The Camera in a Smartphone World Part 2

 

Background   From the mid 20th Century many cameras with fixed and interchangeable lenses adopted the rangefinder design, with an optical viewfinder top left as viewed by the user and a flat top.  Then along came the single lens reflex camera (SLR) which with digital capture became the DSLR. This type has a hump more or less mid position on top to accommodate the pentaprism and viewfinder.  The shape of these cameras was determined by their internal mechanical and optical configuration.

They were not "styled' to look like that, their shape was an example of form following function.

The electronic era  Now cameras can be designed to be any shape at all and their electronic viewfinders can be located anywhere  in, on or off  the camera body.  Notwithstanding this  most modern electronic cameras are styled as either rangefinder or SLR lookalikes. This may be in part  be an acknowlegement of tradition but my investigations of ergonomics would suggest these two styles also provide good functional efficiency.

Which is better ?  I have used numerous rangefinders and SLR's over the years so becoming quite familiar with both types. I have also more recently used, tested  and compared electronic rangefinder and SLR lookalikes.  My initial thinking was that the rangefinder style would be preferable as it allows a slightly lower overall height.

However I have now come to the position that in everyday use each style has it's advantages and disadvantages with neither being overwhelmingly superior. But I still think one is a bit better.

* Slightly lower overall height possible

* EVF position may be preferred by some right eye viewers, as the nose does not have to be pushed against the monitor.

* EVF may (some models definitely do) need an accessory eyecup to keep stray light out of the eyepiece. This accessory protrudes above and to the left of the body. It increases the actual dimensions of the camera at the top left corner. With the accessory eyepiece fitted the camera can take  up the same amount of space in a camera bag as the hump top style. In addition the eyepiece is located where it is repeatedly subjected to stress and risk of damage as it goes in and out of the bag.

* Space on top of the camera is restricted. This limits the designer's options for placement of flash, hotshoe and control modules.

* The handle issue. In my work with mockups I have made several flat top designs with a full handle. So it can be done without any functional problem. However most of the actual flat top cameras in production have no handle or at best a small or vestigial one. I can only guess that the designers feel "big handle" does not fit well with the rangefinder-esque style.  Whatever the reason, it's a problem because modern cameras have a big monitor covering most of the back and lots of buttons all over the place. Without an anatomical handle these cameras are difficult to hold securely.

* Although total height is greater, shoulder height can be lower. This can actually make the hump top camera easier to place in a camera bag. 

* There is more space on top of the hump top style for flash, hotshoe and various control modules (dials etc).

* Designers are happy to fit their hump top creations with a decent big handle.

* The flash and hotshoe are on the lens axis, at least in landscape orientation.

* In practice there is less problem with stray light entry into the viewfinder.

* With long lenses there may be an advantage to having the viewfinder on axis with the lens for stability.

* The eyepiece has to protrude backwards 14-15mm or thereabouts from the plane of the monitor, so the user doesn't have to twist the head and look sideways through the viewfinder. This adds to the overall depth of the unit.

* It's a bit higher than the flat top style.

Overall    I have come to the view that the hump top, SLR lookalike style  has more advantages than disadvantages. It has therefore, somewhat to my own surprise, become my preferred camera shape.