and Aspirational Snapshooters would like to engagewith the  camera, to turn  it off automatic mode and  take control  of the capture process.

Next, the user experience.

 

 

 

 

 

Ergonomic Roundup November 2013, Sony

Out of control ?

 

Last but not Least in this roundup by manufacturer, we come to Sony. Like Panasonic, this is another very large Japanese corporation with a camera division. Also like Panasonic, Sony is heavily invested in the technology of imaging. It is a major provider of imaging sensors to makers of smartphones, surveillance equipment makes and, of course, cameras. As far as I am aware Sony sensors have found their way into one or several models from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and of course, Sony itself.   

Sony and Cameras  Sony has no legacy of film camera making but was very early onto the digital photography scene. The Sony Mavica [Magnetic Video Camera] of 1981 was the world's first still video camera, if that makes sense. Sony has been making digital cameras ever since.  The company bought the photo imaging division of Konica Minolta in 2006 to boost it's presence in the DSLR market.

My Experience of Sony Cameras  Is limited. I have never encountered a Sony camera that I wanted to buy for my own use, which is interesting because I have no brand affiliation and have bought cameras from most other makers over the years. I did buy an RX100 for a family member who was about to embark on an ultra long distance hike, solo, fully independent and camping. The requirement was for a very small, light camera with good image quality and the RX100 fit the bill.  I would never have bought this camera for myself as it was not particularly pleasant to use in the ergonomic sense, and had no viewfinder.  

Sony -vs- CanoNikon  Sony has been trying for years to capture the number 1 spot from Canon and Nikon but has thus far been unsuccessful.

Sony and Innovation  Sony Corporation as a whole and the camera division in particular has a long history of adventurous innovation, often leading to interesting products but not always to commercial success.

For instance the DSC-D700 of 1999 was very adventurous, acquiring almost legendary status over time.  The DSC-R1 of  2003 was an avant-garde Bridge Camera type design which to this day attracts enthusiast interest.

But innovation risks inconsistency, as we shall see.  

Superzoom/Bridge Camera Group   Sony generated considerable consumer interest with the R1, so what goodies awaited the Sony fans when the R2  was released ?  Well, none. Nothing. No R2. End of the line, folks.

Sony has since then released multitudes of travel zoom and superzoom cameras none of which made a great impression on the market.  

Fast forward 10 years and Sony has returned to the advanced  Bridge Camera  theme  just this month with the RX10, which is creating a great deal of interest on user forums. Imagine what user base they could have built up if they had stayed with the formula and been steadily improving the bridge camera breed over that 10 year period. By the way, the RX10 appears to have significant ergonomic problems as reported on this blog recently.

Compacts  Sony has turned out so many slightly different models of compact camera over the years it would be difficult to count them. What they failed to do was identify and stay the course with an appealing, photographer oriented formula like, for instance the Canon G compact series.

Now Sony has at last produced an interesting compact in the form of the RX100/100Mk2. Will they stay with this and develop the theme or drop it like the R1 ?

DSLR  Sony made it's entry into the traditional flipping mirror and prism DSLR market with the A100 of 2006. Then came the A700, A900 and A850 then..........they dropped this idea completely.

The next big DSLR idea was a series of cameras based on the "Two Mode Live View" technology. This utilised a sub sensor in the hump for live view at eye level. This type of DSLR ran for about two years. In this time Sony produced many slightly different models. Some of these were quite well reviewed, others drew stern criticism from reviewers. One of them, the A380 I think, generated this comment form a well known review site....."The inadequate pinchy handgrip is frankly just annoying.."

Looking at photos of this series of models (in the A350-580 range) there appears to have been litttle consistency of ergonomic execution. There are various different handle shapes, control layouts and user interface arrangements. They surely can't all be right but they could all be wrong.

The next big enthusiasm was the SLT type of DSLR, with a fixed, non flipping mirror starting in 2010. Again the previous type appears to have been abandoned. Again Sony produced a multitude of models each so slightly and confusingly different from the other, that  one wondered what the point of the exercise might have been.

Mirrorless ILC  Sony entered the MILC market with it's line of NEX cameras in 2010. These featured ultra compact bodies with APS-C sensor. Many reviewers roundly criticised the NEX ergonomics and user interface. Initial models had no EVF but eventually the NEX 7 then NEX 6  (the 7 before the 6, go figure) appeared with EVF. The NEX 7 also had the  unique and, in my view ergonomically irrational "Tri-Navi" control wheel system. Sony changed the name of this system to something else after a while but I forget what the new name was supposed to be.

My point is that Sony keeps changing things, often for no apparent beneficial purpose and usually to the effect of confusing any actual or potential Sony customers.

Now just this week, I hear the NEX line is no longer. Sony is up to it's old tricks again, starting camera lines then abandoning them just as the customer base begins to warm to that particular theme.

At the same time Sony has announced the introduction of yet another camera/lens mount system in the form of the FE system, the first examples of which are the A7 and A7R MILC's. These cameras require lenses which are different from those for the A mount or the E mount.  On my early assessment the A7 appears to have significant ergonomic problems also.

Here we go again. It's all change at Sony.

So, why is Sony the adventurous not Sony the market leader ?  In my view:

* Too many major changes to camera lines involving new lens mounts and completely new lens lines.

* Too many enthusiasms, leading to camera lines being started then discontinued.

* Too many similar models within each line.

* Inconsistent ergonomics, often leading to compromised user interface, camera handling and operation.

Motor vehicle makers understand these things. The market wants innovation, but not too much and not all at once.  For instance Toyota has a line of vehicles called Corolla. Cars of this name have occupied the same market slot since 1966 and become the best selling car nameplate of all time. Not one of them has been technologically adventurous but they all keep up with the times and reliably do the job required of them. If you move from the previous model Corolla to the new model you can hop in and drive it away with confidence because you know all the essential controls will be in the same, optimal place for safety and efficient operation.

I don't think these fundamental and I would have thought obviously desirable qualities can be said to apply to Sony cameras over time.

Sony -vs- CanoNikon again  In my previous posts in this little roundup series, I accused Canon and Nikon of falling asleep on the job. Sony appears to have the opposite  problem, namely a style notably at the hyperactive end of the spectrum.

The Crystal Ball  Sony Corporation has the technology, capacity for innovation and energy to be market leader in the camera world. I believe the reasons they are not can be found inside Sony itself, not with any of their competitors. The prize of market leader is there for Sony to take. Can Sony sustain the necessary coherent, disciplined strategy for product development ?    I think the answer to that is.......maybe.........

You see, I suspect that the Sony guys understand technology really well but have a much less coherent  understanding of cameras and their users.  We shall see..................

Ergonomic Roundup November 2013, Samsung

Photo made with Samsung EX-1.

 

Samsung Cameras  The name Samsung describes a gigantic South Korean Chaebol (business conglomerate) which is involved in manufacturing almost everything from ships to (electronic) chips. Somewhere, almost lost in the Samsung behemoth,  is a tiny camera division. This made compact film cameras for many years. In the digital era Samsung briefly teamed with Pentax, supplying imaging sensors for co-branded Samsung/Pentax DSLR's.

My experience with Samsung Cameras  In 2010 I bought a Samsung NX10.  This was Samsung's first mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. For a first effort I thought it was pretty good. It featured quite good ergonomics and a likeable user interface. It was almost exactly the same size as the Panasonic Lumix G1 but was much better shaped, easier to hold and more efficient to operate. I  learned a lot about ergonomics by analysing and comparing these two cameras.  I discovered that two cameras which are the same size and which superficially look very similar can provide a very different user experience. I discovered that it is possible to analyse, name and categorise the ergonomic elements of that difference. The NX10 was followed by the NX11, a very mild upgrade of essentially the same camera. I briefly tried an NX100 but rediscovered that my camera must have an inbuilt viewfinder.

 I also for a time owned a Samsung EX-1 (TL500). This was a quite sophisticated compact camera with decent ergonomics apart from the absence of a built in viewfinder.  It was plentifully endowed with hard controls for the expert user. But it had a serious flaw in the form of  a strong tendency to overexposure with subjects having a high brightness range (bright sunny conditions). Since these conditions are extremely common in Sydney, Australia where I live, the camera did not last long in my bag.

After the NX10/11   I thought Samsung's early MILC efforts showed real promise for future development.   It seemed to me that someone who understands cameras, photographers and the basic principles of ergonomics appeared to be influential in the NX camera design team.

Maybe that person resigned or died, I have no idea,  but subsequent Samsung digital cameras started to veer away from the early photographer friendly style to a more "electronic" style, possibly in line with the company's smart phone business.

Samsung brought the "i-Function" feature into it's lens collection. I analysed this feature  here  and found it to be without ergonomic merit. It was, in my view a gimmick, perhaps designed to create a point of difference between Samsung and other brands. 

I bought a total of 10 lenses for the NX system over the years and found that as time went on it appeared to me that quality control in the manufacture of theses lenses was declining leading to an increase in faults and decentering errors.

Performance was never a strong feature of the NX10 and 11 but I hoped it would improve with the NX20. It did not. The NX20 retained the sluggish performance and tediously slow shot to shot times of the NX10.

So I abandoned Samsung and returned to the M4/3 system where they still make real cameras.  Samsung went on to make their cameras look ever more like "Smart phone with lens". The latest iteration of this theme is the Samsung Galaxy NX, which appears to be an attempt to merge a Galaxy tablet (in the rear) with a viewfinder (on top) and a lens (out in front)  This thing must be operated entirely by touch screen although actually doing so appears almost physically impossible. How anybody could hold the thing, look through the viewfinder and operate the touch screen all at the same time is beyond me.

Actually the Galaxy NX looks to me like an example of asyndesis.  This is a disorder in which separate ideas or thoughts cannot be joined into a coherent concept. It is not uncommon in the drawings of people suffering from schizophrenia. It might appear as a car with a horse's head at the front,  or some similar juxtaposition which makes no sense to the viewer but generally has some kind of significance to the artist.  Presumably the Galaxy NX means something to it's creators but I don't get it.

The Crystal Ball   I have no idea at all about the possible direction of  Samsung's future in the imaging business. Not a clue. The vast majority of photographs made with a Samsung device utilise a smartphone. I have no idea whether there is a place in the Samsung empire for proper cameras. Frankly I can't think of any reason why there would be. Most entities which have a camera division are making a loss on their camera business so why would Samsung want to go there ?  

Ergonomic Roundup November 2013, Ricoh/Pentax

Rough Road Ahead, Nullarbor Plain. This was the main East-West highway across Australia in 1968. We made it from Sydney to Perth in the vehicle shown in the photo with only minor damage: one flat tyre, one broken windscreen.

 

Memories of Pentax  I used Asahi Pentax SLR cameras for many years. In the 1960's, 70's and 80's they were the most popular camera for enthusiast amateur photographers.  I started with a Spotmatic then graduated to a ME Super. Many of my favourite old photos were made with these cameras.  I still have fond memories of using them, especially in the genre of street photography, which was much more viable those days than it is today.

In the 1980's I was exploring options for improved image quality and for a time owned a Pentax 6x7 medium format film SLR. This proved to be something of a monster. A kit with 3 lenses actually weighed more than a 4x5 inch field camera with 3 lenses. It did not last long in my kit but the 4x5 field camera stayed with me for many years.

Pentax was a technology leader, introducing many features such as through the lens metering,  which we now regard as routine.

Then Came Autofocus   In the latter part of the 1980's autofocus for SLR cameras was invented. Pentax was late to catch that bus and in consequence fell behind Canon and Nikon in the market place,  never to catch up. Even today, I sometimes read posts on user forums bemoaning inaccurate AF with Pentax DSLR's.

Our family bought a Pentax film zoom compact about 25 years ago. It worked reasonably well in good light, not so well indoors.

Apart from that I have not encountered any Pentax product that I might want to buy in the last 30 years. I say that as a long time Pentax fan, so it means Pentax has not been developing products which appeal to me.

Then Came Mirrorless  Last year Pentax attempted to join the Mirrorless ILC crowd with the K-01, one of the  least well conceived and  poorly executed  cameras  in recent  history. I call it the "Knock Out One", because it sure knocked Pentax' reputation pretty badly.

The next bright idea from Pentax was the Pentax Q, an MILC with the smallest sensor of any interchangeable lens camera. Just to confuse things they changed the sensor size last year from about 7.5mm diagonal to about 9.3 mm diagonal. The precise purpose of this thing escapes me but apparently they sell reasonably well in Japan. I saw an advertisement for the Q10 in an Australian photographic magazine recently. The main selling point appeared to be that you could get it in "100 different color combinations".  Really, that was the pitch.

What about Ricoh ?  Ricoh makes office equipment, machines, printers etc. It also has a small division which has been making cameras since 1938. In recent years these have tended to be niche market products.

About 20 years ago I bought a Ricoh GR1 film compact with fixed 28mm lens. This was actually a nice camera capable of making very good pictures but the 75 degree diagonal angle of view was a bit much for my taste so it did not last long in my bag. 

In the digital era Ricoh has continued to make derivatives of the GR1, to a generally favourable reception by a loyal band of Ricoh afficionados, who like to point out the camera's good ergonomics. Which is fine except the digital ones lack an eye level viewfinder. Oops.

In 2009 Ricoh introduced the GXR camera concept, the defining feature of which was it's interchangeable "Lensor" (Lens+sensor in one module) modules. Unfortunately for Ricoh, the market generally ignored the GXR which will go down in camera history as yet another failed bright idea.

Ricoh acquired Pentax in 2011, which is the reason they are grouped together here.

The Crystal Ball  In the absence of some dramatic revitalisation of the Ricoh/Pentax camera division I think the future is bleak. Both Ricoh and Pentax are making cameras with at best limited appeal. Neither is flourishing in the marketplace. Both have tried to rescue the situation with brave new products which flopped badly. I hate to think that a camera brand which was such an important part of my early and formative photographic years is about to disappear but that does seem to be a likely outcome.