Cameras and Photography Explained

Thom promised surprises on Black Friday, so what actually happened when he showed up in Los Angeles?

• Thom announced a new book to be available sometime in Q1 2025: Mastering Nikon JPEGs. Now if you think you don’t need this book, think again if you have a Zf, Z50II, Z6III, Z8, or Z9: Pre-release capture is always performed in JPEG! If you just set your camera to take NEF files but have lots of JPEG defaults active and then dial into Pre-release capture for that bird-on-a-stick, you can be in for a world of hurt (typically blown out highlights and too much contrast, but also wrong color and more).
• Thom presented his views on the recently announced Z50II: no, it’s not really a D500 replacement. The focus performance is there, as the Z50II contains all the Z9 autofocus goodness and manages that using its 20.9mp image sensor just fine. However, the shutter (release mode) and viewfinder impacts may keep it from being a real replacement (as well as a few other drawbacks, such as battery life). So what does Thom mean by that? The mechanical shutter only goes to 1/4000, the electronic to 1/2000. Each of the shutter options creates different maximum frame rates. Electronic shutter can be performed at 15 fps, but that comes with rolling shutter impacts, plus now you’re starting to see slide show instead of real time. That said, the Z50II is still a remarkably good camera. More will be told when Thom eventually posts his Z50II camera review (also likely Q1 2025, probably coincident with his unannounced but upcoming Complete Guide to the Nikon Z50II).
• Thom gave things away: Nikon tattoos (!), printer cartridges, lenses (!!), GoPro accessories, luggage tags, bags, playing cards, batteries, and much more. He left LA with luggage that was mostly empty. Nikon gave out Z6III t-shirts. 
• Thom introduced the new byThom logo. 

• Thom went on some walks. Specifically, at the Ken Malloy Harbor Regional park looking for birds with a large group of other photographers. Saturday produced more opportunities for good photos than Friday, but that wasn’t exactly the point of the walks. The real point was to let people pick Thom’s brain about how he approached things. The introductory mantra was “start wide and narrow.” Everything in bird work tends to boil down to that, even just observing them. With autofocus, sure try the all automatic approach. It works for certain situations, but when the branches start intruding and the focus system starts hiccuping, that’s when you take some control and narrow what the camera is thinking about. The ultimate in “narrow”—at least on the mirrorless cameras—is manual focus override with peaking at 100% view (assuming the bird is relatively static on a branch). But there’s many in between points in that process. So teaching that was one of the things Thom tried to do. He also tried to get everyone “thinking like birds.” “What does the bird want to do?” Well, the hawk wanted its mate to join them, the vermillion flycatcher wanted to grab insects, the ducks wanted to be at waters edge foraging. Well, if you rush down to the water’s edge, the ducks swim away. You have to figure out where they’re going, put yourself there down low and not moving, and guess what? They’ll come to you. Stay patient, stationary, and quiet, and if you guessed correctly at what the bird wanted to do, you’ll be rewarded. If you chase, you’re going to be rewarded with more and more distant bird butt images. If that’s what you want, chase away.

• Thom answered questions. Lots and lots of questions. Several hours of questions. “Does the Z50II autofocus work as well as the Z9?” Yes, pretty much. Impressively so. Just make sure you’ve given the subject enough exposure. “Is this image sharp?” No. Which always led to a discussion of why. “Which camera/lens is better, X or Y?” Ultimately that doesn’t matter unless you learn how to use it to full advantage. The differences between a 28-400mm f/4-8 VR and a 400mm f/4.5 VR S and a 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S all at maximum aperture and 400mm can be smaller than you might think, particularly if your subject is well isolated from the background. With the Z50II and a 28-400mm f/4-8 VR lens you can do an awful lot of good with minimal kit (see above). Can you do better with a Z9 and 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S? Sure. But the price you pay for each “betterment” these days escalates very, very rapidly. Plus other factors come into play. It’s pretty easy handling a Z50II and the smaller zoom in a vehicle or while going on a casual hike. The Z9 and the big prime require a lot of effort just to carry and keep reasonably steady. What if your lack of steadiness dilutes the acuity of the big, expensive lens? Oops. Thom also answered a lot of questions about noise, often with the phrase “there’s really no reason to be afraid of random photon noise any more.” When cameras were putting a lot of electronic noise into high ISO images, yes, that was problematic and even Thom tried to avoid getting into situations where he needed ISO 6400, for example. However, random photon noise can be relatively well corrected, and today’s cameras generally do a really good job of accurately capturing that randomness, so the old thinking no longer should apply. Thom says that if you need more shutter speed, don’t be afraid of ISO. 
• Thom hung around the store. During his brief “off” time, Thom mingled among the Black Friday store goers at Paul’s Photo, observing their questions and buying habits. Mark Comon, store owner, had to be on his best behavior, as Thom threatened to knock over tripods, open boxes, put fingerprints on lenses, or worse if he wasn’t. As Thom has explained in the past, while the Internet fora are full of photography-know-it-alls, there’s still a more naive buying public coming into the camera stores (particularly this time of year), and like watching wildlife, you learn things about their habits by observing them. One thing Thom noticed is that in the store most of the decisions get totally dictated by price, not by features, performance or something else. You’ll see people drool over the top gear, but then come to economic reality and buy the basic camera and lens that fits their budget instead. Many of the Black Friday shoppers had very specific spending targets (e.g. US$4400), and they added boxes and accessories until they hit that.  

Obviously, Thom doesn’t do events like this very often (since this is the first one in his 30-year presence on the Internet ;~). He’s actually an introvert and near hermit, believe it or not. But when he does come out of his shell (or uses his superpower with his fingers on a keyboard), he generates chaos, energy, information, excitement, and more. So…should you ever see another all-day Thom event offered in the future, you’d be wise to take advantage of it. Will there be one? Hmm. You should probably consult your Magic 8-ball (that’s as useful as asking Thom a direct question ;~).

Why was this article written in the third person? Yet another surprise, it seems.

"Tracking AF is made up of two processes: first, "find (detect)" the subject, and then "focus on and continue to track (track)" the found subject." — description of Canon R1 focus system

Hmm. Two? Sounds like three to me:

1. Detect
2. Focus
3. Follow (track)

Even in that simplification, moving subjects become a bit of a problem, in that between #1 and #2 and between #2 and #3 the subject may be moving to a different position. 

This exposes one of the problems we currently have in describing the various autofocus systems and how they differ. We've had this problem pretty much since day one of autofocus. For instance, the Canon DSLRs in the oughts tended to detect quickly and begin moving focus but you could take photos prior to focus actually being achieved. During this same period, Nikon DSLRs tended to detect more slowly, but at the point where the first photo was taken, they were almost always in focus (current Nikon cameras have a Focus+Release attribute that can be set, too, which locks that behavior in).

One of the things I've been teaching for quite some time is that when a user takes more control of #1, then #2 and #3 tend to work better ;~). The amateur habit is to set Auto-area AF of some kind, and let the camera do all the work, starting with detecting. The pro habit is to tell the camera where to look for the subject they want focused and tracked, and that requires you control the focus position (and sometimes focus area size). 

I see clear differences in cameras for #3, by the way. Current Nikon bodies tend to be spot on in tracking (up to the point where they aren't, which is usually user or subject caused). My experience with Sony bodies up through the A1—I've not had any significant experience yet with an A9 Mark III or just-announced A1 II—is that they're a little lax about focus plane during tracking: they can drift focus slightly forward and backward from the perfect point between images.

With relatively static subjects, all the brands currently do #2 quite well. The differences come in #1 (plus how the camera is set and handled), and sometimes with #3 if the subject is moving either slightly or dramatically fast and erratically (the in between all the systems handle about the same). Moreover, these things work different when the camera is set for video than they do for stills. Nikon these days tends to have the best-behaved video focus, while I find Canon and Sony to be twitchier. 

"Meanwhile, I'm the same speed. I didn't actually need my computer to be faster." --Mike Johnston, The Online Photographer

This speaks to a point I keep making: not everyone needs to be at the bleeding edge of technology. 

I've watched a lot of folk get excited about pre-release capture at 30 fps, for example. They claim that they need or will use this. However, other than some birders, I'm not seeing that in practice. I notice similar things with 8K video, Focus shift shooting, Pixel shift shooting, and a bunch of other recent features. These all seem to be "sometimes things" that don't get a lot of use by the person who insisted it be in their next camera. The latter two you can perform—with more complexity and time obviously—without having the feature built in. So people are often buying convenience for something they don't (often) do. 

Mike is going to discover one small falsehood about his statement, though. For his Web surfing, writing, and a host of other things he does regularly, he's right, a faster computer doesn't make him faster. Where his new M4 Mac Mini will be faster in a way that could make him more productive would be in more sophisticated image handling. He did note how much faster he's ingesting images, for instance. He should also notice it in processing, as well.

So let me pontificate a bit about that last bit: there are slow thinkers and fast responders in image editing. The slow thinker doesn't really mind that it took Lightroom 10 seconds to build their pano because they need time to think about what it is they might want to do next. The fast responder wants that pano rendered stat because they want to start tinkering with it now. I'm amused when I see a slow thinker trying to figure out whether they need a Mac Studio M2 Max or just a Mac Mini M4. They don't need a Studio with the Max or Ultra chip, because they'll find themselves staring at the finished pano for quite some time before figuring out what to do next. On the flip side, I've seen fast responders just order the latest and greatest because they think it is always faster.

I just updated my Recommended Macs article again with some things that speak to that fast responder. For example, a Mac Studio M2 Ultra is indeed faster at most of the tough photographic processing tasks than even the Mac Mini M4 Pro maxed out. Why? Because there are more cores and the memory bandwidth used between them is faster. For Apple Silicon, the priority goes (1) better memory stats, (2) better M chip core stats. So if you're a fast responder, currently a maxed out Mac Studio is the fastest Apple desktop you can buy (it has both #1 and #2 ;~). 

Still, it pays to note Mike's comment. Do you really need something to be faster? Most of you don't. I'm someone who's often ahead of the bleeding edge of tech (unreleased products in my possession), and I'm not sure I need everything that we're getting now. My portable is still a maxed out M1 Max 14", and I'm not seeing it sluggish in any way for things I do. In fact, these new Mac desktops are making me have to up my game as a fast responder, as sometimes I find myself still staring at the result thinking about what to do next.

"Sony Has the Problem Every Competitor Wants: Its Flagship Was Too Good to Follow" --Petapixel headline

The article goes on to spew "interesting" statements like a machine gun: "The first Sony A1 set a nearly impossible to beat standard," "...it's challenging to feel about it the same we did about its predecessor," and "...doesn't do anything surprising."  

A lot of this article was essentially apologetic posturing. When the A1 first came out it was arguably the best all-around high-end camera you could buy. It had a number of small annoyances, but those could be dealt with by most users because of what the camera did deliver. Of course, the Z9 (and then the Z8) came out at lower prices effectively matching the A1, and the King of the Mountain contest suddenly started to become a congested Knights of the Plateau one. 

This isn't the first time we've had this contest. It won't be the last.

Thing is, sometimes you get big steps forward in products, sometimes you get small ones. The A1 II progress is one of those small ones. It mostly sands off a number of rough edges (perhaps literally due to the change in body to the A9 Mark III one). 

My thinking hasn't changed. If you're in the E-mount world, the ultimate camera to have is now the A1 II (it used to be the A1). I don't know a Sony pro who shouldn't have one of the two A1s. The problem, though, is that the A1 II isn't enough of a change to get an A1 user to upgrade, nor does the A1 II change anything in the Canon/Nikon/Sony pro camera dogfight. 

But contrary to the implication of Petapixel's headline, other competitors have the same problem. The Z9 will be an extraordinarily difficult camera for Nikon to follow up. A Z9 II is likely to fall into the same category as the A1 II: a lot of small changes that make the best even better. Canon, at least, does have the opportunity to take their 24mp pro body into a higher pixel count, which would stop their pros from all buying R5 Mark II's to keep up with the pixel race.

For what it's worth, digicame-info, a Japanese "information" site, put the following headline interpretation on Petapixel's article: "The reason why Sony's A1 II is not getting the best reviews is because the A1 and A9 III had too big an impact." That's another way of saying "top cameras are already really good," but it seems to imply that every new camera needs to make huge impacts or else it's "not that interesting." 

Progress is progress. Sometimes we take big steps forward, other times we inch forward. This does bring up a dilemma for the purchaser (as well as Sony), at least temporarily. Right now you can pick up a new A1 for US$5500, or wait for the newer A1 II at US$6500. I think the more important thing to consider right now is whether any of the improvements in the newer model justify paying US$1000 more at the moment. I'd tend to say no. So there's a temporary situation where you can get "nearly the same" for significantly less. Thus Sony's real problem is that pre-orders for the A1 II are likely to be low until the A1 supply is exhausted. (Update: I appear to be at least partially wrong. Sony is saying they'll have trouble filling pre-orders, and you may expect delays. I'm not sure whether that's more demand than expected, or whether it's just low supply.)

The birding walks are full, but there's still a little room left to lunch with Thom and Mark Comon, attend the Mastering Nikon JPEG presentation, or sign up for the Nikon Z50II Introduction talk. 

I'm warning you, if you're in LA and miss the in-person stuff, you're going to miss out on more than seeing what Thom's wearing this week. I said surprises would be in store (literally). I mean it. Some are limited edition. 

If you're still interested, the sign-up site is still available, too ;~). Note that the sign-up page is a bit confusing (Mark was on his way out the door to Japan when he posted it, and we couldn't mention the Z50II when he posted it, so the Z50II talk is labeled "Nikon News and Development"). If you're in LA and want the surprises, sign up for the in-person option (3rd in the ticket list), which includes both afternoon classes. If you're outside LA, sign up for the Online option (4th in the list), which is only going to be the Z50II talk (the Mastering Nikon JPEG talk is only in-store, it will not be recorded).

Again, the schedule for Black Friday at Paul's Photo in Torrance, CA is:

• 6am to 9am — Bird photography walk (full)
• 12 noon until done — Lunch with Thom and Mark (in person only) (limited seating)
• 4pm to 4:50pm — Mastering Nikon JPEGs (in person only) 
• 5pm until finished — Introduction to the Nikon Z50II (in person and online)

Nikon today released firmware that fixed the problem where the viewfinder and Rear LCD sometimes looked washed out when the camera restored from Standby. Firmware 1.21 fixes that problem.

The rumor sites are struggling with the paucity of new camera introductions. Some had already established a habit of leaking information one piece of the story at a time from sources that had provided them more complete information. And as usual there's the rush to publish a full spec sheet a day or two prior to an actual product introduction, only that's not happening very often, particularly as some companies have tightened the release of information (dealers were a big leak point; I had information on the Nikon Z50II almost three weeks prior to most dealers, who didn't get that information until literally the last minute).

I'm not sure how any of that is particularly useful to a reader; I see rumors more as entertainment. The type of rumors that would be more interesting to me would be about general positioning, not specific products. For instance, will Nikon continue on with DX or begin to abandon it? That's a rumor that, if seemingly substantiated, would attract my attention and have me scrambling to verify or dispute. 

Recently, Canon Rumors published the kind of rumor story that seems more useful to me: that Canon will make an APS-C video camera, a retro full frame one, and an ultra-high resolution one. Now I don't know whether that information is true or not, but if it is it tells me something about Canon's future model direction and whether I'd want to continue investing in their line today. (If you can't figure it out for yourself, these three rumored models would represent a "broadening" of the Canon product line as opposed to iteration. The Canon line is already really broad. My take on this rumor, again if true, is that Canon sees Sony sucking up customers with APS-video, Fujifilm/Nikon sucking up customers with retro cameras, and Fujifilm sucking up high-end pixel peepers with GFX. Canon wants to be the primary sucker of every niche, thus they need to respond. I'd tend to argue that companies that aim with shotguns might not be very good at hitting bullseyes.)

It's interesting that "road maps" were deemed necessary by the Japanese companies when they each were trying to transition users from DSLRs to mirrorless—but only lens road maps—yet these sporadically-updated documents have now been dropped by all when they felt their transition was reasonably complete. It can't be that they felt that the road maps gave their competitors insight into the potential future offerings. That's because the coopetition in Tokyo is so ingrained and intertwined that I doubt that there's much, if anything, secret between them. Maybe specific date, price, or new feature information isn't always shared, but pretty much everything else is. Yet road maps did give customers confidence that putting thousands of dollars into a new product line wouldn't be a dead end. 

It's almost as if the Japanese are fearful of anything that might be perceived as even a vague promise. Successful consumer companies have close relationships with their customers, not arms-length, silent ones. I still see plenty of photographers guessing that some mirrorless mount or another is a dead end, but I don't really see the camera companies doing much to keep them from such speculation.

The camera companies are now asking us to buy top-of-the-line products for the most part. Their continued financial success pretty much depends upon that now. Yet none of these companies really wants to have a direct conversation with the customers who are putting thousands of dollars into their gear about their commitment and why they should maintain it. Despite the even higher costs of doing so today, I still hear from people who feel abandoned by their brand and are again determined to switch. (hint: all brands have the same problem, so switching won't solve the sense of abandonment.)

I was going to write that Sony, with its Kando events, was an exception to this, but it seems that these trips went private and invite-only since the pandemic. Kando was always about trying to fuel influencer-type social media, but it originally had the sense of being inclusive to the user base, not exclusive. 

All the camera companies have "ambassadors"—famous photographers you can aspire towards—and yet I feel that most of those programs are effectively just marketing endorsements with almost no other meat on the bone. The "learning" (or worse, "mentoring") that you might get from those paid representatives of your favorite camera is minimal, to say the least. I was perusing one company's ambassador postings recently and felt this vague sense of things being mailed in. No real effort, no clarity, no clear purpose, no new information, nothing that you couldn't get from other common online sources. Heck, I didn't even get any "my brand's camera does this better because...” Even at my level, the professional services from each of the camera companies can be highly hit or miss. Generally a hit for some big events and some “who we’re targeting now” photographers, but often a miss when something comes up and you need an answer to a problem that just cropped up.

We're at a crossroads today, and probably sooner than Canon or Nikon thought we might get there. DSLRs blazed upwards in sales in the first dozen years of the century, mirrorless in the second. What's going to blaze upwards in the third, which we're now officially entering? Seemingly nothing. Mirrorless volume was 4.8m units in 2023, and it'll probably be within 10% of that in 2024 despite the continued 20-30% annual decline of DSLR. So mirrorless is not fully "replacing" DSLR volume. I currently predict that interchangeable lens camera volume will not grow at all in 2025. 

Understanding how each brand is preparing to deal with the coming sales plateau would be useful to those of us spending our hard-earned money on these (mostly) unnecessary toys. Again, those are the rumors that would be interesting to read, not that iteration ten of the everyman camera will have a slight bump in features or performance.

Bonus: Personally, what happens next with the camera companies is no longer particularly important to me. At 73, I have all the photo gear I need to conclude my career as a photographer. I don't need to buy anything other than to perhaps replace something that I might break. Indeed, in looking back at my recent business financials, I can see a clear downward curve in my acquisitions and a continued emptying of things from my gear closet I'm not using. That's despite the fact that I currently plan to cover the 2026 Cortina Winter Olympics; what new stuff do I need? None.

However, as you might tell from the theme of a few of my recent articles, I am concerned about the photo industry, in pretty much all aspects. It doesn't appear at all clear to me how the Millennials and Gen Zers are going to take to photography and stand on the shoulders of what we Boomers and Gen Xers have accomplished (as Sontag suggests every new generation must). Are we really going to say smartphones are the only future of imaging? That seems limiting and wrong.