Baffling/dodgy camera design decisions

[BlackXList]

After reading an article earlier this week that claimed that the new Eos 1dX "will not autofocus at apertures smaller than f5.6"* I've been thinking about those "who the hell thought this was a good idea" elements of camera design.

(*From what I understand it will focus using max aperture, then stop down to take the shot, anywhere in it's range, but if the maximum aperture is less than f5.6 then it doesn't want to know, which is an issue for people using teleconverters/mirror lenses etc).

So I was wondering what everyone else's "why did they do that?" issues were?


For me there's the Olympus Stylus Epic, which would be an amazing camera and super fast to work with, if I didn't have to turn the flash off every time I wanted to use it, causing me to think "if I take that, I'll have to faff about with it every time I want to use it" and it often gets left at home.
(I understand that it's to give the majority of people the majority of shots well exposed, but it was hardly a cheap snapshot camera when it was released, surely the flashing red light to say "turn the flash on" would have been a better option)

The Stylus Epic Zoom models have a very cute pop up flash, which is unfortunately exactly in the spot where I want to hold the camera, and it won't work with the flash obstructed, even if it's disabled.

The film uptake spool in the Pentax ME Super, I'm guessing there's a reason I haven seen this fiddly assembly before or since.
Admittedly it does it's job well after I've performed origami with the leader, but so do most other cameras.

the Kodak Retina IIc would be much more user friendly if the door opened to the bottom of the camera, instead of to the right

 

[sevo]

After reading an article earlier this week that claimed that the new Eos 1dX "will not autofocus at apertures smaller than f5.6"* I've been thinking about those "who the hell thought this was a good idea" elements of camera design.

(*From what I understand it will focus using max aperture, then stop down to take the shot, anywhere in it's range, but if the maximum aperture is less than f5.6 then it doesn't want to know, which is an issue for people using teleconverters/mirror lenses etc).

That is nothing new, and no real design decision either. It is a general issue of all AF SLRs, as the maximum aperture limits the base width of the phase detection rangefinder. If you make the base wider, you'd put in a even earlier restriction. And if you make it narrower - that is, integrate a smaller base PD sensor so that it does not get shadowed by f/8 or less - it will affect the focusing accuracy with faster lenses.

IIRC some other makers use PD systems that work up to f/8 - but then, most don't support AF lenses faster than f/1.4, while Canon decided to design their system to cope with one flagship f/1 50mm lens.

As far as stupid design decisions go, as a leftie I find all the folded-path-of-light, lens-at-the-top-right-edge pocketable ruggedized compacts near useless, as I tend to grab them with the index finger firmly over the lens.

 

[rxmd]

That is nothing new, and no real design decision either. It is a general issue of all AF SLRs, as the maximum aperture limits the base width of the phase detection rangefinder. If you make the base wider, you'd put in a even earlier restriction. And if you make it narrower - that is, integrate a smaller base PD sensor so that it does not get shadowed by f/8 or less - it will affect the focusing accuracy with faster lenses.

IIRC some other makers use PD systems that work up to f/8 - but then, most don't support AF lenses faster than f/1.4, while Canon decided to design their system to cope with one flagship f/1 50mm lens.

I guess the problem here was that Canon's earlier 1-series flagship SLRs (analog and digital) supported autofocus at f/8 just fine, without creating problems with the ancient 50/f1 lens.

Probably someone at Canon thought that nobody would want to use low-end, slower-than-f/5.6 lenses with a top end camera, and forgot to think about the nature photographers with their tele lenses and teleconverters and how those people are a small but very vocal group.

As awkward design decisions go, I nominate the rewind mechanism of the Leningrad, which incorporates an extra gear train to slow down the already slow rewind process. Sometimes I think the detachable bottom plate in the M8/M9 is also somewhere along this path.

 

[sevo]

I guess the problem here was that Canon's earlier 1-series flagship SLRs (analog and digital) supported autofocus at f/8 just fine, without creating problems with the ancient 50/f1 lens.

IIRC all I ever had/rented shared the Nikon f/5.6 limit. And even if some should work at f/8, the older cameras targeted lower resolution limits - with increasing MP, focusing gets more critical.

 

[rxmd]

IIRC all I ever had/rented shared the Nikon f/5.6 limit. And even if some should work at f/8, the older cameras targeted lower resolution limits - with increasing MP, focusing gets more critical.

Actually it was a fair number of cameras; all 1D- and 1Ds-series bodies, as well as the film EOS 1V and EOS 3. I see the point about the resolution argument, but there were several cameras (1Ds Mk III, 1D Mk IV) that had higher resolution than the 1D X yet supported f/8 anyway. If that was the reason, then Canon was just very bad at communicating it.

 

[BlackXList]

According to the same article, some (presumably mostly nature) photographers are jumping ship to Nikon, because their latest flagship model doesn't have the f5.6 issue.

I have to admit I've never had to use anything slower than 5.6 on my 1dmk2, but I do very occasionally use teleconverters on film bodies.

I didn't want to mention bottom loading, or the whole rangefinder lenscap issue haha