May I ask that you start your photographic-related shopping by clicking on any of the B&H links on this site. B&H is this site's exclusive advertiser. Starting a purchase from any B&H link on this site helps support this site.
This page of the site contains the latest 10 articles to appear on bythom, followed by links to the archives.
Stop the Mount Madness with Our New, Free E-Book
Have you been a victim of a discontinued camera system?
Did you recently go to a camera store only to find that none of the lenses they sell fit the camera you own?
Are you tired of using cheap mount adapters that promise compatibility but deliver frustration instead?
If so, you need our latest ebook, The Ultimate Guide to Moderating Mount Madness, which tells you exactly how you've been misled, overcharged, and manipulated by the Japanese camera companies, including full details for what you can do about that. It's free, as is an initial consultation with our team of lawyers sitting by ready to help (they really don’t like standing by, as it hurts their feet).
Our new, free ebook includes:
- A history of just how long the camera makers have been pulling off this silly practice.
- A full list of mount transgressions so you can look up the one you’ve been victim of.
- How to identify an adapter by what it should have included but didn’t.
- How to recycle mount adapters that didn’t work out for you (i.e. mailing addresses of Japanese companies).
- Email addresses and phone numbers for every Japanese company CEO who’s been harming you.
- A seven step program to rid you of Mount Madness forever, as well as the address of your local Mounts Anonymous (MA) group.
Just because you bought into a new mirrorless system doesn't mean you don't have recourse to remuneration and damages.
Here at Dewey, Skrewum, and Howe, we specialize in mediating mount misdemeanors. For over 70 years we've been helping photographers bring camera makers to court and deliver justice to the people who trusted those careless companies. EF mount? We'll make Canon pay. F mount? We'll make Nikon pay, too. Indeed, we've tackled every lens format from Alpha to Mount Olympus. About the only camera maker we haven't been able to bring to justice is Pentax, who insists that the K mount is still current.
We can help. We offer free consultations for those who've had mount proliferation inflicted upon them. Plus we won't collect our usual 50% take until the settlement check has been written. You can trust us to look out for you (our dogs trust us, too). Call us now at 1-800-MOUNT (Watashitachiha nihongo o hanashimasu).
Some egos may have been harmed in the process of making this offer. AI may or may not have been used by someone to do something, so don’t expect the above to be perfect. Musk free since 2007. Offer not valid in CA, IN, PA, or FL. If in FL, we’ll refer you to another lawyer, but they may be shadier than we are.
Déjà Vu à Tokyo
I'm sure you noticed it. Not only are we seeing a slowdown in new camera introductions, but there's this "haven't I seen that before" thing going on, too. Consider:
- Canon R50V — yet another attempt to catch up to the Sony ZVs and cater to Gen Z creators
- Fujifilm GFX100RF — an un-stabilized X100 with a larger sensor
- Panasonic S1RII — your basic modernization of a six year old camera, otherwise known as overdue iteration
- Canon Powershot V1 — an attempt to catch up with the Sony ZVs and cater to Gen Z creators
- OMDS OM-3 — an OM-1 II in a different body
- Nikon Coolpix P1100 — a P1000 with virtually no changes, certainly no significant ones
- Leica SL3-S —An SL3 with a 24mp sensor to impart faster frame rates (so even Germany is playing the deja vu game)
That's the entire 2025 announcements so far, except for the Sigma bf.
The bf certainly hasn't been seen before (though the mill out a solid aluminum block to get a body thing has been done before). Other than that shiny bf, it feels like the entire camera industry has stalled. New ideas don't exist. New technologies are rare. Fixing clear, basic problems that existed in previous cameras isn't really happening. Nor is trying new things. Instead, what we're getting is rudimentary iteration and proliferation. Hmm, maybe the camera companies have been using AI for longer than I thought ;~).
Not that Sigma got it right while all the rest sat on their hands and contemplated their navel. The bf, it seems to me, is a solid body and UX idea that was implemented wrong. Simple controls, small body. That doesn't say full frame to me. Ironically, the similarly small lens that makes the most sense on the Sigma bf is the Panasonic 18-40mm f/4.5-6.3. Yes, there's less than a half dozen suitably-sized Sigma primes (e.g 17mm f/4, 24mm f/3.5, etc.), but versatility is not in the bf's likely lens use set. The minute you start trying to get some more sophistication on the lens side, you bulk up the little camera considerably, ruining its primary attribute. Let me say it: the bf should have used a 24mp APS-C sensor, and Sigma would still need a better crop sensor L-mount lens set on top of that to make the idea fully work. Oh, and if you're going to give us a fixed LCD camera with no viewfinder, don't use a standard TFT panel! It's not bright enough nor can those hip creators wearing their polarized sunglasses see it.
Of course, you and I won't be buying a Sigma bf, anyway. Mostly because Sigma can't more than about 2500 units a year with their current production lines. Thus, the bf is about as unobtainium as you can get. So if, as some of us believe, that the bf may represent a true and useful rethinking of what a small camera should be, we won't be able to verify or refute that.
I could do the same sort of analysis on all the 2024 camera introductions, too, but it isn't worth my time. I'd just be iterating what I wrote above ;~).
I'll repeat something I've written for over 20 years: the camera companies need to get better in touch with their actual users. My list of unfixed, overly complicated, or problematic things just for Nikon alone is a sprawling list that just keeps getting bigger. And those of us covering the industry have such lists for every camera maker, meaning that the number of unaddressed things is getting dissertation sized. Personally, if the camera makers want my money now, they're going to have to start whittling down that list.
To quote Yogi Bera: the future ain't what is used to be.
Interesting Things Written on the Internet (Volume 28)
“We’ve more than doubled our production compared to the previous model. But on top of that, we are also still increasing production. Now we can produce higher than [15,000 units per month]..." —Fujifilm manager interviewed by PetaPixel at CP+.
One thing that all the complainers about camera shipments need to understand is just how small the camera market really is, at least when looked at from the point of a single model.
The Fujifilm X100VI has been out for just about one year now. Some B&H orders made on the introduction date didn't ship for at least six months "the camera was so popular." But what exactly is popular?
Demand likely runs in the 200,000 to 250,000 cameras a year range for the X100VI, and Fujifilm is still producing under that.
Remember back when the demand for the X100VI was supposedly over one-third the compact camera market? In reality, the numbers I have available say that it turned out to be less than 10%. How much less, I'm not exactly sure, but my sales database suggests no higher than 8%. That's still a pretty hefty chunk of the market considering the US$1600 retail price. It really does show that getting the product (close to) right makes a difference.
I still feel that the Japanese camera makers throw too much spaghetti at the wall in terms of camera models. They're also really stuck on the old Japanese CES model, where you need breadth and depth to a line to achieve mass market sales. I no longer think the camera market works in a true consumer fashion. It's now driven on model function to purpose. That doesn't mean that there can't be a consumer model, it just means that the models that make the most sense to build from a return on investment (ROI) standpoint are actually few, not many. Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, and Sony all have too many camera models for the market size, in my opinion.
"There's a lot of demand for vintage-looking cameras." —Canon manager interviewed by Phototrend at CP+.
Personally, I'd rephrase this: several vintage looking cameras have produced really nice sales numbers for their creators. But that really boils down to a small handful of Fujifilm and Nikon cameras (I don't really regard the OM-3 as vintage, and it's unclear what its demand level is anyway).
The question is why did those successful models produce their level of sales. In the case of Nikon, it's probably clearest: Nikon has always had legacy support and customers that value that. Nikon also did a little customer manipulation by not making an early Z50 update and instead producing the Zfc using what would be that update. They also prioritized the Zf higher than the Z6III in terms of introduction. That latter manipulation was particularly interesting because suddenly the legacy camera (Zf) had far better autofocus than the so-called modern camera (Z6II). It's not by coincidence that the Zf predated the Z6III by nine months, which effectively boosted the Zf sales numbers. A lot of Fujifilm's customers are former Nikon customers, so the same legacy value notion applies to them, as well.
I'd question just how well received a truly legacy Canon mirrorless design would be. Because Canon so strongly pursues a 50% market share, much of their customer base bought on marketing and price, not some perceived legacy attraction. I'd also be curious as to how exactly Canon sees legacy (or vintage, as they use the term). Do they think that's just a look, or is it something more compelling in the UX, as the Nikon cameras have shown?
"...we don't have any plans to introduce other compact camera concepts." —OMDS manager interviewed by dpreview at CP+.
More interesting is the slug dpreview chose to put on that section of their conversation: "We're not the company to make an enthusiast compact." It's unclear whether that's a quote or an interpretation of the discussion. It seems to me in reading through that article is that there may be mis-assumptions by both parties.
I was particularly intrigued by the "challenging to make profitable" and the bigger-sensor-requires-bigger-body comments Togashi-san made. While those are remarkably clear responses to get from a Japanese manager, you have to remember that culturally, you never say no. Even when it seems like you're saying no.
As one who's long advocated for a Tough m4/3—which was the point of the discussion—you have to remember that the current Tough TG-6 is a ~US$500 product. The product OMDS needs to build is really a US$1500 one. Moreover, I think he's wrong about lens (I'll have much more to say about this when I post my X100VI review). Matching lens to sensor size and doing the same thing over and over (mid-range zoom) is in-the-box thinking. The competition, which includes smartphones, is heavy into out-of-box thinking, and that's part of the reason why the mobile devices keep winning.
The problem I have with OMDS is the same thing I've observed with another Japanese spin-out, Vaio (laptops spun out from Sony): no real technological progress in a market that ultimately demands progress. The difference is that Vaio manages to stay afloat by doing basic iteration in a very large market (190m units annually) versus what OMDS needs to do in a much smaller market (8m units annually). Continuing to try to make a US$500 product in a low volume market is asking for long-term trouble, if you ask me.
"We took plenty of 3-8 mile hikes and I found that I had no desire to carry the added 3.5 lbs of my Z8/24-120 combo. As a result, I used my iPhone 16 Pro Max on those hikes, which yielded some nice shots, but with much less control than I would have had with the Z8." —dpreview forum post, but I've seen this same thing said many times in my email InBox
Put another way: the primary camera I chose to buy is to big and heavy for me to use in situations I get into. Which is one of the reasons why I've said the camera makers were foolish for rushing so fast away from the compact camera market. Yes, getting out of the US$200 total consumer compact market was probably necessary, given how much was being emasculated in those products and how good the smartphones were getting. But failing to realize what your best customer needs is a classic business fail.
Given my age, there's no way I'm carrying my Z9 and big lenses with me on a long hike any more. I also don't want to be limited to what my iPhone can do, even though it does a pretty reasonable job up to a point. So what's the answer? These days, probably a Fujifilm X100VI, Leica D-Lux8, Ricoh GR3, or Sony RX100VI for the large pocket size carry, or perhaps something such as a Nikon Z50II or OMDS E-M10IV with a couple of smallish lenses if I want more flexibility. Sure, we could add in the full frame and MF compacts, or perhaps even something a little bigger in the DSLR-like bodies, but my point has been that the true "casual carry camera for prosumer/pro use" is in short supply, and you might not find what you really want.
Thing is, pretty much every prosumer/pro would buy the "right" compact. Moreover, that compact very well may be the gate opener for the smartphone influencers to move up into dedicated cameras. I think Fujifilm pretty much proved my thesis there with the X100. As I'm primarily a Nikon user, the lack of a similar product makes me wonder if Nikon knows what I need and want. The lack of a Nikon compact camera is one of those things that allows me to sample other maker's products. Sampling leads to switching ;~).
You might note that I didn't include the Nikon Z30 (or Fujifilm X-M5 or other EVF-less mirrorless bodies) in my suggestions. Why? Because the camera makers are letting the bean counters win an argument that they shouldn't. If you're going to make a reasonably sophisticated camera that has to be piloted by the Rear LCD, said display needs to be a bright OLED one, not TFT. Bright because it will be used in sunlight. OLED because in sunlight the user very well may have polarized sunglasses on. I'd additionally argue that 1m dots is probably not enough, too, as trying to make judgements about fine adjustments get masked when there's not enough resolution.
How Well Does Image Stabilization Work?
We need to talk about a chart that Fujifilm executives pulled up during the recent introduction of the GFX100RF, a camera that does not have sensor-based or lens-based image stabilization:

We have a lot to unpack here. The claim Fujifilm makes is that under the "normal" handheld use of the GFX100RF, image stabilization isn't necessary (blue area, lower right corner). This is based upon the assumption that people can steadily handhold 1/focal length, which in the case of the GFX100RF would be 1/28 second. Another way of deciphering the chart for the camera they just introduced is that Fujifilm recommends a tripod for anything slower than 1/28 second, handholding for 1/28 or faster shutter speeds.
This is a little disingenuous, as any photo instructor can tell you that there's a large subset of the population that can't (or won't) hold a camera steady at 1/focal length. Fujifilm seems to refer to this group as "Snap" under the section where image based image stabilization (IBIS) works. The GFX100RF doesn't have IBIS, so you "snappers" should probably avoid the camera ;~). Okay, you "snappers" are going to need higher shutter speeds to compensate for your movement. But that's where the f/4 aperture of the lens starts to come into play. The base ISO of the camera is 80, so the Sunny 16 exposure is f/4 at 1/1280. No problems there. Heavy overcast probably puts you at f/4 and 1/80, so you're still probably okay. But if you move into edge of day, night, or less well lit indoors scenes, you're at or beyond that 1/28 limit. But if you're a "snapper" and need two more stops to be "steady," Sunny 16 is 1/320, overcast is 1/20, and indoors and edge of day, well, good luck.
The good news is that the GFX100RF uses a leaf shutter, which doesn't tend to impart additional slap, so it really comes down to how steadily you hold the camera as to whether or not you'll get the full acutance goodness from those 100 megapixels. As I tried to point out, some may find the IBIS-equipped 40mp X100VI a better choice when all is said and done.
But Fujifilm's chart probably raised a few other points you want to know about. First, they show something around 16mm only allowing 1/2 second exposures with IBIS, and that shutter speed gets progressively higher as you increase the focal length. Fujifilm has a "normal" focal length lens showing as only good to about 1/6 second with IBIS engaged, and the range at which they say "IBIS Works" is only 3.5 stops.
Olympus has made claims of 1 second handheld, and we now have many makers claiming 8 stops of correction for their stabilization systems. Is Fujifilm lagging behind, or are you getting gamed?
You're getting gamed.
While there's no doubt that IBIS systems are beneficial, the marketing messages and claims about them are at best case exaggerated, at worst case deceptive.
Let's begin with one thing suggested in that Fujifilm chart: the range at which IBIS is useful shifts as focal length increases. This is absolutely true. You can't violate geometry. (Well, you could, but only by making up pixels where they aren't. See: AI.) Moreover, sensor movement has a limited range, so even if you wanted to try to 100% correct things at 200mm, you might not be able to if the "shake" is too great.
Which brings us to CIPA. CIPA is a marketing organization that all the Japanese camera makers belong to, and which, among other things, assigns standards by which the member companies need to comply. This includes how you measure the size of a product, how you weigh it, and much more. One of CIPA's standards has you strapping your camera/lens to a special platform that is intended to create a repeatable, simulated camera movement. You might have noticed that over time the numbers being reported for that test have gone up. You probably thought that was entirely due to IBIS systems getting better. Well, some of that has happened, but in practice, I'm not seeing the same level of improvement in real world testing. We didn't go from 2.5 stops to 8 stops in a short period. We went from the test rig was pretty crude to the test rig getting better at the simulation and the camera companies getting better at designing to the test rig.
Next up on our list is that Fujifilm claims that IBIS doesn't work above 250mm. This is also related to the geometry, but there's much more going on here that needs explanation. First, marketing will claim that their stabilization system is 5 Axis. (That would be pitch, yaw, roll, horizontal, and vertical.) Well, sort of. IBIS can't change the pitch or yaw of the image sensor (and I believe most can't change their rotation, either, which is roll). In-lens stabilization can't change rotation, and tends not to do horizontal or vertical because then the image circle at the focus plane would be offset.
At some point as you go higher into the telephoto range, pitch and yaw done around the optical center is the best way to correct the geometries of camera/lens movement, and IBIS becomes far less useful. Is the termination and/or crossover of usefulness at 250mm? I do not believe it is. My testing tells me that the crossover tends to occur somewhere in the 100-200mm range and that the usefulness of IBIS just tends to degrade beyond that, but not exactly terminate.
Note that Fujifilm seems to imply that Lens OIS (their form of lens-based stabilization) works all the way down 1 second with 250mm and longer lenses! Sorry guys, but that's simply not even close to true. Just as with the IBIS range Fujifilm shows in the chart, there needs to be a lens-based range, too. (And I'd argue that instead of "tripod" at the left of the lens-based IS range, it should be "gimbal".)
Our final little nugget to unpack is right up at the top of the chart: "New Exposure Program." I suspect Fujifilm is referring to Program exposure mode, that little automatic exposure-setting aid that doesn't always tell you exactly what it's doing. Nikon used to put charts for their programs in their manuals. Shame on them for omitting them these days (and having entire pages that are mostly blank but at the top say something like "The X mode sets X"; yes, you documented something, but not in any useful way). Since I don't have a GFX100RF nor the manual for it, I can't tell you how Fujifilm changed the Program exposure mode. It seems to me that with apertures only a five stop range between f/4 and f/22, to be "fully" useful said program would also need to consider Auto ISO.
Kudos to Fujifilm for trying to explain why they didn't feel they needed to complicate the GFX100RF with sensor-based image stabilization. Some demerits for not getting things clearly explained.
Now, if you think the above doesn't apply to you because you don't have and won't buy a GFX100RF, you weren't reading carefully enough. Image stabilization is one of those much ballyhooed "savior" features that doesn't get explained carefully enough by the camera companies. They all avoid the useful explanation for the simplified marketing message. The days of camera companies providing useful technical white papers about their features and performance seem to be long gone (rest in peace Chuck Westfall). Executives seem unable to explain things. Engineers would rather avoid talking to you. This is no way to run a consumer-facing business.
Compacts Get Bigger

With today's Fujifilm announcement of the GFX100RF, we now have a new thing to contemplate, the 102mp compact camera. Curiously, Fujifilm makes a point of claiming "lightest camera in the series to date" (25.9 ounces, or 735g). Okay, but that's over 7 ounces (200g+) heavier than Fujifilm's own 40mp X100VI, so the question very quickly becomes whether or not you really need that medium format sensor and all it brings to the table.
It is interesting that Fujifilm decided upon a 28mm equivalent f/4 lens for the GFX100RF—the X100VI has a 35mm equivalent f/2—providing it also with in camera 36mm, 50mm, and 63mm crops (the X100VI has 50mm and 70mm crops). As I'll note in my upcoming X100VI review the take-with-crop option is useful once you have pixels galore to deal with. One thing Fujifilm avoids talking about, though, is that the GFX line is 4:3 aspect ratio, not 3:2 (you can get a 3:2 crop from the camera, as well as eight other choices).
For the most part, the GFX100RF is an upsized X100VI. The controls are mostly the same, particularly the dials and de-minimus function buttons. The focus mode switch does move off the side of the camera where it tended to get moved, there's new aspect ratio and crop controls, but that's about it. While the GFX100RF doesn't have the hybrid viewfinder of its smaller brother, the EVF is now 5.76m dots with a big .84x magnification and an "optical simulation" mode when using crops. The body is once again available as all black or in panda clad (silver over black). The big difference to the X100VI is that the GFX100RF does not have sensor stabilization; coupled with the f/4 lens, that's going to pose issues with getting everything possible out of that 102mp image sensor when handholding. One other difference over the X100VI is that Fujifilm includes the special filter that makes the camera more weather resistant; this is an option with the X100VI.
You might have noticed that crop comes up a lot in the description of this new camera. I'm not convinced there's a huge (or any) need for 28mm angle of view at 102mp, and I think that Fujifilm figured this out themselves. Virtually all the crops on this camera provide at least 24mp level of pixel output, so the question quickly becomes whether or not the user is going to spend the time while photographing to do the cropping, and what they'd actually do with finished images that are different pixel counts.
This is the most Leica-ish camera Fujifilm has yet produced, in the sense that it's a high-priced luxury item as much as it is a functional product. At US$4900 list, it's triple the price of an X100VI, which functionally does much the same thing. Yes, I know I'm going to get a ton of "but larger sensors are better" complaints in my In Box after that statement, but having used the X100VI for awhile now, it's more than enough camera for 99% of the likely audience. This is the "a V12 is better than a straight line 6" type of argument in another form. For a fairly narrow customer set, that may be true. For most people, no.
That said, there is one aspect of the camera that might prove popular with a subset of photographers: the leaf shutter means that flash photography can be done at any shutter speed. Just as sports photographers went through a period where they learned how to overpower the sun, I suspect the influencer crowd is about to do the same thing.
Personally, for the type of work I'd carry and use a compact camera for, the X100VI is already above what I need and produces excellent results. If I were producing large output work that would clearly benefit from the larger image sensor, I personally would opt for the interchangeable lens GFX100S II, because I'd need wider optics at the one end, and I wouldn't want to lose pixels at the telephoto end. So I'm back to the Leica argument about the GFX100RF: there's a snobbish, exclusivity appeal that will sell this camera, not the functional capability (as good as it might be). Fujifilm's own headline includes the words "premium compact camera."
And sell this camera will. Fujifilm seems to have locked into the "if we can't win playing the same game, we'll play a different game" strategy. X-Trans, huge pixel counts, legacy-styling, metal body designs, and a focus on mid-range primes are all very targeted product marketing. Fujifilm is locking more into the "want" than the "need" these days in how they describe what they're producing.
An Industry Problem
I’ve mentioned supply chain issues in the past. Now they may be intersecting with a new problem. Let’s dive in.
One source who should know tells me that the primary supply chain issue right now is image sensors. Getting new ones not only into production but at the quantity the market might demand is apparently really tough right now. The Sony A1 II supply, for instance, is probably choking on image sensor scarcity at the moment (other low supply parts might be impacting shipments, as well).
What apparently is happening is that when you find that you need more image sensors than you projected (and originally ordered), getting additional production on fab just isn’t going to be a simple phone call asking for more.
You might have noticed that the final CIPA shipment numbers for 2024 exceeded the original projections back at the start of the year. Those projections are made from the conglomerated individual manufacturers production forecasts. And those original 2024 projections could be characterized as “another year like 2023.”
If you look at the monthly shipment numbers, though, you’ll see that 2024 started “hotter” than 2023 in January, then 2024 mostly mimicked 2023 until September, at which point 2024 suddenly showed growth that didn’t happen the previous year. I’ll bet some of that was image sensor orders finally catching up. The overall ILC bodies trended about 10% higher for the year. Thus, if you said to the fab you needed 100 image sensors at the start of last year, you found you needed 110. Overall, the Japanese makers needed about 600,000 more image sensors in 2024 than they did in 2023. That by itself takes up a lot of fab time and wafers.
Now let’s say you want to introduce a new camera with a new image sensor. Squeezing 10% more existing sensors out of the production lines is one thing, but now you want another 2%, but from sensors that have never been done before (or are special in that they are stacked and require more and better production time)?
Let’s take Nikon for example. They have basically six image sensors (20mp DX, three variations of 24mp FX, two 45mp FX). Of those, four are basically older image sensors (20mp DX, two 24mp FX, one 45mp FX) and two are “special” and newer (24mp FX partial stacked and 45mp FX stacked). Everyone keeps asking when Nikon will drop a new >45mp FX sensor, a >20mp DX sensor, or another “special” sensor (e.g. stacked). Historically, their last two “new” sensors were in 2020 (Z9) and 2024 (Z6III). So age-wise we get:
- 10 years old — 24mp FX (Z5, Z6, Z6II, Zf, the latter one with minor changes)
- 8 years old — 20mp DX (all DX Z’s)
- 7 years old — 45mp FX (Z7, Z7II)
- 4 years old — 45mp stacked FX (Z8, Z9)
- 1 year old — 24mp partial stacked FX (Z6III)
If you look at the other makers, you see similar patterns. Sony’s “newest” image sensors are 2021 (2) and 2023. Getting new sensor tech on fab is slowing down and large sensor fab utilization apparently remains at 100% (or more), so new image sensors are coming more slowly now.
So image sensors are a big part of the supply chain issues that the camera companies are struggling with.
What’s the new problem that intersects? Little or no demand for the same image sensors. Oops ;~).
Recently I've seen three different photography sites complaining that they didn’t get any affiliate commissions for newly announced cameras, because no one clicked on the link and ordered one.
We’ve had six cameras introduced so far this year, only two of which have new image sensors. Three of the older sensor cameras that were just introduced have little demand, and were part of those affiliate link failures I just mentioned. Another is a new body for an old inside (it’s an OM-3 on the outside, OM-1 II on the inside). So how does the market continue to grow? By selling more bodies with the same image sensor? I don’t think so.
It’s not that you can’t create a “better” camera with an “older” image sensor. The Sony A1 II and Nikon Z50II are good examples of re-invigorating a model without needing a new sensor. The Fujifilm X-M5 is a “different” camera than Fujifilm has done in the past with the same image sensor. But in general, it feels to me that a number of companies are not quite getting things right. The biggest part of their long-term success will be upgrading, not new customers buying older sensor products.
It doesn’t help that CMOS image sensors have pretty much climbed the hill. We’ve been stuck on the top of a plateau for a while now with dynamic range (DR). As I like to put it: “in most circumstances, current cameras record the randomness of photons accurately.” Moreover, the real challenge in DR that hasn’t been breeched is saturation, not noise floor, which is where everyone's misplaced attention has been.
The primary thing that new image sensors seem to be concentrating on is speed. Speed helps both with quantity of pixels the sensor can have, as well as things like removing the physical shutter and lowering costs (e.g. Z8, Z9). But advancements in speed are essentially driven by a form of Moore’s Law, so it’s tough to really break a new sensor out in a way that others can’t also do. Another aspect of this is that dedicated camera image sensors have traditionally been done on old, larger process fabs where you can't get "easy" speed benefits by using smaller process size. Unfortunately, fabs that can do small process are the ones that are most utilized at the moment, to the point where at the current "best" processes you have maybe four customers locking up all of production. (None of those are camera makers.)
Meanwhile, we just keep getting “more” piled into the bodies themselves via menus. I got a headache staring at the details for the just-announced Panasonic S1RII's video capabilities: over 60 different settings, which produces six different crops, has compression interdependencies, and varies in bit rate. Plus there’s some other footnotes you need to apply to fully understand a setting!
I really have to ask how many people need 60 different FullHD, 4K, 6K, and 8K settings. How many can even keep track of what all of them do and how they differ? Are all these settings actually used by someone? Is that what we really want camera makers to concentrate on: adding more and more choices?
Yes, I’m sure there’s some customer somewhere that will appreciate all that choice. It isn’t me, and I’m pretty sophisticated as a user. My number one request of Nikon—I predominately use Z8’s and Z9’s for my work—is to provide a truly useful save/restore settings function, not to give me another video option. A settings system where I can name my camera settings files (birding, wildlife, football, ice hockey, portrait, etc.) and restore them with a single command (or better yet, button press, e.g. Cycle saved settings).
Which brings us to the thing that’s really holding the camera industry back: they think they’re designing hardware, not software. If you think about what a modern mirrorless camera is, it is data coming from an image sensor processed by a SoC (System on Chip), coupled with some form of interface where the customer tells the SoC what to do with that data. “Processing” and “Interface” are software tasks, not hardware ones (though they may involve some hardware).
So while the Tokyo camera makers all wait for new image sensors and more production of them, they’re really staring at the wrong problem. They’re failing at software, not hardware.
You can think about that this way: if I told you that you had to use the existing Sony Exmor 24mp sensor (or any other currently existing image sensor) and design the perfect camera using it, what would happen? It doesn’t matter what you think “perfect” is; such a camera would produce excellent images that print really well to 19” on the long axis (because that’s where 24mp sensor state-of-the-art is). In other words, it’s not the image sensor that’s holding anything back.
A lot of people have poo-pooed Sigma’s recently announced bf camera. I don’t. Sigma is tackling exactly what I just asked in the last paragraph. Good on them. I see some design decisions in the bf that I agree with and many I don’t, but at least it’s not just another DSLR-like 24mp camera with as many features as we can cram into it. It’s a camera company challenging what “perfect” might actually be.
Likewise, I’ve found I tend to like Leica’s current modern UI (DLux-8, Q3, etc.). I’m not menu diving with these cameras, I’m pretty directly making the settings changes I need to make, and only those.
Need another example to understand my point? Look no further than the Nikon Z9. When I first was given a pre-release unit to take to Africa and test, what I found was that the Z9 was a really good camera, better than anything Nikon had done in mirrorless to date and mostly equalling or bettering what Canon and Sony were doing at the time. Then we got firmware 2.x. Then 3.x. Then 4.x. Then 5.x. Each time the already excellent camera became better. Why? Because the software was refined and added to. Amazingly, the Z9 still hasn't caught up to what Nikon knows how to do (content authentication, HEIF, Pixel shift shooting, etc.). Whether that means we get firmware 6.x or a Z9II with mostly software changes—I'd bet on an EVF upgrade, but not much else on the hardware side—doesn't particularly matter.
While many of you sit and wait for the latest and greatest hardware to finally arrive at your dealer, I'm personally waiting for the Japanese camera companies to get better at software. Way better. Because that's really what's needed to break out of the current volume doldrums and attract both new and upgrading customers.
Interesting Things Written on the Internet (Volume 27)
"[the market] is looking at a four or five percent increase through 2030 year-over-year." — Zeiss manager explaining why they got back into providing new lenses.
Okay, let's deal with the numbers first. Full frame lenses sold about 5m units in 2024. A 4-5% growth rate suggests as many as 6.5m units in 2030.
But here's why I call bull**** on Zeiss: they claim that they stopped introducing new lenses because the pre-pandemic predictions were that the market decrease would be "dire." So what was the number of full frame lenses sold in 2019? Just about 5m units. Yes, 2020 was a down year, but that was pandemic induced. 2021 was already back to 4.6m units, hardly dire, and the numbers have grown slightly each year from there.
Do I believe the 5% growth a year for five years bit? No. If my body shipment predictions are correct, for there to be long-term continued full frame lens market growth that high, the attachment rate—number of lenses sold per body—would have to go up.
Photography journalists don't tend to ask tough questions or attempt to illicit a full explanation of any assertion. Zeiss thinks that the above is a good explanation for why they didn't introduce lenses for five years. I'd say that's probably not the reason. However, if it was the reason, then Zeiss is basically saying they don't know how to analyze the market very well.
However, if you really want slog through the bull****, consider Zeiss's answer to why the new Otus lenses are about US$2000 lower in price than the old ones: "We’ve been able to modify the design and update it for a [shorter, wider] mount. This allows us to use less material, essentially, so we can continue to have the same exact quality in a less expensive and much smaller lens." Okay, take the 50mm Otus ML: it has an extra optical element compared to the older DSLR lens that was more expensive. Is Zeiss really trying to tell us they took US$2000 worth of metal out of the lens just because there's no mirrorbox on the camera?
I get it. Marketing is hard. But thinking that customers don't see through your statements is delusional. Tell us why the new Otus is a better lens than the original Otus. That could be as simple as a statement such as "every bit of the optical performance at 60% of the price." And since I don't believe that they made that price reduction simply because of "less material," then probably something like "we rethought our supply chain and manufacturing processes to get efficiencies that helped us lower our price without compromising our quality."
Come on guys, this isn't rocket science.
"We can't disclose the contents of contracts, such as licenses, to the public." — Canon's answer when asked about third-party lenses at CP+ (again)
A more likely, more honest answer probably would have been "we don't want to disclose such information”, since such contracts would have originated at Canon. Indeed, he continued "all I can say is that we are deciding the contents of contracts within our business strategy." Aha! That's tantamount to Canon saying they are controlling what third-party lenses do or don't appear. From observation, that seems to be manual focus and RF-S lenses, and probably because Canon doesn't want to make those themselves.
Personally, I don't know which approach I'd take if I were in charge of a camera/lens maker such as Fujifilm, Nikon, Sony, OMDS, Panasonic, or Sony. However, in my long tech career the one thing I do know is that whatever I decided, I would clearly communicate what it was to my customers, as well as the reason for the decision. In the conspiracy-theory brewing that dominates the Internet, to do otherwise is to generate enormous frictions against your business goals.
So here we are after a second consecutive CP+ trade show where Canon ducked the question and are now encountering yet another round of pushback from customers, and worse, potential customers.
Today, here's how I see the "mount openness" stands, from most open to least:
- K mount — effectively dead as there's only one supplier of very few cameras, but as far as I know, there are no bars to creating a K-mount lens.
- m4/3 mount, L-mount — you have to join an association and follow their guidelines, but once in and abiding by the rules, anything goes. The association controls changes/additions to the mount, not a company.
- Fujifilm XF, Sony E/FE mount — you have to sign an agreement with the company, which then provides you access to the full mount details and communications. You have to follow the maker's rules but can make any lens you want; you're not going to be changing or adding to the mount info, though.
- Nikon Z mount — you have to sign an agreement with the company, which will limit what lenses you can and can't produce, but Nikon seems to encourage others to fill holes in their lineup (e.g. Sigma, Tamron).
- Canon RF mount — you have to sign an agreement with the company, and you'll be told what lenses you can't make, and right now that apparently includes any full frame autofocus lenses.
While Canon continues to dominate the unit volume in cameras (around 50%), we've seen serious erosion nibbling away at them, particularly from two more open mounts: L-mount and particularly in the E/FE mount. Moreover, that erosion is happening with the most serious users, who value lens choice. In the telephoto realm, for example, an FE mount user can now find Sigma, Sony, and Tamron options that are compelling, while a Z mount user can find Nikon and Tamron optics. Canon users? You're stuck with what Canon provides, so I hope you like what they've done.
Year's before Canon discontinued the M series, I wrote that they would have to end-of-life that mount (and I have now been proven correct). Here's my next prediction: Canon will have to open the RF mount to third parties or else find entire segments of the higher end market that they've essentially ceded to Leica, Nikon, Panasonic, and Sony.
Ironically, interchangeable lens cameras are called "systems cameras" in Japan. I’d just like to point something out: if you limit the "system," you eventually limit your sales. Customers rebel when corralled, so Canon needs to take off the cowboy hat, get off their horse, and let the herd graze open land.
“The OM-3 is not a successor of the Pen series.” — OMDS management at CP+ [source: PetaPixel]
It was only a few weeks earlier that OMDS told Photographyblog "the OM-3 is effectively the replacement for the much-loved Olympus Pen-F”. So is Photographyblog lying, or is OMDS revising its statements? Or perhaps no one sent a company-wide memo as to the company position on this, so different managers are saying different things. It doesn’t matter which it is, this is the way you lose customer confidence. If Photographyblog was misleading us, OMDS needed to step in and correct that statement. If managers are saying different things, then OMDS needs to get them all on the same page and issue a company statement, not individual manager statements. If OMDS is revising its thoughts, then it should simply say “after hearing from our customer base, we are reconsidering producing a new Pen model.”
The world is a pretty topsy turvy place right now. But if you want to retain current customers and attract new ones, your messaging needs to be clear, consistent, and sometimes corrected publicly.
I’ve been pretty consistent about Olympus' and now OMDS’s product line failures: they need a compact m4/3 camera to compete with the GR-3 and X100VI—and I’ll remind them that they used to own this market with the Stylus 35 back in the film era—plus they really should take the Tough into m4/3, too. Neither of those are trivial design challenges, but they would also represent real sales (and customer) growth for the company if they existed. Squeezing another model between OM-5 and OM-1 that deviates mostly stylistically isn’t a big growth choice.
Swings and Misses, Staring at Pitches, Lack of Team Play
Today's headline is a baseball metaphor because I know the Japanese understand baseball. I'm going to use the company I know best for my examples, but don't read too much into that: I can write essentially the same article about Canon, Fujifilm, OMDS, Panasonic, and Sony. This is a cultural problem, not a corporate one. It's time to shift the culture.
Swing and a Miss
Let's start with the most recent Swing-and-a-Miss. That would be the Nikon Coolpix P1100. You know those times when the staff finishes a product as shouts "nailed it!" Well, Nikon's staff finished the project and said whispered "mailed it!” (As in “mailed it in.”)
What was the R&D budget for the P1100, 100 yen? Notes from management to staff said (1) replace serial port with USB-C; (2) do something that says "birds" in the menus. Mailed it!
Let me be frank (okay, let me be thom ;~): the lens in the P1000 (and now in the P1100) was for the most part wasted in that camera. I personally prefer the P950 in terms of function and handling. 3000mm equivalent is really tough to handle hand-held, and the snap-back-for-tracking feature is too slow to be functional, particularly when combined with the sluggish autofocus performance. Still, for static subjects you can manage to locate at 3000mm, the lens pretty much does a solid Nikkor telephoto job. In a word, excellent. This just once again proves that Nikon knows optics as well as anyone. Too bad they sometimes fail to prove they know cameras all that well.
I really don't have a lot of issue with the image sensor, either, even though it's a small one (1/2.3"). I've spent enough time with the camera to know that I can massage a lot out of the raw files if I get everything else right. Heck, even the simplified functions and menus are livable.
Where the P1000 (and now P1100) fall down is in making 3000mm useful. Focus performance and finding/following the subject, to be specific. And nothing was done to improve that in the new model. Worse still, there's not a single thing that the marketing department can do to regenerate any interest in this camera, as there's not even a bit of new product grizzle for them to chew on. That said, Nikon Marketing took a big swing at it with the press release (title: "Reach for the Stars") but in the end this launch was a total miss. Zero new interest at dealers on a product most people had forgotten about for good reasons.
So let's dream about the perfect swing for a moment. Simply put EXPEED7 and phase detect on sensor into the package that already exists. As Nikon just showed with the Z50II and Zf, even with older, slower image sensors this makes a substantial and important difference (plus there was a far better "birds" to add to the camera ;~). Personally, I would have done that with the P950 instead, but Nikon is trying to claim the supersuperzoom crown, so sure, P1000 it is.
Staring at Pitches
Nikon truly left the compact market—and by that I mean the highly capable compact—just prior to launching the Z System. The Nikon J5 was arguably one of the better compacts Nikon had produced. Nikon management apparently looked at the waning Nikon 1 sales as a product failure, not the management failure it actually was.
Beyond just staring at the obvious problem and not doing anything different for seven years, management also mostly misread the market, believing that the need for a shirt pocket compact no longer existed. Another stare at a perfectly good pitch and doing nothing.
The J5 was a perfectly fine 20mp compact when it appeared in 2015. Its image quality level would still be relevant today, what with the EXPEED improvements it would have received. But Nikon had already stopped making new lenses for the Nikon 1 line, and that was apparent to anyone paying attention. Moreover, Nikon never really got the Nikon 1 lens set right in the first place: they took a couple of practice swings and then stood in the box doing not much of anything as the pitches passed them by.
The Z30 now pretty much takes the place of the J5, though at a bit of a size penalty. So it's clear that Nikon management understands that there might be something to swing at, but they still keep hesitating with their actual swing and claim they're swinging at a different pitch (apparently they see only a "creator" on the mound). I suspect a Z30II is coming, what that PC button being important to that pitcher. But we still have issues of not seeing the full pitch dynamics and then not swinging fully. Plus we're back in the no action realm in the lens bullpen, so even if Nikon gets the camera (swing) right, they still might not manage to win the game.
Lack of Team Play
I've written now for more than three decades that Nikon's number one problem is that they don't interact with their customers. They seem to think of themselves as just a bunch of engineers doing business-to-business things with other engineers. Hmm. The last reported financial numbers say something entirely different: 46% of their sales and 540% of their profit comes from just camera and lens consumers.
We camera buyers should feel like we're part of the team. Do you feel like part of the team? Getting Nikon Japan to recognize anything with their cameras that needs changing because of the way we use it is like looking for a dentist using only road signs in upper Mongolia. I'll give you a recent example: with the Z50II I finally helped get Nikon to make Focus point display > AF-C in-focus display default to On. This was after spending time trying to convince them that AF-C in-focus display should actually be built in (it's not the default on the Z9, Z8, Z6III, or Zf, where we finally got a function to even turn it on).
It shouldn't be that hard. Serious, core, influential Nikon users know exactly what does/doesn't work or needs fixing. That's because we're part of the team: we're actually on the field playing the game. Management seems to be up in the Owner's Box sipping sake and swapping investment suggestions.
Here's my wish: let me put together a group of nine players (pro users), bring them to Japan, and have them spend a day telling everyone at Nikon exactly where the problems really are. What we'd buy and what we'll ignore. How we actually play the game and why we're still missing some critical gear.
My local Philadelphia Eagles just won the Super Bowl. You don't get that far without a "team." Apparently the night prior to the game, they had a special team meeting. It wasn't the usual meeting with the coaches telling the players what they can/can't/should/shouldn't do. Instead, each of the veteran players got up and shared their views. By the time all the speechifying and rallying was done—apparently left tackle Jordan Mailata picked up the podium, shook it, and just yelled "One More!"—the reports are that the coaches and players actually left that meeting feeling more together as a team than ever, and you saw that in the first half of the game if you watched it.
When was the last time you saw a photographer and a camera company 100% on the same page like that?
Still Mac-ing It After 41 Years
Today I’ve updated my Recommended Macintosh Hardware article with information for the new MacBook Air and Mac Studio models introduced this month. As usual when I update that article, I do some minor additions, tweaks, and embellishments. This time I added a note about virtualizing older macOS on new Mac hardware, amongst other things.
But wait, there’s more!
As an accompaniment to the hardware article, I’ve now added a Recommended Macintosh Software article that goes through the macOS, suggested utilities, best productivity software, as well as the better photography software that I can recommend.
Now all that’s missing is a Recommended Macintosh Accessories article...
The View After CP+
Okay, so what did we learn from CP+? Given that it was the first major photography trade show of the year and on home court, it's worth spending a bit of time to try to comprehend what is and isn't going on. This year's CP+ had about 50,000 on-site visitors, over 300,000 online visitors, and featured well over a hundred exhibitors.
Camera Slowdown
Introductions: 3 meaningful (OM-3, S1RII, V1), 2 not-so-much (bf, P1100)
The slowdown in significant camera introductions continues, and even when we do get a new camera, it's often immediately met with a "we apologize for not being to produce enough to meet demand." I keep getting told that this is a supply chain problem coupled with caution by Tokyo, but I'm getting a little skeptical of that explanation without any supporting detail. We've already got far too many politicians, executives, and just-generally-rich dudes running around claiming things without presenting a shred of evidence. I'm looking for the camera company that can stand up and say what's really happening.
Sigma is the closest thing we have to that. Their disclosure that they can only make nine (!) of their new bf cameras a day is the way things should work. That's probably about 2500 cameras a year when all is said and done. They simply have limited machines that can carve that aluminum block into a camera shell, and they aren't fast. I suppose they could add more machines, but Sigma's acknowledgment that they aren't pursuing that course at the moment tells us everything we need to know: the bf (and fp) cameras are a hobby business for them; not integral to their growth and profitability. On the other hand, Sigma isn't openly discussing what's happening on the lens side of their business, where it appears that their hands may be being tied by Canon and Nikon.
Fujifilm, Nikon, and Sony all have pending cameras to launch. The fact that they didn't announce them on home turf where they'd get a lot of attention tells me that whatever is slowing the product development cycles isn't done yet. In Fujifilm's case, they'll wait until the upcoming Fujikina (next month). In Nikon's case, I'm pretty sure their next announcement is a few days either side of their year-end financial results report in early June. Sony's next camera announcement seems to have slipped twice, so I'm not sure when it will hit.
Unfortunately, new cameras tend to be made of unobtainium even when announced. The Canon Powershot V1 carries that to several degrees: not available outside of Asia; not available immediately; and probably in short supply when it does ship.
Firmware Not Quite Here Yet
Nikon was once again demonstrating things in their booth that actual camera owners can't get. Everyone remembers the Z9 that meowed when it took images (installable shutter sounds). Now we have the Zf playing Pong via the autofocus system. More interesting was that the Zf's in the Nikon booth had firmware that understood the new Flexible Picture Controls and connected to Nikon Imaging Cloud. I'm sure we'll get that at some point, but for now it's missing in action, and what we did get was new Z6III and Z8 firmware that have video feature updates centered around the new power zoom lens. Neither firmware for those cameras has Flexible Picture Control support nor connects to Nikon Imaging Cloud.
To me it feels like Nikon is getting out of sync with itself. It's unable to bring all cameras up to speed with Nikon Imaging Cloud, Flexible Picture Controls, and power zoom features. The this-camera-has-it-but-this-one-doesn't problem is now out of hand. The Zf in the booth, for instance, had Cycle AF-area mode as a configuration choice (Z6III still doesn't have it and needs it more).
Of course, I'm happy that Nikon is out of sync with itself. If they suddenly dropped Z50II, Zf, Z6III, Z8, and Z9 firmware updates that rationalized and equalized the feature sets, I'd be spending a lot of time updating books.
Meanwhile, the rumors were that firmware updates for the Canon R1 and R5 Mark II would show up for CP+. They did not.
Lenses, Lenses, Lenses
Introductions: 10 mainstream, about two dozen others
I was happy to see Nikon, Sigma, and Sony all introduce two new lenses each in the days prior to the show. Each continues to round out their extensive lineups in their own unique way, extending each line into new options. We all love options, though we get confused by them ;~).
I was less happy to see over 20 additional primes hit the market, and so many of them manual focus. I'll give Laowa props for continuing to introduce more interesting, not-done-before lenses, but 7Artisans and Viltrox seem stuck on "we can't find a prime spec between 20 and 100mm we don't want to produce." I will say this, though: note that the L-mount is getting traction in some of those Chinese optic vendors. The only reason I can think that would be the case is that there's a Chinese L-mount camera coming (DJI already is an official L-mount supporter).
But the bigger disappointment at CP+ was the continued "announce but don't disclose" problem we now have coming out of Asia. You'll note on my sansmirror.com CP+ page that there's a lot of non-linked items. That's because "yes we announced it, here's our press release and you can see a prototype over in that case," but no actual specific information other than focal length and aperture is provided. Size, weight, filter size, optical design, price, and actual release date now seem to be optional for lens announcements. To me, that shows an insecurity from the lens companies; they believe they need announcements now so that they look more credible. Sorry, it's making you look less credible ;~).
Then we have Zeiss, which seems to have no idea what it's doing. The world doesn't need a 50mm f/1.4 ML and 85mm f/1.4 ML Otus manual focus lens, even at greatly reduced prices (from previous Otus lenses). Sonyrumors was exasperated when no one used their "buy now" links for the new lenses, which sort of proves my point. Why they left the market in 2019 and have now returned is 100% unclear (I'll have more to say about that soon). I'm sure Cosina's happy (they're the actual manufacturer), but is anyone else?
Positive Vibes
In general, the mood in Tokyo at the moment seems to be upbeat. Sales were up in 2024 and higher than the initial forecast (more on that below). Though economic clouds are building on the horizon—tariffs, recession, et.al.—the Japanese and Chinese companies seem positive about the future of photography.
Everyone was pointing to one or another gain they made in the past year, plus highlighting things they were extremely proud of. The expo was generally upbeat and busy.
CP+ and others do a lot of surveying of participants, so I thought I'd share a few snippets from all those surveys:
- 65.4% of those at the event and online say that they "take photos as a hobby." The professional and professional adjacent responses hit 15.7%.
- 45.4% of those at the event and online say that they "rarely take videos." If my memory serves me, this is down from the last time CP+ asked that question.
- The "most used camera" is now mirrorless (at 52.7%) followed by DSLR (at 23.5%). Smartphones are in third at 17.9%.
- 56.2% view photos "mainly on smartphone/tablet". Gee, I wonder how they get there? ;~)
Meanwhile, CIPA uses CP+ to publish their annual report and future outlook. Total camera shipments in 2024 went up 10%, with mirrorless up 16.1% and DSLRs down 14.4%. Here's the kicker: China shipments were up 24.5%, while Europe lagged at a 3.1% increase. Americas was in between at up 7.3%.
To me, the eyebrow raiser was that lenses were only up 7% overall, which means that the attachment rate—lenses sold per camera—went down. I have to wonder if the Chinese are eroding lens sales now, as Japan-based CIPA doesn't count non-member shipments.
So what is CIPA predicting for 2025? This:
- Overall camera shipments will be up 1.1%.
- Interchangeable lens camera shipments will be up 1%.
- Lens shipments will be up 2.9%.
Which probably makes you wonder what CIPA predicted for 2024 back at CP+ 2023:
- Overall camera shipments down 4% (actual: up 10%).
- Overall interchangeable lens camera shipments down 1.8% (actual: up 10.2%).
- Overall lens shipments down 0.7% (actual: up 7%).
So, last year the camera companies—who all contribute their views to the yearly CIPA forecast—were pessimistic and then that turned out to be wrong. That, by the way, is one of the reasons why there was a lot of out-of-stock happening in 2024, particularly early in the year: the CIPA estimates are based upon Japanese companies actual production forecasts. At the time of last year's CP+, everyone had scaled back their production estimates. Given that the companies are mostly pessimistic again this year, if demand continues as in 2024, we're going to have more shortages.
However, we're now in a different economic environment. The likelihood of a trade war and a recession have been raised dramatically, and neither of those would be good for camera and lens sales. Here in the US, most people don't realize that the government is the largest employer, and if you fire even 5% of the government staffing plus remove a similar number of illegal immigrants, that is a huge economic drag on the economy, large enough to be felt by everyone. Most macroeconomic models are now flashing red.
Curiously, big business CEOs seem to be quietly backing what's happening in the US, mostly because they believe that their regulatory constrictions will be loosened. However, the real problem is going to be consumer demand. With fewer consumers (even illegal migrants consume basic things) and fewer people working, demand will absolutely go down. The Fed just reversed their projection of GDP growth in the first quarter of 2025 to a decline, which is a clear sign that the demand curve may already be down.
So while the vibes were briefly positive in Yokohama last week, the reality is that camera makers have a lot to contend with this coming year, at least here in the US, and by extension, Europe (the two together are about half of the camera market). Their go-to response will be to micromanage where products go, which likely means China and the home market get more units, plus large potential markets such as India will look more inviting.
We'll see how it plays out. I will say that predicting anything for the coming year is a giant game of uncertainty. Let's hope that next year's CP+ will be another one of positivity, but that's not my current bet.
Looking for older News and Opinion stories? Click here.