Cameras and Photography Explained

Okay, you went out took photos at an event or in a place of interest. You saw other photographers doing the same thing, so you naturally eventually sought out their images to see how they compared to yours. Your conclusion? Your images sucked. Now what?

I've seen multiple posts lately that assert or imply that their images failed compared to those of others because of a difference in gear. Worse still, some believe it was because of a different brand of gear. 

I suppose it's possible that other photographers were using better gear than you. Pro-grade lenses, in particular, can have a dramatic impact on what results can be produced. As much as I like, say, the Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens, at both 400mm and even 560mm my 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S lens produces clearly better looking results, plus it has both light collection and background isolation capabilities I tend to take advantage of. Is Sony's 400mm f/2.8 lens better than mine? Well, it could use a built-in teleconverter, but at 400mm f/2.8 I'd take either lens and be happy. So in near apples-to-apples comparisons, I tend to say "it isn't the brand." 

The real question you have to ask yourself when you start doing the comparo thing is: what did I fail at?

It's important that you realize this as a failure. Failure isn't bad. That's not just my Silicon Valley start-up mentality speaking, it's a reality: failure is one of the best ways to learn. But only if you (a) can admit that you failed; and (b) figure out what caused the failure.

Let's talk about that (a) part for a moment. More often than not when I see someone comparing their images to others they simply won't admit to failure. It's their image in the competition, so they like their's better. Often they even won't listen to criticism from others because they believe so much of their ego is on the line. As far as I'm concerned, if you're open to criticism, I think you're a far better person than the one that simply insists that they have done something good and accepts no criticism.

So before we even get into reason for failure, are you even admitting you do?

I fail constantly. I get giddy when I don't fail because it happens so rarely.

How do I fail?

• Not being in the right place at the right time. With both sports and wildlife, my two main pursuits these days, both things are critical to get the photo that everyone else will ooh and ahh over. In both sport venues and out in the wilds I'm constantly asking myself two questions: (1) am I in the right place, and (2) what do I expect to happen? If I can't answer those questions, I know I'm going to fail. Either that or I'm going to get damn lucky.
• Not having the camera set right. You probably think of me as a grumpy old man constantly criticizing Nikon's control choices. All of those things are true, but the last one would still be true if I were a happy young woman. Photos are moments in time. You may be prepared for one thing to happen but another starts to occur and you need to reset your camera for that. If I can't do that with a quick button press and maybe a dial twirl, then Nikon has restricted me in a way they shouldn't. Bad Nikon!
• Trying to do too many things. A pride of lions is on the hunt, what photo am I going to get? Well, I want one of everything! The stalker, ambusher, the chaser, the pull down, the bored male waiting for his meal, etc. If I'm lucky I'll get one of those. First, everything happens so fast and happens over such a large area, there's no way I can cover all those things. Second, lions are the fastest accelerators in Africa, so I'd better be fast on the shutter release. Don't like the wildlife example? Try sports. The team I'm covering is about to score and I know the play (yes, that happens when you follow a team closely and talk with the coaches). Do I cover the quarterback throwing the ball or the receiver catching the ball? I can't realistically do both these days, as sideline access is so packed you can't get the position where you might be able to do that. Now me being an analytical kind of guy, I say "receiver" because technically, he's the one that's scoring. Still, my point here is that if I think I'm going to do everything I'll probably get nothing.

I could go on, but you should be starting to understand the (b) part I described above. I'm always analyzing what exactly caused my failure. I should also point out that I might take 500-1000 images in a day's work. Of those, as many as 999 can be failures if I got the image I sought. Realistically, maybe 10-20 of my images in a day are one's that most of you would consider successes. But I also have days where none are. Yep, that's depressing, but it's sort of at the point of this article: what happened? Why did I fail so badly?

Broadly speaking, we have a few categories to consider:

1. Wrong gear. I've written this before, but I had a sadistic boss when I started out covering sports; he sent me out with the wrong equipment for the job at hand. Always. He sent me to a track meet once with a TLR and asked for action photos of the running events. When you look down into the viewfinder of a TLR, everything that's moving left-to-right in front of you is moving right-to-left in the camera! This boss's thinking was "this will make him really think about what's important, and it isn't gear." He was right. Even 50+ years ago I was dealing with the "best camera is the one you have with you" thing. Sure, blame the gear, but don't think that absolves you. You were the one that failed. Maybe it was because you bought or brought the wrong gear. Fix that.
2. Wrong technique. We've got a plethora of technique type things that can cause image failure: exposure, camera settings, aperture, shutter speed, handling discipline, and so on. These fall into two sub-categories: (a) you made the wrong choice; and (b) you haven't mastered something. Both things are solved by first understanding what caused the problem, then learning how to overcome it, and finally practicing until the right technique becomes second nature. Practice that.
3. Unclear concept. A photograph is your statement about something. Do you know what that "something" is? If you know the something, do you know what you're trying to say about it (your "statement")? My mentor Galen Rowell used to spend weeks prior to big trips conceptionalizing. He knew well before hand not just what it was he was likely to encounter, but he knew its history and context. He'd think about the likely ways he could capture the "somethings" and make a "statement" about it. He did not wait until he was standing there having discovered "something" for the very first time and then spontaneously try to frame it before it went away. Moreover, as he was walking through an environment—Galen was mostly an outdoor adventure photographer—he also collected thoughts about how the place made him feel, and would contemplate how that might translate into a photo as he moved down the trial (or up the cliff). If you asked him, he always had a concept of what it was this next photo might be before he pressed the shutter release. Here's one way I deal with that with students: you can't press the shutter release until your photo has a name. You don't have a clear concept if you can't name it. Name photos.
4. Poor choices. f/4 at 1/2000 and ISO 100 is the same exposure as f/22 at 1/500 and ISO 12800. One of those is probably not a good choice for a landscape photo where you want to resolve details. Sometimes gear choices intersect with this, as you can't do f/4 on some consumer zoom lenses at certain focal lengths, but I constantly find people getting all/most of the above right and still managing to do something clearly wrong with an in-the-moment choice. Note that it's always preferable to "press the shutter release" when a moment comes, but you need to realize that you are set wrong, make the setting change, and hope the moment is still there or comes again. Better still, you need to get good at anticipating the moment. Every photographic specialty has its moments, and you can learn which ones are likely so that you can be set correctly. Choose wisely.
5. Bad processing. This one starts to happen in camera with wrong technique and bad choices, but much of the time it happens back at home when you're either trying to "fix" those things or enhance the image. Here's a little surprise for you: your camera has more dynamic range than you're likely going to be using. Your eye can only process a max of eight stops at a given time (pupil dilation increases that, but that's over time).  A print maxes out to about eight stops, but is probably less for many papers/inks. The least common denominator of displays (sRGB 8-bit JPEG) is going to restrict you to six stops. Holy bit depth, Batman, that's not much! If you're twiddling the Exposure, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, and Black sliders in Lightroom, you'd better know what you're actually doing and what you're trying to show. In essence, you move tonality, spread it (add contrast), or contract it (reduce contrast), and do that with different ranges of tonalities differently. Most people do this willy nilly until it "looks good" to them, and often without considering how it's going to be viewed. But there's also the issue of did they control what the camera captured correctly. The number one sin tends to be underexposing in the camera in a way that forces them to move the primary subject's tonality significantly upward, which exposes noise, which leads to noise reduction, which leads to edges not looking quite natural. You know who thought extensively and wrote about all those things in great detail? Ansel Adams (though it helped that most of the time he was not considering color). Go Ansel. 

I don't tend to fail at #1 or #2. I can sometimes make a #4 failure, too. #3 is something I used to have big problems with, but Galen set me on a path towards correcting that. I was also very lucky to work with and study a couple of the very best post processors in the business early on, so usually if I have a #5 failure, it's because I'm working too much in a hurry.

Oh dear, that just brought up another aspect to analyzing failure: speed. The only way you can work at speed and not keep failing is by practicing enough so that everything becomes second nature. Even then you'll make a mistake or two from time to time. 

One thing I've noticed in watching people photograph—and I do that any chance I can get, because it's so informative—is just how many people are (a) get to a place; (b) pick up the camera; (c) take a quick photo; and (d) move on. No time contemplating, no time checking or making settings, no questioning their choices, and often very bad handling because they're moving so quickly doing things. I expect those folk to fail. 

And again, failure is not a bad thing, as long as you take the time to learn from it. Be honest with yourself. Get others to help you evaluate what you're doing and what your results are. Seek advice. Be open and ready to change (and practice!). 

Still need motivation to tackle this? Here's the kicker: people who fail a lot and take the time to learn from that are the ones who progress the fastest and the furthest. Fail long and prosper.

Article also added to Learn > Improving the Photographer

Usually when I go quiet, it's because I've been hard at work on something. Sometimes it's client work, sometimes it's a workshop, sometimes it's a big review, sometimes it's redesigning Web sites, but more often than not it's because I'm deep into finishing a book.

Today I'm announcing an ebook that should appeal to anyone with a Nikon camera dating all the way back to 2007 (D3 and D300). That's right, my new book is not camera specific. Welcome to Mastering Nikon JPEGs.

When Nikon introduced EXPEED, they introduced their processing and color model for the next 20+ years. While they've added features, such as a handful of new Picture Controls and a couple of new Picture Control parameters, everything else has been remarkably consistent from the D3 all the way through the Z9 (and beyond...). Set a D3 and Z9 the same way and you get the same results. As it turns out, there have only been three major additions to Picture Controls in the 18 year history of EXPEED that impact what you can do with JPEGs. Aside from those additions, every Nikon camera from 2007 to the present, including Coolpix, can create a JPEG image that looks exactly the same as a D3 JPEG.

I waited for Nikon to document what they were up to, but it seems that information about dealing with Picture Controls has actually gone backwards and more difficult to find in recent years rather than becoming more broadly marketed and disseminated. Sure, Nikon keeps touting whatever the latest widget they added to how EXPEED creates out of camera images, but then they don't always explain why (and sometimes even how) you'd use it. I guess once Nikon figured that they were catering to "creators", the creators themselves would creatively figure everything out ;~). Rapio creationem.

Starting with the Z9, understanding JPEG creation became even more important given that Pre-release capture can't create raw files, only JPEGs. Sports and wildlife professionals now needed to figure out how to create better JPEGs. When Nikon marketing didn't step in and start telling everyone how to get the best possible JPEG images out of Pre-release capture, of course I started getting questions about that. 

When I start getting a large number of common questions I typically start writing an article. I realized pretty quickly, though, that Nikon JPEGs needed more than an article, they needed an entire book. So that's what I've created.

Mastering Nikon JPEGs is 344 jam-packed pages of information that will take you through everything you need to know to create images that look great (and the way you want them to) right out of the camera. The heart of the book is about Picture Controls, that EXPEED-powered engine that Nikon first created for the D3 and has used and extended ever since. However, we also have to take a couple of other stops—broadly "exposure" and "white balance"—to work through the entire process of creating great-looking JPEGs. And yes, not only do I fully describe what's happening with the Picture Controls, I'll take you all the way through the process of creating your own (or using some pre-made ones others have created). 

While there's a little bit of "geek" in Mastering Nikon JPEGs, I've tried to keep the book approachable and easily understood. If you read it from front to back, it builds the knowledge you need create great-looking JPEGs step by step. (Perhaps in future editions I will add some extra geek, as there's a lot happening under the covers that could use further explaining.) While my Complete Guides for the various cameras do cover some of the same topics, they don't do so in the structured way I do in this new book. Moreover, writing more broadly allows me to focus you not on the camera menus, but rather on the process you use to create great out of camera images. I talk about style—without forcing you to one particular one—and much more that really doesn't fit in a camera instruction book. This is photographic instruction that I'm dealing with in Mastering Nikon JPEGs, not camera instruction. That's an important distinction to understand. 

This new book is the first in a series of three I've been working on that deal with the kinds of topics that I mostly help workshop students with. While I do often deal with camera issues at workshops, the primary goal for my teaching is dealing with photography issues. If you're going to take great JPEG images, you need a structure to think about how you do that, and you need information about the key things that you should be controlling. That's exactly what you'll find in Mastering Nikon JPEGs. No fluff. No deep drills into esoteric features you might not actually use. Nope. My new book concentrates on one thing: you want great JPEGs right out of the camera, so how do you get them?

You'll find my new book on the zsystemuser.com site today (and on the dslrbodies site as soon as I get time). If you're willing to spend US$39.99 to find out what I've been (mostly) working on for the past six months, you can click here to get started.

The book comes both as an ePub and PDF file. The PDF file is structured for printing (but can be read on your device, too). 

Since I just published a book centered around JPEG creation, this is a good time to remind people of just how important JPEGs and their settings are. I'll use Nikon cameras as an example here, but similar things apply to virtually all the cameras you might use.

• JPEGs are the default. Let's say that you reset your camera somehow (via firmware update, via actually using Reset all settings, because of a bug that triggers a camera reset, or by accidentally hitting the two green buttons simultaneously, Nikon's default, as with all camera makers, is to create a JPEG file. If you take your camera out of the bag and don't remember or catch that it's been reset, you're going to create JPEG files. How many depends upon how much you're paying attention. But if you follow my advice, you're always paying attention, because:
• Exposure tools are based upon JPEG settings. Even if your camera is set to take raw images, any exposure tool you bring up is getting its data from the JPEG flow. That includes the histograms, highlights displays, and even zebra stripes. Get white balance wrong or have automatic settings in Picture Controls (or the wrong Picture Control and/or parameters), and the exposure tools will lie to you. I've seen people saturate channels this way, and I've seen them severely underexpose, resulting in more image noise than they should have gotten.
• JPEGs are what you see on the camera's displays. Nikon these days has multiple JPEGs embedded in your raw files. Some are used for thumbnails, some are for particular camera display functions, but there's also a full-sized JPEG basic one there, too. If you're looking at an image on your camera using one of the camera's displays (EVF, Rear LCD, even HDMI connection), you're not looking at raw data, you're looking at a JPEG created with whatever settings were in place when you took the image.
• Pre-release capture can only create a JPEG. Actually, that's not the only function that does, Multiple exposure and HDR (overlay) do, too. When photographing sports and wildlife, I've watched photographers go from taking regular images to deciding to use Pre-release capture to capture a fast action sequence, but then never pay any attention to what their JPEG settings might be as they do. Nothing like throwing away 90% of the data and getting that wrong, it'll ruin your day sometimes.
• JPEG settings can inform raw processing software. This is easiest to see with Nikon's NX Studio, where that raw processor picks up every camera setting and processes (initially) exactly the way the camera would. But it's also true that you can set Adobe software to "Camera Matching" and get reasonable facsimiles of what the camera would do in processing. If you've set the camera well, this can simplify your post processing of raw images, because you'd be concentrating solely on the things that you can't do in camera.
• Pushing to SnapBridge or NX MobileAir is usually about JPEGs. At the default of 2mp images, those aren't raw files that SnapBridge is receiving on your mobile device. Generally the point of using the move-off-the-camera wireless functions is to get images for social media use quickly, and smaller JPEGs do that faster than anything else you can create. That's why Nikon put those defaults in place: they assumed that you wanted really fast transfers. Why would you want your social media post for an image look worse than your eventual wall-sized print?
• JPEGs are understood by everything. Pretty much everything that can display an image understands JPEG files. JPEG is still around because it's become the lowest-common denominator for images. So much so that you don't even have to provide a Color Profile along with the image data; all those programs showing you a JPEG will just assume sRGB and a universal gamma, which is the way your camera created the JPEG in the first place.
• JPEGs can be incredibly small, yet still present an eye-catching result. The 45mp cameras can produce files with all those pixels in as little as 3MB of file space. That means you could fit almost 11,000 of those images on a 32GB card. I could put my entire catalog of A images easily on such a card using JPEG. And if I got all the settings right, those images would still be impressive to those I share them with. 

Photographers wanted built-in automatic exposure meters in their camera because it avoided them having to go all Ansel on the problem of what aperture and shutter speed to use. Then they wanted autofocus because it avoided them having to figure out where the focus should actually be or rotating a dial to keep up with subjects. In digital everyone wanted automatic white balance because they had no idea what a Kelvin or MIRED was, let alone what to do about it. After Lightroom appeared everyone apparently decided that it was safer to take raw images, because they could "always fix it in post." If you get the impression from that we photographers have been getting lazier, you're correct. 

I understand why, too. I've cataloged easily well over 600 decisions that you make (or assume, or the camera makes) that are necessary to contemplate to create great images. Images that are yours, and stand out from those of others. You don't want to face all those decisions, sure, it's daunting to say the least. 

However, as I point out in my latest book, Mastering Nikon JPEGs, it's really just three things you need to think about to get JPEGs right: tonality, color, and style. Two of those may not vary in any photographic situation you're in, and maybe even all three don't vary at times. Thus, I'd argue that it pays to put some attention on how your camera is dealing with JPEGs, no matter what the situation you're in, what you think the time constraints are, and even if you're taking raw photos. Mastering JPEGs with your camera is a big win towards becoming a better photographer, and it's not as big a problem to make those decisions as you might think. You do, however, need to know what the primary three things to control are, and what your options are for each. Heck, if you even master one of the three things, you're probably already creating better JPEG images.

Ignore and avoid JPEGs at your own peril. Take the time to embrace what they do and maximize that potential.

This article is also now archived in Learn > Taking Photos Techniques.

I've written before that things have (and will continue) to slow down in terms of new gear announcements. All of the camera companies are on a more modest release schedule than they were pre-pandemic, and continued supply chain issues coupled with the low overall volume of the camera market has caused most companies to slow their product proliferation. Canon might be an exception to this, primarily because they wouldn't survive without volume; their whole strategy is based upon selling 50% of the 8m or so camera units made each year. 

Coupled with the above are two other issues. First, as camera makers pushed their products higher up in the market, the consumer stopped being in the mood to buy a new one every couple of years. But now we also have the tariff problem, which is causing yet another intersecting problem. For instance, Fujifilm produces the X100VI, X-M5, and GFX100RF in China. It's impossible for them to import them into the US given the 145% tariff. If someone was still really in the market for a  those cameras and can't get those Fujifilm models, they'll buy something else. And then once they've paid top money for something else, it's doubtful that when Fujifilm can once again import those models into the US that the same customer would be interested in opening their pocket book again.

I identified sampling, leaking, and switching as market factors over a decade ago when we started the DSLR to mirrorless changeover. I'm now identifying another factor: satiation. 

We've already seen this a bit on the Nikon side, where D850 owners simply don't see the value in making the transition to mirrorless. They already have a great camera that they paid a lot of money for—arguably the best all-around DSLR ever made—and they don't see a clear benefit to spending a greater amount of money to get something mirrorless today, particularly if they need to change their lens set. D500 owners tend to think this way, too (another best-ever camera, this time APS-C). 

Despite my having documented over 120 feature requests that Z9 generation owners would like to see in their cameras, I'd be the first one to admit that I haven't been able to fully take advantage of all the things that are already built into my Z9, and I'm a high practitioner who makes use of advanced features and top-end performance. At 73 years of age, I can easily say that the Z9 Generation cameras I own, coupled with a solid Z-mount lens set, are enough satiation that I don't really need anything else before I eventually age to the point where I can no longer practice photography. 

That's true of quite a few of the interchangeable lens camera crowd that's been buying Canon R1/3/5/6/7, Nikon Z6/7/8/9, and the various Sony A's: they're (mostly) an older audience and enjoy extended features and performance, but they're not fully using what they already have. Moreover, exactly what feature or performance aspect are they really missing? (Since I asked the question, I'll answer it: they'd love to escape much in the way of post processing. So building AI noise reduction into the camera would intrigue me.)

The problem with the leaking and switching that started in the early teens was that individual companies saw declines in sales if they were the ones the users were moving away from. Both Canon and Nikon were impacted by this as people discovered first m4/3 but especially Sony Alpha mirrorless. Nikon lost market share, and Canon had to use sales, quick temporary responses, and marketing to try to keep their share from eroding as well. Fujifilm and Sony benefited.

The problem with satiation is that everyone will see begin to see declining sales. The best marketing move against that is probably the upsell upgrade. In other words, you own a R6 or Z6 model, but for your next upgrade buy an R5+ or Z8+. Of course, this really just postpones satiation, and pushes what the person paid to an even higher level, which increases the eventual satiation.

Nikon's last four new cameras all are basically attempts to move closet gear owners into the new era. In other words, the D70 to D750 crowd, who never moved into mirrorless, partly because they don't use their cameras all that much and their gear lives mostly in a closet. The Zf is trying to re-engage the Df users, the Z50II is trying to re-engage the D7xxx users, the Z5II/Z6III are trying to re-engage the D750 users (and a few Z5/Z6/Z6II owners, as well). If successful, I'd say that the likelihood is that those users will become satiated if they make that move. All four of those new Nikon mirrorless cameras are really complete, high executing products. 

The prospect of higher prices due to tariffs only adds to the problem. The high end products being pushed get even higher in price. If you're outside the US and think that the tariff war probably won't impact you, think again. Short term you might see better pricing because the camera companies are going to see sales in about a quarter of the camera-buying world dry up and they need to move volume, which means sales. Moreover, the likelihood of a large economic downturn is very high now, which will also put pricing pressure on companies. But this wasn't called a tariff war for nothing. The impacts on the supply chain are already being felt, and all that's happened so far is one person shot their wad and got a wad fired back in response. While I believe Trump is a poser—he makes huge claims and sets goals that he never really delivers on (how's that wall paid for by Mexico coming?)—he's triggered a massive disruption that's going to have businesses shaking in aftershocks as everything starts to get renegotiated, reconfigured, and reorganized. 

If you're satiated, as I sort of am, you're just going to go out and use the gear you've got. Double that if you're also being hit economically. I don't remember a time in the last thirty years—which includes terrorism, a great recession, a pandemic, and more—when the behind the scenes chatter as I talk with others in the industry (press, stores, pros, camera companies) has been so questioning about what will happen as a result. 

You might be surprised after all the above to hear this optimistic conclusion: some form of the camera industry will survive, and potentially thrive. It's really a Darwinian cycle we're facing. The healthy, strong, and inventive will carry on by evolving to the new and changing conditions. The unhealthy, weak, and those that don't act at all may die off. 

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.