We need to talk about camera design... Again

Replay: Is it better to have a full-frame camera, a cine style camera, or a more traditional camera? Some think the answer is clear, but it really isn’t. However it is clear that camera design is in need of an overhaul.

RedShark has covered the issue of camera ergonomics extensively in the past. Both myself and regular contributor Roland Denning have always held opposing views when it comes to the subject of mirrorless cameras. But we do both agree that there is no substitute for good ergonomics. It’s just that, aside from ENG cameras, we disagree what constitutes ‘good ergonomics’!

Now, far be it for me to tell a cameraman of Roland’s vast experience how to suck eggs. We all have our own preferences. But what I thought was a prevailing view amongst ‘traditionalists’ that mirrorless cameras and cine boxes with a lens mount on the front = badly designed for documentary; this was thrown on its head in a conversation I recently had.

For an upcoming article I interviewed a documentary DOP who works on some, shall we say, high end productions. We’re talking BBC, Channel 4, Netflix Originals etc. They are documentaries that have won much praise across the board. And yet the preferred cameras in question were the Canon C300 and 500 series. These are cameras that, while having essential items like ND filters and big physical controls, are still quite tall. They need rigging out fairly extensively in order to work well for long periods handheld or off the shoulder.

I was covering an entirely separate subject, but I asked him about this issue, and his reply was that while he grew up using Digibeta cameras, he much prefers the way these new devices worked. The form factor was a plus point in his eyes, not a hindrance. Why was that?

Primarily it was because both the Canon EOS C300 and C500 can both be rigged to how you want them. If you want to use them on a tripod, you can. If you want to rig them for shoulder use, you can. If you need to film in a confined space or need to attach them to a car, you can strip them down to bare bones highly compact units.

In short, the rigging requirements of such a design gives a lot of flexibility. The DOP in question summed it up eloquently. You can make a camera bigger, but you can’t make it smaller. In other words, yes, a Digibeta camera or an ARRI AMIRA are fantastic, but they are big, heavy, and can’t be made any smaller if you need them to be.

Why can't the camera be 'right' in the first place?

However, this does also throw up another question, and it’s one I know Roland would agree with me on. Why can’t a cube style camera be designed from the ground up to be both compact and adaptable, as well as ergonomically good for handheld use right out of the box? Would it be too much to design and provide a viewfinder that comes with the camera and mounts to a position by default that works well for shoulder use?

When the camera is small and compact, could an extendible rail system that is integrated with the battery slot be made that can be quickly slid out for counter balance when needed, without the requirement for third party battery systems, cages, and external wires?

It is, perhaps, not a problem that is easily solved in a world where camera bodies can be made small, yet the lenses can remain substantial in size. With a compact camera body it is always going to be difficult to counter balanced a 200mm or more lens. Or is it?

Dogmatic camera design

Fundamentally what is happening right now is that some video cameras are being built with the idea that “we’ll give you a box, and then you rig it out”. In short, the camera makers give you the bit that makes the nice images, but it’s up to you to make the ergonomics work. So if rigging isn’t your thing you are left with a choice. Eschew the nice large sensor device and get a dedicated one camcorder instead. But then you are left with bulk and less ability to adapt to different uses. I know some manufacturers will disagree with this, but fundamentally I can't think of a single camera on the current market apart from the URSA Mini and ENG cameras that are designed to be usable off the shoulder without pricey extras.

And when I say 'usable' I mean perfectly balanced, not just a rudimentary shoulder pad situated such that all the weight still goes through your arms.

It needn’t be this way, but it will require a fundamental rethink about what a camera is and what it looks like. It’s clear that small and light is good. There’s a whole litany of camera ops with compressed spines out there. But with some creativity and a blank sheet of paper it should be possible to design a camera that has a large sensor (S35 or FF), a compact body with accessible controls, and adaptability with good free use ergonomics out of the box. Will it happen?

The camera rigging industry conundrum

That’s another question. There’s a massive industry now for camera rigging, from cages to shoulder systems, to viewfinders. If all camera manufacturers took a completely new tact to ergonomic design it may well put a few noses out of joint in the process. But I do think it is obvious that we are in a situation now where the internal technology has made huge strides, while the actual camera body design itself has fallen victim to both stagnation and even dogma. 

You might tell me that there are smaller cameras like the FS5 than can easily be rigged for shoulder use. But there again it’s a case of ending up with a system that can be used for the purpose, but isn’t ideally balanced for the job. Remember, adaptability out of the box. This might need a rethink that involves a completely different placement of the lens, the battery, and the viewfinder.

It would be fascinating to know whether any of the major manufacturers have any concepts that they have been playing with behind the scenes, and whether they have legs or not. However, while I was trying to find a suitable image to lead this article with it became apparent how little there was out there relating to future camera concepts. In fact there was barely anything at all, with what little examples that were out there consisting of 'futuristic' looking versions of existing design tropes.

Now, I could be accused of being a hypocrite here. I have argued in the past that mirrorless cameras are generally fine for video. But those are cameras that do double duty for stills. What I'm talking about here is dedicated video camera design.

Let us know in the comments if you agree, or have any other ‘heretical’ statements on how cameras should be designed in the future!