An inverted U curve is a graph that shows a relationship between two variables where one positively affects the other until it reaches a peak, then flattens out before it begins to have a negative effect (looks like an upside-down U). It’s a good way to quantify and visualize the concept of diminishing returns. It’s the saying too much of a good thing as a mathematical equation. In my opinion, we reached a point of diminishing returns with our digital cameras several years back.
While pretty much every aspect of a digital camera can be affected by this, a good example is resolution. Most people don’t need any more than 12-megapixels, considering how the vast majority of pictures are viewed. The amount of resolution one needs is dependent on what one is going to do with the picture: if it will only be shared on Instagram and through text messaging, 6mp is probably plenty; however, if you will make poster-sized gallery prints, 6mp is not anywhere close to enough. The percentage of photographers who need 24-megapixels is quite small, and the percentage that need more than that is much smaller (nice to have and need are two different things). Think of it this way: the difference between 16mp and 24mp is about the same leap as between 26mp and 40mp, but since most people don’t even need 24mp, the extra jump to 40mp has no practical advantage for the majority of photographers (only some), while perhaps having a negative effect on storage, since the files are much larger. A photographer is unlikely to avoid a 24mp camera because it has “too much” resolution, but they might a 40mp model (I’ve had a few people tell me this), which illustrates the inverted U curve perfectly.
I’m not meaning to pick on resolution here, it’s just an example. Specs sell cameras, whether or not they have any practical benefit for the person buying. 40mp sounds a lot sexier than 16mp, but probably 80% of those buying the 40mp camera only really need 16mp, and 95%+ likely only need 24mp. One must consider what their individual needs are because we’re all different. Someone might very well find 100mp to be barely sufficient, while another would absolutely hate having such large files. Someone might have a Fujifilm GFX100S II for a specific purpose, a Fujifilm X-H2s for another, and a Fujifilm X70 for another (true story). An individual might find their needs vary greatly depending on the situation, so they have multiple options, and choose the one that best fits the purpose of what they’re creating.
Our cameras today are almost always more capable than we are (with maybe only a few extraordinarily rare exceptions). In fact, I saw that someone recently created a short film on a $9 toy camera. The limitation is not the gear, it’s only what you do or don’t do with it. Ansel Adams famously stated, “The single most important component of a camera is the 12 inches behind it.” Even though most cameras can basically auto-do-everything (and more and more people rely on that), I believe his statement is just as true today as it was when he coined it, if not more so. Those who take charge of their gear (whatever their gear is) and use it in creative ways tend to have a better chance to stand out from the crowd—and boy-oh-boy is it crowded! We’re in a day and age where everyone has a camera with them all the time.
Pretty much every aspect of our cameras—resolution, dynamic range, high-ISO, frames-per-second, autofocus capabilities, etc., etc., etc.—have all reached a point of diminishing returns. They’re all near the top of the inverted U curve. Yes, camera makers can improve these things, as they should. I have no doubts that they will continue to strive to make the greatest products that they possibly can. But… these improvements will have a practical benefit for fewer and fewer photographers. We can gripe over small things—and turn those small things into big things—but there’s never been a better time to be a photographer or videographer. Our gear—whatever it is—is truly amazing! We should appreciate just how lucky we are, and complain less about how our incredible gear just isn’t quite incredible enough for us.
Since most aspects of digital camera technology is near the peak of the inverted U curve, where can camera makers turn to for improvements that will actually have a more wide-spread impact? My advice is user experience. In my opinion, how you feel using your camera is just as important as the technical specs. This could be interpreted as ergonomics and button placement, which are both aspects of what I’m talking about, but not just merely those things. It’s not only how the camera feels, but more so it’s how the photographer feels while using it. I believe that the experience plays a notable role in the image outcome (more than we often give credit), so camera makers should focus more on the emotional side of camera design. If any and every make and model is capable of getting the job done no matter the job (which is pretty much where we are now), why should someone choose your camera? As specs and advancements matter less and less, it’s not necessarily going to be technical improvements that attract buyers, it’s going to be how people feel while getting the job done with the camera in hand.
What precisely that means will vary from person-to-person, and brand-to-brand. What provides me with a good experience might not be the same for you. We’re all different, so that’s why there are different strokes for different folks. For me, it’s Fujifilm gear with retro-inspired designs and traditional tactile controls, and also straight-out-of-camera results that don’t require any editing for the pictures to look good. Each camera brand should consider how they can improve the user experience for their customers, and design their future models with the experience in mind just as much as the technical capabilities. Make your customers feel just as good about the gear in their hand as the potential images that they’ll create with it.
I would love to agree with on this accept for one thing. Please Fujifilm, instead of introducing new cameras every 3 months. Give us the lenses that are fully compatablee wth 40mps at a size factor whch is NOT DSLR or canon/Nikon/sony sizes There is reaso why most real photographer went apsc in the first place! AS well as a autofocus which lives up to today’s standards. Oherwise I will just have to change systems, which I do OT want to do. But you are forcing me to.
I think the fully-resolving lens thing is significantly overblown. If Fujifilm hadn’t said something, I doubt anyone would have noticed that not all of the lenses fully resolve 40mp. I have a couple such lenses, and don’t notice any practical difference between them and the ones that do. Does it really matter that a lens can “only” resolve (say) 37mp and not the full 40mp? I don’t believe that it does. With that said, this is another example of the inverted U curve, where something is “too much of a good thing”—in this case: resolution—and it ends up having a negative effect for someone instead of a positive.
As far as the ultimatum, I don’t much care for the “do this for me or else” statements that are much too common on the internet. Life is short, do what makes you happy. Either find contentment in what you have, or look elsewhere for what might bring you contentment. Not every camera is for every person, not every camera brand is for every person. Different strokes for different folks. I went through most brands before finally finding the one that’s the best fit for me. Being miserable enough to give an ultimatum is unhealthy, and probably a sign that something’s got to give.
“I think the fully-resolving lens thing is significantly overblown. If Fujifilm hadn’t said something, I doubt anyone would have noticed that not all of the lenses fully resolve 40mp.”
You are of course right when one only publishes to phone or youtube size media., when however one, like myself like to crop and print very large. I also don’t want to schlepp a GFX or XH2 around. So…… Anyway it is still o excuse to neglect auto focus for camera’s like the x-t5.
If you were to take the non-fully-resolving 18-55mm f/2.8-4 and the fully-resolving 16-50mm f/2.8-4.8 and take identical photos with each at (say) 35mm f/4, do a major crop and then print each really large, I think you’d have a difficult time distinguishing one from another. You could probably figure it out with a close side-by-side study, but if one were in your house and one in your neighbor’s, there’d be no way to know which was which.
Agreed at 35mm. Try the same at 50mm or 55mm and see what happens on both zooms with a 40mp sensor.
You couldn’t do the test at 55mm (because one lens only goes to 50mm), but at 50mm f/5 I’m confident that it will be just as I described: nearly impossible to distinguish without a close side-by-side study, and difficult but likely possible with a close side-by-side study.
I am by no means making any ultimatums. That would be silly. I am generally very happy with my fujifilm cameras. Except for the already stated issues. Suggestion: Bring out version II for a few lenses. 18mm f2, 27mm f2.7, all fujions, etc. ad zooms that resolve ii all focal lengths will be testing the new 18-55 f2.8 for that reason.
You literally wrote, “Otherwise I will just have to change systems.” That’s an ultimatum. Change systems or don’t change systems, nobody cares. Do what makes you happy, and there are only two paths to that: 1) find contentment with what you currently have, or 2) find something else that will bring you contentment. All other paths lead to discontentment.
The 27mm f/2.8 lens has a v2 that fully resolves the 40mp sensor.
This isn’t a fully comprehensive list (it seems to be missing a couple of the newest releases), but it is the best list that I could find with a quick Google search:
https://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/these-lenses-will-make-the-most-of-the-40-2mp-fujifilm-x-h2/
This is very true, great article!
Thank you!
Well, you nailed that one.
My only ~40MP cameras now are an X100vi and an X-T5, and I seldom shoot those at full resolution.
My Nikon 45MP Z7 and 36MP D810 are long gone, replaced by a 24MP Zf and a 16MP Df.
I am sometimes tempted by a 100MP GFX, instead of my 51MP GFX-50R, which I usually shoot with adapted FF M-mount manual-focus lenses, in 1:1 crop or 65:24 panoramic crop, which have image circles that the full-frame lenses cover. But even these smaller than full-frame ratios give 38MP (sometimes cropped down a bit further) or 25MP files. So unless IBIS becomes enough to drag me over the edge, I find that even a cropped GFX-50 is plenty.
My specialty cameras are a 20MP full-spectrum Nikon Z50 and a 24MP monochrome converted Fuji X-H1. I use a 24MP Fuji XF10 for a pocket camera and a 17MP Leica D-lux 7 for most small camera use (more than the X100vi, I admit).
So I have backed off that end of the U-curve in most instances.
It is true for Fujifilm XF lenses, as well. I tried the new “high-resolution” lenses like 18mm f/1.4 and the 33mm f/1.4 and 8mm f/3.5, but I sold them after finding that I left them at home in favor of the older versions.
The biggest thing that attracts me to the 100mp GFX is the XPan aspect ratio. It’s very tempting. Otherwise, I just don’t have any need right now for that much resolution. I’m sure there are some who really do need it, though, but it’s a pretty small group overall.
How are you liking the full-spectrum camera? I’ve been having a blast with mine (X-T4 ES). I would love a monochrome-only model, too, I hope that happens someday. Maybe I should get my X-H1 converted 😮 😀….
Appreciate the kind comment!
Ditto the monochrome version:):)
At $1600 the monochrome conversion from MaxMax may be a little pricey, but maybe not compared to a Leica Q mono. It did take 5 months, with poor communication, to get it back. In fact, I had given up on ever getting the camera back, then they suddenly got to it, and boom there it was!
The full-spectrum camera is a blast! I mailed you some dual-band filters to try out; they give similar but different out of camera results as the KolariVision IRchrome filter: less red and more yellow and orange.
The Nikon Z also does great with band-swapping or regular B&W from IR of 720nm or longer, but it is not a great choice for high-color IR band switching with lower band length filters; it is unable to work out a custom white balance on the IR filters with lower numbers.
I went with the Nikon partly because I already had some lenses that worked well with an old Nikon D200 converted to 720nm IR that I found cheap, and because so many of the Fujifilm lenses had hot-spot problems. I find that hot-spot problems, which many Nikon lenses also have, are not a problem at all with the dual-band filters for straight out-of-camera results, only for regular IR.
Re: your GFX thoughts: the GFX 50R has the 65:24 crop built in, and that is the one that gives me 25MP file. For me that is enough to print a pretty good-sized panorama, but I do admit that I wonder how much more of an Ansel Adams quality I could get with double that.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Yeah, you could print pretty large with a 25mp file for sure! That’s an excellent point.
I appreciate your kindness and generosity! Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!
Photography becomes true photography only when it is published on a paper medium. So every photographer should aim to print his work, and megapixels should play a prominent role for them. And to send your photo to Instagram, you do not need a camera at all when you have a smartphone.
Fully agree!
I think that’s an extraordinarily strict definition that’s not mainstream. According to the Oxford dictionary, a photograph is “a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.” The last part—or stored digitally—seems to indicate that a non-printed digital photo is indeed a photograph, and I fully agree with that. I will also state that most smartphones have cameras built-in, so the person capturing a picture on their smartphone and posting to Instagram is, in fact, using a camera. Some of these smartphone cameras are surprisingly capable…
With all of that said, I think it is important to print our photos. I think, generally speaking, we don’t do enough printing. Printing more of our photos would make for an excellent Christmas gift or New Years resolution for anyone looking for ideas.
Thank you so much. That is the most succinct and relevant analysis of the state of photography today that I have ever seen.
I appreciate your kind feedback!
Older gear has also been given a boost by newer processing software. For example higher ISO noise can be improved by the recent noise reduction algorithm improvements in Lightroom etc.
Upscaling and noise-reduction software can indeed improve the apparent IQ on older models. I also see people seeking the older models for their less-clean/less-clinical aesthetics.