News/Views

This page of the site contains the latest 10 articles to appear on bythom, followed by links to the archives.

The Next Lens Revolution

Get ready for new controversy. 

We’ve had several big changes in how lenses are designed in the digital era, and more are coming. The two biggest differences in 21st century lenses have been improvements in computer modeling during the design process coupled with using in-camera “corrections” to “fix” aspects that aren’t addressed by the optical design itself. 

“Corrections” and “fix” are in quotes in the previous paragraph because the current form for these is simply some brute force simplified math. For instance, vignetting isn’t measured precisely and then corrected via similar precise pixel-by-pixel data shifts. Instead, virtually all the vignetting corrections are a set of circles containing a pre-ordained amount of data shift, which may or may not exactly match what the lens is doing. 

Here’s what’s going to happen next: AI lens corrections.

Large language model AI is about pattern matching. Optical design generates plenty of patterns. We’re going to see AI correction calculated during the computerized design process, and then a way of applying those very specific corrections downstream when the image is actually created. 

Already we have some neural signal processing happening in smartphones that does something similar, mostly with so called “telephoto zoom” created from cropping. But what I’m talking about will go further, and essentially pattern-correct the lens aspects that the computerized optical design let slide (typically in order to optimize something else). 

This isn’t as simple as it at first sounds (e.g. just apply a correction). Lenses focus at different distances, have adjustable apertures, and may even mechanically zoom, all of which changes the underlying optical patterns and correction needs. Thus, say a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens might need 24, 35, 50, 70mm, close focus, medium focus, distance focus, and fast aperture to slow aperture “adjustment files” at a minimum. Still, that’s doable today with current technology, someone just has to implement it.

Which brings us to the controversy that will ensue. 

A perfectly corrected lens wil almost certainly be rejected by some as being “too clinical.” Sure, but the data being collected in the raw file will be more optimal, so I’m for it. Take it a step further, though: not only can you create a near perfect optical correction this way, you can create presets that render differently. Get ready for Lens Picture Controls (LPC). Want classic edge sharpness falloff with vignette? Use the Vintage LPC. 

You thought photographers argued about whose color presets are better, wait until we start arguing about whose lens presets are better.

Things Said on the Internet, Part XXXIV

“[Panasonic L10 is] the most exciting camera of 2026 (so far)” — 43rumors headline

Hmm. The L10 was the second camera announced in 2026. At the time the headline appeared, it was the second of only four cameras announced in 2026. So 43rumors has a one in four chance of being right instead of just clickbaiting ;~). 

The present paucity of products popping up means that everyone covering cameras and lenses on the Internet gets overly excited when awakened from their writing slumber to comment on something new again. It’s not as if we’re getting anything particular “new” either; we’re getting modest to moderate iteration for the most part. Woo hoo! 

Meanwhile, every site seems to be rushing to post affiliate linkages that end up at wait lists that might not ever generate revenue for them. What a business model. 

“Pre-orders already exploding” — newcamera headline

Continuing on a theme, now we have a camera (Insta360 Luna Ultra) that hasn’t yet been announced with supposed strong pre-order reports. Best get your affiliate linkage ready, Internet (“we will update this article the second Insta360 drops the official global pre-order link” [emphasis newcamera’s, not mine]).

On your marks, set, affiliate link! 

What a business model.

“News: Comparing 6 Best AI Photo Enhancers.” —Imaging Resource headline

A strange article, to say the least. I’m happy Imaging Resource is back, but then I’m not sure it’s really back. First, listing a “comparison” (more on that later) as “news” basically tells us that the new Imaging Resource editors don’t know the definition of news. Given that they have both Reviews and Buyer Guides sections on their Web site, how did the article in question become news?

The front half of the article is basically an advertorial for Aiarty Image Enhancer, complete with…wait for it…affiliate links. I can confirm that Aiarty has been sending emails to photo Web sites encouraging articles, reviews, links. Apparently some are taking them up on the request. 

As if to legitamize the “comparison” aspect of the headline, the second half of the article briefly lists five other AI enhancers, though this is headed with “if you prefer to avoid subscription-only apps, here is a nice change to unlock lifetime license [sic] from Aiarty.”

On my browser, the article was accompanied by an ad for Bombay Sapphire Dry Gin. I suppose if I drink enough of that I might consider the article both news and a real comparison. Unfortunately, I’m a teatotaler, so: it’s not news, and not really a comparison. 

Dare I say it? What a business model.

“…the market for Action cameras is small” “…the market for Action cameras is finite.” –many comments on the Interwebs

This is typically said in discussing GoPro’s financials and the possibility that they might be sold or go away completely. 

Don’t believe Internet amateurs ;~). GoPro sells more cameras each year than does Nikon. Oh wait, Nikon’s going to go away, too, according to those naysayers. 

The real issue for GoPro is that we’re now on their 14th iteration (or so), and not a lot got iterated along the way. Meanwhile, the Chinese competition is on their 4th iteration (or so), and quite a bit is getting iterated by them. So much so that GoPro’s market share has plummetted into what is likely single digits in the (small ;~) Action camera market. DJI, Xtra, and Insta360 are growing like weeds as they innovate in the space, while GoPro is showing revenue decline despite being the market initiator. That’s Classic Silicon Valley, not knowing what made you successful and how to iterate on it to protect it.

For instance, it now seems as if GoPro will be last to multi-lens Action cameras or the truly tiny versions (e.g. Insta360 GO 3S or Xtra Atto). The GoPro Mission 1 Pro ILS with its interchangeable lens capability comes almost 20 years after I first asked for it on this Web site. 

What a business model.


Site Timing

It’s been a tough year so far, with a number of unexpected external issues causing me to fall behind my original schedule, including a family emergency that has me bouncing back and forth across the country. I’ve had far less office time this year than expected, so getting big projects done in a timely fashion has been difficult.

Here are my new estimated launch times for projects you know about (I have additional projects you don’t know about, but I’ll let them be a surprise when they appear):

  • Update to the existing Zf book: soon; should be the next project shipped
  • Nikon ZR for still photography book and ZR review: summer
  • Update to Nikon Z9 book: late summer, early fall
  • New byThom Web site: summer (this project is well on its way; but everything is being been rewritten, and I mean everything)
  • New zsystemuser Web site: late fall
  • byThom MAX launch: January 1, 2027 (material has been and continues to be generated for this, so it should be fully stocked when it launches)

Things I have managed to get done so far this year include (a) teaching a pair of two-week workshops in Africa in new locations, (b) relaunching filmbodies.com (including creating a new free book for Nikon film SLR users and rewriting everything that was on that site), (c) completed basic lab testing for 12 new lens reviews and one camera review, (d) wrote another book (not on photography), (e) prototyped and designed for the future Web sites and updates, (f) created a number of items for byThom MAX, plus (g) the usual keeping you up to date on the photography news that’s relevant as well as posting useful new articles on the three active sites.

It’s not that I haven’t been busy. Just the opposite. It’s that many of the projects I’m working on require distraction-free, concentrated time in order to complete, which has been rare in the last few months. The good news is that I can now see things getting better over the next few months, which may allow me to hit the schedule I outline above.

So bear with me.

Exceeding Supply Again

Once again we have a camera manufacturer (Panasonic with the L10) announcing that orders for a new camera “greatly exceeds our expectations.” The actual truth: orders exceeded what they can deliver initially. Why not just say that?

By using the “exceeds our expectations” wording, the Japanese are constantly saying, in essence, that they are producing cameras that that they thought wouldn’t have all that much interest initially. That they could deliver to expectations, and expectations were low. 

Further, this wastes early buzz for a new product, as people get in line, find they can’t get it, and then buy something else for their upcoming trip, vacation, event, whatever. 

There was a time in the digital era when companies announced their initial production level for a new product, and if demand exceeded that, they’d apologize that they couldn’t deliver to demand and would increase the manufacturing level. Unfortunately, as total unit volumes plummetted after 2011 and supply chain issues started becoming a regular problem, no one seems to want to say how many they can produce or whether they can increase production to meet demand. 

Instead, they’ve all taken the “this product went viral on us” approach when demand exceeds supply, but that may actually be counterproductive. The thing about “going viral” is that it is a very temporary thing. Yesterday’s viral is today’s out of sight. If you ask your local camera dealer, they’ll tell that when a wait list for a new product lasts longer than a month, quite a few people on that list decline to buy when the product finally becomes available.

I’m a believer that accurate information, updated as necessary, is the best approach to just about everything, including marketing. If it were my company, I would have said “We hoped that [this] would be a popular product, and initial demand confirms that. However, our initial production won’t meet that current demand. Accordingly, we’ll do our best to rapidly increase production and get cameras to everyone that wants one as quickly as possible.” (I’d be tempted to put real numbers in there, but customers don’t always understand numbers. 50k units a year would be a good sales number for something like an L10, for instance. And maybe the monthly production capacity is 5K units. That doesn’t sound like much to most people, but it’s actually a healthy number and a lot of today’s cameras are produced at or just above that level. After all, only 8m cameras of all kinds from all Japanese makers were sold last year, and almost half of those came from one company that makes a couple of dozen models. 

The real issue is what happens two or three months after a camera introduction and demand is being met. How do you keep demand up? That’s called marketing. And the Japanese companies are still pretty poor at that. It doesn’t help that they’re putting all their shouting voice into what happens during launch weeks. 

May’s News

LEDE ON

It seems that the camera producers are all claiming that they’ve “secured” memory and some other critical part supplies for the year. I noted that in at least one case they also talked about increased pricing, though. Meanwhile, CaptureOne doesn’t have a parts issue, but they’ve now announced that their pricing will go up 6%. Frankly, in times of inflation I expect everyone pushes their pricing as much as they think they can get away with.

The problem I see coming is that all these cost increases that are happening—don’t forget cards, SSDs, and hard drives—eventually will have people giving up something, with subscriptions being one of the first to go. Particularly subscriptions that don’t add anything to the product over time (I’m looking at you Nikon NX MobileAir).

——————————

News

Sony’s Month

Sony awoke from their product slumber with a bang, announcing the now 67mp A7RVI along with a 100-400mm f/4.5GM OSS lens. If that wasn’t enough, the Xperia 1VIII smartphone also came along for the ride. It didn’t hurt that a lot more FE lenses showed up at the Beijing photography show, including a prototype of the Sigma 85mm f/1.2, or that the first major firmware update for the popular A7V showed up. It was a busy month for Sony users, and the news provoked fandom responses.

Let’s start with the big lens. The new fixed aperture 100-400mm looks like a real winner. Only a third of a stop slower than f/4, this US$4300 lens is a solid focal length for both sports and wildlife, and my sports photography friend Patrick Racey Murphy seems to like it a lot. Yes, it’s in a different price range than the competitor’s 100-400s, but the difference between f/5.6 and f/4.5 is meaningful to a lot of users, both for low light work as well as for background separation. Nikon’s got their work cut out for them, as the aging Nikkor 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S isn’t as sharp at 400mm or as full featured as this new Sony.

Most of the talk this month was A7RVI worship. A new stacked image sensor coupled with attention to getting dual gain results (at least with mechanical shutter) makes for a lot of the excitement. At 67mp (technically 66.8) it’s the most pixels in a full frame sensor, yet the early results show the new sensor more than holds its own while making some clear rolling shutter gains. 30 fps blackout free bursts aren’t exactly what you might expect on a pixel pusher, though the A7RVI is not quite a sports camera due to some lingering roll in all-electronic shutter.

New to the A7RVI are a bigger battery, 32-bit float audio, illuminated buttons, and a dual USB-C arrangement. The grip is also a bit different due to the larger battery. While the EVF is still 9.44m dot, it gets a brighter OLED panel that can provide HDR viewing in a near P3 space.

Overall, it looks like Sony addressed many of the primary complaints about the A7R. They may have even fixed my primary complaint about the preceeding model with that dual gain use while operating under mechanical shutter. The Mark VI seems like a solid update that will win new buyers, though it has risen US$600 in price from the original V to US$4499. 

——————————

News

Canon's Month

“Hey, we’ve got a new camera and new lens, too” said Canon on the same day as Sony fanned heat from their supporters. Surprising to some, Canon’s new offerings didn’t quite get the same rabid response as did Sony’s.

That’s probably because the new US$2500 R6 V is basically the current R6 III in Nikon ZR form. In other words, designed for “advanced creatives.” The R6 V did have one significant fan on day one, though: the fan built into the camera to keep it cool while recording video. That’s fine, but Canon now has to explain why their ZR needs a fan while Nikon’s doesn’t. 

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that there is enough market for the Canon R6 V, Nikon ZR, and Sony ZV-E1—let alone the FX’s—to all thrive. Moreover, I don’t think any of the three hit the nail quite on the head; each has liabilities and missing features that the others don’t, an indication that no one really yet knows exactly how their small full frame slinger should be configured. 

Along with the camera, Canon launched a new 20-50mm f/4L IS USM PZ lens (US$1400). 

——————————

News

Nikon's Month

Nikon didn’t launch any new products while I was out of town, but there were two announcements from them of note. 

The first was Nikon’s full fiscal year results, which produced quite a bit of the usual “Nikon is dying” response from the amateur inexperts. While most of the Nikon businesses either hit or were close to their forecast revenue, the issue that triggered the naysaying was the higher-than-expected loss. Nikon Imaging actually sold more cameras and lenses than originally expected, but a lot of the volume was lower priced Z50II and Z5II models, plus the write-off associated with the “sale" of Mark Roberts (now in bankruptcy) didn’t help the bottom line for the group. Considering Nikon didn’t launch a new camera in the last half of their fiscal year, the results seem fairly strong to me.

The Nikon weaknesses are three: (1) Nikon Precision seems to have no way to take advantage of the semiconductor boom and keeps missing targets due to write-downs and delays; (2) the new Components and Manufacturing businesses aren’t showing the expected sales and profit growth that was promised; and (3) free cash flow has been negative for four straight years now, and in a time where interest rates are no longer zero in Japan that has longer term implications if the problem is not fixed. Still, I’d simply characterize Nikon’s results as weak this year, and not close to fatal. We’ve seen this play before, and the protagonist survives just fine.

Nikon’s other announcement was developmental, as in “we’re working on a 120-300mm f/2.8 TC VR S lens.” Uh, thanks Nikon, but we already knew that. We did get a few photos of the new lens, though, and they reveal that Nikon learned nothing from my criticism of the placement of the controls on the 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S. The Fn buttons are nowhere near where my hand will be, among other things. Meanwhile, for some reason everyone is betting this new top line lens will sell for US$8000. I’d say that’s tremendously optimistic. It’s more likely a US$10,000 lens, particularly given the inflationary market we’re currently in (sensing a theme, yet?).

Do I want one? Not exactly. At 120-300mm plus 420mm via TC and effective 610mm via DX crop on the 45mp cameras, it just barely qualifies for my wildlife use, yet it looks to be almost as big as the 400mm f/2.8 I currently use. On the other hand, if I do more sports in 2027 than I did in 2026, maybe I’d be more interested. 

——————————

News

Fujifilm's Month

If Nikon was relatively quiet, Fujifilm was mostly silent. While management did talk about possible lenses to the press—I think Fujifilm is starting to feel the Chinese lens threat—nothing much else got said. The fiscal year results were good (an 18% increase in revenue from the digital side, though that pales against the 26.2% increase on the InStax side). 

It strikes me that Fujifilm is at a critical juncture now. They’ve built a small user base that seems loyal. They’ve made very good products at the high compact (X100VI and GFX100RF), APS-C (X-E5 and X-T50 added to the bigger lineup), and medium format (GFX100II). As a Fujiflm user would I be looking to upgrade anything? And as someone outside the brand, can they make something that would get me in? 

I see Fujifilm’s main problem as still lagging in autofocus. But fixing that isn’t enough, I think. Fujifilm needs to get X-Pro and X-H users to upgrade now, and that’s going to be tougher given the competition’s advancements.

——————————

News

Panasonic's Month

Panasonic took a small idea and made it larger. Literally. The modest-sized LX100 is now replaced by a larger-sized L10. The good news is all the S1II-sourced goodies (autofocus, video, etc.). The bad news is that I think Panasonic might not have gotten the UX quite right (I’ll hold final judgment on that until I can test one; I still have to post my Ricoh GRIV review first). It certainly looks as if I’d be using the customization features on the camera to get it to operate the way I want it to. 

My first impression is that it presents as a very simple camera externally, only to send the user into customizations to get it operationally optimized. The fact that subject detection doesn’t fall back to general autofocus when no subject is detected isn’t user friendly and also seems wrong for a “simple” camera. Couple that with the body size increase on a m4/3 sensor camera that was properly sized before, and I’m not sure what to make of things from press releases and quick glances. At least we have an on/off lever instead of a button. At US$1500, the L10 is in a rich crowd, though each of the competitors has a completely different take.

-------------------

Wrapping Up

And in other news

The Chinese lens parade continued throughout the month.

▶︎ 7Artisan’s 135mm f/1.8. The budget Plena is here, with FE and L mounts coming. I’d be surprised if it seriously matched a Plena, though.

▶︎ Thypoch’s 24-50mm f/2.8. An autofocus zoom from an unlikely source takes on the Sony.

▶︎ BrightinStar had a big month. An autofocus 12mm f/2.8 for the FE mount, plus some additional manual focus lenses.

▶︎ Laowa produced a zoom fisheye. The 4.5-10mm f/2.8 is small, but that’s partly because it only covers the APS-C sensor.

What Goes Away Next?

One thing that people don’t always expect with the long march of technology is that things go away. We’re nearing the end of USB-A, for instance, with virtually everything now coming only with USB-C due to European regulations. 

Frankly, the camera makers seem a bit behind the times. With my Insta360 and DJI devices, for example, they only have a USB-C port, but my current cameras have many. Too many. And badly placed ports, on top of that. 

So let’s start today’s discussion with one about what ports are likely (or should) go away.

First up is HDMI. Be honest now: when was the last time you plugged something into your HDMI port? Before you say “but I plug in my Atomos Ninja all the time,” let me warn you, that’s not a good answer. HDMI was designed as a way to transfer video and audio simultaneously through a single cable (as opposed through the three cables it used to take in the RCA Jack era). The consortium that created HDMI had vested interests. One of those was copy protection of material being transmitted on the cable.

With USB4 currently being deployed, there’s really no need for HDMI, as via a single USB-C connector you can now do multiple things (power, data transfer, video display, etc.), and do them at the same or better speeds than the current typical state of HDMI. 

I expect HDMI to be the first connector to be dropped from virtually all cameras in the future. While some might say that keeps users from directly plugging cameras into TVs, how many are doing that, and no, you may not even need a cable to do that.

Which brings me to microphone and headphone jacks. The 21st Century way—the Japanese camera makers are still dragging their feet in the 20th Century—is to use wireless connections. I rarely use wired mics any more. Bluetooth is currently at 2.1Mbps, which is more than adequate for compressed audio. But there’s always Wi-Fi, as well, which currently hits 1000+Mbps if you need faster communications.

Why would you drop connectors from cameras? For a number of reasons:

  • Each connector costs money and often requires ribbon cables internally. Between the two, there’s a real cost per unit implied here, and while you might think it low, low adds up when you make a million devices.
  • Everyone seems to want smaller cameras, and smaller cameras don’t have a lot of real estate to dedicate to connectors. The classic left-side location interferes with hand grips and articulating screens, adding a frustration level. 
  • Connectors are entry points for moisture. This requires more parts, typically a door or flap to keep water from ingressing into the vulnerable digital interior of the device. 
  • Reliability (and thus repair costs) goes down. Physical connectors can wear over time, but the real issue is related to the first bullet: the connector mounts to something, a ribbon cable connects it to something else. The more complex that warren of connections gets, the more likely that something works loose. In talking to service technicians, not only are a fair number of repairs related to connectors, but a number of “needs to be returned for a second fix” services are due to not getting everything properly set during the repair.
  • Some connectors require licensing fees. Generally these are patent pool fees and relatively low per unit, but again, even a few cents a unit adds up when you ship enough product. 

Quite frankly, the Chinese are eating the Japense for lunch right now when it comes to “connectivity.” All the latest gear coming out of China is basically a single USB-C connector for power and sometimes communication, and Bluetooth/WiFi to well designed mobile apps for everything else. 

But the real issue lurking for the Japanese camera companies as they contemplate taking out parts is that the Japanese typically don’t address users directly when they do. They take something out because it makes sense from a production point of view, but not always from a user point of view.

I’ll give you a recent example: the Ricoh GRIV has internal memory and Ricoh suggests that the user doesn’t need a card. But Ricoh relies upon the user to understand how they might connect to that internal memory to get to their images. The Ricoh uses the old media transfer protocol, which may or not show the device on your computer when you connect it. On a Mac, for instance, you have to use Apple’s Image Capture application to see the camera, but how many people will know that without reading the manual thoroughly? (It’s in the Frequently Asked Questions for a GRIV, which should tell you something.)

Personally, I’m for removing connectors and maybe even cards. But not without directly addressing usability when things get removed. I still need to connect to mics, monitor audio, record video, move files to my computer, and so on. I want all those things done in ways that are seamless, reliable, and simple to use. That requires a software team that’s a good as the hardware team, and that is going to be the real issue for the Japanese as they start trying to simplify their product and make it more reliable, all while also making it cheaper to build.

————————

Bonus: A similar common complaint comes with phones and laptops: why are there no longer removable batteries, for instance? I can tell you that the design goal in Silicon Valley has long been “lasts a full day.” That, coupled with product reliability, has led to the demise of changeable batteries. It’s a long discussion around the “reliability” bit, including the fact that a lithium battery that’s not directly accessible by a user is less likely to develop problems, but I’ve seen the data, and it’s pretty clear: support issues went way down. Given that every internal battery these days is either USB-C and/or MagSafe chargeable, if you need “more batteries,” you can just buy a generic USB-C power bank. 

——————————

Double Bonus: If I were designing a serious camera these days, I’d be dropping a lot of things that you probably take for granted. Two USB-C connections only. If more connections are really needed, I’d do that through a proprietary hot shoe connection scheme, but frankly, excellent Bluetooth/Wi-Fi support with the right app is probably all that’s necessary. No cards; all internal memory (64GB; longer video can stream to the USB-C port). No user changeable battery (charge/power via USB-C). There’d therefore be no real doors on the camera, reducing the need for additional weather sealing, simplifying manufacturing, and increasing reliability. The real decision point would be the Rear LCD: I suspect that I’d make it attach magentically to the camera back and be fully removable. Need selfie position? Hot shoe stand for the Rear LCD facing forward.

Taking a Break

A major family emergency has arisen that requires my attention, plus I’ve got some client obligations this month, so I’ve decided to take May off from posting. I’ll be back in early June with, I’m sure, a lot of thoughts and new information. Maybe even with the redesigned site, though that will depend upon how distracted I get by the family situation. 

The good news is that things are moving slowly in the photo industry right now, so I doubt I’ll miss any major announcements.

As many of you know, I take periodic one-month breaks from the Internet every year, so this isn’t a new thing, and I almost come back energized. So enjoy the spring flowers, follow my advice on zsysteruser about getting to know your lenses better, and we’ll both have more to talk about when I get back.

April 20 to 26 News/Commentary

LEDE ON

With NAB behind us, we move into the Father’s Day/Graduation buying period still with virtually nothing new to add to the gift list. We’re definitely in a drought state when it comes to anything other than Chinese lenses. 

Here’s another of my economic-side warnings: the supply chain just took another hit with the Iran conflict. That might not be evident to you yet, but it is to all my buddies still building things. That's because they know the sequence that starts tripping the dominoes, and they’ve seen some dominoes already falling. You need helium for semiconductor creation, you need oil for plastics creation. Both are starting to be hoarded and rationed in SE Asia in anticipation of not being able to replenish the existing supplies soon. I’m starting to hear backchatter that even Apple is now considering postponing product launches. The worst thing in the tech world is to announce a Great New Widget and not be able to deliver it to demand. Doing that gives competitors time to respond, and, of course, you’re not getting gonzo dollars from the buzz you create. 

The traditional camera makers, with their 8m unit volume overall a year, are going to have a difficult time getting the volume of parts, particularly new parts, in order to keep up any semblance of pace in product launches. Even a company such as GoPro sells more cameras these days than do Nikon, OMDS, Panasonic, and maybe even Sony. Volume gives you purchasing power in tight situations as we’re about to encounter. 

My advice continues to be about the same as it has been for quite some time now: if you’re waiting for something, I hope you like waiting. If you see something at a reasonable price that you want, best pick it up while it’s available. We’ve gone from GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) to BRAKE (Be Reasonable About Keeping Extending). 

——————————

News

DxO Nik Collection 9

DxO continues to work on expanding and extending the Nik Collection. Version 9 now adds AI masking (both depth and general/object), a new color grading tool with a unique single wheel controller, blending modes, and three new specific tools: chromatic shift, glass effect, and halation. Other new features include hover preview for presets, an update to the local adjustments palette, the ability to copy and paste location adjustments, the ability to move masks between the plug-ins, color masks, simplified export and return to Photoshop options.

But wait, there’s more. Photoshop masks can be pulled into the plug-in, effect layers are already live in Photoshop while Nik is still running, the U-point interface has been expanded to include elliptical and polygonal control points, and much more.

Nik is now claiming that plug-ins open 30% faster and that all code in the Nik Collection is now authored by DxO (e.g. no legacy Nik or Google code). 

The above is all what we were all hoping would happen with DxO’s ownership of the long-lived and well-liked Nik Effects. Some product acquisitions die on the vine, as did Nik when Google bought the company. Others eventually spread new, better wings, and that seems to be what’s happening with Nik Collection. Nik has remained one of the few tools I leave installed in my photo processing suite, mostly because there are things you can do with it that are very tough to do without the plug-in.

Nik Collection 9 is available now and is US$180 for new users, as little as US$100 for those upgrading (depends upon which version you’re upgrading from). 

——————————

Commentary

Seven Types of Lenses?

I mentioned it in passing in the NAB Show recap, but it requires more comment: Viltrox now claims seven lines of lenses (Air, EPIC, EVO, LAB, Pro, Raze, and unnamed). Now, not all of those types are always available at every focal length, but enough are that we’re starting to see at least three variants in a mount (typically some combination of Air, EVO, LAB, and Pro). 

One wonders whether extending this strategy any further has a real payoff. While Canon and Nikon traditionally have had a small range of choices at each focal length, that’s typically topped out at three. For example, for a prime, f/1.4, f/1.8 or f/2, f/2.8, or some variation on that. With zooms the overlap tends to be fast aperture, mid-aperture, variable aperture. And even then, the “multiple choice” is limited to mostly the 24-200mm range, where you have buyers at low consumer, mid-consumer, and prosumer/pro levels. 

Both Canon and Nikon are highly analytical when it comes to their sales data. They have a strong tendency towards “what sells.” 

So I guess my first question for Viltrox is “are all these named variants really selling in enough quantity to justify?” My followup question is “why this naming scheme? Are you sure that customers understand it well enough to hone in on the right lens for them?” 

The Product Line Marketing Manager in me keeps trying to build out a simple, understandable matrix, but Viltrox’s matrix just looks messy and sprawling. For lenses, I think the definitions typically should fit a three by three grid:

consumer slow aperture convenience
prosumer moderate aperture competence
pro fast aperture quality, extras

Anything beyond this starts to become a complex marketing problem. Too complex to maximize revenue with lower cost goods (Viltrox’s lenses tend to be affordable). 

As I’ve been handling and using various Viltrox lenses at the same focal length, I’ve found that there often is very little optical nuance to pull out for my eventual review. Viltrox seems to be keeping sharpness up across all the lines, with whatever differences that do show up via the optical design appearing in vignetting, distortion, focus breathing, and other parameters that don’t tend to be on most people’s decisionmaking tree. 

I get Viltrox’s rapid and constant product launches. Sometimes you need to appear active to customers and you learn things by doing a steady stream of products. But I’m not sure what Viltrox is learning. They appear to be treating lens production as more a commodity business, but it is not. Too low volume to utlimately be commodity driven. The Japanese are very good at realizing when they have to move up value to protect the business long-term. Somehow, the CIPA companies are selling far fewer products these days, but ultimately taking in about the same number of dollars, for instance. There’s a strong ceiling in what you can accomplish in the ILC (interchangeable lens camera) market, and no one has found a way to dramatically raise that ceiling.

The question I have about Viltrox is this: once they've established their ultimate market penetration with lenses, then what? I have to think that they’d expand to building a camera, but that’s not the only possibility. Moreover, a huge, full line of lenses with only one camera would be weird, so what, would we get a messy line of cameras, too? 

In tech, you’re always running. You’re either running to catch up, you’re running with the pack, or you’re running ahead to the new goal you’ve found that the others haven’t yet. It feels to me like Viltrox ran to catch up, found themselves in the pack, and then just started dancing while they ran with the pack in order to call attention to themselves. 

-------------------

Wrapping Up

And in other news

▶︎ Another One Bites the Dust? The Coolpix P950 has apparently been discontinued in Japan. It’s difficult to interpret that, as it’s still available in other markets. It’s possible this is just a prelude to a minor change (ala the P1000 to P1100) due to parts changes, which trigger recertification across markets. 

▶︎ The Last Roadmap. Panasonic now seems to be the last camera maker providing a lens road map, and lo and behold, it has been updated to include a wide prime in the same line as the just-announced 40mm f/2, and a large-aperture telephoto zoom. That will make 22 lenses in the L-mount from Panasonic. My question to Panasonic remains: where’s the L-mount professional video cameras?

NAB Show News

When you're on the press list at NAB Show, your email InBox piles up an impressive number of press releases and interview offers (currently over 100, so I’m going to stop counting). This year, by my math, about 70% of that first batch had the abbreviation AI somewhere in the headline or lede paragraph. PR-fluff-wording also abounds ("...turns post-production into a strategic lever..."). 

In alphabetical order, here are the new offerings that I believe have some implication to my readership. Note that I will update the following list if I find new things to report (updated or added items start with a red triangle).

▶︎ Atomos acquires Flanders ScientificThis represents an extension of Atomos into post production, as Flanders makes reference monitor systems. The goal here is providing known color monitoring from on-camera (capture) to monitoring (wireless review) to grading suites (post production). The Flanders name will remain as a sub-brand, but this also means that these high-end monitors will now get a world-wide distribution system.

▶︎ Blackmagic Design Resolves to Steal Lightroom UsersA bit surprisingly, Blackmagic Design's DaVinci Resolve 21 launches with a new still photography tool set, including organizing, rating, raw processing (Canon, Fuji, Nikon, and Sony), and even tethering options (Canon and Sony). I use the words “bit surprisingly" in the previous sentence because DaVinci Resolve was already the ultimate everything-but-the-kitchen-sink software program. Now Resolve has the kitchen sink, too. Since this was a beta announcement prior to NAB Show, there's still some lack of clarity as to exactly what will be in the free version of Resolve versus the paid version (US$300 one time fee) when it releases. 

The big plus with these new still abilities is that it allows Resolve's extensive and Hollywood-tested color grading and node management (when something is applied in the processing chain) to still photos. The big minus is that, to take full advantage of that, you'll be learning an entirely new post processing skill set. Hollywood (plus Bollywood and all the other woods) will almost certainly embrace this, as it means that you can now match the still photos taken on set to the color, tonality, and processing of a final film using the same set of tools and workflow. Coupled with the products Blackmagic Design is making that enable cloud and group work, this brings more users into shared processing for pools of images and videos.

One final bit: DaVinci Resolve doesn't just run on Mac and Windows machines, it runs on Linux, as well. This new version will quickly become the most sophisticated Linux still processing available. 

▶︎ Canon detecting photonsIt’s not really an option for those of you reading this site—though some well-financed wildlife endeavors such as the BBC will certainly be interested—but Canon has introduced a new box-type camera, the MS-510. This 1” sensor camera needs only 0.0006 lux to capture a full-color image. To put that in perspective, that’s -7.4EV at ISO 100 (a nightime landscape with almost no moon). It’s just a 3.2mp camera, though, and requires an external power supply. It will capture FullHD at up to 60fps, though, which is why I mentioned the BBC. At US$22,800 just for the camera—you’d still need one of Canon’s broadcast-style lenses in the B4 mount and a power source—it very well may worth it to add to the BBC crews’ gear for some not-seen-at-this-level-before footage in the deep, dark jungles of the world.

I’ve written for a long time that I believe that photon-detecting cameras—as opposed to the photo-accumulating ones we currently use—are coming, and Canon has been plumbing this technology for awhile. The MS-510 now is starting to put it in very usable form for some niche markets. Canon uses SPAD (Single-Photon Avalanche Diode) in their designs, and as you might guess, the real issue raised with photon detection is internal bandwidth within the sensor to acquire each photon and move that data to where it can be used. When Dr. Fossum at Dartmouth first described his own photon-detection invention, the Quanta Image Sensor, he envisioned hundreds of millions of individual detectors running at as much as 1000 times a second in order to build a structure of when and where a photon came from.

You might be surprised to find that single photon detection dates back into the 1960’s. The problem has not been that you can’t detect a photon, it’s that if you want to deal with more than one as we do in photography and video and create a visible file, you quickly generate huge data sets. Canon has now shown that they can handle FullHD at 60fps, so we’re now over the threshold at which photon detection becomes useful. The issue now is bringing costs, processing, and power requirements down.

▶︎ DJI Launches Osmo Pocket 4The Pocket 3 is something I've been using extensively as I prepare to go MAX, so I'm intimately familiar with what it can do (and it can do a lot). The new version at first doesn't seem to be different, as it uses the same image sensor. However now you can produce 4K/240P with it, there's a new 10-bit D-Log, it has 107GB of internal storage, has a bit more battery life, and adds two new buttons in landscape mode (2x/4x crop, and a customizable button). While these things seem like subtle changes, for some they will make big differences. Plus, there's been a price reduction with the new model. There’s bad news, though. At the moment, it’s unclear whether DJI will get permission to sell the Pocket 4 in the US. 

Rumor has it that a Pocket 4 Pro is next, to be introduced in a month or so, and which features optical zoom via a second lens/sensor, much like smartphones do. The wide angle view is still derived from a 1” sensor, and a 3x lens alongside the wide angle one likely goes to a smaller sensor.

▶︎ Insta360 Is Going m4/3Behind the scenes, Insta360 is showing off their new m4/3 camera, an EV-less camera that reminds me a lot of some of Samsung’s old APS-C lower-end offerings. Once again we get the 20mp sensor. Other known features are an articulated Rear LCD, front and rear Command dials, and a reasonable hand grip. But are they really going to try to call it a Z1? I’d think Nikon would have immense trademark issues with that.

▶︎ Glyph Introduces CFexpress Cards. Glyph Technologies has long been known for its higher end storage drives. Now, it’s entered the CFexpress market with 256GB, 512GB, 1TB, 2TB, and 4TB CFexpress Type B 4.0 cards. While these cards are all labeled with 3700MB/s read speeds, note that the 256GB has a sustained write speed is 550MB/s, the 512GB is 1100MB/s, and the 1TB is 2100MB/s. None of the cards I saw are labeled with the CFA’s certified testing logo, but Glyph is saying they’re all compatible with the Z8/Z9 (though they recommend at least the 512GB version). The initial pricing is relatively low (US$240 for 256GB) given the NAND pricing hikes recently. I’ve used a number of Glyph products over the years, and most have proven to be highly reliable. The exception is an 18TB hard drive that just likes to unmount and remount from time to time on macOS Tahoe.

▶︎ GoPro's Next GenerationWhile it looks somewhat like previous models—the small blocky brand shape identification is retained—GoPro's new Mission 1 series of cameras is pretty much all new. Starting with the larger 4:3 (Type 1) 50mp image sensor and backed by the new GP3 processor (5nm process, with 2x the speed plus a neural core), the net result is shallower depth of field, better low light capability, faster frame rates, less heat buildup, enhanced stabilization, and better battery life. 32-bit float for audio recording from the four built-in mics is also supported. The Rear LCD is 14% larger, the buttons easier to find, the cameras can take stills in raw mode, and there's even a clip-on "make it a compact camera with grip" option. Three models are being launched: 

  1. The Mission 1 is the basic camera with a max of 8K/30P (at 16:9). Maximum 4K speed is 120fps.
  2. The Mission 1 Pro provides 8K/60P, including Open Gate, and runs a max of 240fps in 4K. 
  3. The Mission 1 ILS is the same as the Pro, except instead of the built-in lens, it features a (rather large looking for the box size) m4/3 lens mount. Sadly, there’s no autofocus support.

GoPro once again will launch with a ton of SKUs (e.g. Creator kit, filters, housings, wireless mic system, LED lighting, and more, but pricing on everything is up in the air until the product releases at the end of May or early June.

I believe it was with the launch of the Hero3—GoPro is now on Hero13 and this new system would be 14)—back in 2012 that I first wrote that GoPro needed to create a interchangeable lens mount version. The demand was there for a C-mount version, and has been ever since. I’m not sure why they’ve chosen m4/3—probably because of consumer availability over C- or B4-mounts—but that’s too big a mount for the camera size, I believe. And without autofocus support, I’m not sure what the real gain was in adapting m4/3. 

▶︎ Nikon Z Cinema Gets a LensIt’s well known that Nikon will create a line of lenses specifically for the video side, called Nikkor Z Cinema. On Sunday Nikon launched a short teaser video that didn’t say anything (okay, we learned that they have Focus Lock and standard gearing, plus an A/M focus switch, and that there might be a total of nine lenses planned).

▶︎ Panasonic Gets a Lens. A compact 40mm f/2 L-mount lens that looks suspiciously like the Nikon 40mm f/2, but isn’t, as a couple of key specifications show up in the optical design. This is a lens that the Panasonic S9 has been looking for: small, light, competent.

▶︎ SanDisk’s New CardsSanDisk announced new CFexpress 4.0 Type B and SD UHS-II cards. The new SanDisk Extreme Pro CFexpress cards are marked with 800 and 400 certified markings, and come in 128GB, 256GB, 400GB, 1TB, 2TB, and 4TB sizes. The SD Extreme Pro cards are either V60 or V90, and come in 128GB, 256GB, 512GB, 1TB, or 2TB sizes (the V60 version also comes in 64GB size). 

▶︎ Viltrox Adds EVO LensesViltrox added autofocus 35mm f/1.8 and 55mm f/1.8 EVO lenses in multiple mounts (including Z-mount), joining the 85mm f/2 EVO to form a core trio. These lenses are priced at US$395. These new lenses form Viltrox seventh series of lenses, and slot between the Pro and the Air series in both performance and size/weight. Let's see, I think the primary Viltrox series now go LAB, PRO, EVO, and Air, in that declining order.


Reader Questions Answered

Let's mix it up a bit, since camera news ain't happening until NAB next week. This week I'll answer a few reader questions that have popped up recently. 


"Does the 1/focal length rule still apply to shutter speed in the age of image stabilization?"

It wasn’t a “rule.” It was a rule of thumb. What one person could achieve in terms of a good image of a static subject was (and remains) different than what another person could achieve. 

As to image stabilization: lens stabilization will achieve different results than sensor stabilization. Sensor stabilization has issues with telephoto lenses (certainly by 200mm), for instance, because it is moving the focal plane two-dimensionally, not rotating the image three-dimensionally at the optical center. Overall, however, any form of stabilization should let someone use a slower shutter speed on a static subject than without stabilization. The question is “how much slower?” And that depends upon you.

However, you’ll note that I keep writing (and emphasized) “static subject.” In my Nikon Field Guide I pointed out that subject motion requires very specific shutter speeds in order to capture edges accurately. For a person walking across the frame, that would be 1/125. Image stabilization doesn’t “improve” that requirement. 

Distance to the subject and the subject speed are the key variables; a secondary variable would be motion direction vis-à-vis the camera.  Something moving at 5mph across the frame at 12 feet requires 1/500 second while at 100 feet 1/60 second is probably fine. For subjects moving towards the camera those numbers probably drop two stops (1/125 and 1/15).

So this notion that “stabilization lets you use lower shutter speeds” is an overstatement, at best case. And when it does, how much lower will depend a lot on your handling discipline. You’re far better off considering subject motion when you choose a shutter speed, regardless of stability setting.


"I was panning while photographing the takeoff of a plane and was completely parallel to it, but it appears that the front of the plane is slightly out of focus and the back is not. What would cause this?"

Most answers you’d get from the Interweb will say this was due to decentered lens elements or possibly heat waves. But the more likely culprit is image stabilization. You’re likely panning with something going 120 to 150mph. Stabilization capabilities are higher in the center of the frame than the edges, often by two stops or more.

With sensor-based stabilization, there’s also a limit to what can be done at the far edges of the frame. The stabiizer can only move the platform so far, plus shifting the sensor doesn’t 100% correct for when a tilt or rotation needed to be done. Even though they claim 5-axis stabilization, many mirrorless systems really only assess and correct only to the center of the frame, and CIPA numbers are usually reported for center axis only. On some cameras, Nikon now allows for stabilization calculations to be done at the location of the focus sensor that’s used, which may be off-center. So if the camera was focusing on the tail of the plane near one edge of the frame, the front of the plane at the other edge may have less (or wrong) correction. 

With lens-only stabilization on older systems (e.g. DSLRs) there was also an interaction between shutter speed and stabilization motor speed that causes unwanted aliasing (which I’ve written about for two decades now, and for which I got a lot of initial pushback on, but have been basically been proven correct; my information came directly from engineers who designed the system, after all). 

I’ve been writing the following since image stabilization first appeared: in situations where you don’t need it—e.g. when you’ve got a shutter speed that should freeze even that fast moving plane—stabilization is best turned off. While best case is that stabilization corrects all problems, the worst case is that it introduces new flaws. A likely case is that you get some edge aliasing. 

Here’s the rub: cameras come with stabilization turned on by default these days, and that does stabilize the viewfinder for camera handling and framing, so there’s an immediate perceived advantage. With really long telephoto lenses and no stabilization active, most users would have trouble keeping their camera aligned with moving subjects. So another perceived advantage. But don’t let this fool you into thinking that stabilization is perfect or will always do the right thing and not introduce any image changes. 

Stabilization is a tool that has consequences. Use it 100% of the time and you’ll eventually find images that show those consequences. It's impossible to know for sure whether that was what happened in your case, but it's my first suspect.


"What’s the heaviest lens you’d use when carrying the camera using a neckstrap?"

Simple rule of thumb: if the mass of the lens exceeds the mass of the body, you should be carrying the combo by the lens. The more the mismatch and the more the lens mass is centered away from the mount, the more important it is that you follow this rule. 

The lens mount is the point of weakness between body and lens, and the mount is designed to break (on both body and lens) once stressed past a certain force level. The reason for that is that repairing a mount is far cheaper than repairing damage to the body or lens structure. 

Beyond that, camera+lens these days tends to exceed three pounds even on the simplest of systems. That’s a lot of force on your neck, too. Almost none of us who carry cameras all the time use traditional neck strap carrying. At a minimum, we use shoulder straps, but this is where Cotton Carriers, various sling belts, and harnesses come into play. Even then you need to be careful, as just hanging a camera+lens off a carrier doesn’t isolate g-forces on the mount unless there are multiple points of contact.


"How do you tell if your lens mount is off?"

Let’s start with some basics: in the modern Z System cameras the image sensor is adjustable using a threaded screw system. In the DSLR era, sensor planes were adjusted using small shims, and shims of only certain thickness were made, so very small mount deviations were often common. The current system is not only much more adjustable, but stays locked in place. At the factory, after the lens mount is positioned on the body, there’s an automated alignment step that makes sure that the lens mount and image sensor are parallel and then locked into place with a small dab of locking solution. I’ve rarely seen a Z camera out of alignment from the factory, and haven’t seen even a single out-of-alignment camera in the Z9 generation models.

So what would make a lens mount be off? Basically two things: (1) impact damage to the mount, typically via offset force on the lens (e.g. when camera falls and hits by the lens); and (2) a broken VR sled under the image sensor. Both these things would need fixing by Nikon repair, they’re not things you can deal with yourself.

Coupled with that is whether the lens itself is manufactured correctly. In particular, any tilted lens element can cause the image plane to not be parallel to the mount and sensor. In practice, this looks like the lens mount being off, but isn’t.

So, how do you determine between lens element positioning and lens mount positioning problems? Well, first thing is to see if you have any issue at all. That’s done by taking images of something on the same plane (and making sure your camera is absolutely parallel to that plane) and looking for corner differences in acuity. One corner or side blurred more than the others is probably internal lens element alignment issues. A full side of an image different than the other could suggest potential mount issues and needs to be investigated further.

However, many people performing such tests do this on charts up close. The problem here is that it is very easy to be out of alignment with the chart, which will look like a mount alignment problem, but is really a chart alignment problem. If you want to be sure, put a mirror dead center in the frame on the wall/chart you’re photographing and verify the that you see the center of lens in the center of the mirror. You don’t want to be off by even a little. 

If getting things parallel isn’t something you want to take the time to do, infinity is your friend. If you can get yourself reasonably square to things very distant (e.g. buildings near the horizon), the amount you could be off from parallel is so small it shouldn’t show in your images. 

Next: is this a one lens problem or all lenses problem? One lens problems are certainly a lens problem, not a mount one. All lens problems can indicate a mount a problem. 

One common complaint from people is “but I never dropped my camera.” Thus when Nikon repair claims “impact damage” they object and think they shouldn’t pay for the repair. But note that I wrote that I’ve rarely (and more recently, never) seen a mount issue from the factory. Nikon’s QA procedures have tightened considerably over the years, and the method by which alignment is done has been improved and made very reliable. 

However, mounts are designed to break. On the camera side, incredibly shallow screws are used to hold the mount in place. This is because it is far cheaper to repair mount alignment/damage than it is to replace structural damage in the lens or camera body. Constant vibration, constant jamming, accidental impact forces (even bumping into someone else with your lens) can degrade the mount alignment (sometimes slowly via repeated incidents). I watched students when changing lenses jam their lens into the mount because they're in a hurry, not always correctly, and then almost use force to get the lens mounted correctly. 

The vibration/impact reasons are why I never travel with lenses mounted on camera bodies. Have you ever seen how people treat your carry-ons in the overhead? I’ve even had a goat fall down a cliff with some of my gear strapped to his side (long story). You want no forces to be applied to the mount whenever possible. So you keep body and lens separate whenever you’re not using the gear. And when you are using the gear, you stay aware of any and all impacts, as well as oblique and gravitational forces that might impact the mount. You’ll note in the above question I don’t tend to carry cameras by neck straps. That’s gravity I’m trying to deny, as a front heavy lens is constantly putting a force on the mount, particularly as I walk with it. 


"When someone writes or talks about how a lens “renders”, what do they mean?"

An excellent question. Often in photography we have terms that are bandied about that aren’t defined, or for which there is an assumed (but not necessarily agreed upon) definition. 

The dictionary definition of “render” has multiple possibilities: (a) to reproduce or represent something; (b) to produce a copy; (c) to cause something to be.

None of those definitions quite tell us enough for what is meant by using the word render when it applies to lenses. Here’s my take: the minute someone starts talking about how a lens renders, I believe them to be speaking about how the optics impact the depiction of a three-dimensional world into a two-dimensional capture.

Some people will say that, no, what they mean is how well the lens mimics what our eyes do. Unfortunately, we have multiple problems trying to use that definition: (1) our eyes are not the same; (2) most eyes have defects; (3) our eyes don’t resolve to a two-dimensional capture (our retinas are curved); and most importantly (4) it’s actually the brain that does most of the work, because it interprets signals and can do so in different ways (e.g. synesthesia).

Layered on top of this is viewer experience. All of us have decades of experience looking at images that were captured with simpler lenses. Much like 24fps makes motion capture more “film-like” than 60fps (more TV-like), central sharpness with non-managed optical characteristics as you move towards the corner of a capture frame is something we’ve been conditioned to.

So let’s get back to how a lens renders. Using my definition—three-dimensional to two-dimensional reproduction—you can start putting measurements and values on how accurately a lens is doing that. One that doesn’t get talked about much with still photography but which we talk about all the time in film and video is cats eye bokeh. It’s pretty common to encounter small bright lights or highlights behind a subject, particularly at night. When they defocus (they’re behind the focused subject), light points should become larger, round, out-of-focus blur circles, with no new characteristics. That’s generally true for almost all lenses on the central axis, but as you get to the corners you start to see round turn into elliptical or eye shapes (cats eye), often because of where light baffles are located in a lens (they’re eclipsing part of the out of focus blur). 

I could dissect every parameter of a lens and apply this same criteria—the three dimensions get correctly captured in two dimensions—and for the most part, I do that with my reviews. Pretty much everything in the performance section of one of my lens reviews is dealing with this definition of “rendering.” 

The tricky part these days is that lens designers added a tool to their optical designs in this century: lens corrections done via software processing on the image data. Three easier-to-post-correct rendering flaws are often ignored (or not fully minimized) in current lens designs: vignetting, linear distortion, and lateral chromatic aberration. I have no problem with this where we’re not talking about massive eventual pixel changes (e.g. >2EV vignetting, >2% distortion, >2 pixel CA suppression). The likelihood that modest pixel changes have real visual consequences is small enough to be ignorable, and the correction is arguably better than the uncorrected.

Moving these optical problems to post correction allows lens designers to better concentrate on the real thing that can distinguish a lens: contrast. MTF is the way we usually measure that, but some will talk about acuity, sharpness, resolving power, and other related stand-ins. Before aspherical lens polishing came to the scene, lenses pretty much had their highest MTF in the center, and that fell off as you moved further from the center. Aspherical lens elements started to change that, and modern lens designs can be quite good at corner-to-corner contrast.

That last bit is what typically leads to lens rendering debates. Technically, our eye-brain is highly center oriented: we see “sharp” in a narrow area controlled by where we point our eyes. Our brain deprioritizes data off that narrow field, which can feel like lack of focus. That’s similar to lens designs of the previous century: sharp central area falls off outside of it. It’s dissimilar to the way many of us view most of our photos now: on a flat screen fully (or almost fully in the case of a 27” monitor) within our central vision predilection. My prediction is that Millennials and later are not going to have this same debate down the road: they’re being conditioned to seeing edge to edge where they want it sharp (or rather, as sharp as the DOF would define). 

Personally, I put a stake in the ground a long, long time ago: I want optimal data capture. That would imply a perfect lens with no optical liabilities. I can easily process in corner blur effects later, but it’s really difficult to process in corner sharpness when it was never there in the first place. 

Your mileage will vary. But I have to ask: how do you know what that is? Are you even thinking about this? Or is your reaction to lens rendering always “I know it when I see it?” 


Looking for older News and Opinion stories? Click here.

 Looking for gear-specific information? Check out our other Web sites:
 Nikon Z System mirrorless: zsystemuser.com | Nikon DSLRs: dslrbodies.com | Nikon film SLRs: filmbodies.com
Privacy Policy | Sitemap

bythom.com: all text and original images © 2026 Thom Hogan 
portions Copyright 1999-2025 Thom Hogan