p.2 #1 · 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.
The human body has not changed (in eyes or hands) so I would not expect many differences.
The advantage of having the viewfinder in the middle is that it works for both left and right eyed folks. I suppose they could have two VFs, one on each side but who would pay for that? Someone asked me to use (I think) a mini SOny that had the VF all the way on one side, but it was the wrong side. Holding all the way off-side is terrible ergomonically.
The lenses are much closer to the left side now than center since the left side is much smaller on many MILS bodies. The right sides are smaller too, but eventually there needs to be some space between the lens and grip.
I was handling my 5D IV recently and forgot how nice good older designs were and how nicely they fit the hands.
Remember the Oly IS-1/IS-1000 and that family in the 90s?
p.2 #3 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
some cameras have indeed tiny buttons and maybe odd button placements, but more than ergonomics (and indeed center viewfinder works for every eye dominance) user interface, wich applies to digital cameras for most part, is to me the real fun killer.
Olympus is insane deep, Sony is...well, Nikon and Canon are sensible and try hard to make sense how they name and organize things, and then Leica is a bit off because they go button minimalist ( that's all the experience I have)
p.2 #4 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
EB-1 wrote:
The human body has not changed (in eyes or hands) so I would not expect many differences.
The advantage of having the viewfinder in the middle is that it works for both left and right eyed folks. I suppose they could have two VFs, one on each side but who would pay for that? Someone asked me to use (I think) a mini SOny that had the VF all the way on one side, but it was the wrong side. Holding all the way off-side is terrible ergomonically.
The lenses are much closer to the left side now than center since the left side is much smaller on many MILS bodies. The right sides are smaller too, but eventually there needs to be some space between the lens and grip.
I was handling my 5D IV recently and forgot how nice good older designs were and how nicely they fit the hands.
Remember the Oly IS-1/IS-1000 and that family in the 90s?
The modularity of the GFX viewfinder is great example of how digital mirrorless bodies could be more flexibly designed to work for different users. The irony is that many medium format film cameras had similarly modular designs. I always loved the ability to have both an upward facing ground glass and a plug-in prism on my Mamiya. Sure, modularity and connection ports add cost. But it is physically and technologically possible to design a mirrorless camera where you could connect a viewfinder left. right or center as needed.
p.2 #5 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
Ergonomics are important, but ultimately, performance/IQ are what really matter. It's very difficult to find one camera that satisfies both those criteria.
I have used Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus (+ OM). Having larger hands myself, the only camera that felt perfect in my hand without an extended grip was the Nikon F100 film camera. Every other film and digital camera has been a compromise. My last full frame Nikon was a D750 that I sold a couple of years ago. I still have a few old D200's.
Of my current cameras (Sony A7c with extended baseplate, Canon R6II with extended baseplate, Ricoh GRIII with extended baseplate/grip, and OM System OM-5), the most comfortable configuration is my R6II with the extended baseplate. However, I like the images I get from my A7c and OM-5 more than the ones I get from my R6II.
p.2 #6 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
snegron7 wrote:
Ergonomics are important, but ultimately, performance/IQ are what really matter. It's very difficult to find one camera that satisfies both those criteria.
I’ll add (again) that to a large extent the ergonomics stuff is pretty subjective. (Yes, there are some objectively bad ergonomic design decisions, but they are not common.) In many cases it is more about what we are used to than about good or bad ergonomic design.
I’ve had several experiences where I got a new piece of gear and thought the design was problematic, only to find that after using it extensively for a few weeks that the awkwardness disappeared and the new gear felt quite normal.
Of course, these days, basically all brands also give us very high levels of performance/IQ. The truth is that brand differences are far less important than we imagine.
p.2 #7 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’ll add (again) that to a large extent the ergonomics stuff is pretty subjective. (Yes, there are some objectively bad ergonomic design decisions, but they are not common.) In many cases it is more about what we are used to than about good or bad ergonomic design.
I’ve had several experiences where I got a new piece of gear and thought the design was problematic, only to find that after using it extensively for a few weeks that the awkwardness disappeared and the new gear felt quite normal.
Of course, these days, basically all brands also give us very high levels of performance/IQ. The truth is that brand differences are far less important than we imagine....Show more →
I've done extensive, hands-on, real-life, side-by-side testing with all the cameras I have owned (using equal prime lenses), and I can say with 100% certainty that some cameras have much better IQ (detail capture, dynamic range, shadow noise, etc) than others. The sensor in my old, now "obsolete" A7c is much better than my old R6 and newer R6II.
I usually own cameras from 2 or 3 systems simultaneously, each of my cameras serves a different purpose. I use my A7c mostly for travel. My R6II for wildlife, macro and sports. Both my OM-5 and Ricoh GRIII are backup travel cameras.
p.2 #8 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
snegron7 wrote:
I've done extensive, hands-on, real-life, side-by-side testing with all the cameras I have owned (using equal prime lenses), and I can say with 100% certainty that some cameras have much better IQ (detail capture, dynamic range, shadow noise, etc) than others. The sensor in my old, now "obsolete" A7c is much better than my old R6 and newer R6II.
I usually own cameras from 2 or 3 systems simultaneously, each of my cameras serves a different purpose. I use my A7c mostly for travel. My R6II for wildlife, macro and sports. Both my OM-5 and Ricoh GRIII are backup travel cameras. ...Show more →
If you are comparing similarly positioned models of contemporary cameras from the top line manufacturers, "much better" is a hyperbole. All of them are excellent, and fine photographers use all of them to produce excellent photographs — and you cannot tell which brand was used by looking at the final work.
Aligning the functional designs of cameras with your intended use is a different thing — e.g. for a sports focus you might prefer gear optimized for that, for landscapes you might prefer gear with a different optimizing focus.
p.2 #9 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
johnvanr wrote:
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.
I haven't tried any of the Olympus but it always struck me that their cameras seemed large for the sensor size. But clearly from what you wrote, this means the cameras were designed based on proper ergonomics for use, rather than the trap some brands seem to have fallen into: 'it's mirrorless and therefore first and foremost, needs to be small, ergonomics be damned.'
One of the nicest camera's I've recently used was the Canon R1. Very comfortable. Buttons and dials were not too closely spaced and had very good feel. It's certainly not a small camera. My first impression was it was a somewhat stretched/enlarged R3, but not bulky like the old 1DX series. Clearly it's not a camera that the OP would want, but my point is it was apparently designed with considerable regard to 'proper' ergonomics.
Anyone remember the Yashica Samurai that was made in right handed and left handed models?
It was a half-frame film camera, too. When I worked in photo retail back in the 90s, we had one of the right handed models in stock, but it never sold for some reason... It was too different.
It was a half-frame film camera, too. When I worked in photo retail back in the 90s, we had one of the right handed models in stock, but it never sold for some reason... It was too different.
Yes, I do. But it was too large for half frame. I don't know what they were thinking. The kinds of users that would appreciate an SLR mostly would want regular 135. By the late 80s we had the more modern style 35mm bodies and the AF system wars. Minolta was still riding high before losing their autofocus infringement case to Honeywell.
p.2 #11 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
rscheffler wrote:
I haven't tried any of the Olympus but it always struck me that their cameras seemed large for the sensor size. But clearly from what you wrote, this means the cameras were designed based on proper ergonomics for use, rather than the trap some brands seem to have fallen into: 'it's mirrorless and therefore first and foremost, needs to be small, ergonomics be damned.'
One of the nicest camera's I've recently used was the Canon R1. Very comfortable. Buttons and dials were not too closely spaced and had very good feel. It's certainly not a small camera. My first impression was it was a somewhat stretched/enlarged R3, but not bulky like the old 1DX series. Clearly it's not a camera that the OP would want, but my point is it was apparently designed with considerable regard to 'proper' ergonomics.
Anyone remember the Yashica Samurai that was made in right handed and left handed models?
It was a half-frame film camera, too. When I worked in photo retail back in the 90s, we had one of the right handed models in stock, but it never sold for some reason... It was too different. ...Show more →
p.2 #13 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
As with many here, I've owned and shot a variety of cameras since the late 1970's and I am glad for the general change that has occurred. I too owned and shot with the Pentax MX and a variety of bodies based on that design. These bodies were well made, but their selling point was size and bang for the buck. They were built to compete with the Nikon FM/Olympus OM1/Canon AE-1, but were smaller and less expensive. As such, they often felt a bit fiddly in the hand compared to the competition. The LX was the only Pentax camera of that era that felt like a refined tool...
I ended up selling it all and invested in Contax cameras. Beginning with the 139 Quartz and ending with the ST and RTSIII before moving to autofocus. The Contax bodies had some of the best ergonomics of the day, and I still miss the way they fit in the hand.
Regarding other OP's ergonomic dilemma/assessment, I think the Z9 and Z8 are the most comfortable Nikon cameras to use. I suspect that the Canon R1/R3 would be just as satisfying to handle as the Z9... though I think Canon missed the boat by not matching the R5 series ergonomics to the R3 series bodies... this is a big selling point for Nikon that is often overlooked.
I have owned the ZFc and ZF a few times over, and never seemed to gel with them. Because I shoot the Z9/Z8, I too configure the ZF to use the control dials. The front dial is not easy to find, especially if you are wearing gloves. While I liked the image output from the ZF a lot and appreciated the cross compatibility with my Nikon lenses, it was always the last camera I'd use... or the one I'd take for a small back-up.
I sold my last ZF and replaced it with a Leica M10. The Leica is the body that I choose to take when I want to carry something on a street or to a coffee shop. While expensive, it is the "other" camera... the one I use for a "retro" experience. However, when I want reliability and speed, I use the Z9 (and Z8 to a lesser degree) because these bodies feel almost as good in the hand as the Contax RTSIII/ST combination I used in the 1990's.
p.2 #14 · Ergonomic observations, personal experience obviously
rscheffler wrote:
Anyone remember the Yashica Samurai that was made in right handed and left handed models?
It was a half-frame film camera, too. When I worked in photo retail back in the 90s, we had one of the right handed models in stock, but it never sold for some reason... It was too different.
jeffbuzz wrote:
Your customers must have been Leftists.
