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)
Now that the rear lcd screens are of sufficient size it would be nice to have about 10 customisable settings banks laid out in a table. Columns could be the user name for the setting bank whilst the rows would be each of the settings. It would be really easy to scroll down the table and customise the setup from a dropdown menu in each cell before a shoot, and even easier to switch between the settings banks during a shoot.
Couble this wilth all basic controls (shutter speed, iso, aperture etc) on bespoke dials and the interface is perfect.
Make the rear lcd a touch screen and the revolution has arrived... especially if the touch screen lalso ets you draw over a preview image to alter the sensitivity of the pixels in certain zones (like a customisable ND grad).
Posted by: Photo Pete | 18 Dec 2008 00:03:19
I actually quite like the layout of the Canon G10. Too bad Canon chose to give it a 15MP sensor. A 6MP sensor would have been perfect.
Posted by: Ken Aisin | 18 Dec 2008 03:23:11
My main hobby is flying model aircraft and the technology with radio control units faces a similar issue. One company has given the ideal solution.....fully software customisable interface (the company is Multiplex). What about a camera with a good measure of easily accessible controls (why not some sliders as well as dials and joysticks?) all of which are fully software customisable to suite the preference of the user? For example the user could program a dial to immediately adjust aperture or shutter speed or ISO or any parameter he wishes depending on his/her shooting style. Then each user could have his/her dream camera.........
Just a thought......
Posted by: Pierre Daigneault | 18 Dec 2008 14:19:45
Since the camera is many times part of a creative process and a phone is not, there will always be variations to account for artistic needs, wants and dreams.
Posted by: Todd | 19 Dec 2008 17:59:23
It's just the next phase of user-ship. Pretty soon the iphone with have everything a digital consumer could want. Good post.
Posted by: Wedding Photographer Benjamin DiCaprio | 20 Dec 2008 04:23:21
The camera and manufacturer in that picture already do and did for a while everything you're asking for.
Ricoh has the best interface you can find in any digital camera and you never need to go into the menu. You can basically customize everything and adapt it to how you want it to work.
The Epson RD1 and Panasonic LC1/L1 also managed to show that implementing classic controls works very well and you never need the menu.
Maybe DP Review should also start testing the handling and usability of cameras.
Posted by: Cristian | 20 Dec 2008 10:34:15
How about a customisable, trainable voice recognition system?
Posted by: tim rose | 20 Dec 2008 22:22:28
Analoque interface is the only interface one may use eyes shut, meaning in darkness or when one forgot +3 spectacles home. I´ve been a presphotographer since 1973 and with digital only we have gone all wrong.
It´s all about pictures, not about wondering how to get the exposure right, what menu to use for that.
With analogue interface You measure the exposure and if You want to change aperture for more depth of field You just turn the shutter speed knob and aperture ring one step etc. Hear the cliks, exposure stays the same but visually the picture changes.
Superb....and lost!
Posted by: Jore Puusa | 21 Dec 2008 10:00:55
We already have an apple designed cam... in the iPhone.
And it sure takes complexity out.. you only have 1 button to press. :D
Posted by: CYRN | 21 Dec 2008 14:05:08
let me put it this way: I´m going back to film. the japanese assume that we´re all as childish as they are and want buttons, dials and settings that we´ll never, ever use. pros included.
leica is the only company showing the way with its S2....unfortunately it will never be a camera for the masses due to what will undoubtedly be its typical leica price.
Posted by: I Rate | 22 Dec 2008 09:31:15
Leica S2 has no aperture ring. Sigh.
Japanese are not childish!!
I think Irate`s comment is not politically correct here.
---
Analogue interface is the only interface that let´s one work really fast and intuitive. If one shoots pictures only and wants to enjoy about it then 95% of modern gimmicks in cameras are totally useless. Let`s face it.
But if one likes going through menus instead of taking pictures then... the death of photography is coming even closer.
Posted by: Jore Puusa | 22 Dec 2008 13:56:09
How about going back to basics, like what shape should a digital camera have? Existing digital cameras virtually all mimic the look of film cameras, which depend for their stability on holding the camera against one's nose with both hands while looking through a viewfinder. A digital viewing screen is a far better "viewfinder," or representation of what the photo will look like, than the traditional viewfinder ever was. Look at how photographers of most small digital cameras hold their cameras...with both hands out from their body. The smaller cameras get, the more unwieldy this posture becomes. If one were to start with a "blank sheet of paper," why would one not design a camera with finger holds on both sides of the body, so the camera can be held out in front of one's eyes securely? Only the Alpa medium format film camera, to my knowledge, enjoys this very sensible form of design. Let's get the basics right, and then start worry about menus and such.
Posted by: Michael Crutcher | 23 Dec 2008 03:53:29
Does anyone know how to join/register with the forums?
All I ever get a "rejection" based on my email....I have a paid-for, private, commercial email account but I don't seem to have an "ISP" account.
I have done business for many years with my commercial account ....but what is this "ISP" account and where do I purchase tis account?
Isn't this a lot of bother just to discuss digital photography?
Thanks for any help and
...Merry Christmas to all.
Keith
Posted by: Keith | 23 Dec 2008 21:31:06
ISP stands for Internet Service Provider.
So if You have an email account You are a customer of an ISP.
Contact that company for more details.
--
This is a lot of bother and to my opinion for no reason. Cameras do not take photographs, people do. But there are hundreds of thousands of technically minded people who love the gimmicks,interfaces and resolutions etc just for the sake of that and do not really care about photography.
That´s why these millions of forums.
Posted by: Jore Puusa | 24 Dec 2008 09:02:50
Problem of course is that, with digital camera’s. a much longer workflow is incorporated in the camera. Much of what I did in the dark room –developing and printing- or even presentation now gets decided before and during shoots. I don’t mind all that being buried deep inside menu’s, many are ‘one time settings’, or ‘set before you start anything’.
I can not really comment on what is needed in a compact Point & Shoot. But for serious work, I am inclined to think there already was a good interface that has been lost.
An aperture ring, a shutter speed ring, an Iso ring, all were available on old fashioned film camera’s. If set to ‘A’, things would be automated… These 3 would provide all basic control I need during shooting, and with solid ‘click’s at each full stop, just the Iso in 1/3 would be enough fine control. I was always able to set them blind, without taking the camera from my eye. I really miss those basic controls!
Three more buttons would be handy for setting AF mode, metering mode and single or multi frame mode. I would be quite satisfied if those buttons would be ‘push once for next option’ type. In general, I would not be using them much while shooting, I would normally use them once while grabbing the camera for a certain scene.
Viewfinder bottom display would be aperture, shutter speed, iso, a focus lock light and perhaps a flash ready/flash sufficient light. A 1 and 2 stop over and under exposure in full stops is more then enough. Of course focus point and perhaps gridlines would be needed on the screen.
The top display of a camera is now overloaded with info. A toggle button that switched between ‘everything’ (first) and viewfinder info (shooting settings) would be very handy. And here is my main gripe with modern camera’s: lack of DOF info.
Those ‘shooting settings’ in a top display should incorporate an old fashioned DOF display. I am sure with modern electronics, it would be easy to correct for DX and FX, and a simple minimal distance/set distance/maximum distance for the used aperture and focus would be enough. Modern focus screens are just not good enough to check that with a closed aperture. Instead of a top display, live view on the back would be even better, with all the above info toggled on and off.
But of course I am a dinosaur myself...
Posted by: janneman | 24 Dec 2008 16:17:44
This is a great topic!
In my opinion it is all because photography is about guessing. You take picture but you don't know how the picture is going to look like. So you need to guess the exposure, shutter and ISO settings. In order to help this process the manufacturers came up with many knobs and modes. And the result is just a very complicated aparatus. It used to be that you just worry about exposure, shutter speed and focus ring. It requires some skill and a good eye, but the principle is really straight forward. Now you need to learn an entire UI, placement of buttons and a menu structure. This takes away from the immediate experience of taking a photo. Anyway, I think that the digital revolution has already happened. It's just the technology is still not fully taken advantage of because of technical limitation. Digital is all about an instance resopose. That's why many costumers love P&S cameras with live view. It is instant, though far from perfect. What I think is going on now is that many modern DSLRs are in-between the guessing world of film photography and the instant result world of digital photography. And, I think, the one who breaks through this barrier and overcomes the technical obstacles will be the Apple of DSLR. Looks like Panasonic is on the right track with G1.
In my opinion the break through will be a high quality electronic viewfinder. I am talking about a viewfinder that is large, sharp, with an exact color representation. If you have an instant accurate view of what is captured by the sensor (like a video camera), it will eliminate the problem of guessing. And if you see exactly what camera captures then you can cut down on many features, because now photography is very intuitive. You just simply twist the exposure ring because it's too dark, or you change the shutter speed and exposure to have more depth of field. You can immediately see the result before taking a photo. Now all the numbers are not important because you can just see it. Same thing with focusing. You simply twist the focusing ring because it's not in focus. For example, a viewfinder on my old Nikon film camera (even it wasn't a very professional camera) is much better then on many modern high end digital models. I didn't really need many focusing modes because I was just clearly able to SEE what's in focus. I think that this kind of intuitive approach is what makes an iPod or iPhone so attractive to many.
Anyway, my conclusion is that a superb EVF combined with simplified functions like it was in the old days of photography might be the revolution. At least it would make a dream camera for me.
Posted by: JD | 25 Dec 2008 06:50:47
Elegance is more often linked to simplicity than it is to flexibility of control. Apple has created an elegantly usable interface at least partly by limiting flexibility, and they don't always get it right. If you want more choices, you'll get more complexity. The key to success is putting the most used options near the top of the tree, and putting exposure compensation several layers down is plain stupid. There are solutions to the completxity that multiple options bring. Example: the "My Menu" feature" on new Canons DSLRs lets users put the features they use most often onto a menu accessible with the push on one button. But the deliberate limitations Apple imposes on users is exactly the opposite of what Canon was aiming for.
Posted by: Mike Sandman | 25 Dec 2008 18:48:21
Phase One is simple, when I return to my DSLR (and I love my Nikons) I feel as though I am drowning in buttons and menus. Sometimes I just love to shoot my old 35mm match needle slr, set shutter speed, match aperature, focus and shoot....done.
Posted by: electriceel | 26 Dec 2008 14:41:23
Yeah, a touch screen might be a problem. You might accidentally change settings with your nose while you're looking through the viewfinder...wait, that would be a cool way of changing settings. "It's not a bug, it's a feature..." :)
Posted by: Chris | 30 Dec 2008 15:26:40
I think we are mixing issues here in terms of UI. Ipods are device meant to retreive and reproduce information (music) with no real time constraint. Cameras are device meant to capture and store information (pictures) with a real time dimension and muti dimensional parameters like : light, speed, focus .... Once the subject is gone, so is the picture.
To be fair to camera manufacturers, one should compare a camera to a recoding studio. I you ever seen one, talk about simple user interface !
The major problem I see in current digital camera UI is that compacts whant to become DSLRs, and DSLRs want to become compacts, confusing their respective users with increasingly complex UIs.
Nobody expects a van to ride like a Ferrari and a Ferrari to carry the load of a van. Why cameras should?
Posted by: Jean-Pierre | 5 Jan 2009 17:06:10
i cant really think of a better way to set up the anoying menus so that i can get to what i want quik enough while shooting in my opinion more than a half a second to change something is probably going to mean my shot is gone.
i am also a fan of the analog dials and would like more of them on dslrs
i also want a wheelor a dial. another stupid little wheel available on the left hand side where i can set my own shooting presets. i would like to be able to set in the tranquility of my home five or six different preset for me based on how i usually shoot plus five or six for my next job. the presets would optimally be named by me (names shortly appearing topright in the lcd) and when i turned my lovely little wheel (maybe with a lock and maybe numbered like an old school asa/iso dial!) the settings that i have preselected would all be shown on the display on the back. I know there are at least in concept similar set ups on different cameras but as far as i know you can only set up a few presets, and/or you are limited in the things that you can attatch to the preset and/or you have no idea while your shooting what the (i'll let you insert the explitev of your chosing here) has changed when you go from on preset to another.
just think of being able to preset the image parameters autofocus mode if exposure mode flash compensation auto iso limits (and whatever else your heart desires) so that you can actually make use of them while your shooting by turning a dial!!!
the first thing i would set would be different ttl lighting schemes.
let me know if you think its a rant or if you've got something better
awell lets hope sombody gets something good worked out honestly i dont care what so long as it works and WE can customise it
tom
Posted by: tom o | 16 Jan 2009 09:56:01
Simpler is always better. Many don't use the "interfaces" some use today... and that is a good thing.
Posted by: Wayne B | 23 Jan 2009 01:03:04
I would like a digital SLR that only has the same functions as my Olympus OM1:
- shutter speed
- ISO rating
- self-timer
That's it. It won't even have a Review option (reviewing ones photos directly after snapping has for me not necessarily improved the quality of the world's photographs).
It will have just a little LCD display showing you how many more pictures you can take. The camera only has one quality setting: RAW. The CD software will prompt you when uploading the results to PC if you want to batch convert to JPG.
Aperture will be changed via the lenses, which will have a MF/AF focus switch and an auto/manual one too for the aperture itself.
The camera will be, via adaptors, backwards-compatible with all the old lenses...only not with lenses that don't have a manual aperture setting.
It'll be like shooting film, except on a 4GB memory card instead of on a roll limited to 36 exposures.
Make this camera for me, please.
Can you fix it for me, Jim?
Posted by: dholl | 26 Jan 2009 09:52:53
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: abby | 16 Feb 2009 01:30:31
I've been a photographer since the 1940's and a professional since the '50's.
All I can say is if you're interested in getting a photograph of an event before it's gone, you want your controls as simple and direct as possible.
No menus to fumble with.
The Leica and Nikon film cameras with their intuitive layout were perfectly suited in their design for quick operation.
The Canon G9 and G10 are very good examples of a compact digicam with well thought out controls.
Posted by: George Brich | 26 Feb 2009 23:08:02
Richard -- Your article is spot on. As someone who has worked in high tech for more than two decades, I have seen this problem surface in far too many products. The companies that do well at interface design, such as Apple, are the ones who understand that you need left-brain and right-brain thinkers on the development team, and then you need to give them the time and money to make usability improvements.
Too often it is assumed that customers primarily buy products based on the list of features or specifications, or that the engineers who write the underlying software are the ones best equipped to design the interface. In practice, some of these engineers, while often brilliant at their specialty, are utterly incapable of designing interfaces: their primary goal is to make the product "feature complete" as quickly and efficiently as possible. Counting the number of clicks to access one of those features just doesn't seem important when they're busy solving the really complex problems that stand in the way of completing the project.
Great companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Intel have usability labs, where they videotape potential customers trying to use their prototype products. They can then identify and fix problems in their design before releasing the product to market.
If I may suggest, why not add an "Interface and usability" section to your camera reviews? That may pressure camera companies to spend more time on perfecting their interfaces.
Posted by: E. Nielsen | 26 Feb 2009 23:37:32
I think the camera makers can take some pages from Professional HD cameras such as Panasonic VariCam or Sony Cinealta. You can pre-edit several camera settings on a desktop computer, save them to a memory card. Then upload those setting to the camera from memory card.
By using a set of standard images or images of their own choosing, they can preview what the different setting will do to the final image.
The camera maker can even provide some default setting that the users can start with. For example, a setting that simulate a certain film stock.
The advantage of doing this is that the user can preview what the "look" setting will appear on the monitor before they go out and shoot.
This is even better with Raw files, since the "look" can be applied afterward and is not destructive to the original. The photographer can always try something else in the raw development.
Posted by: SH Lai | 8 Mar 2009 03:12:01
What I'd like to see is in addtition to Tv Av etc, a DOF setting, a new setting, which, like the Sensitivity mode setting on the Pentax, gives adjustible depth of field. Call it something that makes sense to the layperson, e.g "amount in focus"
Posted by: Stefan Carey | 9 Mar 2009 08:57:33
The first thing is to get rid of the mirror, as Panasonic has done in the G1. The purpose of the mirror was to show what the film will see, but there is no "film" anymore, and what the "film" sees is what you see in a digital display.
The second thing is to realize that less is more. The Microsoft model has defined improvement as adding features, most of which never get used. So set up menus to handle primary uses first, and nest infrequently used options farther down the menu stream. Allow the user to determine the priority order or protocols for menu nesting.
Posted by: fred schumacher | 20 Mar 2009 13:50:46
As someone involved in technology and computers from almost as long as photography - and nearly 50 years at that - I've become inured to the complexity that engineers design into systems. It's not just cameras or computers or software, think about the stink raised with BMW's iDrive.
But I have a suggestion. Don't consider all those options as things you should generally mess with. I've advised many new users of digital cameras to follow a different path:
Use the camera for a week and get used to the simple functions. At the same time, read the manual. Once you're satisfied you can use it, go through the menus and use them to CUSTOMIZE the camera to your style of photography. I've done this with Nikon D100, D200 and D300 and have my D300 so well set up for me that I rarely use any menus, just a few buttons on the body.
Works for me!
Jim
Posted by: Jim Hayes | 27 Mar 2009 05:28:10
Very nice discussion, but I think we're stuck with knobs, buttons, and menus on cameras for the foreseeable future. Here’s why.
If you look at music playback systems, really simple systems like iPod let people listen to music without regard to music quality. Bigger home systems have lots of knobs so that people can try to improve the sound, but with budget-driven components. Really high-end music systems have almost no knobs. They are engineered and tuned to faithfully reproduce music naturally.
Things are not so simple in photography. Not only is the technology hopeless at faithfully reproducing what people see, but the objective may not be faithful reproduction at all. It may be an artistic impression of a facial expression, a mood, a breath-taking panorama, etc.
I am happy that digital cameras let me make so many wrong guesses with so little expense. Once in a while I get a photo that expresses the feeling that I had when I looked at the world and tripped the shutter. So while I hate all of the complexity that comes with today’s DSLRs, there become creative tools that let me express myself in ways that fully automatic, really smart and simple cameras would not.
Jim
Posted by: NYC Jim | 28 Mar 2009 21:31:01
fred schumacher | 20 Mar 2009 13:50:46
"The first thing is to get rid of the mirror, as Panasonic has done in the G1. The purpose of the mirror was to show what the film will see..."
Live preview+histogram is extremely useful in my main interest area of photography so that Panasonic is actually first interchangeable lens digicam I've been really interested about.
But there are huge problems in user interface and ergonomy. (had a chance to handle it in photography event two days ago)
Like that usual menu surfing settings and lack direct controls like exposure control.
There should be always two control dials for direct adjustment of both aperture and exposure compensation. And important shooting related settings like ISO/WB should be changeable by pressing button and turning control dial.
"Engineers as Photographers" and "The Death of Menus" menus in here describe how it should be done:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/konica-minolta-a2.shtml
And then to ergonomy which is even worse:
Primary framing tool aka viewfinder is quite near center of camera and below it there's uselessly oversized LCD. That layout means it's easy to wipe nose to LCD whose big size also increases camera's size. And still despite of that back of the camera has only very little space for buttons which are packed way too densely to right edge for making sure that with additional help from too small handgrip it's extremely hard to get anykind grip from camera!
Compare that to KonicaMinolta A2:
LCD is sure small but so is also camera's width smaller meaning nose never hits to LCD and other eye can easily see past the camera.
Also despite of smaller width of camera's there's still room for looser spacing of buttons which along with good sized hand grip makes grip lot more comfortable.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/KonicaMinoltaA2/page3.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/page4.asp
"The Microsoft model has defined improvement as adding features, most of which never get used."
Microsoft doesn't even mostly add real features but just useless bloat for making simple things hard to do.
Posted by: EsaT | 6 Apr 2009 09:26:44
I guess the advent of micro four thirds concept is a revolution. In the sense of doing away with the penta prism and mirror box, Panasonic's G1, as per dpreview's own review, still has a lot of empty space and could have the body still reduced in size, if Panny hand wanted it to. But this was deliberately not done, coz of ones with bigger hands might feel it very tiny. Also menus were still made to adhere to the usual SLR system style.
Why? In a market where hobbyists rule, legacy seems to very dear to the users, who almost always will be resistive to change. The reviews for even such small changes in G1 were welcome by the reviewers, while the reception by public: a few newbies seem to support it, while still proficient photographers say a immediate 'no no' when they here LiveView or no optical viewfinder.
While in the case of mobile phones, it has never been having streamlined model designed ever. Each model by each maker is very much diff. Hence, nothing definite is set/established on the users' minds from the start, as to what/how a mobile phone should be. While in camera, since I have known, all cameras more or less look/work the same.
Posted by: Sundaram | 8 Apr 2009 06:41:19
Last week I was in Nepal, taking landscape pictures. Deep blue skies with high light white clouds, ultra bright snowy mountains, dark middle ground of brown/dark green mountains, friend in the shadow in the foreground : Exposure nightmare...either you "burn" the sky, or you can't see the face of your friend, or the hill is too this, or the sky is too pale...flash to light up your friend...yes, sure, it helps...but the hill is still too dark...Braketing? Off course, it helps...a bit...but contouring highly detailed tree planted hill or rocky mountain silhouette is a bit of a pain, init?...so I thought : Isn't there any camera out there, on which you could put it on a "multi metering" setting, then take 3 (or more!) metering in 3 different part of your landscape, then take the shot focusing on whichever element you want, and the camera would take a perfectly exposed shot for each of the element of the picture, and combine them automatically in one shot...it's got to be feasible?...no?...really...oh well, I guess they were too busy hunting for pixels and running after zooms for us...
Posted by: Laurent | 8 Apr 2009 08:00:22