I have been using cameras for 65 years and in that time have had the opportunity to gain familiarity with many types of camera from most manufacturers, some of which are no longer in the business.
For many years I gave little thought to ergonomic issues.
As I suspect do most camera users, I just figured out how each model worked and got on with it accepting the idiosyncrasies of each along the way.
But in 2008, mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras arrived on the market.
The size, shape and control layout of these cameras was not as constrained by mechanical components as was the case with SLRs and DSLRs. This allowed designers to experiment with alternative layouts, sometimes with ergonomically disastrous results.
Eleven years ago I started researching camera ergonomics after buying one of those…….oops ....models which I belatedly realised was an ergonomic kludge.
I started this blog and developed a systematic method for evaluating and scoring camera ergonomics. This project has been running for eight years during which I have rated and scored 45 models from 8 manufacturers.
I became aware that some camera makers mostly get their ergonomic factors right or at least good enough for practical purposes, while others flounder about creating new ergonomic stuff-ups almost every time they release a new model.
This blog is independent, beholden to no person or organisation in the photographic industry or anywhere else.
The observations and views expressed in this blog are mine. I have no pre-conceived preference for any make or brand of photo gear.
Readers can agree or disagree with my findings as they wish.
Before going on I just want to offer some observations about the difference between
a) systematic ergonomic evaluation and
b) likes and preferences.
These are separate matters which consider different aspects of the user experience.
They may or may not overlap to some extent.
For example: Towards the end of the 20th Century I owned and used a 4x5 inch large format view camera. I used this for landscape photography often carrying the camera, tripod and all the associated heavy gear by backpack far into the bush.
Until my back gave out I enjoyed the experience of using this camera for many reasons none of which was about ergonomics.
From an ergonomic perspective the big camera was hopeless.
It took me half an hour to make a picture. Just one, mind you, I could only carry 6 sheets of film in their double dark slides. The view on the screen under the dark cloth was upside down and back to front. I got ants crawling up the tripod into the camera. The list goes on. With my ergonomic scoring system the view camera would probably get a total score of about 5/100.
But I did like the discipline of using the big camera. The process of framing, viewing and figuring correct focus and exposure was a challenge and I was up for it. I still have several large poster prints from this camera on the walls of my house.
So, with those thoughts, on with this post:
I have given an ergonomic ranking to each of the main camera brands based on my personal experience which is considerable with some makes, less so with others.
I ask readers not to take this too seriously but I still think it fair to say that some camera makers have demonstrated a long term commitment to making their products enjoyable to use while others have shown various degrees of indifference to or lack of understanding about the user experience offered by their devices.
In order, worst first, I have
Sigma
Best known for their extensive range of good quality third party lenses Sigma occasionally launches an actual camera. Some of these have been so peculiar one has to wonder what their creators were smoking.
The dp0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 of 2014/15 were very strange with an unusual and ergonomically awkward shape and control layout.
The fp of 2019 was advertised as the smallest full frame camera but it couldn’t do anything much without being festooned with a scaffolding of accessories all of which turned it into one of the largest full frame cameras.
Fujifilm
Fujifilm is the main brand name of a large multinational group of corporate entities which are involved in many different kinds of manufacturing and services.
It seems that for Fuji, cameras are more like a hobby than a substantive business unit. If they stopped making cameras tomorrow I doubt the greater Fuji corporate empire would notice.
Perhaps this goes some way towards helping us understand Fuji’s louche and capricious approach to product development and design.
They are all over the place. Some models have no handle, some a useless mini handle, some a big fat handle. Some need an accessory handle and thumb support, others need these things but can’t fit them. Some have a mode dial plus twin control dial layout, some have aperture ring plus shutter speed dial plus exposure compensation dial.
Some have an ISO dial awkwardly located around the shutter speed dial where it is really klunky to operate. This is a throwback to the least usable control on mid 20th Century SLRs.
What on earth were they thinking ?
Some lenses have an aperture ring others do not.
At some stage Fuji got rid of the D-pad for unstated reasons and replaced it with a silly little thumb stick which sits up only 1.5mm from the back of the body and is awkward to operate. But wait, now I see they put what appears to be the more usable grippy type thumb stick on the new GFX-100.
Why did they not use this on the initial switch over from D pad to thumb stick ? Canon has been using the much better grippy type for 15 years so it’s not as though Fuji designers would have been unaware of the better type.
This is the kind of thing which I refer to when I call Fuji’s approach louche and capricious.
From my point of view as a camera buyer and user it looks like they just don’t care.
On some cameras there are so many dials they have to stack them on top of each other. On other models there is little in the way of controls at all.
Some of the dials are required because the fixed function dials (such as the shutter speed dial or ISO lift-up-turn-drop-down dial) are unable to accommodate all the settings which are actually available. So we get two dials to do the job one properly designed dial could do better.
It is my experience that some Fujifan(atic)s get very aggressive, sarcastic or dismissive in response to anything even vaguely negative which I might have the temerity to say about any Fuji camera.
However flicking the switch to outrage cannot disguise the fact that Fuji cameras can be more demanding photo companions than most other brands.
I think Fuji has backed itself into a tight little corner with its approach to camera product development. Several years ago Fuji switched from making mainstream bridge and compact cameras to models which attempted to blend traditional style with modern electronic inner functions. With camera sales in decline this has become a niche within a shrinking niche.
The designers are showing signs of wanting to move back towards the mainstream presumably in search of a larger buyer cohort with models like the X-S10 which has a handle, a mode dial and other accoutrements just like a normal camera.
Will this work for them ? Maybe, but I have the sense that many buyers attracted to Fuji prefer something different and might not take kindly to the normalisation project at all. We shall see.
Leica
I had some difficulty fitting Leica into this hierarchy because some Leica models do ergonomics tolerably well while others are hopeless.
One of the bad ones is the TL of which one reviewer said “this is a camera you either love or hate and nobody loves it”.
Yet the follow up to the TL in the form of the CL is decently usable once you figure out the unusual user interface.
Some years ago I owned an M6 film camera for a while. This style of camera has its devotees but I never became one of them. Everything goes slowly with M series cameras: framing, focussing, metering, setting exposure parameters and pretty much everything else. And for all this wonderful slowness you get to pay ten times the price of an ordinary camera.
Ricoh/Pentax
The Ricoh part of this duo is another large corporation which does a few cameras as a sideline, having taken over the lingering remnants of the once successful Pentax enterprise.
Ricoh’s GR compacts are actually rather interesting with a superb lens and excellent picture quality in a tiny package with very decent ergonomics.
Unfortunately I found the GR2 and GR3 just about unusable in Australia’s hard bright light with no EVF and no way to fit one.
Olympus
Unfortunately Olympus has thrown in the towel on its imaging division after many loss making years so will not be a brand to reckon with in the future. I bought an OM-D E-M 5 some years ago and spent some time with it. I found the shape awkward with just a mini handle. I added the accessory handle which improved the grip but the rig then had two shutter buttons and two front dials. Who thought that was a good idea ?
The menus were incomprehensibly idiosyncratic to the point I never really discovered how to set the camera up properly.
Like Fujifilm, Olympus has its band of supporters. Apparently not enough of them to make the business viable though.
Sony
Sony claims the title of technology leader in the camera world with plenty of successful innovations to support that claim.
But Sony’s designers seem to regard ergonomics and the user experience as a secondary concern.
The first round of A7 models brought a confusing muddle to the user experience with dreadful menus and awkward controls.
The latest iterations bring many worthwhile improvements but I think Sony might do its customers a favour if it implemented a complete root-and-branch review of its body designs, control layout and all aspects of the user interface.
Sony has shown it is willing and able to extend the bounds of what is possible in the technology arena.
I would like to see them apply the same commitment to the ergonomic side of the equation.
Nikon
Nikon has been in the camera business for a hundred years so it is hardly surprising that the brand has many loyal users who appreciate the Nikon experience.
In the SLR/DSLR era Nikon cameras were regarded by many owners as providing the best experience for amateur, enthusiast and professional users alike.
But outside the familiar (to Nikon) territory of DSLRs Nikon’s ergonomic record has been patchy at best and sometimes downright dreadful.
I have over the years owned several Nikon compacts and bridge cameras which I did not enjoy using at all because of major inadequacies of performance and ergonomics.
The strangely named and ill fated [1 Series] was designed by triple jointed shape shifting goblins which escaped from the earth during the last Kyoto earthquake.
Nikon’s first foray into the full frame mirrorless world has been more securely grounded in the world of humans. I bought a Z6 and used it for a while. I found it to be a decent camera in most respects with good image quality and good ergonomics which could easily have been much better with a few changes to the body architecture and control layout.
Panasonic/Lumix
The camera which ignited my interest in studying camera ergonomics was the Lumix G1 of 2008. This was the first digital interchangeable lens mirrorless camera and as such a ground breaking product in the world of photography.
But the shape, architecture, layout, controls and user experience were terrible. I wondered how any maker could produce something so frustrating to the user.
Fortunately the designers at Panasonic switched themselves on to the whole idea of ergonomics and made huge improvements to the usability of their cameras over the next few years.
They now promote the idea of “camera-ness” in the form of some really nice models in the micro four thirds, bridge camera and full frame spaces.
Over the last few years Lumix has progressed from being one of the worst to one of the best for exterior design, architecture, layout, controls and the overall user experience.
Canon
And so at last we come to Canon. Yes….Canon.
Like every other brand Canon has delivered some unfortunate ergonomic bloopers over the years.
But for consistent delivery of user-friendly cameras over a very long time span no camera maker beats Canon.
I started using Canons in 1990 and have owned and used many of them since then. Some had unsatisfactory autofocus and some had a variety of other weaknesses but most Canons I have owned and used over the years including compacts, SLR/DSLR and mirrorless models have delivered at least a decent user experience and often much better than decent.
The current EOS R5/6 models gain the highest ergonomic score of any camera using my schedule and scoring process.
I currently own and use an EOS R5 which I find to provide the best user experience of any camera I have owned and used over a 65 year period.
Even the original EOS R which copped a huge amount of criticism on release has, after several firmware updates actually turned out to be very user friendly. I had one until the R5 came along and enjoyed using it. I just disabled the silly M-Fn bar and all was well.
Conclusion
Statista Research has published figures for global market share by camera manufacturer, based on sales volume for 2020.
Canon 45.4%
Sony 20.2%
Nikon 18.6%
Fujifilm 4.7%
Panasonic 4.7%
There are many ways to evaluate market leadership including units shipped, units sold, gross value, net profit and so on………
Fair enough but I think it is clear that Canon has almost as much market share as all the other makers together.
This tells us that Canon is persistently doing something that consumers like enough to choose Canon in preference to other brands.
I believe one of those things is usability.
Canon cameras across the model range over many years have offered consistently better usability than the other brands. In technical terms this results from more thoughtful ergonomic design which puts the user at the center of the product development and design process.