p.1 #1 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
Yesterday, I received the Nikon Z6 III I ordered to replace my Zf. I had doubts about the Zf because of its weight and ergonomics. Like many, I had bought it mostly to use with manual, adapted lenses. Like many, I wasn't impressed by its ergonomics. Unlike for many, the looks of the camera didn't really matter to me. I thought the Z6 III would give me the Zf's excellent manual focus functions but without the bad ergonomics.
Lo and behold, I like the Zf (with the Smallrig grip) better than the Z6 III. Like (older ?) Sonys, the Z6 III's grip feels too cramped and a bit too small for me. There is hardly any space between the grip and the lens, but at the same time, the grip isn't large enough to comfortably wrap my hand around it. On the other hand, the AF-ON button and joystick (which the Zf sadly lacks) are well-positioned. Still, the Z6 III is going back to the store and I'm keeping the Zf. I'll probably add some Sugru to the Zf in places to get a better grip.
This surprised me. This is my hobby and I want a camera to be a pleasure to use. I had long given up on Sony because the cameras never really spoke to me. I also have never bought a Fuji (until the GFX 100s) that I didn't need to get an add-on for to make it comfortable. Just like Leica and Ricoh, which always needed thumb grips to be right for me.
I have a ton of cameras at the moment and - for me and my hands - the Canon R5 and R6 II beat the Nikon Z6 III, which I always thought would be about the same. And above all rules Olympus/OM System with the OM-1/II cameras that are 100% right for me. The Olympus EM-1 X was the best camera ergonomically speaking I ever used (too bad its CAF wasn't up to snuff).
With technology now at a plateau, it's more and more the look and feel of the camera that can sway me one way or another. I'm thus really surprised about my experience with the latest Nikon and the fact that the Olympus, a camera with a small sensor, that actually feels the best for me to use.
p.1 #2 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
Everyone has a different priority. I'm all about using the most appropriate gear for each situation to get the best balance of IQ and an acceptable keeper/opportunity rate. I'm not out there in the field to enjoy the physical part of it. Pain and suffering are part of the experience.
I certainly use cameras that I don't like the ergonomics of hardly at all, such as some of the Sony's were especially awful and my old medium format RF Fujis were really unpleasant also. I liked the feel of older pro bodies like D4 or Canon 1D series, but now I'm getting older and wouldn't want to do that as often.
I'm not so decrepit yet that I'd settle for µ4/3 and 20MP no matter how cool the ergonomics are. But I see a lot people get to 60s, 70s and older that do go sub-miniature. R5 series and Z8 are not bad at all. The IQ and size/handling are within a good enough range.
p.1 #3 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
EB-1 wrote:
Everyone has a different priority. I'm all about using the most appropriate gear for each situation to get the best balance of IQ and an acceptable keeper/opportunity rate. I'm not out there in the field to enjoy the physical part of it. Pain and suffering are part of the experience.
I certainly use cameras that I don't like the ergonomics of hardly at all, such as some of the Sony's were especially awful and my old medium format RF Fujis were really unpleasant also. I liked the feel of older pro bodies like D4 or Canon 1D series, but now I'm getting older and wouldn't want to do that as often.
I'm not so decrepit yet that I'd settle for µ4/3 and 20MP no matter how cool the ergonomics are. But I see a lot people get to 60s, 70s and older that do go sub-miniature. R5 series and Z8 are not bad at all. The IQ and size/handling are within a good enough range.
Even in my youth I didn't like the feel of the Pentax ME Super I used and when I could afford it, I added the 'motor winder' to get a nicer grip.
I do have a few film bodies that I wouldn't want to carry around much, but everything that I think I'm going to use a lot at some point needs to be comfortable enough, considering I do have a choice between brands and cameras.
'Settle for' MFT is I think a bit exaggerated. While I do love the ergonomics, I also do think that in many cases MFT is more than enough. I regularly carry a 60MP M11 with a normal or wide prime and a 20MP OM-1 with a tiny 90mm-equivalent lens.
p.1 #4 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
This is why I love the Z9 so much...it feels like it was created with my hand as the mold for the grip. It's huge on paper, but feels better in my hand than any other camera, making it SEEM more natural to use.
The ZF is an ergo nightmare, even with a grip. There is very little about USING it that I enjoy, which is quite strange for as much as I like the overall camera experience and output.
p.1 #5 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
EB-1 wrote:
Everyone has a different priority. I'm all about using the most appropriate gear for each situation to get the best balance of IQ and an acceptable keeper/opportunity rate. I'm not out there in the field to enjoy the physical part of it. Pain and suffering are part of the experience.
I certainly use cameras that I don't like the ergonomics of hardly at all, such as some of the Sony's were especially awful and my old medium format RF Fujis were really unpleasant also. I liked the feel of older pro bodies like D4 or Canon 1D series, but now I'm getting older and wouldn't want to do that as often.
I'm not so decrepit yet that I'd settle for µ4/3 and 20MP no matter how cool the ergonomics are. But I see a lot people get to 60s, 70s and older that do go sub-miniature. R5 series and Z8 are not bad at all. The IQ and size/handling are within a good enough range.
I'm kind of with you on this. While I do care about the ergonomics of cameras and don't appreciate weak designs, the idea of the "pleasure" of operating the camera is alien to me.
Camera interfaces are strange things, and our relationships with them are subjective and changeable. In one instance I purchased a particularly small camera years ago and found it extremely awkward at first, to the point that I thought that I'd made a big mistake by getting it. But after a few weeks of use I adapted to its different interface and it began to simply feel normal.
So part of the issue is adaptation. We get used to a particular interface and "heft" of a camera system that we have used a lot, and anything else will seem "off" by comparison. But use that newer system for a while and it will become the new normal a you adapt and become familiar with it.
It is a bit like driving cars. I have two that I like quite a bit, but their interfaces are quite different. If I drive one of them exclusively for a few weeks and then get into the other I am momentarily disoriented. But if I switch that around and use the "momentarily disorienting" car for the next few weeks... the original one now feels odd at first.
On a different point, I'm not so sure that "settling for" is necessarily the universally right way to think of using smaller cameras. Sometimes the smaller camera is ideal for certain kinds of photography. For example, while I have a much larger system, I prefer to use a smaller APS-C system for street and travel photograph, and using it allows me to better make the kinds of photographs of those subjects that I'm after. (Today's smaller cameras are capable of producing excellent results, too. I regularly print 24MP and 40MP APS-C files at 20" x 30" and sometimes even larger.)
p.1 #7 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
EB-1 wrote:
Everyone has a different priority. I'm all about using the most appropriate gear for each situation to get the best balance of IQ and an acceptable keeper/opportunity rate. I'm not out there in the field to enjoy the physical part of it. Pain and suffering are part of the experience.
I certainly use cameras that I don't like the ergonomics of hardly at all, such as some of the Sony's were especially awful and my old medium format RF Fujis were really unpleasant also. I liked the feel of older pro bodies like D4 or Canon 1D series, but now I'm getting older and wouldn't want to do that as often.
I'm not so decrepit yet that I'd settle for µ4/3 and 20MP no matter how cool the ergonomics are. But I see a lot people get to 60s, 70s and older that do go sub-miniature. R5 series and Z8 are not bad at all. The IQ and size/handling are within a good enough range.
EBH ...Show more → johnvanr wrote:
Even in my youth I didn't like the feel of the Pentax ME Super I used and when I could afford it, I added the 'motor winder' to get a nicer grip.
I do have a few film bodies that I wouldn't want to carry around much, but everything that I think I'm going to use a lot at some point needs to be comfortable enough, considering I do have a choice between brands and cameras.
'Settle for' MFT is I think a bit exaggerated. While I do love the ergonomics, I also do think that in many cases MFT is more than enough. I regularly carry a 60MP M11 with a normal or wide prime and a 20MP OM-1 with a tiny 90mm-equivalent lens. ...Show more →
Did you ever use the Pentax 6x7? It was way harder than the ME Super. But I never liked the old metal SLRs like my Nikkormats/Nikon or the Canons either. The industry movement to ergonomic bodies in the 1980s was a huge improvement. The F4s had a great grip at the time, but of course I was young and strong.
p.1 #8 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
EB-1 wrote:
Did you ever use the Pentax 6x7? It was way harder than the ME Super. But I never liked the old metal SLRs like my Nikkormats/Nikon or the Canons either. The industry movement to ergonomic bodies in the 1980s was a huge improvement. The F4s had a great grip at the time, but of course I was young and strong.
EBH
I did, but it’s not a camera I’d carry for a while or shoot a ton of images with.
p.1 #9 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
johnvanr wrote:
I did, but it’s not a camera I’d carry for a while or shoot a ton of images with.
The wooden grip makes the P67 one my favorite cameras to carry. I've also added a 3D printed right side grip that makes shooting with it a lot more pleasant too.
p.1 #10 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
The shutter-mirror of the Pentax was something. At one time I had dreams of the 400/4, but shifted to a Nikon+Mamiya 7 system.
Overall I think the problem now is that some cameras try to cram in too many controls that are not within easy reach and they don't allow enough room for adult hands in width. Height is less of a concern with the 1cm extensions/brackets or full grips.
p.1 #11 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
I'm fascinated that the Pentax ME came up here. I had the ME and the MX plus a few of their nice little primes. I chose this small system for my backpacking photography back in the day. Generally I used the MX and my wife used the ME.
p.1 #12 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm fascinated that the Pentax ME came up here. I had the ME and the MX plus a few of their nice little primes. I chose this small system for my backpacking photography back in the day. Generally I used the MX and my wife used the ME.
I also have an MX, I got it because it's fully mechanical and so small and light. I use a handheld meter for most of my shooting, so I also love how the meter in the MX is invisible when there's no batteries.
As far as ergonomics go, people complain about the stiff shutter speed dial, but it's never bothered me. It's small, but that's kind of the point so I don't mind. I love the finder, but its short eye relief turns off people who wear glasses.
A few from the MX with the SMC Pentax 24mm f/2.8 and SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7, shot two weekends ago on Arista EDU Ultra 400.
p.1 #13 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
I did love my ME Super and used it up, basically. I still have it and it still works, but the corners are worn out from being a wannabe photojournalist at the time. Turns out, a consumer SLR wasn't made to bang against the metal pro SLRs of those days when elbowing for the front row.
Funnily enough, though, I've now built up a collection of classic OM glass and an OM-1 and OM-4ti instead of going back to my Pentax roots.
p.1 #14 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
Nice work.
It has been so long since I used that camera that it is now hard to remember the actual experience in detail, but I don’t recall having any real complaints about ergonomics of functionality.
I just recall liking the camera and several of its lenses quite a bit.
OregonSun wrote:
I also have an MX, I got it because it's fully mechanical and so small and light. I use a handheld meter for most of my shooting, so I also love how the meter in the MX is invisible when there's no batteries.
As far as ergonomics go, people complain about the stiff shutter speed dial, but it's never bothered me. It's small, but that's kind of the point so I don't mind. I love the finder, but its short eye relief turns off people who wear glasses.
A few from the MX with the SMC Pentax 24mm f/2.8 and SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7, shot two weekends ago on Arista EDU Ultra 400.
p.1 #15 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
Back to the Nikons: I can't make up my mind. Got the Z6III all packed up to send back only to take it out of the box again after realizing how often I use the joy stick on most cameras. Also read Thom Hogan's review of the Zf and realized that just like him, I set the Zf to basically operate as a camera controlled by the control wheels and not by fancy dials. The only times I don't use a camera like that is if I have an aperture ring on the lens.
And back to the Pentax: these cameras had the old style without a grip, but the Pentax and Olympus models of the time were small and light. The pro Canon and Nikon bodies, though, were heavy and large and those are what the Zf reminds me of with its weight and size.
p.1 #16 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
johnvanr wrote:
Back to the Nikons: I can't make up my mind. Got the Z6III all packed up to send back only to take it out of the box again after realizing how often I use the joy stick on most cameras. Also read Thom Hogan's review of the Zf and realized that just like him, I set the Zf to basically operate as a camera controlled by the control wheels and not by fancy dials. The only times I don't use a camera like that is if I have an aperture ring on the lens.
And back to the Pentax: these cameras had the old style without a grip, but the Pentax and Olympus models of the time were small and light. The pro Canon and Nikon bodies, though, were heavy and large and those are what the Zf reminds me of with its weight and size. ...Show more →
On the joystick, have you tried the Zf's touch focus control? I really like the feature and haven't missed the joystick nearly as much with the Zf.
But if you need better ergonomics than the Zf and the Z6III hasn't made itself the clear winner by now, then I think the Z8 is the next stop if you want to continue down the Nikon trail. I have both and I was surprised at just how much my Zf's use case narrowed after buying the Z8.
p.1 #17 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
OffTrail wrote:
On the joystick, have you tried the Zf's touch focus control? I really like the feature and haven't missed the joystick nearly as much with the Zf.
But if you need better ergonomics than the Zf and the Z6III hasn't made itself the clear winner by now, then I think the Z8 is the next stop if you want to continue down the Nikon trail. I have both and I was surprised at just how much my Zf's use case narrowed after buying the Z8.
I don’t really like touch focus control. I only got Nikon because of its unique MF function that I can use with M mount lenses. The Z8, to my knowledge, doesn’t have that capability, plus it would be too heavy and large for me.
p.1 #18 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
johnvanr wrote:
I don’t really like touch focus control. I only got Nikon because of its unique MF function that I can use with M mount lenses. The Z8, to my knowledge, doesn’t have that capability, plus it would be too heavy and large for me.
I mean yeah, so did I. But the Z8's ergonomics are just a big enough upside that I'm using it much more often than the Zf, even with the adapted stuff. I really don't feel like I'm losing anything either, because the Zf's subject detection detects so much stuff that's not there that I tend to leave it off anyway. But I do still use it at times, and I agree that it's a unique and powerful feature.
But as far as weight, the Z8 is 905 grams with battery and cards. The Zf with the Nikon grip, battery, and cards is 830. The cameras are the same width and their viewfinders sit at roughly the same height with the grip. I'm just saying, they might be closer than you expect if you're using a grip all the time.
p.1 #19 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
The funny thing is that nearly all cameras today bear some resemblance to film cameras. There is no functional reason for a mirrorless camera to have a viewfinder at the top center or have the lens mounted in the center of a rectangular body. Some of the early digicams and bridge cams took a much more innovative approach to ergonomics.
Have we ended up with MILC bodies that could be mistaken for film cameras because that's what most people are physically comfortable with? Or are we still psychologically attached to that design somehow?
p.1 #20 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
jeffbuzz wrote:
The funny thing is that nearly all cameras today bear some resemblance to film cameras. There is no functional reason for a mirrorless camera to have a viewfinder at the top center or have the lens mounted in the center of a rectangular body. Some of the early digicams and bridge cams took a much more innovative approach to ergonomics.
Have we ended up with MILC bodies that could be mistaken for film cameras because that's what most people are physically comfortable with? Or are we still psychologically attached to that design somehow?
It is always valid to ask if the accepted designs are really the best. On the other hand, being different is not always that same as being better.
The first picture in your post is a good example. A design with a rotating lens unit attached this way to the other portion of the camera has its own set of issues. That rotation is a point of weakness. And once rotated it makes for a less compact camera and makes handling awkward. (Having controls and other interface elements sometimes off by 90 degrees can make operation far less intuitive.
I can imagine that somewhere out there a new camera design that is more functional might exist. But on the other hand, the current designs are the product of a lot of refinement and improvement over time… and they are the way they are at least tin part because they work well. (I do think that putting faux-pentaprism humps on the tops of cameras is kind of silly at this point — kind of like putting a face intake scoop on the hood of a car.)
At one time I had dreams of the 400/4, but shifted to a Nikon+Mamiya 7 system. 
