The big names in photography have made some mistakes. Some have been resolved, while others are feeding their ugly heads. It’s about time they cleaned up their behavior and served the photographers, not their investors.
Remember when we thought 2016 was one of the worst years? Little do we know what’s around the corner!
Take money from the camera
That year, I won a contract that required me to use a full frame camera. So I bought a Sony a7 Mark II. I was soon frustrated with it. In addition to the expensive lenses, there is an in-app purchase required to provide functionality to the camera. Those functions are common features of cameras that I already own.
To me, this is the worst monetization I’ve seen in the world of photography, an attempt by Sony to copy their in-game microtrading and in-game purchase strategies for PlayStation. Their monopoly on the PlayStation Store and the 30% commission they charge is what Sony is currently being sued for under competition law for £5 billion. That’s because, in the UK, there are claims alleging that it “defrauded people.” That’s exactly how I feel after spending so much on a camera and then paying more for basic functionality.
Do not misunderstand me. Other than that, I think the a7 II is a good camera. But at $1,700, eight years ago (the equivalent of $2,004 in today’s money), one would expect it to have standard features like time-lapse and multiple exposures included as standard. , like much cheaper cameras from other brands.
Since then, they have changed their strategy and no longer charge for apps.
Lightroom’s Big Problems
Lightroom has a stain removal tool to remove sensor dust from your images. It works well if you try to use the feature to remove a point on a flat surface, such as the sky or wall, although it often automatically selects the wrong sample area. If you try to delete the selection, the position it samples from will always be somewhere completely out of place. The cloning tool is even worse.
Adobe has finally upgraded that horrible feature. It’s still far from perfect. Still makes some weird selections, though less often it forces you to go into Photoshop to fix the photo; This tool is great at that.
That’s not Lightroom’s only problem.
Big brand cameras have and some still have anti-aliasing (AA) filters on them to reduce moiré. It is interference caused by the overlap of two samples. If you don’t know what it is, get a fine sieve from your kitchen and peer through the overlapping meshes. You should see a moiré pattern of winding lines. The regularity of the image positions on the sensor can produce a similar effect when photographing a regular sample.
The AA filter fixes that. But they have the undesirable effect of softening the image. That can be artificially solved by sharpening the image. Lightroom’s default sharpness is always set too high for the cameras I’ve used. I remember instructions in digital photography magazines a year ago, suggesting that the sharpness level value should be set to 100. That always left nasty smudges on my photos.
That’s because the cameras I owned at the time had much weaker AA filters. Since then, they have no one. That results in a much sharper image. As a result, Lightroom’s default sharpness is too high, as its default is set to more common marks that produce softer images.
Since then, Adobe has reduced the default value to 40. But as more cameras finally catch on and don’t integrate AA filters into their cameras, that still needs to be lowered. I had to apply an import preset to remove sharpness, slowing down the import.
When Lightroom detected the camera and lens used and automatically applied the lens profiles, you’d think it could do the same thing with sharpening. Or maybe it’s time for Adobe to set the default to 0 and let photographers decide how much sharpening they want or don’t want to apply.
Adobe’s noise reduction is in the same Details panel as Lightroom’s sharpening. The algorithm is terrible. With outstanding results from ON1 NoNoise and Topaz DeNoise, one wonders why Lightroom and ACR are still years behind the rest of the industry. It’s a shame because Lightroom can yield great results. Small adjustments are fine, but if you increase the ISO high, it won’t scratch. The rest of the image looks soft and muddy.
Quality control is not good enough
Canon has encountered numerous product defects and subsequent product recalls. Mirrors falling off the Canon 5D and insufficient lubricant on the drive mechanism caused the EOS 1D C to suffer more wear. The flagship EOS-1D and 1Ds Mark III DSLRs have lubricant leaking out of the mirror case. The EOS-1D Mark III has been recalled due to autofocus mirror adjustment problems. The skin rash is caused by the rubber grip on the EOS Rebel T4i (650D in Europe) and the PowerShot SX50, and there is over-focusing on some EOS R5 C cameras. The EOS 70D recall is due to it generating code error 70 and 80 for unknown reasons. Then there’s the light leak from the LCD on the 5D Mark III, and finally the whole thing EOS R5 overheating incident.
When I pointed out my previous shortcomings, Canon users got angry and started vilifying me for pointing them out. Instead, when they should have targeted Canon for letting them down.
Do a Google search for the most popular brands; you will see some recalls appear for their cameras. In 2020, Nikon recalled the 2004 F6 in Europe for the use of the toxic substance Dibutyl phthalate, which is now banned under European law. Sony is recalling the Cyber-Shot DSC-T5 because the case can warp and scratch your hand.
When you buy a camera, especially a high-end one that costs you dearly, and it’s something you rely on to do your job, you should expect it to function correctly. Manufacturers should thoroughly test the device before releasing it to the public. That’s what they still don’t get right.
Let us hope that manufacturers put poor quality control in the annals of history.
The curse of low-end cameras and where manufacturers still have to change direction
One of the biggest mistakes many parents make is buying their children the cheapest art materials. In the discount store, they see giant tins filled with different pencils, crayons, and paints. What a great deal! Unfortunately, they are trash. How can young people begin to create good art when low-quality materials limit their talents? Regardless of their potential, they cannot reach their full potential with these poor tools. Often, they conclude that they themselves are not good enough and become disillusioned.
I can hold and use the camera at any level as part of my job. Every once in a while, a new customer will show up with the cheapest DSLR they can buy. Build quality is rubbish, viewfinder is small and lacks diopter adjustment and functionality is limited. Therefore, they grow too fast and have to buy another one. That’s what the manufacturer hopes; they will make more money that way. I have also met people who have lost interest in photography because their cameras are inadequate and unattractive.
Producing a low-quality low-end camera is a marketing method used by some manufacturers to lure customers into their brand because they know they will want, possibly very soon, to upgrade and have will probably stay with the same manufacturer. Manufacturers do this not to serve their customers, but to serve their shareholders. I think manufacturers should make cameras for beginners.
Some retailers don’t help because they bundle these cameras with horribly cheap filters and tripods.
If you’re considering buying a new camera for the first time, don’t fall into that trap. Spend a little more and find one the camera will last you many years with many features you can learn over time. Avoid buying in bundles, as you will end up buying junk you don’t need.
Everything is changing for the better. As awareness of the environmental impact of consumerism grows and available cash is dwindling, smaller producers such as Fujifilm and OM . Digital Solutions is focusing on creating better quality, more durable devices with more functions. Competition from fast-growing rivals like ON1 is getting Adobe’s attention, too. As usual, small, innovative companies are pushing boundaries and changing the industry. Let’s hope that the combination of market pressure and a return to customer needs rather than just the pursuit of profit will change the industry for the better.
