Panasonic 14-140mm Mk2 lens Shutter Shock Test

Using Panasonic GH3 and G6

This is becoming really boring but........The problem persists and until  camera makers incorporate a complete fix into their products  the topic will stay on the agenda in this blog and on user forums.  Lots of camera/lens combinations including the latest MILC wunderkamera  the Sony A7R (at least with some lenses), have been reported to suffer from the problem.

How to test for Shutter Shock 

1. Affix chosen camera with lens to a sturdy tripod.  Activate the shutter with timer delay or remote triggering. You need to eliminate camera shake as a cause of any potential unsharpness.

2. Switch off any image stabiliser system, OIS or IBIS. You don't want any potential trouble from this source contaminating the results and in any event OIS/IBIS should be off when the camera is tripod mounted.

3. Choose a target and field of view which will show any unsharpness and/or double imaging. I use the newsprint of classified ads in a newspaper. The fine print readily shows any problems. Note I have seen all kinds of supposed "tests" for shutter shock reported on user forums using inappropriate targets which would not be sensitive to small amounts of system vibration.

4. Set the camera to Shutter Priority and Auto ISO.

5. Either set focus manually or AF exactly the same way for each shot.

6. Make exposures at 1/3 EV steps from about 1/4 second to 1/400 second.

7. Look at the results at 100% on screen.

Mechanical shutter. 1/160 sec.  Blurring evident with a touch of double imaging.

The Panasonic 14-140mm f3.5-5.6 (Mk2)  This is a compact, versatile travel zoom lens which has received very favourable review on this blog and elsewhere. SLR Gear (slrgear.com) in their test of the 14-140mm reported unsharpness which they attributed to shutter shock at shutter speeds of 1/40-1/50 second with the GX1 and GX7 using the mechanical shutter. The GM1 which uses electronic first curtain did not exhibit the problem. The GX7 gave no problems when the E-Shutter was used.

E-Shutter. 1/160 sec. Everything is sharp.

 

My results with the GH3 and G6  Both cameras gave the same result.

E-Shutter:

There was no problem at all at any shutter speed if the E-Shutter was used. All frames were sharp.

Mechanical shutter:

Shutter speeds 1/4 to 1/13 sec: no blurring.

Shutter speeds 1/15-1/40 sec:  slight blurring.

Shutter speeds  1/40-1/160 more noticeable blurring with double imaging between 1/100-1/160 sec.

Shutter speeds 1/200-1/250 sec: very slight blurring.

Shutter speeds 1/320 and faster: no problem.

So, yes, Shutter shock does occur with the new 14-140mm lens on Panasonic GH3 and G6 cameras.

How to prevent shutter shock 

With a Panasonic camera which enables E-Shutter, set this ON and shutter shock goes away.  For sport/action/rapidly moving subjects set Shutter Priority on the Mode dial and a shutter speed of 1/400 sec or faster.

The Panasonic GM1 is reported not to have the problem due to it using electronic first curtain even with the mechanical shutter.

With Olympus cameras, test first to see if the problem is present with your chosen camera/lens combination. If it is, try setting Anti Shock to 1/8 second.  

The Camera in a Smartphone World Part 5

To make this photo I turned 90 degrees away from the diners with the camera over my head, viewing on the fully articulated monitor.

 

Part 5, Viewing, Operating, Ergonomics

Camera vs Smartphone  The underlying theme of this 5 part series of posts is my view that the experience of using a camera needs  to be decisively different from  not similar to  that of using a smartphone. The camera needs to be more engaging so that the process of making photos is an integral part of the day's activity, not just an afterthought.

Viewing  The three primary elements of camera use are holding, viewing and operating. The smartphone user views on a  monitor screen. If the camera is to bring something more to the experience it must have an eye level viewfinder.  This makes the process of picture taking more engaging for the user who has to shut out distractions and for a short time, concentrate entirely on making the picture.  DSLR's have an optical viewfinder, Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have an electronic viewfinder. Both work and  either is better than no viewfinder.

But a proper camera also has a monitor for those times when the user wants to interact with other people while making photos.  There are three types of monitor;  fixed, swing up/down and fully articulated. Having used all three over the years I can assert with some confidence that the fully articulated type is the most versatile. It enables viewing with the camera held above or below eye level, in either landscape or portrait orientation. It also enables otherwise impossible angular relationships between the operator and the camera. You can look in one direction and have the camera pointing in a different direction.

Operating  There has been a buzz of interest on user forums recently about new cameras which feature some kind of hybrid/traditional user interface using marked, set and seedials, rings or levers to indicate the primary exposure parameters: ISO, shutter speed, aperture. Several also display exposure compensation on a marked dial.

The two latest are the Nikon Df and Fuji X-T1. The Nikon is a DSLR and the Fuji an SLR look-a-like MILC. 

My time and motion ergonomic studies indicate that the modern "Mode Dial Plus Control Dial(s)" user interface is faster and more efficient. For most actions required to operate the camera the modern interface requires less actions, each less complex than those required using a hybrid/traditional interface.

I suspect that in due course most users will tire of the sub optimal ergonomics of these  retro style cameras and revert to the more efficient modern user interface.

Ergonomics  Many smart phones have an excellent user interface and very good ergonomics. They enable the user to carry out many actions quickly and efficiently. Camera designers need to equip their products with excellent ergonomics also. But the user interface of a proper camera is completely different from that of a smartphone.

Many designers appear to be on a mission to make their camera work like a smartphone, with touch screens and Wi-Fi featuring prominently. The latest Samsung Galaxy cameras take this notion to it's logical extreme featuring a large tablet style screen on the back and a superzoom lens on the front with a little handle and a shutter button to one side. It will be interesting to see how this travels in the marketplace. If I am right it will not succeed in the long run, because in trying to be both,  it offers neither the elegance of the smartphone nor the engagement of the camera.

I believe the whole enterprise of making cameras like smartphones is doomed to irrelevance. The camera needs to be different from a smartphone and provide a completely different kind of user experience.

What do I use ?  I practice that which I preach. I select and continue to use cameras with good ergonomics, good performance and sufficient picture quality for my varied purposes, which can be quite demanding. Currently my system of choice is  Micro Four Thirds.  It offers the best balance between picture quality and overall kit size/weight, taking lenses into account, particularly long zooms. I use a  Panasonic GH3 which is a no nonsense kind of camera. It is comfortable to hold and provides a streamlined, efficient operating experience.

The Camera in a Smartphone World Part 4

Lighting the way ?

 

Part 4  Handles and thumb supports

Why does a camera need a handle ?   For many years through the 20th Century most cameras did not have a handle.  35mm film SLR's had, by today's standards, few control modules. As a result there was plenty of camera surface on which one's fingers and thumb could get a decent grip.  But cameras became larger, heavier and more complex with many more control modules.

Canon's T90 of 1986 weighed 800grams bare, had an LCD on the top plate, 5 buttons on the back and several more on top, and a control dial.  How could the operator get a hold on this thing ?

It needed a handle and it got one, thus setting the basic shape for SLR and DSLR cameras to the present day.

Thumb support   In the digital era cameras have acquired a great big monitor screen covering most of the rear of the body.  Those parts of the camera back not occupied by the monitor are filled up with buttons, dials and other user interface modules.

Now there is even less camera real estate on which the user might gain purchase. The electronic camera needs a thumb support as well as a handle, if it is to be held securely.

Relaxed half closed hand position  Adult human hands vary in size and length:width ratio but they all work the same way. The photo shows the position into which the right hand falls naturally when the wrist is slightly dorsiflexed, as is usually the case when holding a camera. This is the "ready for action" position. The muscles are relaxed. The hand and fingers are in position to grip something with minimal effort. Those with small hands can open the grip a little, those with large hands can close the grip a little. Both can comfortably hold the same  anatomically shaped camera handle.

Optimum camera handle and thumb support design shapes the device to match this natural hand position.

Right hand in half closed natural position.

 

Panasonic G5 camera

 

 

Holding the G5 camera. The right hand is able to adopt a position very close to the natural half closed one. This provides a good grip on the camera without strain. The fingers are in position to operate the controls.

 

Cramped hand position  Many cameras require the user to take up this position with the right hand. The thumb support is at the extreme right side of the rear of the body. The thin handle is likewise as far to the right as possible. The shutter button is not far enough from the right side forcing the index finger to lift back and flex.  This hand position is not a disaster, it is just uncomfortable, ergonomically sub optimal and also unnecessary.

 

Cramped hand position

 

 

Olympus EM5 camera. This is the same size as the G5 but it's design makes it more difficult to hold comfortably.

 

 

Rough mockup of a "no handle" camera. You can see where the fingers want to place themselves.

 

 

The EM5 again. This camera lacks a proper handle on the front. It just has a small ridge running down below the shutter button.  If I try to get comfortable holding the EM5  my fingers end up as shown. The thumb is all over the monitor and the index finger is 15mm beyond the shutter button.

 

 

Holding the EM5 so it works. This is the cramped hand position. It is difficult to feel confident that one has a good grip on the camera with the fingers forced into this position. There are other ergonomic problems with this camera. The buttons just in front of the thumb are difficult to press and the control dial just to the left of the index finger cannot be operated comfortably by either the thumb or index finger.

 

 

The EM5 allows an accessory handle to be fitted, shown here. This is an improvement. The palm is opened up, the index finger is in a more natural position and the fingers have something substantial to grip. But the thumb is still rather cramped over on the right side of the body. Now there are two shutter buttons and three control dials cluttering up valuable top of camera real estate.

 

 

Panasonic G3, right hand hold. Like the EM5, this camera has only a mini handle on the front. In addition it's thumb support is small  and located to the far right. To make matters worse, the control dial, which is just under the thumb as shown, is really difficult to operate. The is one of the ergonomically least satisfactory cameras I have ever owned.   I sold it on pretty quick. You can see the un-natural hand/wrist position which the user has to adopt to hold this camera.

 

 

Good handle and thumb support design  costs no more than sub optimal design. Good design makes a camera more enjoyable to use and therefor more likely to be used. In the smartphone era, camera designers cannot afford to inflict poor ergonomic design on their customers, who have the option of dumping the camera altogether.

 

 

 

 

 

The Camera in a Smartphone World Part 3

The need for speed. Predator and prey

 

Part 3  Control Layout,  Traditional or Modern ?

Is looking back the way forward ?

Traditional  This user interface originates from the mechanical cameras of the mid 20th Century. You have a manual focus lens with distance and depth of field markings on the barrel. Apertures are set manually via a ring also on the lens barrel with fStop markings. Shutter speed is allocated to a dial on the top plate. Film speed is usually set via a little window in the shutter speed dial. And that's all there is.

This system has the considerable virtue of simplicity. All adjustable parameters can be found on set-and-seemodules. Current settings can be seen at a glance without having to switch on the camera and without looking through the viewfinder. Of course when you do look through the viewfinder those nice clear set-and-see modules become invisible, just when you need them most..... oops.....

Modern  From around year 2000, the Mode Dial and Control Dial  interface became popular and is now  dominant. This interface allows camera designers to introduce the multitude of functions and modes which did not exist on manual film cameras. We have Auto, P, A, S, M Shooting modes, Focus Mode, Autofocus Mode, Drive Mode, Metering Mode, etcetera...........

Hybrids  There are numerous current model cameras which feature some attempt to blend the traditional and modern styles of user interface. Even cameras such as the Fuji X- series which promote their retro heritage and operation are really hybrids with autofocus and a mixture of old and new  style user interface modules. 

The recently released Nikon Df  looks to me like a head on collision between the traditional and modern systems with the resulting clutter of disparate control modules scattered about like wreckage all over the place. A fine example of how not to do it, methinks.

Which is best ?

On my assessment, a well executed  modern user interface has the advantage in two ways:

1)  Time and motion analysis.

The operation of a camera designed to be controlled by the user (as opposed to one which operates automatically with little user input)  can be devolved into a series of tasks. For instance, adjust aperture while in aperture priority mode;  switch from aperture priority mode to shutter priority mode;  adjust shutter speed in shutter priority mode......... etcetera

It is easy enough for anyone so inclined to conduct a time and motion study which for each task examines

a) The number of actions required and

b) The complexity of the action.

I recently did this exercise when comparing the Fuji X-E1 (hybrid traditional) and Panasonic GX7 (modern) cameras. I found that for the great majority of tasks the GX7 required less actions and each action was less complex.

 

2) The opportunity cost of  set-and-see  modules.  

If the designers elect to put, say, shutter speeds on a set-and-see  dial on the camera top then they cannot put anything else in that location.  They might of course elect to stack dials and put, say, an exposure compensation dial on top of the shutter speed dial.

But modern cameras utilise a multitude of Modes,  such as shooting modes, focus modes, autofocus modes, drive modes  etc.....etc.

Setting modes is a Prepare Phase action. This takes place in the few minutes before actually making photos. In Prepare Phase the camera is held down from the eye.  Set-and-see modules are ideal for adjustments in this phase.

Shutter speed, aperture and ISO are primary exposure parameters which require adjustment in Capture Phase, when the user is holding the camera to the eye. The user needs to see readouts of these parameters in the viewfinder and needs to be able to adjust them without taking the eye from the viewfinder or shifting grip.

The consequence of all this is that if visual information about primary exposure parameters is allocated to set-and-see modules, that information needs to be duplicated in the viewfinder. It also means that the designer now has no room to locate Prepare Phase parameters (such as modes)  on set-and-see modules, so Prepare Phase parameters have to be accessed some other, ergonomically less streamlined way, such as via a menu or Quick menu.

Summary  Looking back is not the way forward.

The traditional, mid 20th Century user interface worked well enough on the  manual cameras of the day.  But on a modern electronic camera with it's multitude of features, functions and modes, a well designed version of the  modern user interface brings a much higher level of ergonomic efficiency.

The retro appeal  Notwithstanding the observations detailed  above, which by the way can be made  by anybody prepared to carry out the requisite time and motion studies, the idea of the retro camera continues to find appeal with some buyers.  Why ?

I don't really know. I don't think it has much to do with the age of the photographer, or even the person's experience with cameras.

I suspect it's part of the backlash which usually accompanies any technological development. The ongoing niche market for vinyl records might be an example of this.

Maybe some people yearn for the  idea of the simplicity of the good old days. Mind you, I suspect that if they actually had to operate a mid 1960's manual camera the reality might be rather less appealing.  In any event, the genie will not go back in the bottle.  Electronic cameras with all their attendant complexity are here to stay for quite a while.  The challenge for designers is to make that complexity manageable for photographers and at the same time design cameras which are enjoyable to use.

The Camera in a Smartphone World Part 2

Just hanging on ?

 

Part 2   Flat top or hump top ?

DSLR style or Rangefinder style ?

Background   From the mid 20th Century many cameras with fixed and interchangeable lenses adopted the rangefinder design, with an optical viewfinder top left as viewed by the user and a flat top.  Then along came the single lens reflex camera (SLR) which with digital capture became the DSLR. This type has a hump more or less mid position on top to accommodate the pentaprism and viewfinder.  The shape of these cameras was determined by their internal mechanical and optical configuration.

They were not "styled' to look like that, their shape was an example of form following function.

The electronic era  Now cameras can be designed to be any shape at all and their electronic viewfinders can be located anywhere  in, on or off  the camera body.  Notwithstanding this  most modern electronic cameras are styled as either rangefinder or SLR lookalikes. This may be in part  be an acknowlegement of tradition but my investigations of ergonomics would suggest these two styles also provide good functional efficiency.

Which is better ?  I have used numerous rangefinders and SLR's over the years so becoming quite familiar with both types. I have also more recently used, tested  and compared electronic rangefinder and SLR lookalikes.  My initial thinking was that the rangefinder style would be preferable as it allows a slightly lower overall height.

However I have now come to the position that in everyday use each style has it's advantages and disadvantages with neither being overwhelmingly superior. But I still think one is a bit better.

Advantages of the rangefinder style 

* Slightly lower overall height possible

* EVF position may be preferred by some right eye viewers, as the nose does not have to be pushed against the monitor.

Disadvantages of rangefinder style

* EVF may (some models definitely do) need an accessory eyecup to keep stray light out of the eyepiece. This accessory protrudes above and to the left of the body. It increases the actual dimensions of the camera at the top left corner. With the accessory eyepiece fitted the camera can take  up the same amount of space in a camera bag as the hump top style. In addition the eyepiece is located where it is repeatedly subjected to stress and risk of damage as it goes in and out of the bag.

* Space on top of the camera is restricted. This limits the designer's options for placement of flash, hotshoe and control modules.

* The handle issue. In my work with mockups I have made several flat top designs with a full handle. So it can be done without any functional problem. However most of the actual flat top cameras in production have no handle or at best a small or vestigial one. I can only guess that the designers feel "big handle" does not fit well with the rangefinder-esque style.  Whatever the reason, it's a problem because modern cameras have a big monitor covering most of the back and lots of buttons all over the place. Without an anatomical handle these cameras are difficult to hold securely.

Advantages of the SLR style

* Although total height is greater, shoulder height can be lower. This can actually make the hump top camera easier to place in a camera bag. 

* There is more space on top of the hump top style for flash, hotshoe and various control modules (dials etc).

* Designers are happy to fit their hump top creations with a decent big handle.

* The flash and hotshoe are on the lens axis, at least in landscape orientation.

* In practice there is less problem with stray light entry into the viewfinder.

* With long lenses there may be an advantage to having the viewfinder on axis with the lens for stability.

Disadvantages of the SLR style

* The eyepiece has to protrude backwards 14-15mm or thereabouts from the plane of the monitor, so the user doesn't have to twist the head and look sideways through the viewfinder. This adds to the overall depth of the unit.

* It's a bit higher than the flat top style.

Overall    I have come to the view that the hump top, SLR lookalike style  has more advantages than disadvantages. It has therefore, somewhat to my own surprise, become my preferred camera shape.

 

The Camera in a Smart Phone World Part 1

Who needs a camera ?

 

Part 1 Concept and Users

In the past,  not so very long ago, anyone who wanted to make a photograph had to use a camera of some kind.  Most people used a compact camera.

Yesterday,  my wife and I took our grandchildren to a popular Sydney tourist attraction. As usual there were great crowds of  people, many taking photographs. On my extremely rough estimation about 80% were using a smart phone, 10% a tablet of some kind and 10%   a camera. There were compacts, superzooms and the occasional ILC.

Most of the tablets, the screens of which were readily visible, appeared to be making good pictures.

So, who wants a camera?

I think the negative part of the answer to this question is rather obvious already  --- most people don't want and probably don't need  a camera at all. The corollary of this is that the once popular compact camera is likely to become extinct.

I think that for the majority of amateur users,  the camera has become to photography what the sports car is to motoring. Not necessary for transport from A to B, but fun to drive.  A camera is not  necessary for making pictures but it is, or can be if properly designed, fun to use.

The camera can  provide the discerning user with performance, engagement and control .  There is an inverse relationship between automation (as typically found in a smart phone) and  control  as found in a well designed and operated camera.

Of course there are plenty of users who buy a sophisticated Interchangeable lens camera (ILC)  then use it in Fully Auto Mode with  monitor view.  I suspect these people hope that their expensive camera will make better pictures and like the ideaof  performance and control. Or maybe they just like the idea of having something better than the mob.

What sort of camera drives like a sports car ?

I call this the Proper Camera.  It has the following minimum feature set:

Inbuilt electronic viewfinder, fully articulated monitor, inbuilt flash unit, anatomical handle, anatomical thumb support, zoom lens, good enough picture quality, good performance with still or moving subjects and a comprehensive, ergonomic user interface, reliant on hard (i.e. operated by the fingers) user interface modules (dials, knobs, buttons, levers etc).

It  could have a fixed lens or interchangeable lenses.

It has a user interface which allows the operator to quickly adjust  primary and secondary exposure and focussing parameters in the Capture Phase of use, while looking through the viewfinder and without having to change grip with either hand.

I recently read an interview by a photography magazine of the marketing director of a camera company which had just announced a new M43 camera without a built in viewfinder. The marketing director was quoted as saying   "....this is a CSC [compact system camera with interchangeable lenses] designed for a smartphone audience..."  I wonder  if  it occurred to this hopeful gentleman that the smartphone audience was already taking pictures with their smartphones, making the camera as a separate entity largely irrelevant for this group.

Next.....Flat Top or Hump Top ?

 

 

 

Fuji X-E1 vs Panasonic GX7 MILC comparison Part 2

On the left Panasonic GX7 with 14-42mm Mk2 lens. On the right, Fuji X-E1 with accessory handle, thumb support and 18-55mm lens. The accessories make the X-E1 much more secure to hold but add to the bulk, mass and cost. The GX7 could probably benefit from some similar accessories.

Two modern versions of the "look-a-Leica" style

Part 2

In this post  I will briefly discuss the operation of each camera with emphasis on ergonomic issues. I will also investigate the various ways in which camera designers might utilise "Set-and-See" modules and the effect these have on the user experience.

Ergonomic issues vs ergonomic mistakes  Modern cameras are very complex, presenting their designers with a multitude of decisions which must be made  in the product development process. Most of these decisions affect the user experience. They are neither good nor bad, they just dictate that the camera will operate in a certain way and not in other ways.   For instance a digital Leica M rangefinder provides a very different user experience from, say, the Panasonic GX7 which we are talking about in this post. Both are "right" in the sense that they both work and  each is ergonomically coherent.

Mistakes  Some decisions are just plain wrong by any functional criterion. Here is an example:

Fuji X-cams AF button   The X-100 of 2010 has a button labelled [AF] on the left side of the monitor. You press this to activate the AF area, then press the 4 Way (cursor) buttons to move it's position.  The X-10, X-Pro1 and  X-E1 all had the same button in approximately the same location.

So what ? The problem is that with each of these cameras you need your left hand on the lens barrel to support the lens, adjust aperture,  zoom or all three.

So you need to become a juggler to move the AF area. The sequence is: left hand off lens> left hand press AF button> left hand back on lens> right hand off gripping/holding duties> right thumb presses 4 way controller> right hand returns to gripping/holding duty> continue with capture phase of camera use.  Feel lucky if the camera does not fall on the floor while you practice juggling.

With the X-20, a firmware upgrade to the X-E1, the X100s and X-E2 they fixed the problem by moving the [AF] button function over to the 4 way controller so you could change AF area position and size with the right hand while maintaining a constant grip on the camera with the left hand.  At last, they got it right.  But why was that button on the left side in the first place ?  Strange.................  

But enough about  mistakes, now I want to talk about camera control systems.

The glory days ?   The X-E1 and GX7 which are the subjects of this two part post appear to be styled to recapture some sense of the glory days of  mid 20th Century photography, when a camera was something special, a work of high craft,  to be handled almost with reverence, not just another electronic gadget.  In those days  a photographer had to know all about apertures, shutter speeds and much more to make any photos at all.

Pentax Spotmatic. I owned and used one of these for several years. It remains my all time nostalgic favourite camera. You can see all the control modules in this photo. I do understand that camera users might yearn for a return to this camera's simplicity. Until they actually start using it of course, at which time it's auto nothing operation might get a bit tedious.

 

Old technology operating systems  For many years  from the 1960's through to the late 80's,  I used film cameras with basic control systems and predominantly manual operation.   These included the Pentax Spotmatic, Leica M6 and Mamiya 7. 

Leica M6. Although this is a rangefinder the basic control layout is the same as that found on the Spotmatic above.  Basic, simple, engaging.

 

Although one of these is a SLR and the other two are rangefinders and two are 35mm while the other is a medium format, their user interface is very similar. At the front you have a single focal length manual focus lens, there  being no zooms and no autofocus in those days. There is a focus distance scale on the lens barrel and a depth of focus scale. You can preset focus distance and establish hyperfocal distance right on the lens barrel.  There is an aperture ring on the lens with fStops clearly marked. On top of the body there is a shutter speed dial. There is a little window in the dial to indicate  ISO setting, which in those days was called ASA or DIN. There is a little mechanical self timer lever and levers to advance and rewind the film and that is about the lot.

A camera like this is simple and direct in operation.  The user has to be very engaged with the camera's controls and the process of photography in order to make it work.   There is no "Auto" Mode or indeed any other kind of mode.

Note that all the control modules are of the Set-and-See type. You make the settings  and can see all of them  simply by looking at the camera from above.

Having enjoyed using cameras like this for many years then moved on to digital photography and electronic camera operation I  feel that  I have some understanding of the counter technology appeal of  cameras which reprise the good old days. 

It might be thought the disadvantage of the old style user interface would  be it's rather slow operational speed. In fact the experienced user with a high latitude film like Kodak Tri-X would set focus distance, aperture and shutter speed when moving into a location,  in the Prepare Phase of use. When the decisive moment arrived,  in the Capture Phase of use, the only action required was to press the shutter button.

No, the disadvantage of  Set-and-See modules is  that you can't see them while making pictures with your eye to the viewfinder.

This led camera makers to develop over a period of many years increasingly electronic means of  presenting  readouts of the primary exposure parameters (ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed)  in the viewfinder.

Which leads us to the next question.  If  ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed and other parameters of exposure and focus can be clearly displayed in the viewfinder, and they can, why put them on Set-and-See modules ? 

The answer to this question I think is that you don't need them on Set-and-See modules at all, but if they are located on such modules than those same modules are not available for any other purpose. This is the opportunity cost of locating any function on a Set-and-See module.

New technology operating systems     Since about year 2000, the standard operating system for digital cameras has been the Mode Dial and Control Dial  system. Sometimes there are two or even three control dials. The more the merrier (maybe).  Adjustments to ISO, shutter speed and aperture are made with the control dial(s) while the user is looking through the viewfinder.  This is not fundamentally  better than the old tech system but it does open up more options for the use of  Set-and-See modules.

Modern cameras have a vast array of features, functions, modes and options not even imagined in the old days.  These include such things as Focus Mode, Autofocus Mode, Drive Mode, Exposure Mode, Flash Mode................and  on  and  on and on.....it seems there is no end to them. One of these, the Main Shooting Mode,  is conventionally and sensibly allocated to a Set-and-See dial on the camera top somewhere. This allows the user to see at a glance whether the camera is in Aperture Priority Mode or one of the other modes.

The functions/modes most frequently adjusted  in Prepare Phase of use can be allocated to any remaining Set-and-Seemodules.  

Back to the Fuji X-E1 and Panasonic GX7 

The X-E1 uses a modified  version of the old tech control system described above.  The autofocus lenses have no distance scale or depth of field scale. However an analogue distance scale can be set in the viewfinder or monitor.  There are fStop markings on single focal length lenses but not the zooms which are of variable aperture design. There is a shutter speed dial. There is also an exposure compensation dial top right which is not part of the old tech control suite at all.

The GX7 uses a completely new tech Main Mode Dial and (twin) control dial layout.

Time and motion studies It is possible to break down the actions required to operate a camera into a series of steps,  observe the number and complexity of movements required to complete each step and note the time taken to perform each step.

Thus one can study actions required to shift from Manual to Shutter Priority to Aperture Priority to Programmed Exposure Modes. Once in one of those modes one can study the actions required to change Aperture, Shutter Speed, or both.  The exercise can be extended to include all primary and secondary exposure and focussing parameters and also to setting various modes used in Prepare Phase of use.

I have done this and found that for most of  these steps the X-E1 requires more movements of the fingers and most of those movements are more complex than is required to carry out the same steps with the GX7.

So the GX7 is quicker to operate, and as we saw in Part 1 it performs faster and in some cases (low light focussing) better.

But as the song goes......"Is that all there is....?"...............Apparently not.

Several reviewers report they like using the Fuji X cameras including the X-E1 very much.  One said  "it's a wonderful way to operate a camera..". Other comments I have read include  "..it is a simple, elegant and highly functional design...." and  "...a beautifully designed and engineered camera..".

So some reviewers like it and there does appear to be a loyal fan base on user forums.

So whence the appeal of the Fuji X- cameras ?  I am unable to read minds so I don't know, but maybe the X-E1's semi retro style, user interface and slowish performance are  the appeal. 

For instance to change from Aperture Priority exposure mode to Shutter Priority mode on the GX7, simply turn the Main Mode Dial one notch. With a little practice this can easily be done with the eye to the viewfinder in 2 seconds, tops.

With the X-E1 and a zoom lens the procedure is more involved. It might, I suppose be possible for a very experienced user with a lot of practice to do it with the eye to the viewfinder but for me it went like this: Drop camera down from the eye> find the little slider right near the lens mount> push the slider to the correct new position> return camera to the eye. 

Another example:  If you want to operate the GX7  in Shutter Priority Mode, just turn the Main Mode Dial to enter S-Prio Mode. To change the shutter speed just rotate the front (or rear, depending on how the dial functions have been set in the menus) dial. That's it. Fast. Easy. Do it with the eye to the viewfinder  without having to perform a two handed juggle with the camera.

With the X-E1 things are not so simple. First lower the camera from the eye. If you start from Aperture Priority Mode with a zoom lens you need to locate and move the little slider which switches aperture function, probably with the left hand.  Then hold the camera with the left hand and grip the shutter speed dial with the index finger and thumb of the right hand. Rotate the dial off the A setting. Now every time you want to change the shutter speed you have to release your grip on the camera with the right hand to rotate the dial.  It may be possible for some users to do this with one finger but I found it more reliable to use two fingers. If your camera is fitted with a thumb support, forget about Shutter Priority, it's impossible to get two fingers onto the dial.    

To an ergonomics boffin like me these  X-E1 arrangements just seem like a  kludgy  workaround. But to another user, perhaps seeking a more contemplative style of camera operation, they  might be just what is wanted.   The X-E1  certainly engages  the user more in the process of operating the camera. This dialectic  could  be very appealing when compared to the fast but remote control  experience with the GX7 and many other current camera models.

Summary  The X-E1 and  GX7 might appear to occupy a similar retro, look-a-Leica market position. But each provides a very different operating  experience and  is likely to appeal to a different user group.

My advice --- Try before you buy. If you really like one of these cameras you might hate the other.

My pick ?  There is no way the  X-E1, (or the improved X-E2) or GX7 will tempt me away from my GH3, even though they have slightly (GX7) or substantially (X-E1/2) better high ISO  picture quality. Performance, ergonomics and the user experience all favour the GH3.  

By the way, the latest rumor I am reading  about the Fuji X-Cams is that the next model will have a hump top, DSLR style shape. I guess Fuji wants to be in all the key market slots. It will be interesting to see if they stay with the "Old tech" control system or go with the flow and use a Mode Dial and Control Wheel interface.