PetaPixel published an article entitled If You Think ‘Cameras Have Gotten Boring’ You’re Looking at Photography All Wrong, and I’m not so much interested in talking about that article in particular as I am of the idea of why new cameras might seem boring. There are probably a thousand different ways to look at it, and they’re likely all legitimate—I’m not suggesting that my explanation is better, it’s simply my thoughts and opinions. You might agree or disagree, and that’s perfectly ok. So, why do new cameras seem boring to some people?

I read a book last year, entitled David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants by Malcolm Gladwell, that was quite fascinating. I’m not a mathematician by any stretch, and I’m certainly not a statistician. For those who haven’t read the book, Malcolm talks a lot about the inverted-U curve (that is to say, an upside-down U). There’s a common pattern found everywhere (that’s often ignored) where something goes up a little, then up steeply before it begins to flattens out as it nears the peak, followed by a slow decline, then a steep decline. Can you picture the upside-down U?

Above: A short excerpt from Malcolm Gladwell’s David and Goliath from Amazon’s website. Seriously, read the book if you haven’t yet done so.

Let’s take a topic like autofocus, which a lot of people talk about in the Fujifilm world, but much less so outside of that. Photographers who use Sony cameras, for example, don’t discuss AF, except to occasionally remind everyone else just how good it is. In the PetaPixel article, the author states, “Sony managed to… improve processing for better autofocus….” Do Sony photographers care? If their AF is already super-duper awesome amazing, does it matter that it just got a hair better? I’m sure that 99%+ of Sony users wouldn’t be able to distinguish a difference, and only a tiny fraction of a percent of users would note that it makes a real, practical difference to their photography. While the improved processing for better autofocus may have been a substantial technical feat, for most people who use the gear, it’s inclusion or exclusion doesn’t matter in the least.

The reason why it doesn’t matter is that autofocus on Sony cameras (and some other brands) is near the peak of the inverted-U curve. Each improvement has less-and-less-and-less of a practical benefit to the users, who already find it more than good enough for each and every situation. In some circumstances, AF was prioritized to the detriment of image quality. If autofocus is already amazingly incredible beyond what you even need, any improvements will seem boring. They’re more gee-whiz than anything else. It’s like the famous line from The Incredibles, spoken by the villain: “And when everyone’s super, no one will be.”

With Fujifilm, there is some room for improvement. Fujifilm’s AF isn’t trash like some have hyperbolically said, but it isn’t peak like Sony’s. Fujifilm’s AF is more than good enough for most photographers; however, it is occasionally less than ideal for some situations. If Fujifilm “managed to improve processing for better autofocus” just like Sony did, it would not be perceived as boring because Fujifilm is not at the peak of the inverted-U. The improvements would make a real, practical difference to a larger percentage of the users. But, with each improvement, they inch closer to the peak, and eventually they’ll reach it (a bet some will still complain, though).

I think digital photography technology is near the peak of inverted-U curves in most categories. This means it’s an amazing time to be a photographer. We should have a deep appreciation for just how fortunate we are to have access to the gear we have. At the same time, camera advancements are easy to take for granted. An improvement that a team of experts worked tirelessly on for years might seem ho-hum, because the usefulness of it is minor for a small percentage of people, and is otherwise unnoticeable. That’s just the way it is at the peak.

New cameras aren’t boring because they’re boring; they’re boring because they’re so good they do everything we need them to and more. They’re so good that our expectations have become incredibly high, making it more difficult to wow us. And, when you’re at the peak of an inverted-U, it’s easy to step a little beyond it. Take a step forward, and you take a step down. For instance, Sony’s new Dual Gain Output technology increases the dynamic range at low ISO when using the mechanical shutter, but can give a lower dynamic range when using the electronic shutter than cameras without this technology—a step forward, but also a small step down.

I’m not picking on Sony, they were just the primary subject of the PetaPixel article. Actually, I’m pointing out that they’ve managed to get to the peak of inverted-U curves almost across the board, which is an amazing feat. It puts them in a tough position where advancements seem boring to their customers. Some areas where they’re not at or near the peak of the curve are JPEG output, color science, and stylish camera body design. If they make improvements in those areas, they’re less likely to be perceived as boring. For Fujifilm, they’re near the peak in those areas, but not in some others. In my opinion, camera manufacturers should self-identify where they are on various inverted-U curves, and put more efforts where they’re not at or near the peak, and less effort where they’ve already achieved greatness.