In my last blog post, I rambled on about the challenges rendered by, and insight that comes from, having to become familiar with the interfaces and operating systems of all the different manufacturers.
It's a learning process that makes you realise that, while some are more awkward than others, most of them are in need of some work. Without question, all the current DSLR user interfaces (particularly the menu structures), are struggling under the weight of all the additional features that have been introduced. And it's not just DSLRs - I’ve spent this week working with a compact that requires nine button presses to change exposure compensation. I don't envy the task of trying to sensibly prioritise and structure so many features in a menu system, but I wonder whether it couldn't be done better...
Regardless of where you stand on the love/hate Apple bunfight (and my favoured position is on the sidelines, cheering the things done well and booing the company's insistence that you use its products exactly as it decrees), it’s undeniably got some talent when it comes to user-interfaces. As Exhibit A, I give you the iPod - a series of devices that have turned your record collections into databases, yet have remained an acceptable topic of conversation amongst people who don’t know a computer-orientated three-letter-acronym for every letter of the alphabet. And, if the court of public opinion will allow, I’d also like to submit Exhibit B : the iPhone. Ok, the first version was a bit rubbish but any product that can make headway in a mature market with seriously entrenched competitors, has probably got more to it than a good marketing campaign and the enthusiasm of a rather gaunt man in jeans and a black roll-neck.
 |
Can a camera maker do for the digicam what Apple has done for the mobile phone? |
My point is this: the Nokias and Blackberrys (well, Research in Motions, if you insist), of this world were pretty confident about the way user interfaces were done. They'd honed, refined and evolved their menu systems and were presumably comfortable that they were getting it right. And, until you’ve tried something else, they all seem perfectly good. But sometimes, with a little lateral thinking and a strategically-placed cocked hat, the established players can be shown there are other ways of doing things.
So that’s what I’m holding out for – a camera company brave enough to go back to a blank piece of paper and give some thought to other ways their control systems could work. Not something extended and adapted from the way its film cameras operated or from a menu system designed to house a handful of options - but an original idea based on the realisation that there are now around 100 menu options to squeeze in there. Revolution, rather than evolution, that’s not too much to ask for, is it?
(And there’ll be no marks awarded for just adding a touch-screen)
I recently upgraded to a Nikon D80, but sent it back since it only provided marginally better image quality than my silly little Ixus. So I think there is a need for reinvention at the basic level: both in terms of technology and menu interface structure.
Posted by: Thomas | 4 Dec 2008 16:27:29
I think that Samsung tried something with their NV series but as you(dpreview) said in the review It wasn't quite enough.
Posted by: Cristi | 4 Dec 2008 18:14:04
Getting digital camera interfaces right will always be hard. They simply have to do too many tasks. Yet there seem to be certain things that can be done. One would be an auto mode that one can dare to use. Sensible in the way it – for example – applies its ISO values. Consider the focal length. We already have those technological masterpieces that we just call IS or VR. Use them to determine what a sensible minimum shutter speed for this particular user is. The system should be able to tell by how much the user is shaking. And then: put the exposure compensation controls front and formost. Also: automatically turn off the friggin auto ISO if one changes to full manual.
Those are just some ideas. I also think that with something like a camera you cannot go the same way Apple went. No reduction to the basics. Give the user the ability to customise. But try to make sensible default choices (something Apple does well) and try to not get in the way of the user with all those one time customisation stuff once he is done customising.
Posted by: michael | 4 Dec 2008 18:39:08
I'm not sure I'd consider the iPhone/iPod Touch interfaces to be 'reduction to the basics' but yes, taming the level of complexity of a modern DSLR is no easy task.
That said, the difficulty car makers are having providing in-car MP3 access (where you really shouldn't be taking your hands off the wheel to dial through tracks), shows how powerful the older iPod interface I'm assuming you're referring to was for interrogating an interface.
The level of sophistication of the Auto modes in the latest compacts is very impressive, and improving but that's no excuse for burying Exposure Compensation seven button presses away in a multi-tiered menu.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 4 Dec 2008 18:48:41
Well, what about getting rid of the mirror system completely? I see it as being a dinosaur gene from the ages before live view..
Posted by: Thomas | 4 Dec 2008 19:54:19
The real problem of a camera (at least dslr) is that you have to put it in front of your eye... but to interact with a display you need put it at a distance .
Then the real revolution for me would be to have a semitransparent 3d/holographic hud display right inside the viewfinder, controlled by 2 dials/joystick under your fingers... though something similar already exists for controlling AF points and other basic info... then extend it at all features, in the best simple and efficient way possible. And, Why not , with an apple zoom/rotate full 3d style.
Posted by: riccardo | 4 Dec 2008 20:04:05
Richard,
I think you may be crossing your wires here - even Apple haven't managed to get 100s of options into a usable form.
While the iPod is a marvel of design to *use*, changing settings and functions on the devices is not much fun. Its interface only shines when used to play music.
The same goes for modern cameras (of all types). Half-press shutter buttons, exposure wheels etc are all great for getting the picture taken, but changing settings is difficult.
I have yet to see an example of what the solution to this is, but in every electronic device - from mp3 players to modern OSes, options screens are increasingly frustrating and baffling - and time-consuming.
Posted by: Tim | 4 Dec 2008 21:49:20
I'm certainly not suggesting that any of Apple's user interfaces are flawless, or would adapt to cameras particularly well - just speculating that cameras might benefit from someone taking a blank-sheet approach to camera UIs in the way Apple appeared to with several of its products.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 4 Dec 2008 22:17:51
well, the problem with revolution is that when it occurs in the confines of a matter with a certain amount of history, the revolution tends to break the hereditary roots, the planted drivers of the system, producing a completely new, yet much consumable, loose paradigm..
on the other hand its the systems with historical background that tend to be most resistant to change ..
yes much vague and philosophical maybe, but still thanks for the mental exercise..
also is a touch screen with multi-touch feature still noneligable for marks
Posted by: hurkan | 4 Dec 2008 22:34:38
...I think that this "problem" arises from having to review every camera that comes on the market, instead of being able to pick and choose the ones that you want to use and sticking with them.
A decision which is based mainly on function not on the menu-system, at least for me. Sorry, this dog doesn't hunt.
Posted by: p | 5 Dec 2008 01:41:44
Sometimes when my dSLR or my P&S refuses to take a shot (e.g. for failing to get focus lock, or too busy telling me to turn on the flash) - I wish I had a camera that would just take the shot when I pressed the button. And wouldn't it be great if the obvious settings like aperture, ISO, and shutter speed were accessible on nice uncluttered knobs. Something like the Nikon FM2 perhaps? Ah yes, the days of manual cameras. They always worked, always captured the shot (no matter how bad your judgement of focus or exposure) and they were built like bricks. But to address the original post; How about a menu system which showed a quick preview grid of how the shot you're about to take would look with different shutter speeds / iso / apertures / flash settings, given the lighting etc. the camera has detected you're about to shoot under. Then with one glance you can quickly select a thumbnail that represents the style of photo you want, and then click the shutter to take the real photo.
Posted by: John | 5 Dec 2008 02:46:33
John,
I think you'll find the new Olympus cameras do something similar to that; they call it 'Perfect Shot Preview' or something calong those lines.
Posted by: Tim | 5 Dec 2008 03:38:58
Hmmm, not sure that apple should be heralded for its interfaces. Yes they do one set of things very well but they usually fall apart for power users. I've borrowed a few Ipods and played with other people's on raod trips and they are kinda sketchy for on the fly DJing. I think you'll see this same problem with cameras. We want clean features but we want to be able to do everything with them. You can make a nice interface for a certain style of using the camera but making super flexibility seems to get in the way. In many ways I really like how my SD14 handles menus. I press the ISO/WB button and have a quick 4 way selector for what I use most often. Of course the sigma is a bit limited in as far as total options. The dedicated Auto Bracket mode is neat though. I think the revolution will be when you can compose custom settings and mappings from your computer. Place the mappings on your CF card and then your menu is the nice one unless you want to slog through some sort of command database. Sort of like the way winamp and oher software is skinnable.
Posted by: Sloan | 5 Dec 2008 04:46:09
Many people say Apple makes "fantastically easy-to-use UIs", but I think they do not. Apple is fantastically good in designing beautiful products and UI - objects of desire, and while many things are easy to use, there are sooo many things that are complete f**ck-ups. Ipod's menu-back is one example. Also try also putting a novice to figure out how to make a hidden window visible in OSX. Please give her plenty of food that she won't starve to death while trying. Being on occasional apple user I still cannot do it without trial&error. So Apple is not the supreme guru in usability design. Things can be done better. IMHO.
Second point. Much of the iPhone's great usability comes from the fact that it provides limited features. The first version did not have SMS forwarding. It is a great skill to carve out less used features and there is also lot of good in this. However, DLSR's are tools for photographers and by definition not for average Joe. It's photographer's task to give her "artistic" touch to the photo.
Having said that there could be room for great level of automation and UI improvement that could enable the Average Joes to take pretty good photos in Full-Auto mode. In general I think DSLRs Full-Auto modes suck. My IXUS takes better photos in Full Auto (it feels) than my 5D. DSLR has advantage (of course) when I switch to half-manual or manual modes.
To innovate in camera "UI" one would need to reduce the number of controls to just few basic ones in the camera and have an automatic logic to make the "artistic touch" for a user. For most of the users it could do fine. But how to do it? There is lot of room for innovation in implementation.
Posted by: Jylppy | 5 Dec 2008 08:22:24
Sloan - I agree that it's a difficult balancing act between making the automated modes easy to use, while also including powerful features and customisation.
I wasn't saying that Apple's UI design methods would be suited here, just that someone taking a fresh look at the problem might be.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 5 Dec 2008 09:17:45
Here's my tupence:
My DSLR, a Canon 40D, has a great deal of individual settins to play with. Some are easy to find, some are hidden well below the 4th or fifth menu level ....
But it also has a lot of completely useless analog switches, like the Directprint or the Jump button.
It also has three configurable and programmable modes (C1,2,3), which would be great for me if only I remember how I did program them the last time I did.
So, please let me have the Auto and Semi-Auto settings fully programmable instead! Yes, fine, make a sensible preselection for a Landscape, Portrait, tc. Mode, but give me a button somewhere hidden in a menu that allows me to store any setting onto this menu.
That would allow me to create my own Landscape, No-flash, Auto, whatever mode the way I see fit, and set up my Camera that way in a blink of a second. The extra C functions could then be used for more specific settings, and ideally would have a possibility to name them myself with a letter-number Interface in a similar way than Panasonic letting you enter the name of your Baby in the respective mode.
The way Canon (with the G10) and Pana (LX-3) went by reintroducing more manual controls is a good one, too!
Posted by: Yossarian | 5 Dec 2008 09:31:07
Three letters: RED
http://www.red.com/
I think that if they keep up their momentum for what they've done for video cameras -- one of their video cameras is already promising to shoot 65 megapixel images -- I think it would be a trivial and logical step forward to go into the dSLR market as well... Bolt on a Canon or Nikon lens mount, and watch the industry explode.
In fact, it looks as if that already in action: The Red One camera has an interchangeable lens mount. It ships with a PL mount, common for modern 35 mm and 16 mm motion picture cameras. The company has also released an adapter for 2/3" B4 lenses, and for Nikon F-mount lenses. Birger Engineering has announced it will soon release a Canon EF lens mount for the Red One, which will provide full electronic control of EF lenses. Other third parties may also have lens mounts in development for the Red One. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RED_Digital_Cinema)
Exciting times.
Posted by: Haje | 5 Dec 2008 09:43:09
It's not new, it's not rocket science, but for compact cameras I think part of the answer is literally revolutionary. After my Canon G3 of old I find changing settings on compact cameras with wee buttons or fiddly joysticks so much slower than the good old DSLR thumb or forefinger wheel. For changing all sorts of options or even scrolling through menus (as per Canon 30D and others), in combination with an lcd, I find it hard to beat. But I have to admit, it's not as flash as an iphone.
Posted by: coffeemonster | 5 Dec 2008 10:15:21
I often had discussions regarding the iPhone's ergonomic and what strikes me is that ergonomic, learning curve and beauty of the interface are often confused one an other. As an example, on average those mastering the T9 are actually slower with the iPhone's virtual QUERTY for typing SMS. (of course, the overall ergonomic goes beyond SMS but thats an other story)
Simply put, a powerful user interface may be irritating to learn at first, in the end it has to be judged by those mastering it. Of course, learning curve is important too, but for whatever my opinion is worth, it is not the be all end all of user interface: so long as the camera is not dated before anyone can finally get around the menu, it is already an acceptable starting point. Might not be fashionable tho.
Food for thought. Of course, I am happy if someone wants to try something new, something better. What matters to me is not how pretty, but how quick, easy and efficient the interface can be for a maximum of features. To the risk of repeating myself : not to confuse with pretty nor intuitive. Easy and fast.
Posted by: Julien Gauthier | 5 Dec 2008 14:54:06
My Minolta A2 has a virtually perfect interface.
Posted by: Wilhelm | 5 Dec 2008 21:28:29
The best interface I've used, without question, is the Epson R-D1. You can shoot for days with the LCD turned inwards and off, and without resorting to menus. Shutter speed and exposure compensation are on one dial, ISO another, and of course Aperture on the lens. WB, choice of RAW or JPG are controlled with a button, and battery life and shots remaining are show with analog needles. It's elegant, simple, and a pleasure to use. You can go into the menu any time you want, but you don't NEED to use the menus at all to shoot. Perfect. Wish Epson would make more of them.
Curt
Posted by: Curt Gerston | 6 Dec 2008 04:13:49
I don`t think it is all that bad, Richard. I spent the last couple of years trying all sorts of DSLRs, and finally getting my hands on an Olympus e-520 was a revelation. The combination of hard buttons and direct-access display works erfectly well, at least to me. The few menu items I needed besides that I got used to finding pretty quickly. And it looks like Pentax has adopted this system with their K-m.
Posted by: Rick Petersen | 6 Dec 2008 10:35:40
For a contrarian point of view on the ipod menu system ... and it's ever-increasing complexity:
http://gizmodo.com/5042072/a-sad-fact-the-ipods-clickwheel-must-die
Posted by: noser | 6 Dec 2008 13:42:12
I'm going to agree with Curt in that the classic analogue based designs of the past are the way forward for modern compacts/dSLRs. I know that sounds contradictory, but things like dedicated ev dials, ISO knobs that we see sporadically on specialized lil' revolutionaries, or something as drastically classic as the Aperture Ring on the lens & the Shutter Speed dial on the top like we saw with the Panasonic L1/Leica Digilux 3 are a class apart in terms of flexibility, tactility & ease of use for the (relatively) knowledgeable user.
I know I'm asking the industry to swim back, but I think implementing something like that on a camera is a good idea which is probably why the Digilux still retails for over $2k (the red badge aside) and the Canon G series is so lauded for it's control interface.
Expecting the photographer to change settings by holding a button n' turning a dial staring at the LCD just doesn't seem fair...
Gaurav S.
(Awaiting delivery of the L1)
Posted by: Gaurav S. | 6 Dec 2008 20:16:49
wouldn't it be nice (though far from revolutionary) if the presets knob on Canon dSLRs had to be pulled up before it could be rotated, so that it wouldn't turn accidentally (at the worst possible time)?
Posted by: gaetano catelli | 6 Dec 2008 22:15:53
I was wandering around on Wikipedia, and happened upon the Canon EOS 3. This used eye tracking to select a focus point in the viewfinder! Why can't they use this with an EVF to enable easier adjustment of advanced functions (2d menus instead of 1-dimensional)?
Posted by: CarVac | 7 Dec 2008 16:13:18
How about a DSLR with mp3 player and a bottle opener?
I would suggest you stop re-inventing the wheel and keep the blog empty if you haven't got anything better to say.
Good day, sir.
Posted by: Locust | 7 Dec 2008 19:14:18
I do not own a digital camera - but I am purchasing a hobbyist Canon 5D Mark II after Christmas (hoping the over-all economy will trim the price a tad). I work as a Sr. Sys. Design Eng. for one of our major defense firms.
About 6-7 years ago (…and please…do not respond with a 6.73 or even 7.28 years “correction”) the computer system development business experienced a major sea-change in the CONOPS. We changed from “Intelligent Design” to “Evolution”. Whatzdat?
Intelligent Design accepted a task of designing a system to assist the user in performing a task or desired outcome. There was quite a bit of study and inter-play between the design team and the user community – usually (please don’t write about the “one that got away”) with fairly good results. These “fairly good results” were achieved by focusing on the “desired outcome” and confirming (and sometimes modifying) the manner in which the users both did and liked to achieve the desired outcome. Many, many times the software programmers would literally scream and howl about the amount of work “those damned users are causing us”. (Gee…I used to call that “having a job”.)
So….like any street smart bunch they began secretly lobbying management with a single notion Evolution: We developers can design it on the fly from a customer supplied list of requirements – and save you management guys a lot of money – read, “bonuses”.
Guess what happened next? Customers were given one chance (ONE...rarely two) to submit a list of functions and features they wanted in their new __________ (insert: camera, satellite, weapon, home computer). But one “feature-function” that was specifically dis-allowed was “usability or work-flow”. Then the programmers set about developing a “box” that accomplished most of those functions – in one manner or another, to one level of quality and comfort or another….sometimes requiring 9-clicks to access EVO control…but you can - if you try - get it…right!?
And…the SW Programmers were right…it was in fact cheaper by about $250-350K per $10 million system – a really significant savings…right? …..only if you are NOT the user.
Digital photography is still “photography” but the workflow in the camera has changed…there is a lot more than aperture and shutter speed. Did Daguerre know white balance was so crucial ?
So…what we need (and will never, ever get) is a digital camera designed to reflect the workflow of a photographer using the instrument for a desired outcome. Just too easy for the skateboarders to “design-develop” from a list of requirements to ever go back to the old Intelligent Design system.
Could we have 10-20 user designed in camera scripts for the "usual" types of shooting assignment-lighting-desired outcomes controlled on a headsup display via a simple thumbwheel? Sure ...but we probably won't...especially will the majority buying into the hype about mega-pixels etc etc ______ (fill-n your favorite).
Best compromise: find a DSLR System with a workflow that generally equates to the manner in which you like to work. For me the Canon 5D Mark II – even with its usability workflow flaws still seems to produce a digital image with the least amount of hassle – according to me, but remember that still leaves about 99 other ways to skin a cat....and to me it IS a hobby...a meditation...a time away from the extreme focus of national defense.
Posted by: Edward K Jellytoes | 7 Dec 2008 20:37:02
Thank you for your interesting and enjoyable blog, but are you really on the sidelines? Surely, as the editor of what is arguably one of the most influential photography sites around, your place is squarely in the scrum (or whatever the equivalent is for Americans). Which makes one of your comments all the more surprising for its omission. Ipods are successfully because they do one thing, and one thing only: play music. But they do it well.
Is any camera manufacturer brave enough to stake a huge R&D/Marketing budget on a one-trick horse? Especially as we all, deep down inside, are hoping for a camera that does everything – but everything! – perfectly. I agree that dumbing down to the lowest common denominator, and arguing that it’s the megapixel count, is insulting to photographers of all types, but perhaps there aren’t enough of us telling manufacturers what are specific needs are and then putting our money where our mouth is. (I’m one of them; I’d love the perfect camera+lens combination for mono portrait work, but I like landscapes too…)
So keep up the good work of arguing for more intelligent design and of making that argument clear to manufacturers – and consumers.
Posted by: Stefan Stuart Fletcher | 8 Dec 2008 11:49:04
I think part of the problem is that you cannot make a user interface that is good for all kinds of users. You may complain about exposure compensation being buried, but the majority of people doesn't know how or when to use that. Camera manufacturers have not made many cameras aimed solely at advanced users, but still they still need to please these users. Because people who don't know what exposure compensation is don't run influential camera review sites (I hope). My camera (Canon 40D) is not really a camera for beginners, yet it has all these 'scene modes'. But I'm sure some of the buyers of this camera never use the M, Av, or Tv modes. Furthermore, my guess is that these buyers are the reason Canon could afford to invest in the development of this camera. Nevertheless I'm sure that if cameras would be more targeted at specific audiences it would be easier to design an interface that is easy to use yet contains all the features *you* need.
Posted by: allard | 8 Dec 2008 19:10:18
In my case, I always go trough a postproduction in my computer, so my perfect camera would have exactly the same controls as my current pentax but ISO seting would have a direct access buttons too (+ and -) The focusing would follow my eye (some old videocameras already did that ten years ago) and the viewfinder would be big and have a 100% coverage. Would only shoot in RAW (is anyone relly still choosing JPEG when RAW is aviable???) and the whole system would be optimized for that. And last but not least, would have re-focus system.
Then my perfect compact would be an LX3 with a built in not protruding 100% covernig rangefinder and graduation for 24mm, 35mm and 50mm. It would shoot only raw too and the joystick would contron speed in the x axis and aperture in the y axis
Posted by: Amilcar Alzaga | 8 Dec 2008 20:34:24
When electronic SLR film cameras came on the scene there was a big change in the UI. My perception is that Canon lead with the ergonomically positioned dial with the A-1 and T-90 introducing the finger/thumb dual-dial as we know it today with the EOS 1 in 1989.
Nikon stuck with the traditonal aperture and shutter rings for years before finally adopting broadly the same type of finger/thumb control dials with the F5. This included some nasty UI hick-ups along the way like the Nikon F70 with its "starship enterprise" dual level push button menus - best forgotten.
Now the dual dial approach lent itself well to film - only two real variables - shutter/aperture for manual, shutter/comp for shutter priority, aperture/comp for aperture priority.
There would then be switches for the other on/off type stuff (AF Servo/one shot, single shot/continuous)
Then digital came along with a third major variable you needed to set - ISO. This appeared to be totally ignored by the camera manufacturers. Only now with my EOS 40D have i got ISO displayed in the viewfinder, and dialable like everything else. Auto-ISO finally makes an appearance as well but in a kind of limited way. Petax system Sv mode looks better and Nikon are now letting you tune the auto-ISO. It still seems grafted on to the old film UI design.
Then theres the back/top dilemma. The film stuff had most of the setting on the TOP of the camera - after all the film back was flat and only SLRs with specialised, expensive backs put anything there. Then with digital we needed an LCD with menus so alot of stuff got put on the BACK of the camera but some stuff was retained on the top LCD - just like film days. Ironically my EOS 350D was too cheap for a top panel LCD to EVERTHING was on the BACK making it simpler. Now I have the "better" 40D in the TOP/BACK dilemma again. Consider if apple had put two displays on the ipod - one on top and one on the back ? But with a DSLR you actually have three displays because some of the options (not all) are displayed in the VIEWFINDER as well and are changable there. So somehow most of the control buttons have to work in all three display locations - not easy to design. I actually use the "DISPLAY" button to get the top panel LCD stuff on the back - bringing me down to just VIEWFINDER and BACK, which is slightly more managable although I still have to use the dinky little buttons on the TOP.
As the OP said we need to step back and re-think some of this stuff. I'm not sure what the answer is but I suspect I will know it when I see it. EVF might be somewhere in there ....
By the way yossarian you are dead right about being able to reprogram the PIC modes (landscape, portrait or whatever). The default settings are just madness - sport is the only useful one I find and only then in an emergency. Message to all DSLR vendors - we want to program our symbols please !!! But I do find the C1,C2,C3 useful - just need more dial positions...
Posted by: zenit_b | 8 Dec 2008 23:30:15
Menus are unecessary now. A move back to simplicity is imminent. Spring fashion wishlists indicate the need to now be able to use your camera, rather than merely post comments on it and read manuals. The modern interface will be back to the old ways with the new technology- as my mother-in-law tapestry designer quipped more than thirty years ago when I was still at college.
All RAW machines with mere shutter dials and manual aperture rings and lenses that can manually focus effectively because they have in-viewfinder automatic depth of field indication ( about time!) will supplant all other options.
It will become illegal to supply macines that do not apply CA correction and distortion correction in-camera.
If your iPod has an 80Gb hard drive, so too will your camera- removeable storage will be there for convenience, and as back-up.
It will, however, be solid-state- as removeable storage now is.
The result is obviouslt SLR or LeicaM size . It shoots RAW only, and that's all. There's no in-camera noise-reduction, or D-lighting to sap power supplies, and slow you down.
There are no Picture Styles either. That's all gone to free OEM updateable software like that Canon supply.
And then at last Sony will release the R2 with lenses the size of Leica M lenses on a full-frame sensor with interchangeability improved by sealing the sensor inside its own chamber. And all of the above. And the **** will then really hit the fan as, obviously, that has been possible since the first full-frame sensor machines.
Posted by: Peter Harrap | 9 Dec 2008 00:29:24
I think this discussion exactly shows the difference with revolutions: Most people are stucked in the existing UIs.
What about some real revolution?
I think the main problem with most DSLR UIs is: At least for some settings you have to take your eye away from the ViewFinder.
What if you didn't have to do this?
I could imagine an electronical ViewFinder paired with an UI recognizing your eye movements, example here:
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=QnEKP-eKLpk&feature=related
I think it's not possible yet because of the marginal eye movements when you look through a ViewFinder.
But wouldn't that be cool? Focussing by looking at the subject, same with focus tracking?
This feature, paired with only a few buttons to speed up the UI, I would definitely love this :)
Posted by: Martin Ziebarth | 9 Dec 2008 11:37:52
Honestly I don't think the challenge is that great; it's simply that companies aren't putting enough thought into the user interface... their priorities are all wrong.
What do I mean by that? Well firstly, because they try to make compacts as fashion accessories rather than simply as cameras, making them tiny or shiny or curvy is prioritised over making them comfortable to use - so we end up with cameras that are virtually impossible to hold steady, or ones with no unused space on the back at all.
Secondly, because of the ridiculously short product life-cycles, I think designers hardly have time to sit down and think about the interface - they're too busy attempting to squeeze in more pixels, smile recognition, ar$e-from-elbow recognition, or whatever it looks like the competition is doing - and to do so as soon as possible, in order to grab the headlines and advertising space before the competition does the same. I do understand the importance of maintaining a constant visible presence and being quite "prolific" to ensure sales - it is not an easy time for these companies - but it does not benefit those of us who want a good camera. When rushing, the less "advertisable" things get forgotten - like user interface (and noise performance, and quality control, and etc etc).
Also I wonder if common sense is lacking to some extent... for example Panasonic puts exposure compensation on a button on the back all their compacts - why on earth doesn't everyone follow suit? Before you say that exposure compensation is something not used by the average consumer, I say: Of course not; it's usually buried in menus and has a name that means nothing to them, and therefore frightens them. Stick it on the back of the camera, make it clear what it does in layman's terms (minus makes your photo darker; plus makes it lighter) and they will realise how useful it is (whatever any fanboys may say, NO camera gets exposure right 100% of the time).
As for dSLRs, honestly I think the answer is pretty simple - stick more buttons and dials on the camera, make them comfortable and properly built for purpose (Sony carrying the curse of the joystick over from their mobile phones to cameras was the one thing that put me off the A700). The same applies to compacts - don't make buttons too small, don't make dials and levers too loose (of course manufacturing cost becomes an issue there). As well as providing the necessary external controls, make sure that menus are clear and not endlessly sub-divided in a Russian doll menu system. And if it's unavoidable that certain settings will be fairly hidden away in a menu, then the answer is really pretty obvious - let the user customise the buttons, and let them move settings to a "most used" folder. IMO that is one of the best things they can do - don't just improve the user interface; give the user the option to change the interface to suit them!
Rant over and out ;D
Posted by: D.S. | 9 Dec 2008 12:42:32
P.s. I have to strongly disagree with previous poster Thomas on two counts.
First, although it will not make you a better photographer and is not necessarily the most practical photographic tool for you, the D80 or any similar dSLR can absolutely wipe the floor with an Ixus when it comes to quantifiable "image quality" - once you stick a good lens on it. When it comes to noise performance at higher sensitivities, and simply the detail of images shot in RAW and printed large (where processing artefacts become obvious), the difference is certainly not marginal.
Secondly, I think it is still too early to lose the mirror system and optical viewfinder. I am no enemy of live view, but at the moment you cannot rely on a rear LCD screen alone - there are too many situations in which they cannot be seen clearly. That leaves Electronic ViewFinders - and so far the Panasonic G1 has the only one that to my mind comes close to properly replacing an optical system. EVF and Live View technology needs to mature further before we decide to completely chuck out optical systems.
Posted by: D.S> | 9 Dec 2008 12:51:55
...I think that if anything is in need of a "revolution" it is dpreview itself. You guys spend too much time writing your opinions instead of testing equipment and posting the test-results.
Anything and everything that you say here depends on having the gear in hand, so what makes your opinion any better than the opinion of any other photographer? All opinions are valid because they are simply opinions. Give us the hard facts and let us form our own opinions.
Just "less talk and more data", please. There's no point in having a camera website that doesn't even update its camera reviews on a daily basis and yet we hear all this yap from the staff. Next musings on the implications of the shape of their belly-buttons.
Posted by: p | 9 Dec 2008 22:06:57
for decades cameras have had the same basic manual options, only once manufacturers added automation have the interfaces become more complex, by adding more options. Making operation easier but ironically more confusing. The lesson from Apple is that they limit options, thereby making the essential functions more accessible. The innovation of the ipod is not the click wheel interface, but itunes. You can do the messy editing of your playlist at home, but you can easily select it while walking the street.
With cameras, there is a time to fidget with menus and a time to take pictures. Ideally you should never need to access a menu while photographing, which is the case with my Epson RD-1 as mentioned above.
Posted by: cnny | 10 Dec 2008 05:05:40
You're right upto a point, but an iPod has a lot less functions/options compared to an dSLR of course, and even that interface isn't flawless. Don't get me wrong, I was whizzing back and forth through the coverflow within seconds after opening the box, but soon found out it doesn't jump from "Z" to "A", I had to scroll all the way back..
I've just taken delivery of my first dSLR, an Olympus E-520, and I've spent the last two days looking at the rather steep learning curve. Maybe they can stop competing at the megapixel level, and focus on the user interface? Some kind of touchscreen might be handy, with a proximity sensor to switch it off of course, and maybe some kind of tactile feedback?
Posted by: Sjoerd Hiemstra | 10 Dec 2008 09:00:02
Just read your comments on Apple ipod & iphone. I am the guy camera companies dream about. I own an Apple Nano and purchased the wife the big Iphone this week. I purchased a Panasonic Lumix because it took great pictures and was intuitive. Optics are always important not just megapixels. I threw away a Canon Sureshot because the control settings were contrived and not easy to comprehend. Why did I buy the Ipod? Because it played music easily.My daughter bought it for me because I kept stealing my wife's Ipod. I carry 350 songs in my pocket and photos too.
Maybe be Apple should enter the camera business. Success at Apple was not instant. It was the strategy to try until success hit. Winning is a checkered flag of black & white. You need to think outside the normal box.
Posted by: Jimdad Kenney | 10 Dec 2008 10:02:20
Imagine if they could incorporate the new digital technologies into the camera body of old....Metal (or composite) construction, with knobs that lift and twist...
Posted by: ilovephotoblogs | 10 Dec 2008 21:45:50
RED RED RED.
the answer is RED.
mike
www.mikekobal.com
Posted by: Mike Kobal | 11 Dec 2008 12:22:24
wo notes on the lens reviews (since that's closed now)
first...a reply was made to a post there explaining why the shooter likes to take shots when it's sunny vs when the light isn't good. I think that we all appreciate the explanation of why the shooter wants to take shots while it is sunny, but the point that the OP made about separating the wheat from the chaff with low-light shots is quite valid, and I must say that nothing the editor said in response changed that point. Though he did a good job of speaking over the point.
I feel compelled to reinforce the opinion of the OP, here: I can take a $50 p&s and take good shots with it in great light. I can go on eBay and buy some old 35-80 F5.6 zoom lens without IS, slap a good mc uv filter on it and take good shots with it in great light. There is probably not a single lens out there that won't take good shots in great light. Therefore it is unnecessary to read the lens-reviews on dpreview to see samples of shots taken in great light. Just something to keep in mind. Likewise most people don't shoot their lenses stopped down below F11, most of the time, so by that logic again who really cares about the performance at F22 (please don't answer if you do, I'm sure that someone does, that's the point).
Second on a more neutral note, it would be nice if there were some quick-clicks to show the lens at its optimal F# for various things like "max average sharpness across the frame", peak center sharpness, 75% rolloff in the corners, etc at each focal-length and likewise at each F#. Since you guys have all the data it shouldn't be hard to do that. It would be very-much appreciated. it would save the reader from having to search through the various settings to find the optimum combinations and make it much easier to compare the lenses (though the ability to superimpose graphs from two or more lenses would also help there as well).
Posted by: p | 12 Dec 2008 04:52:41
The cameras manufacturers should pay a visit in some gaming developers.
They are more than capable of building some nice interfaces.
Posted by: Perneta | 12 Dec 2008 16:08:06
In a small form factor camera, the best control system so far is the twin-dials and crossbar display of the Ricoh GR Digital. The icing on the cake is being able to route the EV control to the zoom rocker. As a whole, though, it's far from perfect: The settings and setup menus are clunky, often lost in translation, and visually unappealing. The buttons are small and shallow.
It is my opinion backed up by a lot of experience that in a small sensor compact having a large number of manual controls is largely a vanity feature. I think that analog controls for exposure, metering, etc. should be scrapped and replaced with direct access to EV, ISO and WB ... controls that most "field-relevant". Something like the control knob on the top of the Nikon D200/300
My personal pet feature is a white balance dial that is a rainbow, indicating color temperature, with a couple of solid lines to indicate standard daylight, cloudy setting etc.
Posted by: rjm | 16 Dec 2008 00:38:32
Wilhelm is quite right - Minolta had it spot on with two dials that gave a menu page for each point on the dial. Sony then decided that it was better to use more menus.
Many Minolta users lament the loss of the dials and I haven't heard anyone say that the Sony menu system is a step in the right direction.
The problem is not coming up with something new, it is returning to something 'old'.
Posted by: Tom | 16 Dec 2008 07:59:41
The classic cliché of ‘you can’t please all of the people all of the time’ has been brought up on numerous occasions and the solution of custom menus / settings has been cited as the solution. True, but you can’t customise where you want a hard button to be, or what info you get in the view finder.
There was also a mention of the iphone / ipod as examples of good UI, and having both I have to agree.
I use more than 10 different apps on my iphone; Internet, weather, email, music , GPS, Dof calculators, voice calls etc etc. on a daily basis, try doing that on any other phone, then get your technophobe wife to do it. The UI is hard to beat and camera makers could learn from Apple.
It has already been mentioned that it is difficult to alter settings when the camera is on your nose (but not impossible). If you are looking through the view finder then your mouth, hopefully, wont be too far away from the camera so how about a bit of voice recognition? Say “ISO 800” and the ISO jumps or “Speed this, Aperture that” etc. The technology already exists and is in use in small form factor in car SatNav units
Combine this with eye controlled focus points and we are on to a winner. Small cameras with tiny buttons and a multitude of sub menus is so last decade.
Posted by: Michael Barr | 16 Dec 2008 14:28:23
This is why I like all the switches and dials on my Nikon D200... software menus are a pain. Of course you aren't going to be able to fit too many switches and dials on a compact camera (although the controls on my Panasonic DMC-LX2 are very well designed), so I realize there is a need for a graphical user interface... especially on the tiny pocket cameras. Then again, for the average compact P&S user, only a few controls are really needed. Experienced photographers tend towards the manual exposure controls, exposure and flash compensation, metering modes, autofocus modes, ISO, etc. Less experienced users rarely change any settings unless they are tinkerers. One of the problems is that modern compact cameras give you so many options and scene modes that are supposed to make it easier to take good photos... but how many actually use all of them? It seems like by now it should be easier to just learn the basics of photography and how to adjust your settings manually, than it is to learn how to quickly access all of those scene modes. How much does a camera really need to do? Of course people used to say the same for phones. Early attempts to create do-everthing devices that provided phone, e-mail, Web, music, games, camera, etc. didn't seem to do more than one or two of those things particularly well... and then the iPhone came along. So yeah... it would be cool to see what someone comes up with after tossing out the traditional model, but in the end what most people want is a camera that is just a camera that easy to use and takes good photos.
Posted by: Sean | 16 Dec 2008 16:47:48
It’s funny that one of the major contributors to the interface bloat that we are seeing in cameras today is now complaining about interface bloat. Cameras are not judged by how well they take pictures but how may numbers, gizmos, and new wiz bang features they have. Just look at the dpreview reviews. How many highly recommended cameras do we see that have average image quality? If you do not have the latest feature (live view & video anyone) you lose points but product a less than stellar image quality and we will forgive you.
When the media and the consumer is less interested in gizmos and numbers and more interested in taking good pictures and learning to use the tools they have then this problem will get a solution. Until then live with it.
Posted by: KurtH | 17 Dec 2008 16:58:46
Feature creep is the problem. The DSLRs suffer less of this, still do lesser degree than compacts/P&S. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it's good or should be done. Face detection is a great excample? My eyes already detect faces. ... help me focus where I want to focus instead of where the camera mistakenly thinks that I should focus.
Posted by: Rob | 17 Dec 2008 21:50:38