LEDE ON
It's tempting to say "nothing happened this week." Everyone in Tokyo is taking a breather after a successful CP+ show, after all. But of course a lot did happen (e.g. war is now ongoing, more tariff gyrations, fear of economic slowdown, yen appreciation against the dollar while falling against the Chinese Yuan Renminbi). For Fujitsu, Nikon, Panasonic, and Sony, their fiscal years end at the end of March, and the last month hasn't quite worked out exactly as each expected. When the full year financial results are reported in late April and early May, I expect that to be followed by some new short- and mid-term management plans that were at least partly triggered by recent events. Nothing earth-shocking is in store as far as I can tell, but I'm hearing a lot of micromanagement bits starting to leak in Tokyo, and even here in the US subsidiaries.
——————————
Tip
Reducing Noise on Input
Bill Ferris, an Arizona wildlife photographer who's active on dpreview recently wrote a short post that echoes what I've been teaching for some time now. To reduce noise in your input data:
- Use the widest aperture that provides acceptable depth of field.
- Use the slowest shutter speed that stops subject (and camera) motion.
- Fill the frame with your composition.
The first two are about optimizing exposure. Exposure is LIGHT filtered by APERTURE filtered by SHUTTER SPEED. When you use too small an aperture or too fast a shutter speed you're effectively increasing the randomness of photons in your image, which is the primary source of "noise" these days.
The third is more about the visibility of noise. If you have to crop your original data to get your final composition, at the same output size you increase the visibility of what noise was captured. So if your goal is a 24" print and you cropped your original 2x and output to that size, you'll get a significant increase in the visibility of noise that is in the image versus having enough full frame pixels in the first place. This part is trickier than you think. One reason why I stopped using m4/3 is the 4:3 aspect ratio. Almost all my output is 16:9 these days, so in using 4:3 for the capture I'm always significantly cropping my final image. This makes the area captured that's used in the final image even smaller than I obtain with full frame, thus amplifying the randomness of photons. (Note that choosing sensor size is all about trade-offs. For me, the trade-offs no longer work great. For you, they might. See next.)
Yes, noise reduction software can help, but that's dealing with things you've already captured. Remember, my mantra is optimal data capture, optimal data processing. What I'm talking about in this tip is optimal data capture. Where noise reduction software comes into play is with optimal data processing.
After I launch byThom MAX I'll eventually serve up my three-part seminar on noise: (1) sources of noise; (2) minimizing noise during capture; and (3) dealing with noise after the capture. One of these (long) presentations is already done. The other two are in progress. Until then, enjoy this brief hint at a key component of presentation #2.
——————————
Commentary
The case for high-end APS-C
In this week's tip, I mentioned aspect ratio, capture area, and tradeoffs. I'm lucky enough to be able to fill the full frame with my subjects, both on the sidelines at sporting events, and in Africa taking wildlife photos. While I "suffer" from size, weight, and price penalties doing so, matching top full frame bodies with the best possible lens is still my primary choice. I'll put what I create up against anyone, as I'm using optimal gear using optimal capture techniques.
But realistically, most folk on safari aren't getting the animal approaches or carrying the really long lenses I and other pros do. Particularly in Kenya and Tanzania, there are times when you simply can't fill the frame with your composition, even at 600mm. The nice thing about the Nikon D8/D9 is that they also are convenient APS-C cameras, too, by simply flipping a setting (which can be automated into a button). Sure, you only get a 19mp crop that way, but if that 19mp is fully used and you've set exposure properly, the results can still be stunning at up to about 24" long axis.
One reason the Nikon D500 and the Canon 7D DSLRs were so popular is that they gave you much of the top end body capabilities and performance in a smaller package where you could use somewhat shorter optics, plus you saved a ton of money by equipping that way. I know of one professional sports photographer who has never given up on his D500's because he gets what he needs from a lighter, smaller outfit. Newspaper and Web sports photos simply don't need massive file sizes, and photos are used at sizes that don't reveal the noise gain from the smaller capture area.
There's no accepted definition of consumer, prosumer, or professional when it comes to cameras. However, I'd tend to point to the D500 and 7D (and now R7) bodies as truly prosumer, as they have professional body attributes that are reduced slightly by some consumer-type approaches. For instance, sensor size, which has a big impact on cost, all else equal.
Nikon got burnt by overextending in DX (APS-C) during the DSLR era. As sales volumes came down, Nikon found that they hadn't cleared the previous generation of cameras when they were launching new ones, so at one point Nikon was selling anywhere from eight to twelve (!) cameras in a very tight spacing. After the D500, Nikon moved radically away from proliferating APS-C cameras.
Sony has done something different. They, too, were over proliferating APS-C early in the mirrorless era (NEX and A#### cameras) and ran into the same inventory pile up. Now they've moved to four spaced-out models that don't iterate very often (if at all).
Canon seems to be the only one iterating mirrorless much like they iterated DSLRs, with models all over the spectrum, including the arena this comment is about: high-end APS-C. The Canon R7 and Fujifilm X-H2s are really the only two remaining high-end APS-C cameras that fit the prosumer definition I prefer to use (pro features and performance with some consumer limitations). Apparently, Canon will update the R7 sometime this summer, pushing it even closer in pro features and performance.
But where's Nikon? They were the ones that really established this market (with the D100 originally, and particularly with the D300 and D500 later on). Nikon even has the right lens set in the Z System for the sports/wildlife DX user (e.g. the 400mm f/4.5 VR S would be a great lens to pair with a Z90 prosumer body, as well as the 70-180mm f/2.8 for a second body).
And where's Panasonic? Their m4/3 start seems to have them afraid of even trying APS-C.
I'd argue that top-end APS-C bodies should be present in any mirrorless lineup that wants to be complete and win more customers. Canon looks like they'll have that with the upcoming R7 II. Fujifilm still needs to up their game with autofocus performance on the X-H2s. Nikon needs something far better than the current top of their APS-C line, the Z50II. Panasonic needs to stop watching pitches go by and swing their bat. Sony thinks the A6700 is top end enough, but I'd disagree on a number of levels, starting with the position of the viewfinder, which impacts rotation stability on fast action.
In particular, Nikon and Sony seem to be iterating less often and concentrating mostly on rationalizing a modest number of full frame bodies. This is a little like an auto maker deciding that they don't need to make a full range of product, just a quiver of mid-size and large SUVs. We know what happens when you do that: you get smaller. I wonder how small a camera maker can let themselves get before they become irrelevant. Perhaps Sony doesn't worry about that because they have a history of casting off businesses that become irrelevant. But Nikon doesn't have that opportunity, as Imaging (cameras and lenses) are near 50% of their overall business, and the only group that is consistently profitable enough to keep expanding the overall company.
So while I'll continue to use my full frame Nikons, I'll be the first one to congratulate Nikon when (if) they come out with a high-end APS-C model. It would be the right camera for so many customers, I just don't know why it doesn't exist already.
-------------------
Wrapping Up
And in other news
▶︎ Photoshop gets an AI Agent. Adobe's latest Photoshop public beta includes a new AI Agent, which you can chat with to process your image. Short form, you tell it something and it uses the built-in Photoshop tools to accomplish that. For instance, you might type "reduce the highlights and boost the shadows and also remove distractions." This works a bit like an Action, in that each step will be executed individually and thus leave an entry in the History panel, but it works slower than an Action so that you can see the steps as they are performed. You can also use the chat to ask the AI how to do something, and it will just describe the steps it would take instead of actually performing them.
My take on this is that it's useful if you don't know how to do something specific, such as apply a blend mode only to the highlights, but this new AI feature is not something I'd tend to use myself. For instance, this AI Agent doesn't agree with me on cropping, let alone what constitutes a highlight or shadow. Thus it is more brute force than I would tend to use Photoshop. Great Photoshop processing never reveals what was done and requires subtlety in decision making. I don't believe the Agent is up to that level at this time.