No one knows anything article.

[jjj]

Good in theory, until you need to quickly switch mode or do any sort of customization (as Michael mentioned in his article).  It can be done, but the confusion it brings is not worth it.

Eh? What has that got to do with mode changing? Or not being able to customise? Several compacts have already implemented lens mount dials, like the old Olympus shutter control and they are indeed customisable.
Having the aperture control on camera actually increases customisation options as it frees up a dial on camera body.

[trichardlin]

Eh? What has that got to do with mode changing? Or not being able to customise? Several compacts have already implemented lens mount dials, like the old Olympus shutter control and they are indeed customisable.
Having the aperture control on camera actually increases customisation options as it frees up a dial on camera body.

I did say it can be done.  Let's see if we are talking about the same thing.  Say if you have an aperture ring and a shutter speed dial, each set individually.  If you want to set the camera to P mode, you have to rotate each ring to the Auto position. 

Let's say you have a custom function button that you program into shutter priority, high iso plus electronic shutter.  When activated, do you still need to rotate the aperture ring to A?  Now you have a design decision to make, and either one would be confusing.

[jjj]

I did say it can be done.  Let's see if we are talking about the same thing.  Say if you have an aperture ring and a shutter speed dial, each set individually.  If you want to set the camera to P mode, you have to rotate each ring to the Auto position.

Why? Stick in on P and then you are sorted. Why would it be any different from when aperture and shutter speed are controlled by dials elsewhere? Cameras are not mechanical any more.

Let's say you have a custom function button that you program into shutter priority, high iso plus electronic shutter.  When activated, do you still need to rotate the aperture ring to A?  Now you have a design decision to make, and either one would be confusing.

I think you are thinking of how cameras worked 20+ years ago. The aperture ring controls aperture when in manual or AP mode, otherwise it either has no function or maybe you can assign it one if you want.

[trichardlin]

...I think you are thinking of how cameras worked 20+ years ago. The aperture ring controls aperture when in manual or AP mode, otherwise it either has no function or maybe you can assign it one if you want.

Yes and no.  It's a general user interface issue.  What you are saying is that the behavior of the aperture ring changes depends on the mode you are in.  This type of user interface is generally a bad idea.  The function of a switch/dial/button should always be consistent.  Otherwise, you then have to check other status before you can trust what the aperture ring tells you.  If you have a shutter dial and a separate iso dial, then you have two other things to check before you can be sure.  It is conceivable that in a rushed situation, you might mistakenly think you have the right settings by looking at these rings/dials.  That's why I said in my original post, this can be done, but can be confusing.

One solution is to make all these rings/dials motorized.  When you kick the camera into auto mode, the camera actually turns these rings/dials into the proper settings.  But that might be more trouble than it's worth.

Another solution is to build a little high res screen into each ring and dial.  This way, they will always display the right settings.  Hmm, I like this solution.

One can of course go the other way, and relinquish all external controls and wrapped all that into a LCD touch screen.  When designed properly, it could drastically change the way cameras are operated.

Or, you can just talk to your camera aka Siri (or Samantha, but don't fall in love with her).  Later, we will also have mind controlled cameras (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVhggGSjXVg).

Sorry, I got carried away designing the next camera.

[jjj]

Yes and no.  It's a general user interface issue.  What you are saying is that the behavior of the aperture ring changes depends on the mode you are in.  This type of user interface is generally a bad idea.  The function of a switch/dial/button should always be consistent.  Otherwise, you then have to check other status before you can trust what the aperture ring tells you.  If you have a shutter dial and a separate iso dial, then you have two other things to check before you can be sure.  It is conceivable that in a rushed situation, you might mistakenly think you have the right settings by looking at these rings/dials.  That's why I said in my original post, this can be done, but can be confusing.

Not saying that at all. If you are in say Programme mode you don't need to alter the aperture ring. Same goes for SP. But if the user wants to, customisation of the control should be allowed, particularly if all controls are endless because then they are more versatile.
Besides what you say should not be done is exactly how all my Canons work. Currently on my Canons, the front dial is the shutter control in manual + SP, but if I use AP then it's the aperture control and in P it moves both variables up /down. The Aperture dial in manual is the exposure comp dial in other modes. I think you underestimate how adaptable people are.

I'm also a bit baffled by folks who keep going on about the ease of looking at top of camera to see settings on retro dials, when all the setting you need are visible in viewfinder, which is where your eye will be when taking photos surely. 
Now if you are in fact looking at top of camera, a single location with 7-10 accurate settings including exposure, rather than 5 scattered and not so accurate settings is to my mind more ergonomic.

[trichardlin]

Not saying that at all. If you are in say Programme mode you don't need to alter the aperture ring...

I have a feeling we are not talking about the same thing.  Just to be clear, so what you are saying is that the aperture ring on the lens (like what it used to be 30 years ago) can say I'm on F8, but really I can be on F4 because I'm in P mode, correct? 

[John Rausch]

I have a feeling we are not talking about the same thing.  Just to be clear, so what you are saying is that the aperture ring on the lens (like what it used to be 30 years ago) can say I'm on F8, but really I can be on F4 because I'm in P mode, correct?  

There are two types of aperture rings, those with f/stop markings, the 35mm for example, and those without markings, the 18-55 for example. A third type of lens, the XC models have no aperture rings.

The aperture rings are not mechanically coupled, so the aperture setting CAN be different than what is shown on the type of ring with markings. Same for shutter speed and ISO for that matter. This behavior is not the same for all Fujifilm bodies.

The X-M1 has a mode dial and when it is set to P, S, M or the auto modes, the aperture is set by the body independent of the physical setting on the aperture ring. The aperture ring does not have to be on A(uto).

On the X-E2 and X-T1 (the only ones I have experience with) there is no mode dial, though the camera has the P, A, S and M modes and calls them that, they are inferred by how the aperture ring, aperture switch and the shutter speed dial is set. On XC lenses, the lenses is put into auto my moving the aperture setting past the highest possible setting.

So, on the X-T1 and X-E2 an aperture ring with markings WILL show the aperture and on the X-M1 is will not show it unless by coincidence.

But, there is an exception, the remote camera app can control the aperture, shutter speed and ISO and the settings can all be different than what they physically indicate.

[jjj]

I have a feeling we are not talking about the same thing.  Just to be clear, so what you are saying is that the aperture ring on the lens (like what it used to be 30 years ago) can say I'm on F8, but really I can be on F4 because I'm in P mode, correct?  

Well, if you are in P mode, should you really be worrying about aperture?   . That's what AP or manual is for. And to repeat myself, why aren't people looking through viewfinder if they are taking photos?

How a camera worked 30 years ago is not how cameras need to work now, cameras were very limited in how they could operate as controls were fixed in their functionality.
Trying to do retro for the sake of it is very poor design, if it impedes functionality.

[trichardlin]

How a camera worked 30 years ago is not how cameras need to work now, cameras were very limited in how they could operate as controls were fixed in their functionality.
Trying to do retro for the sake of it is very poor design, if it impedes functionality.

Thank you.  Having those aperture rings and shutter dial simply complicates things.  Pretty soon, buttons will go away too.

[jjj]

Thank you.  Having those aperture rings and shutter dial simply complicates things.  Pretty soon, buttons will go away too.

and the misreading award of the day goes to......as does the forgetful award as
you replied to a post of mine further up the page where I was talking about where to place aperture/shutter dials. 

I also notice that you conveniently ignored the fact that Canon, the most popular brand by a long way has successfully implemented a design paradigm that you claim 'is a bad idea'

[BJL]

I would just like to say that for me, the ideal way to control multiple settings (manual focus, zoom, aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation, etc.) is to make use of the available fingers and thumbs of both hands in a way that can be done with my eye to the viewfinder, and is uniform between lenses. My left hand has enough trouble keeping track of where the focus and zoom dials are on various lenses while supporting most of the weight of the camera, so I greatly enjoy not having to also keep track of the location of an aperture ring (let alone an added shutter speed ring!) with that hand; instead I much prefer having the controls for aperture, shutter speed, EC etc. under the thumb and one finger of my right hand, and always in the same position whatever lens I am using.

Sometimes, a change adopted universally by multiple competing companies is just a matter of technological progress allowing new and better ways of doing things. To the old dogs whose decades of experience have made them highly adept with the methods of the all-mechanical era and so are more comfortable with that than with learning new tricks: "get over it", as Michael likes to say.

[trichardlin]

and the misreading award of the day goes to......as does the forgetful award as
you replied to a post of mine further up the page where I was talking about where to place aperture/shutter dials. 

I also notice that you conveniently ignored the fact that Canon, the most popular brand by a long way has successfully implemented a design paradigm that you claim 'is a bad idea'

Haha, thanks for the award.  I'll proudly wear it.  I have never won anything in my life.

Now, if you are talking about the type of rings on Canon G1X lens, that's not a dedicated aperture ring we are talking about.  It's just a control ring.  Functionally, it's just another dial whose function is fuzzy.  You don't know what it will do until you check your mode dial, or after you turn it. 

If I remember correctly, we were talking about interface designs where there are dedicated aperture rings, etc. and the pros and cons of these "dedicated" controls.  A recent example is the Fuji X-T1 that got reviewed here at LL.  One of the advantage, as you already know, is that you can see your camera settings even before you turn it on (hasn't someone already mentioned that?, sorry I can't recall).

Anyway, no need to beat a dead horse.  I'll stick to my mind controlled camera.

[GrahamB3]

5 pages of comments, and nobody (from an admittedly cursory reading of the posts) points out the obvious?

Sony has 2 still imaging mounts. "A" mount, and "E" mount. There's no "FE" mount, and the only "quiz" is why isn't there any fact checking occurring in LuLa articles?

The E mount throat diameter is 46.1mm. To put this in perspective, Nikon's F mount is 44mm. Leica's M mount is 44mm. Sony E mount's 46.1 mm is well able to accommodate a full frame sensor, but isn't  large enough to facilitate in body image stabilization.

The Minolta/Sony A mount is 49.7mm. Sufficient size to accommodate IBIS.

Sony's markets 2 mounts. The A mount is medium-full size, with IBIS. The E mount, both full frame and aps-c, is a compact, short flange-depth system. The E mount depends on lens-based stabilization, and is able to mount any lens from any system. I find Sony's design philosophy suits my photography perfectly.

Graham

[Isaac]

5 pages of comments, and nobody (from an admittedly cursory reading of the posts) points out the obvious?

Sony has 2 still imaging mounts. "A" mount, and "E" mount. There's no "FE" mount, and the only "quiz" is why isn't there any fact checking occurring in LuLa articles?

On the first page of comments:

Yes some people will say that Sony has lens mounts, it would be misleading but it all depends on your perspective. There is the A mount and there is the E mount and the E mount cameras can use both families of lenses.

But there are definitely four system of lenses, since lens systems need to be adapted to format size as well as lens mount.

[ndevlin]

Thank you.  Having those aperture rings and shutter dial simply complicates things.  Pretty soon, buttons will go away too.

Couldn't disagree more strongly.  Having aperture controlled by my otherwise bored and useless left hand leaves my all-important right fore-finger free to hit the shutter button, rather than leaving its post and fiddling with the infernal 'front dial'. 

I don't really care what the aperture ring controls, but it was good design, albeit born of necessity.

- N.

[jjj]

Couldn't disagree more strongly. 

I don't think he really means that. It was written instead of a sensible response as trichardlin has made some silly assertions and assumes we are all as dumb as a bunch of spanners. Any examples that demonstrate otherwise get ignored.
No idea he copes with a keyboard and software with different shortcut commands. Maybe he has a different computer for each programme to keep things simple. 

[BJL]

Having aperture controlled by my otherwise bored and useless left hand leaves my all-important right fore-finger free to hit the shutter button, rather than leaving its post and fiddling with the infernal 'front dial'.  

If your left hand is bored and useless, apparently you rarely focus manually or use zoom lenses. For me, focusing is more often the thing that I do immediately before pressing the shutter release, not changing the aperture, so maybe these differences in preference depend on usage style. (ADDED: on further thought, I suppose that even with a zoom lens, choosing focal length is usually done earlier in the process, and so  is not so important to the ergonomics of making settings quickly just before the critical moment, so zoom vs prime is maybe not such a major consideration.)

Also, some cameras with on-body aperture settings allow using the ["otherwise bored and useless"] second finger of the right hand to operate the front dial, allowing the "trigger finger" to stay in place: that is my favorite layout.

[Rob C]

Bring back the F! No, the F2: it was a teeny bit more rounded, and less sharp in the hand to carry all day.

Actually, the release button on my F once unscrewed, and ever after I found myself checking, checking, checking... felt like a friggin' playwright.

Rob C

[ndevlin]

No idea he copes with a keyboard and software with different shortcut commands. Maybe he has a different computer for each programme to keep things simple. 

Best camera I've used in years is the 645D which has a separate, dedicated button or control for virtually everything. It was _fantastic_ to use.  Modal. Menus. Blow.

[theguywitha645d]

But as someone who, over the years, has been asked to consult on camera design by more than a few Asian and European companies, I can tell you with confidence that no one knows anything – often including myself.

As someone that actually worked in one of those Asian companies that manufacture products and worked with the product teams, I would say you simply don't know the business nor how cameras are designed. You certainly don't understand the economics:

It's clear to everyone in the industry that the future lies in mirrorless technology, but the two market leaders have DSLRs as their current bread and butter products.

The mirrorless segment is losing ground faster than DSLRs. Apparently, everyone in the industry is confused. And you can refer to the infographic in your latest post which shows that. The digital revolution made such changes to the usual product lifetime that it became increasingly harder to get a return on investment. Customers want newer, faster, better, but are unwilling or unable to pay for it. With a increase in products and faster product cycles, there are actually more products competing for fewer customers. And if stock does not sell out fast enough, then the losses are huge.

While I am sure you know what you like in a camera, it is actually a lot harder when you are designing for a world market with different criteria for what makes a "good" camera. There is also constraints within budgets and the fickle demands of the consumers--you say simplify the cameras and then when Nikon does that with the Df you complain it is too simple and others complain it is not simple enough. People ask for X, but then don't buy X when it is released.

There is a very dedicated group of people making cameras today that have a lot of experience and talent. The fact they don't suit your personal opinion is neither here nor there--there are plenty of people that actually like their cameras and are very attached to them. The camera market is shrinking, but that is not because of a lack of well designed products nor the ignorance of the camera designers.