MILC 4th Birthday Report Part 3 Panasonic

The bad decision, in my view, was to make the first M4/3 camera, the G1, the same shape and style as the L10 but scaled down in size. I think this strategy erred in two ways.

First it lacked conceptual integrity. The G1 is not a DSLR. In fact the whole point to the very existence of the G1 is precisely that it is NOT a DSLR.  In any taxonomy of camera types Micro Four Thirds would occupy  a different genus with different characteristics and potentialities.  So, why did they make it look like a little DSLR ?  I don't know so here comes a bit of speculation.  I think that there might be a perception in the minds of some consumers that  a "proper camera" looks like a DSLR.  I imagine Pansonic identified this from surveys and so decided  to make the G1 this shape. But I think this was a  mistake even though it may have seemed prudent at the time. Why? Because CaNikon has successfully trained consumers to accept the perception that "Bigger is Better", and therefore, presumably "Smaller is less capable."  And Panasonic was selling smaller. My hypothesis is that many consumers simply could not accept the proposition that the smallest ever DSLR look-a-like camera was worth  their consideration. Especially  when it cost more than an entry level DSLR from one of the established makers and failed to provide better image quality.

So in two steps, Panasonic moved from the L1 which was a DSLR but did not look like one, to the G1 which was not, but looked like, a baby DSLR.  If they were trying to confuse their customers they could hardly have done a better job.

The second error was to scale down a larger camera. Engineers can scale down the size of a camera's components.  But the hands which use the device do not scale down at all. They remain obstinately the same size regardless of the device.  If you look at a photograph of the G1 beside an L10 you will see the two appear almost identical apart from their size. While the L10 received a good rating for ergonomics, the G1  was my wake up call to the ergonomic deficiencies of MILC's. This was Panasonic's version of the mistake Rollei made with the SL2000F, which I referred to in Part 2 of this MILC review.  Small cameras can be designed to have excellent ergonomics. But this requires a shape which is completely different from that of large cameras. The purpose of my camera mockups project has been to explore what exactly is that shape.

In Part 5 of my camera ergonomics series on this blog titled "Introduction to some basic concepts" I introduced the idea that some challenges are conceptually easy but technically difficult to solve. Others are the reverse, technically easy but conceptually difficult. Camera Ergonomics falls into the latter category. My perception of camera makers is that they are good at solving technical problems but very much less effective and often appear to flounder rudderless in the face of conceptual challenges.  Panasonic is not alone in this. I rate all current MILC's as having ergonomic deficiencies, some more glaring than others.   It costs no more to produce a camera with good ergonomics than one with bad ergonomics so cost is not the issue.

Implementation:  I won't bore you with every detail of  the history of Panasonic's implentation of MILC's but some key issues may be of interest.

Let's start with handles. The handle on the G1 was such an egregious mismatch with my hand it set me on a path of research into camera handles and holding. I discuss these matters and others including functional anatomy at length in previous articles on  this blog. Briefly the G1 uses a  projecting handle when it needs a parallel handle.  This could  be realised by shifting the lens axis across to the left and redesigning the layout of the right side of the body. Panasonic kept the same handle design with the G2, G10, GH1 and GH2. There were small but worthwhile detail improvements on the GH2 which improved the handling qualities of that model, but the basic structural problem remained.  With the G3 the handle was reduced to a vestigial bump which proved to be an ergonomic step backwards. The G5 saw the lens axis moved left and the handle redesigned to be wider with the shutter release button inset further from the right side. There is also more shaping for the fingers and a more angled thumbrest. This is a hybrid projecting/parallel handle which is an improvement over that on the GH2 and a sign that Panasonic is starting to get the message about ergonomics. The GH3 would appear from the published photographs and early reviews to be a further step forward in handle design.

Next,  let us investigate mode dependent scroll wheels. I regard these as of such importance to the operation of a modern electronic camera that I gave them a whole article on this blog in June 2012.   Panasonic's adventures with scroll wheels remind me of the 1955 Hitchcock movie "The Trouble with Harry".  Harry was dead, you see, and nobody could work out where to put him. Just like Panasonic has been unable to work out where to put their scroll wheels, some of which might as well have been dead as they were well nigh inaccessible. The G1, 2 and GH1 have the scroll wheel upper front on the handle where it is blocked by the middle finger in normal hold position. So to operate the scroll wheel the user has to support the camera completely with the left hand, shift grip with the right hand so the right index finger can access the scroll wheel, make the adjustment then return all hands and fingers to normal positions. With the G10, G3, GH2 and G5  the scroll wheel was sent to the back, upper right. On the G3 the wheel is almost completely buried in the thumb rest so to operate the wheel the user has to flex the thumb metacarpo phalangeal and interphalangeal joints, release thumb opposition, support the camera with the left hand and press on the wheel with the very tip of the thumb, just beneath the nail bed. This is awkward, inefficient and  painful on repeated use. The wheel on the GH2 and G5 is a little more exposed so is easier to operate. However the serrations on the wheel are too broad and smooth. This means the wheel is dificult to operate reliably with the interphalangeal joint of the thumb held straight. Bending the joint leads to more reliable operation of the wheel with the pad of the distal phalanx of the thumb, but this produces more disruption to the grip. With the G5 there is a little control lever just behind the shutter release button indicating that they figured out this is a good place for a  UIM.   With the GH3 they finally, at last,  on their eighth try at a MILC-with-EVF,   put a scroll wheel behind the shutter button which is where it should have been all along. Better late than never, I guess.

A few observations about Four way controllers [Cursor Buttons in Panasonic Operating Instructions] are in order.  From the G1 to the GH2  Panasonic used the "Five Buttons" type of module.  Samsung's first MILC  the NX10,  used the "Rocking Saucer" style module.  I used the G1 and NX10 together for a time and discovered the rocking saucer type to be very  much easier to locate and operate with the thumb by feel.  The difference is like night and day. The thumb can easily find the clearly delineated edge of a rocking saucer if it is correctly shaped. But even after six months of diligent practice with the GH2, I cannot reliably find and operate the five buttons on that camera without looking at them.  The G5 has a modified rocking saucer module which is much easier to use. It could be further improved if the edges of the saucer were slightly more prominent.  Of course if these cameras had properly located and designed JOG levers they wouldn't need four way controllers at all.

Camera design and political policy  In Part 2 of this review I alluded to a similarity between camera design and policy development in politics. Both camera designers and political policy makers refer in their promotional material to the use of consumer surveys in the process of developing their way forward.  The problem with this type of discovery is that it reveals respondents' current likes, wants, anxieties and preferences.  As I discussed in Part 2 of my initial series of articles on this blog, these are transient, idiosyncratic and often unformulated. They can be useful in evaluating consumer's responses to a policy or product and this can inform a marketing strategy. However they are an unreliable basis for the design itself.

So What is my prescription for Panasonic and the other MILC makers ?

I think they need to do four things

1. Establish a consumer directed culture in head office and all the branches.

2. Make  products which have conceptual integrity.

3. Ensure excellent ergonomic implementation.

4. Commit to vigorous effective marketing reaching out to potential buyers.

Maybe the camera makers think they are already doing those things but from my perspective as a consumer that does not appear to be the case.

If  I  were the Great Panjandrum at Panasonic and perhaps they are fortunate I am not, I would structure their camera lineup as listed below, with no cameras above basic compacts lacking an EVF .  I know that the GF and GX series M43 cams are big sellers for Panasonic so they probably have to keep M43 cams without EVF in the lineup. But I find them to be irritating little things, hard to get ahold of and almost unusable in sunlight or with a long lens fitted.  Still, some people love them........

From the bottom:

* Standard compacts without EVF while there is still a market for them.

* Travel Zooms, SuperZooms.

* Advanced Compacts, like LX7 but with EVF.

* Four Thirds Sensor  [13.0 x 17.3mm] Each of  these cams uses the latest and best sensor available. They differ in size, features and operational capabilities.

 *  High performance fixed zoom lens compact with EVF. The camera which the Canon G1X failed to be.

*  Small Micro Four Thirds interchangeable lens camera with EVF.

*  Larger, but still compact, pro style Micro Four Thirds interchangeable lens camera with EVF.

Rationale  Maybe the people at Panasonic believe their battle is with CaNikon and I guess that would be true at one level. But I think their real test is to reach out to and engage with photographers who use cameras for the purpose of making photographs. They need to make and market products which are enjoyable to use, which handle well and operate in harmony with the user's intentions. This means they need to concentrate on the photographic fundamentals of image quality, performance and ergonomics, which devolves to holding, viewing and operating.

Cameras these days are festooned with  announceable gimmicks, many of which add little or nothing to the process of making photographs. But the design elements which I am proposing all enhance the photographic experience. These include a straightforward menu system, built in EVF,  built in pop up flash for backlit subjects, proper ergonomic handle, ergonomically designed, located and configured UIM's, good swing out monitor, good lenses, and all this in a compact package. The marketing speil might be "Real Cameras for Real Photographers" or something like that.

I very much doubt many camera users would care if their camera contained mirrors and prisms or electronic imaging modules, just as many car buyers neither know nor care whether their vehicle drives the front wheels or the rear. These things exercise engineers, not consumers.

Some "non core" features may well be important for buyers who find them useful and so the makers need to include them. These could include things like Wi-Fi, GPS etc.

Shape and Style  My vision of the shape and style which provides conceptual integrity and ergonomic excellence is realised by the mockups which appear in the attached photographs.

 Small EVF camera  The photo shows a Panasonic G5 next to my small mockup. The mockup is a little wider and lower than the faux DSLR shape of the G5. It is not as deep because the EVF eyepiece does not have to protrude so far back for comfortable viewing with the right eye. Left eye viewers are not well catered for by either design style but at least the "EVF left" setup is no worse for lefties than "EVF on lens axis".  It's  box volume is smaller yet the mockup provides significantly better ergonomics. The handle is taller, wider and more shaped to fit the right hand. There is much more space on the top deck for control modules. The thumb rest and control panel on the back are larger and better shaped for holding and operating. All the buttons can be larger. There is space for a JOG lever which I regard as a "must have" for an ergonomic camera as it is by far the best UIM which I have yet encountered for rapidly moving active AF area and it can be used to speed up item selection in menus and playback.

Pro Style EVF camera  I don't yet have a GH3 to photograph so the GH2 which is not really "pro grade" will have to suffice for the moment. My large mockup is aimed at the market position occupied by the GH3. The mockup is a little wider and lower than the GH3 with less depth. This gives a layout with the advantages described above for the small mockup with significantly less box volume than the GH3. When developing the shape of the mockups I was very careful to ensure that large, medium or small hands could hold and operate the camera easily by moving up or down the handle.

Mockup evolution  The mockups were developed "in the hand". The only measurements approximately preset by measured dimension were the body depth,  lens mount diameter, allowance for the monitor and control panel.  The rest I grew in somewhat organic fashion to fit my average sized adult male hands, adding and removing pieces of wood until everything felt right.

Mockup styling  The resulting shape of the mockups was not predetermined but arose naturally from the design process.   This gives the mockups their unique shape which has conceptual integrity. I have no idea whether people will find their shape pleasing on first sight but I bet they will find the  handling qualities of a real camera designed this way very pleasing indeed.  I liken the process of designing these mockups to that which resulted in the early SLR's of the 1960's. They had the shape which resulted inevitably from their mechanical function. People have gotten accustomed to that shape but they can just as readily come to favour a different shape if it provides significant handling and operating benefits, which it can do if implemented properly.