The Online Photographer

Leica M6 + Rapidwinder.

I am left handed and 100% left eye dominant. My favorite camera ergonomically is the Mamiya C330f TLR. Yes you have to turn the camera to set exposure, but from there, everything is in the perfect place for viewing, exposure, and film advance. Hasselblad might come second, but the position of the shutter release is less natural for me.

In my mind these beat any eye-level 35mm with my nose pressed into the back of the camera.

I haven't used many cameras but I got lucky when I bought my Pentax K20D. It's very nice to use. When I later (much later) read the review on dpreview.com it said in the conclusions "Ergonomics up with the best of the best". When I've tried other peoples cameras they've certainly fallen short.
My first camera was also a Pentax - a manual focus MZM - which I also found very natural and easy to use.
I once tried a low end Fuji bridge camera which I found immediately absolutely horrible and I realised how difficult it might be to create a design that works.
Anthony

For me, either iteration of the Olympus E-M1. I don’t really know why, but they fit my hand nicely and I can find the controls by feel. The GX8 is a close second as I am left eyed too.

The Canon EOS 1 series, especially the EOS 1D Mark II. Canon put a LOT of work into the user interface with the thumb wheel on the back for exposure control. It's a complex camera and takes some time to learn, but in the end it's the easiest to use camera I've ever owned.

It's fascinating to me that the basic user interface from the T90 is still how Canon cameras work, 30+ years later. I had three T90s and loved them to death.

That would have to go the lightweight, pocket rocket GR; along with a wrist strap, the grip fits so comfortably in hand, I sometimes forget I'm holding it.

The Fuji XT series along with a thumpgrip and a short prime ain't bad either when going 'large.'

My experience is pretty limited, but for what it's worth:

For me it's mostly about the camera staying out of the way, and the Leica M2/M3 did that better than anything else, partly because there was very little functionality to get in the way, and what there was was super reliable and consistent. One has to accept the working parameters to begin with, of course, but the M bodies are as up front with that as it gets. Easy to hold, easy to handle, no fuss or fiddling, ever.

But I suppose there are quite a few such candidates from the last half-century of film: the OM, the K1000, Rolleiflex, Hassy, etc.

On the digital side, the Canon xxD and xD were pretty good in that respect, once I learned how to set them, and other than the occasional crash. The original Fujifilm X100 and X2 were great physically, but the computing hardware and software got in the way a lot. But I suppose that could be said for quite a few digital cameras pre-2015-or-so.

The most ergonomic cameras I've ever used would have to be (film era) the Nikon F4s and (digital era) the Nikon D3s (and its descendants). They fit my hand like an extension of it, with every button and dial in just the right place, turning in the directions I would have chosen, and so on. For me it's just like a musical instrument, in that my thoughts become actions, without the intermediate step of thinking about the buttons/dials/settings on the camera or the keys on one of my woodwinds. And I have used all of the single-digit F bodies except for the F6, and all of the single-digit D bodies except for the D6, so it’s not merely a matter of what I was/am accustomed to.

Frankly, I can’t really understand how—nor why, really, when you get right down to it—people apparently manage to try out so many different cameras. I can’t afford to be switching systems all the time, neither financially nor from the standpoint of having to learn yet another camera interface, menu system, and so on before I can, as you say, get on with it. I’m not merely content with the ergonomics of those cameras mentioned above (nor those I’m currently using—D5, D850, D500), I am delighted, happy, even thrilled with their ergonomics.

Olympus E-1 felt like someone cloned my hand and then made the (perfectly weighted and superbly built) camera body with the resulting mould. Various Pentax dSLRs and the Fuji X-H1 are up there too.

Never owned an Olympus E-M1 but I liked the feel of the grip when I picked one up. Apart from that, I like more or less everything about the Nikon D500

Any recent Nikon DSLR, with the D850, with or without the grip, at or near the apex. Their APS-C cameras feel great in the hand too, and but for their terrible viewfinders whose information readouts would wash out in bright sunlight, those cameras would be near the top of my list for good handling cameras. The grips on all of those cameras are secure-feeling and I never feel like I'm going to drop the camera.

The Panasonic G85 also has a similarly great grip with a deep finger hold and narrow palm area, but Panasonic is somewhat schizophrenic in their designs, with the GH5's grip tending more towards a Canon-like model with shallower finger area, and a fatter palm area. It feels less secure and more tiring to hold.

I agree about the Panasonic GX8. And I happen to prefer the flip-out screen. I push the IBIS on mine and it seems to do very well. I even hand hold it for pinhole photos. Best camera I’ve ever encountered in more than 50 years of shooting. And the sensor is truly sweet.

"Obviously the GX8 sold poorly, because it's not going to get a Mark II revision (if it were going to, it already would have)."

When "serious", which accounts for the vast majority of my photos, I shoot with two cameras around my neck. For about a year, and 2,500+ GX7 shots, that pair were an E-M5 and GX7. Although ergonomically quite different, they were photographically close to indistinguishable, including the IBIS.

The E-M5 II had new capabilities that put an end to the earlier pair. But I was still intimately familiar with the GX7 when the GX8 came out. I couldn't believe they'd taken that lovely little body and bulked it up so much - for no reason(s) apparent to me. Even without the new Oly, there's no way I was going to buy that monster.

"In terms of function it sorely needed a Mark II revision, though. The shutter left some questions about shutter shock, and the IBIS was not very well implemented."

The follow on models, GX85 and GX9, simply went back to the GX7 size and form factor, while addressing all of the shortcomings you list, fixing or improving all, plus adding other useful (to me) features.

Tastes and needs vary; ergonomics are mysterious. I now am shooting GX9s, in spite of the egregious, flip-up EVF that tries to drive me mad.

As with the GX7 and 8, Panny makes other, larger µ4/3 bodies. the G9 has some features desirable to me, but not worth the size and weight. I suspect the GX8 died of obesity.

The diopter adjustment on the GX7 was a horizontal slider on the bottom of the flip-up module.

On the GX9, it's a dial on the side. Somehow, the EVF on the GX9s flips up partially or fully from bags, straps and clothing much more easily then the GX7.

When up just a little, it throws the whole alignment of eye, subject and camera body off; I don't see what I expect from relationship between hand head and hand position and subject location.

When it flips up all the way, whatever flipped it up apparently brushes against the diopter dial, and changes it.

The feature that you loved on the GX8 is now my nemesis.

I really like the Nikon D7500 and D750 with a slight edge to the former for haptics and the latter for viewfinder; essentially a tie. A joystick would be a great addition to both. They are light, intuitive and just get out of the way. A close second goes to the Fuji X-T2. The small buttons and slippery, depressable dials lead to some dissonance in an otherwise outstanding package. The small, quite flat buttons are difficult for me to locate by feel and the dial too easy to depress when I just want to rotate it (not nearly as bad as on X-H1). Luckily, I do not photograph in the cold often as I think the Fuji controls would be a problem with gloves.

Since I am left-eyed, I find no pull to any rangefinder style designs since they provide no seeing advantage. I am stuck with my nose on the LCD. That Panasonic does look useful but I have never tried one.

I second Michael Sebastian's choice of the "Contax 645, far and away," as it's still the camera I most enjoy holding in my hands after all these years.

Which isn't to say I always enjoyed using it, though, because it's quite a beast to carry with a 45-90 zoom and P30+ digital back mounted.

I don't remember any camera being more ergonomic and natural-handling but I do remember the one camera that I never got comfortable with - the Leica M3 with a 50mm lens. I could never get to the point where I could focus and shoot quickly. I either would concentrate on focus and loose the subject (Street Photography) or I would keep focused (Pun intended) on the subject and never get the camera focused.

It's important that it had the 50mm lens. That lens needed to be spot on or the subject was fuzzy.

Unlike my Nikon f with a 28mm lens. I just used f11 or f8 and set the focus point where I could get maximum sharpness. Done.

As far as the size and shape of the camera that didn't appear to make any difference to me.

I have not one, but two, GX8s, because of all the small mirrorless cameras, they felt the best to me. I plan to keep them until they drop dead. In terms of long history, I've been a Nikon guy, and I still am. I can pick up almost any Nikon and immediately feel at home with it -- but a guy once handed me a large Canon DSLR, and I couldn't even work it. Let me say that in general, I believe Canon ergonomics are probably as good as Nikons, but it's what you grow with that counts. To me, the GX8s were a surprise, because they were a different brand, but felt so natural.

The new Nikon Z cameras also feel right to me, but I gotta say, the weight, after becoming acclimated to GX8s, is not welcome. I have a sort of emotional attachments to my Nikons, including the Z6, but when I sit back and think about it, for my kind of photography, the GX8s may be the best cameras I've ever owned.

"the cameras we tend to find the most comfortable and natural to use are the cameras we get to grips with for real work."

So the cameras I feel most comfortable and natural to use are Technika 4" x 5" implements? Hmmmmm, maybe not entirely sure about that one......

Probably a tie between the GX8 (with that wonderful tilting EVF) - and the Pentax KP which, with its old-school real pentaprism, and its somehow-feels-just-right-in-the-hand design, is hard to beat.

Sony a700. Fit my hand like a glove.

A really interesting post and list from the gang so far. Looking forward to seeing what other cameras folks like. Hoping Thom, Ken Tanaka, Eamon, and Kirk Tuck will weigh in.

I'll extend the discussion to my the other two for me to make it my top 3:

2) my first-ever camera, the legendary Olympus OM-1 and, the Fujifilm X100F, the camera lineage that started it all for Fuji (no doubt destined to be a classic) – tied for 2nd place. The reason I first fell in love with Fujis was of how much they reminded me of my OM-1, which I shot for 22 years straight. Very hard to find two cameras that are simpler to operate, and more fluid in use when shooting.

3) Canon 1D MkII/MkIIN: Fully agree with Ken Bennett on this one. The only reason its in #3 position is Canon's insistence on requiring two hands for changing some key settings. But, still one of the three best cameras I've ever used. Truly superbly designed professional tools that are literally built like a tank. Can take a smack against K-wall and not get cracked through the frame. How many cameras can you say that about? Oh, wait...the X-H1.

I'm left-eyed. I agree about the Panasonic GX-8, even though it's slightly heavy for my taste. The superb EVF compensates for that.

On a more modest level, the Fujifilm X30 scores very highly.

I have found my Pentax DSLR's very satisfactory ergonomically, although as I have become increasingly bulk- and weight-averse, I have tended to use DSLRs less.

My iPhone 6s is an ergonomic catastrophe when it comes to taking photos.

Hmm
Minolta Autocord
Nikonos II (so easy that you can use with gloves on underwater!)
Hasselblad 500c with a Rolli microprism screen (middle finger of left hand on shutter everything else with right hand)
4x5 RB Graflex SLR
Nikon F2 with sport prism

Hmm, not even a light meter on any of them, that must be why they are so easy to use.

Haven't found a digital camera that dosen't suck to hold, especially vertically, although the Sony DSC-R1 isn't as awful as most. In fact if it weren't so painfully slow and sort of fragile I'd still use it.

In my opinion Luigi Colani ruined camera design.
Could someone get Dieter Rams out of retirement to design a digital camera? Please?

My dear Pentax 645 N, sadly missed. Logical controls, a perfect viewfinder with the most readable information imaginable and an easily diopter-adjustable eyepiece. Of course I sold it to buy a 65 mm, a winder and a prism viewfinder for my Mamiya RZ Pro II, a camera I don´t like. I have really tried to like that camera but I simply don´t, although it is supposed to be "better". Larger negatives and so on. I also could´nt justify to myself having two different medium format systems.Lesson learned: Keep the ones you like and use them. Don´t go by specifications.

Another favourite was my tiny Contax T, always in a pocket and with the size of a pack of those smoking poison sticks. A fixed 38 mm f 2,8 and a rangefinder that was quite good. A foldable Little gem clad in titanium. Sadly no longer with me after many low budget trips in Continental Europe.

Maybe splitting hairs here, but I do not think that (at least physical) ergonomics and user-friendliness are always equal. Secondly, in terms of ergonomics, cameras and lenses go together, so important to consider both together.

Hasselblad X1D - physically, this is the most ergonomically designed modern day camera out there (for me). Just fits right in all ways, although despite the incredibly slick looking icon based experience, not the most user-friendly for my tastes (I prefer simple physical buttons for key tasks). And the lenses (particularly the 45mm) are perfectly designed from a size and weight perspective. If only it had the SL2 EVF and eye relief and overall snappiness.

Leica SL2 - a vast improvement on the original in terms of ergonomics and in Extended EVF mode without any focus aids, the most straightforward and camera-like mirrorless experience out there.

Mamiya 6/7 - Nice size, weight and grip (also taking into account appropriate lens size).

ACG

The Pentax MZ-S.
It was a brilliant compact yet solidly built 35 mm SLR with perfect ergonomics. Sleek curvy shape, top plate angled back so you could read the dials while tripod-mounted, and (still!) the best manual exposure controls I've ever used. Nice exposure scale in the viewfinder, one big dial for shutter speed, another for aperture, and a little button that instantly reset both to a 'program' default when you got too far off track. The curvy optional battery grip looked like something out of a Geiger design (Alien) but felt fabulous in the hand.

For real?
Most ergonomic, by far: the early Fisher Price Kid-Tough, with two fat handgrips and two viewfinders. Mash it up against your head with both hands, look through the viewfinders with both eyes, and click. Perfect!

Of all the hundreds of cameras I shot in 12 years at The Imaging Resource, the Canon 5D and all its very similar brothers always felt more comfortable and easy to use than any others.

Best ergos: Minolta Dynax 7, with or without portrait grip.

I like high camera's -- bottom plate to shutter button -- with enough room for all fingers to grasp the body. A Pentax 67 is surprisingly good to hold, if you can stand the weight.

The old Olympus E450 was absolutely perfect. It didn’t have a *real* hand grip, like those good old film cameras from days of yore, only slightly thicker.

I would kill for a E410 with a modern sensor.

My iPhones have perfect ergonomics—they fits in my extra-large hands, and in the tight pockets of my jeans. Often I have a SE in my left pocket, and an Xs in the right.

Remember, the best camera is the camera you actually use. I haven't used an IL Camera for many years.

For me: something like the Nikon FMx or FEx family.

Operating it was like playing a piano, multiple simultaneous actions:

Left hand: Support, focus, aperture
Right hand: Bracing, shutter, film advance, shutter speed

All without removing your eye from the view.

First, I would have to agree with Tim Bradshaw. The Pentax MX was an absolute jewel of a camera. The perfect size and weight with magnificent controls and what may have been my favorite viewfinder of any camera, ever. To me, it always felt like a much, much more expensive camera than it actually was (and it has the benefit of being much lighter than more expensive cameras that were often overbuilt).

...but I would also have to nominate the Yashica Mat 124G. Of course it isn't as intuitive as a mechanical SLR, but for what it was (a medium format TLR) it was remarkably intuitive to use: light, compact, built in lightmeter, decent (though not amazing) screen and controls that I found quick to operate. Again, for a medium format camera, it was remarkably compact and light. Especially compared to the more expensive TLRs, each of which seemed unreasonably heavy to me. (I liked to walk around and take pictures, I wasn't working in a studio.)

Best,
Adam