08-20-2010, 12:06 PM
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282304925' post='1953']
As you can see, I didn't state absolute concepts, mainly beacuse there aren't, out there; so what was the point to answer just to say: "no, sometime it isn't true?".
It was already implied in my message. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Anyway, about ergonomic: it is not a myth, but a general opinion by a lot of serious users.
The same, I suggested to try and feel.
[/quote]
Yes, it is a myth.
ergonomics |ˌərgəˈnämiks|
plural noun [treated as sing. ]
the study of people's efficiency in their working environment.
This silly myth has been going around on internet a number of years now, mainly due to the compact size of the Canon XXXD series. A lot of misinformed people started to bitch about the small size of the grip design of the XXXD series, ranging from not fat enough to too short. That kept on going even when the Nikon D40-D3100 range had an even shorter grip.
Besides the fact that the size and grip of the camera is not very important, and in fact thinking of it as a "grip" is not good, as it will induce camera shake from the shutter button when actually "gripped", ergonomics does encompass a LOT more than the grip.
One can argue that the placement of controls on Canon bodies is more ergonomical. the position of the index finger on the shutter button, the position of the dials, the design of the program selection and position of settings buttons, and indeed, the much better menu system. And silly stuff, like the wrong way around you have to twist lenses with the Nikon mount to mount them.
The ergonomics only are being brought forward by people that have a more than practical relation to the Nikon brand, and they most of the time are not based on factual things. And of course, what one is used to also influences one's view, but that does not alter ergonomics science.
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282304925' post='1953']
But, ok, I should have added "in my opinion", which I'm doing here.
Of course you should have done the same, when you stated what you stated. It works both ways, you know.
[/quote]
What did I state? That it is of course personal.
However, I did not state false things... like saying the Nikon Micro lenses are better than what Canon offers <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
I do come from a Nikon background though (1970's SLR).
As you can see, I didn't state absolute concepts, mainly beacuse there aren't, out there; so what was the point to answer just to say: "no, sometime it isn't true?".
It was already implied in my message. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Anyway, about ergonomic: it is not a myth, but a general opinion by a lot of serious users.
The same, I suggested to try and feel.
[/quote]
Yes, it is a myth.
ergonomics |ˌərgəˈnämiks|
plural noun [treated as sing. ]
the study of people's efficiency in their working environment.
This silly myth has been going around on internet a number of years now, mainly due to the compact size of the Canon XXXD series. A lot of misinformed people started to bitch about the small size of the grip design of the XXXD series, ranging from not fat enough to too short. That kept on going even when the Nikon D40-D3100 range had an even shorter grip.
Besides the fact that the size and grip of the camera is not very important, and in fact thinking of it as a "grip" is not good, as it will induce camera shake from the shutter button when actually "gripped", ergonomics does encompass a LOT more than the grip.
One can argue that the placement of controls on Canon bodies is more ergonomical. the position of the index finger on the shutter button, the position of the dials, the design of the program selection and position of settings buttons, and indeed, the much better menu system. And silly stuff, like the wrong way around you have to twist lenses with the Nikon mount to mount them.
The ergonomics only are being brought forward by people that have a more than practical relation to the Nikon brand, and they most of the time are not based on factual things. And of course, what one is used to also influences one's view, but that does not alter ergonomics science.
[quote name='exuvia' timestamp='1282304925' post='1953']
But, ok, I should have added "in my opinion", which I'm doing here.
Of course you should have done the same, when you stated what you stated. It works both ways, you know.
[/quote]
What did I state? That it is of course personal.
However, I did not state false things... like saying the Nikon Micro lenses are better than what Canon offers <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.I do come from a Nikon background though (1970's SLR).