The right size for ergonomy

Ok,
very successful thread!
You know these days I was playing with such cameras as for example the Contax RTSIII and it occurred to me how pleasing is to handle a camera of the right size! And how am fell uncomfortable handling a Sony Axxx
Anyway, sorry for posting if it is of no interest
 
I suppose it depends on everyone liking and hands size. Some other people just don't care about ergonomics but for tech specs.

Me? Related to dslr, I'm a Canon guy and feel like the 6d has pretty much the right ergonomics for me.

As for film cameras, I usually go for small cameras, like Leica IIIf/M6 or Olympus OM's. Really fond on Olympus Pen F (the half frame film version).

I suppose a more fitting tittle would be "The righ size for YOUR ergonomy" 🙂

Regards

Marcelo
 
pro dslr has grown to battleship size with 16" guns. I am disliking them more and more. Thin the body, but the glass is same or longer. Mirrorless makes me dizzy to look through. Try following a moving subject.

I have collected shoulder bags over 50 years now and my Leica M and Nikon F2 and Nikormats fit well . The one I am now using that can be related to is Lowe Pro compact magnum plus others.

Then I got a Nikon D3 and it will not fit without disrupting the whole inside leaving little space for lenses. So they invented holster cases that hold a camera with a zoom lens and not much else. Enter my new Lowe Pro supposed shoulder bag. 12"x12" on the end and long as a rifle case. Instead of a shoulder, I move it on a cart.

I kind of dislike zooms and primes are too big and take up too much space.

Now back to Leica M , small size and small lenses. Saved one Leica M6 and Nikons for film, black and white only. DSLR for haul to a job and park it.

I wear medium gloves and am too old to carry 50# of gear.
 
I have medium-small size hands and DSLRs (Canon 5D) are too thick to hold comfortably for long periods of time. On the other side, Olympus E-M5 II is too small and feels misbalanced with bigger glass. I find film Leicas and Olympus E-M1 II to be a perfect weight, size and ergonomics for me. I tried Fujis and they are also comfortable to hold but I have issues with their UX (they don't speak to me). I tried Sony A7 III at the store and it was very comfortable to hold and operate. If I ever switch from m43 to FF Sony will be my first choice.
On the side note, I give a lot of considerations for camera ergonomics before buying it. It's a personal feel and if the camera is not fun to use I will skip on... Much more important than Magapixels to me.
 
I have big hands and prefer small soap bar shaped cameras... my current favorite being the Fujifilm X-E3. I guess even though I have stopped using Leica M cameras, its influence is still there. For me, the appeal of mirrorless was the size advantage. Now, it seems, everything is big again.
 
Body size preference is so personal. I'm old and thought I'd like to have a Leica RF by retirement. Turned out the M4-2 was just too big. The main body size was taller than my OM-1, in fact the prism peak on the OM was only 1/2 inch taller than the Leica. Still have it but prefer to take out my 35RC, true the aperture location on the RC is too close to the body and is a pain to adjust but otherwise it's just the right size.


All film cameras now but if I get a digital it will probably be a mirrorless, just because of the size.
 
I'm all for compact and lightweight, so the Sony cameras appeal to me more than the newly released Canon, Nikon and Panasonics, for their size. Having said that, all of them have huge lenses and too many buttons. I haven't held a Sony A7 but I do have a Sony RX100 which is actually too small and sleek, and festooned with too many tiny controls for me to hold it comfortably.
 
It depends. I always found the OM bodies too shallow like I would have some unwanted shake in the yaw plane. Amazingly light and compact lenses for SLR. A big reflex Leica or even a D3 sits under the hands nicely. Never used one. I am very happy with a classic film M but wouldn't want those any smaller. I am completely used to the fatter CCD digital Ms and like them. But I wish I had a digital like the Leica IIIf which is probably what jsrocket is saying with the little Fuji. Today, right now, it's the Hasselblad 500cm, big, heavy and wonderful. For an every day camera compact is everything. I have the tiny Summaron-M 28mm f5.6 glued to my M9-P for the minimum volume and weight to have the camera with me all the time.
 
Thank you all for your interesting answers
I must confess that weight has always been critical for me.
For example I got my plain prism black Nikon F in 1968. In the early eighties I sold it (WHAT A MISTAKE!!!) because of back pain (I had a bag with 3 lenses the lunasix pro and a tripod.
On the other hand such cameras were a joy to handle, and if one could get along with weigth, at least for me, they had a fantasic ergonomy.
Something that in my case I don't find in the minuscule Sony's, although I do appreciate the results.
BTW My hands are average I guess not small, but neither huge
PS When the advent of digital slashed the prices I bought out of nostalgia a black plain prism nikon F
 
Body size is secondary to quality of design, when it comes to ergonomics. Sony RX1R is one example where I feel the camera is clearly too small to hold comfortably. I added a half case and it improved things significantly.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Kind of depends on the size of your hands. I like the small size of OM film cameras, but many people find them too small. I also like the small size of my XE2.
Click to expand...

The OM series is almost exactly the same size as the Leica M series, but IMO the OMs are significantly less easy to handle.

While the width, the baseplate-to-top (excluding the pentaprism point), and back-to-front (Zuiko 50 f/1.8 vs Summicron 50) are within 1-2mm, the lens placement is quite different. The OMs place the lens very centered while the Ms place it significantly towards the rewind side. This leaves much more space for gripping on the wind side of the Ms.
 
Dwig said:
The OM series is almost exactly the same size as the Leica M series, but IMO the OMs are significantly less easy to handle. While the width, the baseplate-to-top (excluding the pentaprism point), and back-to-front (Zuiko 50 f/1.8 vs Summicron 50) are within 1-2mm, the lens placement is quite different. The OMs place the lens very centered while the Ms place it significantly towards the rewind side. This leaves much more space for gripping on the wind side of the Ms.
Click to expand...
As you would expect the difference to be between an SLR and rangefinder. And then there is parallax error. Each design has its pluses and minuses. I do like the ergonomics of the Leica M film cameras.
 
The focus in right hand grip by both commentators here and camera designers is a mystery to me. The right hand is mostly there to press the button, the left holds - less shake.
 
retinax said:
The focus in right hand grip by both commentators here and camera designers is a mystery to me. The right hand is mostly there to press the button, the left holds - less shake.
Click to expand...

Well, it really depends on the situation and if you have time. Many times, I just react to a fleeting moment. But I get your point. Small cameras are more right hand centric to me, but a big camera with a big lens will be more left hand centric.
 
Definitely more to size than ergonomics. Decent grip, weight, and balance are more important. Using a Mamiya 7 was a dream because it was effortless to carry and use but it sure wasn't small.

As someone mentioned the RX1 is an ergonomic after thought: small package, heavy with a large lens, limited areas to grip it. The A7 is much better
 
The right size for ergonomy

I have an A7. I dislike the balance, the weight, the edges, the menus, some of the buttons both their placements and the way they feel. But the evf is good, it's full frame, there are tons of adapters available, and it was cheap for what it is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
The Kowa SET R2: A leaf shutter SLR for $150 or 7 lens cine set only $111, 000 KOWABUNGA !
Replies
1
Views
502
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
J
  • Article Article
How Canon Reinvented Itself for Mirrorless and Now Leads the Market!
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
JeffS7444
JeffS7444
Ko.Fe.
Is there really cost effective FF mirrorless?
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
maddoc
maddoc
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
J
  • Article Article
The Amazing Saga of 120 Film: The Last Paper Backed Roll Film
2
Replies
20
Views
13K
Muggins
Muggins
Back
Top Bottom