"AI will kill the camera companies." — numerous posts
This is akin to saying "camera companies can't keep up with processing bandwidth demands."
Simply put, most things that people call AI require a lot of data (memory) and processing (GPU or NPU). If you believe that the camera companies are not capable of increasing either resource internally in their products, you are essentially saying that they're incompetent.
The truth is simpler: when camera demand fell and smartphone demand rose, the economic benefit of creating new chips for these products tilted to the smartphone makers. Apple, Samsung, and Qualcomm have far greater volumes of product that they can spread R&D costs over, which also allows them to iterate faster, and thus to incorporate NPUs and AI/ML resources faster. Apple has almost fallen over themselves with their Apple Silicon iteration: the software teams aren't keeping up with the hardware. Meanwhile, most customers don't need what an M4 can do, even an M1 suffices. Coupled with the fact that smartphone sales have peaked, the court isn't tilted as far in their favor as much as it used to be, but still, the playing field is not close to level.
That said, the camera makers need to be careful. After all, you don't need a lens if your goal is to artificially create a "photo." ;~). Some AI would be very useful, but probably not as much generative AI that many think is the future of imaging. Nikon, who's now the third largest ILC vendor in volume probably has enough sales to continue to iterate EXPEED often enough and with enough AI-capable resources in it to stay competitive. A company such as Ricoh/Pentax probably does not.
The real question is exactly what AI/ML makes sense inside a camera? The iPhone and Pixel cameras seem to have about exhausted their original ideas in this respect. The dedicated camera companies have mostly targeted focus and are also topping out in what their original target there was. It's as if creative thinking by human engineers has stopped ;~).
“Prices should be determined by supply and demand.” — numerous posts
This comment comes up a lot when new products are introduced and demand is higher than supply, so the product is difficult to get. The Fujifilm X100VI camera and the Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR lens are examples of that at the moment.
The surprising part of the quote is that the posters of such comments aren’t camera vendors, but rather camera purchasers. In essence, these posters have swallowed the MBA school teachings hook, line, and sinker, and believe that just pricing a product “correctly” in the first place is all that’s necessary to get supply in balance with demand.
I’m here to tell you that pretty much everything I learned in the MBA program fails in the real world. People don’t respond the way the capaitalist demand curves suggest.
First, let me talk about the Nikon 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR price. At US$1700, it’s clearly a bargain. It’s also priced lower than some other near-equivalent lenses, such as the Sony 200-600mm, even though I’d say the Nikon performs a bit better.
There’s a concept of leaving money on the table. Nikon has been clearly doing that with the Z System for some time now. Across the board, most of the Z cameras and lenses are priced lower than competitor’s equivalents. Being last to the full-on mirrorless game, Nikon pretty much needed to do something to call attention to their products, and pricing was one way they did (and continue to do) that.
From Nikon’s viewpoint on the 180-600mm, they’re not thinking “oh darned, we could have priced it higher.” They’re thinking “yes, we’re picking up users’ attention,” and in an area that the competition is a little weaker (full telephoto lens lineup). The 180-600’s pricing was strategic, and not a tactical blunder as the MBA-think would suggest.
Moreover, some of the demand is actually caused by the lack of supply. The fact that Nikon is selling all 5000 lenses they make every month is in itself causing more people to take a closer look and try to understand why. And when they do understand, they join the wait list, increasing the demand.
Despite every MBA program teaching that supply and demand (and pricing and demand) have these “perfect” balance points when you graph them out properly, and that you should always target exactly that point, it doesn't work that way. The MBA way is mostly nonsense. And the Japanese camera companies have figured that out in a number of ways.
For instance, supply chain and new regulation issues are still causing parts shortages and delays. A number of products are being delayed and priced higher specifically because the Japanese know that doing so will mean they still maximize the dollars they take in given the parts they know they can get. And in examples such as the Nikon Z System, pricing is not placed at the so-called demand junction in a specific attempt to increase the perceived demand.
The problem is, this game is really tough to play. People almost never do exactly what you would expect them to. They’re quick to jump on what looks like the most popular train, quick to jump off when they discover that train wasn't going where they wanted to go or wouldn't get there fast enough. In my career I’ve graphed pretty much everything my MBA schooling told me to, and not a single one of those graphs look like what was taught. The marketing side of the program taught me far more useful bits, which I (and everyone else) learned to use to manipulate all the demand and pricing curves.
What actually is most important turns out to be human behavior, not math. So neither Fujifilm nor Nikon are pricing incorrectly as far as I’m concerned. Also, it’s kind of nice to have products in strong demand and people talking about them a lot.
"...the [OM-1 Mark II's] 2x crop is a secret weapon with this camera!" —DigitalCameraWorld review.
Is it? This is becoming less and less true as the full frame and other crop-sensor makers adjust their offerings to user wants. What are those wants? Smaller and lighter are two key ones.
Consider for a moment the Nikon 800mm f/6.3 PF VR S on a 45mp Z8 body, for example. A 1.5x crop in camera gives about the same 20mp result as the OM-1 Mark II, so we need to compare size and weight at 1200mm, which means the OMDS 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lens. The m4/3 solution saves you a bit over a pound and 5" in length. Is that really a secret weapon, or just a modest decrease?
One of my problems with m4/3, and the reason why I moved away from it, is that the advantages it once had is narrowing down to fewer and fewer lens and camera combinations, almost all pushing diffraction limits. On the flip side, full frame at more megapixels adds abilities you can't get with the smaller image sensor. Given the costs and availability—I happen to live next door to an OMDS dealer, but most don't—you also start finding more people who have to rely upon what the Internet says and Internet buying options to get into m4/3 here in the US, and then discovering it wasn't quite what they were expecting.
Don't get me wrong, the right combo of m4/3 camera and lens can still net some users a clear advantage in some situations. But a "secret weapon"? No, not so much. It's a known difference, but it's a limited one.
"I fear that the [plastic] mount may not endure as long as a metal plate." — Lens review at Philippereeve.net
Sorry, but "fear" is not a useful attribute in a review. Either you have evidence that a plastic mount doesn't last as long as a metal mount, or you don't. Either you have materials expertise that can speak to the difference (and have identified the polymers used correctly) or you don't.
I will say this: I've had a lot of lenses with "plastic" mounts dating back into the film days, and none have shown any real evidence of mount wear. On the other hand, I've had "metal" mounts that do show clear brassing and wear. But frankly, unless you can also show that the mount integrity deteriorates with wear in a way that makes the lens no longer live up to its capabilities (due to misalignment), your primary fear would be that brassing or wear would devalue the lens when you sell it, because others have read reviews that say "I fear that the mount may not endure..."
"Nikon dominates the 2024 Camera Grand Prix awards." — Nikonrumors, Photorumors site headlines
As a transitive verb, "dominates" means rule or control. As an intransitive verb, it means to exert mastery, control, or preeminence. So how'd Nikon actually do? ;~)
In terms of camera of the year, the Sony A9 Mark III got 307 points, the Nikon Z8 got 126 points. Both the Japanese Camera Journal Press Club, which organizes the awards, and the readership of the member publications voted the A9 Mark III as Camera of the Year. The editors (not readers) gave a technology prize to the Nikon Z8 Auto Capture function, though that seems odd, as the function was first released on the Z9 in a previous year. Apparently technologies can be multiply introduced ;~). In lens of the year, the Nikon 135mm f/1.8 Plena S got 169 points, while the runner-up Sony 300mm f/2.8GM OSS had 92. Again, both the editors and readers anointed the same product.
One might say that Sony and Nikon dominated the awards this year, with the two of them splitting the four primary award categories over an arguably poorer performance from Canon and the others in terms of vote getting. For what it's worth, Sony won the Camera of the Year award in 2023 for the A7R Mark V, though the readers voted the Panasonic S5 II as the winner, while the OMDS 90mm f/3.5 Macro IS Pro won the lens award from the editors. In 2022 it was the Nikon Z9 winning both camera awards, and the Sony 50mm f/1.2GM winning the lens award. If you go back to 2021, the Sony A1 won the editor's camera award. Amazingly you have to go all the way back to 2015 to find Canon taking the editor's award for a camera (7D Mark II).
I'm not a big fan of singling out a product for an award on voting, whether it be editors or readers. I showed a number of years ago how that can be (and is) gamed. But hey, you'll probably see the award logo on ads and marketing materials soon, so it surely means something to the companies getting the awards.
