#763. Standing the market on its head

By philberphoto | Opinion

Aug 31

Market wisdom has it that good (photographic) investment is in glass.

This is how this works: with film cameras, the camera itself has little influence on the end result. The film and the glass do. So get yourself a camera, keep it forever, and spend money on glass. The resulting business model for manufacturers is this: make desirable (long-lasting) cameras, do what you have to do to snare customers, and then keep them for life, making money on subsequent glass purchases. Like razors and razor blades, except glass isn’t disposable (but it can be shelved…)

Now comes digital. Cameras improve (and age) rapidly, so the idea of keeping your camera forever is deader than a dead duck. Meanwhile glass remains pretty much the same. Except of course that camera resolution keeps increasing, and not all “old glass” deliver enough information to feed sensors that will soon break the 50Mp barrier for full-frame.

Fact is, as laid out by Pascal in his post…, camera bodies are now the most important single link in the IQ chain. So the old industry adage should be put to pasture and replaced with “keep your glass forever, and keep upgrading your bodies”.



This of course means that consumer and manufacturer strategies need to change, and much that was accepted wisdom needs to be eschewed.

Consumers need (if they are rational, that is, which is sometimes a big “if”) to not just buy a camera, but buy into a system, because they will be essentially stuck with it for a number of years, as they upgrade. They should also buy glass (the lasting investment, but for opposite reasons to those that prevailed in the earlier paradigm) that allows them to switch camera brands if possible. And when choosing to enter a market segment, figure out how much upgrading to the newer body (even if you skip one generation or two) is going to cost.

Manufacturers need to make money not on subsequent glass sales but on body upgrades, which means as rapid innovation as possible (real, or maketing-hyped). And make it easy for consumers to buy lots of glass, because that is how they stay glued to your system.

Who do just that? Sony. Why? Because that ist typical of market cycles in the industries where they operate, so it is in their DNA.

Who do just the opposite? Canikon. One case in point. While the Nikon Z incorporates a lot of the market’s present set of best features, including a short flange distance that enables use of many third-party lenses, Nikon keep the mount specs to themselves, requiring third-party vendors to reverse-engineer the mount, with all the work, imperfections and questions marks over long-term compatibility this entails. And the Z incorporates no innovation. A good-to-very-good execution of present state-of-the-art (once we have productions cameras to really evaluate), quite possibly. But no more.



Whereas the Sony mount is open to any and all lens manufacturers. And, if I were to bet on who will introduce the next generation of bodies, I wouldn’t exactly bet on Nikon. And, let’s be fait, no-one expects Canon to be the one to do that, as they have yet to join the bandwagon, and innovating from the caboose is a rare and difficult exercise.

I rest my case. But Pascal won’t let it rest, so….

Pascal adds …

No, I’m not hijacking this post, as Philippe is implying with barely hidden mockery. It was meant as two-part thing from the beginning, true dat.

So. I couldn’t agree more with what Philippe has just written. Gospel. But it’s hard to fully agree with the state of the market this approach has taken us to.



For one thing, innovations don’t just happen because a team committed to create one. Successful innovations stick around because the market was waiting for them. The time was right, the need was there. Create Facebook in 1990 and it probably flops in ten weeks. We, as GAS-riddled photographers may be a jittery bunch, we still don’t need a revolutionary product to turn our world upside down every 6 months. Think back on real innovations in photography in the past 20 years :

  • Film gets replaced by digital.
  • Mirrorless.
  • Smartphones.
  • To a lesser extent, IBIS.
  • Drones.

Not much else I can think of. Real innovation is hard. It requires thinking differently AND meeting a need. This doesn’t happen as often as manufacturers would like us to change our camera bodies.



Secondly (consequently) the “force-fed tech improvement” strategy we’ve been witnessing over the past years seems to be hitting a ceiling. It has produced some significant improvements and others which (I feel) really don’t do photography much of a service. To my mind, there are two types :

  • Those that help the flow and quality of our photography, and expand our horizons.
  • Those that feed into the “get the picture whatever the conditions” fantasy.

Case in point #1: autofocus. It’s no secret I’m not a big fan of autofocus. Mainly because, on the face of it, autofocus has been really unpleasant up to a very recent date. Soooo many photos were sharp in all the wrong places … correcting that required playing with some horrid joystick or similar torture device. Crimes against your creativity. But that’s no longer the case. The AF on some of the latest cameras is so good you can actually forget about it and focus your attention on composition and lighting. Although not a recent innovation, AF does feel like a mature technology that can actually help everyone along in extremely varied conditions. Thumbs up.


AF doing it’s thing brilliantly. (c) and thanks to, Bob Hamilton.


Case in point #2: high frames per second. Again, not a big fan, personally, but I totally get why others might be. The obvious candidate being the sports or wildlife photographer. A less obvious one being the landscape photographer wanting to freeze 20 frames to later average them or perform some other noise-reducing or res-increasing magic. The downside is the 90% other photographers lulled by the specs and tricked into believing they will freeze the perfect moment of their toddler running about just thanks to the camera. Spray and pray. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. You’ll only make great pics of your kids if you compose, think ahead and … well … act like a photographer. Neutral.

Case in point #3 : video.  Negatives : It adds buttons which are either a pain to stills photographers or an insult to videographers. It adds gibberish to the menu system that (in my gear at least) really doesn’t need it. It feeds into the “higher specs means prettier results” collective lie.  Positives : It makes a single camera very versatile. I get that. But let’s think about who needs top-notch still AND top-notch video. On medium range cameras for vloggers, totally (also, may I remind you you have a phone in your pocket that’s really good for the occasional video). But, is it too much to ask to get rid of it on a specialist high-end stills camera? To me a very revealing video shows the Northrups reacting to accusations that they are on the Canon payroll. They promptly explain they personally use Nikon, Sony and film their videos using Black Magic gear. Whenever possible, a specialist will use specialist gear.

Case in point #4: High ISO. So many positives, I won’t get into them. Negative ? What happened to low ISO ? The deliberate ignorance that *many* stills photographer *want* to shoot at slow speeds is only justified by wanting to feed the specs list high numbers, at the expense of forcing a category of photographers out of their usual process. Booh. And kudos for Nikon for giving us ISO 64. Who’ll have the balls to give us ISO 25, even if that means limiting the top end ?



To be really honest, I’m personally happy to have access to high-resolution, high ISO and other stuff I don’t really need. But , given the breadth of shooting scenarios manufacturers are now addressing with a single camera, the R&D research is being diluted in so many different directions that no one is entirely satisfied at each iteration. The jump from A7r2 to A7r3 introduced a ton of new stuff, but diluted over too many different shooting scenarios. How many A7r2 owners upgraded? Not very many that I know of.

I’d rather see internal stitching, GPS, and better colour science than new codecs on a new camera. Most likely, it’s the exact opposite for video shooters. So, much like with phones, we now tend to skip a generation or two between updates. The general disappointment at the Nikon Z7’s lack of innovative features just proves we are not completely satisfied with what we have, in spite of the astonishing levels of technical performance already at our disposal and of the fact that not 1% of us uses it to its full extent. The fast renewal strategy will have to look elsewhere for cash.

Thirdly, all of this has led to an increasing complexity of bodies and accompanying marketing. I mean, have you looked at the specs page of a camera, recently? Stay away from the buying game for 6 months and it’s like learning a new language when you return 😀 What this means is that the industry, as a whole, is appealing only to nerds and super alienating to the true target for photographic cameras: right-brained artists. The budding young artist will just find a film camera or some lomo thing to play with and will leave the big DSLR to old phogies. And the family dad will just buy any old compact that makes sense. The rest of the population ? Smartphones.

Also, ever noticed how there aren’t any women (or so very few) in our hobby? Ever wonder why?

Manufacturers are just shooting themselves so hard in the foot, it’s no wonder some are having difficulties standing up. Wanna stitch a pano? You scan your phone around the scene and get instant results. Or (if you’re really in search of quality) take a few shots side by side and the pano’s waiting for you when you come home. Wanna do that with a “serious” camera ? Well, I’m just too tired to describe the procedure.


I had to buy Lightroom for this and use 2 different apps. C1 doesn’t do sticthing. And LR’s Sony profiles are just bad. Ri-di-cu-lous.


So yes, the market has definitely switched from long-term body / accessory lens to something that’s converging towards the opposite, but many togs (myself included) are either :

  • longing for that one body that’s pleasant enough to you that you just want to keep it for 10 years and look at it lovingly rather than ogle rumours sites every month in the hope for some replacement.

or :

  • hoping for some upgrade strategy that speaks to their persona, not to the whole entire world. Sony seem to be addressing this better than most with an excellent “normal” camera, one dedicated to speed and another dedicated to resolution. But those are still technical segmentations, not shooting scenarios.

Can we have that, please? Or, manufacturers, can you build cameras with options (higher buffer, faster processor …), like computer and car manufacturers have done since the middle ages ? We’ve actually got the money and really want to give it to you.


Email: subscribed: 4
  • NMc says:

    Your reference to “upgrade strategy” could sound dangerously close to *upgrade path*, which was (still is?) the greatest corruption of the entire photographic retail industry. You are expected to start at the bottom and trade and upgrade up until get to the top, oh and it should be in a canikon system. Lazy retail strategy and lazy product development, which by their own definition means you can only happy twice, purchasing the first entry level DSLR with cheap zoom, and when you own the best of everything, which most people will never get. It means that most of your customers should be unsatisfied most of the time, and you expect them to keep coming back. Crazy, illogical and strangely addictive to the corporate mindsets because of the simplicity of the linear narrative.

    Sorry to be all wounded snowflake on you, but the word “upgrade” has been attached to the same-but-just-a-bit-more thinking for most of the choices we have today. I know it is not what you were trying to say but that word just stuck in my craw. Anyway off to lick my wounds now.
    Regards Noel

    • pascaljappy says:

      Hi Noel,

      it all starts with the definition that the sole purpose of commercial organisations is to make money (this is changing, though). What really bugs me, though, is that this actually hurts the customer. They say a fool and his money are soon parted, but it’s not just about money, it’s about WHY people choose to take up photography and what it does to their goal when the whole industry focuses them on gear rather than learning. It’s horrible.

      All the best,

  • Kristian Wannebo says:

    Alternative Glass vs. Camera strategy?
    Chose a lens mount with a large used lens market.
    ( In many places that would mean Canon or Nikon, or Sony with a Canon (and Sigma) adapter.)
    And when one begins to see which lenses one uses most, one can upgrade to fewer (and better) lenses.
    – – –

    Video ?
    You didn’t mention that still photography and video need different kinds of sensors for best quality.

    Frames/s ?
    Not even 25 f/s is enough to catch the right facial expression (as I learned when cutting video).
    Only sharp attention plus “zero” shutter lag helps.

    High / Low ISO?
    If I didn’t mind carrying two cameras one would have a Foveon sensor.
    ( In my film days I often used ISO 50 b/w.
    But not indoors, or in a forest.)

    I find the “touch the screen to choose AF point” great. (Canon M/M5 in my case.)
    ( But I miss eye focus when I’m with friends.)
    – – –

    >> “.. one [camera] body that’s pleasant enough..”
    YES !
    And it should have three dials where fingers are (preferably configurable).

    In manual mode:
    • EV value
    • Speed / Aperture combination
    • ISO (switchable to white balance)

    And I want a camera where I don’t have to consider occasional uncertain behaviours.
    Like mirror slap vibration or shutter shock with certain shutter speeds.
    Like occasional artefacts from lossy compression.
    Like having too many AF modes to learn and choose from, even if I then loose some functionslity.

    • pascaljappy says:

      Sure wish more people could read that instead of being corrupted by cheap tricks. Video, frames, ISO, in particular.

      Thanks, Kristian.

      • Kristian Wannebo says:


        If we had a market where we leased expensive equipment instead of buying it, there would be much less cheap tricks.
        And modular stuff with longer life.

        • philberphoto says:

          Well, in a way our stuff is modular because we can upgrade the body and keep the glass, or add more glass to use with the same body. But I know what you mean. Change the digital back, so to speak, while keeping the rest of the body. Leica tried that with the DMR. It did not end well IIRC…
          And leasing only works, economically speaking, if you have substantial residual value after, say 2 or 3 years. Not the case, when the gear is already outdated at that stage.

  • jean pierre (pete) guaron says:

    You missed one – sensors have improved by leaps and bounds. The jump in sensor quality over the past 20 years is sensational.

    Women? I must be a dreadful flirt. I keep coming across woman photographers. They even have clubs of their own – unheard of in analogue days.

    But getting back to the focus of your article.

    1 – To an extraordinarily high degree, this industry suffers because of its own failings. Sony & Tamron & Sigma are achieving BECAUSE they make stuff that’s interchangeable. In some cases, against great odds – because of the road blocks left behind or erected by [insert your preferred culprit]. Even, in one instance, to the point of allowing Sigma to make lenses that were compatible with Niko cams, then introducing an upgrade to the camera’s software which left the owners of those Sigma/Nikon combinations unable to continue using their Sigma lens. BAD BAD BAD – and Nikkie, if you were my kid, I’d spank you for that one!

    2 – As everything else strives to reach “perfection”, what is the solution adopted by some of the manufacturers? Cost cutting! To hell with consistent standards and quality control. Design or invent – then offload & offshore manufacturing. Often, with disastrous results. If you want to buy something now, it’s not enough to read reviews and find a shop. You have to plough through comments in chat groups, to track down other people’s experiences. And some of it is BLACK.

    One popular camera made by a very well known and very successful manufacturer has gone through 5 or 6 iterations, now. All made in China, to cut costs. And ALL models have had “bad examples” as a result. One poor unfortunate described in the relevant chat group that while he loved the camera, he had bought one in each of the five iterations that had been produced at the time he described this, and had serious problems with QC on ALL fIVE models. He’d sorted it with most and had one example replaced – and even the replacement gave trouble.

    Why the hell should we – “photographers”! – put up with that? Any other industry tried it, they’d be out of business long ago.

    And we’re not talking about “cheap” items. Some of this goes WAY up the ladder, to items costing a thousand – or two – or maybe more.

    NO! Not good enough – “live by the sword, die by the sword!” – manufacturers who persist in such behaviour will end up in the cemetery. The “mugs” are now using cellphones. The residual market of “photographers” ain’t daft enough for a manufacturer to stay in business, treating customers like that. These are quality/precision products. And manufacturing them DEMANDS achieving acceptable quality control.

    • pascaljappy says:

      You womaniser, you 😉

      Yes, a closed world is a dying world. Some of these brands still don’t get that the younger generations are into the sharing economy and think very differently. Digging moats around products only limits their adoption.

      If anything, the recent Nikon Z launch proves exactly what you are saying. It used to be that the blogosphere was the place where specialists told the truth that the media couldn’t or wouldn’t. Now, it’s just an opinionated forum. It’s OK to have opinions, I sure have a bunch of weird ones when it comes to gear, but you need to disclose them and report objectively. How are readers supposed to find information otherwise?

      I’ve had my fair share of shoddy car workmanship, to be honest. So photographic standards aren’t a shock to me. The problem is that the first thing we all look at is price. The Z7 is 400 more than the A7r2. OOOOOOOOHHHHH bad ! Well, quality costs. We can’t ask for cheap and good. Obviously, the worst situation is expensive and poor, but expensive and good seems fair enough.


  • Per Kylberg says:

    One of the things that struck me considering the Nikon Z release and soon to be Canon R dito was that of looking at my lenses fo my A7R2: The Batis 135 is a superb compromize size/weight/balance on camera/image quality (and nowadays prize too). There is no other 135 near this. Some would start about the 2.8 rather than 1.8 – to me with photo experience from 1961 that is a non issue. Also owning the 90 macro, 55/1.8, 35/2.8 and Batis 25/2. All stellar but the panncakish 35. With such lens-shelf why change? The cost and weight of the replacement? I remain happy.

    You actually CAN learn to like and even love what you already have. (Applicable not just to photo gear :)).

    Bought the “extended grip” for the A7 and suddenly the camera was a joy to hold and handle. Spend some time to understand the plethora of functionalities available: Find what suits your usage – forget those out of interest. Take “jotstick”: On the mk2 there is already an option so similar to that you do not need to upgrade for that functionality.
    Better battery? Already have five of them for Mk2. Why upgrade?
    – Better EVF? There is one this I would like to have. But worth the upgrade? Not to me.
    – Focus bracketing as Nikon has would be nice to have.
    – Better color – Mk2 is better than Mk1 but here Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad and Phase One are definately better

    About stitching: There are two excellent FREEWARE apps for that: Hugin (an UI for the stitcher of stitchers – Panorama Tools). It is simple and intelligent. Then there is Microsoft “forever beta” “Image composite editor” that works very well. I have both but in most cases use Hugin.

    • pascaljappy says:

      Hi Per.

      Yes indeed, if you own lenses you like and are satisfied with the specs/handling of your camera, there is not point in upgrading. That’s a worry for manufacturers because, in recent years, all they have been able to give us to incentivise an update was a higher-spec sheet. Obsolescence isn’t good for brand image, so that’s not a possibility either.

      The only way I can think of is for them to specialise. The new mirroless wave will generate sales, but possibly at the expense of other models. Nothing in them seems directly aimed at reclaiming ground from smartphones.

      For panos, I use Lightroom or Photosohop. Or Autopano pro, in the past. Since I changed my computer from one Os to the other I’d need a new licence. All are good and fairly easy, but I still believed a lot could be done to make all this even simpler and attract a wider part of the photography market.

      All the best,

      • Per Kylberg says:

        I ditched Adobe subscription after a thourogh evaluation of it vs Capture One and Affinity. To me Hugin is better than Adobe alternative as it is simpler, same quality result.Being Free does not hurt at all.
        (Capture One is like a BMW: smooth operator, more expensive. Affinity RAW looks pedrestrian but using the three (C1, Lightroom, Affinity) on the same images, in the end Affinity had the best potential in quite a few cases. Photoshop is bigger and smoother to use than Affinity Photo, but the later wins, for seldom used features, in providing about 200 2-3 min video tutorials rather than Photoshop stupid 40-60 min dittos. Affinity is much cheaper too.)

        • philberphoto says:

          Thanks for the tip, Per. I will now try Hugin. Being a technical dinosaur (lots of fat, no brains), I never tried software without strong support (Capture One’s is excellent IMHO, thanks to excellent videos and webinars), but now I will. If I am found dead from karoshi trying to get Hugin to work for me, my lawyers, who are mean bastards, have your IP address.

          • Per Kylberg says:

            Well Philibert, my last job was system owner for virtual systems. If you have problems with Hugin just mail me! I can help you with anything – on a theoretical level at least……

  • Michael Demeyer says:

    Leica M10 falls squarely in the first category for me. Very satisfied and enjoying both the experience of photography and the results.

    • pascaljappy says:

      Yes, I can imagine that would indeed be a strong cadidate for a long term camera. And Leica users are willing to pay a heavy price because of that long term perspective. Enjoy !!

  • Bob Hamilton says:

    As you know, I use Lightroom exclusively. I’ve tried Capture One but find it unintuitive and unnecessarily complex. I suppose it’s down to what we’re used to at the end of the day….and how long we want to spend in front of a computer, as opposed to being out there snapping away.
    I too was frustrated by the profiles available in Lightroom for Sony’s RAW files and undertook a major experimentation exercise, using a professional colour checker. In this maner, I compared Sony and Fuji files and came to the unsurprising conclusion that neither’s colour science was totally accurate but that, as far as neutrality and overall colour accuracy went, the Sony files, using the Lightroom “Adobe Standard” profile did the best job……for me, anyway, as the caveat must be that we all see colour differently.

    • philberphoto says:

      That is not how I see it. There is real colour, meaning what I see, because, if I see it, then it is real. And everybody else is just plain wrong. Why doesn’t anyone get that?

      • Bob Hamilton says:

        It all makes a bit of a joke of the importance of colour calibrating monitors, etc….!!!


  • jean pierre (pete) guaron says:

    I’ve got an idea.

    I’m a senior exec in a camera company, OK? And all the stats show me that my company is facing a shrinking market. Sales of “cameras” have been declining, around the world, for ages. So what should I do?

    1 – assess and appraise the causes of the decline – is it competition? – if so, what IS the competition? – is it “other factors” – if so, what are they?

    2 – assess and appraise what IS the market, now

    3 – assess and appraise the profit/loss level on each type of product – the sales figures vs. the production & marketing costs – work out which lines are more profitable, which are less profitable, what the impact of “risk” might be in relation to each

    4 – go through chat group pages – see what “photographers” of ALL levels are saying in discussion groups, about my products and about products they would like

    5 – do the same with my competitors’ chat groups – see if that reveals any openings

    6 – look around at improvements in technology – now (already available) or in the pipeline – try to see how these could assist

    7 – look to see what, if any, strategic alliances could be formed, and how they might help

    8 – see if marketing could improve its impact – eg sponsorships – clubs – promo – freebies like tech training videos and papers

    9 – develop a culture within the company of thinking about THEM – the customers, actual or potential – instead of an inward thinking corporate philosophy of thinking about US, and OUR problems

    10 DO IT

    And stop complaining 🙂

    • philberphoto says:

      Well, Pete, it seems that pretty much all camera companies have done what you would have done. Their research showed the following result: while everibody’s sales numbers are going to h**l in a handbasket, there is one company that is actually growing: Sony. So they came to the usual brainless committee-driven answer: let’s do it like Sony. Result is: we are getting A7x clones from Nikon and Canon, maybe even Panasonic, and Fuji may reduce the price of its small-medium-format camera to that of a A7RIII/A9. This is incredibly stupid, because it defines a market as static, with price-points Vs features and performance. And of course getting to where Sony are with a few years’ lag isn’t going to get them what Sony got. Where Sony are is not defined by price/performance, it is defined by innovation, which is a totally different ball game. So, yes, the Nikon Z is very probably a very competent and capable camera, but it brings nothing new to the market. Litterally nothing. So, yes, it will very probably stem/slow the exodus of Nikon shooters towards Sony. That is, until Sony innovate again. And again. And, then there were only two…..

      • jean pierre (pete) guaron says:

        Well, they certainly don’t endear themselves to me, by getting technically difficult glass made in China with all the associated GA problems that seems to generate, and producing lenses I am seeing written up by serious reviewers as “excellent, as long as you get a good one – i rejected the first two, but I am extremely happy with the third one, which I am using now for the purposes of this review”.

        And you’ve nailed my reaction to all this crap about suddenly producing mirrorless cams. If it meant so much to one and all, why did it take so long? Yeah yeah, have to let the design team take its time, these things have to be done properly. Bugger off – the Empire State Building didn’t take this long to build! – and that was nearly 90 years ago!

        If Sony forges a serious ongoing alliance with Zeiss, and keeps developing its sensors and processors alongside continued development of its main cams, it’ll continue to outshine Canikon. There are a few things they must work on – QA on their RX100 range, for a start (“bad publicity” is NOT better than “no publicity”, where quality has a major part to play!). But although I admire Canon for everything they’ve achieved, and love Nikon, the way I read it Sony and Fuji are going north (with Sony leading the charge) and the rest are – well – tired & cranky.

      • jean pierre (pete) guaron says:

        Glad to see you there, Philippe – I was wondering where you’d got to! (Wanted to see what you could add 🙂 )

  • Kristian Wannebo says:

    IL cameras are in a transition time.
    Like calculators in the -70s.
    In the -60s they were mechanical, in the -80s electronic. In between companies struggled with the balance of features vs. price point – like with mirrorless cameras now.

    Sony has a head start with eye focus and a range of (high price) Zeiss lenses, but has invested too little in body design – weather sealing, haptics and software (missing lossless compression and complex menus).
    ( It seems, that the lesson that software takes more time to develop still takes more time to learn. And the problems with Sony raw compression – that gave a speed advantage – weren’t really noticed until their cameras approached the pro sector.)

    Canikon must defend their reputation for enduring bodies with good haptics (plus their DSLR range) – and so have made a late start.

    And the technology needed for mirrorless is still not quite mature.

    E.g. Canon”s DPAF seems to cost about half a stop of high ISO noise level.
    E.g. Oly’s PDAF seems to cost a minor reduction in acuity.
    (If a comparison of sensors on DPreview’s tool is valid.)
    And there are reports of in camera reflections caused by some on sensor PD implementations.

    There are still photo situations where SLRs have an advantage.
    EVFs need better adaption to available light (e.g. to protect night vision).
    And manual focus aids in EVFs are often good, but not quite there yet.

    ( Let’s wait and see what Nikon, Canon and Panasonic now come up with!)

    But methinks it’s just a question of time until mirrorless cameras take over completely.
    Once all the necessary technologies are ripe, the advantages of getting rid of the mirrors will decide – simpler, cheaper and more reliable cameras will be possible, and with room for simpler and better (super) wide angle and “normal” lenses.
    And it way well be, that future sensors less dependant om lens telecentricity will further aid lens development – especially for mirrorless cameras.

    • Kristian Wannebo says:

      But it will, of course, take some time for all the new software mirrorless cameras will depend on to become bug-free and flexible enough for pros…

      ( I remember new – quality – scientific electronic calculators in the -70s that gave ridiculous results for certain inputs.
      And you had to adapt your calculations to take maximal advantage of the very few (1 to 4) memory slots.
      But you had the choice of RPN (with hp) over parentheses (with T.I. and others).
      And programmability came much later.
      This is, of course, not a comparison but only a parallel..)

  • >