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.
This Week's Update
I keep getting tariff related questions, and now we're starting to see the "price increase" articles, though without much specificity. A few are asking me whether the camera companies are going to change their product plans for the year. Still others speculate about trans shipment workarounds.
Let me explain what's going on, starting with trans shipments.
The basic idea that people are promoting is that by first shipping the product to another country—e.g. China to Japan—that the tariffs would change. That is not true. This was tried by some but both International and US laws adapted to essentially foreclose that. There have been some recent exceptions that got around a specific tariff. For instance, building something, disassembling it and importing it into the US as parts, then remanufacturing it here. Under the current tariffs, that wouldn't work, as the parts themselves would be tariffed the same as the manufactured item.
Next up, I've seen a lot of headlines in the photography press about "price increases." Most of those are leaks out of the subsidiaries and dealers about a temporary response. Without knowing what the actual cost of importing an item into the US will be next week, next month, or later in the year, the subsidiaries all seem to be putting a temporary halt to some of their future sales and rebates. That doesn't address what's already on dealer shelves, though, so it is highly likely that you're going to get contradictory statements: new instant rebates coupled with cancelled instant rebates.
You might have seen that "electronics" have been given a temporary tariff reprieve. I haven't actually seen anything from our government that specifically states which categories of goods are covered by that. The US complies with the "harmonized system structure" that was developed Internationally, which divides every possible product into logical sub-categories with specific attributes (which was why I was able to tell you that Camels aren't tariffed between the US and Japan). The current document of record published by the US is dated April 10, 2025 and basically only catches up with the 84% to 125% change in China tariffs. "Cameras" are not in the same category as "smartphones" and "computers," which apparently were what the administration referred to on Friday afternoon and which was talked about all weekend (the "Apple/Samsung exception").
So in terms of pricing, I don't think anyone actually knows what the price of any particular camera sold a month from now will be. There's inventory that needs to clear from dealer shelves, and there's new inventory coming in. Those two things may be priced differently.
My advice to all importers is to keep your prices intact, but add on a specific "Trump Import Duty Tax", much like automakers add "Transportation Cost", airlines add "Airport, Landing, and Security Fees", and communications carriers add "FCC and other Taxes." As a vendor, you don't want to be perceived as the one raising the cost of things. Point to the culprit, so that people know who to really complain to.
In my discussions, no one in the US seems to know exactly what they're going to do long-term yet. We've seen (or heard about) some short term changes, some of which were then changed again already. The latest is that the popular Fujifilm sellers (X-M5, X100VI, and the just announced GFS100RF) are apparently temporarily no longer being imported into the US, mostly because these products are not really in stock in the US and any new order FujifilmUSA might bring in would be subject to the China tariffs (which on any given day in the past ten days were 10%, 30%, 45%, 84%, 125%, or 20%, depending upon what kind of product and which day and hour you looked it up).
Which leads me to the question about whether camera companies are going to change their future product plans. Short answer: yes. Unfortunately, we don't know how those plans will change yet, nor do I think the Japanese know, either.
A source in Tokyo actually pointed out an unintended consequence of what is going on right now in this trade war: supplies. The camera companies were just getting a handle on post-pandemic supply chain, though image sensors were still a bit of an issue. The panic point in Tokyo right now apparently centers around the supply chain again, particularly given China's response to limit export of rare metals and other key materials. Tokyo will figure out what to do about tariffs in their usual micromanagement of the bean counting, but right now they're apparently worried that they won't have some things to count.
Ironically, here I am having to write about this topic (again) when the primary advice I've been giving people for two decades is that the camera gear we have is more than adequate, that we should all be concentrating upon improving our use of said gear. That's something I've been concentrating on myself the past few months, but if we're no longer buying new cameras and lenses in the future, it's what we'll all be doing.
f/1.2 is the new f/1.4
Sometimes progress moves at such a slow rate that it's difficult to notice it truly being made. Sometimes we get clear signals.
We're currently getting clear signals with prime lens designs.
Let me explain. Back in 1959, Nikon made their 35mm f/2.8 lens. We got four different versions of it over time, then three AI versions. In 1962, the 35mm f/2 appeared, and here we had eight different versions over time. So as I finished high school the state of primes (for Nikon, though this was mirrored by other brands) was a slightly compromised f/2 (when used wide open) versus a somewhat better f/2.8. Your choice. Faster or slower.
In 1971 when I first started photographing sporting events, Nikon introduced their first 35mm f/1.4 lens. In 1989 Nikon added autofocus and completely redesigned the f/2 lens, and from that point forward, we started having a slightly compromised f/1.4 versus somewhat better f/2. Again, your choice of faster or slower played a role in which you chose.
Fast forwarding to the Z era, Nikon is now making a 35mm f/1.2 and a 35mm f/1.8, so that similar slow/fast bit is still present, with another choice (f/1.4) in the middle.
This pattern is observable across brands, and across focal lengths, though sometimes it takes a while before what happens with a single optic becomes clearly what's happening across all. Given the press releases and the sneak peaks that have come across my desk recently, I believe that we've hit another of those inflection points: f/1.2 is the new fast lens in most mounts, replacing f/1.4.
Before I get to some supporting evidence for that statement, let's recap what apertures really do:
- f/1.2 — let's call this our new "baseline"
- f/1.4 — half stop slower (-0.5EV)
- f/1.8 — one and a third stops slower (-1.3EV)
- f/2 — one and a half stops slower (-1.5EV)
- f/2.8 — two and a half stops slower (-2.5EV)
The point where I call "a change has occurred" is when multiple vendors start doing the same thing across multiple focal lengths. Canon now has multiple f/1.2 primes, Nikon now has multiple f/1.2 primes, while Fujifilm and Sony both have one. Plus we have third party vendors such as Surui and Viltrox with multiple f/1.2 APS-C primes and Viltrox now tackling full frame. Cosina (Voigtlander) has one f/1.2 full frame lens and appears to be about to launch additional ones. I'd say we're now clearly in the f/1.2 era, leaving the f/1.4 decades behind.
The interesting thing this time is many of these new fast lenses, if not most, are attempting to remove the old "fast but low contrast" reputation that the fastest prime in a lineup previously had. Nikon's three f/1.2 primes are extraordinarily good wide open. Stop them down a half to a full stop and they go from being really good optics to being best in class. The penalty for that is size, weight, and price.
I actually that's a pretty good compromise. If you're really in need of that extra half stop, you're already in the category of "wanting the best." So getting best aperture, best optical performance, but paying a price for that seems about right. The f/1.4 (and f/1.8) optics are becoming more mainstream, but with some compromise. Again, using the current 35mm Nikon choices, it seems to go about like this:
- 35mm f/1.2 S (US$2799) — best light gathering, best optical performance (at equivalent apertures, and fine optical performance wide open), but size and weight are significantly higher, and these lenses are at premium prices.
- 35mm f/1.4 (US$529) — note the lack of an "S", meaning this isn't one of Nikon's higher end optics. For some reason they've chosen to make the f/1.4 lens their price leader at this focal length. Here we're at "good" light gathering, decent optical performance (need to stop down to pull in corners), and lowest price.
- 35mm f/1.8 S (US$849) — less light gathering, near best optical performance, moderate in size, weight, in price (compared to the others).
Note: I picked the 35mm focal length because of its really long history (I could have picked 50mm, as well).
This new f/1.2 era is partly the result of Canon and Nikon fully committing to a mirrorless future in 2018. Specifically in Nikon's case, they went from the most constrictive mount to design for to being the least restrictive, which was one of the things that gave them the ability to consider f/1.2 high performance primes.
We're seeing a similar thing starting to happen with zooms, where f/2.8 was once considered the baseline "fast." We now have just enough f/2 zooms poking their heads out of the design rooms to guess that f/2 will soon become the new zoom baseline, but I'm not ready to call that yet, as we're also been seeing focal range compromises on these new lenses, which means the lens makers haven't fully bought into replacing the f/2.8 trios with f/2 ones.
One Last Take (for now) on Tariffs
I really didn't want to prolong this discussion, but unfortunately a lot of misinformation is now spreading and we need to deal with it in order to have a reasonable discussion about how the photography business is going to be impacted by recent Trump actions.
One thing I'm noting is that everyone is getting one thing wrong about the tariffs; they all assume that a tariff is on the list price of the product. That's not true unless the customer bought the product directly from outside the country. The 36% tariff that NikonUSA would have to pay would come on the "price" that the subsidiary is "paying" for the unit—technically, a term called declared value—not the list price. So, if NikonUSA was getting a 50% discount from corporate on the import, and if NikonUSA chose to pass what they paid as tariff on to the eventual retail customer, then the additional price burden would really be more like 18%, not 36%.
Because camera dealers get such a small discount from the camera or lens maker—typically 15 to 20%—it's unlikely that dealers can absorb this new tariff burden. It's either going to be the camera maker or the eventual customer whose finances are directly impacted, perhaps both.
This unfortunately brings up another problem that we've had in the past but is likely to return: the parent company could "game" the declared value through the distribution path to help reduce the tariff impact. For instance, a product could be imported to NikonUSA for less than it is to Nikon China. That's technically illegal as it triggers "dumping" laws, though catching such actions becomes an enforcement problem. Moreover, whether or not the US would actively police such activity is unknown.
I believe there's a bit of a panic about how much prices will go up if Trump's tariffs stay in force. Prices will probably go up less than you think. But any increase that ends up in the 10-20% range is still going to be seriously felt by the photographic community. Note that B&H's Payboo "we'll pay the sales tax" change made for a significant shift in buying away from local dealers, and there we're talking about only a 5-10% cost-to-customer differential.
Ironically, the auto industry, which invested in North American production via a previous trade agreement with Mexico and Canada negotiated by Trump, might be harder hit than the all-imported camera industry. That's because the car makers counted on that agreement to target their investments, and ended up scattering plants across all three North American countries in ways where parts ship back and forth across the border two, three, four, and sometimes more times. Each time a part re-enters the US it would be tariffed under the new plan. So what happens is that the parts inside a car could go up in price significantly, which, in turn, can make the price of the car go up more than expected, even for autos assembled in the US.
In case you didn't get the irony, let me explain it more simply: an industry that does manufacture in the US (autos) may be hit harder by the Trump tariffs than an industry that has no plans to ever build in America. As with many things Trump, what he says ("bring manufacturing back to the US") is in direct contradiction to his actions.
So let's deal with that (manufacture in the US). As someone who's managed both over his long career—I've manufactured overseas and manufactured in the US—I have a pretty good sense of why you do one versus the other. When labor becomes the biggest element in your product cost, the tendency has been to shift production overseas, where labor is much less expensive. When parts are your biggest cost and labor is minimal, it often pays to manufacture in the US (as long as tariffs don't increase your parts cost ;~). But note that "labor is minimal" bit. If manufacturing is brought back to the US in any meaningful volume, it's likely to be robotic manufacturing. This does two things: (1) requires fewer workers; and (2) requires workers with different skill sets and knowledge.
Trust me, I get it. I understand what many of the Trump supporters have been saying and why the "Make America Great Again" slogan resonates with them. These folk desire for things to go back to some unspecified way they were at some "magical" point in time. Unfortunately, that's not the way life works. You don't get to "perfection" and then just rest on your laurels forever. You have to evolve based upon whatever forces are arrayed against you at any given time.
Wage increases measured in constant dollars have not really budged this century for those in the lower quartile (25%) of the population. If you're in the top 10%, then yes, you've seen clear wage increases. However, if you add in benefits (overtime, insurance, paid leave, retirement contributions, etc.), the story is one of real increase pretty much across the board, but still probably not at the level you'd desire if you're in the bottom quartile (and who wants to work overtime to get ahead?). [source: Pew Research]
The thing that the few that are writing me with complaints, and which they're not understanding about Trump's tariffs is this: they do nothing to increase wages, but they will do quite a bit to erode purchasing power. Moreover, these folk didn't seem to notice what happened coming out of the pandemic: "Between 2019 and 2024...low-wage workers experienced historically fast real wage growth (adjusted for inflation)." [source Economic Policy Institute]
What we're all fighting right now is perception. One side perceives a problem that doesn't really exist. The other side sees the response as a new problem that is being created. What next happens is that misinformation spreads virally through our now compromised media and social networks, and the differences in perception compound and escalate.
This month I finished endowing a new permanent scholarship at the Indiana University Media School: the Herbert A. Terry Ethics and Integrity in Media scholarship. I put my money where my mouth pen is: we're not being well served by media at the moment, partly because its ethics and integrity have been compromised. Hopefully, my small contribution will do some modest part in fixing that in the future.
In the mean time, this past week I've spent time away from discussing photography, writing articles or books, and reviewing new gear in my own attempt to make it clear that we have policies now in place that will potentially erode the photographic community in ways that are destructive, and for no clear reason. If you don't think that the photographic community is important to me, then you haven't been reading my posts for the past 30 (!) years.
I really don't want to prolong this discussion. However, if left in place Trump's tariffs will likely have more impact on the companies we photographers rely upon and how much we pay for our gear than any possible new product that might suddenly appear could have. Mine was one of the first Web sites (back in 2003) that expanded to cover what's happening economically in the photography market, and the tariffs are potentially the biggest such story so far, and we've already had some large ones (quakes, floods, pandemic, etc.). To ignore the tariffs would be saying I abdicate writing about economics at all. (Disclosure: my PhD work was in New Technology Economics and Management.)
I have a prediction about the tariffs. Trump's tactics have consistently been performative theater, not action. By that I mean he announces that he's going to do something and that a problem will go away, but rarely does it. In his first administration he dismissed NAFTA, the trade agreement that binds the US, Mexico, and Canada. His renegotiation resulted in some rewording, alterations in phrasing, and punctuation getting changed, but nothing actually substantive.
The high likelihood is that the tariffs as they've been announced cannot stick. Even if there are negotiations that happen, it seems unlikely that his key reason for applying them—reduce the trade deficit—will actually occur. Again, a lot of loud rhetoric, bullying, and challenging, but it's unlikely to create real action on the Presidentially-perceived problem (not that any action is needed to reduce the trade deficit itself, but that's a story for another Web site).
_____________________
Bonus: I keep seeing others similarly say that Trump's tariffs are just part of a negotiating tactic, basically bullying other countries into things we want from them. Perhaps. But one thing I've long written about is the unintended consequences of any statement or act. I once saw a well-known professional photographer pull up a blooming plant and put it where he wanted it in a scene. Well, that worked great for him, but long term that had plenty of other consequences, none positive.
One unintended consequence of the Trump tariffs is simple, and what I've been trying to point out: the photographic community now is stressing. It might get smaller. Companies we rely upon for gear are also now stressed. Dealers we count on are highly stressed and worried that this might be the end for them. An industry that doesn't really have—nor will it likely have in any foreseeable future—an onshore manufacturing presence will be hurt, and with it, those of us who use their products.
Some countries have already put up a surrender flag. Vietnam is offering to remove all tariffs on US products (though Trump's stated tariffs currently also require a 10% tariff no matter what, unless you're Russia or Belarus). What will come of that response is unclear. Mostly because Vietnamese tariffs aren't what were targeted and penalized by Trump: the trade deficit with Vietnam was.
Japan has some soul-searching to do, I think: they have a long list of food and animal related tariffs in place against the US, though neither side apparently cares if you import a camel (true: zero tariff on camels, both directions). The US has some reciprocal food and animal tariffs on Japan, but mostly chose to put reciprocal tariffs on other goods in response, such as pickup trucks. There's absolutely a negotiation that could take place between the two countries because of that. Whether it will or not is another story. Again, Trump is hiding his knee-jerk reaction to physical good trade deficits behind what he calls, but aren't, reciprocal tariffs.
But it is other unintended consequences that are the story for the moment: the stock market has cratered; inflation might not be controllable by the FED; the dollar is down in value; the economy is likely to slow; distrust in the US has risen around the world. There may be even more unintended consequences we haven't yet learned about. It took the US four years to essentially reverse course after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs went into effect in 1930. It took many years and a war before all the unintended consequences played out.
More on the Tariff Situation
At least initially, you're going to see some contradictory and seemingly wrong responses to the recently announced tariffs. Without revealing too much in confidential information, in my talks with various companies I'm aware of three different seemingly contradictory things that will happen in the short term (at least if everyone keeps to their current plans):
- Prices drop on some cameras. This is most likely with older gear where inventories may already be present in the US, particularly if it's still sitting on dealer shelves.
- Someone eats the tariffs on some cameras. This seems to be the case with a few products for which pre-orders have been taken, but which will actually arrive in the US after the date the tariffs are supposed to go into effect. No one would tell me who will eat the tariff, though. There's some likelihood that's still being negotiated.
- Prices will rise on some cameras. This is most likely for products where supply is barely (or not quite) meeting demand, and for products not yet announced.
It seems evident after talking with a half dozen folk at different companies that no one is completely sure of what they'll do long term. At the subsidiaries, they all need buy in from Japan on what they'll do. At the camera companies themselves, they also need to know what their country will do in response to the US tariffs, which is currently not known. At the dealers, they all need clear word from the subsidiaries as to what happens next. Inventory already in the US seems like it will simply continue to go according to plan. Inventory not yet in the US is where everyone is contemplating what to do.
What's happening already is a total disruption in business planning. What's going to happen next is that new product introductions are going to slow down, as the business assumptions upon which they are premised are no longer in place, and getting a specific ROI on something new is now more difficult. What I suspect will happen is that the Japanese companies will de-prioritize US as an outlet for their product and let prices fall where they fall here, while more directly targeting markets where they don't have this newly imposed tax.
For instance, China. For some time now China has been becoming more important to the camera makers than the US once was. Today, Chinese tariffs on cameras made in Thailand is 9%. The US tariff for that is now 36%. [source: World Integrated Trade Solution database] The real question is whether the Chinese economy is healthy enough to support a bigger push of product from the camera companies. Cameras are bought with disposable income, and that's not growing the way it used to in China. Indeed, the impact on China of the US tariffs is going to challenge the Chinese economy, just as it will the US.
Trump has called his efforts a Trade War. Indeed, he's using Emergency Powers normally only used in time of war to impose his tariffs. As in any war, people are going to get hurt. Businesses are going to get hurt. And in the end, war only ends by complete conquering—which is not a possibility in this case, as the US is too dependent upon global trade, services, and investment—or by a negotiated cease fire. Predicting either is currently impossible. Which is why businesses are scrambling to just figure out how to survive.
Bottom line: short term camera pricing won't seem to make a lot of sense. If the tariffs stay in effect for any length of time, the only choice will be to accept a smaller US market buying at higher prices.
If you want good news, I suppose it is this: Japanese companies such as Nikon have survived earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, nuclear meltdowns, pandemics, and complete product transitions (and that's just in the last 13 years!). I have little doubt they'll survive tariffs, too, though the other large part of their business was also hit by technology export restrictions. While I chide the bean counters in Tokyo fairly often, they have managed to figure out how to sustain their companies through some pretty horrendous situations. But what survives may not be everything you want to survive.
A Sad Day for Photographers in the US
President Trump this afternoon finally announced his "reciprocal" tariffs, and it's not good news for photography fans in the US.
Managers at the Japanese camera makers are all currently huddled around big tables trying to figure out how they're going to weather the massive tariffs against their products in a market that comprises about a quarter of their sales. Meanwhile camera dealers across the US are already looking at the recent small uptick in sales with fond memories.
As with anything Trump, the details seem murky, somewhat contradictory, and subject to change, but the way things are being read right now is that starting on April 9th, shipments to the US are subject to:
- 24% tariff on imports from Japan
- 36% tariff on imports from Thailand
- 46% tariff on imports from Vietnam
- 34% tariff on imports from China (in addition to previous 20%; also deminimis avoidance is cancelled)
(Note that as I update this, various publications are reporting different numbers for China and different interpretations of how the new 10% tariff on everything works with the reciprocal tariffs. If you'd like to read the actual declaration Trump made, you can find it at whitehouse.gov.)
Canon has a majority of their production in Japan. Nikon has the majority of its production in Thailand. Sony manufactures in both those countries. OM Digital Solutions manufactures in Vietnam. So you can see that someone's going to be taking it on the chin, perhaps everyone. Note that Nikon's Z5II announcement was likely priced with some potential tariff accommodation in mind, but I can assure you Nikon was not expecting 36% tariffs on their gear coming into the US. I suppose the only good news for camera makers is that smartphone makers are also locked into the same nonsense.
Interchangeable lens cameras have not been made in the US since Kodak cancelled the SLR/n over nearing two decades ago (and that was basically reassembling a Nikon DSLR into an American made body). We're not likely to get anyone thinking about making them again, even with substantive tariffs in place, so for photographers, the tariffs really represent a new tax on gear. A tax that is likely to be constantly changing as the administration starts to discover exactly what chaos they're creating and tries to adjust their toupees policies. Of course, they don't care about the camera market—it's not big enough to offset anything they want to do—so it may be worse for photography than it is for other markets that have some sort of leverage to trigger renegotiations.
You may remember that after the US election last fall, I cancelled plans for changes and expansions to my business. I anticipated this chaos. You cannot plan into total uncertainty; the likelihood that you'll waste both your time and money is not just high, but presumable. As it is, retaliation by other countries will likely impact my ebook business, and I may have to put a geofence on purchases because of that (a one person business cannot easily handle 200+ reciprocal grudge tariffs).
While I try to avoid political discussions, today's announcement reminds me that most people don't know the difference between ignorant and stupid. Ignorance is when you don't know that you shouldn't do something. Stupidity is when you shouldn't do it and know what the outcome is likely to be, but you do it anyway. The US's newly stated tariff policies are stupid.
__________________
Oh, you wanted the bulleted bottom line? Then:
- Camera gear in the US will get more expensive because it will all be tariffed.
- Predicting what you'll have to pay for new gear will get impossible as tariffs may change, and if inventory piles up, there will have to be sales of some sort.
- Sales of camera gear will slow as the economy slows.
- More camera dealers will close their doors because they live off of sales turns, and those will go down at higher prices.
- Many items will get harder to find in stock as camera companies shift new product shipments to non-tariff nations.
- Repairs will take longer, as no camera subsidiary wants to bring in extra parts they have to pay tariffs on.
- Repairs will cost more, as the tariff has to be recovered for the part that they waited for.
- Camera companies will listen to American customers less, as we'll be a smaller part of their overall sales.
- Cheap Chinese accessories will go up in price because the loophole they were using (deminimis) is now closed.
_____________________________
Bonus coverage: What do the macroeconomic models say about price increases and/or tariffs?
First, a caveat: macroeconomic modeling is never right. The actual economy is more complicated than we can model, and people's behaviors can alter over time, making it mathematically more difficult to come up with a perfectly accurate assessment. Moreover, there are several hundred different macroeconomic models available to run (and more that are private), and they differ in some of their economic assumptions. Keynesian and Friedmanian assumptions have some key differences, for example. That said, models do produce useful results to consider, and many recent models tend to predict within a narrow band from what actually happens. We're not yet to the Seldon level of mathematics, but we do have tools that are useful and have proven to be within a reasonable margin of error.
I tried a few different models to try to get a sense of what might happen with near universal tariffs. But the simplest model is the most direct and easiest to understand (and most likely to be further off from the final result). Here's what it says: if you apply a 25% price increase to all products in the GDP, inflation of course jumps to reflect that. Indeed, this would be called hyper inflation. In response to that level of inflation, the Fed will almost certainly have to raise interest rates more than the inflation rate to try to keep that from becoming the start of runaway inflation. Meanwhile, the GDP goes down over 6%, which is a severe recession. Jobs don't tend to get hurt much short term, but wages don't track with inflation at all. The problems get worse over time.
Now, the tariffs range from 10% to 54% and don't apply to all products, obviously. Some native-made products will escape a forced price increase. However, corporate behavior is pretty predictable. If you make widget in the US that sells for US$1 and all the competitive widgets from overseas sell for US$1.10 to US$1.54, you're going to raise your price, at least up to the level where you still get the sale. This is why I used a midrange (25%) value for price increases in the model.
This also introduces us to the notion of sensitivity to inflation. What happens to the GDP at different inflation levels? At somewhere between 5 and 10% inflation, the GDP goes from growth to contraction. Between those two numbers (5% and 10% inflation) interest rates would likely double.
If we run the simplified model at a lower 15% overall price increase to all products (some will be more, some will be less, which again introduces a bit of unpredictability), we get a very bad result: recession and stagflation. Stagflation is what happened to Japan in the 90's and from which they're still trying to recover from today. Repeated fiscal stimulation (low interest rates, direct stimulus, etc.) simply built up the debt-to-GDP ratio to over 200% in Japan. Coupled with the proposed renewal of the original Trump tax cuts along with promised new ones, America would be doing the same thing Japan did: increasing the deficit without getting economic growth.
I simply want to remind everyone in the US reading this article of a simple truth: this is what you voted for (surprise: I didn't). Despite his denial, Project 2025 was clearly always going to be a central goal of a second Trump administration. He also telegraphed much of his expected policies in his first administration, but there were still a few adults in the room at the time that helped restrain him. Not so much this time.
The sad news is that there are Republicans in the House and Senate who understand what I just wrote and know the likely consequences of supporting the President, but do so anyway.
_____________________________
Further Update: So now that the press has been able to ask questions and get responses, we now see the "formula" by which Trump calculated tariffs. It's nonsensical. Moreover, we've now read through all the tariff schedule, and guess what, we're going to tariff penguins and one of our own military bases 10%! No, you cannot make this stuff up—oh wait, the one with the weave actually did make it up—but if you don't believe me, try reading TechDirt's full analysis and explanation. Anyone who thinks the whole tariff schedule shows great leadership is just showing their own stupidity. I can't say that more plainly.
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.
Looking for older News and Opinion stories? Click here.