Are classic SLR ergonomics comparable to newer bodies?

cooltouch said:

Actually, the revolution can be traced back even further than the EOS cameras. It was the Canon T90 that was the big game changer in SLR camera design. And as for "all controls on the body" with the exception of focus, you can look all the way back to a 1978 design -- the Canon A-1 -- that could make this claim. Namely, movement of aperture control to the body, even when the camera is in Aperture Priority AE.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree, the T90 is I think where ergonomics took a completely new turn in form and function.

I never got to own a Canon A-1 despite taking a very keen interest in it in the very early 1980s.

I prefer the more pronounced angularity of classic SLR bodies; the modern design feels too round for me, and the protruding right hand grip physically restrictive on the freedom of hand movement and placement. With the classic design, I feel more confident holding the camera in one hand because of the overall angularity, unlike the volleyball shape of modern cameras.

However, many people do seem to like the modern design better.

TheRook said:

I prefer the more pronounced angularity of classic SLR bodies; the modern design feels too round for me, and the protruding right hand grip physically restrictive on the freedom of hand movement and placement. With the classic design, I feel more confident holding the camera in one hand because of the overall angularity, unlike the volleyball shape of modern cameras.

However, many people do seem to like the modern design better.

Click to expand...

Older cameras are certainly prettier, later ones generally more ergonomic at the expense of complexity. I don't like camera straps, and hold a camera all the time I'm out to take pictures. This restricts the choice to light cameras with a good grip, which means late period entry level SLRs if strain is to be avoided, or a compact camera. Ironically compacts are often less ergonomic than SLRs, and most have fewer controls. Something like a Canon 3000n (especially with a pancake lens) or a Nikon F55 is perfect.

Classic cameras are pretty awful to hold all day. There's nothing to grip and the strain leads to carpel tunnel problems. A camera on a strap means the shot has often disappeared, at least in my experience.

blockend said:

Classic cameras are pretty awful to hold all day. There's nothing to grip and the strain leads to carpel tunnel problems. A camera on a strap means the shot has often disappeared, at least in my experience.

Click to expand...

No doubt it depends on exactly which cameras and lenses you are referring to . . .

Les Sarile said:

No doubt it depends on exactly which cameras and lenses you are referring to.

Click to expand...

To an extent, but I've never found a classic era camera that could be held for long periods securely in one hand, including my old OM1. There's no ridge or handle that resembles a human grip, it relies on continual pressure between thumb and forefinger, generally on some slippery leatherette. A moments lack of pressure, and the camera falls to the floor. Manufacturers recognised this and even the smallest modern compact has a security ridge to prevent that happening.

I have always wrapped the strap around my wrist, tightly. I use my thumb and forefinger to hold the camera near the ring where the strap attaches to the camera. The one camera that I have found cumbersome and heavy is the Nikon F4. I seldom needed the motor drive (except with sports and in those events I was stationary). For slrs I found the Nikon F3 the best because of the availability of lenses. For optics I would choose the Leica M6 for weight and ease of use.

Les Sarile said:

No doubt it depends on exactly which cameras and lenses you are referring to . . .

Click to expand...

Haha

My most 'modern' SLR is a Nikon F90x. It's nowhere near as big as the EOS in your photo, but feels like it compared to my OM-2.

I much prefer the OM-2 to hold. I know it's not as 'ergonomic' as the F90x but it weighs less and feels right in my hand. My biggest Zuiko lens is tiny compared to the monster zooms Canon and Nikon made (and make).

I can see why professional photographers of the day would want something like the big Nikons and Canons, especially when they used their great big heavy zooms; But they've all moved on. There aren't too many paps or photo journalists using film these days. I didn't spot many film cameras at the Olympics either.

The F90x is the last SLR I have that I'd want to carry around all day. It's far too heavy and bulky. I like the simple, direct controls of the OM-2, and whilst I don't hate them, the F90x controls are not so nice. At least it doesn't have the inscrutable, badly designed menus that were to come. In the synthesiser world, programming early digital synths was compared to trying to wallpaper your hallway through the letterbox*. Some of the later SLRs and almost all of the post-film era DSLRs have a similar feeling.

What you photograph will have a bearing on which SLR will suit you. Which is why so many different models were made. We are all different and have different priorities. My F90X with it's AF is better for chasing my daughters around, but most of the time I'm photographing things that don't move so fast. When using film, I like to slow things down and take my time. It's a big part of the allure of film for me.

Nikon, Canon et al may excel at optics and even ergonomics, but UI design has always been a weakness of theirs, especially with their 'D' models. Making something complicated simple to use is clearly a very difficult task, one which they all fail at IMHO. That's not to say I don't know how to use them; But I've never enjoyed using them. I enjoy using my OM-2.

*Give me a MiniMoog over a DX7 any day.

cooltouch said:

Actually, the revolution can be traced back even further than the EOS cameras. It was the Canon T90 that was the big game changer in SLR camera design. And as for "all controls on the body" with the exception of focus, you can look all the way back to a 1978 design -- the Canon A-1 -- that could make this claim. Namely, movement of aperture control to the body, even when the camera is in Aperture Priority AE.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out the design in the T90 which provided the precursor to EOS. I still think EOS marked the true changeover, since the EOS lenses offered no control on lens for selection of aperture while the FD lenses with aperture ring were still used on the T90...the T90 was a 'transitional' body for Canon to try out things in preparation for the EOS.

As for the A1 aperture control on the body, that applied when using aperture-priority automation, but in full manual you still used the lens ring.

blockend said:

To an extent, but I've never found a classic era camera that could be held for long periods securely in one hand,

Click to expand...

... me neither; but in my view you should hold the camera with both hands: Right hand gripping the right side of the camera, and your left hand "cradling" the lens and the base of the camera. This was the technique that was taught to me and many camera manuals also show it.

I wouldn't ever dare to hold my camera with only one hand for more than 5 seconds if i'm sitting still waiting for the desired moment to arrive.

flavio81 said:

I wouldn't ever dare to hold my camera with only one hand for more than 5 seconds if i'm sitting still waiting for the desired moment to arrive.

Click to expand...

That's my regular modus operandi, sometimes for hours at a time. If there's a proper grip and the camera is light, it isn't a problem, and does away with all the leatherwork that gets in the way and was never part of the camera design.

All this talk about holding cameras got me to thinking about it all. To me, there's no question that it's easier to hold a camera in the right hand if it has at least the vestiges of a grip. Consider the Canon A-1/AE-1P or Minolta X-700/X-570. Even that small bump on the X-700 makes it easier to hold because I'm no longer having to secure the camera through the force of a pinched grip. But with that small bump, this is enough for me to close my fingers on it, and hold them there, to secure the camera. Holding my fingers in place does not require nearly as much force as a pinching action.

But we all know the proper way to hold a 35mm camera. It is supported by the left hand while the right hand does little more than stabilize it and trip the shutter. So typically if I have to one-hand it with one of my SLRs, I'm holding it in my left hand with my thumb and forefinger and middle finger wrapped around the lens. This is a more comfortable grip, especially if the camera happens to be sporting a large lens, and is much less fatiguing.

Well, the above used to be the case, at least. Nowadays we have these long bodied cameras with their motor drives and battery packs and large right-hand grips that house the motor(s) for the built-in motor drives. It is not so easy to support one of these cameras with the left hand because of their depth. But they have that big honkin' right hand grip now, which has become the substitute. Although it is still possible to support the camera/lens by supporting the lens itself with the left hand, so some semblance of the old technique can still be employed. Seems to me it still should be or else there's too much weight on the right hand. I just grabbed my N80 with MB-16 battery extension, and find that I still support this setup mostly with my left hand, despite its comfortably sized right hand grip. But when one-handing it, because of the size of its grip, I'll go either way.

I've been shooting with my Canon New F1's for almost 35 years and I don't think about ergonomics I just pick them up and use them, all my cameras are Canon FD so I'm not switching brands and operating procedures all the time, and as they say "the best camera is the one you're most used to .

blockend said:

To an extent, but I've never found a classic era camera that could be held for long periods securely in one hand, including my old OM1. There's no ridge or handle that resembles a human grip, it relies on continual pressure between thumb and forefinger, generally on some slippery leatherette. ...

Click to expand...

How about the AE-1P?



I'm not fond of straps either - typically I just wind them around in the palm of my hand for a secure grip.

On my cameras where I don't have a strap, typically I hold it in my left hand with the base of the camera resting on my wrist and my fingers encircling the lens near the mount. That makes it easy to raise to eye level, raise my right hand to the camera, and the left hand is already at the aperture or focus ring.

Yes, the Canon A-Series were the first SLRs I can recall with a finger grip. This was a ridge over the battery cover initially, and grew with the A-1 and AE-1 Prog. The big change came with autofocus cameras that didn't require a second focusing hand, and could be lifted and the shutter activated in one quick movement.

They are different but I like the old ones better.

benjiboy said:

I've been shooting with my Canon New F1's for almost 35 years and I don't think about ergonomics I just pick them up and use them, all my cameras are Canon FD so I'm not switching brands and operating procedures all the time, and as they say "the best camera is the one you're most used to .

Click to expand...

The New F-1 has at least a small grip that can be quite useful compared to no grip at all. And although I own a New F-1, my F-1 of choice has always been the original, which has no real ergos other than its overall shape. But almost all the time when I use the old F-1, I have either the Winder F or Motor Drive MF attached, so I do have a grip to hang onto, if need be. A couple of my FD favorites are the FTb and EF. What's somewhat different about them, at least, is that neither accepts a motorized accessory, so one is pretty much forced to use the camera as is. But you know what, I've never felt limited in any way using my FTbs or EFs. They've always had a natural feel to me. I cut my eye-teeth on the large 35mm SLRs, cameras like the Canon FTb, Pentax KX, Minolta SRT-101, Nikon F2 or Nikkormat, etc. So for me, they just feel right as-is. Frankly I don't concern myself about fatigue from carrying them around. I do employ straps for this, however. I like the big wide ones that spread out the weight load.

I can't hold any camera particularly securely with my (strength and dexterity limited) right hand.

Where are the 35mm cameras with a left hand grip?

My OM bodies sit nicely cradled in my left palm, with thumb and forefinger available to adjust shutter speed, focus an aperture.

cooltouch said:

The New F-1 has at least a small grip that can be quite useful compared to no grip at all. And although I own a New F-1, my F-1 of choice has always been the original, which has no real ergos other than its overall shape. But almost all the time when I use the old F-1, I have either the Winder F or Motor Drive MF attached, so I do have a grip to hang onto, if need be. A couple of my FD favorites are the FTb and EF. What's somewhat different about them, at least, is that neither accepts a motorized accessory, so one is pretty much forced to use the camera as is. But you know what, I've never felt limited in any way using my FTbs or EFs. They've always had a natural feel to me. I cut my eye-teeth on the large 35mm SLRs, cameras like the Canon FTb, Pentax KX, Minolta SRT-101, Nikon F2 or Nikkormat, etc. So for me, they just feel right as-is. Frankly I don't concern myself about fatigue from carrying them around. I do employ straps for this, however. I like the big wide ones that spread out the weight load.

Click to expand...

I have an F1n too and have no difficulties using that either and don't feel the need the additional weight and bulk of a power winder on what is already a heavy camera.

Sirius Glass said:

Welcome to APUG

The Nikon F100 is the best 35mm film slr camera built by Nikon or anyone else. Buy another F100 and save yourself time and money.

Click to expand...

It's interesting. When I do an ebay search there are lots and lots of broken F100s for sale. But I've never seen a broken F6 for sale.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=nikon+f100&_sop=15

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=nikon+f6&_sop=15

Some motor drives added a more ergonomically designed handle. Some of them really needed it too . . .



Others just needed an extension of the body height to give a better grip.

I feel that a lot depends on the individual and how they use the camera.
I've used a few; my fathers Exakta, Minolta SRT-101, Pentax Spotmatic, Maimya/Sekor 1000DTL, Nikkormat FTn, Nikon F and F2, Olympus OM2, and a few others.
Each camera had it's querks, ether in feel or handling.
- The Exakta had a left hand film advance, and a LONG throw. But it has been so long that I forgot the details of the camera. Lenses were full manual, so I had to manually stop down the lens after focusing. A hassle, but I got used to it.
- The Pentax and Mamiya were great cameras, but the threaded lens mount just did NOT work for frequent lens changing, and that KILLED those cameras for me. Whatever theoretical advantage the screw mount had was lost by the hassle of using a screw mount when I had to do frequent lens changes. After the M/S 1000DTL, I went to the Nikkormat and it's bayonet lens mount.
- The Nikkormat FTn shutter speed location was OK, except when quickly changing lenses. It always ended up at 1/1000 sec, because my hand would constantly hit the speed adjustment arm when I changed lens. This was a real irritation for me, as I changed lenses often. But it had a 1/125 sec X-sync. The Copal shutter was the fastest X-sync out there.
- The Nikon lenses all used 52mm filters. For a student, then the usual poor college grad, the common filter size saved me a bunch of $$, in not having to buy duplicate filters for different lenses, that used different filter sizes. Although as a student it took me quite a while to save up to buy the next Nikon lens.
- The Olympus is LIGHT !!! This was not a factor when I was younger, but now I feel each additional pound in the camera bag. So I am really appreciating the lighter Olympus over the heavier Nikon F series.

My hand seemed to get used to most any camera that I used, and I did not feel that any camera is DIFFICULT to use because of layout or design.
In fact my hands are still having a hard time adjusting to the modern DSLR after decades of film camera use. IOW I find the new cameras ergronomically difficult to use, because my hands are used to the controls of the old film cameras.

I did not find the knobs to be a hinderance. In fact one of the things we used was the stop at the end of the knob. Without looking at the camera, we could set the shutter speed; go to 1000, count back (500, 250, 125, 60). We did the same with the aperture ring on the lens, which we had to set manually, with the manual flashes of those days. The control rings on my Nikon DSLR do not have end stops, and I have to LOOK at the display to set the camera. I can't set the controls blind like I can with my film cameras. So in some cases, it is actually slower for me use than my old film cameras.

A motor winder was a HUGE plus for the later cameras. I did not need the 4fps of a motor drive, but the ability to quickly advance to the next frame without moving my right hand and thumb would have been heaven. As it was, I learned to crank that film advance lever pretty fast.

I suppose, as a hobbyist, i never sweated a missed Pulitzer Price Shot, as i fiddled with access.
I usually have one or two cameras hanging from my neck, but.....how would the use of a wrist strap impede a photographers ability to quickly shoot a frame.?
Thanks

Wow there has been some really interesting info in here. Starting into photography with modern slr and dslr cameras, it has just been a given to me that the right hand fat grip was the key to handling. This notion of the left hand cradling the underside as primary support is a brand new idea. I'm going to experiment with this tomorrow.
I also like the idea of going by feel of aperture ring and shutter knob. I have to keep an eye on the viewfinder readout when adjusting exposure on the n80 because there isn't a lot of feedback from the dials as far as how much I've moved exposure. I always go by feel in the darkroom when adjusting the lens between checking focus and printing. Same concept I guess and I like that tactile quality of it.
To anyone who has shot with the f3, do you feel like that little bump of handgrip gives better grip compared to a flat front? That camera is really beginning to appeal to me more and more.

cooltouch said:

All this talk about holding cameras got me to thinking about it all. To me, there's no question that it's easier to hold a camera in the right hand if it has at least the vestiges of a grip. Consider the Canon A-1/AE-1P or Minolta X-700/X-570. Even that small bump on the X-700 makes it easier to hold because I'm no longer having to secure the camera through the force of a pinched grip. But with that small bump, this is enough for me to close my fingers on it, and hold them there, to secure the camera. Holding my fingers in place does not require nearly as much force as a pinching action.

But we all know the proper way to hold a 35mm camera. It is supported by the left hand while the right hand does little more than stabilize it and trip the shutter. So typically if I have to one-hand it with one of my SLRs, I'm holding it in my left hand with my thumb and forefinger and middle finger wrapped around the lens. This is a more comfortable grip, especially if the camera happens to be sporting a large lens, and is much less fatiguing.

Well, the above used to be the case, at least. Nowadays we have these long bodied cameras with their motor drives and battery packs and large right-hand grips that house the motor(s) for the built-in motor drives. It is not so easy to support one of these cameras with the left hand because of their depth. But they have that big honkin' right hand grip now, which has become the substitute. Although it is still possible to support the camera/lens by supporting the lens itself with the left hand, so some semblance of the old technique can still be employed. Seems to me it still should be or else there's too much weight on the right hand. I just grabbed my N80 with MB-16 battery extension, and find that I still support this setup mostly with my left hand, despite its comfortably sized right hand grip. But when one-handing it, because of the size of its grip, I'll go either way.

Click to expand...

As I am naturally left-handed, I generally hold the camera in my left hand by default (underneath the body, cradling the lens), even when the camera is not up to my eye. When I want to shoot, I then bring the camera up to eye level and quickly place my right hand into position to activate the shutter button (and control the shutter speed dial if needed). Basically, I have little use for a hand grip - unless perhaps with a long, heavy lens attached, which isn't very often. If I wanted to hold the camera with my left hand using the hand grip, I'd need to flip the camera upside down, which of course would be quite impractical and awkward. For me, a hand grip is mostly an annoying vestige I can do without.

Cacatfish said:

...
To anyone who has shot with the f3, do you feel like that little bump of handgrip gives better grip compared to a flat front? That camera is really beginning to appeal to me more and more.

Click to expand...

My champagne F3/T has an MD-4 drive, which provides amazing grip, but adds a good bit of weight. My black F3/T has no motor drive and I find that little bump to help a lot. Equally important, the rear corners are rounded rather than being angled as you find on the F, F2, FM, and even FM3a - I think this makes it more comfortable to hold.