Part of my job is teaching photography, part is selling cameras and the thing that keeps coming home to me at the moment is; “We must teach (individual) camera before we can teach photography”.

Let me put this into some context.

Up to the 1980’s a photography course could be taught without any consideration needed for different camera models or brands. A Pentax, Nikon or Canon in the same group would have a shutter speed dial, lens aperture ring and ISO dial. These are the pillars of all camera’s operation. The placement of these controls would vary and some models (generally entry level, fixed lens cameras) would have simplified symbols such as a mountain rather than F16 for landscapes, but when the instructor said “now change your aperture to “X” ”, everyone was on the same page.

From the 80’s to the mid 2000’s, even considering the change to digital, the basic layout of a Canon, a Nikon etc was pretty much unchanged, but now cameras are very different from each other brand to brand. This strengthened brand loyalty, as people tended to stick to what they knew.

Often the brands had three levels of SLR; the entry level, heavily dependant on the mode dial and scenery modes, the mid level or pro-am models with more (often the most) controls as reliance on scene modes and semi-professional options had to co-exist and the top end pro models with their very workman-like interface, but going from one model of EOS or Nikon to the next had a gentle adjustment curve.

In the last few years all of the rules of predictable transition seem to have gone out the window.

This makes teaching and learning photography difficult. A mixed group of new camera owners, spread over 4-6 brands, 2-3 levels of camera, 1-5 generations and with varied experience bring a huge number of variables to a photography classroom. “Change the ISO”, becomes a series of 1 on 1 menu explorations. Checking depth of field can sometimes leave a student falling behind as they struggle to understand the concept and work out how to apply it. Switching to manual focus, a basic function, can even be a crowd splitter. To be honest, a group of students, all with the same camera and at the same level is enough of a challenge.

One group I have taken included a novice with a brand new 5D3, an old hand trying digital with an EM5/2 (but bought their film camera just in case and kept trying to match features, just because they looked similar), a compact camera user who misunderstood what type of camera they had and ticked “SLR”, a user of an older DSLR who was quite proficient, but their camera lacked most of the features we talked about and a drop-in who was mostly interested in video-with a Go Pro.

Problematic?

I see three core reasons for this.

First, the brands are reinventing and transitioning into new operational forms, which for some brands seems to free up their thinking a lot. This is especially true of the more conservative brands, inventing button types and over-hauling interface with gusto. The “Z” series Nikons, for example, are quite different to any of the their full frame predecessors. The subtle differences between a D800/810/850 have become dramatic enough in the newer cameras to have the user thinking they have moved to a different brand or at least a different series/level of camera. This is good, but needs to settle down fast.

Next there is the stronger emphasis on live view and video. This has made the screen both bigger and more important. Slow at first to introduce touch screen tech and WiFi (another contributor to their loosing ground to phones), the latest batch of cameras can be considered to be fully operable from the screen and often with better responsiveness than previously. This is necessary and inevitable.

Lastly, is the reality that the Japanese companies and designers are always driven to add at least one feature of note with each new model. In the past a new sensor or improved AF were all that was desired and could be enough, but with many brands using the same sensors for several generations of camera* , the emphasis has switched to “fluff” features or interface fiddling. Video is the obvious upgrade engine, pushing still photography aside just as “surround sound” threatened to do to regular HiFi in the 90’s, but the other “gimmick” features are camouflaging the more important basics really well. This is marketing driven and damaging to still photography priorities.

Looking at Olympus as a good example.

I use the EM5 mk1, which I know enough about to get what I need accomplished without thought or undue process. Do I use and fully understand all of the features and terminology they offer? No and I never will unless I am forced to find out for someone else. I would bet that if I spent the time to fully master every feature the camera offered, something else, something central to the creative process would have to suffer**. These are pretty basic cameras by current standards.

I also use the Pen F, which is a sentimental favourite, but I have set it up to do one specific job (landscapes), so if quizzed on the spot about less used settings, like composite images, HDR, focus stacking, deep jpeg colour settings etc, then I have to sit done and go through the menu just like anyone else. Yes I do have a good idea where to look and whether there is anything to look for, but the differences between the Pen and the older OMD are significant, both in button placement and menu options. They are technically only a generation apart.

I also have the EM1 mk2, which has almost twice as many menu options, features and external buttons as the EM5 and many of these are differently located between the various cameras. It is pretty fair to say, that the three cameras would only share 20-25% of the same controls. Apart from the language being mostly the same, they may as well be made by different brands for all they share in common outside of branding and lens mount. I feel that if I added a Panasonic into the mix, the learning curve would be no greater. It may even be easier as the base language and feel would be different enough to remind me I have “changed hats”.

Then we come to my wife’s EM10 mk2 (and now mine thanks to an even harder to resist clearance sale). Another similar, but different interface :).

The Irony is, I really just want them to do the same things, the same way, but have to learn different ways of accomplishing that with very similar cameras.

I was a little embarrassed recently as the “Oly guy”, when asked on three occasions to find specific features on the EM5 mk2, a camera I have not owned, or used in the field. All of the questions were pretty reasonable, but I was stumped in the short term by all three. One camera had some features changed using the many custom options, but even then, they may as well have been on an unfamiliar brand. That was when it struck me that we are trying to teach photography, while, at the same time, teaching camera. Being comfortable with your own camera is a use driven dynamic, especially with applied customisation options. Being that comfortable with all current and recent cameras is unrealistic.

Olympus is by no means the worst offender and considering the depth of options they have introduced in a short time, there can be some concessions made.

Sony, with their RX100 mk1 to 7, A6000 to 6600 and A7 range (9 models and counting) are taking this same-but-different approach to new heights, especially as most of the models are on the market at the same time. Even if I worked in a Sony only camera shop, it would be a decent job keeping up. Fuji has been transitioning, firmware updating and reinventing for a while. Canon and Nikon have totally reinvented their thinking with mirrorless, but do not seem to have it knocked as of yet and Panasonic is just as guilty of constant generational change.

A customer/friend of mine and I spend 5 minutes recently trying to find a relevant feature on a major brand’s camera. Stubbornly we decided not to google it (which another staff member also tried without luck) as both of us felt the feature should be easily found and we both had some familiarity with the brand. Frustrated, he bought the camera knowing the feature was in the camera, but discovered it had been moved by a firmware upgrade between his reviewing and the purchase.

Even compact cameras can add un-needed variation. The Panasonic small sensor models disable custom control changes to their front control wheel when in Ai. The 1” models, cosmetically and operationally similar, but aimed at a more hands-on user, do not. No matter how sensible, even logical these little things seem, they trip us up all of the time. The expectation from the designers assumes that all of these little differences, that I often agree with, will be understood by a buying public, or that someone “buying to their level”, will appreciate their efforts without knowing the difference.

Looking around our shop there are usually 50-60 serious picture taking devices on the shelves. We also have 40 odd compacts, Polaroids, Drones, Video cameras and Action cams. This is not an exhaustive representation, but gives our customer in this small part of the world a decent enough range to pick from. That is 100+ individual menu and control interfaces, with as many as 300 (!) individual menu options each (try finding the command dial options on a Panasonic TZ, assuming you know what or why you are looking in the first place. They are on page 7 of the custom menu as long as you are not in Ai mode, which is about 40 options in, in the second-custom tool menu).

Rarely do they stick to the same terminology or conventions (A=AV=AP, S=SP=SV=TV etc) or menu lay-out and even more rarely do they use terms that are fully aligned with their application (should Vibration Reduction describe an optical stabiliser or mirror lock up?).

Fuji, with their old school/new school lay out are close, but their menus are diabolical to the uninitiated.

My last gripe is the removal of actual, useful features, such as lens barrel markings, or a simple, universal, mechanical remote cable connection (Pen F has one, which is one of the reasons I use it for landscape).

Here are a few things I have observed from my years around cameras;

1) No one knows all of the features of their camera inside and out unless they are gifted (not me) or have an actual use for all of the features the camera has and actually use them regularly.

2) No one is familiar with the basic interface of all brands unless it is their job and they are good at it.

3) No one needs/uses all of the features on even the most basic compact camera (but what do you leave out?)

4) The level of photographer understanding and ability is almost always below the potential of the camera (me included), which is good as long as it does not stand in the way of learning. Sometimes the camera is way more than is needed.

5) The amount of information out there is not helping people grasp the basics, but is empowering the photographically irrelevant.

If we want to grow the camera industry, should we be diluting the brand advantage (which was familiarity and consistency), increasing fluff features, mystifying the simple or driving the wave of unrealistic expectation?

Maybe if one brand, other than uber expensive Leica, went back to basics, they would find a market share no one else has identified? Maybe a camera with a “simple manual” mode as well as a dumb auto mode.

*The 24mp Full Frame used in most Nikon, Sony cameras for over 5 years and the 16mp M43 used in the Olympus and Panasonic range from the first OMD until the current base models for 7 years plus.

** This brings up the tension between basic creativity (fundamental controls and the physics of photography such as long exposure or handling based panning etc), vs camera dependant creativity through technical gimmicks, both great and small (such as composite techniques, colour or other manipulations). For this there is no easy line in the sand to draw. It is up to you what you define as too easy, cheating, gimmicky or irrelevant.