Manufacturers are determined to keep their systems insular so equipment from other brands is incompatible. However, there is one area where this blinkered approach degenerates into silliness and damages photography: the naming of functions.
As photographers, we expect that the cameras are designed to be user-friendly. However, since the launch of the Ihagee Kine Exakta in 1936, the first production 35mm SLR with a proprietary bayonet mount, camera manufacturers have seen a way of stopping their users from migrating from one system to another.
Of course, there have been attempts to standardize some functionality. Olympus and Panasonic share the Micro Four Thirds standard. Meanwhile, Adobe introduced the DNG raw format that was rarely adopted. How great would it have been for us photographers if all raw files were DNG?
The words we use to describe the functions of the camera vary, and some manufacturers make stupid choices. From the perspective of a photographer who uses all the major brands of cameras regularly, I come across some ridiculous names. We deserve simple, plain-language descriptions, not technobabble. So, here are my awards for the best and the worst nomenclature.
Shutter Priority
Most of the world’s advanced cameras have S (shutter-priority mode), and A (aperture-priority mode). Canon decided to buck the trend and label their mode dial Tv, representing Time-Value, for their shutter priority. Technically, they are correct, as you are adjusting the time between opening and closing the shutter. However, in their manuals, their description of Tv on the mode dial is “shutter-priority,” which is inconsistent.
Furthermore, they don’t follow that up by using the technically correct term, “time-value,” but the universally accepted, though slightly incorrect, shutter speed. Being pedantic, the term shutter speed is wrong because the shutter curtains always move at the same speed; it’s the time gap between one opening and the other closing that changes. Nevertheless, everyone calls it shutter speed and Canon has made an incongruous choice in their bodies' labeling.
Canon cameras not following standard nomenclature with their exposure modes.
Tv is also ambiguous and can be confusing for beginners. A novice photographer told me, “Oh, I thought that was for plugging the camera into my television!”
Loser: Canon - Tv
Winner: The rest of the world - S
Aperture Priority Mode
Again, I take issue with Canon because they add an unnecessary “v” for value to the mode dial. For other brands, A is sufficient, and the “v" is superfluous. Keep it simple, Canon.
Loser: Canon - Av
Winner: Everyone Else - A
Shutter Button
All camera manufacturers call this the shutter button, apart from Nikon. For them, it’s a shutter release button. Like Canon’s Tv, it’s technically correct, but from a user perspective, it’s the daft addition of an unnecessary word.
Loser: Nikon – Shutter Release Button
Winner: Everyone else – Shutter Button
Front and Rear Dials
Most manufacturers refer to the front and rear dials, or main dial if the camera only has one. Both Nikon and Fujifilm called them command dials, which, I suppose, differentiates it from the mode dial. However, if we always call the mode dial the mode dial, then there is no confusion in calling the others the simpler front dial and rear dial.
Loser: Nikon and Fujifilm – Front Command Dial and Rear Command Dial.
Winner: Everyone Else – Front Dial and Rear Dial
Single Autofocus and Continuous Autofocus
Because I come from a technical background, I understand why some manufacturers reverse S-AF to AF-S. Creating an index of similar functions, it makes sense to have the noun first and the adjective following; I used to use tools called pliers wiring, screwdrivers instrument, and screwdriver insulated, but in normal speech, they were wiring pliers, etc.
I know that placing the noun first and the adjective second is a word order that happens in some languages, while in English speech, it’s usual to have the noun second. So, there is no right or wrong. I am not going to quibble with that when there is a big offender that eschews the common terminology. Canon calls single autofocus “One-Shot AF.” This is a misnomer that confuses beginners; you can take multiple images in that mode, not just one shot.
It gets worse, though. Canon calls continuous autofocus “AI Servo AF.” Technically, the “servo” bit is correct because a servomechanism is an automatic device using negative feedback error sensing, which is how autofocus works. Indeed, other manufacturers mention the servo mechanism in the manual. However, the term "AI Servo" was used back in 2001 on the 1D, when AI hadn’t even reached the rudimentary levels that it’s at now. Plus, there are better words, used by everyone else, to describe those functions. Call them what they are: single autofocus and continuous autofocus.
Fujifilm also deserves a mention because its labeling is too condensed. On the X-T3, single autofocus mode and metering mode on the body and shutter priority on the display are all just labeled "S".
Single-Autofocus, Single Shot, and Shutter Priority all labeled "S" on the Fujifilm X-T3
Joint Losers: Canon - AI Servo, and Fujifilm - S
Winner: Everyone else – Single Autofocus (S-AF or AF-S) and Continuous Autofocus. (C-AF or AF-C)
Metering Modes
When metering advanced from taking a strict average exposure of the entire image to being programmed to account for different lighting areas in the frame, manufacturers produced a gamut of technically descriptive names for their metering methods. Olympus chose the acronym ESP to describe their long-winded Electro-Selective Pattern metering that calculates the light levels in different sensor areas. Canon uses Evaluative, which they describe as a general-purpose metering mode. Nikon went for Matrix, Sony used Multi, and Panasonic used Multiple. As camera users, we want to have a single word that differentiates it from center-weighted and spot metering.
Like all manufacturers, Olympus chose a unique name for their metering mode when it became more advanced than a strict average metering system.
I can understand that finding one word to describe this technique and at the same time being descriptive enough for a photographer to understand is not easy. I think it would make the most sense if the manufacturers went back to using the word “Average.” Although technically, the function is more complex than that name suggests, it is an understandable concept to most photographers.
I have one more gripe: the icons used for the focusing modes should be standardized too. Canon’s Icons are particularly confusing. For example, their icon for center-weighted just shows a frame that one would incorrectly assume would mean the entire frame is being metered.
Loser: All
Winner: None
Drive Modes
Cameras can shoot multiple frames at the touch of the shutter button. Nikon and Sony call this release mode "continuous," thus risking confusion with the word continuous being used for autofocusing. Canon does likewise, but they chose their ludicrous name for C-AF, so that’s not a problem.
Panasonic calls it “Burst” and Olympus “Sequential,” both of which are unique words for that function, plus are accurately descriptive too. However, I think “Burst” has the edge because it is a word that has been used throughout photographic history.
Losers: None
Winner: Panasonic Lumix – Burst Mode
Conclusion
My winners and losers were slightly tongue in cheek. Furthermore, I admit that my choices of nomenclature are subjective and that just maybe, there are photographers out there who think that AI Servo is the perfect name for continuous autofocus or Rear Command Dial is a better description than just dial.
However, if you drive a car, you expect the steering wheel to be called a steering wheel and not a directional control interface. When it rains, we switch on the wipers and not the excess visual-inhibiting water removal system. Then, when we apply the anti-lock brakes, we are not activating the Hydraulic Motion Inhibitor AI.
If you are an advanced photographer and married to a particular system, then the differences in nomenclature probably won’t matter to you. But for the photographic for both education and understandability, standardizing the names of functions can only be a good thing. Why? Besides being an art, digital photography is a branch of physics. So, just like any science, the descriptions should be precise and universal. We should know from the name what each of us is talking about, no matter what brand we are handling.
Do you agree or disagree with my conclusion? I am sure there are better names out there than the ones I have selected; please feel free to suggest some.
Also, do you have any pet gripes for the words used on your camera that I’ve missed? It would be great to hear your thoughts.
There are practice guitars that light up the finger positions to lead the player through MIDI music instrument digital interface music.
But, essentially, yes, I am saying to camera-gear-nomenclature complainers, "... have you LOOKED at machinery for any other creative art?!? ..." ... because our camera gear is amazingly well identified by comparison, actually, even if camera gear makers could do better ( and they are, perpetually, though some slip-slide backwards occasionally ).
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
On second thought, cars used to have controls on the steering wheel ( sometimes the steering lever ) to control the spark advance, oh my, who would want that level of manual control nowadays, especially on a diesel or electric or old steam engine, all with no spark to advance?
So, just as we expect our car to automatically self-control so many variables in the successful operation of the machine that transports us, so too we can let photographic engineers automate our photographic machine, where we just point and shoot.
Now if they could just rename the viewfinder as [ Point ] and the shutter release button as [ Shoot ].
Then we'd just need control markings for [ Display ] and [ Sell ].
I wonder what were the markings on Andrew Wyeth's paint brushes and canvases ...
.
Interesting comments, Peter.
Layout of printing and function keys of typewriters were, in fact, standardized under ISO 1091, back in 1977.
We are indeed artists and the tools we use are technical ones, just as lathes are for wood turners, wheels for potters, and paints for painters. All of those have standard nomenclatures. Don't we, as photographic artists, deserve the same?
More importantly, no controls on a typewriter or computer keyboard are marked in a way that corresponds to the storytelling controls that we as creative artists have in our storytelling.
Plus there are not only many different keyboard layouts and sizes, but quick, look for your particular keyboard's cursor-control keys, and where's the [ Delete ] key on each of our keyboards ( versus the [ Backspace ] key )?
It's different between Dell and HP keyboards, different between different Dells, and different between different HPs, and so on.
Any cook, professional not not, can try to buy a stove, and be presented with knobs that turn in different directions, gas lighters called on differently, or no lighters at all, especially for electric stoves, and different controls for temperature, timing - and who knows how to set the clock?!?
Turning differently reminds me that Nikon spins their lens on and off backwards from Minolta, such that I spun a Nikon lens off, not on, when checking out a Nikon camera system in a camera store, and the lens fell to the floor and skittered across the concrete ( who has a concrete floor in a camera shop?!? ) and the lens got wedged under the counter - no sale!
I got a Sigma lens for my Minolta/Sony, and the focus and zoom rings turn backwards such that I miss my first intended shot most of the time.
I walked by a parked Renault automobile that had it's lights on, and I thought I'd do a good deed by turning them off, I tried the door, it was unlocked, so I opened the door and looked in, I couldn't see any light controls, so I got in and sat down, and still couldn't see any light controls, so I tried a bunch of ideotgram-marked controls and nothing controlled the lights, so I got out, closed the door and walked away ... if they can't quickly communicate how to control the lights, then dead battery it is!
And of course, nothing in any car is labeled according to how we control our function in transportation, no [ Go ] or [ Stop ] or [ Turn ] control markings, for example, anywhere in a car.
I got in a Toyota Prius to drive and could not get it started ( apparently it doesn't "start" before actually going, I guess ) - at least it's theft-proof ( to non-Prius drivers anyway ).
For me, the challenge is remembering that the controls on our photographic gear are NOT the controls I have over my photographic storytelling.
And the camera is not my only photographic storytelling tool, since all the camera does is capture a latent image, though some have mini displays or can tether to larger displays for temporary presentation.
These are camera controls, not photographic storytelling controls.
Some of us spend a lifetime learning camera controls.
Some of us never learn photographic storytelling controls.
And we feel frustrated because we thought we had mastered our cameras.
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
Why are people ridiculing this article? Its interesting and original. Its a change from the same repetitive articles on gears, photography rules etc.... and he has a point. This difference in naming also makes it confusing between photographers of different brands when they are out shooting together, or discussing photography. Doesn't mean everything has to be the same naming across all brands, but at least the main ones.
Thank you, Tarek. (Was it JFK who said something along the lines of "You cannot please all the people all the time."?) Those who write snarky comments on articles are a drop in the ocean compared to the number who read it and don't complain. I am glad you agree with me.
Let's revisit the shutter button.
Actually, the shutter release button.
Or the shutter release control button ( argh! ).
Because there is another shutter control on our cameras, not just one.
The second shutter control may be a control button or a control dial.
It set's the time value [ Tv ] that the shutter will remain open when released ( "how long?" ).
Or it set's the [ S ] speed at which the shutter will close after being released ( "how soon?" ).
Yeah, they are different.
No they are not.
Yes they are.
What, again, are we trying to learn - or teach?
[ Tv ] = Time value, how long the shutter will remain open after release.
[ S ] = speed, how soon the shutter will close after release.
... add [ ST ] for the self-timer for 'when' the shutter will be released,
... plus the shutter release control button for 'when' the shutter will be released,
... toss in some 'open' versus 'released' plus 'second curtain', especially for flash coordination,
... and you have the camera industry manufacturers proudly standing behind their seemingly arbitrary non-coordination.
Also, open = released, closed = I dunno, unreleased, like [ B ] bulb settings, all different from each other?
There is no unambiguously clear and brief nomenclature, especially considering that some shutter time controls are control dials, some are control buttons, such when controlling on-screen menu choices.
Exceptions are the rule.
So a button is a control.
A dial is a control.
Either could control the setting of how long we want the shutter to remain open when released.
So, is the shutter control button the control dial that says [ Tv ], or perhaps the control button used to select shutter time in an non-screen menu?
[ _v ] has potential for standardizing the interplay between exposure value controls, [ EV ]:
[ Tv ] already means time value
[ Av ] already means aperture value
[ Sv ] could mean sensitivity value
[ Fv ] could mean supplemental flash value
[ Lv ] might be the subject luminescence value, perhaps reported by an in-camera meter,
[ EV ] already means exposure value, and is the sum of the parts
But not all mechanical or electronic devices volunteer to be named and abbreviated unambiguously:
[ Sv ] - shutter value, speed value, sensitivity value, single shot motor drive value, subject luminescence value, soft focus value on some lenses, soft focus value in some on-board creative modes ...
... so time abbreviated as [ T ] makes some sense, but no one but Canon goes there.
And 'sensitivity' never landed, instead we used [ ASA ] and [ ISO ], yet folks always asked what 'speed' film we were using, confusing with the term for shutter speed, so [ S ] was ambiguous even when referring to the capture medium, or shutter speed, or single shot motor drive, and so on.
We're not going to have an easy go of this attempt to inspire manufacturers - or the totally unrelated ISO International Organization for Standardization - to standardize, especially considering the manufacturer's profit motive and incentive to patent and trademark themselves into uniquely perceived market value that is not available from their competition.
And, more importantly, standardizing itself does not bring understanding for newbies or oldies.
For example, the industry has give up fighting and now considers zoom lenses as no longer listed under their prime lens catalog.
Prime no longer has the meaning 'prime'.
Who won?
And yet, in trying to control our cameras, and our cameras only, no one is the wiser about the controls we have available over our photographic storytelling.
Standardized inaccuracy and inappropriateness?
Yeah, they got this.
Thanks for exploring and sharing.
.
Thanks for the comment, but we'll have to agree to disagree.
Standardization across every other industry has brought about greater understanding, safety, compatibility, and ease of education.
Effective nomenclature results from universal, meaningful and consistent simplicity. So, "Shutter button" describes the function, the same as an On/Off button on a TV or a light. The word "release" is superfluous.
I understand why "Tv" is used on the mode dial. If everyone adopted Tv etc., then I would agree. But even Canon don't use "Time value" in the manuals I read researching this article, they call it shutter priority.
Oh yes, it's very funny to read instruction manuals ( wait a minute, the word and concept of 'manual' already has a meaning in photography ! ) where makers can't even agree with themselves, using [ Tv ] on the control thingy ( I like 'thingy', it's kind of all-purpose ), "shutter priority" in their instructions.
Though, "shutter priority" is probably a English-speaking copy writer's preference, where strict translations from the original Japanese booklet were probably not even considered.
My favorite direct translation example is the last line of a list describing an electronic product saying "and bullets can be used", which was an instruction to the printer that they can make it a bulleted list, and the printer printed the printer's instructions - geesh !
IBM tried machine translation but when "hydraulic ram" came back as "water goat", they moved on to other challenges, and now Google is at it instead.
My point is NOT against standardization, but is threefold:
1 - not all inherited nomenclature is unambiguously accurate, so why perpetuate something that does not communicate well?
2 - many thingies on different manufacturer's cameras actually are different from each other and deserve unique nomenclature.
3 - competition in commerce is a consumer benefit, and we provide patent protection, trademark protection, and copyright protection to encourage profitable production and affordable competition where monopolies are regulated and rewarded, or prohibited, so there are inbuilt demands on manufacturers to differentiate themselves in order to get the buying public's attention, so standing out does that, and disappearing into same-sameness does not, plus, the international multilingual marketplace challenges any presentation with translation nightmares ( and entertainment ).
So, back at you, perhaps
- instead of declaring winners and losers according to popularity - effectively "... because most use something other than Tv then TV ought to be dropped ..."
- instead of suggesting ISO should resolve nomenclature once and for all
... why not propose your own nomenclature that you think meets whatever are your preferences?
What are your preferences?
You seem to take note of perhaps popularity and simplicity as your preferences.
But what about:
Accuracy?
Appropriateness?
Unambiguous?
Concise?
Abbreviate-able?
Non-proprietary ( no infringement on patents, trademarks, copyright )?
International?
Let's mini-explore one-ish items on our cameras.
For example, the shutter.
There may be a handful of things that control the shutter.
So what name would you propose for each shutter control?
Consider the supposed ISO imperative to standardize across mechanical and electronic controls, switches, levers, dials, touch-screens, all different ways to control the same result:
- when the shutter opens
- when the shutter closes
- will the camera or the photographer or the subject control either ( self-timer, auto exposure, bulb, flash sync, remote control, subject-triggered trip )
We often see:
- shutter first-curtain release opening initiation button control
- shutter speed or opening duration or second curtain closing setting control
Ok, NOT with those names.
We also have:
- remote control
- subject triggered release ( smile, infrared trip 'wire' )
- flash sync
- auto exposure control of shutter opening duration
- bulb, where the photographer decides whimsically when to close the shutter
- second shutter flash sync
- combined multiple exposures, calculated by the photographer or by the camera computer,
... and so on.
All those shutter features and controls on the camera.
I imagine each photographer here can come up with more shutter features and controls.
And that's just shutter features and controls.
Should we go back to stops, where the exposure was controlled by removing the stop from the lens, or removing the lens cap, where there was no shutter per se in front of the film or image capture medium, whatever temporary cover film may have had was not used for exposure control per say but for exposure prevention explicitly.
So the photographer would remove the thingy blocking light from the front end, count, then replacing the thingy - including that scheme would further stress the challenge of coming up with a universal name for starting the exposure.
I say starting the exposure - releasing the shutter - because in bulb mode, holding the shutter button holds the shutter open, and releasing the shutter button closes the shutter.
Otherwise, the shutter release button only releases the shutter, the closing of the shutter is determined by other controls, such as the shutter speed dial or by an automatic exposure computer.
Have we got it all worked out and simplified now?
Don't answer yet, there's more.
Plus proprietary camera features not common to other cameras.
I hear you saying "when I pick up a camera, ANY camera, I ought to be able to immediately and intuitively use it to take a picture, the controls should be universal".
And that has migrated to "... but [ Tv ] is so off-putting that I cannot use Canon cameras - who can? ..."
And then to "... the ISO should regulate and police this ..." ( ISO the organisation, not ISO the camera setting ).
Oh my!
Hey, I appreciate your frustration - I've handed smart phones back to people, saying, "... No, I cannot take your picture with this ...", not because I consider them inferior and unsuitable quality cameras, but because I cannot figure out how to use their smart phone camera ( I'm spoiled by the Blackberry that had an actual dedicated mechanical shutter button ).
You've written your article, and you're standing by it, fine.
We're expanding on that in our discussion below your article.
I may be suggesting, as often find that the challenge when writing one thing, then other things cascade out of it and surprise us and beg to be written, also.
So, what would additional articles look like, articles expanding on "how would we improve our camera's nomenclature across all cameras?"
Or a series, with one article on "Camera Control Standardization #1, shutter control nomenclature".
Then a separate article on each separate control's nomenclature, building that ISO research reference - can it be done, what are the bugaboos we've discovered and resolved along the way?
Or just this one article, saying "hey Canon, PASM has won".
- - - - - - - - - -
Lost somewhere in the distraction over the gear itself is the fact that I seldom even ever use PASM anyway.
I have Green and Gold on my camera, and leave it in Gold mostly.
PASM requires me to think about the camera, not about my photographic storytelling.
I bought the camera because I'm in sync, so to speak, with the photographic engineers who have already done the thinking about the camera.
So, for me, I've been there, done that, and recognized that camera controls are NOT photographic storytelling controls, they are camera controls.
What's really important?
Cameras, or photographic storytelling?
Thanks for exploring this and sharing.
.
It's interesting because we used to have standardisation when shooting film: Every photographer in the history of the world used film speed (ASA/ISO), aperture (f/ number) and shutter speed (in seconds or fractions thereof) to determine and control exposure. Those values still exist and have not changed to date. It only started to get confusing when we started to rely on these program modes and electronic aids introduced in the 70s & 80s.
Yes, there is a lot of standardization for those exposure related things, let's not forget how blessed we are with that!
Imagine the mess we'd have if every manufacturer would have its own terminology or even methodology for exposure! 😅
Sorry Steve, there were about a dozen different film scales used to denote film speed.....http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Film_speed
Well there we go - I stand corrected! Thanks for posting the link Terry, and interesting read into the history of film speeds. All the best, Steve.
This article is hilarious and so true!
Thank you!
While we're at it — and I know it's too late to change — I wish logarithmic sequences would have just used the exponent.
Olympus did some of that with their rangefinders, having apertures labeled "1, 2, 3, 4" etc.
ISO, shutter speed, and f-stop should have at least had the option of being expressed in EVs, or "exposure values." It would have helped beginners learn faster, and would have made exposure calculations much easier for pros. My ancient Gossen Luna Pro light meter can do it, why can't camera makers?
"So, to go from ASA 3200 to 1600, I have to either change my f-stop from ƒ/8 to ƒ/5.6, or my shutter speed from 1/250th to 1/125? SAY WHAT?"
(Okay, I'm off that soap box. Not gonna happen.)
Even more annoying from Canon, is that on my R6, while in manual mode, I can set my rear dial to control the shutter, and my front to control the aperture, this has always been more intuitive to me as in my mind the shutter is behind the aperture physically, but when I switch to shutter priority, Canon forces me to use the front dial for shutter.
Can I yeild my will to Canons, switch the dials around in manual mode, and train my mind to think in the reverse of how I've always shot, no because when in aperture priority, Canon then forces me use the front dial for aperture.
So with Nikon or Sony your thumb can always serve one function, and your index the other, simple, logical, intuitive, but not with Canon...
I didn't realize that the R6 had such a restriction. That must be really frustrating for you. Thanks for letting me know.
Hi, Christopher,
did you check "Customize dials in M mode"?
There is an option to choose fuction for main dial.
Thanks for coming back with that, Mack. That's very helpful.
My problem is not with manual mode, Canon allows me to customize that, the problem is that in the other modes, I'm then not allowed to make the dials match their function in manual.
So when I switch to shutter priority, I want the shutter adjusted with the same thumb and rear dial I was using for that setting in manual, likewise when I switch to aperture priority, I want aperture adjusted with the same index finger and top/front dial as I setup for that function in manual mode
In my eyes, a dial or buttons function should not change depending on what mode you're in, it requires you to change your muscle memory on the fly as you change modes.
"I'm in aperture priority, my index finger is now adjusting aperture."
"I'm in shutter priority, my index finger is now adjusting shutter."
You can setup manual to match one of these, but you can't setup the others so that all three match for muscle memory, which is very bizarre to me for a brand that dominates sports photography, and it's why I'm just waiting for Nikon to get their AF tracking figured out, at which point I'll probably switch back.
As a Canon adverse user from reading previous articles you have issues with Canon functions labeling.
For 50% of camera users being Canon and 18% being Nikon most people like the Canon nomenclature.
I absolutely hate most Japanese cars as their symbols make no sense vs my Jeep Grand Cherokee. I rent cars regularly as I travel a lot for work.
It's what one is used to and if Canon gets you used to their way all others are confusing. Good strategy actually.
I think you have your stats incorrect. Canon has 46.5% of the reported current market share. That doesn't mean they have 50% of the cameras both there. For a long time, they held around 30% of the reported camera sales, and, since then, overall sales of all cameras have fallen. The word "reported" is important because not every camera manufacturer is required to report their sales. I also know Canon users who dislike the nomenclature.
I am not Canon Adverse; they make some okay cameras. I nearly bought a 5Diii because it was a super bit of kit in its day, but sadly it didn't fit my hands and lacked a rotating live view screen.
Ivor,
Thanks for the great article. I shoot with an OM1. My friends use other camera brands and types. To compare techniques sometimes is impossible. So many different brands using different vocabularies, even cell phone cameras are shooting in raw now. A standard is needed. A standard needed for cameras and photography in general.