Lenses seem like a solved issue, at least for full frame and larger formats where glass is much easier to produce and engineer. I wouldn’t say that 1% of the talk is about lenses, probably 30-40%.
I can’t wait to have to install an APK, downloaded from DJI’s website, just to use the camera… Never buying any DJI product again until they roll back this behavior. Fool me once 
(Osmo Action 4)
I don’t actually remember what I paid for my first “real” camera, a Canon AE-1. But, lets say it was $300 in 1979. Adjusting only for inflation, that would be $1328, today. I think I could get a pretty nice 2025 camera for that.
New prices are high and cameras have been good enough since the last generation dslrs.
Features since have been very much minor improvements for the vast majority of genres of photography. The old single point focus systems were really quite bulletproof for anything but 85mm f1.4 and work quite well even for such a set up.
IQ was enough and we’ve barely seen improvements . Optics have a lot more special glass now and perform better. Arguable photos aren’t nicer at printed sizes despite this.
So buying used gear makes a lot of sense and you can get pretty amazing stuff.
I think “around the $1000 mark” is accurate, and I don’t think quibbling about $100 here or there makes much difference, especially when Trump’s tariffs look set to increase prices for everybody.
The fact is that entry-level is now about $1000, and I think that’s a shame. Yes, these cameras are very capable and probably too capable for what a lot of people need. Annoyingly, manufacturers feel they have to put lots of mid to high-end features in their bodies to get acceptance from reviewers.
And then when they do cut features, one of the first to go is the EVF!
I would happily have a smaller sensor, fewer MP, no video, less aluminum, and average AF to get a more affordable camera. But I do want an EVF!
Maybe my perception is skewed, but the whole “adjusted for inflation” argument doesn’t sit well with me because my income hasn’t been adjusted for inflation much over the last 15 years.
They could go more compact! I know physics has its limits, but the obsession with the fastest lenses means a lot of the newer lenses coming out are still huge, or at least bigger than they could be if they were a bit slower.
I actually watched one of those “is it really that bad” videos recently. Wasn’t the original issue more to do with the fact that it was marketed as a vlogging camera but its video features were kind of crappy? At least the video I watched was more about it being a decent photography camera.
But generally, I agree. I think manufacturers feel they need to pack in premium features in all cameras to avoid the negative reviews. Maybe something else to thank/hate YouTube for?
One of the big changes over the past decade or so has been around how manufacturers design fast lenses. In particular, there is now a huge amount of demand for corner-to-corner sharpness even when the lens is wide open. This greatly increases both the cost and size of the lens.
For me it is a little bit unfortunate as normally when I am wide open I am trying to draw attention to my subject and that subject is seldom in the corner of my frame.
Regards, Freddie.
One has to wonder if this demand is even real or a product of unnecessary scrutiny by lens reviewers…
Lenses from 50 years ago will be sharp corner to corner with a closed aperture. I want to see all those examples where corner sharpness was needed in a 1.2/1.4 shot.
And vignetting too. It’s always highlighted as a flaw, but then many people add a vignette back in when they edit.
I know some lens vignetting isn’t the most beautiful, but it often adds character to the lens. We can also remove ugly vignetting fairly easily in post these days, so it’s another area where manufacturers could look to save costs.
Excellent point. Compare eg the
More elements, more glass, etc. But the original lens is really, really good optically, and it is hard to imagine a situation when it would be a bottleneck.
Didn’t mean to single out Nikon, other manucturers are similar, it’s just that this lens has a long history for Nikon so it is easier to compare. Eg Panasonic’s 50mm L-mount lens is “only” 330g, but takes 67mm filters.
I guess with cameras we’re now going through a megapixel phase again because that’s something the manufacturers can add. For a while it was IBIS, but now that’s kind of solved for almost all of them and you’re getting a claimed 7-8 stops of stabilisation and, I read, reaching the level where the rotation of the earth puts a hard limit on gains. Personally, IBIS is way more important than 60 megapixels. I can easily see the effect of IBIS in the viewfinder, even. I guess Sony wanted to use basically the same body so it’s easier just to swap out the RX1R sensor and leave out IBIS but that seems a waste at such a price. I think I’d rather have a GX9 in most cases.
Yes, I have the same preferences. I don’t know what I would do with 60 megapixels, but I have a lot of use for IBIS.
But I think that leaving out IBIS was essential for making the RX1Riii as small as it is. The mechanism of IBIS adds a lot of bulk (the frame and the magnets), it also needs processing power (probably a dedicated coprocessor), and the projected circle has to extend beyond the sensor a bit.
I think that for now, if you want top-of-the-line IBIS and comptational features, IL cameras will not be much smaller than the OM-3. Which I am cool with, I consider that EDC size.
But if you are OK with a fixed lens, the upcoming Ricoh GR iv may be a much better proposition for most people than the Sony RX1Riii (truly tiny, has 5-axis IBIS), unless they need class leading AF.
So would I, and I have in fact been looking for one. But they’re currently selling for about $1000 CAD, which I can’t justify at the moment for an aging camera. I think that was its MSRP when it launched 7 years ago. sadly, I don’t see the price falling much until there’s more competition in that space. And Sony’s latest offering is not that much-needed competition! All of these compact M4/3 cameras from about 10 years ago are way overpriced at the moment.
Somewhat related, I’m constantly struggling with what my own ideal EDC camera would be. I have been leaning towards the Ricoh GR series because it’s pretty much the only large-sensor camera you can fit in your jeans pocket. And that would be a requirement for something I would take everywhere. I often find myself suddenly wanting to take a photo, and it’s my phone that obviously comes out, especially in the summer when I’m in shorts and t-shirt (no large jacket pocket in sight).
So, when I analyze this, I realize that other compact cameras, like a Lumix GX, Oly Pen, Fuji X-E, etc. would probably still be left at home fairly regularly, simply because they can’t fit in a jeans pocket. Yet they are the type of camera I would prefer, rather than a GR because I’m wary of the fixed lens, lack of EVF and dust ingress. What to do? Decisions, decisions…
Why not carry a messenger bag around? If you find a good small one it shouldn’t be that much of an inconvenience to have it with you at all times. If you store the camera pointing down/up, the space it takes is not a lot.
Plus you can always use it to carry useful EDC items to increase its worthiness of having around at all times.
want to know what was my everyday carry kit for many many years?
Nikon d7100+Tamron 24-70/2.8+Tamron 70-200/2.8. Then yeah the laptop was also in the backbag and some random stuff like filters/ebook reader/headphones.
When i switched to Fuji I still had the camera + 2-3 primes with me every day .
Having owned and shot both, I saw without hesitation the Z 50mm is spectacular. Perhaps only rivaled by the Fuji GF 55mm, which was 5x the price.
ouch
I had the same feelings, had an X-T20, X-T-3 and neither fit the EDC bill. Ended up with the GR III.
I thought the X-T3 was pretty compact, but it still required a bag, which was ultimately a deal breaker for taking it everywhere.
The GR goes in a fanny pack.
Luckily Fuji released the the GF 100 RF for you now!
I’ve been looking at the GRIII and others as a carry around camera, but frankly some of the prices and lack of availability are taking the fun out of it.
Yep, I’m leaning that way, but the “dust issue” is scaring me a bit. 1 year ago, I wouldn’t have cared, but after having two issues with my Fuji gear and finding out the cost of repairs, I’m really trying to consider carefully how easily things can go wrong. I know you can’t predict these things very well, but a retractable lens in a pocket without any kind of sealing is definitely a risk factor. I wouldn’t care if it’s a cheapish camera, but the Ricoh GR is not.
You can at least get to the sensor of an interchangeable lens camera. But you sacrifice portability of course.
Maybe I do need to carry a small sling type bag with me everywhere…
Or just get a better camera on my phone… but that does not fill me with joy.