A concept camera that is even simpler than a Leica

[Adetokunbosmith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That really looks like a concept camera..the design is futuristic and the color too looks great...but like cars i think this one is also gonna be in concept only..the actual concept never comes in the same design but with a downstyled model.

[kdriceman]

.

[AlanG]

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.

 

Obviously I've got that. But what does this design add that does not already exist to make it compelling to anyone? Just the assumption that a different placement of controls, removal of the RF, and fewer features will be preferred by some? Could be, but by how many?

 

The M cameras do have an auto shutter speed mode and would probably have more automation by now if there was a way to link to the aperture and focus. All other Leicas have AF so I think that shows recognition of what users expect in today's cameras.

[AlanG]

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.

 

I agree about the two dial concept. There are some reasons I don't like the aperture control on the lens.

 

First - it can be hard to see if the camera is on a tripod above your eyes.

 

Second - when you change lenses you have to remember your f stop and set it on the newly mounted lens.

 

Third - it makes one-handed adjustments impossible. This means you'll have to move your left hand from support or from controlling focus or zoom to change it.

 

Fourth - it is redundant if the aperture is also displayed in the viewfinder or on an LCD.

 

Fifth - it is fixed in direction whereas an electronic dial can be programmed to reverse direction.

 

Sixth - it is fixed in location whereas on a camera with several dials you could program which one is to control aperture. (This might vary depending on shooting mode.)

[Jriachi]

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

 

Hello Steve,

I am not sure I understand your notion about digital imaging / exposure compensation. Could you please elaborate further? I've never tried the Olympus camera but I did try the EOS M camera. It is completely different philosophy. It has its own crowd.

[Jriachi]

I agree about the two dial concept. There are some reasons I don't like the aperture control on the lens.

 

First - it can be hard to see if the camera is on a tripod above your eyes.

 

Second - when you change lenses you have to remember your f stop and set it on the newly mounted lens.

 

Third - it makes one-handed adjustments impossible. This means you'll have to move your left hand from support or from controlling focus or zoom to change it.

 

Fourth - it is redundant if the aperture is also displayed in the viewfinder or on an LCD.

 

Fifth - it is fixed in direction whereas an electronic dial can be programmed to reverse direction.

 

Sixth - it is fixed in location whereas on a camera with several dials you could program which one is to control aperture. (This might vary depending on shooting mode.)

 

Hello AlanG,

One of the goals of this concept camera is to make the photographer aware of all the parameters affecting the photo at all times in every shot. For every shot you have to know what aperture you are using, what shutter speed you are using, the Exposure compensation, and the ISO setting. By being aware of these settings and their impact on the final image, you start sculpting your photos.

 

Reagrds, Jawad

[Jriachi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That really looks like a concept camera..the design is futuristic and the color too looks great...but like cars i think this one is also gonna be in concept only..the actual concept never comes in the same design but with a downstyled model.

 

True, but it does influence the industry, which is important.

[Jriachi]

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

 

Hello Bill,

Yes but this interpretation, if done well, could be inspiring. As for touch screens, for operation I agree with you, but for previewing their are fine.

[Paul J]

I don't like touch screens at all. Infact my screen is mostly turned off and I quite like the idea of no screen at all except for maybe an RGB histogram display.

 

While I think an exp comp slider is an interesting idea I would definitely take a standard aperture wheel and shutter speed dial any day. It works and so well. No need to change it IMO.

[bill]

Hello Bill,

Yes but this interpretation, if done well, could be inspiring. As for touch screens, for operation I agree with you, but for previewing their are fine.

 

These are deeply subjective points. There is nothing "fine" about a touchscreen on a camera for me, including for review. As to this being "inspiring" it leaves me very cold because it does not suit the way I like to work or offer anything new that would entice me to change. A bit of a roller-ball pen, in fact - it solves a problem that does not exist.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Sent from another Galaxy

[AlanG]

Hello AlanG,

One of the goals of this concept camera is to make the photographer aware of all the parameters affecting the photo at all times in every shot. For every shot you have to know what aperture you are using, what shutter speed you are using, the Exposure compensation, and the ISO setting. By being aware of these settings and their impact on the final image, you start sculpting your photos.

 

Reagrds, Jawad

 

I've been aware of those parameters and could easily control them since I was 12. That is like photography 101 and does not require advanced skills. If you still need to think a lot about these things when working, then they are distracting you from concentrating on the subject and other more important things.

 

Don't get carried away with flowery prose and insert emotion for mundane actions. Anyone doing photography for a while finds the technology to be transparent in use regardless of the camera... once you familiarize yourself with it.

 

On typical modern cameras various info is displayed on the back and top LCDs as well as in the viewfinder. When I use my old manual lenses on these I miss the aperture information and don't like having to look at the lens barrel just to see what F stop I am on. That is a distraction.

[Jriachi]

I've been aware of those parameters and could easily control them since I was 12. That is like photography 101 and does not require advanced skills. If you still need to think a lot about these things when working, then they are distracting you from concentrating on the subject and other more important things.

 

Don't get carried away with flowery prose and insert emotion for mundane actions. Anyone doing photography for a while finds the technology to be transparent in use regardless of the camera... once you familiarize yourself with it.

 

On typical modern cameras various info is displayed on the back and top LCDs as well as in the viewfinder. When I use my old manual lenses on these I miss the aperture information and don't like having to look at the lens barrel just to see what F stop I am on. That is a distraction.

 

Hello AlanG,

Digital photography allowed us to change ISO on a shot per shot basis. This was impossible on film. However, due to quality issues, the camera manufacturers decided to not make it directly accessible to us as photographers. Good photographers like yourself knew how to work the aperture and shutter at age of 12, but variable ISO is a new factor now which should be added with direct access. The technology of the sensor is changing and has reached a point that photographers should start to think differently of it. You as photographer, can compress or expand the dynamic range of your photo if you chose to, control color space, or choose to add noise same way you choose to make your photo out of focus. The ISO should be used as a creative tool, same as aperture, exposure, shutter speed, focal length. Photographers should be aware of it.

As for aperture not being displayed, yes I agree with you. Unfortunately this is because of backward compatibility with older lenses as you have mentioned. A camera can read the external light and compare it to the internal light and calculate the aperture, but it may not be accurate every time.

 

Take care, Jawad

[AlanG]

I agree that the ISO should be easy to change and it is on some cameras. Everything should be easy to change. To tell you the truth one way I think about exposure differently is by observing the image on an EVF or LCD along with a histogram. I have a good idea how much headroom the raw files can provide. I also find the screen gives me a very good idea how the system is responding to mixed lighting or color balance in general. Although I know we have near total control over color in post today.

 

One reason I'd like to see more cameras with programmable dials and other controls is so I can set up two different brands or models of cameras to work in a similar way. For instance if one camera reduces exposure when turning a knob to the right and another camera increases it, I'd like to be able to reverse this on one of them. And this also leads me to want the control placement to be fairly similar on each if possible. I used to work with several very different systems and differences in focus and aperture direction would make it tricky to quickly switch between them.

 

Yes it did seem simpler in the past when you loaded a roll of film, set the ISO and then decided if shutter speed or DOF was most important on a given shot. But we have moved far from that and now most of us require control over a lot more functions. I feel it is the lack of consistency of how these controls work, not their absolute number that is a problem. That being said, while the Nex 6 (A very feature packed camera) has a shortcut system to set most things without diving into the menu, even some of those shortcuts and features are complicated to remember. Especially for some feature I rarely use. However I'll take all of those functions with the added possibility of confusion rather than not having them. I can always revert to manual if my brain locks up.

[NZDavid]

Great concept and congratulations to this designer for actually thinking about the fundamentals of what makes good design!

 

Fitness for purpose. Simplicity. Not just adding more features.

 

But I would miss the shutter dial on the top-plate. Simple analog controls give you a point of reference. The aperture around the lens, as with traditional lenses, is ideal.

 

The slider exposure control is unnecessary. Trust the meter or adjust by tweaking shutter and aperture. You are in control.

 

Magnification buttons are the same size as other buttons but are they that important?

 

Manual ISO and white balance controls could be useful.

 

I am not sure about the Menu control placement.

 

Menu design needs to be simple and elegant.

 

The Leica M is still an exemplar of design simplicity, form and function.

[Adetokunbosmith]

Whether it does or doesn't... i only wish that this thing should be shelled out in an exact shape, size and appearance..

[AlanG]

In reflection I think there are two issues involved. One is to reduce the camera to the fewest number of necessary features and thus have the "best" control interface for those. That seems to be your goal and should be relatively easy to achieve even if there is disagreement as to what is "best." So since this is your goal, just keep refining it until you are happy. Design by committee won't work. Besides whatever you come up with will only appeal to a small number of users who are looking for such a camera and can accept whatever interface you come up with.

 

The larger issue that most other manufacturers are grappling with is how to incorporate the myriad of features that most users want into an efficient interface they will like to use.

[NZDavid]

...The larger issue that most other manufacturers are grappling with is how to incorporate the myriad of features that most users want into an efficient interface they will like to use.

 

Or the myriad of features the manufacturers, marketing people, and software engineers say people want? GPS tagging, endless program modes from "Baby" to "Food" to "Candlelight", more complexity, when the basics of taking a good picture remain unchanged.

[kdriceman]

Or the myriad of features the manufacturers, marketing people, and software engineers say people want? GPS tagging, endless program modes from "Baby" to "Food" to "Candlelight", more complexity, when the basics of taking a good picture remain unchanged.

 

I've often wondered how many people really use the scene modes. Most people I know either have passable basic photography skills and just use manual, program, aperture priority or shutter priority to fit the scene or the people who don't know much about the basics just use Auto.

[AlanG]

I've often wondered how many people really use the scene modes. Most people I know either have passable basic photography skills and just use manual, program, aperture priority or shutter priority to fit the scene or the people who don't know much about the basics just use Auto.

 

I probably shoot 90% of my pro work in manual mode (not counting GoPro) and 90% of my vacation and casual fun photos in some kind of auto mode.

 

I think relatively inexperienced photographers prefer the scene modes as it is logical for them as they can relate the terms to the function. Of course countless people only know how to turn on their camera and press the button. The Sony has a setting called "Intelligent Scene Mode" that is artificial intelligence applied to auto exposure. It tries to analyze the scene and choose the appropriate mode for you.

 

Face registration/detect is surely handy for some applications. One of my cameras has a twilight mode where it shoots several images and combines them for a sharper image with less noise in low light. Why is this not good? The same for adjustable HDR modes. And it has lots more that I may use occasionally, often, or never. I don't have a problem with calling these features "scene" modes. But these are precisely the challenges in designing the interface that I am referring to. They can be confusing in use, have no tradition in photography, and are not implemented in a uniform way across brands and models.

 

I am open to the possibility of these kinds of things and figure there will be lots of new ideas and improvements too. I can certainly see an advantage of a future pro system that can lock on the eyes of a particular person and keep them in focus despite active movement. They are pretty close already. I think there will be much more merging of video and still features to the point that we will probably pull stills from short or long video bursts before long in order to capture peak action and have a choice of fleeting expressions or action.

 

Some people have resistance to these features and some don't but like it or not they are here to stay and need to be considered when designing the interface. How large the demand is for a camera with minimal features is hard to say but I'm sure many companies did a lot of testing with focus groups and others before loading up the cameras as they have.

 

As computers in cameras become more and more powerful, designers will think of new ways to use this power. At one time a cell phone was just a phone. Cameras are multimedia devices now and there is no going back.

 

I have nothing against anyone designing a simple camera for kicks or even for production if they can get the funding. But what is new about that and why did manufacturers change from it?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jriachi]

I do believe that nothing replaces the human mind. The reason a camera can take decisions faster than us photographers because there are many factors left out during the decision taking process. Had all these elements been factored in the decision making, it would take a camera one year if at all to make a decision on each photo after you click the shutter. Our capabilities of instantly recognizing elements in front of us at any angle, any direction, any location, any lighting condition is not matched yet in computer vision and artificial intelligence. Let alone feeling the emotions emitted by a person or a scene in front of us. Take face detection for instance. I was looking at a photo by Steve McCurry which consisted of a woman protecting her daughter on the left of the frame with a man next to a tree slightly behind them. He cut off the mother from her chest upward and from the left (her right arm) and decided to include the man and the tree on the right instead but out of focus. Had he had facial detection on, the camera would place the face of the young girl, and the face of the man in focus and the shot would be ruined.