A concept camera that is even simpler than a Leica

[Jriachi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know if it is appropriate to post this comment here. If it is not, please forgive me and ignore it. I have made a design concept of a digital camera inspired by the Leica M series. The design can be found on my blog

 

Zeiss Ikon | Jawad Riachi

 

I would appreciate any feedback on the design from Leica users point of view.

 

Thank you

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[EvilTed]

There's a reason camera designers don't put the menu wheel directly under the viewfinder.

I have enough problems leaving nose prints on the screen

 

ET

[Paul J]

I like the idea of the exposure compensation slider. nice.

[Jriachi]

There's a reason camera designers don't put the menu wheel directly under the viewfinder.

I have enough problems leaving nose prints on the screen

 

ET

 

You are pulling my leg. Right?

Actually, I am happy that you've noticed that it been moved to the left...

[iedei]

nice design and idea!

 

I do agree with EvilTed about the placement of the Menu wheel being a bit too 'nose friendly' haha. Also....I don't really care for EVFs....

[Ruhayat]

I think touchscreen interfaces are the way of the future - I love the one on my Canon EOS-M. With manual lenses and an M adapter, it's a great camera for video. So fewer buttons = better, in my book. In fact, I think at the back you should have just a single Play button - the rest can come on the touchscreen after that button is pressed (I like how you can just flip through photos with the touchscreen on the EOS-M). Okay, maybe one Universal button which you can assign anything to (ISO, WB, etc).

 

That said, I really think you should reinstate the shutter button on top, it's part of what makes a rangefinder easy to use. But make it oversized, and place it so that it is jutting over the back so that you can easily and quickly flip through it with a thumb (as opposed to oversized and jutting over the front like the M5).

[Jriachi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

nice design and idea!

 

I do agree with EvilTed about the placement of the Menu wheel being a bit too 'nose friendly' haha. Also....I don't really care for EVFs....

 

Thank you I am just trying to figure out a scenario where my nose would touch the dial and I cannot find one! Help me out...

I did go through the OVF vs EVF scenario. I opted for the EVF because mostly it allows me to see through the lens which is invaluable on an M-Mount camera. For this EVF to work, it has to have high resolution "retina" style, large, with neutral colors, and a dedicated high speed processor to convert the linear signal from the sensor to a logarithmic (more organic) signal with extremely low latency to prevent lag. With a good contrasty lens like a Leica or Zeiss lens the EVF will appear almost in 3D. Ever seen a photo pop in front of your eyes on a flat display? This is how it should look, otherwise the whole concept is a flop. Think of this EVF as an electronic Fresnel focusing screen.

[Jriachi]

I think touchscreen interfaces are the way of the future - I love the one on my Canon EOS-M. With manual lenses and an M adapter, it's a great camera for video. So fewer buttons = better, in my book. In fact, I think at the back you should have just a single Play button - the rest can come on the touchscreen after that button is pressed (I like how you can just flip through photos with the touchscreen on the EOS-M). Okay, maybe one Universal button which you can assign anything to (ISO, WB, etc).

 

That said, I really think you should reinstate the shutter button on top, it's part of what makes a rangefinder easy to use. But make it oversized, and place it so that it is jutting over the back so that you can easily and quickly flip through it with a thumb (as opposed to oversized and jutting over the front like the M5).

 

A touch screen is not a bad idea to flip through the photos and zoom. Thank you. It is important to have a dedicated ISO dial though due to many reasons. The first is that sensors have higher usable ISO range now, and second it affects the dynamic range, and third it can be changed on a photo per photo basis. I don't see this happening with WB for example. As for the shutter slider, the whole point of this design is coherent interface. Whether you are using aperture priority or manual mode, it is the SAME slider, at the SAME direction but different incremental values (1 stop vs 1/3 stop). This is what makes this camera different.

[Guest malland]

Jawad,

 

In your blog, you state your design philosophy for this camera as follows:

“If you are busy thinking, you are not seeing”. This camera is designed to help you quickly switch off your brain, and elevate your senses so you can start seeing. It is simplified down to the minimum, with usability in mind, yet it maintains all aspects of photography.

Fair enough: this is essentially the design philosophy of the Leica M3 (and onward to the M9), about which someone (I don't recall who) wrote, in explaining the difference in philosophy between Leica rangefinders cameras and SLRs: with a camera like the Nikon F you have the camera up to you eye and look through the pentaprism at the beautiful image formed on the ground glass and move the camera around until you frame the image the you want; with the Leica M3 you look at the subject with your eyes and, when you see what you want, you bring the viewfinder up to your eye and press the shutter. Big difference. And this is why people here like the Leica rangefinder cameras.

 

By going for an EVF, you've already negated your design philosophy — and have also made it completely unrealistic by positing an EVF quality that doesn't exist today. Also you state, "Note that this is a conceptual design, which means that there might be some technical or financial challenges which do not allow for the conception of such a product." No kidding. So, what you've done is to say, in effect, "let's forget about technology and economics and see what would be best design that I can come up with." But, throwing away the constraints of reality, all you've been able to do is to come up with is a humdrum design that you appear to assume, inherently, all the teams of talented designers at small and large camera companies could not come up with. What hubris. Earth to Jawed: "Believe me these designers, if they had no constraints, could come up with stuff a lot better than this, and...don't quit the day job."

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

[bill]

Two points.

 

1. An EVF, no matter how good, is an interpretation of reality, not reality itself.

2. As a left-eyed, left-handed shooter I detest touch screens.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[earleygallery]

I'm an EVF hater too. Even the best ones are 'laggy' - why look at a time delay version of what's in front of you when you don't have to. I can see benefits with the option to use it on the M, but only for certain situations/lenses.

 

I have tried to imagine how your camera would handle. I think it would be uncomfortable using the controls in those positions in actual use. Hold the camera to your eye and you block the main dial and your hand will be supporting the camera or operating the focus or aperture rings on the lens.

 

A dial like the one on the new M at the top of the rear will be easier to operate than a slider with the thumb. Or move it to the front like on a Canon DSLR.

[kdriceman]

... But, throwing away the constraints of reality, all you've been able to do is to come up with is a humdrum design that you appear to assume, inherently, all the teams of talented designers at small and large camera companies could not come up with. What hubris. Earth to Jawed: "Believe me these designers, if they had no constraints, could come up with stuff a lot better than this, and...don't quit the day job."

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

[...[/i]

 

Ouch... That's pretty harsh. Actually most innovations come about by designers throwing away the constraints of current reality and challenging the status quo. Then pushing engineers to to come up with new technologies to fit the innovation.

 

Otherwise I wouldn't be typing this on my touchpad keyboard from my tablet computer (which is actually smaller than the paper tablet I had in 1st grade) linked to the global Internet through first a wireless connection to a phone/computer that fits in my pocket, then through that phone, another wireless connection to a cell site in my neighborhood. From there the signal gets transformed into packets of light and transmitted around the world through a network of computers and micro glass fibers. All in a matter of milli-seconds.

 

Do you think any of that matched reality just a few decades ago?? Jeez a science fiction writer couldn't have pulled that story off 30 years ago.

[AlanG]

You really don't explain what this camera is to be used for and why it would be superior for a particular use. It seems like a very limited camera to me and I can't see why I would prefer to use it over something else. A lot of cameras today can be set up and used in various ways depending on the need. E.g. a clean viewfinder is nice until you need a grid for alignment. I may not need 10 fps for most things but will for some. I find AF is a necessity since I can't track focus on a moving subject with a 300mm lens manually but can with AF cameras. This is not something I need every day but do need. Likewise IS made it possible for me to shoot some nice shots at 1/2 sec at ISO 3200 handheld on Saturday.

 

So by choosing to limit the features you limit the usefulness. What you may think you gain from this approach is not apparent to me and I don't see you clearly demonstrating any advantage. I've never felt that having lots of choices and dials and controls was a problem for me.

 

"However, manual control is the way to go if you really want to sculpt your photo the way you envision it. After all the camera is just a tool. It is your eye, your emotions and your life experience which influence you when you take a shot. The process of taking a photo should be as simple as possible to keep the emotions in place, otherwise the shot is gone." .... Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

 

A manual camera is not going to be as fast in use as an automatic camera... regardless of how experienced the operator is. So you are either thinking about the scene in order to make the appropriate settings or you are just shooting reflexively on some kind of auto mode. But you can't do both at the same time. Most cameras today give the user a choice for what one feels is best in the situation. AF or MF, auto exposure or fully manual, auto ISO or preset, a combination of these, etc. Many good photographers I know fluidly move between various technical approaches and reflexive approaches and anywhere in between.

 

I think if you want to design a camera for the future start with an interface that the photographer can customize to fit whatever situation he finds himself in. He should be able to download features and applications that extend the usefulness of the camera and can be updated as new ideas come along. E.g. there is no reason why you should not be able to have a very precise depth of field scale in the VF if you want that. (Customized for your choice of COC.) Not too long ago Canon's had a DEP setting where you focused on a near object and then on a distant one and it set the aperture and focus point for that DOF. A similar concept would be really handy for tilting a lens. (Sinar had a few systems for this.) A programmable interface could incorporate this and all controls should be programmable in pretty much any reasonable way. The idea of fixed aperture and shutter speed dials is antiquated and slows me down if I try to use them today. (Especially when the camera is in a position where I can't see them.) Connectivity with other devices for previewing, camera control, and transferring images is also important today.

[Jriachi]

Jawad,

 

In your blog, you state your design philosophy for this camera as follows:Fair enough: this is essentially the design philosophy of the Leica M3 (and onward to the M9), about which someone (I don't recall who) wrote, in explaining the difference in philosophy between Leica rangefinders cameras and SLRs: with a camera like the Nikon F you have the camera up to you eye and look through the pentaprism at the beautiful image formed on the ground glass and move the camera around until you frame the image the you want; with the Leica M3 you look at the subject with your eyes and, when you see what you want, you bring the viewfinder up to your eye and press the shutter. Big difference. And this is why people here like the Leica rangefinder cameras.

 

By going for an EVF, you've already negated your design philosophy — and have also made it completely unrealistic by positing an EVF quality that doesn't exist today. Also you state, "Note that this is a conceptual design, which means that there might be some technical or financial challenges which do not allow for the conception of such a product." No kidding. So, what you've done is to say, in effect, "let's forget about technology and economics and see what would be best design that I can come up with." But, throwing away the constraints of reality, all you've been able to do is to come up with is a humdrum design that you appear to assume, inherently, all the teams of talented designers at small and large camera companies could not come up with. What hubris. Earth to Jawed: "Believe me these designers, if they had no constraints, could come up with stuff a lot better than this, and...don't quit the day job."

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Obvious [WIP]

Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...

 

Good Morning Mitch,

Creating a concept is part of the evolution of any industry. A concept designer is a person who understands business requirements, and technological trends. (S)he understands the constraints but believes that these constrains won't be there in the future. Basically seeing the future before it happens. When all parameters fall in place, the concept becomes a product (provided they do). Otherwise the concept will become a collection of ideas which can be used individually.

The EVF is an example. As you mentioned there is no such EVF at the moment. True, but this is a goal to reach. When the 8086 processor 10 MHz first came out. No one ever thought including Intel engineers that a 3.5GHz processor is possible. There is already technology available by sharp which can provide extremely small pixel size and low power consumption (IGZO). Please look it up. There is a rumor that the iPhone 6 will be using it. There are discussions on non linear sensors. Please google Eric Fossom's and others work on QIS "Quanta Image Sensor"

As for the design philosophy, this concept takes the Leica design concept and pushes it further.

 

Regards, Jawad

[bill]

...

As for the design philosophy, this concept takes the Leica design concept and pushes it further.

...

 

Not in any discernable way.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Sent from another Galaxy

[Jriachi]

You really don't explain what this camera is to be used for and why it would be superior for a particular use. It seems like a very limited camera to me and I can't see why I would prefer to use it over something else. A lot of cameras today can be set up and used in various ways depending on the need. E.g. a clean viewfinder is nice until you need a grid for alignment. I may not need 10 fps for most things but will for some. I find AF is a necessity since I can't track focus on a moving subject with a 300mm lens manually but can with AF cameras. This is not something I need every day but do need. Likewise IS made it possible for me to shoot some nice shots at 1/2 sec at ISO 3200 handheld on Saturday.

 

So by choosing to limit the features you limit the usefulness. What you may think you gain from this approach is not apparent to me and I don't see you clearly demonstrating any advantage. I've never felt that having lots of choices and dials and controls was a problem for me.

 

"However, manual control is the way to go if you really want to sculpt your photo the way you envision it. After all the camera is just a tool. It is your eye, your emotions and your life experience which influence you when you take a shot. The process of taking a photo should be as simple as possible to keep the emotions in place, otherwise the shot is gone." .... Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

 

A manual camera is not going to be as fast in use as an automatic camera... regardless of how experienced the operator is. So you are either thinking about the scene in order to make the appropriate settings or you are just shooting reflexively on some kind of auto mode. But you can't do both at the same time. Most cameras today give the user a choice for what one feels is best in the situation. AF or MF, auto exposure or fully manual, auto ISO or preset, a combination of these, etc. Many good photographers I know fluidly move between various technical approaches and reflexive approaches and anywhere in between.

 

I think if you want to design a camera for the future start with an interface that the photographer can customize to fit whatever situation he finds himself in. He should be able to download features and applications that extend the usefulness of the camera and can be updated as new ideas come along. E.g. there is no reason why you should not be able to have a very precise depth of field scale in the VF if you want that. (Customized for your choice of COC.) Not too long ago Canon's had a DEP setting where you focused on a near object and then on a distant one and it set the aperture and focus point for that DOF. A similar concept would be really handy for tilting a lens. (Sinar had a few systems for this.) A programmable interface could incorporate this and all controls should be programmable in pretty much any reasonable way. The idea of fixed aperture and shutter speed dials is antiquated and slows me down if I try to use them today. (Especially when the camera is in a position where I can't see them.) Connectivity with other devices for previewing, camera control, and transferring images is also important today.

 

Good Morning AlanG,

The photo capturing mechanism is the same on all cameras, however each camera is layered on top of this mechanism differently. Like a Leica M series, this camera has no intelligent layer on top of the mechanism. You as a user have to make all the decisions to take a photo. If you find no value in this, this camera is not for you.

[Jriachi]

I'm an EVF hater too. Even the best ones are 'laggy' - why look at a time delay version of what's in front of you when you don't have to. I can see benefits with the option to use it on the M, but only for certain situations/lenses.

 

I have tried to imagine how your camera would handle. I think it would be uncomfortable using the controls in those positions in actual use. Hold the camera to your eye and you block the main dial and your hand will be supporting the camera or operating the focus or aperture rings on the lens.

 

A dial like the one on the new M at the top of the rear will be easier to operate than a slider with the thumb. Or move it to the front like on a Canon DSLR.

 

Hello James,

The dial is to be used for previewing and menu navigation. It can be used for extreme precision to fine tune the shutter speed in 1/3 of stops, but you can do the same adjustment with the aperture ring. The back is split into 2 zones. The left for previewing / menu setup and the right for operation. That is why the dial is out of your way when you take the shot. Part of the concept is to be able to control all the essential parameters without moving your eye away from the viewfinder. Hence, the ISO button is outside.

 

I hope it is clear,

Jawad

[earleygallery]

I'm trying to imagine using that slider control with the camera to my eye. Ones thumb will naturally rest on the back of the top plate - it would be difficult if not impossible to use in practice.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

I don't like the slider either. In digital imaging there isn't that much exposure compensation possible in practical use to make it any more useful than simply changing the shutter speed or aperture. The general layout on the back looks far from simple. And what happens to all those buttons and sliders when the camera is just bumping along on your chest or over a shoulder, or being stuffed into a bag. You would never know what setting it would come up with next time it is lifted to the eye. If you want it to be very simple take a leaf out of Olympus's book and have a 'quick menu' screen that instantly gives all the normal changeable parameters on a touch screen. In fact, if you nail it down to simply getting the photograph this design exercise seems to be more button and dial oriented than simpler systems that are already used.

 

Steve

[wattsy]

Creating a concept is part of the evolution of any industry.

 

IMO, when it comes to a camera user interface, there is nowt as simple (or as good) as having two manually operated rotating dials for shutter speed and aperture (the latter most intuitively on the lens itself). Trying to improve on this is like trying to create a new concept for a wheel.