Photography is brilliant! It’s an accessible art form adopted by millions of fabulous people. However, there are some things it should have grown out of by now. Here are my bottom six that we should abandon in 2023.
1. Full Frame Equivalent Discussions
My word, hasn’t that been beaten to death? It’s the weirdest thing that people still discuss, and it is both tedious and ridiculous. Some proponents of the 35mm full frame sensor look down their noses at smaller sensors in the same way medium format photographers did when David Bailey started shooting with a Pentax S3 SLR. It’s snobbery. Every system has its advantages and disadvantages, and to suggest that one is better than the other is as ridiculous as saying Porsches are better than Land Rovers are better than 18-wheeler trucks. (I won’t insult your intelligence by explaining that analogy.)
But there is more to it than that. As a photography writer, I feel pressured into including the 35mm equivalent of other systems’ lenses. Yet, using one sensor size as an arbitrary standard by which lenses should be judged is nonsensical. If you put a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, you don’t say it is equivalent to 80 mm on a medium format camera. Why should we compare crop factors to any other system, especially one that holds a minority place in the market, like full frame?
If I am shooting with my OM-1, I choose the lens suited to the circumstances. I don’t even think about what lens would be fitted to my 35 mm or medium format cameras. Similarly, when I pick up a 35mm camera, I choose the lens best suited for what I am shooting with that. Saying this lens and its settings on this system are equivalent to those on that system is meaningless drivel.
For those who regularly shoot with Micro Four Thirds, we choose the correct lens and learn to use the camera differently from when we use a 35mm camera. Photographers with APS-C cameras will do likewise. Comparing the camera and lenses in this way is pointless, as all the cameras from the big brands take great photos once the photographer has learned to use them.
Let’s drop the idea of equivalents and talk about the far more practical field of view. Let’s include the depth of field at a subject distance of 1 meter at the lens’ widest aperture. That’s what is helpful to the photographer, not what a different system does with those specifications.
2. NFTs Are Dying, Thank Goodness
In the UK in 2016, a man hit the headlines for selling 580 ml (1 pint) bottles of fresh country English air to wealthy people in China. They sold for £80 (around $96). NFCs are like this: money for nothing. Early in 2022, the news was full of talk about NFCs. Like cryptocurrencies, they were the next big thing to make people rich. They seemed to be nothing more than the Emperor’s New Clothes. People were paying huge amounts for what amounted to nothing. As the bottom crashes out of them – cryptocurrencies, too – the gullible are left naked.
Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, sold his first-ever Tweet for over $2.9 million. A couple of years later, it was put on the market again. It was only bid up to $280. The cost of NFT’s high initial values was driven by nothing more than hype; it was people’s fear of missing out.
3. Buying the Latest Camera Because It Is the Latest Camera
Over the last two decades, that fear of missing out has also driven camera upgrade sales. People have caught onto that now, and it is a contributing factor to the drop in camera sales.
Think of the camera you have now. Can it take great pictures? Is it good enough for what you do? When the next upgrade comes along, do you need it?
There are occasionally innovative cameras that break the mold. Last year, the handful of models with stacked sensors did that. I bought the $2,199 OM-1 because it was a significant leap forward from what was on the market before. Cameras like that and other professional models such as the $6,949 Sony Alpha A1 and $4,498 A9 II, $5,999 Canon EOS R3, $5,496.95 Nikon Z9, and the $2,499 Fujifilm X-H2S attracted buyers because of this improvement. But most upgrades of the last few years have brought only minor changes to specifications, especially the number of pixels on the sensor.
Most cameras on the market now have more than enough resolution and good enough picture quality for photographers. Most focusing is fast enough. Shutters can shoot more frames per second than we know what to do with. A higher resolution is beneficial in some niche markets, like astrophotography, but most sensors far exceed the specifications we need. If you doubt this, forum posts from 2009 show that photographers successfully produced A1, 40” x 60” and 50” x 40” prints from a Canon 1D Mark II with an 8.2-megapixel sensor.
If your needs have changed and you want to upgrade from a hobby camera to something professional, or you need something smaller and lighter to carry with you than the behemoth hanging around your neck, then swapping makes sense. But, buying the latest version of what you have now, unless it is packed with useful, innovative features, will cost you money that would be better spent on a new lens.
4. Fake Online Photography Diplomas
Again, this is something I mentioned in an article recently. There are online businesses selling photography courses, which is fine; it’s a great way to learn. However, some pretend to sell accredited qualifications by calling their courses "diplomas." If you are considering entering the industry, these certificates are meaningless.
Here in the UK, are nationally recognized National Vocational Qualifications, or NVQs. In Scotland, they are called SVQs. These are awarded on levels one to eight. One is equivalent to a high school qualification, level 6 a full Bachelor’s degree, and level 8 a doctorate. Disreputable organizations name their in-house photography certificates the same, which are not worth the paper they are written on. There are no regulations to protect the unsuspecting.
I recently had a client come to an advanced techniques workshop with me. I always check their experience beforehand; on this occasion, he told me he had a Level 4 Diploma. When they arrived, it soon became apparent that they did not understand the relationship between their camera’s exposure settings. Their diploma was an attendance certificate from a low-quality training provider. This has happened a few times.
5. Grumpy Online Comments and Uninvited Critiques
As I mentioned in my last article, it’s well known in the industry that those who constantly spout negative comments in forums are not very good photographers. If they spent as much time improving their work as they did spewing bile online, they could leave a legacy that positively impacts the photographic world. After all, it’s only photography and not worth the stress and heart attacks they are working themselves up for. As the saying goes: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it.” It's OK to disagree with an opinion. For example, this article is just an opinion, and I suspect some will think the Canon EOS Rebel T100 is the best beginner’s camera ever built. I’m getting to that. I’ll gladly hear and respect your constructive counterarguments.
What’s worse is when people jump in with uninvited critiques of others’ work. I don’t use Facebook daily, but I had a cause to visit it recently. There was a post from Fstoppers appearing in my feed. It highlighted an article that looked interesting. Below the post was a comment from a reader, and someone had replied to her criticizing her photography. I looked, and the woman’s photography was fabulous. What was astounding was that the person making the unkind comment was, at the same time, promoting a photography business. How much harm had he done to that business?
Would I ever write about that business and give them publicity? When we see uninvited sniping at creative work, whether someone’s photography or an article, it always says much more about the person making those comments than anything. It damages their reputation the most and can lead to them being held back.
6. The Canon EOS Rebel T100 DSLR and Other Cheap Plastic Cameras
If you own one of these, I am genuinely sorry.
Of all the cameras I handle, the Canon EOS Rebel T100, known as the 4000D in Europe, is probably the worst I’ve ever handled. I feel sorry for those who have spent their hard-earned wages on this dreadful, flimsy, low-specified landfill fodder. Besides its rickety build, it is hard to use. That’s not because it is complex. No, its low-quality and crowded LCD and tiny viewfinder, which doesn’t even have a diopter adjustment, makes it hard to frame a shot.
Furthermore, it only has nine focus points. Shooting a dismal three frames a second, you will have missed the action shot of your pet tortoise by the time this slug of a camera has finally acquired focus. It is usually bundled with the equally shabby and bland EF-S 18-55mm III lens.
I was going to mention other cameras from other brands that are equally as bad, but this stands in a class of its own. If you want to buy a camera to put a beginner off photography, this is the one to get.
This camera might be the ultimate example of corporate cynicism toward its customers. It’s there to hook new photographers onto the brand, so they quickly need to upgrade. Never mind if it hurts and discourages others along the way.
On the bright side, owning one of these cameras will make you work hard to get great photos. If you own one and are getting superb images, think about what you could get with a decent camera.
For less money, you could buy superior professional-end cameras from online retailers, albeit slightly older ones.
I know some of those opinions are contentious, and you are welcome to disagree with me if your opinion differs. There are other things you would like to see consigned to history instead. It would be interesting to hear them in the comments.
I'd suggest going with 'angle of view' rather than how wide is the field at 1 meter. You may end up with a debate if it's 1 meter from the sensor or 1 meter from the end of the lens. Additionally, it's a stat that's already generally available for nearly every lens. For example the EF 400mm F/2.8L III from canon has an angle of view of 6 degrees 10 minutes.
The one meter comment was about the depth of field rather than the field of view, which should indeed be measured by the angle. Thanks for the comment.
This entire article seems to just wallow in negativity. Not really good for my mental well being. I usually really enjoy your articles, but it behooves you to take a positive point of view and work from that. There is a lot of good to be found in almost anything, any piece of gear, any comment, etc. Even things that are not so great have things about them that are positive. Maybe we should be looking for positives instead of wallowing in the hate.
There's no hate intended here, Tom, and it wasn't my intention that you took it that way. It's purely an article to generate discussion in the hope that things will get a little bit better. It was also written a bit with my tongue in my cheek, hence the humor tag.
Your comments appear to me as a bit snobbish. If you check online, a Rebel T100/4000D kit sells for approximately $360.00 US which includes everything someone needs who may have an interest in photography and wants to learn some of the basics before making that real investment in gear in the future. To me, this may be a great gift for a young person who may want to get their feet wet into photography but ultimately may lose interest (yes, there are some who do not enjoy photography). And there are many who can't afford all that neat gear, but wants to learn how take better images. Options and choices for everyone is a good thing..
If you check the article, I actually linked to a place where you can buy it. It is not a criticism of the people who buy the camera, but the manufacturer who, on this occasion, is selling a sub-par camera. Most independent reviews of this camera point out its shortcomings. To me, it's a bit like expecting a child to paint with cheap paints and brushes. Getting great results is next to impossible. This camera is unnecessarily difficult to use and limited in its versatility.
Canon could, and does, produce far better entry-level cameras that are good enough, as do other manufacturers. If there is any snobbery, it comes from them as it suggests that people who cannot afford more don't deserve to have access to something of sufficient quality. If a child gets one and perseveres and realizes how bad this camera is, they may well be stuck with it because they cannot afford to upgrade. I don't think bad options are ever a good thing.
By no means am I defending Canon, but they have a right to manufacture and sell anything they believe there's a market. If you check all the ratings/reviews of this camera at the online sources that sell them, they are mostly positive. For someone looking to purchase an beginner level camera, many look to these ratings to make a judgement on their purchase. Apparently some do like this option. So, are they being decieved and is Canon doing something wrong?
#3 gets my goat. I continue to be amazed why ANYONE cares how another spends THEIR money. We should thank those spending their money on new stuff. It keeps the cash flow going to the camera companies. They need the money to keep their doors open.
I will give one caveat; buy all the gear you want without regard to articles like this as long as it's in your budget. Other than that, if someone wants to buy a Phase One to take pictures of their parakeet, who cares?
Meanwhile, the planet gets hotter, the sea more polluted with plastic, and people starve. It's also about the whole industry that pressures people into thinking they must have the next new model to be seen to be serious about their art.
You said that your article was contentious. Why get all up in a tizz when someone disagrees with your assertion? I would think you'd expect a bit of pushback.
But on the other hand, I get to buy used stuff cheaply, thanks to the "switchers."
Yes buy what you need and use it for many years without always buying the latest gear but if everyone did that the camera industry wouldn't survive if they didn't keep pushing newer equipment onto us and making sales. Saying that, people who hang around rumors sites and seemingly never end with their anticipation of new gear or moaning the latest gear misses some 'vital' features is very tedious. I don't visit those sites any more.
The only thing we should discontinue in 2023 is articles like this. Yikes. Removed fstoppers from my RSS feeds this is just rubbish takes.
Thanks for signing up and hiding behind a false personal just to make a negative comment.
Fstoppers is a great feed.
Ivor usually submits excellent articles that are well thought out and insightful. He just had a swing and a miss on this one, because it came from a negative place. I suggest that you forgive him this "miss", and look back at some of his other content. All you have to do is click on his name, and it will lead you to all of the articles he has written. You may become a fan of his writing if you give him a second chance!
So people buying the latest and greatest is driving down camera sale?
Lets take that again. So people actually spending money buying new cameras is the reason camera manufacturers sell less new cameras.
Right! Anything I misunderstood?
Yes, you have misunderstood. "that fear of missing out has also driven camera upgrade sales. People have caught onto that now, and it is a contributing factor to the drop in camera sales." People are not buying upgrades because the cameras they own are good enough.
It's a tough one. The industry needs people buying cameras to survive and people need to stop buying the latest cameras like they absolutely need them and appreciate the perfectly decent camera(s) they already own. Both options have a very negative impact on the other. Maybe we need a certain number of gearheads just to keep the industry ticking over whilst the rest can stop obsessing about gear and get on with their photography.
Yah, I started with a T100 equivalent and thought I had gone to artistic heaven. When I outgrew it I passed it on to a friend who did the same. It worked at the time and I learned a lot. Probably comparable to a Corolla in your analogy. It's all relative and as you point out it all has its place
Which model? Canon makes and has made much better entry-level cameras.
doesn't matter which model i had, point is i prob wouldn't have gone to an dslr if it had cost anymore than it did.... we all have our starting point
The worst at all are the DSLR cameras without microAF.
Fair point, and a good argument to switch to mirrorless!
And after chastising me for being critical about your concern about how others spend their money, you promote the switch to mirrorless. But, now I feel relieved because I went from a 5DIV to the R5 because of the R5's focusing capability.
Some of my best pics were taken on the Canon M6 mk2 32 mp APS C
That's an excellent camera.
Certainly is Ivor. Got an R6 mk2 now and not sure it produces better results with the same lenses (EF L)
#1 - I agree somewhat with your full frame equivalence argument. All too often, photographers revere FF as some kind of holy grail we should all aspire too.
However, for those of us who grew up using 35mm film cameras almost exclusively in our misspent youth (even if didn't really understand most of the technical aspects of photography at the time), having FF equivalence in camera, or more specifically, lens specifications, gives us a baseline of understanding, of say, how long an APSC 200mm tele-zoom will reach, for example.
But I do get where you're coming from. Different sensor size systems all have their pros and cons over each other, and we should be embracing them.
Meanwhile, in bass guitar land, we're seeing a positive shift from the industry standard 34" long scale bass. Shorter scales have been around for decade, but in the last couple of years there's been an explosion of shorter scale offerings, from all the big manufacturers. People are realising that they are actually viable instruments, and no longer the toys we once dismissed them as. It is possible to embrace change, but it needs a shift in the industry for us to embrace it.
#3 - Whilst none of us are in a place to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't be spending their hard-earned (or maybe not so hard-earned) money on, there is a trend, as with a lot of modern technology to keep up with the latest and greatest for fear of missing out. I've said it before, but many people's attitude toward digital cameras are akin to mobile phots. There's a feeling of need for the latest features which you'll only get by upgrading every year.
Actually, come to think of it, it's a false analogy. The smartphone revolution has slowed hardware upgrades down, as the like of Apple and Android gives us OS updates that keep the hardware relevant for a number of year. Perhaps more camera manufacturers could embrace this business model - Canon, for one is terrible for this, but I understand Fuji is quite good in this area.
It would certainly help from a sustainability POV, and as s a fellow brit in a cost of living crisis we would all do well do think more carefully about what we're spending money on. I've been following the Martin Lewis mantra of "Do I need it, can I afford it?" A lot of people stumble on this basic concept, confusing "need" with "want" and "afford" with "credit/finance".
On the other hand. We need people to buy things to get the economy moving. And besides manufacturers go out of business if people stop buying things.
Thanks for the long comment. My understanding is that worldwide camera shipments in 2021 were around 8 million. That's a huge drop from the peak of around 121 million in 2010, but most of that loss has come from a drop in compact camera sales. I think ILC sales are still in the ballpark of film SLRs in their heyday.
I have a suspicion that covid had a significant impact on camera sales. Both with manufacturing shortages, and less consumer requirement when the world was locked down.
Not to mention smartphone cameras getting better and better.
Agree re: short scale bass. Paul McCartney's Hofner short scale 'toy' bass contributed to some of the most iconic albums and songs of the 20th century and still serves him well in the 21st century. In fact he has stated the short scale allowed him to be a lot more expressive at the higher end of the neck and he wouldn't have his signature sound without it.
Btw, disagree somewhat with your smartphone analogy. Contracts have meant people can upgrade their phones every two years and plenty do. OS upgrades only last for maybe four or five (at most) years before you need to upgrade to get the latest OS. I still remember when MS Windows upgrades weren't every year and I kept PC's running for a good 7or eight years, still being supported by Microsoft.
Indeed, in the 50's early 60s British music scene, short scale ruled the roost (Hofner, Epiphone, Gibson etc). But fender came along and long scale became the standard for around 50 years or so. The other scale instruments didn't disappear, but they were certainly far less popular. It's only recently that they're being embraced again as viable instruments. Guitarists have been switching between traditional Fender and Gibson scales for decades without issue as well. If us musicians can embrace other standards, then there's no reason photographers can't.
Regarding my smartphone analogy. Yes, it's flawed, but I still think it stands, and your reply kind of backs it up. Yes, you need to upgrade every few years to get the latest OS. Much the same way you need to upgrade your camera body to get the latest features and firmware advances. But do you really need the latest OS? Okay, there's sometimes security updates, but generally, these devices will keep going for a few more years after support is dropped. My last MacBook was 10 years old before I replaced it - well past it's EOL date.
I remember when the EOS M5 was announced. There was a couple of features that could have been ported to my older M3 quite easily. Obviously, canon is in the business of making money, so they restrict features to the new models. Apple et all do this too - tying attractive software features that could work on older hardware to new devices only. It lulls you into a false belief that it's going to hugely improve your life, workflow and efficiency.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe there was this need to constantly upgrade cameras to the latest and greatest in the analog film days. You would keep shooting with the same body until it died. Digital has changed this paradigm.
For smartphones, maybe that's part of it. But it's also maybe just a bit of consumer awareness starting to reject the idea that you need to spend $1,000+ on a new "fun toy" every 18-24 months. And that was driven by consumer awareness that paying $100+ per month for two years in a mobile contract meant you pretty much already had bought the new phone. The network use alone just isn't that pricey.
And yet, the whole "must have new thing" mentality, call it GAS or something else, is pervasive, across phones cameras, guitars, etc. The one difference with phones: if you are a complete novice at photography and have no interest in learning, the modern AI+,computational do-it-all smartphones can up your game, at least as measured by exposure success in increasingly harsh environments targeted at 1 megapixel Instagram shots. Which is apparently what most folks care about.
I think you're right regarding consumer awareness. Sustainability is a major factor in people's buying decisions. Many people realise they don't need the latest and greatest, when their current device still works, and get updates for a few years, and it means they can reduce their bills once the phone is paid for. As I mentioned in my other reply, although I realise camera manufacturers are in the business of selling cameras, I do wish they would add new firmware features to previous models more often, as it only appears to be restricted to higher-tier models.
GAS is real, and I have been guilty of a huge collection of guitars that have come and gone over the years. But the difference in guitar circles is that people tend to build collections because they want something different. There isn't really the snobbery the OP alludes to with full-frame. Sure you do get a number of people who look down their noses as the likes of Squier and Harley Benton. But I don't think there's the holy grail mentality around certain brands as there is with FF in photography circles (although similarly to photography there certainly is a large "all the gear and no idea" crowd of people, not to mention weekend warriors with more valuable gear than professional touring and session musicians).
5. Grumpy Online Comments and Uninvited Critiques
Followed by grumpiest of on-line comments,
6. The Canon EOS Rebel T100 DSLR and Other Cheap Plastic Cameras . . .
My reference to uninvited critiques was about photographs and other art forms, as opposed to reviews of equipment. The T100 deservedly gets many bad writeups from those of us whose job it is to inform the public of the good and the bad. Thanks for taking the time to comment, nonetheless.
Well I can't say something about the Canon EOS Rebel T100 because I do not know it. Regarding the other issues above I can only agree.
Thank you Klaus. Canon makes some excellent cameras, but this isn't one of them.
I agree with all, except #1. Yes, it is wonderful to cheat when you get the extra length from a telephoto lens. However, I feel cheated when my 28mm lens is a "normal lens" rather than a wide angle.
I totally agree with #2. Anytime I hear cryptocurreny mentioned, the Dire Straits song, Money for Nothing comes to mind.
I talked my wife out of buying me a DSLR for Christmas 2013 when she said that her budget was a Canon T6i (APS & not full frame, plastic).
There's still plenty of life left in my Canon 5D III, so I'm not jumping on the mirrorless bandwagon now.
Thank you, Ivor, for brightening up my morning, tongue firmly placed a-cheek. I'm a retired compact camera user diving headfirst into the ILC market's dizzying array of choices. I've read so much, and know nothing with certainty except that my laptop's butterfly keyboard is the bad karma I deserve for trying to keep my digital life up to date.
Would you please contribute to my photo-centric vertigo by suggesting what entry level camera and all-purpose lenses to buy second hand. I'm sort of but not really interested in yet another opinion. On my own to choose, I'm tentatively (with weak knees and trembling hand) trending toward a Nikon D5600 or maybe a Canon M50 II or ... who knows? The micro 4/3 entries are tempting for their convenience, but the smallish sensor makes me squeamish. Having a jolly good time from over here in the Colonies!
To those who decry Ivor's "negativity:" it worked, didn't it? When was the last time you commented on a <i>positive</i> article? When was the last time you saw thirty comments on an article on this site? (When was the last time you saw <i>ten</i> comments?)
Regarding "1. Full Frame Equivalent Discussions:" I think everything should be expressed in terms of equivalency with 10x12 cm (that's 4"x5" for you Yanks) cameras.
If I feel the need for more than 20 megapixels, I haul out the Linhof, get a drum scan, and have a quarter gigapixel to play with.
It only takes two days of cloning and healing to clean up the edges and remove dust, and I need a $150 physical therapy session after hauling it around, but that's the price you pay for the utmost image quality, right?
I've recently been enjoying the Laowa 6mm ƒ/2 lens (60mm ƒ/22 equivalent).
Regarding "3. Buying the Latest Camera Because It Is the Latest Camera:" no, I bought it because the dastardly maker knew how to tug on my heartstrings.
It was named after the first new camera I bought with my first paycheque at my first "real" job, on the 50th anniversary of the original's introduction. It is supposedly the last camera that will ever bear the brand name of that 50-year-old camera.
The biggest problem I have is what to call it when chatting with my contemporaries, who are "of a certain age," and easily confused? The "neo-OM-1?"
Keep up the good work, Ivor. I enjoyed this article! Illegitimi non carborundum.
What would be your suggestion for a beginner / intermediate camera if not rebel? I've dabbled into it when I was a teen, worked with both film and early digital cameras. But I haven't had a camera (barring my phone camera) for a decade. I'm not looking to use it professionally, but just for mementos, sharing with friends and family. I'm not looking for point and shoot, I'm looking to actually learn and improve.
#1 is relevant to me; Allow me to explain. I have a Canon EOS M6 mk II, which is APS-C. I bought EF full frame lenses so that I could reuse them when I upgraded. Recently, I did upgrade, to th Canon R5C, a full frame camera which has a different mount, however I can still use my EF lenses, (with genuine Canon EF to RF adapters) and they do work flawlessly with both cameras, and with all focus modes.
Now, the equivalent focal length is still important for me to know, with regards to my APS-C camera, because it helps me to decide which of my EF lenses to use with either camera. The M6 mk II is still a very capable camera, and makes a good cheap "beater" camera that I'm more likely to use in places I would be afraid to bring my R5C, or if I'm travelling light. It's all dependant upon the circumstances of the shoot.
I have one (Canon T100) and this camera give my best photos until now.
Please, what other entry-level cameras do you
Use whatever camera(s) you like and don't worry what other people think. Only you know what works best for you and no one else can decide that for you.
Keep using your T100 and shoot a lot, learn more about composition, do workshops, and most of all enjoy being out with your camera.
The best way to avoid all that negativity is to stop spending so much time on social media, hoping people will change. People will continue to pointlessly debate sensor sizes - and calling aps-c lenses by their FF equivalent, calling the X100V lens a 35mm instead of its actual 23mm for example. There will still be plenty of people who have to buy the latest camera and lenses plus moaning about what feature they 'desperately' need that are missing. As for grumpy online comments/critiques, this article is inviting a few of those. My pet peeve is mentioning how I like to shoot with my camera or my liking for manual lenses only to have someone criticise me for the way I work or the lens choices I make like I'm doing something wrong or their way is somehow better - my fault for engaging online I suppose. Furthermore I do hope the 'cheap plastic camera' comment was tongue in cheek as people should buy whatever they like. I'd love to see an end to camera snobbery and people looking down on others for the choices they make.
My advice, worry less what other people think and are doing and concentrate on your own photography journey. Yes you can't always avoid social media, especially if it is promoting your day job but try to limit or hopefully completely ignore all the well worn out social media negative clichés.
Most photographers need years to understand what they need and what works for them best. Then they sell their old or unused stuff and buy something else in the hopes to finally address their needs. Most people will only need the simplest and cheapest cameras. Both pro-photographers and amateurs are essentially consumers. And how did we get any pictures during the film era if speed is now all-important? People used to have their entire weddings and other important events shot on both 35mm and 120mm film with manual lenses, often guided by nothing else than the hyperfocal distance and the Sunny f16 rule. .Did it matter? No. Were photographs obtained successfully? Yes. No other options were available, of course. But can you still use the same equipment (with no instant sharing over Wi-Fi etc.) for the same purposes in 2023? Yes! I've seen some people complaining online of the lack of two card slots in certain cameras. Seriously? It is all made up.