Viewfinder Location: Which is Best ?

Introduction   Olympus recently announced their latest Micro Four Thirds camera, the EP5. This is Olympus' 11th M43 camera, only one of which, the  EM5,  has a built in viewfinder. In  promotional product photos, the EP5 is often shown with the accessory VF4 electronic viewfinder  attached.  Given the success of the EM5, I wondered what kind of thinking process led the Olympus product development people to produce yet another camera without a built in viewfinder.

Brief historical review   Once upon a time, way back in the good [?] old days of film,  designers had limited choice. There being no live view monitor, all cameras required a viewfinder of some description. Viewfinder position was mostly determined by the inherent mechanical properties of the camera type. So an SLR viewfinder was located behind the pentaprism which sat above the focussing screen and mirror box. The mirror box had to be approximately in the midle of the body to allow for the film cassette on one side and take up spool on the opposite side.  Rangefinder cameras like the Leica M series put the viewfinder in the top left corner to allow for the messsucher optics across the top of the camera.

The Digital Revolution brought live view on a Monitor screen which at first appeared to eliminate the need for an eye level viewfinder.  But many photographers came to realise that an eye level viewfinder is very useful  in four situations:

1. In sunny/bright light, when even the best monitors are difficult to see properly.

2. When a long lens is mounted the camera must be held steady to prevent camera shake. This is best achieved by pressing the camera against one's head, using the eye level view.

3. In low light levels with slow shutter speeds, the camera must be held steady.

4. When one wants to block out nearby distractions and concentrate completely on the subject and the process of making the photograph.

Smart Phones/Gadgets vs Cameras   These days there is a multitude of electronic gadgets which can take still photos or video of anything which is in front of, or in many cases, behind the device. If the camera as a distinct genus of device is to survive at all then the camera needs to bring things to the image capture experience which smart gadgets do not.  One of those things is an eye level viewfinder.  So my first proposition is that:

Every camera needs an eye level viewfinder   I have argued in another post on this blog that the best type of viewfinder is Electronic.

The next question is:

Arguments for the detachable VF might include:

1.  Making the VF separate gives the user a choice, to use it or not.

2.  Leaving it off  the main body of the camera allows a more compact size to be achieved.

Arguments for the built in VF include:

1. The cost of any particular model EVF (or OVF) is much lower if it is built in than supplied separately.  The extra cost of a separate EVF is a disincentive so many owners do not buy it. So for these users, there is no choice at the point of image capture.

2. A separate EVF is a Nuisance.  It is never on the camera when you want it. Conversely it will be attached when you don't want it to be, such as when you want  to put the camera back in it's bag. It has to be carried separately. To attach it to the camera it has to be located in the bottom of the camera bag somewhere and  removed from a protective pouch.  Cover plates have to be removed from the EVF and/or camera connector ports and eventually, the EVF pushed into place.

3. If the EVF is kept attached all the time it is subject to damage when being pushed in and out of a camera bag.  Then there is the obvious point that if it always attached it would have been better built in.

4. A well located built in EVF does not add much to the overall size of a camera body. Check out Sony's NEX 6 and 7 models for proof of this.

 

All this leads to my second proposition which is:

Every Camera needs a built in EVF 

Which leads to the next question.

Until recently I believed the best place for any camera was top left, rangefinder style. However my ongoing work with camera mockups has led me to a somewhat more complex view. This is based on the proposition that there are two main types of camera user, Snapshootersand Controllers  (a.k.a. expert/experienced users). I think that a camera designed mainly for snapshooters will work best with the EVF top left. [Rangefinder look alike style]  A camera intended for use by controllers will make better use of the EVF in a hump [SLR look alike style]. Here follows my reasoning:

Before we go further I want to mention touch screen controls.  I have argued the case elsewhere on this blog that touch screen controls so beloved by manufacturers and reviewers are actually useless on a camera being used for hand held still photos.  

Selection of the best EVF position involves consideration of  User Interface Modules (UIM) and camera real estate. The designer can fit more UIM's on the top of a "Hump" camera than a flat top camera.  The diagram above shows why this is so. In the case of  a flat top design all the UIM's have to line up in a row. With the hump top, the EVF, Hot Shoe and Built in Flash are arranged front to back. In consequence, hump top designs can, if desired, fit three Set and See Dials  on top, while the flat top design has space for only one. Some cameras such as the Fuji X-Pro1/E1 have tried to fit a second Set and See Dial [Exposure Compensation] at the far right rear corner of the top plate. I have read many reports of this dial being accidentally bumped indicating it is in the wrong  place for a UIM controlling a critical exposure parameter.

The flat top style camera has less UIM's, is smaller and looks less intimidating than the hump top style. It is more suitable for the snapshooter. The hump top style can have more UIM's  making it more suitable for the expert/controller photographer.

DSLR's  have an optical viewfinder, except for the Sony SLT types which use an EVF. But they all put the viewfinder in a hump. Unfortunately DSLR's are unable to reap the full benefits of hump top design. In the case of entry level models the hump is large in relation to the rest of the camera so there is only enough space for one Set and See Dial, placed to the right of the hump. With the mid to high level models there is an LCD panel [required because electronic view is absent from the optical VF] top right on the body, preventing placement of anything else there.

Mirrorless ILC's  have their own design issues. A particular problem for MILC development has been uncertainty about the target buyer. This has led to some half baked designs which appeared to have been trying to appeal to both user groups but ended up satisfying neither.  One manufacturer, Panasonic appears to be moving in (what I consider to be) the right direction with it's latest and rumored new models. At the expert/controller end we have the Lumix GH3 which is a very good, if not quite perfect,  implementation of the hump top MILC.  At the other end is the recently announced Lumix LF1 compact camera with flat top and built in EVF top left.  Inbetween comes the yet unannounced GX2  (a M43 camera)  which is rumored to have the flat top, EVF top left layout.