Cameras and Photography Explained

"Qualcomm exec thinks AI will help smartphones eclipse dedicated cameras soon" --reasonably accurate headline repeated by all the news scrapers who scraped the Android Authority interview. [Disclosure: I own Qualcomm stock.]

(I'll have more to say about AI in an upcoming article.) 

The premise of Sony's original statements about smartphones surpassing dedicated cameras  and now Qualcomm's echo of them lies in a very simple notion: that AI can make up for physics. In essence, what's been happening is that the image sensor/image processor chain in the smartphones has been getting tighter and faster and more "intelligent", to the point where the images produced overcome the obstacles of underlying physics of such a small sensor. 

"The processing in Snapdragon [Qualcomm's image processor for smartphones] is 10 times better than what you can find on the biggest and baddest Nikon and Canon cameras." Notice the word used wasn't "faster," but rather "better." The Qualcomm exec does go on to say they're doing "many times more processing", though. I'm not 100% sure that is true given the current dedicated camera processors. It's mostly just different processing. 

Quite obviously, both Sony's and Qualcomm's remarks about smartphones surpassing dedicated cameras are self-serving. Sony wants to sell more small image sensors, and Qualcomm wants to sell more sophisticated image processors. The huge volume of the smartphone business means that there's more return on R&D in that space than there is in the far smaller dedicated camera market. But the phone market is starting to top out and peak just like the camera market did. Once you have a recent, high-end phone, how often would you really need to upgrade? 5G was supposed to kick off a whole new wave of buying, but it was really the discontinuation of 2G that did that. 

I'm a little surprised that the camera makers haven't snapped up some of the machine learning software that's been percolating in the photo processing realm. Yes, using a smaller process size and adding cores gives you more processing power, and all the camera makers have been doing that. But ultimately it's coding algorithms into the hardware that gives the bigger bang for the buck. You need to own the right algorithms to get that advantage, which is the Apple/Google/Qualcomm thrust at the moment. 

Nikon and Sony seem to understand what's going on a little better than the rest of the dedicated camera crowd. Nikon sees the advantage of dedicated cameras coming in optics, particularly long optics. Sports and wildlife photography is not a strength of smartphones, after all. [Of course, I have to ask if Nikon sees this, why the heck isn't there a Z90 yet?] Sony sees the social media slide towards a video preference being key, and many of the processing techniques that the smartphones do with stills are still out of their reach with top-end video. So Nikon has introduced a Z9 and lot of telephoto lenses in the Z System lately, and Sony is introducing a lot of video products and lenses. Canon doesn't seem to be focused (pardon the pun) on any one thing.

Ultimately, the issue isn't whether smartphones are going to render dedicated cameras useless. I don't see that happening any time soon. On the other hand, dedicated cameras are going more niche, which I don't see smartphones attempting to match (gives up their spread of R&D over unit volume). This is basically a replay of the CD/High-Fidelity story. 

Bonus: you can still buy specialized Hi-Fi equipment, and that industry has moved on from a CD-caused bottom. But when was the last time you bought a CD player or CDs? That's right. Smartphones as cameras are likely short-lived. (Since I know you're going to ask, what do I see replacing them? Multi-camera AR scene formation.)

"Time for Sony to Change Their FF Body Design?" --headline in a forum post on dpreview

This is a relative to the "if it isn't broke, fix it" idea.

There's a reason why tools all tend towards a common design. That eventual design is the most effective to make use of the tool, basically. Cameras are highly configurable tools (lots of settings), which further lends themselves towards a common need in their design: the ability to change settings without taking your eye from the viewfinder or your index finger from the shutter release. 

Viewfinders end up in the center of a camera for a reason, too: particularly with long lenses the view is on axis with the rotation. Yes, I know that some of you are left eyed or big nosed and prefer the rangefinder style of off-rotation-axis viewing, but a right-eyed user also then loses some of the bracing effect that keeps the camera steady. And yes, I know you can turn on VR and get steadiness back, but generally I don't want "fixes" to something that wasn't broke. That's not the right design goal to pursue.

Then we have the "muscle memory" aspect of cameras. As I've documented for 30 years now, Nikon can be their own worst enemy at this, such as when they decided on the N80 to move the exposure compensation button that had been in the same position for two decades (and has since returned to its "proper position" for over two more). Once you learn a system, whether it be Canon's or Nikon's or Sony's or whomever's, you don't want to be relearning the basic things you do every time you get a new camera. New car? Oh, we moved the turn signal to the door panel and the horn to a button on the dash. Yeah, we don't want that in cameras, either. 

I actually applaud Sony for what they've done. The original A7 bodies had a lot of issues, some major, some subtle. Over time, Sony has directly addressed each of those without actually breaking their overall designs. For example, the AF-ON button got a modest raised platform to make it easier to find than the small, flat, back-panel-level one that had preceded it. It used to be that you couldn't find the AF-ON button with even thin gloves on; now you can. 

Moreover, one thing that made the Sony A7 bodies popular was size. Specifically, smaller-than-full-frame DSLR bodies, and frankly, smaller than most APS-C DSLR bodies. Start tinkering with new body design, and size could suddenly become in jeopardy. Within the current size you tend towards optimal-for-size and smaller iterations, which I believe the A1 and its followups are fairly close to. 

In product management teams an old adage was often repeated: "don't let customers design products." To some degree, that's correct, in that any specific customer isn't seeing the broader and more difficult problems that need to be balanced. Even architects designing one-off custom homes have issues with customer designs ("they don't know the ramifications of what they're asking for").  

On the other hand, product management needs to listen to customers to figure out what is working and what is not. Leave the things that work, fix the things that aren't. 

The body of the headline poster's forum query got to the reason why they wanted Sony to change their body design: style. "[The Hasselblad X2D is] so alluring that you simply want to hold one in your hands." Ah, consumers. So fickle. They won't buy the Subaru because it's so pedestrian, but oooh, look at that Porsche. 

Style is not something I want in my camera, it's something I want in my photos. The camera I want in my hands is something that fits, whose controls are optimized and accessible, and that holds up to continued use. I think I've been very clear about that for 30+ years. The day you see me with an "alluring" accessory is the day I jumped the shark.

"Fujifilm just broke all the rules for APS-C camera sensors." — digitalcameraworld.com review headline

Let's leave out the question of whether or not the X-H2 is a good camera or not for a moment. When I see hyperbole such as the quoted line, my radar goes off. First, there are no such APS-C sensor "rules" that I know of, and second, breaking rules generally has both positive and negative consequences, depending on your viewpoint and how carefully you look. 

Moreover, the publication in question purports to use Imatest to provide results, though they don't show actual Imatest results ;~). My own Imatest results have never aligned with what digitalcameraworld reports in their graphs, so I would say this: show me your work. 

I'm also worried about lines such as "We thought APS-C sensors had reached their resolution limit, especially with the lack of any significant increase in real-world resolution from Canon's 32.5mp sensor." Um, no. Apples-to-apples comparisons please. Because of AA filters, lenses, and a host of other factors, it's real easy for "more pixels" to not show any "significant increase." We've had this problem since forever in digital. I've written it many, many times: more sampling is always better. How much better, however, is always the question these days, as we're dealing with incremental increases that don't always show obvious visual change to most people. 

Physics and math don't change just because someone created a new image sensor. Perhaps someday a completely different sensor technology (photon sensing JOTs, GaAs instead of Si, maybe a quantum sensor) may reveal that there was information possible to capture that adds clearcut ability to our imaging, but we're in a world right now where we're making small gains via incremental iteration on a fairly fixed, known path. 

I get it. As a reviewer you want to try and add relevance to your review as opposed to simple test results. It's real easy, however, to fall into the trap that all the High Fidelity magazines did at the peak of that era, and to overstate something purely because you're trying to prove your own relevance. (Disclosure: I once received a press association "award" for being the first person to use the word "screams" to reference the speed of a computer. So, yes, I get it. You don't see me writing "the Z9 in High Efficiency raw just screams and renders buffers superfluous." )

The problem, of course, is that hyperbole gets picked up and transmitted over the Internet so fast that it becomes "reality" for most people. That, of course, is one reason why I write these "strange things said" articles. Marketing messaging has become so pervasive and amplified in our society as to mask actual need and/or performance. As I was considering this article, an email came in that was asking about gear, but seemed to be valuing f/2.8 over f/4 for no apparent reason. It's real easy to hear about "better" and then lock into that as actually meaning "I need that." 

I haven't evaluated the X-H2 yet, and it will be a bit before I get to it, so I can't say how good it is. My expectations would be that more sampling is better. But I'd also expect other aspects to be relevant, too: with phase detect on sensor being based on photosites, smaller photosites get less light. So I'd want to understand how more sampling impacts other aspects of the camera.

Use Manual Exposure Mode with Auto ISO — a common email statement I receive and observation of user setups

The problem with Manual exposure mode coupled with Automatic ISO is simple: you're altering your pixel integrity to preserve a specific depth of field and subject motion constraint. I run into this a lot with wildlife and sports photography users. They want maximum aperture of the lens, but 1/1000 or 1/2000 of a second shutter speeds to stop action. The problem is that with a lens like the 500mm f/5.6 and 1/2000 is that's not a lot of "exposure." Remember, EXPOSURE = LIGHT filtered by APERTURE filtered by SHUTTER SPEED. Indeed, we're already two stops below Sunny 16 in bright sunlit light for an ISO 64 camera. As the light goes down, we get into pixel integrity jeopardy pretty fast.

We sports and wildlife photographers usually want to keep aperture fixed at maximum both for exposure and background isolation. I'm fine with that. Where I start to depart is shutter speed. At times I need 1/4000 (bird wing tips) while at others 1/500 will suffice (bird on stick). In the former case I'm still not getting what I want with Manual exposure+Auto ISO (because I set a slower shutter speed), and in the latter case I'm giving up two stops more exposure on those photosites (because I could have used a slower shutter speed). You might quickly say, you're in manual exposure, so why not just change your shutter speed? Sure, but then why do I need Auto ISO? ;~) 

That said, I'm okay with using Manual exposure with Auto ISO if you simply don't have time to be making shutter speed adjustments and if you've carefully figured out at which point the pixel integrity will break down too much. I say that last bit because I keep finding that the Maximum ISO people are setting with Auto ISO is indeed the maximum ISO the camera can set. Even with the best of the best noise reduction routines out there I'm not going to use my cameras at their maximum ISO unless there's absolutely no chance that I can avoid it.

Which brings me back to this: I find it faster to just change shutter speed than I do to take the camera out of Auto ISO and change shutter speed. Duh. Thus I don't tend to use Auto ISO. I instead settle for underexposure in a few cases and will push my shutter speed downward whenever possible. 

No doubt the supply chain issues coupled with high demand is causing problems for every camera maker. This has led to virtually every camera maker at one time or another announce that they're discontinuing taking any additional orders for a product. It doesn't help that such proclamations are often subsidiary specific, yet due to the global nature of the Internet, the media impact of even a regional discontinuation becomes global.

All of the camera makers have intermediaries between themselves and the customers: distributors and dealers. Most of the order suspensions are targeted at those groups, effectively telling them that the manufacturer can't supply that product at the moment. There's probably a legal component to this, but there's absolutely a sales planning component. Dealers can't just sit on their hands waiting for a few products to show up, they have to continue selling something, and dealers need to manage their cashflow carefully. 

Thus, a dealer knowing that Product X isn't going to be available for the immediate future allows them to adjust their inventory ordering, plans, and promotions. The two regions where a manufacturer-to-distribution suspension announcement happens most often are Japan and the US. 

Sometimes we also see manufacturer-to-customer suspension announcements, though more often we just see more generalized "apologies on not being able to deliver to demand" statements. 

In essence, both types of announcements essentially just one thing: wait. 

So the relevant question is whether or not they accomplish anything useful. 

I'd argue that they do not. 

What I find happening a lot now is that when someone gets frustrated by Company A not being able to deliver, if they see that Company B can deliver the (near) equivalent product(s), many customers are now bolting to the other brand. The Sony A1 and the exotic lenses for it are generally in stock these days, but the Nikon Z9 and it's exotics aren't, with the exotics now on "order suspension." 

Customers either are buying for "wants" or for "needs." That later category is completely turned off by order suspensions. Their need is immediate, so if Sony has the goods and Nikon doesn't, that's going to turn into Sony sales. It's a good thing that Canon and Nikon have longterm legacy customers that are brand loyal, because they'll at least have some customers for the product(s) in the future when they can deliver it(them). 

The problem with the order suspension messages is simple: not enough data. The only data point is "we can't deliver." Even that's somewhat vague. 

Note that Apple has pretty darned good customer-facing order delivery information. If a product can't be delivered today, you'll know approximately when it will be (plus they have a strong track record of meeting or beating that date). Of course, Apple has stores and a Web site that are directly interacting with most of their customer base. Apple knows, down to a few minutes, what their sales and inventory situation is, because they put a huge investment into the information infrastructure to accurately report that. 

The camera makers have put themselves into a position where they can't really do that. While they ask dealers to report their inventory and can see orders from them, this system is well known to be fallible. Highly fallible. Moreover, the insistence on pushing inventory that is available through to the dealer doesn't help things. This system is not going to sustain. Dedicated cameras are going the way of the Hi-Fi business: we're going to have very few dealers and a lot of direct selling in the future because the sales volume can't sustain a dealer in every city that stocks everything. 

But suspension of orders doesn't play in that future, either ;~). Issuing such vague announcements would just make for more brand dissatisfaction. If you can't reliably give me a date on which I'll receive my product, I'm not going to order it. 

What we need is clarity. The only form that can take is to provide details as to what the problem is, how the problem is being addressed, and when the problem is likely to resolve. 

Imagine a world in which Company X said "We apologize for any delays in delivering your XYZ. Demand for this product is running (far) higher than our production capacity at the moment. Under current conditions, if you order an XYZ today we estimate you would likely receive it in xx days/months at current demand levels and production capacity. While we are adding to our production capacity, this is not something that can be done overnight, thus our estimate as to when you might receive the product."

Or maybe "We apologize, but we've run into a part supply problem that will delay us being able to deliver your XYZ. This has effectively reduced our production to a fraction of what is necessary to meet demand. We are scrambling to find alternative part supplies and hope to resolve that in xx days/months. However, if you order an XYZ today we estimate you won't receive it for xx days/months given our current parts supply. Rest assured we are doing everything we can to address this problem, and hope to have better news soon."

Personally, I'd go further if I were in charge. As problematic as it might be to get right, I'd also establish a centralized ordering queue. To some degree, NikonUSA already does this with the NPS Priority Purchase program. However, that only applies to a subset of the customers, and even NPS members are often left in the dark as to when their product might appear. A good queue is transparent. It tells you how many are in the queue ahead of you, and when you're likely to get your product. 

In the meantime, I don't believe the current situation is accomplishing anything. The camera companies just look like disorganized fools that can't manage their product and sales process. 

Yes, I know I've been quiet about workshops and other events for quite some time. Then again, I haven't even completed all my 2019 commitments yet! 

Getting locked-down time commitments and firm prices for new workshops has been as difficult as getting semiconductors for a new camera, it seems. Because so many travel locations I use completely closed down in 2019 and 2020 (and a few continued that into 2021), a ton of reservations that had prepaid deposits got postponed into the future while the pandemic took its toll. Fortunately, it was just a matter of time before those postponements got honored, schedules started to clear, and working out future trip logistics got back to a more normal level. 

Thus, today I can announce that I have one new workshop coming up in April 2023 that you can sign up for. I'll be repeating the unique timing in the Okavango we experimented with earlier this year, as it turned out to have opportunities you don't generally get in the usual tourist season schedule (July to September in Botswana). Like that blue sky behind the eagle, above, or the green behind the lion, below. As you might be able to tell, we get close, we find great subjects, and we have a 12-year track record in Botswana of doing that. 

This new 2023 workshop has only 9 spaces available for students, so it will likely fill quickly. Two full time photo instructors, three local driver/guides, and a camp crew of a dozen will accompany those that take this trip. Think of it as Land Cruising for Cats, Glamping for Giraffes, or maybe Extravagance around Elephants. A longer description and a pointer to the full brochure is on this page. Sold out, but still taking wait list participants.

I'm in the midst of working out 2024 and 2025 workshops, as well. I'll be running a repeat of my Kalahari Desert workshop in 2024, which turned out to be even better than I had hoped when we ran it for the first time earlier this year. I'll also have a new shorter, lower cost Intro to Okavango option, as well. 2025 will have to remain a secret for the moment, as I negotiate new options.

Meanwhile, I have two big presentations I'm working on for you to look forward to, and on topics you don't usually see covered by others. More details on those will be forthcoming as soon as I have dates.

On second thought, the games being played by the camera makers are not exactly a chess match as the headline suggests. The pieces don't seem to move in logical ways, and the moves don't always take turns. The current market game situation reminds me more of Magic: the Gathering, where things take more bizarre twists and turns sometimes seem to never end, yet somehow the momentum can swing 180° with a single card play by any player.

One thing the pandemic seemed to do is whittle down the lower end product offerings considerably. While Canon (R10) and Nikon (Z30) are still active trying to re-establish volume where they just gave it up with the demise of consumer DSLRs, most of the action has been at the top. Witness the Canon R3 and even R7, Fujifilm X-H2/2S, Hasselblad X2D, Nikon Z9, OM Digital Solutions OM-1, and most new cameras all the way back to the Sony A1. 

We're seeing a lot of action in high-capability cameras, and it's causing both a lot of excitement as well as confusion among the photography community. To help resolve the confusion, it's probably worth looking at the high level strategy/tactics that each of the players are currently pursuing.

• Canon — The Big Bully seems to be trying to replicate its previous long-term strategy now. The M experiment is over. The R UX experiment is over. EOS is now squarely RF and RF-S, and we get full frame at the top (R1, R3, R5), the new RF-S Kiss/Rebels at the bottom (R10, upcoming R100), and enough in the middle to fill out a complete lineup (R6, R II?, RP II?, R7). Third party lens makers will be scared from making autofocus lenses by missives from the Canon lawyers. The old EF lens lineup will be mostly duplicated in the RF mount, with a handful of slightly interesting deviations.
  
  That said, I still see disarray at Canon, coupled with a bit of a panic and a lot of insecurity. The legal bullying is just one aspect of that. Note that the RF naming is not particularly clear, which means product marketing is also is still a bit in play within the company. Unlike Nikon, who's gone to single digit for full frame, double digit for crop sensor, Canon has been willy-nilly throwing numbers out there, with some letters thrown in to confuse everyone. Marketing also hasn't found a technology "spine" on which to base any claims of superiority. To me, Canon still feels like they're turning the battleship and not yet sailing in a clear direction. The only ones yelling "make way, starboard rights" are the legal team. 
  
  I'm pretty sure that Canon thought they just needed to launch full frame mirrorless and they'd catapult to leading market share there. That didn't happen. It's not even clear if they are doing better than Nikon in becoming #2 for full frame. The R7/R10 combo seems to have done a better job of re-establishing Canon in the APS-C market, but that's going to come at the expense of the dying M-mount. What I think I see with Canon is that while Canon RF is now the plan and fully underway, the RF sales aren't up to the old EF sales, which is a problem for a company that wants to hold a 50% market share. 
  
  Here's my question for Canon executives: What's the clear reason someone should buy a Canon RF camera?
  
  
• Fujifilm — Finally, a direction, though it might not be the direction that their original base wants. The GFX cameras and the X-H2 cameras share something: a consistent user interface and user experience (UX), and one without all the dials that got so much attention early on. I've long said that going back to a retro dial-based design, while seemingly appealing to many in a nostalgic sense, was ignoring things that became mainstream for photographers who truly need to be spontaneous yet still control the camera. Canon and Nikon long ago established their basic UX, and Sony finally got around to that around the Mark III generation or so. Fujifilm? The differences between the Pro, A, E, H, S, and T models were pronounced, and haphazard to me. That was one of the things that bothered me about the Fujifilm mirrorless cameras. They went from Frankencamera DSLR designs to a prolonged period in the labs while not making any ILC, to a series of very mixed designs. 
  
  The good news is that the X-H2 and X-H2s suddenly show a different side. Coupled with the GFX bodies, Fujifilm suddenly has a core UX. What's amusing about this is that Fujifilm is now following a familiar Nikon pattern (speed/pixel combos), as well as becoming a little more button+dial Nikon-like. Of course, what happens to the Pro, E, S, and T model lines remains to be seen (A appears to now be abandoned; the A's along with the T### models were actually externally developed, so that makes sense). My prediction: drop the E, make S the intro model(s), and keep the T as the dials camera. The Pro will probably be kept going due to its unique hybrid viewfinder, but it's not an important model to Fujifilm's success in the market.
  
  To me, the thing that isn't working for Fujifilm is lenses. Not that they don't have a lot of great lenses. However, most of those are primes. I'm not feeling as much love with the zooms, and we're in an era where zooms dominate. Of the lenses that Fujifilm themselves listed as "get[ting] maximum benefit from...40mp", only seven zooms show up. The good news is that the f/2.8 trinity is there, but things like a 24-120mm equivalent f/4 are not. 
  
  I think Fujifilm's fairly well situated to compete with the full frame cameras, but only if they solidify the UX in upcoming XF models and produce more zoom lens choice. The US$2000/2500 pricing of the X-H pair is in a good spot for them, but does pit them against the R6, Z6 II, S5, and A7 Mark IV, which is a darned credible crowd.
  
  Here's my question for Fujifilm executives: How are you going to build out the other XF models and zooms?
  
  
• Hasselblad — After sitting out a few games, Hasselblad appears to be coming off the injured reserve list with a mended offering, the X2D, plus another attempt at lenses. On paper, they look competitive again. Moreover, they're concentrating on their strengths while completely ignoring video. It'll take some time with the new camera and lenses to see if they've just leaped over the GFX100s. 
  
  Fujifilm left the medium format open to competition, in my view. Their lenses just don't seem to be up to the need level of 100mp. I've seen too many misaligned and underperforming Fujifilm GF mount lenses, and I'm not the only one to find that. In the studio, the leaf shutter of the Hasselblad camera/lens combos has a large benefit, as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see reviews that say that the X2D has put Hasselblad back on top of the studio medium format game. If so, bravo, a game of leap frog properly jumped. 
  
  Here's my question for Hasselblad executives: Is one camera and a handful of lenses enough?
  
  
• Leica — Leica's been a little quiet as of late, with only the 60mp and slightly simplified M11 appearing in 2021 or 2022. That's okay, as they're not a high volume producer and have a clear clientele that doesn't exactly play the main game. I am curious, however, as to what happens with the SL. The SL2 split into a not-really-speed and not-really-pixels combo in 2019/2020. I'm not sure what that's all about, but it would seem that we ought to see a 60mp SL3 at some point soon.
  
  Leica's other duo, the CL/TL combo that crossed the full frame and APS-C lines seems to have dead-ended. The TL2 is now selling at closeout prices that are absurdly low for Leica (<US$1500). The CL's five years old, which in dog, uh digital camera, years is a lot. Meanwhile, the S2 (medium format DSLR) is over a decade old. During the CL/TL/S2 rest period there are so many variants of M's I'm not sure I can count them all. 
  
  It appears that Leica will continue to be Leica, popping out morsels they believe their gourmand audience will quickly order and obsess over. But the camera chef seems a bit aimless and the lenstender seems to have taken a break, with a sign at the counter that says "see Sigma." 
  
  My question for Leica executives: Do you really have a clear plan, or are you just randomly executing?
  
  
• Nikon — The Z9 is not a camera line. I would tend to say that Nikon has not caught up to Sony (other than the Z9, where they might have passed them), and is not out of the woods yet in terms of getting a solid bottom-to-top camera lineup established. The Z5 does hit it out of the park for an entry full frame camera, while the Z9 does that at the top, but everywhere else in the Z System you'll find products that seem more like placeholders than industry-leading. Historically—and I believe this to still be true—it takes a full line of industry-leading products for Nikon Imaging to get a complete head of steam and restore its place in the camera market. 
  
  The weak points are currently: (1) high-end APS-C (DX); (2) US$2000-2500 full frame; (3) high pixel count camera(s); and (4) no truly video-centric cameras (the Z30 vlog camera is not what's needed, though a nice product at the bottom of the video parade). Canon is going to get potential Z70 buyers, Fujifilm is going to get potential Z90 buyers, Sony is going to get Z6 buyers. That's three key product categories that need shoring up, and fast. It doesn't help that the clear user demand (clamor) for a Z8 indicates that the Z9 can't do it all by itself at the top. Nikon's going to be the last to launch in #1 and #4, and maybe #2 and #3. Again, they'll need industry-leading products to get themselves out of their now third-place position, let alone hold off the fourth place player. 
  
  At the risk of sounding click-baity, I think Nikon Imaging is more in more danger of being spun out of Nikon today than ever before. Nikon's future growth is clearly in other arenas, ones that are not based on consumer-facing products. So the only reason to keep the Imaging group around is if they can reliably produce profit without downsizing more. So far, that's been true, but having four weak points is not a good sign. Those need to be addressed, and quickly.
  
  Okay, you want good news. That would be that the Nikkor side of the Z System is swinging for the fences and delivering, and doing so consistently. I was skeptical when Nikon management a while back said they wanted to increase the lens sales rate to 2x the body rate (called the Attachment Rate, which traditionally for the industry has been 1.5-1.6x). Well, if they keep hitting it out of the park and can get their supply chains moving faster, they're not only going to hit that, they're going to exceed it. But it'll also take the right cameras in #1-3 to maximize their Attachment Rate. 
  
  My question for Nikon executives: How fast will (can) you address #1 to #4 in my list?
  
  
• OM Digital Solutions — Okay, so the Vaio strategy sort of works. I say "sort of" because it's clearly working for the vulture capitalists in charge, somewhat less so for the customers. One camera and two lenses a year would be a worse problem than Nikon has: you fall out of relevance at that pace, and then can only cater to the established base. Fortunately, the established base is a reasonable size for the moment, but everyone is still wondering what the "real" size of the ILC market is once the pandemic and supply chain issues have been worked through. And I see clear erosion of the m4/3 base.
  
  OMDS is probably going to have to be happy with a three or four model camera lineup long term. OM-1, OM-5, OM-10, and maybe Pen. Not that Olympus had all that many more products when it passed the baton (add PL, 1X). I actually think the additional camera answer for them has been clear ever since I pointed it out a decade ago: m4/3 Tough. As I've indicated several times before, I believe that each camera maker has to have some element of the market that "they own" compared to the rest. Tough would be the natural one for OMDS, as it was for Olympus before them. So give us the Tough 1 (great name, by the way, if I don't say so myself ;~).
  
  My question for OMDS executives: How's that customer base holding up? 
  
  
• Panasonic — Panasonic still has all four of their feet in four different buckets. As long as they try to keep that balancing act going, they won't make any progress in any market, is my guess. The buckets are m4/3 stills, m4/3 video, full frame, and video centric. With four feet, you'd think they could run faster ;~).
  
  Beyond the spread out location of their limbs like a giraffe drinking water, there's Panasonic's insistence on keeping DFD autofocus going. Geez, even the smartphones went to phase detect on the image sensor. So four buckets and NIH thinking has Panasonic stuck. If they're going to insist on DFD, they need to just make video cameras, where absolute crazy fast autofocus isn't something you actually want. Trying to survive in the full frame mirrorless world with DFD is a bit like trying to make a performance sports car to compete with a Corvette using a CVT (continuously variable transmission) that's poorly tuned. 
  
  Meanwhile, Panasonic in a recent press release and interviews states that they're going to work in "collaboration" with Leica (above and beyond the L-mount alliance. So what does that actually mean in terms of cameras? And yes, they've once again said they're looking at phase detect autofocus, but that all seems to be in some sort of blurred future.
  
  My question for Panasonic executives: When are you going to really give up on DFD?
  
  
• Sigma — Foveon sensor technology is out there somewhere. In a new fab somewhere, apparently. In the minds of a very few customers, unfortunately. Sigma tinkers in cameras as a hobby mostly in honor of the father of the CEO. Given that, they're entitled to do whatever they please. But that also will have a result that is mostly random and not reflective of the overall camera market. Thus, I have no questions for Yamaki-san. 
  
  
• Sony — Once you get on top of the hill, you find it harder to stay on top of the hill. Sony has a lot of territory to defend now in mirrorless: APS-C, full frame, video centric. That's actually the order in which they need to put in more effort, too. 
  
  After years of rapid iteration, the current Sony A6xxx APS-C cameras find themselves...well...behind. And oddly behind not just in technology, but in UX, as well. We need a A7000, A7300, and A7600 that restate the lineup with the current Sony UX design and using state-of-the-art technologies. We don't need another video-centric model for vloggers. 
  
  The problem for Sony is that Canon and Nikon are attacking them head on in full frame and making inroads, while Canon and Fujifilm are attacking them head on in APS-C and making inroads. Meanwhile, I'd argue that Nikon's Z30 did vlogger righter than Sony (too bad it doesn't have the lenses, buzz, buzz ;~). 
  
  On the good news side, the A1 is holding up against the Z9 for the time being, and the A7 Mark IV has moved the marker in a key full frame category. Lenses, as with Nikon, are being knocked out of the park consistently (though we still have focal length gaps that need to be filled quickly). Sony might be able to defend the hill, after all, but it's going to be a far tougher battle than it looked as little as only one year ago. 
  
  My question for Sony executives: Just how much will you attempt to hold off the APS-C competitors, and when?
  

For customers, we're in an era where we have a large number of excellent choices. I'm happy with my gear at the moment, and am backing off any new gear purchases because of that.

The good news is that it appears that all the camera companies weathered the pandemic and supply chain disruptions in a way that they are currently profitable and have at least some growth. However, it's unclear how much of the current demand is simply pent-up demand and postponed buying. 

Which leads me to my greatest fear about the camera market today. Too much of the 5m unit sales I'm seeing today are from Hyper-Sampling and Hyper-Switching customers, who are like a dog chasing its tail, and who keep chasing the latest marketing line touting Today's Top Toy. At some point, just as with a dog, they'll wear themselves out (or run out of credit line), and where's that leave us? With a reliable ILC sales rate of 3-4m units a year? That's too low to sustain all the players, above. Even a 5m annual sales rate moving forward would mean that the only way to grow would be to steal share from someone else (no wonder Canon is looking scared ;~). 

On the other hand, it appears that the camera makers have finally found—at least temporarily—a new, younger customer. For lack of a better word, they refer to these customers as "creators." That's a euphemism for YouTube, Tik-Tok, and Instagram millennials+ who have taken to producing content onto which Google, Facebook, et.al. attach their mighty advertising engines, providing a small slice of the proceeds to the creators doing all the work. While there are an estimated 2m such creators pulling in six-figure incomes, I wonder just how viable it is to rely upon the behemoth middlemen now being targeted by antitrust and other legal actions. Moreover, once you have a 4K-viable setup to create with, what more do you need? Most of the creators' output is actually watched at 720P or 1080P, not 2160 or higher. 

Years ago I used to write the following: "the Japanese companies don't seem to understand that the Europeans won't see product announcements made in August due to their vacation pattern, and folks in the US also don't get back to the grindstone until after Labor Day." (Labor Day is in the first week of September for all you foreigners not keeping up with US holidays.) 

I've advocated, over and over, that companies should make their product launches post Labor Day because of those two things. 

For the most part, such advice was largely ignored by the camera companies for decades.

This year, it appears that part shortages, pandemic-delayed schedules, and a host of other factors have conspired so that we have a log jam of announcements that started pouring out this week; post Labor Day. Not only will those launches get more press than July/August releases, they'll get more eyeballs seeing them. So congrats to the Japanese marketing teams for randomly getting it right for a change ;~).

Of course, doing launches on the same day as Apple's big yearly event means that a few camera and lens launches were competing with iPhone camera announcements of significance and loudly shouted out of the room. May the best competitor win. 

All this to say that my sites will be busy for the next couple of weeks catching up with all the announcements you may have already heard about, and a few you haven't. I'm a one man band, so it'll take me a bit to strap on all the instruments and start making the full amount of noise, uh music, that's expected. This site, in particular, might not be updating as often as I begin putting the new material on sansmirror.com (and probably zsystemuser.com, as I'm expecting at least lens announcements on the Nikon side soon).