 |
Photo courtesy of camerasize.com |
Sony has just announced the A1, or Alpha 1 or Alpha A1, whatever, its latest mirrorless super-camera presumably designed to beat Canon in the marketing wars by offering an even higher level of specification and performance than anything else on the planet and higher than most photographers need.
It appears the R1 will be pitched against the EOS-1DX.3 or its rumored mirrorless successor possibly to be called R1. They are in about the same (very high) price range right at the top of the price/performance scale.
In which case what is to become of the A9.x models ? Presumably this will become clearer in time.
No doubt the user forums will be abuzz with arguments about technical aspects of performance and capability for months to come. Some will proclaim the one which can capture stills at 30 frames per second “better” than the other one which can “only” manage 20 frames per second.
Note: Apparently the 30fps is actually more like 20 fps in the real world.
I find that 10 fps is plenty for birds in flight and regard higher frame rates as surplus to requirements and therefor mostly irrelevant for me anyway.
I doubt there will be much difference in picture quality or performance between any of the top tier models from Canon, Nikon or Sony, although Nikon does appear to be struggling a bit in the mirrorless space just now.
The main area in which there is now and likely will continue to be a significant difference is the user experience which includes handling and ergonomics.
This blog is independent. Nobody gives or lends me cameras to test. I have no link with or obligation to any entity which makes or markets photographic gear.
I bought, own and use an EOS R5 and rate its usability very highly. I have not laid hands on an A1 as yet but many aspects of the way the A1 will handle are easily identifiable from published photographs which show it to be very similar to the A7/A9 models.
Camera users who are attuned to ergonomic issues will immediately see (and feel) that there are significant differences between Canon and Sony in the way they approach the size, shape, control layout and user interface of their cameras.
When the first iteration of the Sony A7 series appeared in 2013 I posted an opinion on this blog (since removed in a general site clean-up) that the designers had made several basic ergonomic mistakes. In summary these were:
* The handle was the wrong shape and too short to enable a full 5 finger grip.
* The shutter button was in the wrong place relative to the body shape and handle and the hand of the user.
* The top/front control dial was in the wrong place and incorrectly oriented for smooth operation without having to shift grip.
It appears Sony’s designers agreed with me, not that they ever acknowledged this, and over the next few iterations of the same basic design we saw the handle change shape and size, the shutter button move forward onto the top of the handle and the top/front dial move to a more readily accessible but still not ideal location.
So while one could argue that Canon has been playing catch-up to Sony in the technology department Sony has been lagging behind Canon with regard to the user interface and ergonomics.
The A1 has the same basic size, shape and control layout as the A7R4, A7S3 and A9.2. Each of these models uses the same VG-C4EM battery grip which means they each use the same battery and have the same baseplate.
Sony has locked itself into an architecture with this series of cameras, not necessarily always in the best interests of usability.
I will be comparing the Sony to the Canon EOS R5 in this analysis.
I give the R5 the highest ergonomic score of any camera I have tested, well clear of any other model from Canon or any other maker. So that is a useful benchmark against which other camera models can be evaluated.
 |
Photo courtesy of camerasize.com |
Width
The A1 (and the other Sony models mentioned above) is 129mm wide. The R5 is 138mm wide. You might not think a difference of 9mm in width would amount to much but ergonomics is about getting the big picture right and simultaneously implementing all the details optimally and the Sony don’t quite succeed at either.
I note that the optical axis on the R5 is 51mm from the left side of the body (as viewed by the operator). This is 37% of the overall width.
The optical axis of the Sony models is 52mm from the left side of the body which is 40% of the overall width.
This might sound like nit-picking but the consequence of these differences is that the Canon has appreciably more space on the front of the body for the handle and the fingers gripping it. There is significantly more space between the user’s fingers and any lens fitted. I have seen several complaints from Sony users about the lack of space for fingers when a large lens (of which there are several in the Sony FE catalogue) is mounted.
Around the back we can see that the extra width of the Canon gives it space for
a) a fully articulated (hinge-left) monitor screen, which the Sony does not have, plus
b) a wider control panel (which is also taller, I will get to that). This allows the thumb support to angle diagonally across the back of the camera which places the thumb in a stronger and more relaxed position than the Sony thumb support which is upright and far over at the right side of the body.
The larger control panel allows for a less cramped hand position and much better location of the thumb-stick which on the Canon is immediately to the left of the thumb and can be accessed by simply moving the thumb 10mm to the left. On the Sony the thumb stick is lower down requiring more thumb displacement to reach it with more potential for disruption of the grip.
Yes, these are little details, but they accumulate and they affect the user experience every time you operate the camera.
 |
Photo courtesy of camerasize.com |
Height
At 97mm the Sony A7 cameras are just 1mm lower than the R5. Nothing you would notice. What you may notice however is that Canon makes more effective use of the total height available.
On the right side, where it matters, the R5 top plate is 9mm higher than the Sony.
This allows the designers to achieve several ergonomic objectives:
* The shutter button on the Canon faces forward 45 degrees to the horizontal which is just what my index finger wants to find when I move it onto the shutter button. The shutter button on the Sony faces more upward which is not bad but not quite optimal either.
* On the Canon the height of the handle available for gripping by fingers 3, 4 and 5 is 67mm. On the Sony it is 62mm. This might suit some small hands but for many adults 62mm is just not enough for a full 5 finger grip. The truth of this is confirmed by the number of grip extenders available from Sony and third party makers. The Nikon Z 5/6 models have the same problem.
* On the back of the camera Canon is able to locate the thumb-stick above the corner of the screen which is just where my thumb wants to find it with the AF-On button just beside it, again just where my thumb wants to find it, without having to shift grip. By the way, my hands are of average adult male size and shape.
This arrangement also works for users with small hands who just move the right hand up higher on the handle than those with larger hands.
Shutter button and top front control dial
In 1986 Canon produced the T90, a single lens reflex camera which established the full handle/shutter button forward/control dial behind shutter button layout. This basic theme has continued with variations until the present. I have used many Canon cameras which utilise this layout and found all of them ergonomically sound although some detailed implementations of the basic pattern work better than others.
Nikon has generally preferred to locate the top/front dial when one is fitted in front of and below the shutter button and facing forward.
The Sony A1/A7A9 models also use this layout.
It is possible to make control dial forward of shutter button or control dial aft of shutter button work well however as usual the devil is in the details. I have used numerous cameras of each type and found the Canon type as used on Canon ILCs and some Panasonic micro four thirds models to be the most user friendly.
With a optimal implementation of this layout the most comfortable position for the index finger is on the shutter button with a small stretch back to access the control dial. Since the finger spends much more time on the shutter button than on the dial, that is the best way to do it.
The problems with the Nikon and Sony approach are that
1) access to the front control dial by the right index finger is obstructed by the position of the third finger. This problem occurs because of two design faults
a) the dial faces forward requiring the index finger to move substantially downwards to bear on the dial, aggravated by
b) there being insufficient space on the top/front region of the handle to allow the index finger to come down far enough to properly bear on the dial without having to move the other fingers out of the way.
2) The index finger has to stretch up a bit away from the third finger to find the shutter button.
Panasonic and Olympus solved both these problems in several models by making the front control dial a rotating collar around the shutter button, thereby neatly and effectively side-stepping the in-front-of-or-behind issue.
The Panasonic S1 full frame models have the dial-in-front layout which you can see properly implemented here with the dial facing up 45 degrees and plenty of space below the dial so the index finger does not have to displace the third finger in order to bear on the dial.
Anyway my point is that there are several ways to arrange the layout at the top of the handle and some makes and models implement this better than others.
I rate the Canon layout the best especially as seen on the R5 with the bonus of the M-Fn button very conveniently located between the shutter button and top/front dial.
Worst are models like the Nikon Z5/6/50 and earlier versions of the Sony A7 line with the top/front dial facing forward. Later variants like the A7R4/A1/A9 have the dial tilted up about 35 degrees to make it more accessible but the dial location and accessibility could be further improved if the top plate was raised about 10mm.
Strap attachment
Sony uses protruding lugs to which some kind of connector must be attached.
Canon uses recessed handlebars which are much more user friendly. The don’t protrude, don’t dig into my hands and don’t require any kind of connector.
I would very much prefer all cameras to use the handlebar variety, recessed if possible..
Fixed function dials
This blog is completely independent so I am able to express views which those beholden to a camera maker for review products might not feel safely able to do.
So, in my view fixed function dials are a curse on modern electronic cameras and should be removed altogether.
Let me explain why.
Some time ago I had in my camera drawer two Lumix cameras, a G9 and an FZ80.
The G9 is a high end interchangeable lens model with a high level of specification and capability. The G9 has a Shooting Mode dial, a Drive mode dial stacked beneath the mode dial (more about stacked dials below) and an AF Mode dial/lever.
The FZ80 is a super-cheap bridge type junk camera with no fixed function dials other than the Main Mode dial.
Of course the G9 is a much better camera. But I found that when I wanted to change gears in Prepare phase of use, for instance switching settings from normal hand held to tripod to sport/action the FZ80 enabled the switching process with fewer actions each less complex.
The reason for this is that if the camera has user defined shooting modes on the Mode dial or equivalent these can be used to change many settings with just one action. But this only works effectively if there are no dials, levers or similar with fixed function which have to be adjusted in addition to setting the User Mode. (C1, C2, etc on many cameras)
The EOS R5 body has no fixed function dials, levers or switches other than the on/off switch. There are fixed function slider switches on most RF lenses and if I was in charge of the design team I would want to explore ways to achieve a more streamlined implementation of those functions.
Here is a practical example. My RF 35mm f1.8 lens has an IS On/Off slider switch. My RF 50mm f1.8 lens does not. Reviewers routinely complain about this but I find that in real world use the 50mm without the IS On/Of switch is easier to work with.
Why ? Because in general hand held use I want the stabiliser always On but with landscape/tripod work I want the stabiliser always Off.
I allocate Tripod/landscape settings on the R5 to the C1 shooting mode option.
With the 50mm lens that’s all I need to do. IS is already set to Off in the menu when I select C1.
But with the 35mm lens I have to remember to select IS Off on the lens barrel in addition to selecting C1. It’s not a big deal but it is something extra to remember and also an extra action.
My guiding principle in considering ergonomic issues is the number and complexity of actions required to control the device.
The Sony A1 has four fixed function dials. There is the [+/-] exposure compensation dial top right, a standard Mode dial and the top left platform has stacked Drive mode over AF mode dials like the A9.2.
On this camera if you want to change gears from, say general hand held to sport/action there will usually be more actions required than if drive mode and AF mode were incorporated into the settings accessible via one of the three user modes (C1, C2. C3 on the Mode dial).
Stacked dials
The only thing worse than fixed function dials is stacked fixed function dials. I have owned and used several cameras with feature and found significant risk of double turning with each of them.
Yes, I know the designers will say they have carefully considered this and arranged the haptics so double turns will not happen. But testing in a quiet place without haste is very different from being, say, at a sporting event where everything happens fast, the photographer is being jostled by others and the unexpected hovers ever near.
EVF eyecup rear projection
The R5 eyecup protrudes about 15mm back from the plane of the monitor screen. That on the R1 has less, I estimate about 10mm.
Yet another detail of itself no big deal. But within the range available, more is better as it allows my head to face more forward (right eye viewing) while I am using the camera in either landscape or portrait orientation. This is more comfortable and allows me to check out the scene with my left eye as well.
Summary
Canon has been doing the ergonomics of its ILCs at least competently for many years. The R5 is one of their best efforts providing a very pleasing user experience with very little about which I can complain and trust me I will find something about which to complain with just about any camera.
The first iteration of the Sony A7 series was an ergonomic kludge with many awkward aspects to the user experience. Sony’s designers have retained most of the original basic architecture, opting to make incremental improvements to the controls as they go.
I rate this a partial success. The newer models have improved on the ergonomics of the originals in many small but significant ways.
But I wonder if Sony has at this point been captured by its own success in the sales race.
They made some cameras a certain shape and configuration. These sold very well, so they just kept on doing the same thing while adding more advanced technology with each generation.
This is understandable BUT…..
I think these A7 cameras sold well for two main reasons
a) Sony was first cab off the rank with full frame mirrorless giving them a substantial jump on the opposition in the full frame mirrorless space.
b) Sony’s execs often re-iterate that Sony is primarily a technology company. In the case of full frame mirrorless Sony developed and continues to improve some significant sensor technologies with big advantages for focussing and file processing speed.
In due course Canon and maybe others will catch up with Sony’s technology. The R5 was pretty much there already until the A1 played leapfrog over it.
This leaves Sony with ace technology stuck in a sub-optimal body design with sub-optimal handling and controls.
If I was in charge of ergonomic design at Sony I would stop iterating the present theme and completely re-design the body from the outside in.
By the way, this is just a guess but I suspect Sony might design their cameras from the inside out. This would make sense to the technology boffins if they were to assume that consumers want the smallest body which can contain the technology inside. If that is the case, I would like them to re-consider. Many Sony cameras, both compacts and ILCs are so small they sacrifice usability.
I think they cannot squeeze a much better user experience out of the present A7/9 series architecture. The cameras are cramped by being too narrow and in my view cluttered with more controls than the platform can comfortably manage.
And what would be the end result of this re-design process ?
Ah….yes……..you guessed correctly……..it would look……..and feel…….and operate……… remarkably like a Canon EOS R5.
Surprise !
A last word:
Some readers get impatient with my detailed analyses of camera ergonomics with feedback such as “this is gobbldegook” or “that’s a lot of balderdash” and similar sentiments.
But we cannot avoid the fact that many camera owners find some cameras more user friendly than others. My work is about trying to understand why that might be so and to express my findings in words which others can read and hopefully understand.
None of this is rocket science. All the observations I have made can be made by anyone else with an open mind and a spirit of enquiry.
Sometimes this results in a detailed presentation (like this one) but that is just the nature of the subject under discussion.