The M and human factors engineering

[dante]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a question of historical interest - have human factors engineers ever played a role in designing M cameras? I'm not saying that pejoratively, just a matter of curiosity related to two aspects of M cameras: shutter dial location and viewfinder readout. Both have had radical changes over the life of the M line - one moved and moved back; one lost a lot of information. Human factors engineering might have prompted these changes, but I can't tell.

 

Note: this is not a thread suggesting that anything new be added to the M8.

The screwmount line, as I understand it, had a direct connection between the top shutter dial and the mechanism that controlled slit width for the focal plane shutter. In the M3, M2, and M4, the dial always had the same location, the same slit-width function, and now added a direct connection to the slow-speed escapement for speeds above 1/50 sec.

 

In the M5 and the CL, the shutter dial moved outward and forward to be coaxial with the shutter release and winding lever. This would seem to improve the ability to operate the shutter speed dial without "de-framing" the picture (and aided by the M5's viewfinder display of the shutter speed). This clearly looks like it was intended to make it easier to adjust the shutter speed with the "trigger" finger.

 

The M5 viewfinder (at least in the view of someone who was coming onto the scene as the M5 made its exit) seemed to be pretty progressive, particularly because it showed the shutter speed in the viewfinder and matched needles across a scale wide enough to see if you were a little off or really, really off.

 

So when the M6 wandered onto the scene, it was an M4-P (which explains the shutter dial position), but it also had a very basic exposure readout (two arrows) that could tell you

 

"under one stop or more"

"on"

"over one stop or more"

 

Does anyone have any idea how these left-and-right arrows of the M6 (and the left-dot-right of the M6TTL, M7 and M8) came about? Was it just a cheap solution for an M4-style finder? Was it a technical problem that prevented a scale? Did someone in human factors think it was more efficient? Was it decided that where you are one or more stops off, you don't need to know how much more than one stop?

 

I guess the same question could be asked for the position of the shutter dial on the M8 (which has no mechanical connection to the shutter). We can eliminate tooling as an issue, since neither the cover nor the dial nor the innards of the M8 are shared with anything else. So did it end up there because Leica felt the camera wouldn't sell otherwise? Or is there some functional/ergonomic reason why it belongs where it is? It would seem that you could place it anywhere you wanted, whether accessible by the index finger (as on the M5, CL, and DSLRs) or the thumb (like on the Hexar RF).

[robertwright]

good questions, I've always liked the double triangles and dot, it seems to me the simplest possible array of necessary info-I can scan the scene with the camera and determine a contrast range and quickly average the exposure, all without having to actually "do the math" so to speak.

 

the match needle and eye of the canon f1 was also very good imo, you could see the suggested meter exposure by the match needle over the aperture or shutter display, and also see the exposure you set with the eye needle, and thereby the difference between the two. another good ergonomic solution.

 

I have no idea of the development, but the ergonomics of the M series seem very well adapted to the human hand.

[rob_x2004]

Arrows were also in the R series, probably a cheeper option to match needle and less moving parts. The minoltas still carried a line of dots up rhs viewfinder which was far easier to use than the arrows which are just stupid. You actually have to look at the arrows where a match needle or the column of dots gives you direction and extent of the adjsutment you need to make. You become aware of exposure, you dont have to break concentration to look at it. The MP has the arrows too. Use and learn them but a pain in the proverbial. Cheep option. Probaly just another lazy design solution fobbed off as being minimalist or something. Ohh...I white dot my lenses on the barrel so I learn notice where 5.6 is through the viewfinder.

[carstenw]

I think partly it is just practical, because the little diodes are really tiny and I think they are mirrored into the viewfinder. There was more room in the M5 for things like this. Partly it is probably Leica taking a step back, in reaction to the criticism of the M5, and perhaps going a little too retro.

[marknorton]

If there are ergonomic flaws in the M, we have only ourselves to blame. The M5 was a landmark camera where Leica tore up the rule book and tried to move the design on but the traditionalists wouldn't have it. The people who worked on the camera must have been really surprised and disappointed by the negative reaction to it.

 

When they designed it, LEDs were not available and the M5 had to be bigger to make room for a moving coil meter which was the only sensible device to use at the time. Look at the difference in size between a Nikon F Photomic Head and the standard prism to get a feel for what needs to go into a metered camera.

 

When the time came to put a meter in the M4, they got some space back by removing the self timer (which is where the electronics is in an M6) but for a viewfinder display, there was no space for anything other than 3 LEDs. The whole LED display in an M7/M8 is a scarcely believeable 1.5 * 3mm.

 

So, not "another lazy design solution", not a "cheep option" (or even a cheap one), just a workable solution to meeting a functional requirement within the engineering constraints of parts availability, reliability, space and cost.

[rob_x2004]

If there are ergonomic flaws in the M, we have only ourselves to blame.

 

People are far too tolerant of Leicas idiosynchrasies and lazy solutions.

 

Or maybe they are not and it is why most photographers are using other brands.

[carstenw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Personally I feel that my Leica M8 is a refuge, perhaps the last, from the onslaught of the electronic beasties that DSLRs have become.

 

Btw, Dante, I just noticed that it was you starting this thread: congratulations on your M8 review; I enjoyed it very much.

[larry]

People are far too tolerant of Leicas idiosynchrasies and lazy solutions.

 

Or maybe they are not and it is why most photographers are using other brands.

 

It depends on how you prefer to approach photography. I'd rather engage my own "built-in computer" and set the simple controls found on all M cameras than fiddle with all the buttons and menus on so-called "modern" cameras. In my opinion, most cameras have too many features that distract you from what's most important -- seeing the shot. For those who prefer the video-game approach, more power to them.

 

Larry

[dante]

Personally I feel that my Leica M8 is a refuge, perhaps the last, from the onslaught of the electronic beasties that DSLRs have become.

 

Btw, Dante, I just noticed that it was you starting this thread: congratulations on your M8 review; I enjoyed it very much.

 

Thanks re the review. It's an interesting camera. I think that the UI could have been handled better (I might address that in an update), but we probably have five years of firmware updates for Leica to get around to it.