LUCID PAGES		INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
Intelligence		Notice: The following ideas are based on the eBook THE HUMAN MIND by Martin Dak and deal with the expression of deficient emotional intelligence in business. You should first read the page Intelligence to learn what intelligence is. Since you may not like the below presented information, you agree that you shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the author and the publisher against any and all claims, losses, expenses, and lawsuits that may arise from this visit. Leave now or read at your risk. SOCIOECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS From the manufacturer's viewpoint, all products need to be designed, manufactured, promoted, and sold. Marketing people try to find out what the customer wants, and report the findings to the people in product development. Designers then propose ways of meeting the need. At this time, sales people begin promotional campaigns to inform the public that a product is going to be available soon. The final engineering design is then transferred to manufacturing, and finished products are channeled to potential customers through the appropriate distribution channels. This is how demand and offer work in theory. In real life, the mysterious variable of human psychopathology enters the economic relationship. In one scenario, a manufacturer makes an outstanding product, but the public does not want it, because the taste of the public is not in tune with the offer. At other times, some customers want to buy a real bread, but commercial American bakeries keep making the same old junk they were baking 50 years ago. Naturally, bakeries make the junk bread because people buy it. Call it psychopathology or tradition, the consumers and the producers are locked in a relationship that resists a change for the better. As another example, many people would like to buy small desktop computers, but the industry, with the exception of a few companies, keeps manufacturing big boxes with a lot of empty space inside. The discrepancies between what the market offers and what the consumer wants are particularly prominent in the field of photography. CAMERA PRODUCERS There was a time when small and big cameras could produce high quality pictures. The combination of the lens and the film largely determined the picture quality. Some companies were major suppliers of high-quality films (Fuji, Kodak, and Agfa, for example), while others built lenses (Canon, Nikon, Carl Zeiss), and some producers focused their operations on the assembly of whole cameras. Nowadays, film cameras are disappearing, and most cameras are digital. The digital camera receives an image through a lens, focuses the light on a detector (usually a charge coupled device - CCD), which converts the optical signals to digital signals. Through the magic of software processing, the raw data are combined in such a way that a good image comes out. The various components of the camera can still be supplied by different producers, but the overall performance of the camera is now much more dependent on the final manufacturer who puts all the pieces together. It is no secret that manufacturers are in business to make money. The ancient enthusiasm of individual workshop owners and the pride in their products are over. Nowadays, high-tech industries are dominated by large corporations. Their bottom line is profit. The big companies care little about product quality, performance, reliability, appeal, desirability, customer satisfaction, or social need. The issue of making profit overrides any other considerations, and manufacturers are often willing to sell substandard products to make money. Even the most reputable manufacturers do not always give buyers an honest deal. Although blatant dishonesty of the past century has been replaced with marketing gimmicks, producers have found "honest" ways to legally extort an extra buck. As an example, manufacturers of color printers have implemented technical measures to prevent users from getting inexpensive inks from a third party. This strategy is very profitable because one set of ink cartridges can be more costly than the printer itself. Camera manufacturers use the same approach when designing power sources. Instead of allowing users to buy inexpensive AAA or AA cells, camera producers design their own batteries. The reason is not to make the battery fit the camera, but to make money. Few photographers dare to leave home without a backup battery. Buying a second battery is a predictable behavior. A proprietary battery typically costs between $40 and $60. Two regular AA rechargeable NiHM cells cost between $5 and $10. They can be plugged into a generic charger at home or in a car. Instead, camera buyers have to buy an expensive proprietary charger when purchasing a camera. Some producers can afford to commit this form of marketing extortion without penalties because their products are superior and are in demand. As long as customers are willing suckers, they will be paying the extra money for unnecessary proprietary technology. Another way to make profit in the camera business is to sell poor quality. If a camera producer sells a product that has great usability, wonderful performance, and is reliable for 20 or 30 years, the producer does not make much money, even if the wonderful product is the most desirable in the world. Something has to be done to make people buy a camera more often, preferably every year. The automotive industry figured out how to do this in the 1950's. An American family had to have a new car every 3 years to keep up with the Joneses. Exploiting the psychopathology of the masses, the automotive industry made handsome money. The camera industry does the same thing today by employing the following strategies: Cameras are made from cheap plastics in the hope that the products will break Cameras do not have the best possible performance to make customers buy a slightly improved model that is just about to be released (next year). Cameras do not have the desirable performance built in, but the user can achieve the function or the quality by buying accessories, such as lenses, filters, or battery packs. Cameras that are very popular and last forever are discontinued. They are produced no more, and a substandard product replaces them. CAMERA BUYERS Cameras are widely used by millions of people around the world. Having the ability to record one's experiences is very important to all humans. Almost every family living in a rich country has some kind of camera. How we record, value, and interpret images influences development of photographic equipment. Both users and manufacturers have major impact on new products. Oftentimes, the desires of users dominate, and manufacturers produce cameras of low quality or poor usability simply because the users want such products in exchange for low cost. To understand the influence of buyers on product development, it is important to learn who buyers are. They fall in distinct groups: snappers geeks hackers hobbyists professionals Snappers Snappers represent the majority of all people and camera users. Snappers just take pictures with no regard for composition, quality, or purpose of the captured images. A family gathers, and everyone snaps pictures. Family travels outside the city limits, and cameras are busy again. Family goes on a vacation, and snappers are having a party. Seeing them is action is an unforgettable experience. Years ago in the Blue Ridge Mountains National Park, a family of four, each equipped with a camera, completely surrounded a deer with a young one and kept snapping like crazy. No composition, no regard for the animals, no purpose. Just having a camera in the hands drives a snapper to snap compulsively. In Colorado, a couple of old women from Texas got a few miles west of Boulder, when they noticed a small creek falling down from an incredible height of eight inches. The women succumbed to frenzy and kept snapping as if they were mad. They have never seen an 8-inch high waterfall. On the southern rim of the Grand Canyon, an older woman was about to capture the beauty. She walked as close as she could to the rim to record the view of rocks several miles away. "Ma'am," a photographer addressed her, "you can get a better picture if you step ten feet to the left and slightly back. That way you will get a nice frame with the foreground and with tree branches hanging overhead." And the old woman replied, "Oh, we are no photographers. We just take pictures." And she ignored the advice. In Paris at the Eiffel tower, a young American couple are having an experience of a lifetime. They take pictures of themselves and show them to their friends when they return home. "This is under the Eiffel tower in Paris," the wife says. "Really? And where is the tower?" The wife frantically searches for a piece of the structure. "It's just above us. You can't see it in the picture. But is is there." These examples demonstrate the mentality of snappers. The have poor artistic sense and predominantly take pictures of themselves. They love pictures that have bright and saturated colors with happy faces. This is what the camera industry is nurturing. The skies have to be bluer than blue, cheeks have to be bright red, grass has to be saturated green, clouds have to be snow-white, and everyone must be smiling. It is clear that snappers have no interest in photography; they want to see themselves. This psychological condition is a mild form of narcissism. Not surprisingly, snappers are self-centered and perceive themselves important. What kind of camera do snappers need? Snapper want a pocket-sized camera with minimum controls. A point-and-shoot camera is more than adequate for these creatures. Since snappers are not technically sophisticated, they have no concept of image quality. Snappers are easily swayed into buying more camera than they need. If a camera has 16 megapixels (MP's), snappers will prefer it to one that has just 10 MP's. Money is often unimportant. Snappers will go for it. The detail that the 16 MP camera has a poorer image quality is of no concern. The camera has more megapixels, shows more detail, and thus must be a better camera. Similarly, snappers have no concept of usability or practical value. They may use the camera only once a year, but they are happy to know that they have the best tool available. The fact is that about 90% of all pictures snappers take are of themselves. The photographed subjects are only feet away. Hence, snappers need no zoom. Any 50 mm fixed lens focused between 1 meter and infinity will do. Naturally, snappers are impulsive creatures and need to see the results of their work instantly. They must have a camera with an LCD display. Geeks Geeks include nerds. These humanoids are attracted to products at the cutting edge of technology, cameras that have numerous functions and countless customizable options. The less usable and more complex the camera is, the more geeks love the device. The sheer challenge of lousy usability drives geeks to master the technology. Geeks do not want a camera, but a tool that extends their abilities and poses a mental challenge. The tool becomes an inseparable part of their mental selves. Hackers Hackers are essentially snappers with big drive to be like professional photographers. They do not mind spending money on equipment, but they use their expensive gadgets the same way as snappers do. Hackers have only superficial understanding of photographic techniques. Even worse, they have a twisted sense of beauty. Because of this mental deficit, hackers never become good photographers. They spend countless hours on their activities, but are incapable of getting rid of their crude values and methods. The problem is mental. Hobbyists Hobbyist love to experience the world through pictures and use pictures as triggers to such experiences. To a hobbyist, taking a picture is a very emotional/spiritual matter. Similarly as geeks, hobbyists desire cameras that allow image manipulation. The motivation of hobbyists is vastly different, however. They want to capture scenes that best activate emotions and aesthetic responses. Simplicity and usability are important to hobbyists. They want to capture mood and not just a still copy of and object or scene. For these reasons, hobbyists must have an optical viewfinder of high quality. It serves as a window into and a connection with the visual world. A true hobbyist does not need an LCD to see the recorded picture instantly. On the other hand, hobbyists like to wait for the pictures. The hope and expectation that everything will come out just right is a strong motivator for hobbyists. Seeing the results instantly on a display would be like revealing to a reader of a detective story the identity of the murderer in the first chapter. Professionals Professionals are people who do photography for living. They can belong to any of the above groups. A prominent trait of professionals is that they take pictures for profit. Being able to immediately see the taken picture is of high importance to professionals. They want a big LCD screen with endless resolution and image quality. They do not mind carrying heavy equipment that guarantees technically advanced photographs. Many professionals have become lazy over the years and need a camera that is automatized as much as possible. This is why professionals often desire a large adjustable LCD on a swivel arm. FACTORS OF GOOD CAMERA DESIGN Design of goods is perhaps the most important phase of industrial production. Design affects the desirability of the final product, the cost of manufacturing, usability, and benefit to a buyer. Design is where many influences compete. Manufacturing wants something that can be easy to produce. Marketing wants functions, features, and bigger marketability than the competitors offer. Engineers want performance and technological "elegance." Buyers often want something useful at a reasonable price. Corporate management wants profits, and particularly quick and big profits. Canon, as a leading camera producer, has enjoyed tremendous business success. Canon products are recognized as some of the best, and sales have been high for years. Surprisingly, not even Canon has escaped the effects of industrial psychopathology. One of Canon's very successful product of the year 2008 was the Canon Powershot A590 IS camera. It offered numerous features, which are often lacking even on digital SLR's. The camera works with AA batteries, has an optical viewfinder, has manual and automatic operating modes, provides image stabilization, can capture both single shots and videos, has many customizable options, and yet, as a whole, this promising product is incredibly bad. This fact makes little difference now. The camera has been removed from stores to make place for new models. Naturally, all the promised accessories have disappeared along with the camera. There are still some businesses that offer the camera on the internet, but finding the camera in retail stores will be difficult after June 2009. Nevertheless, Canon PS A590 IS has offered a valuable lesson about economics, industrial design, and emotional intelligence.   There is a saying that too many cooks spoil the broth. Similarly, the broth can be spoiled by too many first-class ingredients. This is the case of the Canon PS A590 IS. In addition to wanting to do too much and satisfy every possible user at the cost of quality, the manufacturer made some bad design decisions. Almost every review complains about the plastic tripod mount. The mount is made from plastic and has been moved to one side of the camera. Similarly, every other review criticizes the placement of a play/shoot button on the camera. The function of this button could have been incorporated into the LCD menu. Since the camera has options that are treasured by hobbyists (optical viewfinder, manual controls, and AA batteries, and is shaped like and SLR), one would hope that the product would target hobbyists. This does not seem to be so. The camera has several serious flaws to be favored by hobbyists. The menus are overwhelming and usability is substandard. The battery compartment has a schizophrenic way to close the cover: push button while pulling the lid. Poor design! The ability to capture video is not necessary for hobbyists. It should be left out. If implemented anyway, it should only have one format with best quality and frame rate. The camera is too small to hold comfortably. Even though this is a Japanese camera and probably better fits small Japanese hands, the product is a classical example of how not to do human engineering and user interface. On the one hand, the camera is supposed to be compact and should fit in a pocket of a jacket, and on the other hand, the camera strives to look like an SLR. These incompatible approaches guarantee that the camera is neither. It cannot be put in the pocket of the pants with ease, and it is too small to feel comfortable in one's hands. A photo enthusiast needs a product that naturally fits human hands and becomes an extension of the body and soul. Either too big or too small aspects violate this unspoken need. Similarly important is the overall impression. A photographer who is constantly worried that he has accidentally touched and reset one of the small control buttons will not like working with the camera. An enthusiast likes a camera that is sturdy and handles mistakes and abuse well. The LCD screen violates this expectation. The user worries that the display will be scratched or broken while taking the camera for a trip into the wilderness or a busy city. These worries are difficult to overcome when the vulnerable appearance of the product suggests otherwise. The zoom settings are not displayed in the menus. The viewfinder is too small and rather inaccurate to support good composition. The viewfinder should be made prominent and of very good quality. By contrast, the LCD display is not essential. A small display can be used to view the camera settings instead. This approach would maximize battery life. Users who must have an LCD for image viewing should be given an optional high-resolution screen. Since the camera appears to target hobbyists, a synchronization line to an external flash should be provided. The "easy mode" on the Canon PS A590 is a joke. The flash cannot be disabled permanently. A new selection has to be made for every shot. The same deficit also affects other functions. They cannot be selected permanently. The mode switch on the top of the camera is unnecessary. All the shooting options can be incorporated into one scrolling menu of the display. Some shooting options are totally unnecessary. The P function and AUTO could be combined into auto. And AUTO should not select ISO values. This parameter should be selected by the user, as it is done on standard film cameras by choosing the appropriate film. In fact, the distinction between AUTO and manual operation should be abandoned. The camera should be shooting in AUTO mode with some manually preset parameters, such as ISO. When the user selects an aperture setting other than AUTO, the camera should automatically switch to that kind of operation; that is AUTO with aperture priority. When both aperture and shutter speed are selected, the camera should interpret the input as manual mode. In this mode, the camera should display the proper shutter and aperture values for AUTO mode, so that the user can adjust the manual settings if needed. On the Canon PS A590 IS, many images shot in AUTO mode are about 2/3 to 1 stop underexposed and have a brownish hue. Image quality, although described by some as excellent for this camera type, is unsatisfactory. Dynamic range is insufficient. The user has to make sure to get the exposure just right. On a sunny day, even slight overexposure produces uniform bright spots where the sun hits, while even mild underexposure turns shady areas into uniformly dark spots. This problem disappears under overcast skies, when the difference between bright and dark areas is reduced. Color saturation is often too high. Furthermore, minor gradients in color saturation are not reproduced well. The whole leaf of a plant is often uniformly green, even though eyes can easily see changes in color and saturation. Adjustment of tone (white balance) is best when left on auto. Both indoor shots with flash and outdoor shots have led to this conclusion. Many scenes cannot be compensated well by any of the options. It seems that the camera software attempts to do more than the hardware is capable of. This type of problem also exists in other functions. For example, the depth of field is wide and does not support significant background blur when taking portraits with a fully extended telephoto. Similarly, ISO 800 is practically unusable because of too much noise. Simplification of the menus to one screen would allow a clean user interface. Every setting would be easy to change and would be seen at a glance. The selected functions should have two modes of permanency. Values selected should stay active until the settings are changed by user or the camera is turned off. Values stored should be automatically retrieved when the camera is turned back on. These two modes would allow to set values for a shooting session or for the usual kind of work. In reality, the selected settings are often reset to defaults after the first shot. A ridiculous function is the self-timer. This function is used seldom. It is enough to allow one shot 10 seconds after the trigger is pressed. There is no need for fine timing increments, multiple shots, and other marketing gimmicks. Another overdone function is the ability to print directly from the camera. Almost every photography hobbyist does post-processing and cropping of the taken images. The Canon software allows to do cropping very nicely, even though simplification of the process is highly desirable. There are too many steps and screen levels before the correct menu is reached. Having the ability to save frequently used settings, such as cropping size, and activate them as defaults would be nice. The Canon Powershot 590 IS, in addition to the main AA batteries, has a tiny battery to keep the time. Having an extra battery just for the clock seems like an overkill. One really has to wonder how important it is to have the correct date available. If so, is it necessary to use an extra battery? Would it not be better to use the AA batteries to power the clock and adjust the time whenever batteries are replaced? The time setting menu could be displayed automatically, and the user could decide whether to input the date or to skip the step. The four-way control switch has two features readily available at the top and bottom positions. They are the zoom/macro and flash/no flash settings. It is very easy to accidentally hit the four-way switch and change the settings without noticing the mistake. It is unclear why these rarely used functions have been placed on the four-way switch. Perhaps to annoy the user or to ensure that he is paying attention at all times? Again, it seems that the manufacturer implemented a function only because the technology is available. The four-way switch is totally unnecessary. It costs extra money, occupies space, and creates a poor user interface. The camera manifests a recurrent problem. The manufacturer has poor philosophy regarding the purpose of the camera. It appears that the camera should not only be able to take pictures, but also post-process them, and perhaps even print them. This approach is not a good one. The camera should be limited to taking pictures. Similarly, most song writers should not sing their songs. This activity should be left to specialists who can do a better job. This is why a camera should only record images. A software on a personal computer should do image post-processing (trimming, color adjustment, resizing, or changing resolution and quality) to best match the images to the medium of rendition. A printer connected to the computer should print the pictures. In reality, the camera has output for direct connection to a printer, menu My Colors Mode to essentially duplicate post-processing functions, and video connection to a computer screen. These features are totally unnecessary in a camera and should be mediated by a personal computer. True, not every snapper with a digital camera has a computer and may be unable to change his pictures to sepia or black-and-white. Or was the camera designed for geeks? Again, it is unclear who the intended customer is. The camera allows various settings of file sizes and image resolutions. They are not necessary. If a photographer wanted to shoot at low resolution, the need could have been solved by buying a low-resolution camera. Photographers typically want high-quality pictures, and capturing best image is imperative. Later the pictures can be altered to make them fit specific application. It is uncommon that an enthusiast would want to shoot at low resolution. It is much better to get rid of these options in the camera and do image post-processing on a computer. As a camera for hobbyists, the A590 should have image quality that is better than found in common consumer-oriented cameras. Using a larger sensor would help tremendously. Pocket-sized cameras have high pixel density, typically between 30 and 40 MP/cm². Even the best compact cameras have small sensors with high pixel density. Representative camera models are the Canon PS A590 (32 MP/cm²), Canon PS G7 (26 MP/cm²), Nikon Coolpix P5100 (29 MP/cm²), and Canon PS G10 (34 MP/cm²). The high density of pixels causes increased noise at high ISO settings, introduces high noise at low-light conditions, and reduces dynamic range (the difference between dark and bright image areas). To overcome these problems, high-quality digital SLRs use very low pixel density. The smallest digital SLR, Olympus E420, which has a mediocre image quality by SLR standards, has a sensor with pixel density of 4.1 MP/cm². SLR Canon EOS 560D has a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm². Nikon SLR's D40, D60, and D90 have pixel densities of 1.6, 2.7, and 3.3 MP/cm², respectively. Sigma DP1 and Sigma DP2, which are compact cameras, also use large sensors and achieve 1.6 MP/cm² along with unsurpassed image quality among compact cameras. The cameras are expensive, about $400 for DP1 and about $600 for DP2 despite having only fixed lenses of 28 mm and 41 mm, respectively. ISO values should only include the settings of 80 and 400. Higher settings are unusable with the existing sensor because of too much noise. A bigger sensor would still struggle to keep the noise acceptable at ISO 800. An ISO of 200 is halfway between the other two settings and is neither fast nor slow. It can be skipped. Relative to its predecessor, Canon A720 IS, image quality of the A590 IS is lower, and the frame rate in the video mode is only 20 fps, rather than the expected 30 fps. This reduction in performance clearly indicates that newer does not mean better. The regression also points out the lacking emotional intelligence of the producer. Countless people have complained about the reduced frame rates and have not bought the camera simply because of this reason. Again, the producer chose to implement many functions and do them poorly, rather than to deliver quality in a few functions. It is well known that the marriage of a camera with a camcorder is rarely good. In this case, the marriage should be dissolved. Both parties would be happier. The Mode dial at the top of the camera is unreadable. The pictorial symbols are difficult to see or interpret. If not for the LCD display, the user would be only guessing what mode the camera is in. Naturally, the key indicator of a poor design is a control knob or button that has different functions in different menus. Canon managed to commit this juvenile error several times. The implementation of the Canon Powershot A590 IS indicates that making a bad product is not a matter of technology, but bad human decisions. Any major camera producer has the ability to make a good product and can grab the leading position in the camera world if the product is properly implemented as a whole. The A590 has great technological abilities, but the way they have been implemented is disastrous. The many menus are difficult to find and have several levels of depth. These features along with unnecessary functions and poor user interface have resulted in a user unfriendly product, which, despite its theoretical abilities, is of low value to the user. All the menus, physical switches, and various positions of the switches could be dramatically simplified. The various menus could be merged into one screen. There would be no automatic mode, no easy automatic mode, no manual mode, or similar nonsense. The camera would work in a hybrid AUTO/MANUAL mode. All functions would be AUTO unless specified otherwise. Selection of a value other than AUTO would automatically disable AUTO for the given function and employ the manually selected value. Some functions, such as ISO would have to be set manually or left on the power-up default of 80. Most importantly, all control settings should be displayed on a small LCD next to the optical viewfinder. For many photographers, there is no need for a large LCD display. A properly designed optical viewfinder and a small LCD display with camera settings is all that is needed. Removal of the big LCD saves cost, batteries, reduces camera thickness and weight, and improves survivability in the field. Other features that should be redesigned are these: LED signaling on most camera conditions (remove) microphone (remove) speaker (remove) image LCD (remove) changing recording pixels menu (only implement max resolution) changing the compression menu (only implement best image quality) image stabilizer menu (only implement "shoot only" option) digital zoom (remove) movie mode (remove) mode dial button (remove) mode switch button (remove) simplify self-timer menu to one setting of 10 seconds ISO menu (only provide ISO 80 and 400) consolidate the mode dial menus into one LCD menu screen checking the focus and people's expressions menu (delete) checking focus after shooting menu (delete) setting the display overlays (delete menu) categorizing images automatically (delete menu) registering settings to the transfer button (delete menu) resizing of recording pixels (delete menu) print settings (remove menu, only print from a computer) image transfer settings (simplify menu) video connectors (remove) remove "flash" and "macro" from the 4-way button get rid of the silly expression "drive mode" and use the word "self-timer" instead simplify most options under the MENU button to one value. Document these settings in the User's Guide. After seeing these recommendations, the Canon people may think, But without these functions, we would have nothing to sell. Canon would have plenty to sell: quality lenses, quality image processing technology, and quality cameras. The point is that Canon should stop selling gimmicks and useless functions, and focus on making quality cameras as it used to do in the film era. If they do not get it, some other company will take the lead. WHAT DOES AN IDEAL CAMERA LOOK LIKE? The industry has been unable to produce the right camera for hobbyists. One reason is that no camera can satisfy everyone. Another reason is that marketing pressures may not allow engineers to design a camera for a specific group of users. For example, few cameras are specifically designed for hobbyists who want high image quality and wish to have more flexibility than auto mode, but are not professionals. If such a camera existed, many professionals and semi-professionals would love to carry it around during everyday shooting. Can such a camera be made? Yes, of course. The technological issues have been solved a long time ago. The reasons such a camera has not been manufactured are mental and political. Psychopathology is behind them. Psychopathology makes people stupid and crooked. Stupidity prevents manufacturers from making sensible decisions when planning a new camera, and crooked characters of corporations prevent them from making a product that would be of high quality and would last a lifetime. That is not how camera producers make money. They want photographers to buy a new camera every year. If someone decided to produce a timeless (durable and with no need for technological upgrades) camera for hobbyists, the device could have features like these: Image Quality Image quality is desired by many camera users. Under perfect conditions, image quality can satisfy virtually all snappers, but even they see problems when light is dim. Amateur photographers want more than point-and-shoot image quality. To satisfy this need, a bigger sensor has to be employed. Since large sensors are expensive, a tradeoff needs to be found between image quality and sensor size. Camera Size Camera size is a frequently mentioned objection when photographers consider whether or not to take out an SLR on an average day. The popular SLR Nikon D40 is 3.7 x 5.0 x 2.5 inch large and weighs 16.6 ounces. When one holds the camera, the size seems big, even though the weight is not as objectionable. The smallest SLR, the Olympus E-420, is 3.6 x 5.1 x 2.1 inch large and weighs 13.4 ounces. Even this camera size is way too big for casual or comfortable carrying around. The E-420 still manifests its presence on every step and immediately attracts attention. These facts indicate that even the smallest SLR is not small enough. A smaller sensor could allow the construction of an SLR camera that is about 75-80% of the Olympus E420. The camera would nicely fit in most hands, would be lightweight, and would be small enough to carry comfortably. Since weight changes with the cube of linear dimension, linear reduction to 80% would lead to just 51% of the original weight. A camera reduced to 75% would weigh just 42% of the original. These are dramatic changes in both camera weight and volume. By contrast, the linear dimensions need to be considered more carefully to get an optimum size. If the Olympus E-420 were reduced to 80%, the camera would have the size of 2.9 x 4.1 x 1.7 inches and would weigh 6.9 ounces. The dimensions are close to those of Canon Powershot G9, which has the size of 2.8 x 4.2 x 1.7 inches and weighs 11.3 ounces. Examination of the Canon A590 IS suggests that a reasonable-size camera that comfortably fits in human hands should be larger, about 2.75 x 4.25 x 1.8 inch (70 x 108 x 46 mm). The calculated weight, relative to the Canon A590 IS, is about 8.6 ounces (240 grams). The body is plastic. A metal body would weigh more, perhaps 11.5 ounces (320 grams). The numbers indicate that a suitable-size camera that fits in human hands should be about 2.8 x 4.2 x 1.7 inches large (71 x 107 x 43 mm) and would probably weigh between 7 and 11.5 ounces (between 200 and 320 grams). An important issue in this consideration is where to draw the line between camera sensor size and image quality. Michael Reichmann argues that doubling of pixels only noticeably improves image quality, while dramatic improvement requires four-fold increase [1]. The 4/3" sensor (17.3 x 13.0 mm), despite being slightly smaller than other SLR sensors, has the ability to produce high quality images. Photographers who use the 4/3" Olympus cameras report excellent image quality when raw data are captured and post-processed [2]. If the 4/3" sensor were scaled down by the factor of 0.75, the reduction in image quality should be acceptable. The sensor size would be (0.75x17.3) x (0.75x13.0) = 12.98 x 9.75 = 127 mm2. It just happens that a sensor with the size of 123 mm2 has been established; it is the 1" sensor. This sensor is not currently used in digital cameras, even though various blog sites hint that such a sensor is needed as a compromise between image quality on one side, and camera size and cost on the other. If the 1" sensor were employed, it would have an area that is 123/40.4 = 3.04 times larger than that of the celebrated Canon Powershot G10. And the 1" sensor would be 123/25 = 4.9 times larger than that of the Canon Powershot A590, which was voted the best compact camera of the year 2008. The numbers suggest that an upgrade to the 1" sensor would be worthwhile from the viewpoint of image quality. Interestingly, this compromise would also improve the depth of field. It is a fact that small sensors have very wide depth of field, while large sensors have very narrow depth of field. The 1" sensor would produce consistently decent depth of field when used in combination with a lens supporting apertures between 2.8 1/f and 11 1/f. The numbers hint that it is feasible to produce a small SLR with very good image quality. Not as good image quality as with a regular-size SLR, but much better than with the Canon PS G10. Interestingly, it has been reported that the G10 has no better image quality than the Canon SD-series cameras with 10 MP resolution. The reason is that the G10 has 15 million of tightly packed small pixels. The benefit of increased resolution has been largely offset by higher pixel density, smaller pixel size, and increased noise. Thus, it appears that the 75-80% SLR with a reasonable number of pixels would be a significant upgrade to the Canon G10. It might seem that using the 4/3" sensor in the 75-80% camera would be better. But the E-420 is about as small as an SLR can be made with the 4/3" sensor. Further reduction of this camera type is impractical. However, Olympus has developed a non-SLR compact camera, the micro Four Thirds E-P1, by getting rid of the mirror box and mirror in the Olympus E-620. The modified product looks like a 1959 model Olympus camera and has a hopelessly outdated aesthetic appeal. Like with many other cameras of the compact size, the user cannot get a good grip, because the body is flat and small. Furthermore, image composition is done on an LCD! And that is something many hobbyists will not accept. They must have an optical viewfinder (OVF). An LCD display or an electronic viewfinder (EVF) will not do. An electronic viewfinder can draw as much power as the big LCD does, and the image is flat. It is difficult to get any sense of space and distance with an electronic viewfinder. Furthermore, electronic viewfinders are often unusable indoors or at low light levels outside. An option would be to use an optical tunnel viewfinder of the type found on the Canon Powershot A590. The viewfinder, despite its small size, performs very well. The coverage is 85%, and image clipping only occurs at macro. In most shooting situations, the viewfinder has big safety margins in all directions, down to 2 feet from the photographed subject. Naturally, the accuracy, size, and performance of the viewfinder would have to be improved to make it worthy of the intended camera. Some change in design philosophy is long overdue. Camera manufacturers have traditionally been placing optical viewfinders off the axis of the lens to save a few millimeters of camera height. With sufficient camera height, the viewfinder can be centered above the lens to minimize horizontal paralex errors. The only paralex errors would exist in the vertical direction. Such errors can be compensated even in the macro mode after gaining some experience with the camera. Hence, using the 4/3" sensor in a compact non-SLR camera could work well, and the twice larger sensor area, relative to the 1" sensor, would be worth the improvement. The image quality would be comparable to an entry-level SLR. Interestingly, the resulting camera would have mostly average performance if individual parameters were considered. The strong trait of the camera would be superior integration of standard features into an all-around solid product. The Optimum Camera Could Look Like This Shape: shaped like an SLR, whether a true SLR or not Body size: about 71 x 107 x 43 mm + lens (roughly the size of Canon Powershot G9). Weight: 200-320 grams Viewfinder: superior/excellent optical viewfinder with more than 97% coverage in an SLR; close to 90% coverage in a compact. The viewfinder is the most important aspect of user interface and must be really good. Resolution: Six MP would be enough, but more pixels are needed for image cropping. Since cropping usually discards between 5% and 15% of the original image, 7 MP would be a good compromise between resolution and pixel density for the 1" sensor. The 4/3" sensor could have a resolution of 8 MP. Pixel Density: 5.7 MP/cm2 with 1" sensor; 3.6 MP/cm2 with 4/3" sensor Image Stabilization: yes Focusing: auto & manual Battery: 4 x AA NiHM Battery life: 1000 pictures (no flash) Lens: Zoom equivalent 28-105 mm; f/2.8-f/4 Aperture settings: 2.8/f through 11/f Built-in flash: 5-6 meters effective range. Body: metal Color: dark/saturated to project an appearance of quality Controls: Minimized to bare essentials Retail Price: $400 Options: To satisfy a wider customer base, the camera could also be offered with an LCD display and with lenses for wide-angle and telephoto shots. Very few other options should exist beyond that. Camera manufacturers need to understand that less is more. The JPEG format should be sufficient for most hobbyists, but raw data would be welcome by serious amateurs and professionals, and should be provided on a camera intended for hobbyists. The analysis has exposed an unexpected phenomenon. Most SLR's have big sensors and large pixels. The proposed 75-80% SLR, using the 1" sensor, would have pixel density of 5.7 MP/cm2, while the compact non-SLR camera, using the 4/3" sensor, would have pixel density of 3.6 MP/cm2. The difference in pixel area is about 60%, and the compact camera should have better performance. Under the circumstances, one has to wonder whether or not it would make sense to build an SLR with lower sensor performance. The main advantage of the SLR would be accurate image composition. That might be enough for many photographers to chose the SLR with a smaller sensor over the compact with a larger sensor. In addition, the SLR could use smaller and less expensive lenses, which might offset any extra costs associated with the SLR mirror and mirror box. In all likelihood, both camera types would work well and would be a welcome upgrade to existing compact-size cameras. CONCLUSION A very good camera that is affordable, highly portable, and has very good image quality can be built at the current level of technological know-how. Few companies have attempted to make such a camera in the past. Most manufacturers have decided to play financial games with consumers and maximize profit. Only recently, Sigma and Olympus have built compact cameras with large sensors. The results have been very good but also disappointing. Despite the large sensors, the products have serious limitations. Sigma has made the camera too small and limited the lens to a fixed type. Olympus has failed to provide an optical viewfinder. Both manufacturers have failed in user interface and human engineering. The reasons for the deficits are not technical, but purely mental. The above mentioned examples manifest that lack of emotional intelligence is a serious problem affecting the whole mankind, and little can be done about it. Welcome to the planet earth. REFERENCES [1] Michael Reichmann (1995-2009). Understanding Sensor Design. Retrieved June 30, 2009 from http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/sensor-design.shtml [2] photo.net (June 2009). Does Four-Thirds have to noisier? Retrieved June 30, 2009 from http://photo.net/olympus-camera-forum/00Ta6D
Top of Page
Updated Jan 6, 2010		Unpublished work © 2000-2010 Lucid Pages. All rights reserved.