Comment by neilv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by neilv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Especially if the interface was designed for high performance (unlike most UX today).

One of my favorite was when I spent years starting to learn photojournalism on the side: the mechanics of using a camera is only a small part of it (it's mostly about understanding and conveying a story), but even at my student/amateur level, the muscle memory with pro DSLR and lenses was crazy-effective.

I even got a shot that happened only in an instant, unexpected, perceived in my peripheral vision, and the right camera body (I had 2 hanging from shoulders) was suddenly in my hands, viewfinder to my eye, aimed, zoomed in with my 70-200 focal length ring, focused (I might've even used the wheel to select which AF focus point, before half-pressing the shutter button), and snapped-- without consciously intending to do any of those things, so it all seemed to be instantaneous, and I got the shot of something as it was falling.

Had I only had a touchscreen phone/camera or a bottom-end DSLR (on which some brands intentionally cripple the UI, to avoid cannibalizing pro gear sales), I would've looked very dumb as I didn't get the shot.

By law a lot of motorcycle controls are standardized both to ensure sane controls (think suicide clutch) as well as standardization (1 down 4 up).

Riding a motorcycle involves all four of your limbs having a dedicated control (left arm clutch; right arm throttle and front break; left leg shifter; right leg rear break).

It is so satisfying having your body operate all of these controls without a conscious thought.

That's ridiculous and antiquated. They need to redesign it so that you need to use a touchscreen menu system to operate the brakes and gear changes.

And don't forget unattended OTA firmware updates, security patches (are you really going to ride an insecure motorbike?!) and so on.

Exactly, these are all great things that we should be happy to have. Why would you prefer some clunky, old-fashioned mechanical controls on your motorbike instead of a slick, modern touchscreen that sometimes freezes up while it does a forced OTA update, even though you're driving in heavy traffic?

Do you happen to know if electric motorcycles are meaningfully diverging on these? Like how many EVs adopted single-pedal driving, are there e-motorcycle analogues?

There’s still 2 pedals, the only difference is lifting off the accelerator engages the generator, which can be disabled.

I've never actually ridden any, but what I see is two directions.

Smaller ones (think 125cc equivalent or less) seem to have adopted the scooter layout, ie no pedal, only hand levers, possibly reversed (left front, right rear). I see a lot of those around Paris: https://vmotosoco.fr/gammes/tcwanderer

"Normal" ones, like Zero, seem to have stuck with the classic layout: front brake on the right-hand lever, rear brake on the right foot. https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/en-gb/model/zero-sr

I would absolutely hate to have those changes. As GP says, it's paramount to not have to think about the controls on a motorcycle. I usually ride a "normal" motorbike, but I was given a scooter once when I took mine in for service. The weird brake lever layout (left front, riht rear) was surprising. "Fortunately", the brakes had next to no bite, so nothing bad happened when I squeezed the clutch, figuring I should change gears...

Anecdotally, for a somewhat "half-way model", Honda has ICE DCT models, which are normal motorcycles, but with robotized and automatic gearbox and clutches. They're using the classic layout, but, like with the Zero, there's no lever on the left hand (sometimes there's a parking brake, but the lever is way out), and no pedal for the left foot.

I'm in full agreement with you about the tactility benefits with a physical camera versus a smartphone.

I'm in a phase of life where I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be doing or even what I'm very good at. But I do have a camera and I can write passable amounts of code, so I've been preparing a website to host my work while I strongarm friends and family into taking pictures with me. Most of them have a nice phone with a good camera and so we often end up talking about what the benefits are of a dedicated set of camera hardware versus using a phone's camera. I like those discussions because it makes me think critically about my camera and why I'm using it.

The physical inputs and muscle-memory laden experience is what I've kept relying on as justification and it's nice to hear I'm not the only one. For those of us who have used guns, it almost feels like holding a rifle. The entire process is subconscious and the more I use it the faster I become, as well as the more finely-tuned I can set up the camera during that subconscious movement. It equips me to image things that, if constrained by time or scene stability, I straight up would not be able to do with a phone camera.

There's also the social benefit that comes with it. I've found that when I'm using my camera and rapidly fiddling with controls and settings, people around me get the sense that I am a professional (I'm not) who knows what he is doing (I don't). "Everyone" has a phone so those "every" are common to see holding up a flat slab to a scene but dedicated camera users are increasingly rare. My tools and my physical control over them grants me this silly air of authority. And honestly that authority presents me with fresh opportunities for impromptu shots; just recently I was at a live music event and started wandering into places and standing on things to get the angles I wanted. Nobody said a word to me, nor did I think twice about doing it. We all kind of understood, "that guy has a camera and he's using it well. I suppose we should let him work". Kind of interesting.

> rapidly fiddling with controls and settings

I don't know about "professional", but what I've also found is that if you want someone to hold a pose, they're much less likely to tire and stop if you take ages to fiddle with your smartphone.

> Especially if the interface was designed for high performance (unlike most UX today).

Analogue gauges are amazing for real-time feedback, for example my espresso machine needle will oscillate wildly at the vibratory pump frequency if i don'tnt have the grind setting quite right. A digital sensor and display would average it out and be nowhere near as useful.

f8 and be there.

For the "f/8 and be there" philosophy of getting a usable shot at all, I agree with the simplicity of having a sensible default, and of course with the importance of being where the story is. In the digital era, and as a student/amateur who often kept the strobe in the bag, I'd modify that to "f/4 and be there".

f/4 with autofocus, aperture-priority automatic exposure, ISO 400 gave great images, with faster exposure (less likely to have motion blur when I didn't want it, and faster bursts, more forgiving of lower light) and shallower depth-of-field (for making the subject pop).

(I think of f/8 as being near hyperfocal distance for having anything in field of view in focus, and probably near an image quality sweet spot of the lens, but also often being slow for non-studio use unless you were using a strobe.)

I'd modify that to "f/4 and be there".

Sure, because my micro 4/3 sensor has a crop factor of 2:1, so when I set to f4, I'm effectively getting a 35mm f8.

Said someone who only takes pictures in broad daylight. Even with modern tech and 100 watt light bulbs, you get enough motion blur and/or noise to ruin most shots indoors. With film that maxed out at ISO 800 and enlarger as the only postprocessing tool, forget it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com