A Critique of Contemporary Camera Design

[BJL]

Douglas,

Your point about the different screen shape probably does explain a few mm of difference, but it does not change the fact that lens mount size and such is irrelevant to the height of the bodies. It is still true that, apart from having the hotshoe and such on top of the EVF instead of beside it, the height of the rest of each body is determined by the height of the LCD plus the height of the EVF. The LCD shape difference is of course due to the format shape difference, not because Olympus chose a different shape in order to "hide" the need fpr extra height elsewhere. The main reason that the Olympus EVF is above the lens mount while Sony's is not is the combination of
- the  Olympus LCD id a bit higher, putting the LCD a few mm higher
- the Olympus lens mount is a bit smaller.

By the way, the NEX-7 body design does make a good case that there is no room for body down-sizing from further sensor downsizing: every mm of its height and width is necessitated by features unrelated to sensor size, like thr LCD, EVF, and the controls and handgrip needed to the right of the LCD. I think that even a 35mm sensor could fit in such a body, amd even with a lens mount no larger. In cameras hat have neither optical viewfinder mechanisms nor film spoole, size is all almost all about the lenses!


And never mind what I said was a minor point about rangefinders: I already agreed that there is no "nose" disadvantage for the VF at left compared to VF in the middle. It was more an aside at my suspicion that some other people (Richard Sexton?) consider the true range-finder camera's "rectangular box with VF in the top-left corner" shape to be more natural for "EVIL" cameras on the basis of a spurious association with range-finder cameras, given that EVIL cameras are in reality as "rangefinder-less" as they are "mirror-less" .

Returning to the official topic, "A Critique of Contemporary Camera Design": I sometimes wonder if a design that truly started from scratch, with no relics of the spatial constraints of the film transport mechanism or an OVF, would be radically different -- maybe a design with only an EVF, no screen on the back, could resemble a small hand-held telescope, with controls mostly on top, operated almost like a wind imstrument. (There could be a LCD on the top, for when top-down viewing for composition is more convenient, and it could flip up to vertical position for horizontal viewing.) the vastly different shapes adopted by the earliest all-electronic cameras, meaning video-cameras, is a hint that digital still camera design still has a lot of historical baggage.

My "telescope/recorder camera" would be smaller in two of three dimensions, and fit even better in your bag!

[douglasf13]

Ah, I see your point now about the LCD location affecting the EVF height.  That makes sense.  The Nikon V1 is a good example of a center orientated EVF that isn't particularly tall.  I will humbly change my opinion on this, in terms of camera height vs. EVF location.  I personally still like the position of the NEX-7's EVF in terms of comfort, but, as I've mentioned, I think that Sony should have made the eyepiece housing deeper for left-eye shooters and glasses wearers.

A lot of digicams last decade experimented with cutting edge shapes that were more free from our current idea of camera forms, but, I must admit, they certainly were a little jarring to me.  I guess that I'm more superficial than I thought.    At least we're starting to get this topic back on track!  LOL

Yikes.

[BJL]

The Nikon V1 is a good example of a center orientated EVF that isn't particularly tall.

Yes ... but for a moment I was puzzled by the fact that the V1 is 9mm higher than the NEX7 despite both having the same 3:2 image shape. Then I looked again at all the reviews, and realised how "wide and low" the NEX7 screen is: it is in 16:9 HD video shape? Anyway, during still composition, the NEX7 (like all NEX cameras?) displays extra information to the right of the image during composition, whereas both the E-M5 and V1 display it below, so the LCD shapes seem quite different. Sony seems to have gone all out for height reduction, perhaps as a "pocketability" factor.

[douglasf13]

Yes ... but for a moment I was puzzled by the fact that the V1 is 9mm higher than the NEX7 despite both having the same 3:2 image shape. Then I looked again at all the reviews, and realised how "wide and low" the NEX7 screen is: it is in 16:9 HD video shape? Anyway, during still composition, the NEX7 (like all NEX cameras?) displays extra information to the right of the image during composition, whereas both the E-M5 and V1 display it below, so the LCD shapes seem quite different. Sony seems to have gone all out for height reduction, perhaps as a "pocketability" factor.

Yeah, I have mixed feelings about the 16:9 screens of all of the Nex cameras. It is good in some ways for size, and there is a full screen mode if you shoot stills or video at 16:9, but you loose a little real estate in 3:2 mode.  Oddly, the EVF is in the more standard ratio with shoot info above and below the screen.

[dturina]

I indeed meant actual focal lengths, not "FOV equivalents", and my prediction is that they will not go beyond the 300mm that is already available. Yes it is great fun having "600mm equivalent" on a camera that fits in a little bag originally designed for a 35mm film SLR with just a standard 28-105mm kit zoom lens.

Frankly, I would hate trying to use a strong telephoto with such small cameras. With E-PL1 I have issues trying to get 70mm (140eq.) perfectly still, and there's not much chance of that without a tripod. Also, trying to control framing on an LCD screen, EVF or otherwise, is not the easiest thing. But when you use a tripod and a long lens, such a small camera becomes a bit pointless; for such use I'd rather have the E-5, which is a proper size camera with normal controls and a viewfinder, but it's as big as my 5d, so if that's the choice I'd take my 5d.

[douglasf13]

I only occasionally use a 200mm equiv on the Nex-7, and I don't really have any difficulties that I've noticed, but I'm not sure about other cameras.

[dturina]

I only occasionally use a 200mm equiv on the Nex-7, and I don't really have any difficulties that I've noticed, but I'm not sure about other cameras.

That might be because I'm using the 100% magnification to check focus and stillness and it goes all over the place. If I only used normal framing view I'd probably be fine with it, too.

[BJL]

I have seen these various arguments against telephoto work with a smaller camera and a smaller format before, and they do not make sense to me. [Edit: one might relate to the particular way that live view works in the Olympus Pen models, changed in the E-M5.]

On size: omce the system has a distinct overall size advantage, the fact that the advantage os smaller in some situations (like when you need a tripod) does not nullify the advantage, let alone turn ot into a disadvantage. Also, when the system's size advantage comes in part from a smaller format (or to be pedantic, from smaller photosites and so higher resolution in lines per mm) then the telephoto focal lengths needed get smaller. In fact this is the place where smaller formats get there most noticable size advantage. I greatly enjoy carrying a light zoom that reaches 300mm, and does things with 4/3" format that would have needed 600mm or more with 35mm film (”or more" because the images are more detailed and allow more cropping than with film).

The issue of "imbalance" between long lenses and small bodies (mentioned elsewhere, not here) is irelevant to me at least: a long lens is supported from below either by a hand or a tripod, and either way, having less camera weight pulling down at the back behind the support point is no disadvantage.

I agree that composing telephoto shots on the rear screen is unpleasant, so I can understand your reaction with E-P1, and if I recall correctly, the Pen models do not apply IS to the image in the viewfinder whereas Canon SLR's with IS lenses do. The solution to that is probably using an EVF with stabilization of the live view image, which I believe Olympus offers for the first time in the E-M5, and Panasonic has always offered with its lens-based IS system.

[MatthewCromer]

Right now, I believe that longest option is the 18-200 or 55-210 for NEX, although, I guess if we're speaking in terms of the NEX-7, you could crop and get some of that reach back in relation to m4/3.

With NEX you can use the Alpha lens adaptor and buy a Tamron 200-500 or the like, with phase detect AF.

The LA-EA2 + long alpha lenses is going to be really tough competition for any native NEX supertelephotos, given the superiority of phase detect AF for the use cases for these lenses.

[BJL]

With NEX you can use the Alpha lens adaptor and buy a Tamron 200-500 or the like, with phase detect AF.

The LA-EA2 + long alpha lenses is going to be really tough competition for any native NEX supertelephotos, given the superiority of phase detect AF for the use cases for these lenses.

True ... and for similar reasons, many 4/3 and m4/3 users would like either to either follow Nikon with PDAF in the main sensor or tonfollow Sony with a PDAF adaptor for existing bigger, faster 4/3 SLR lenses. Or failing that, a compact 4/3 SLR body like the E620 to use with them: once you are hauling those big lenses, the extra body is not much more of a load.


But those lenses plus that adaptor move us well beyond "Billingham man-purse" territory!

[MatthewCromer]

But those lenses plus that adaptor move us well beyond "Billingham man-purse" territory!

Ha!  Yep.

Although the 200-500 is surprisingly small and compact when set to 200mm (and if you leave off the mostly superfluous hood, which is a monster!).  It's certainly way more manageable than its competitors like the Sigma X-500 zooms.

The LA-EA2 barely registers as a blip next to any of these lenses, of course.  Of course, even my Alpha 65 is pretty shrimpy mounted to the Tamron at full zoom.

[douglasf13]

Yeah, as lenses get bigger, the advantage of a small camera body becomes a diminishing return. 

[BJL]

Yeah, as lenses get bigger, the advantage of a small camera body becomes a diminishing return. 

... and on the other hand, the size advantage of those lenses over the even bigger lenses needed in a larger format to get the same telephoto reach or macro enlargement increases! It is strange how often these discussions focus on body size in isolation, rather than on the total size of complete working cameras, including lenses.

To be fair, the size advantage might correspond to the size of the tele-convertor that converts a lens for a smaller format to a truly equivalent lens for a larger format: same reach, DOF wide open, light gathering speed. For example, the 1.5x size ratio between Sony and Nikon's "APS-C" format and 35mm format means that a 1.4x TC would convert a Sony or Nikon "APS-C" format lens to one that does a similar job on a Sony or Nikon 35mm format body, with the ISO speed raised one stop to compensate for the loss of lens brightness.

[dturina]

I wasn't thinking about size differences between formats but within 4/3; the ordinary 4/3 lenses *are* bigger than the m43 variety but that's because they are much better and several stops brighter. Theoretically you can put those on a m43 body via adapter, but that would look ridiculous and I can't really see any advantages to such a combination. It's just more awkward to operate,  with everything smaller than comfort would dictate. But as something to slip into a pocket and take out when you see something nice m43 just rules. I see it as an ideal small walkaround setup, not as SLR-replacement, as some seem to. It's more of a Leica M replacement.

[BJL]

I wasn't thinking about size differences between formats but within 4/3 ...

I understand now: yes, the main lens size differences are with shorter focal lengths, where the rear elements of lenses can sit far closer to the sensor. Along with the fact that even if a lens alone is about the same size as its SLR counterpart (the Olympus 14-42 SLR lens is already fairly small and light) the kit of lens plus body is about 20mm less deep, front to back). I do not think that an SLR could have one of those cute collapsing 14-42 zoom lenses. Though for now, I am hesitant about the optical and mechanical quality of at least the Panasonic 14-42 X, so I am letting others test these new-fangled technologies first.

[dturina]

Regarging mechanical quality, only time will tell but the 14-42mm collapsible m.Zuiko does look very flimsy and fragile. Then again I've seen similarly flimsy designs, for instance EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 from the first EOS 650, survive 25 years of use with only moderate signs of wear. I have one, in fact. On the other hand some designs look very solid on the outside but inside they seem to be very fragile and break easily.

Regarding image quality, I must say this tiny thing surprised me. It's much better than I thought it would be. I have a full size landscape sample so you can see what it can do: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6130661353/download/1938766

It has serious geometry issues that are usually corrected in software, but if you can live with those it is surprisingly good.

[barryfitzgerald]

Strange article the problem for me is the 2d EVF is a very poor substitute for a real viewfinder. There are of course pros and cons to both, but the cons are most obvious with EVF's
I don't care for the OVF must die fanboy take some try to enforce, I'm not going to buy an EVF camera not now nor ever, I'll shoot and scan film before I do that 
New tech is not always better..

[douglasf13]

Strange article the problem for me is the 2d EVF is a very poor substitute for a real viewfinder. There are of course pros and cons to both, but the cons are most obvious with EVF's
I don't care for the OVF must die fanboy take some try to enforce, I'm not going to buy an EVF camera not now nor ever, I'll shoot and scan film before I do that 
New tech is not always better..

  It's a sliding scale for me.  In terms of the NEX-7 EVF, it's about the same size as my A900 OVF, and each has their own advantages, so I like them both for different reasons.  When compared to most APS-C OVFs, though, I'd much rather have the NEX-7's EVF. 

  If I'm using the NEX-7 and dying for an big, bright, OVF view, I can always throw my Leica external OVF into the hotshoe and use zone focusing.