Cameras and Photography Explained

Panasonic seems to have stepped in it, but every camera maker is suddenly checking their shoes.

With the Panasonic S9 launch two different issues came to light: (1) Panasonic had used stock images from other camera makes in their marketing for the S9; and (2) a well-known YouTuber implied that Panasonic was playing favorites with invites to a pre-release event.

I'm not really going to comment on #2 other than to say all of the pre-announcement things camera companies do is absolutely marketing oriented, and in particular, targeted at driving up sales upon announcement. Camera manufacturers have specific ideas of how they want their launch announcement to be amplified by others. It's a marketing department decision as to whom to invite to events or give early access to. Frankly, I too think the Japanese camera makers are making bad decisions there, but if you look at sales numbers, the first few months of sales for a product are the most important, and that's where they're focused: goosing the initial demand. So-called influencers are the cheapest way of amplifying a message, and the camera companies want that message to be 100% positive.

It's #1 that's the real problem. Moreover, it's been a real problem for decades, as Panasonic's mea culpa eventually revealed. Essentially, Panasonic tried to explain their way out of the problem by saying that their Web site was established over 20 years ago to promote video cameras, and that the original idea of using images not necessarily from the device being promoted was established then. This is shorthand for saying "our marketing department has always taken shortcuts." Almost everything Panasonic has said on the problem so far has just made it worse. 

Panasonic entered the still digital camera market with LUMIX branding in 2001, so what Panasonic is really saying is that they've been using this practice of using stock photos to illustrate what their cameras do for two+ decades. 

Sankei-Shimbun in Japan went to the trouble of asking each of the major camera makers whether or not they use the same practice. I could have predicted the answers, because the answer is mostly some form of yes. 

Specifically, Canon was quoted as saying that they used such images, but not in "photos that promote performance". Hmm. That's an interesting equivocation. Sony said that they used such images, but always identify the equipment used. I'm not 100% certain that that's completely true. I seem to recall past Sony marketing where that wasn't true; maybe things have changed. Nikon said that they never use such images to "introduce features and performance." In general, I believe Nikon has been true to that claim for quite some time: their current marketing materials process for almost every launch requires images from their ambassadors or launch partner photographers and often are very last minute in getting finalized because of that. (I don't know why Nikon "hides" their brochures for the cameras, but if you can find one, you'll see that the images are pretty much all delineated with photographer, camera, and lens information, and many of those images or sequences related to them also show up in the Web site materials.)

There is an interesting side to all this, though, and that's a pretty simple question that you should ask: at which point during/after a new camera launch do you feel confident in what it can and can't do? And why?

You may have noticed that all new cameras are designed to the mean. Features pioneered or on previous and competitor's models simply get added to any new model. 

A good case in point is the now ubiquitous HDMI connection. Since it's less than a dollars' worth of parts to put in a camera, HDMI is put into all cameras. Serious question: when was the last time you used the HDMI port on your camera?

Gordon Laing (Cameralabs) made a comment in passing about the Panasonic S9 that's relevant here: "I wonder if the target market would have preferred a headphone jack instead an HDMI port, as I’m not sure how many are likely to connect external recorders or make TV slideshows with it." [he left off "use the camera as an input to a video switcher or as a Zoom input, but Panasonic apparently didn't build in any support for USB Webam] 

The narrative that Panasonic wants people to believe with the S9 is this: you take an image or video with the camera and push it over to the mobile app for sharing. No HDMI connector should be necessary if that's the model usage. Remember, these "creator cameras" are supposed to be attracting smartphone users with additional capability. The smartphone creator generally tries to do it without ungainly add ons and cables, though occasionally I run into some that have caged and enhanced their phone in ways that make it look like something out of a dysfunctional future. 

Curiously, Panasonic did pay attention to another aspect that's ubiquitous among cameras these days: the hot shoe. The Panasonic S9 may have a slot at the top of the camera that's "flash foot sized," but there are no sync pins; it's a cold shoe. Okay, but this is probably a wrong design decision, too ;~).

No, not because the S9 user is going to want to use flash (though they might). It's a wrong decision because the creator target customer Panasonic seeks wants a sleek, all-in-one solution. Having a flash shoe with electrical connections for audio was probably the right design decision. After all, if that creator is creating video, they're going to need sound. Plugging cables into the side of the camera making it user unfriendly and ungainly for that is not what that creator wants. They'd love a wireless system that looks integrated. Sony gets this, and provides several solutions for shoe-mounted audio, but I noticed that the DJI wireless mic is now offering a Sony-shoe compatible solution that removes the wire connections, too. 

An interesting exception to my contention that cameras are designed to the mean is the Nikon Zf. It was simply designed to a different drummer ;~). One of the questions I consistently get from people looking at the Zf is whether or not there are any User settings (U#) or banks. Well, no. Isn't that outside the "revert to old design" notion behind the Zf? The film SLRs the Zf is intended to mimic didn't have U# or banks. I actually support Nikon's decision in this respect: there's already too much "modernization" in the Zf design as it is. If Old School Simple is the design goal, then it should remain the design goal and not instead result in design creep to the mean. 

That said, the Zf has enough design contradictions in it to keep my keyboard busy should I deem it necessary. I've already described much of that at length, so I won't repeat it here.

Meanwhile, at the top end of the design spectrum seems to be the default notion that "more buttons are better." The Nikon Z9 has 29 buttons (including the thumb stick presses). The about-to-be-releasedannounced Canon R1 seems to have at least 27. (Let's not even start to count dials ;~). The problem here is that you only have ten fingers. That many buttons really have to be in very logical groupings and places, or else you're just asking the photographer to move their hand when they shouldn't be. Moreover, these are big bodies, so folk with smaller hands often find themselves stretching to button positions. 

Realistically, you're not even using all 10 of your fingers to reach the multiple dozen buttons. Right thumb, right index finger, maybe right middle finger, plus a hand move (from holding the camera/lens) with left index finger or thumb. Everything else tends to mean you've pulled the camera from your eye and/or handling it differently from when it's at your eye. No one is quite getting this right any more, but everyone seems to be catering to "need easier access to..." complaints by adding controls. I'd think we'd have seen more touch/glide/swipe multi-use controls at this point, but it seems that the only thing the camera designers really have any idea how to do is button or dial. Thus we're now getting button-itis.

"AI will kill the camera companies." — numerous posts

This is akin to saying "camera companies can't keep up with processing bandwidth demands." 

Simply put, most things that people call AI require a lot of data (memory) and processing (GPU or NPU). If you believe that the camera companies are not capable of increasing either resource internally in their products, you are essentially saying that they're incompetent. 

The truth is simpler: when camera demand fell and smartphone demand rose, the economic benefit of creating new chips for these products tilted to the smartphone makers. Apple, Samsung, and Qualcomm have far greater volumes of product that they can spread R&D costs over, which also allows them to iterate faster, and thus to incorporate NPUs and AI/ML resources faster. Apple has almost fallen over themselves with their Apple Silicon iteration: the software teams aren't keeping up with the hardware. Meanwhile, most customers don't need what an M4 can do, even an M1 suffices. Coupled with the fact that smartphone sales have peaked, the court isn't tilted as far in their favor as much as it used to be, but still, the playing field is not close to level.

That said, the camera makers need to be careful. After all, you don't need a lens if your goal is to artificially create a "photo." ;~). Some AI would be very useful, but probably not as much generative AI that many think is the future of imaging. Nikon, who's now the third largest ILC vendor in volume probably has enough sales to continue to iterate EXPEED often enough and with enough AI-capable resources in it to stay competitive. A company such as Ricoh/Pentax probably does not. 

The real question is exactly what AI/ML makes sense inside a camera? The iPhone and Pixel cameras seem to have about exhausted their original ideas in this respect. The dedicated camera companies have mostly targeted focus and are also topping out in what their original target there was. It's as if creative thinking by human engineers has stopped ;~). 

“Prices should be determined by supply and demand.” — numerous posts

This comment comes up a lot when new products are introduced and demand is higher than supply, so the product is difficult to get. The Fujifilm X100VI camera and the Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens are examples of that at the moment. 

The surprising part of the quote is that the posters of such comments aren’t camera vendors, but rather camera purchasers. In essence, these posters have swallowed the MBA school teachings hook, line, and sinker, and believe that just pricing a product “correctly” in the first place is all that’s necessary to get supply in balance with demand.

I’m here to tell you that pretty much everything I learned in the MBA program fails in the real world. People don’t respond the way the capaitalist demand curves suggest.

First, let me talk about the Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR price. At US$1700, it’s clearly a bargain. It’s also priced lower than some other near-equivalent lenses, such as the Sony 200-600mm, even though I’d say the Nikon performs a bit better.

There’s a concept of leaving money on the table. Nikon has been clearly doing that with the Z System for some time now. Across the board, most of the Z cameras and lenses are priced lower than competitor’s equivalents. Being last to the full-on mirrorless game, Nikon pretty much needed to do something to call attention to their products, and pricing was one way they did (and continue to do) that. 

From Nikon’s viewpoint on the 180-600mm, they’re not thinking “oh darned, we could have priced it higher.” They’re thinking “yes, we’re picking up users’ attention,” and in an area that the competition is a little weaker (full telephoto lens lineup). The 180-600’s pricing was strategic, and not a tactical blunder as the MBA-think would suggest. 

Moreover, some of the demand is actually caused by the lack of supply. The fact that Nikon is selling all 5000 lenses they make every month is in itself causing more people to take a closer look and try to understand why. And when they do understand, they join the wait list, increasing the demand. 

Despite every MBA program teaching that supply and demand (and pricing and demand) have these “perfect” balance points when you graph them out properly, and that you should always target exactly that point, it doesn't work that way. The MBA way is mostly nonsense. And the Japanese camera companies have figured that out in a number of ways. 

For instance, supply chain and new regulation issues are still causing parts shortages and delays. A number of products are being delayed and priced higher specifically because the Japanese know that doing so will mean they still maximize the dollars they take in given the parts they know they can get. And in examples such as the Nikon Z System, pricing is not placed at the so-called demand junction in a specific attempt to increase the perceived demand. 

The problem is, this game is really tough to play. People almost never do exactly what you would expect them to. They’re quick to jump on what looks like the most popular train, quick to jump off when they discover that train wasn't going where they wanted to go or wouldn't get there fast enough. In my career I’ve graphed pretty much everything my MBA schooling told me to, and not a single one of those graphs look like what was taught. The marketing side of the program taught me far more useful bits, which I (and everyone else) learned to use to manipulate all the demand and pricing curves. 

What actually is most important turns out to be human behavior, not math. So neither Fujifilm nor Nikon are pricing incorrectly as far as I’m concerned. Also, it’s kind of nice to have products in strong demand and people talking about them a lot. 

"...the [OM-1 Mark II's] 2x crop is a secret weapon with this camera!" —DigitalCameraWorld review.

Is it? This is becoming less and less true as the full frame and other crop-sensor makers adjust their offerings to user wants. What are those wants? Smaller and lighter are two key ones. 

Consider for a moment the Nikon 800mm f/6.3 PF VR S on a 45mp Z8 body, for example. A 1.5x crop in camera gives about the same 20mp result as the OM-1 Mark II, so we need to compare size and weight at 1200mm, which means the OMDS 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lens. The m4/3 solution saves you a bit over a pound and 5" in length. Is that really a secret weapon, or just a modest decrease?

One of my problems with m4/3, and the reason why I moved away from it, is that the advantages it once had is narrowing down to fewer and fewer lens and camera combinations, almost all pushing diffraction limits. On the flip side, full frame at more megapixels adds abilities you can't get with the smaller image sensor. Given the costs and availability—I happen to live next door to an OMDS dealer, but most don't—you also start finding more people who have to rely upon what the Internet says and Internet buying options to get into m4/3 here in the US, and then discovering it wasn't quite what they were expecting.

Don't get me wrong, the right combo of m4/3 camera and lens can still net some users a clear advantage in some situations. But a "secret weapon"? No, not so much. It's a known difference, but it's a limited one.

"I fear that the [plastic] mount may not endure as long as a metal plate." — Lens review at Philippereeve.net

Sorry, but "fear" is not a useful attribute in a review. Either you have evidence that a plastic mount doesn't last as long as a metal mount, or you don't. Either you have materials expertise that can speak to the difference (and have identified the polymers used correctly) or you don't. 

I will say this: I've had a lot of lenses with "plastic" mounts dating back into the film days, and none have shown any real evidence of mount wear. On the other hand, I've had "metal" mounts that do show clear brassing and wear. But frankly, unless you can also show that the mount integrity deteriorates with wear in a way that makes the lens no longer live up to its capabilities (due to misalignment), your primary fear would be that brassing or wear would devalue the lens when you sell it, because others have read reviews that say "I fear that the mount may not endure..." 

"Nikon dominates the 2024 Camera Grand Prix awards." — Nikonrumors, Photorumors site headlines

As a transitive verb, "dominates" means rule or control. As an intransitive verb, it means to exert mastery, control, or preeminence. So how'd Nikon actually do? ;~)

In terms of camera of the year, the Sony A9 Mark III got 307 points, the Nikon Z8 got 126 points. Both the Japanese Camera Journal Press Club, which organizes the awards, and the readership of the member publications voted the A9 Mark III as Camera of the Year. The editors (not readers) gave a technology prize to the Nikon Z8 Auto Capture function, though that seems odd, as the function was first released on the Z9 in a previous year. Apparently technologies can be multiply introduced ;~). In lens of the year, the Nikon 135mm f/1.8 Plena S got 169 points, while the runner-up Sony 300mm f/2.8GM OSS had 92. Again, both the editors and readers anointed the same product. 

One might say that Sony and Nikon dominated the awards this year, with the two of them splitting the four primary award categories over an arguably poorer performance from Canon and the others in terms of vote getting. For what it's worth, Sony won the Camera of the Year award in 2023 for the A7R Mark V, though the readers voted the Panasonic S5 II as the winner, while the OMDS 90mm f/3.5 Macro IS Pro won the lens award from the editors. In 2022 it was the Nikon Z9 winning both camera awards, and the Sony 50mm f/1.2GM winning the lens award. If you go back to 2021, the Sony A1 won the editor's camera award. Amazingly you have to go all the way back to 2015 to find Canon taking the editor's award for a camera (7D Mark II). 

I'm not a big fan of singling out a product for an award on voting, whether it be editors or readers. I showed a number of years ago how that can be (and is) gamed. But hey, you'll probably see the award logo on ads and marketing materials soon, so it surely means something to the companies getting the awards.

I'll have much more to say soon about my month in Africa, including a Zoom seminar with Mark Comon of Creative Photo Academy. So stay tuned.

But in case you hadn't noticed, I took a bit more than a month off from the Internet. Mostly because I was teaching two 10-day photography workshops in Botswana during that period, but also because I prefer to step away from the Web fire hose once in awhile so as to dry out a bit. 

At those two workshops there were a total of 34 (!) Nikon Z8 or Z9 bodies being bounced around on some of the toughest "roads" on the planet. I personally put in 2500km (1500 miles) bouncing around on sand, plus quite a bit of additional distance on boats and small planes. I was close enough to pet wild lions, had an African Wild Cat decide to come be my tent mate, and managed to see pretty much all of Botswana's zebras on migration simultaneously (many thousands). Heck, very much unlike me, things were so good photographically I took over a terabyte of images during my time off, including with two new products I was testing. 

No, I'm not rested ;~). I'll need a few days of extra sleep for that.

But I am rested from writing and the Internet, so my brain is clear and my fingers poised. So expect me to start adding my contribution to the fire hose soon.

If you're interested in coming on an African safari with other Z8s and Z9s, there's a space available at this year's September workshop, a couple of spaces still available for the July 2025 workshop, plus I'll have the two 2026 workshops posted soon (sign up here for the workshop mailing list).