3 websites on E-3 interface issues...

[Raist3d]

There's now three websites talking about issues with the E-3 interface (that I know about). These AFAIK are photographers, not armchair guys.

That's Wrotniak who thought the UI was committee inspired design, Dough Brown at Luminous Landscape, and now John Foster:

biofos.com; Olympus E-3 review.

Check the "8 week update" for some interesting comments in that area.

And when I read all of these all I can do is nod in agreement. Now, I want to make one thing clear, while it's often feels nice to read a similar take on your point of view that further expands what you were thinking about - and that Olympus may start taking some notes for a post-E-3 design, I am not pretending by these comments that this will be everyone's experience.

Whoever likes the E-3 as is and works for you- big kudos, happy shooting, etc. That's great. Some people use program auto a lot, and if that works for you, well, great!

Just seems that for a segment of us a common theme on the E-3 UI is emerging. I think to me this sums up some of my recent conclusions when switching back to th e-410:

"Try as I will, the camera simply refuses to integrate with me and seems out of balance. It is nothing major, no single point that prevents this; just a few small (and to some users perhaps insignificant) things that combine to make the camera seem ill at ease with itself. In other words I have made a lot of allowances. If the E-3 simply has to be as large and bulky as it is, it should handle perfectly or else its size becomes more of an issue."

"It is also true that some of these observations/criticisms can be levelled at other E-cameras; but it is the E-3's weight and bulk that exacerbate these issues to the point when they become tiresome in regular use." (John Foster)

I am giving the E-3 a good spin this weekend.. if coming monday I still feel that way, I am selling it with reluctance because it really is a great camera. Or maybe I should wait first to confirm whatever e-410 successor (or e-510) comes along, will have the same sensor/jpeg color, etc.

To those that feel "odd" with the E-3, does this echo your experience? Is it a different "niggle" that bothers you? (interface wise, I would prefer to keep the discussion to the interface and not DR this, ISO noise that, thanks! )

- Raist

PS: This is really a post I did in dpreview, so the language is a bit more umm political in a way than I would use around Photocamel. dpreview can be nasty

[Mr. Pickles]

What do you think would be there comment if we took the latest Canon or Nikon "interface" and put it on the E-3?

More than likely the same thing.

Did Olympus change the "interface" from the E-1, or E-410, or E-510? Yes.

Does Canon and Nikon? Yes.

I think people only feel "odd" with it, because it is different than what they had yesterday. I think it is odd that when I rent a car, and they give me a Jeep Liberty this week, and a Ford Mustang next week. The Mustang feels odd.

[Raist3d]

Mr. Pickles, did you read the articles? I find myself in agreement with everything they have said pretty much. I would like to know where do you think it's a "getting used to" issue. Have you had a chance to handle the E-3?

- Raist

[Mr. Pickles]

I have read some of the "issues" with the interface. I don't have an E-3. I do have an E-510 and the interface stinks. Of course I was used to the E-1 interface.

In looking at the E-3 back and the button locations, I can see some I don't like the placement of, or the thinking there. But when I look at the Canon 40D I get the same thoughts. Especially when compared to my old Canon D60.

[Raist3d]

Well I suggest use one when you get the chance, let me know how it feels. Also I don't see how Canon doing a poor interface justifies the E-3 having a bad one (in my eyes).

- Raist

[Mr. Pickles]

It doesn't justify it. But it is one more example of the makers not leaving well enough alone. Fix it if they complain. Otherwise, leave it alone. Neither did or does.

[Raist3d]

Gotcha. The only reason I have decided to hold to the E-3 a big longer now is that I would think a company with millions of dollars for research would do a lot of use case-focus testing, and maybe it's one of those things you love once you learn something about it. But this hope is disappearing...

- Raist

[keepright]

As I wrote elsewhere, I do own the E-3, and am getting used to it. No, I don't think it's perfect, but:

Originally Posted by Raist3d

Check the "8 week update" for some interesting comments in that area.

The problem with the update and the conclusions is that they want contradictory things. For example, he likes (among other things that aren't related to our discussion): "The new viewfinder; inherent strength, indestructable feel; use of high quality materials." Dislikes are: Bulk and weight; small buttons; price.

The viewfinder has a large glass prism that is heavy and expensive, far more so than the mirror design of the E-xxx cameras. Inherent strength and quality materials (I'll include weather sealing in this) also adds bulk and weight. All of this adds cost over the similarly-spec'ed E-510. And while perhaps the buttons on the E-3 could be made larger, that may create problems with too-close spacing. You certainly don't get larger buttons on a smaller camera.

But the telling line for me is: "No one in the target market likes spending +£1000 on a camera body."

Well, I don't like spending anything on a camera body, but that doesn't mean it should be free. It is competitively priced and offers excellent value against cameras in its class - which does not include the 40D - and people are buying them. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Foster, but that just comes across as a whinge.

Everything is a compromise, and you can't always get what you want. If you try, and still don't get what you need, move on. The E-3 isn't the last camera Olympus will make. It isn't the only camera that Olympus makes. If you want to choose between a horse and a zebra, go ahead and pick based on colour, but don't demand the reach of a giraffe and then complain that your giraffe is too bulky.

[Paul Shields]

I'm not going to check those links as - really, what difference would it make to me? I like the E-3, it's behind the E-1 in certain areas but way ahead in others. It works very well and will keep me happy for a long time to come. I consolidated on Olympus when the E-3 came out as I felt I didn't need any other alternatives that are available. As Matthew says this isn't the last camera that'll come from Olympus - just the latest . It works very well, will take fantastic shots (if you have a fantastic subject ), and for me is good value for money.

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by keepright

As I wrote elsewhere, I do own the E-3, and am getting used to it. No, I don't think it's perfect, but:



The problem with the update and the conclusions is that they want contradictory things. For example, he likes (among other things that aren't related to our discussion): "The new viewfinder; inherent strength, indestructable feel; use of high quality materials." Dislikes are: Bulk and weight; small buttons; price.

I dont' think having bigger buttons is contradictory. I dont' think also he's complaining about the weight and bulk per se as much as mentioning that this is an allowance he was willing to make, and now then, on top of that, some things don't feel right to him.

The viewfinder has a large glass prism that is heavy and expensive, far more so than the mirror design of the E-xxx cameras. Inherent strength and quality materials (I'll include weather sealing in this) also adds bulk and weight. All of this adds cost over the similarly-spec'ed E-510. And while perhaps the buttons on the E-3 could be made larger, that may create problems with too-close spacing. You certainly don't get larger buttons on a smaller camera.

I really think that there's an issue with the left upper three buttons. They are just too close and can't be told appart easily one from the other.

But the telling line for me is: "No one in the target market likes spending +£1000 on a camera body."

Well, I don't like spending anything on a camera body, but that doesn't mean it should be free. It is competitively priced and offers excellent value against cameras in its class - which does not include the 40D - and people are buying them. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Foster, but that just comes across as a whinge.

Well, I certainly not going to agree with everything, but I do think at the $1,700 USD bracket the interface could be better. I dont' see the interface issue I am seeing as a compromise of the price bracket.

Everything is a compromise, and you can't always get what you want. If you try, and still don't get what you need, move on. The E-3 isn't the last camera Olympus will make. It isn't the only camera that Olympus makes. If you want to choose between a horse and a zebra, go ahead and pick based on colour, but don't demand the reach of a giraffe and then complain that your giraffe is too bulky.

Well certainly, that's what I have said Keep in mind, this is just a review and an opinion, like many new products that come out. Nobody knew it was a a particular animal until they used it.


- Raist

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

I'm not going to check those links as - really, what difference would it make to me? I like the E-3, it's behind the E-1 in certain areas but way ahead in others. It works very well and will keep me happy for a long time to come. I consolidated on Olympus when the E-3 came out as I felt I didn't need any other alternatives that are available. As Matthew says this isn't the last camera that'll come from Olympus - just the latest . It works very well, will take fantastic shots (if you have a fantastic subject ), and for me is good value for money.

Paul, that's cool. My intention is not that people go around and jump ship. If I sell my E-3 my next camera will be 99% likely an Olympus 4/3rds. I am watching what will happen in the 410 (or 510) space intently.

- Raist

[keepright]

I absolutely agree about the three buttons on the left hand side. I don't know who let that design out the door. I don't know what the best option would have been, but making the middle lozenge-shaped or having a bump on it would make finding and identifying them much easier. They shouldn't have let the design past the prototyping stage until a random person off the shop floor could learn how to change the basic controls it in thirty minutes blindfolded.

But I also get picky about these things. That's a standard that no camera meets.

And good design and interface issues should cost nothing. It shouldn't be a matter of price point, it should be a matter of pride.

But that's not to say that I agree with the criticisms of the E-3. A lot of the comments look for "intuitive" design. The biofos article uses the word seven times. But an intuitive design is one that can be deduced by intuition. There's no such thing with a camera.

Consider elevator buttons: It is intuitive that the call button to go "Up" is above the button to go "Down". There is a logical connection between their design and their purpose. It is intuitive that the higher floor numbers are at the top of the button panel, but putting the lower number on the left is not intuitive, it's based on convention. English is read left-to-right, but other languages are not. It makes sense to us because we're used to it, but it's not based on an inherent sensibility or logical relationship.

With the E-3, there's no inherent connection between which dial moves the cursor in a particular direction, or which dial changes which function with the AF and Drive buttons. It's an unintuitive design. But the positioning of the buttons is a question of ergonomics, not intuition, and ergonomics are subjective. I don't find the front control dial position difficult to reach with a normal grip, Mr. Foster does. Neither of us are wrong.

The E-1's design makes sense because we're used to it. The E-3 follows some of its conventions and breaks others significantly. The play buttons are in the same spot, but that's radically different from where it is on the E-300 and E-510. People coming from different cameras in the Olympus lineup are going to have very different experiences with the same control layout. People trying to adjust from different brands are going to have a completely different set of expectations.

I've read many comments from Canon and Nikon owners saying that they chose their particular brand because of the user interface, which makes perfect sense. It also makes perfect sense that people like or don't like the E-3 for the same reasons. Look at Windows and Mac OS -- those two products are all about user interface, and they're still trying to get it right.

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by keepright

I absolutely agree about the three buttons on the left hand side. I don't know who let that design out the door. I don't know what the best option would have been, but making the middle lozenge-shaped or having a bump on it would make finding and identifying them much easier. They shouldn't have let the design past the prototyping stage until a random person off the shop floor could learn how to change the basic controls it in thirty minutes blindfolded.

But I also get picky about these things. That's a standard that no camera meets.

And good design and interface issues should cost nothing. It shouldn't be a matter of price point, it should be a matter of pride.

But that's not to say that I agree with the criticisms of the E-3. A lot of the comments look for "intuitive" design. The biofos article uses the word seven times. But an intuitive design is one that can be deduced by intuition. There's no such thing with a camera.

I don't think this is an all or nothing thing. I mean, for example, John could be making quite the valid point about X & Y and be wrong or too picky about Z for someone. I don't see why the all-or nothing.

Consider elevator buttons: It is intuitive that the call button to go "Up" is above the button to go "Down". There is a logical connection between their design and their purpose. It is intuitive that the higher floor numbers are at the top of the button panel, but putting the lower number on the left is not intuitive, it's based on convention. English is read left-to-right, but other languages are not. It makes sense to us because we're used to it, but it's not based on an inherent sensibility or logical relationship.

With the E-3, there's no inherent connection between which dial moves the cursor in a particular direction, or which dial changes which function with the AF and Drive buttons. It's an unintuitive design. But the positioning of the buttons is a question of ergonomics, not intuition, and ergonomics are subjective. I don't find the front control dial position difficult to reach with a normal grip, Mr. Foster does. Neither of us are wrong.

Well I think cameras have been out long enough that some degree of convention can be established. A dial for modes for example, is a well known convention in a camera. However, talking on more intuitive perhaps, is the example Wrotniak gave- say you press the AF upper left hand side button- now quick, do you change the AF with the front dial or real dial? And what does the other do?

If you look at the LCD, there is no readily available way to tell because both are the same color. A simple color change would make a step towards intuitive better as it is easier to learn/associate this difference, perhaps with an overlay of a key to the dials... I agree there's no perfect interface but this is an example where I believe something could have been done better.

The E-1's design makes sense because we're used to it.

Actually I am not used to the E-1 design. I never had one. But what I do know is that the few times I have grabbed one, it all fits in my mind and I know what I need to do pretty much. This is a feeling I never quite get with the E-3 and I have had it now since last year.

The E-3 follows some of its conventions and breaks others significantly. The play buttons are in the same spot, but that's radically different from where it is on the E-300 and E-510. People coming from different cameras in the Olympus lineup are going to have very different experiences with the same control layout. People trying to adjust from different brands are going to have a completely different set of expectations.

This is fairly understandable, but speaking for myself, I can say that I knew where most things were the moment I picked up the E-1. And the E-1 has the buttons with enough size and space that allows for operations with gloves. I don't want to even begin to imagine someone changing ISO and AF and metering by pressing those tiny buttons, at the angle you have to, with gloves, on an E-3. For a "flagship camera" which is all weather, wouldn't you think this is an oversight, more so in light of its predecessor that allowed for this to be better?

I've read many comments from Canon and Nikon owners saying that they chose their particular brand because of the user interface, which makes perfect sense. It also makes perfect sense that people like or don't like the E-3 for the same reasons. Look at Windows and Mac OS -- those two products are all about user interface, and they're still trying to get it right.

Well yeah.. the issue is that you want a tool to get out of the way and be pretty much invisible. If the interface is not agreeable to your feel, then the tool will make its presence known every time ... and at worst, "fight with you."

- Raist

[Olyirrisistity]

Whatever you say, don't forget Confucius he said:
- Once someone's complained, there will be others who follow, with very similar things. That's how fashions often get started.
- Once the complaints are posted here, almost identical ones will be duplicated elsewhere and everywhere on the internet. That's how internet knowledge often gets desseminated and consolidated.


Happy Chinese New Year to all!

PS: I'm one happy E-3 user, by the way.