After 23 years, the Pentax K series of DSLRs has met its end. The camera maker that has stubbornly clung to the DSLR in the mirrorless era says that another “completely new concept digital SLR camera” is coming, but production for all K-series DSLRs has officially ended.

However, Pentax isn’t just unusual in that the brand remains committed to DSLRs – the K-mount was home to some of the most unusual camera features. Pentax wasn’t afraid to break the unwritten rules of cameras, breaking traditions from the color of cameras to unheard-of features.

In honor of the end of the Pentax K series of DSLRs, these are some of the strangest, wackiest and wonderfully rare features over the last 23 years.

A lens mount that hasn’t changed

In the transition from film to digital, many camera makers changed the lens mount. While the Nikon F and Canon’s later film-era EF mount also survived the transition, the Pentax K-mount has persisted for more than 50 years. (That, notably, doesn't beat the Leica M mount launched in 1959, which is still used today).

Any Pentax DSLR can mount nearly any K-Mount film camera lens without the need for an adapter. Even the in-body stabilization works with old film lenses.

While Pentax has discontinued the K series of DSLRs, the company says that the next DSLR will keep that same mount – so its longevity is expected to continue.

Sensor stabilization inside a DSLR

One of the key advantages of switching from a DSLR to mirrorless is in-body image stabilization – except Pentax has had stabilization inside its DSLRs since the K100D and K10D in 2006.

Stabilization inside a DSLR is rare because the camera’s mirror-centered design made building a stabilization system inside the body difficult, leading to many camera makers opting for stabilized lenses instead. Pentax was a notable exception (along with some Sony DSLRs).

A sensor that could move with the stars

Pentax’s stabilized sensor powered another rather unusual feature: the ability to ”follow” the stars. The rotation of the Earth will blur long exposures of the night sky into star trails without complex astro-tracing equipment, which moves the camera in time with the planet's rotation.

But Pentax used GPS (global positioning system) technology in tune with the image stabilization, in order to move the sensor in line with the stars – creating a built-in astrotracer. Some models required an external GPS accessory for this to work, while cameras like the K-3 Mark III didn’t require any external help.

Intentionally shaking the camera sensor

Pentax’s stabilization system may have been built to avoid camera shake, but it could also do the opposite and intentionally add blur. Pentax’s anti-aliasing filter simulator was designed to correct moiré, a distortion of fine patterns created by a digital camera’s grid of colors that enables the camera to see in color.

Unlike the more traditional optical moiré correction, because Pentax’s version was sensor-based, it could be turned on and off when needed.

A camera with a modular grip

Smaller grips make a camera more portable, but larger grips are more comfortable for shooting heavy telephoto lenses. Back in 2017, Pentax created a camera that could adapt the grip to the shooting scenario.

The Pentax KP used a modular grip system. Grips came in three sizes – small, medium and large – and could be swapped out depending on the situation. The swappability also enabled photographers to customize their cameras to better fit their hand size.

A camera with 100 different possible color combinations

Pentax really questioned the notion that most cameras are black with the Pentax K-x. Launched in 2009, the camera was sold in four different colors – but in Japan, photographers could choose from twenty different body colors and five different grip colors, creating a hundred possible color combinations.

Pentax’s colorful camera history also can’t go without a mention of the Pentax K-r Korejanai, a special edition that only offered 100 units in a colorful mix of red, blue, yellow, and gray, with a robot on the hot shoe slot.

A camera with color-coded grip lights

Speaking of colors, one of Pentax’s most unusual features was found on the K-S1: a bank of color-coded LED lights on the grip.

These lights changed color depending on the camera settings. Green was for still photos, red for video. When using face detection in Live View mode, the lights even light up with the number of faces detected in the frame.

A camera that couldn’t shoot color images

Cameras dedicated to black-and-white photography remove the color filter, creating a system that only shoots in monochrome while also decreasing noise.

While Kodak had an earlier, rare option, the Pentax K-3 III Monochrome is considered to be the only widely available dedicated black-and-white DSLR, launched in 2023.

Weather-sealing shouldn’t be exclusive to high-end cameras

One of the features that Pentax’s DSLRs are known for is weather-sealing, but the company also brought the feature down even to entry-level cameras.

Enthusiast-grade bodies like the K-30, K-50, K-3S, and KF were weather-sealed at a time when most camera makers reserved the feature for high-end bodies.

You may also like…

Browse the best DSLRs or the best Pentax cameras.

What's more fun than visiting a cool city you've never been to before? Visiting a cool city you've never been to before with a brand new camera you've never seen before.

I was lucky enough to attend the launch event for the new OM System PEN in Germany. I booked a seat with extra legroom on the plane, so I could stretch out and rest my limbs before pounding the pavement on Berlin's streets, and loaded my hand luggage with a few lenses I thought would suit the assignment.

I didn't know at the time that the PEN would launch alongside the new OM System M.Zuiko 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 III – a compact, weather-sealed 28-84mm equivalent – so I packed a versatile walkabout lens: the M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro, giving me an effective 24-80mm zoom.

That would cover close range, but I needed a pocketable telephoto – so I paired it with the M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/4.0-5.6 R, an 80-300mm equivalent that's smaller and slimmer than a soda can. And, because it's literally the size of a cookie, I also popped the 9mm f/8 Fisheye Body Cap, just because.

It turns out I barely needed the Pro lens, aside from a couple of times indoors where I needed that extra 4mm on the wide end or the additional stop of light to shoot in the dark. I didn't use the tele that much, either, though it was definitely useful for magnifying a couple of scenes and isolating subjects at distance.

Having used OM (and, before it, Olympus) kit for well over a decade, I was immediately at home with the new PEN despite having never seen it.

It looks and feels, unsurprisingly, like a cross between the Olympus PEN-F (a "holy grail" camera that has become a cult classic) and the Olympus PEN E-P7 (my daily driver, which is smaller but lacks a slew of features).

And it performs a whole lot like the OM System OM-5 Mark II – again unsurprising, given that the PEN shares many of the same specs and tech.

While it is, on paper, an entry-level camera – evidenced, if nothing else, by its $999 / £849 / AU$1,499 price tag – it boasts an impressive arsenal of flagship firepower inherited from the OM-1 and OM-3. And, indeed, it packs some computational photography tools that aren't found even in the most expensive cameras from other manufacturers.

This includes functions like High Res Shot, which uses the 5-axis in-body image stabilization (IBIS) system to power a pixel shift multi-shot mode that enables the 20.4MP sensor to produce 50MP or 80MP images – albeit only on static subjects, as movement invariably creates unpleasant artefacts.

However, the computational feature I used the most – handily accessed, along with the entire suite, via the CP (computational photography) button – was LiveND.

This brilliant bit of innovation gives you a "live" simulation of the blurred motion that you'd normally need a neutral density filter to achieve. However, by turning on this tool (offering up to a virtual four-stop filter), you can achieve creative slow shutter speed effects without needing a physical ND on your lens.

It embodies what the OM System PEN is all about: empowering you to create, and capture those unexpected everyday moments, even when you go out without your full kit. No ND filters? Turn on LiveND. No tripod? Rely on the 5.5-stop in-body stabilization. No medium format camera? Get a 50MP or 80MP image with High Res Shot.

Here's what people don't understand about the PEN: it's not supposed to be the best at shooting everything, but it enables you to shoot anything – even when you didn't anticipate it.

A few days of street shooting proved that perfectly. For candid portraiture, the human subject detection algorithm made sure that faces were in focus – along with the backs of heads and bodies, if they were facing the other way.

For shooting in poor light, even with a tiny-irised f/8 lens, the IBIS made it possible to shoot handheld at slow shutter speeds. For getting crunchy, black-and-white, Leica-like street photos, or color-popping graffiti images, or faded filmic 35mm-style shots, I could dive into the color and mono profiles along with selection of Art Filters.

It's those intangibles that are more important than having the most megapixels, the largest sensor or the latest tech. Because they enable you to create, on the spot, in the moment, without missing a beat – and then beam the shots straight to your phone to share on social or WhatsApp.

You make the magic in-camera – there's no need for post-production if you don't want to. And after a thousand shots in Berlin – and a few thousand more in less exotic locales – I sure do love making magic with this thing.

You might also like…

See how the PEN compares to the best Olympus and OM System cameras, and see which are the best Olympus and OM System lenses with which to pair it.

Some of the most historic photographs of 9/11 are so powerful, they are written in America’s collective memory. One of those photographs came from photographer and New Yorker Gulnara Samoilova. But for as memorable as her photographs are – winning a World Press Photo Award and Pulitzer nomination – Samoilova, in shock, covered in dust and bleeding, says she reacted on pure photographer’s instinct.

At the time, Samoilova was a photo editor working for the Associated Press and living just four blocks away from the World Trade Center. Woken by sirens well before her later shift started, she grabbed several rolls of film, her Canon T90, and walked out the door.

Samoliva, who is now a street photographer and the founder of Women Street Photographers, started taking photographs in disbelief as rescue workers began carrying out the injured. That’s where she was, standing across the street, when the first tower collapsed.

“As I was standing across the street from the World Trade Center, I heard the trembling noise and I lifted my viewfinder. I saw the tower was about to collapse. I took one photo. Then someone shouted ‘run!’ and we all started running,” Samoilova said, telling her story to Projections NYC as part of a multi-day effort to record the history of more than 35 photographers who witnessed 9/11.

“I look back and see this cloud,” she said. “I fell by a parked car so I quickly sat by this parked car, and this cloud of debris and dust just enveloped us. I felt like I was in a tunnel. The impact was so powerful, and then it was dark and it was complete silence to me.”

“Someone was next to me, we were there for a while. I began choking because there was no air,” she said. “I couldn’t open my eyes, I was choking and coughing. He asked, ‘are you okay,’ and I said, ' No, no, I’m not okay, I’m pregnant…I thought I was buried alive. We went from blue skies to complete darkness.”

When the dust cleared enough to see the lights from the emergency vehicles, the photographer, bleeding from a scraped elbow during her fall, looked around and saw the silhouette of survivors emerging from the cloud of dust.

“My photographer’s brain turned on, which I couldn’t admit for the longest time until a few years ago, but I thought, what a beautiful composition,” she said of that moment. “I took one shot, and I blacked out.”

“I didn’t pass out,” she explained, but, in shock, she acted by instinct and blocked much of what happened next. “I changed film from color to black and white, changed lenses. I just started shooting, but I don’t remember it. All my award-winning pictures were next to each other, and I don’t remember taking them.”

“The camera is a shield, like it’s looking in from the outside,” Samoilova said. “That’s how the camera helps me in any situation over my 45+ years.”

In the face of tragedy, photojournalists are tasked with the job of recording history at a time when taking photographs may be viewed by some as insensitive. Samoilova recalled a moment with a police officer before the towers fell. “One of the police officers was yelling at me like, ‘How can you photograph this?’ and I told him, ‘This is for history.’ And I kept shooting.”

Samoilova took 100 frames on film that day on her Canon T90. The following day, eleven of those photographs had been published all over the world, and immediately, the people in the photographs and the family members began reaching out to her.

“They wanted to see my negatives. They wanted to find loved ones. They wanted to find the people that saved them. I would meet with them, and they would share their stories…we became friends,” she said.

“It made me realize how important it was for them and for me, for my mental health too. The importance of having those pictures helped them heal faster, to realize that they have pictures of the people who saved them.”

One of the survivors in the Samoilova’s photographs was trapped in an elevator with her friend. Firefighters were able to help the two friends to safety, but when the first responders went back in, that was the moment that the tower collapsed. One of the women later came to the AP office to look through the negatives in order to identify the first responders who had saved her life.

Samoilova’s story is one of many. In the days leading up to the 25th anniversary of 9/11, Projections NYC interviewed more than 35 photographers about their experience behind the lens during and after the tragic day in American history.

Another round of interviews is scheduled for September 11 at 7 PM ET via Zoom. The interview series will also be uploaded to Projections NYC’s YouTube in the coming weeks.

You may also like

For more 9/11 stories, read about the young photojournalist who photographed 9/11 just two months after starting his job with Getty Images.

Mario Tama had only been working as a photojournalist for Getty Images for about two months – not yet long enough to consider himself a true New Yorker – when he got the call from his editor. A plane had hit the World Trade Center. Unable to call a taxi, he ran towards the devastation, camera in hand – and 25 years later, Tama’s photographs of 9/11 remain a devastatingly poignant part of American history.

“I was a new New Yorker,” Tama said in an interview, part of a large-scale effort by Projections NYC to document the 9/11 story of more than 35 photographers. “I was so new that I had never taken a photo of the Twin Towers. I had seen them, and they were like my North Star. You could figure out where you were by those towers. I always thought I would wait and get them in better light.”

Unable to get a taxi, Tama made his way towards the Twin Towers on foot that morning. At one point, he was stopped from getting any closer by an NYPD barricade that, he believes, saved his life.

Tama instead went around towards the south side of the South Tower, near Cathedral Trinity Church. Photographing the plumes of smoke coming from the South Tower, he ran into fellow Getty photojournalist Spencer Platt, who told him, “This is the story of our lives.”

“I was in a panic trying to get as many images as I could,” said Tama, who was using one of the earliest professional digital cameras, the Canon EOS D30, a 3.1MP DSLR. “Being a new New Yorker, I wish I had that gravitas perspective, but [Platt] shook me and he grounded me in a way that I wasn’t before.”

Tama was making his way towards the South Tower when he heard a sound that, to this day, he finds hard to describe. “I looked up, and the top of the South Tower started to tilt and collapse. The sound echoed down the canyon, and it was completely horrifying.

“I went from being a photojournalist to just another New Yorker running for their lives…at some point during my sprint, I remember looking back, and there was this tornado cloud of dust coming towards us. In hindsight, if I had stopped and taken a photograph, it would have been a powerful image, but I kept sprinting towards a parking garage. The dust storm cloud went over everything after that.”

It was after the dust settled that Tama took a photo of two civilians huddled near a wall, one praying in English, one praying in Spanish.

“The only thing that I knew was to put that camera up to my eye and keep photographing,” Tama said. “I think it was a shield in a way and also a way to process what happened…the camera was my tool, and I just started walking around photographing, looking for survivors. It was an incredibly horrifying feeling to realize that those of us out here had survived and so many others inside had lost their lives. The only thing that I knew to do was to take photos.”

The moment that Tama began to feel like a true New Yorker wasn’t experiencing the day of 9/11, but in the days that followed. On September 13, he was in a shell-shocked apartment building with the windows blown out, climbing the stairs in order to try to get high enough to see Ground Zero.

He made it to the ninth or tenth floor, where he captured a photo of lines of emergency responders and volunteers amid the rubble.

“Looking down on that scene, it was the first time that I felt hope,” he said. “To see all these incredible, brave workers of all stripes – police, fire, construction workers, hospital workers, civilians all there, trying to dig out and this hope over fear feeling swept over me. I just put the cameras down and wept. At that moment, I think I became a New Yorker and fell in love with the city.”

“I’m honored to have this photograph and this recollection….In my mind, [this incredible humanity] won, they won. New Yorkers just showed incredible humanity and heart and it’s something I will hold with me forever.”

Projections NYC is spending six days interviewing 36 photographers who photographed 9/11 and the aftermath to record their stories for history between September 6-11. The series continues with live Zoom broadcasts at 7 PM ET on September 10 and 11.

The interviews will also be uploaded to Projections NYC’s YouTube page approximately 1-2 weeks after the live broadcast.

You may also like

For more stories behind the images of 9/11, read about how Joe McNally photographed life-sized Polaroids of the first responders, or read about Thomas Hoepker's controversial 9/11 image.

The BCN Awards, sourced using data from major Japanese electronic retailers, has published its 2026 results and Nikon features in three categories: Mirrorless, DSLR, and binoculars, coming third, second and third in each category, respectively.

Nikon Rumors has posted BCN’s findings along with a short analysis of the brand’s fortunes. The rumor outlet praised Nikon’s presence within a very competitive market, while stating: “to climb higher, focusing on entry-level mirrorless or hybrid video capabilities could help.”

I couldn’t agree more! I’ve been saying for years that Nikon’s decision to focus on enthusiast and pro gear will hurt its imaging business in the long term, because brand loyalty is such a huge deal in photography.

The profit margin on an entry-level camera might not be as good as premium offerings, but it captures consumers at the very beginning of the funnel. Once you’ve bought into a system and got used to it, you’re likely to stick with that system when you eventually upgrade.

If Nikon isn’t fostering beginner photographers, it’s missing a crucial moment in which to build that connection. And I believe it’s even more important for Nikon to catch consumers early than some other camera manufacturers, because it’s competing directly with Canon and Sony. Let me explain…

Direct competition

Nikon, Canon and Sony are all going after the same corner of the market. They all build full-frame mirrorless cameras, boast huge collections of mirrorless glass, are jostling for the next big innovation in camera technology and are focusing increasingly more of their resources towards video cameras.

As such, they’re the go-to choice for professional landscape, portrait, wildlife and sports photographers, as well as run-and-gun video creators. The problem is that their customer bases are extremely loyal – fanatical, if you will.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but most people who want to buy a serious mirrorless camera will choose one of the above manufacturers, not two, not three, just one. After all, they all pretty much do the same thing.

If you have a Nikon Z8 and buy a Nikon Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S II for $2,797 / £2,599 / AU$4,599, what’s the point of also investing in a Canon EOS R5 Mark II and then having to buy a Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM?

But other manufacturers such as Fujifilm, Leica and OM System don’t have to play by the same rules. You could very much own a Z8 and fancy picking up a Fujifilm X100VI, a Leica D-Lux 8 or the just-announced OM System PEN as an everyday carry.

Maybe the Nikon Zf and Nikon Zfc fill the role of something slightly different, but the majority of Nikon’s catalog is standard enthusiast- to pro-grade fare.

Entry-level gold

As a huge Nikon fan, every single Black Friday it pains me to see the utterly fantastic Canon EOS R100 become even more ridiculously good value, only to wonder why Nikon doesn’t have a camera like that. And while the Nikon Z30 and Zfc get close, they’re not truly affordable beginner cameras in the same vein as the EOS R100 or Nikon D3500.

Extenuating circumstances such as component shortages, the memory crisis, Trump tariffs and general economic instability mean it’s a difficult market out there for every camera manufacturer. And while Nikon isn’t in trouble, its financial results haven’t been where they ought to be of late.

Don’t get me wrong, Nikon is a huge company and its imaging division isn’t the only area it’s focused on. But to ensure a steady stream of Nikon photographers from now until well into the future, please, Nikon, don’t neglect entry-level photographers any longer.

You might also like...

Check out the best Nikon cameras and the best Nikon Z lenses. Plus, here's the latest camera news.

Only yesterday I wrote an article claiming that people still want full-frame DSLR cameras, and now Pentax & Ricoh Rumors has highlighted data from the BCN Award 2026 whereby Ricoh’s domestic Japanese DSLR market share has gone from 9.7% to 17.7%. And while that’s good news for a camera company that’s still supposedly developing DSLR cameras, it’s not necessarily an indicator of renewed interest in DSLR tech.

Canon and Nikon still command the largest market shares, with 44.3% and 38% respectively, but it’s not exactly surprising that their grip has relaxed slightly. After all, neither manufacturer is actively pursuing new DSLR releases, and despite many Canon and Nikon DSLRs still being available to buy new, both appear to be quietly winding down production, with the mighty Canon EOS 5D Mark IV being the latest high-profile DSLR to be officially discontinued. Canon Rumors also references the fact that “the DSLR market shrank dramatically last year”. With all of that in mind, it’s not surprising that Ricoh is mopping up a little more market share.

What about other camera formats?

When it comes to mirrorless market share, BCN’s statistics have Sony on top with 29.9%, Canon slightly behind at 27.4%, and Nikon trailing at 15.1%. Nothing overly surprising there.

When it comes to compact cameras, or what BCN calls the digital camera (integrated lens) department, I was surprised that Kodak comfortably beat Fujifilm at 24% and 13.9% respectively, with Kenko Tokina at 13.3%.

So, there you have it. Pentax reaches for more DSLR market share, but that’s likely because Canon and Nikon’s attention is elsewhere.

You might also like...

Check out the best Pentax cameras and the best Sony cameras. I’m a camera expert: Photographer calls APS-C vs full-frame “different looks,” and it changed my whole perspective.

The iPhone Duo (or iPhone Fold) brings inferior specs and a new premium price – the only thing it will do is separate real photographers from so-called "Pro" customers who just buy the top-of-the-line without thinking what that means.

Until now, the top of the line – measured in cost – was also the best iPhone for photography. It had Apple's best arrangement of cameras, a three camera array, and I had little trouble persuading myself to "invest" in one each year. OK, a depreciating asset isn't really an investment, but I could at least tell myself that I'd have the best cameras I could get without leaving iOS.

Now the advantages of a folding phone – principally a larger inside screen for enjoying content and for productivity – come at a compromise: fewer cameras in the array. Specifically, there is no telephoto camera, which is the one which boasted a similar EFL to a traditional portrait lens and (when cropped and digitally zoomed) also provided half-decent telephoto.

So if you use the device to create content, you're better off with one of the iPhone 18 Pros. If you use it to view it then the folding phone will afford you a bigger screen. So there is no one 'best' iPhone.

And that makes it very difficult for me, and, oddly, it brings another voice that usually loses out entirely in the excitement that comes when a new iPhone is announced. The voice that says; "If the choice isn't obvious, why buy a new iPhone at all?"

That isn't to say I'm going to switch platforms. I regularly test Android-based phones, and I have no problem with the system, but I'm also well into the Apple ecosystem and I find I get on better with it.

And that hints a little at the situation I suspect many will now find themselves in.

Apple has gone to great pains to cultivate an ecosystem – if you own an Apple phone you'll find life is a good deal easier if you also have an Apple Mac computer and (if you're so inclined) an Apple Watch, Apple's own headphones, and an iPad.

And, though it isn't always easy for people who grew up with computers at the top of the tech tree, the iPhone is the key to this empire. Despite a lot of diversification, 50% of Apple's $416 billion revenue last year came from the iPhone – and there are thought to be around 1.5 billion active iPhones out there.

For contrast, the iPad made $28 billion and the Mac $33 billion in the same period.

Even if you can't conceivably afford the best of every part of your Apple ecosystem (and who needs a fully specced out Mac Studio with a five-figure price tag?) it was easy to have the best iPhone, and so the best 'key'.

Having the best phone was something that was within reach for many, and a pretty simple choice, which is why around 40-50% of sales come from the Pro or Pro Max line, and the Pro Max is routinely the top-selling single flagship phone.

I strongly feel that by making the premium phone a compromise, Apple has shot itself in the foot.

If I buy the folding phone, I'll feel I've finally got a new and exciting form factor. But the first time I go to take a photo of something a little distant from me I'll be disappointed.

And for a device that carries the price premium, there shouldn't be a compromise. Certainly not one that doesn't seem beyond the bounds of possibility to fix.

After all, the cameras tend to be on a stick-out module anyway, so it can't be that difficult to add three rather than two.

So why would Apple do this? Sure it'll save a gram or two and perhaps even make the phone a little more compact, but forcing me and others to make a difficult choice – essentially to have no one 'best' phone – is going to be hard work.

It won't make life easy for Apple Store staff, for a start.

And it'll create disappointment among many buyers too. Especially photographers, who will have seen the iPhone 18 Pro opening Apple's event on September 9 – and heard from new CEO John Ternus about a true adjustable aperture in the camera.

The iPhone 18 Pro also gets a 6-Core A20 Pro CPU with 7-core GPU and accelerated "Neural Accelerators" and 32-core Neural Engine cores, like the Duo, but only on the Pro presentation did Apple discuss thermal management which (hopefully) will keep the SOC cool this time. (I experienced a lot of overheating with my iPhone 17 Pro Max on holiday in Spain last August.)

The iPhone Duo also has slightly inferior battery times and, despite fast charging, tops up only 5 rather than 6 hours playback from the same 5 minutes charging.

The "Biggest camera improvement in years" forced Apple to explain the Aperture to consumers, but the 100mm EFL lens is there.

The main camera on the 18 Pro Max is upgraded with a "48MP Fusion" main camera with 6-blade variable Aperture (f/1.48 - f/4). There is a new Pro interface to access this, and timelapse is upgraded to Dolby Vision HDR 4K.

The Duo's main camera, though, is a f/1.6 fixed aperture (though the phones share the same ultra-wide camera).

The camera also boasts subject tracking similar to that on action cameras that can handle subjects leaving and re-entering the frame.

Surveys (and sales in the Android world) have shown that not many customers are interested in folding phones. But perhaps the compromises are the reason.

Then again, the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 managed three cameras last year.

Perhaps Apple will eventually address it with a Pro version with the same 'sacrifice' of a little more weight for more capable cameras?

So everyone who buys the first generation will be forced to upgrade in the end?

That's disappointingly plausible, isn't it?

Apple's launch also talked about "Rethinking design principles that have been set for years." How long will it take to recover from the inevitable dent to years of use experience?

In exchange, the main screen is only 50% bigger than the iPhone Pro Max, while you lose Face ID – it only has Touch ID.

Though there is another feature: Apple also announced "Handoff" which will let you attach a second phone to the same phone number.

So perhaps the solution Apple wants is for you carry two iPhones.

$1199 for iPhone Pro 256GB will be available for pre-order on Saturday, while the Duo will be $1999 and not available for pre-order until October. Will it be the best iPhone for photography? The Duo doesn't seem to want to be!

It’s like I always say: “You can’t put a good full-frame DSLR down!” Despite mirrorless cameras dominating the interchangeable-lens market, people are still buying up full-frame DSLR cameras. And while many have disappeared from the shelves of official retailers completely, a select few stalwarts are still available to buy new.

And it’s not hard to see why. The best DSLR cameras are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of Canon and Nikon especially, they open you up to a veritable smorgasbord of used lenses that you can pick up for some very low prices indeed. If you’re a photographer on a budget looking for a decent lens platform, a full-frame DSLR may still be the way to go.

It’s true that a lot of DSLR tech now lags behind mirrorless offerings, such as burst speeds, autofocus and video, but provided you’re happy with the resolution, image quality has remained largely unchanged, and plenty of full-frame DSLRs boast premium pro-grade features such as extensive weather sealing and optional battery grips.

Personally, if you’re working on a budget and want to pick up a full-frame DSLR, my recommendation would be to visit a reputable used retailer such as KEH (US), MPB (US/UK) or LCE (UK). That’s because even very good condition used DSLRs tend to be a lot cheaper than new retail prices.

What full-frame DSLRs can you buy new?

I decided to look at US retailer B&H Photo and UK retailer Wex Photo Video to find out what full-frame DSLRs are still available to buy new, and I was surprised by the choice.

Even though some of the models, such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV and Nikon D750, have been officially discontinued, stock is still lingering on shelves in some cases. My own personal favorite DSLR of all time is the Nikon D850, a camera I used to own and in my mind – and in the mind of many others – one of the greatest cameras ever made.

Ultimately, we really are in the twilight years of the DSLR. As it stands, Pentax remains the last bastion of modern DSLR development, with both Canon and Nikon having quietly shelved DSLR development in favor of a mirrorless future. Still, if you’re a stills photographer first and foremost and don’t need all of the cutting-edge tech, you could do a lot worse than a full-frame DSLR and a good set of compatible lenses.

You might also like...

Want more camera buying guides? Take a look at the best Canon cameras and the best Nikon cameras, as well as the best Pentax cameras.

APS-C vs full-frame is a tale as old as time, and as a photography journalist, I’m definitely guilty of stoking the flames. But recently, I watched a YouTube video from a fantastic creator called Cam Mackey, and he simplified the whole debate into two words that have stuck in my mind ever since: “different looks”.

On a shoot where he was comparing the Leica M11 and Fujifilm X100VI, he talked about the different formats. Granted, he did acknowledge that there’s a big difference between the two, stating: “people out there that say: “Oh, full-frame vs crop sensor, it doesn’t matter,”” agreeing that in some cases it doesn’t, before continuing, “But those same people will also say: “Oh, medium format’s superior to full-frame””.

And as a predominantly full-frame photographer, I’ve definitely heard that argument time and again. But here’s the real thing I took away from the video: “So, you definitely get different looks, and you get different image quality, and you get a whole different feel from each sensor size.”

I absolutely love this sentiment. It’s such a simple way to think about sensor size, but creatively, it’s a healthier way than simply dismissing one or the other as better or worse. After all, they do supply you with different looks and different advantages. That’s why different sensor sizes exist – variety is the spice of life!

APS-C vs full-frame

The biggest difference between an APS-C image and a full-frame image is the crop factor. If both images are shot with the same lens, in the same position, with the same exposure settings, the APS-C image will appear zoomed in. If you cropped the full-frame image down to the exact composition of the APS-C image, it will look identical.

A big difference you usually hear people talk about is that full-frame cameras will give you a shallower depth of field and APS-C cameras will compress the image. But technically, an APS-C camera doesn’t produce a larger depth of field, nor does it produce more compression. The perceived difference is simply due to the crop factor.

Use the same lens on both bodies, and you’ll have to get closer to the subject with the full-frame camera, producing a shallower depth of field. And due to the cropped field of view on the APS-C camera, the image might look more compressed at a glance, but if you cropped a full-frame version of that image to the size of the APS-C image, the compression would look identical.

Another point that I often think about is that a lot of full-frame photographers heavily crop their images. But if you know a photographer uses a full-frame camera, you never question it. Ultimately, there’s no doubting that there’s a different quality to a medium format image, a full-frame image, and a crop-sensor image, but at the end of the day, there are way too many variables to simply crown one better than the other. It’s kind of like ranking the greatest bands of all time: everyone has a different taste in music, even if it's definitely Queen. I digress...

Different cameras for different purposes

There’s a reason why so many photographers end up having multiple cameras with multiple sensor sizes, and that’s because they’re different tools that excel at different applications. A lot of street photographers favor crop-sensor cameras, and a lot of professional portrait photographers favor medium format or full-frame cameras.

In recent years, APS-C has become more and more popular. A lot of this is down to Fujifilm’s excellent selection of X-series cameras. APS-C is also the choice of format for a lot of very popular Instagram photographers, especially those who capture street or travel photography.

So, if you’re choosing between an APS-C and full-frame camera or feel you need to ‘upgrade’ to a full-frame camera, think to yourself: you can still capture incredible imagery on both. At the end of the day, you’re getting “different looks”.

You might also like...

Check out the best Fujifilm cameras and the best mirrorless cameras. Plus, here's the latest camera news.

Nikon silly season is beginning to heat up. As we head into the final third of 2026, the ‘Big N’ has only released two lenses, plus a development announcement for the Nikon Z 120-300mm f/2.8 TC VR S. And with a history of releases in September, October and November, the anticipation is high. So, when Nikon Rumors posts about an “exclusive product presentation” from Nikon UK on September 25 at Grays of Westminster, it’s hard not to get a little bit excited about potential camera rumors.

The event, hosted by Nikon and RED creative, Bruno Murari, is even more curious given that no products are mentioned in the event schedule. What will be on show is simply referred to as “product highlights” or “the products,” which Nikon Rumors has described as "a bit strange" and "cryptic," and I have to agree; it does sound a little coy.

A string of rumors

All of this comes off the back of another Nikon Rumors post that I reported on last week. An Internet sleuth noticed gaps in the schedules of various Nikon Ambassadors, with a series of Nikon events to follow later in September, and theorized that this could point towards a possible product release. Complete conjecture, of course. It wasn’t all that long ago that Nikon Rumors reported on “almost everything” being supposedly delayed until next year, so at this point it’s anyone’s guess.

A release could happen, but it’s far from certain

I keep coming back to the same conclusion: it’s certainly the time of year for a big release, so nothing is beyond the pale. But if the rest of the year is anything to go by, not to mention some less-than-stellar financial results and ongoing market turmoil due to various factors, including Trump tariffs and component shortages. Suffice to say, I’m cautiously optimistic about a major Nikon release this year but heavily tempering my expectations.

You might also like...

Interested in all things Nikon? Check out the best Nikon cameras and the best Nikon Z lenses. Plus, here's the latest camera news.

Say what you will about the camera phone, but it’s forever changed the way people look at photography. Years of simply pointing, tapping a screen and letting computational photography do all the legwork has imbued a good portion of the population with the belief that photography is easy.

Modern photographers are caught between a rock and a hard place. If one rando isn’t asking you why you don’t just use a phone, another is telling you how much harder it was in the film days… I’ll happily bow down to a pro film photographer, because taking a good photo on an SLR film camera is objectively harder. But photography isn't just about operating a camera...

Accessibility vs difficulty

First off, I think there’s a tendency to confuse accessibility with difficulty. We moan about rising prices, but we still live during a period where quality tech is comparatively cheap. And unlike film, digital photographers don’t have to weigh up film and development costs. You don’t need to pay for tuition or resources, either. It’s all out there on YouTube and the web.

Photography now requires significantly less running costs and you can learn as much information as you’re willing to take and practice as much as you like. I’m therefore certain that there are more pro-level photographers than ever before. And all of this has resulted in higher expectations.

Great expectations

I’m not going to sit here and say that modern photographers take better images than the photographers of yore, because I don’t believe that for one moment. But what I do believe is that technical expectations have risen. Go back and look at wedding photos that were shot on film. They simply will not be as consistently exposed, sharp and well-composed as a modern wedding portfolio. I’m not saying they’re better or worse, but digital wedding photographers are expected to operate at a higher standard.

Granted, this is largely due to advancements in tech. Modern exposure and autofocus algorithms have made it harder for photographers to under- or overexpose and miss focus. But this has raised the bar to an, at times, impossible level. The demand for technically perfect photographs has never been higher. You only need to take a cursory glance at competition winners or Instagram to know that the bar is at an all-time high. Arguably too high at times.

But some expectations have gone beyond what’s possible. Instagram has raised the bar so high that I’ve heard some photographers talk about unrealistic expectations from clients. Suffice to say, wedding photographs taken in a registry office on a wet and windy day in Hull are never going to look like your favorite influencer’s Barbados beachside wedding photos...

The rise of AI

The emergence of generative AI is already having a huge impact on photographers. Similar to my last point, it’s also breeding unrealistic expectations as clients struggle to gauge the boundary between realistic photography and impossible AI fabrication.

GenAI is also taking chunks out of an already depleted creative industry. Professionals are finding themselves caught between staying true to their craft or embracing the new AI normal. Fighting tooth and nail to keep clients by working harder, working for less, and going above and beyond.

But there’s a less-talked-about problem that’s happening on the flip side. AI has caused a cynicism surrounding photography, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the popularisation of photo editing software. Photographers don’t just have to compete with AI; they have to defend their work from AI accusations. By that I mean people questioning the validity of their work. If a photographer captures a particularly amazing photo, it will often be met with comments questioning its authenticity.

Increased output (and video)

It’s not just visual expectations that have risen. Photographers are now expected to deliver more. Instagram photographers need to post regularly to appease the algorithm and professionals are often expected to deliver hundreds of images to clients. Modern wedding photographers are offering packages with well over 500 images. That simply wasn’t the case in the film days. And that’s hundreds of images that have to be edited, prepared and sometimes printed for delivery.

And then there’s video. In many cases, it’s no longer good enough to be ‘just a photographer’. Plenty of professionals have turned to video to bolster their client base, diversify their work, and appease influencer-led expectations. That means more investment in time and kit, and that’s before you consider self-promotion.

An advert in the local newspaper won’t cut it anymore. Photographers have to promote themselves online. That means managing social media platforms, and building and maintaining a website. Social media in particular is a huge time sink. As if photographers don’t have enough to do, many are filming behind-the-scenes videos as they work.

A hypercritical world

I’m going to sound like a right snob when I say this, but people who are not photographers often have no idea what a good photograph is. It makes sense if you think about it. Learning the craft is essential in understanding what is and isn’t good. Don’t get me wrong, anyone can look at an incredible photograph taken by a landscape photographer and say it’s good. It’s the other end of the spectrum that tends to be the problem. This is why, as you progress as a photographer, images you once thought were amazing start to pale in comparison to your later work.

You could argue this has always been the case. But in the film days, photography was seen as much more of a skill. The oversaturation of cameras and photography has diluted that considerably. As such, people’s appreciation of photography is at an all-time low. We live in a hypercritical world anyway, so photographers are subjected to much more abuse and non-constructive criticism than ever before, too.

Ever-changing trends

The online world moves fast, and photography is no different. Editing styles are constantly going in and out of fashion, but the biggest aesthetic photography and video ‘trend’ to emerge over the past few years has been the rise and rise of vertical video.

This has changed the game completely. Instagram has famously pivoted to vertical media, meaning photographers and videographers are caught between a rock and a hard place. Commit fully to the limiting properties of vertical imagery or frantically try to capture both. I recently covered this in more detail by reporting on a video made by a sports videographer who explained: “Vertical video is driving me INSANE”.

So there you have it. The process of capturing a photo might have gotten easier, but being a photographer has never been more complicated. Do you agree? Can you think of more reasons why photography is challenging in 2026? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

You might also like...

Want more of my ramblings? Nikon rumor claims “almost everything” is delayed, but I don’t think this is cause for concern. Nikon never bothered to support the Nikon Zf and Zfc with retro-cool lenses, but thanks to Voigtlander it doesn’t need to. Some call it soft, I call it dreamy: Why Nolan’s The Odyssey was a focus puller’s nightmare.

A valid way to express our creativity? Or, now we can recreate a filmic look digitally, more of a hipster gimmick? Whichever, it’s certainly true that various pundits have been declaring that ‘film is back, baby!’ for some time now. Without it quite ever feeling conclusively so.

While everyone at one time went nuts for digital cameras and then smartphones, independents like analog-obsessive Lomography kept the flame alive with quirky, plastic-y roll-fed contraptions – and continue to do so.

But there has been a noticeable ramping up of both film-based product and positive rhetoric in the past couple of years – and I’m wondering why.

Our phones are already full of digital filters that deliver a film ape-ing retro appearance, complete with grain and light leakage – the kind of ‘nostalgic’ artefacts that digital photography promised to rid us of.

When old-school filters aren’t selectively applied, and our phones are left to automatically and heavily process images for us, we can sometimes end up with too sterile a look.

Imperfections can be what subconsciously prompts us to engage with an image. Something too pristine, or too overtly ‘digital’, repulses. See also the debate around heavy use of AI.

Phones aside, today’s dedicated cameras are also exploring our current relationship with film capture.

Interesting if niche releases – including the Pentax 17, a half-frame film camera, and Fujifilm X Half, with its Film Camera mode – remove digital photography’s immediacy and encourage us to slow down and (re)consider every image. And in principle, these are no bad thing. Even if they feel like gimmicks in search of an audience.

See also Fujifilm’s Instax Mini Evo Cinema, with its deliberately deteriorating images relative to how far back we turn its Eras dial, plus additional ring to degrade the image further, which I’ll admit is fun for five minutes.

But it was the so-called digital darkroom (essentially a computer, card reader and editing software), a term much trumpeted in the early 2000s but sounding positively prehistoric now, that was supposed to free us from all that, getting rid of the trays of smelly processing chemicals that haunted school photo clubs.

Ultimately, it’s all too easy to fall back on the drug that is nostalgia without making the effort or feeling the need to nudge the dial forward and create something wholly new.

So, I’m hoping we’ll see increased ambition from our favorite camera companies before the year is out.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best film cameras along with the best 35mm camera film, as well as the best retro cameras that give you the vintage look with modern mirrorless tech.

In 1967, Olympus (now OM System) unleashed its Trip 35 on an unsuspecting world. It was a simple, compact point-and-shoot camera with an absolutely stellar 40mm f/2.8 lens, programmed autoexposure and a selenium exposure meter.

As the name implies, it was intended for those who wanted a simple, easy-to-use, compact camera for vacations. Though nothing about it was revolutionary, it shaped a generation – and it ended its lengthy production run in 1984 with over 10 million Trip 35s sold!

It all started back in 1956, when a young Yoshihisa Maitani (1933–2009) joined Olympus fresh out of university.

After spending a couple of years rotating through all the firm’s departments, learning the company's manufacturing processes, he was given a challenging assignment: design a camera that could retail for just ¥6,000 (about $17 / £6 / AU£7 8s 10d at the time), at a time when Olympus's least expensive camera cost more than triple that amount.

To meet that target, Maitani rethought camera design from the ground up, choosing the half-frame format (18 x 24mm) that produced 72 exposures on a standard 36-exposure roll of 35mm film.

He insisted on a high-quality, 4-element (Tessar-style) 28mm f/3.5 lens despite the low price. And he simplified the camera's mechanism dramatically, reducing the number of gears and using a thumbwheel film advance instead of a more expensive rapid-wind lever.

The result was the original Olympus PEN, introduced in 1959 when Maitani was just 26 years old. It was inexpensive, compact enough to fit in a jacket pocket, and capable of image quality comparable to much larger and more expensive cameras.

The Pen became an enormous success and established the design philosophy that Maitani followed throughout his career: small size without compromising photographic performance. That philosophy enabled him to design many of Olympus' most famous cameras.

The PEN was followed in 1962 by the PEN EE (for “Electric Eye”), which used a circular selenium meter cell around the lens (so exposure compensation when using filters would be automatic) and a simple, programmed autoexposure system. The lens was the same Tessar-type, fixed-focus Zuiko lens.

The PEN EE-S arrived in 1963 and was identical to the EE, except that it added zone focusing. In the end, many more PEN models were produced between 1959 and 1983. It was a remarkable 24-year run and, in all, some 17 million were made!

In the mid-1960s Olympus saw a growing demand for a compact full-frame (24 x 36mm) camera that was as easy to use as the PEN series. Which brings us to the Trip 35, introduced in 1967, where Maitani took the experience gained with the PEN and applied it to a full-frame, 35mm camera.

Again Maitani insisted on a top-quality lens, still a Tessar-inspired design but a faster 40mm f/2.8 Zuiko topic. This time the lens was not just good, but astounding given the camera’s price.

The Trip had the trademark Maitani look, with simple controls, and as with the PEN-EE it had a circular Selenium photocell around the lens.

(This arrangement was pioneered by the little-known “Lord Martian” of 1960; though Canon’s Canonet, which came a year later, is often thought of as the first with the design.)

The Trip 35 featured fully automatic, program exposure control and a simple, but effective, zone focusing system marked with four pictograms: the solo subject, two subjects, group and mountain symbols corresponded to approximately 3ft / 1m, 5ft / 1.5m, 13ft / 4m and infinity.

Unlike many later compacts, the Trip 35 was built largely of metal yet weighed just 390g (roughly 14oz). It was replete with both a hot shoe and a PC flash socket, while the exposure system handled films from ASA (now ISO)25 to 400, though a few early examples handled only 25-200. Like the PEN series, the Trip 35 did not require a battery.

This simplicity made it ideal for beginners while delivering negatives that rivalled those from much more expensive cameras, thanks to its very impressive lens. Thus it was often a constant companion for many more experienced photographers.

The Trip 35 remained in production from 1967 to 1984, a remarkable 17-year run. In that time, between 5.4 and 5.6 million Trip 35 cameras were made.

(The larger, 10 million camera number mentioned earlier – and often quoted by Olympus / OM System – included some later, plastic-bodied variants that also bore the “Trip” name.)

While there were some 17 million PEN cameras made, that number was divided among 19 models. The 5.4 to 5.6 million number was for just the original Trip 35 model alone, making it one of the world’s most successful compact film cameras ever.

Read more of David Young's ongoing series on classic cameras, as well as his book A Brief History of Photography.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best Olympus / OM System cameras and the best Olympus / OM System lenses you can buy today.

The Leica M11 might be gone, but I don’t think it will be forgotten anytime soon. In fact, I would argue that the original Leica M11 will eventually be remembered as one of the most important digital M cameras Leica has ever made.

Not necessarily because it reinvented the rangefinder, but because it appeared to be the camera that convinced a much wider generation of photographers to finally take the plunge. For many people watching from the sidelines, the M11 became the camera that started their Leica journey.

When Leica launched the M11 in 2022, it also made a very deliberate attempt to show that an M camera could compete technologically with the best full-frame cameras from Sony, Canon and Nikon.

At its heart was a new 60MP full-frame BSI CMOS sensor, giving photographers the sort of headline resolution normally associated with some of the most technically advanced mirrorless cameras on the market.

Yet Leica being Leica, it did things slightly differently. Its Triple Resolution Technology enabled you to shoot at 60MP, 36MP or 18MP while still using the entire sensor area – meaning you could have maximum detail when you wanted it, without being forced to deal with enormous files every single time you pressed the shutter.

That might sound relatively ordinary today, particularly as the same technology has continued throughout the wider M11 family, but at launch it helped change the perception of what a modern Leica M could be.

This was still the beautifully simple, manually focused rangefinder that photographers had loved for decades, but underneath it was a thoroughly modern digital camera.

There was internal storage, USB-C connectivity, vastly improved battery life and enough resolution to crop aggressively without immediately destroying your image. Leica hadn't abandoned what made the M special; it had simply dragged the digital side of the camera firmly into the modern era.

But I think the M11's biggest contribution had very little to do with specifications.

Around its launch, something interesting started happening online: more content creators, YouTube photographers and prominent photography personalities seemed to be talking about Leica, buying Leica cameras and, perhaps most importantly, showing what it was actually like to live with one.

Suddenly the M-System wasn't being discussed exclusively by lifelong Leica owners and rangefinder devotees. The M11 was appearing alongside Sony Alpha cameras, Fujifilm bodies and Canon EOS models in videos watched by photographers who may never previously have considered spending Leica money on a camera.

The hype surrounding the M11 undoubtedly helped Leica reach a different audience.

Sample images

And I think that mattered enormously. Leica has always carried a certain mystique, but mystique can also create distance. The M11 somehow made the brand feel more accessible without actually becoming affordable.

Watching photographers that you followed online forget about autofocus, pick up an M11 and start talking about slowing down, manually focusing and rediscovering photography created a surprisingly powerful pull. It made people curious.

Some undoubtedly bought into the hype, while others discovered that rangefinder photography genuinely suited them, but either way the M11 seemed to become a gateway into Leica ownership for a new generation.

The standard Leica M11 has now bowed out, with the Leica M11-P becoming the natural successor and taking the same basic formula further with additional refinements. Yet I think the original deserves its own little chapter in Leica history.

There will always be technically important M cameras, and there will always be collectible ones, but the M11 arrived at exactly the right moment, when photography culture was increasingly being shaped by creators, YouTube and social media.

It was the Leica that caused a stir, convinced photographers to jump ship and made an entirely new audience wonder whether their next camera should have a red dot on the front. The M11 might be gone but, for a lot of photographers, it was where Leica began.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best Leica cameras along with the best Leica M lenses for rangefinders and the best Leica SL lenses for mirrorless bodies.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take my dedicated camera and lenses out with me if I’m confident it’s the best tool for the job. Or if I want to record something for posterity at the best available quality.

But, like most of us, on all the other occasions when a photo opportunity presents itself, it’s my camera phone that comes out of my pocket.

I recently took a summer vacation and, though I’d packed a decent mirrorless camera in my trusty Olympus PEN E-PL7 with catch-all zoom lens, I found myself decidedly unmotivated to use it. I’m not 100% sure why it came out of the rucksack far less than the family’s water bottles, snacks, sunscreen and sun hats that I was also tasked with carrying.

It’s not that I didn’t find anything to photograph. It’s perhaps more that when I did, I’d be asked to share it on our family WhatsApp group. My daughter also had a friend accompany her on holiday this time, so there was another person to share group shots and portraits with.

In this respect, the phone was just more convenient and immediate for the sharing of images than two teenagers having to wait for me to transfer shots to my laptop, attach them to email or generate a Dropbox link, by which time the moment of excitement / urgency of request would have passed. And possibly be considered no longer relevant.

In short, convenience won out.

This also raises a question about the importance of a curated set of images.

If I’m shooting to card on a dedicated camera, I’ll delete some images in situ if I consider them disappointing, before I even get to downloading. I’ll then do another edit and image selection later when I’m home, only keeping the best shots.

Often the ‘best’ ones are just those I’m fond of at the time – if I haven’t already deleted them, I’ll often come back years later and start preferring alternative images I’d originally discounted or overlooked.

When I’m not shooting ‘properly’, I’ll happily let my phone fill up with images until it tells me that if I don’t create some space by deleting existing files then various apps and functions will go on the fritz. I’ll then do it begrudgingly, just so I can continue viewing vintage synthesizer demos on Instagram.

If social media and private apps are where most of my images ‘live’ these days, then convenience is king. Maybe I need to go on less vacations and spend more time with my dedicated camera instead, to rekindle the creative spark.

You might also like…

Check out the best travel cameras and the best lenses for travel photography.

Peter Parker is arguably the most famous fictitious photographer to grace the silver screen.

While complicated comic-book continuity and the evolution of the character mean he’s not always working as a plucky photojournalist, the most well-known incarnation of the character is with camera in hand, supplying the repugnant J Jonah Jameson with exclusive Spidey pics for the Daily Bugle.

When it comes to Peter Parker’s many big-screen adventures, he can be seen wielding a wide variety of cameras from the likes of Nikon, Canon and even Yashica.

However – very small *SPOILER ALERT* – Tom Holland’s most recent MCU portrayal isn’t a photographer and, despite some fans hoping he’d finally pick up a camera in Spider-Man: Brand New Day, alas Peter is still cameraless.

The Amazing Spider-Man (1977)

The web-crawler’s first feature-length outing was in 1977’s The Amazing Spider-Man, starring Nicholas Hammond as the titular character. This was a straight-to-TV outing in the US, but was released in cinemas in other countries.

According to YouTuber Azriel Knight, this version of Spidey carried an all-black Nikon F2. But if you thought that would be the only film camera to feature in Peter’s arsenal, think again…

Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy (2002-2007)

I’m a child of the Nineties, so Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films are firmly within my era. My mom took me to the cinema to see Tobey Maguire’s debut outing as the webslinging superhero, and I’ve seen it countless times since, but the real treat was 2004’s Spider-Man 2.

I still consider this sequel to be one of the best superhero films ever made and, if you’ve not seen it, Alfred Molina’s Doc Ock might just be the best Marvel supervillain to grace the big screen. The less said about Spider-Man 3, though, the better…

Throughout Raimi’s trilogy, Peter is seen out and about with a camera an awful lot – but the manufacturer’s label is usually covered with black tape.

That said, I watched Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 again around Christmas, and I’m sure I noticed at least one moment where the Canon logo was visible. Still, the F-1 logo is very much visible, with Azriel Knight pointing out that it’s the Canon New F-1 released in 1981.

Tobey’s Spidey continued to shun digital tech throughout his tenure. And when Andrew Garfield took on the mantle in 2012’s excellent The Amazing Spider-Man and continued in 2014’s less-than-excellent The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Peter still hadn’t made the jump to digital. If anything, he’d gone backwards!

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Azriel Knight has identified the little film camera as the Yashica Electro 35 GSN, following a truly admirable amount of research and investigation (watch the video above to find out how he came to that conclusion). This Yashica is a rangefinder camera with aperture priority, released in 1971.

That brings us right up to Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If you ask me, it’s a real shame that Peter hasn’t yet returned to his roots and picked up a camera. After all, he’s been a photographer since The Amazing Spider-Man issue #2 way back in 1963!

You might also like...

Want more Marvel and camera links? Here are 8 Marvel movies shot on Canon cameras. For something a little more based in reality, here are 29 movies about real photographers. And if you're a vintage camera nerd, but film is simply too expensive, check out the best retro cameras.

It's over a century since the RMS Titanic sank in the North Atlantic, on April 15 1912, after striking an iceberg during its maiden voyage that resulted in the loss of over 1,500 lives.

And yet, this tragedy still has a hold over our collective consciousness. So much so, that even this much-circulated photo of a boy selling a newspaper announcing it will be instantly recognizable to many.

But who was this boy, stood outside the White Star Line's offices on Cockspur Street, just off Trafalgar Square in London, the following day, holding a placard reading "Titanic Disaster, Great Loss of Life"?

For most of the 20th century, he was simply known as "the newsboy." In fact, his name was Edward John Parfett – known to his friend as Ned. And unfortunately, this would not be the only time in his life that he was associated with tragedy.

The story of Ned

Born in 1896 to an Irish Catholic family, Parfett worked in construction before an injury pushed him into newspaper selling. He was around 15 or 16 when the Titanic photograph was taken, one of four brothers from Cornwall Road, Waterloo, who'd all eventually enlist for the First World War.

He joined the Royal Artillery in 1916, first as a dispatch rider, later moving to reconnaissance duties at the front. It was dangerous, exposed work – and Parfett was good at it.

He was mentioned in dispatches and awarded the Military Medal for gallantry, with an officer later writing that Parfett had accompanied him "on many occasions" through severe shelling and that he'd always placed "the greatest confidence in him".

Of the four Parfett brothers who served, three came home. Ned didn't. On October 29 1918, less than a fortnight before the end of the war, he was killed near Valenciennes when a shell hit the quartermaster's stores where he was collecting fresh clothes ahead of leave.

Had he survived another two weeks, he'd have been going home to England. He's buried at the British war cemetery in Verchain-Maugré in northern France.

A face that outlasted its name

The Titanic picture Ned is remembered for today did its job well, conveying the shock and grief of the moment far better than any headline. Yet Ned was never identified in the picture caption and, for decades, he remained an anonymous figure, even as the photo continued to circulate.

It took researchers and Parfett's own descendants, including his great-nephew Dominic Walsh, to finally identify Ned in the late Nineties; a soldier who'd been mentioned in dispatches and decorated for bravery, and who died in a war only a few years after the Titanic sank.

Oceanic House, where the picture was taken, is now home to a Tex-Mex restaurant. And the photographer? We still have no idea who they were.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best cameras for portraits along with the best cameras for street photography and reportage.

If there’s one thing I loathe about photography, it’s spying an image with great potential, but not quite having the right tools for the job. As much as it’s the photographer that makes the biggest difference, there are some photographic opportunities that simply cannot be maximized without having the right kit. And more often than not, it’s a specific lens.

That’s why everyday zooms are so popular. They afford photographers incredible versatility, so why am I still left wanting? Well, there has to be a compromise. Everyday standard zoom lenses tend to be small and affordable, and while image quality has skyrocketed in the mirrorless era, you still have to pay a price: speed and handling.

The cost of convenience

Speed is the most important factor when using a zoom lens. If you follow the reciprocal rule and beyond, even relatively short telephoto focal lengths can require fast shutter speeds, especially if you’re using a high-resolution camera. This means that if you’re not shooting in bright conditions, you’re often forced to boost your ISO so you can increase your shutter speed. And because these lenses are designed to be light and compact, they tend not to balance as well in the hand, making them even more prone to camera shake at the telephoto end.

The whole point of an everyday zoom is versatility, but that doesn’t mean you won’t find yourself compromising. Now, that’s not to say everyday zooms are bad. They are hugely popular and for good reason. If I’m out and about on holiday and I have no idea what I’m going to encounter, they’re fantastic. But when my goal is to capture the best images possible, I find myself gravitating towards prime lenses.

Embracing limitations

A prime is unforgiving. Sure, it’s versatile in the right hands, but it’s not as versatile as a zoom. And yet, that’s part of the charm. If I identify a scene with photographic potential and I’m using an everyday zoom, I’ll probably go for it, even if I can’t quite get close enough, or I have to boost my ISO sky high or wrestle with camera shake. I might also be less decisive, zooming in and out, moving around, taking picture after picture and struggling to move on.

But if I’m out and about with a prime lens and I see something off in the distance that I can’t reach or the angle of view isn’t right, I’ll simply move onto the next thing. It’s really liberating!

Maybe it’s just me, but something I struggle with when I’m out and about with my camera is the urge to photograph everything and spend less time actually thinking about what I’m doing. I find myself far less likely to slow down and consider each shot when I’m working with a zoom than I am with a prime. Prime lenses make me a more methodical photographer and a calmer photographer. Sure, I miss things, but I’m okay with that.

You might also like...

Check out the latest camera news. Plus, here are the best compact cameras and the best mirrorless cameras.

September 2026 marks a turning point for astrophotographers in the Northern Hemisphere. After months of short nights, darkness returns quickly after sunset, bringing longer and more comfortable observing windows. At the same time, the Milky Way’s bright core begins to slip away from the evening sky, making this a final opportunity to capture it until next spring. The month also features the equinox — often a time of auroral activity at northern latitudes — and the warm glow of the Harvest Moon.

Here’s everything you need to know about astrophotography in September 2026:

September 3: Moon and Pleiades

Look to the northeast just before midnight, and you'll see the Pleiades, a familiar sight of the winter night sky. Tonight, it will be flanked to the lower left by a 54%-lit waning gibbous moon.

Read: The best cameras for astrophotography

September 4-15: Dark sky window

With new moon on September 10, the preceding week offers some of the darkest skies since spring. This is your final realistic opportunity in 2026 to capture the Milky Way’s core in the evening sky from mid-northern latitudes. Look southeast after dusk to find the brightest region low on the horizon, gradually sinking earlier each night. A wide-angle lens, fast aperture (f/2.8), ISO 1600–3200 and exposures of 10-20 seconds will capture the structure of the Milky Way, though a star tracker will reveal extra detail.

Read: The best star tracker camera mounts

September 7: Moon and Mars

Are you ready for a couple of very early starts? Rise an hour before sunset today, and you’ll have a chance to capture a beautiful 19%-lit waning crescent moon just a few degrees from Mars. Shining in the northeast, they’ll be close to Castor and Pollux, the two brightest stars in the constellation Gemini.

Read: When to photograph the moon

September 8: Moon, the Beehive Cluster and Jupiter

A delicate 11%-lit waning crescent moon will this morning sit across one of the most beautiful open clusters of stars in the night sky. The Beehive Cluster is a cluster of around 1,000 stars in the constellation Cancer. Below the pair will be Jupiter, shining brightly.

Read: 10 must-shoot events for astrophotographers in 2026

//IMAGE//

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/traditional-rorbu-during-the-northern-lights-royalty-free-image/1618263208

CAPTION: The Northern Lights often surge around the equinox. (Image credit: Roberto Moiola / Sysaworld via Getty Images)

Tuesday, 22 September: Equinox and aurora

The September equinox marks the official start of autumn or fall in the Northern Hemisphere and brings nearly equal day and night. For astrophotographers, it signals the return of longer nights, but it’s also the perfect time for heightened auroral activity. Sure, you can wait for unusually high activity that produces faint aurora above the U.K. or U.S., but if you’re set on actually seeing the Northern Lights, consider a trip to the auroral oval, where aurora is very common after dark. Head to the Arctic Circle in Alaska, northern Canada or northern Scandinavia (Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland).

Read: Northern Lights photography: tips and techniques for stunning images

September 26: Full ‘Harvest Moon’ rises

September’s full moon is the Harvest Moon, the full moon closest to the equinox. Although tonight is the best night to capture it (not least because it’s very close to Saturn), it actually rises close to sunset for several nights in a row, making it ideal for repeated attempts at moonrise photography. As always, the best time to shoot is at moonrise, when the moon appears largest and most colorful. Use a long lens (200–600mm) to capture detail or incorporate a foreground subject for scale. Do some rigorous sun and moon planning to capture it.

Read: How to photograph the full moon

Astrophotography shot of the month: Zodiacal light

Mid-September brings an opportunity to image the famed zodiacal light. In the days around the equinox, look east before dawn for a faint triangular glow rising from the horizon. It’s sunlight scattered by dust between Mars and Jupiter.

The best time to capture it will be any clear night from around September 9-22. However, you will need a very dark site — use a light pollution map or find a Dark Sky Place. Once in position, capture is the same as for the Milky Way: use a wide-angle lens on a tripod, ISO 1600-3200, and exposures of 15-25 seconds. Zodiacal light is subtle, but your camera will find it. Just don’t forget about composition.

Read more:

• Astrophotography tools: the best camera, lenses and gear

• The best lenses for astrophotography

• The best star tracker camera mounts

South African photographer Chris Fallows became interested in wildlife when he was a youngster and started taking photographs of marine life when he was a teenager.

Best known for his photographs of great white sharks and marine animals, which are captured with a fine-art aesthetic, Fallows was runner-up in the General – Black & White category of 2025's Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum International Photography Award (HIPA) competition.

His low-angle black-and-white shot of a herd of elephants in Kenya's Amboseli National Park certainly chimed with the 'Power' theme of the awards.

Fallows' breakthrough photo was taken at sea, however, where he spends most of his time.

'Air Jaws', a great white shark breaching the waves at South Africa's Seal Island, was captured in 1996 and set him on the path to global recognition.

He prizes a minimalistic look and feel, and the resulting work lends itself to being displayed at scale – including public spaces like Times Square in New York City and Dubai International Airport.

Fallows sells large prints of his pictures, and invests the proceeds in conservation projects.

"Certain subjects are really strong for black-and-white photos," says Fallows. "On the ocean, I like to shoot into a choppy sea state that gives that mood and really powerful feel when you apply black and white processing to it."

Fallows spends a lot of time at sea, and we spoke to him following a spell working off the South African coast where he photographed 304 humpback whales in one day – a world record.

So let's find out more about the man, and his marine photography…

Find out more

Discover more about Chris and Monique Fallows' art and conservation work or to find ways to collaborate with them, go to www.chrisfallows.com or follow Chris on Instagram at @chrisfallowsphotography

Read more in Digital Camera magazine

A longer version of this interview appears in issue 311 (September 2026) of Digital Camera magazine.

Every issue of Digital Camera magazine is packed with tips, techniques, pro advice, reviews, news and inspiration.

Don’t forget that you can subscribe to Digital Camera magazine and get the magazine delivered to your door every month. Choose between a print or digital subscription, or a bundle of the two.

All subscribers to Digital Camera magazine can now access digital back issues dating from 2009 (when using iOS) or 2012 (when using the Pocketmags Magazine Newsstand app or the Pocketmags website).

You can buy limited back issues of Digital Camera magazine in print at our Magazines Direct secure store.

Alternatively, there is a range of different digital options available, including:

• Apple app (for iPad or iPhone)
• Zinio app (multi-platform app for desktop or smartphone)
• PocketMags (multi-platform app for desktop or smartphone)
• Readly (digital magazine subscription service)

Chris Burkard says that sometimes getting ready for the shoot is half the battle – but there are a few pieces of gear that the adventure photographer always has in his bag.

In a quirky video series for Sony Alpha’s YouTube Channel, Burkard kits out a new photographer as if he’s building a character inside of a video game. The humorous short starts with weather-appropriate clothing, including closed-toed shoes, a puffer jacket, and a rain shell oversized enough to tuck a camera inside in the event of a downpour.

Burkard is a Sony Artisan of Imagery and, naturally, as part of Sony’s ambassador program, the photographer isn’t shy about sharing what gear he uses. He’s previously shared kits that include three mirrorless cameras along with a compact camera and several lenses. But the video shares some insight into what kit Burkard would build for a more streamlined setup, along with what lens is always in his bag, and what lens is his favorite.

The lens that Burkard says is "always in my bag" is a 24-70mm f/2.8 workhorse zoom – more specifically, he uses Sony’s second generation of the workhorse, the Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II. The second generation improves the workhorse lens’ handling with a lighter design and more robust weather-sealing, while also improving sharpness and reducing chromatic aberration.

His favorite lens, however, is even wider than that workhorse: the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II. DCW Reviews Editor Gareth Bevan noted that the second-generation lens isn’t just lighter and more compact than the original, but is also sharper, with noticeable improvements in distortion and vignetting.

Beyond those two favorites, the streamlined kit that Burkard builds finishes what’s commonly referred to as the “holy trinity” of lenses, adding the Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II to the trio of zooms in the kit.

Burkard chooses just one prime lens for the streamlined kit: the Sony FE 24mm f/1.4 GM, which he says he grabs for night photography and a shallower depth of field than the f/2.8 zooms.

As for the camera body, Burkard builds the kit around the Sony A7R V, which the photographer calls his “high-resolution workhorse for shooting landscapes in the field.” While Sony now has the newly launched A7R VI, the A7R V remains available at a lower price point than the latest model.

The video is part of a new Sony and Burkard video collab, Inside, Out There, a series of short videos that’s about “learning to see the world with more intention.”

You may also like

For more insight, browse the best Sony E-Mount lenses or the best Sony cameras.

The camera market is a period of slowdown, according to Japan-based industry-watcher CIPA – which collates official data direct from a host of major retailers, so knows its stuff.

Yet I find it interesting that the two categories bucking the downward trend are, firstly, interchangeable lens cameras with sensors smaller than full frame – which we can interpret as being APS-C and Micro Four Thirds cameras – and, secondly, fixed lens compact cameras.

The fact that larger-sensor full-frame and medium format cameras are experiencing reduced demand isn’t all that surprising.

Despite cutting-edge performance, these are typically the highest-priced models on the market, appealing to monied enthusiasts and professional photographers. So, they are always going to be more niche products compared with consumer-level snapshots at pocket-money prices.

On top of this, there are typically longer gaps between new iterations when it comes to such flagship models. And it could be argued that technology in this category – combining subject-recognizing, AI-guided autofocus with 100MP sensors – has peaked.

In short, when it comes to full frame or medium format, I’m not desperately wanting anything greater, faster or higher resolution than I already have. I think the manufacturers recognize this, too.

In comparison, there has been more activity and many more thousands of words written around fixed lens compacts of late, focusing on how they’ve been discovered by a younger crowd seeking an ‘authentic’ yet fun, nostalgic alternative to shooting on camera phone.

Falling into this category are not just affordable, licensed Kodak cameras (which have, against all reviewers’ rhyme and reason, snuck onto the bestseller lists), but also (slightly) more ambitious models including the Panasonic Lumix L10, Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark III and Ricoh GR series.

Unlike larger sensor cameras, then, it feels that in this category there is something for everyone at present. And when you introduce or invite everyone to experience a product series, you get more sales – simple.

The appeal and relative popularity of smaller sensor mirrorless models alongside these is slightly more of a head-scratcher – aside from the fact that they, too, are a more affordable and accessible entry point for fledgling photographers than their full-frame brethren. As well as being a lot more portable and easier to handle generally.

There’s still a lot to be said for convenience. It’s not always the pinnacle of a technology that appeals to the greatest number of people, but the one that is simply ‘good enough’.

If camera manufacturers want to reverse the across-the-board slowdown in shipments and sales, perhaps they too should bear that in mind.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best point-and-shoot cameras around right now, and see if they take your fancy more than the best full-frame mirrorless cameras.

Almost every photographer has watched someone else get the credit for a picture they actually took.

Usually it's a minor issue: a mistyped byline, a client who thanks the wrong assistant. But in May 1919, it happened on a scale that reshaped our understanding of the entire universe – and the person who ended up with the glory wasn't the one holding the camera that mattered.

Above you can see a publicity still from the 2008 BBC film, Einstein and Eddington, with David Tennant (Dr Who, God Omens) playing English astrophysicist and mathematician Sir Arthur Eddington and Andy Serkis (The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars) playing Albert Einstein.

It's a fair summary of how the story has been told over the last hundred years: two great men, staring down the camera in front of a blackboard, working the problem out together.

And yet the photograph that settled the argument wasn't actually taken by either of them.

A tale of two expeditions

Eddington travelled to the island of Príncipe, off the west coast of Africa, to photograph the total solar eclipse of May 29 1919 and measure whether starlight bent as it passed the Sun, as Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted.

He sat out a tropical storm that didn't clear until an hour before totality, then changed 16 photographic plates blind through drifting cloud, unable to see whether he was capturing anything usable at all.

Only a pair of his plates turned out good enough to measure, and even those gave a fairly loose result: a deflection of about 1.61 arcseconds, with an error margin wide enough that on its own, it wouldn't have persuaded sceptics.

Thankfully for science, a decisive image came from the other side of the Atlantic. Andrew Crommelin and Charles Davidson of the Royal Greenwich Observatory had travelled to Sobral in Brazil to photograph the same eclipse, as insurance against exactly the kind of weather Eddington ran into.

Their trip didn't go particularly well, either. Their main telescope was ruined by heat that warped its mirror mid-shoot and blurred every star image into a smear.

It was their spare, a smaller 4-inch instrument brought along purely as a backup, that produced the sharpest plates of the entire project: a deflection of 1.98 arcseconds, with an error margin roughly a quarter the size of Eddington's.

That was the shot that actually proved Einstein's theory right. The whole project, though, came to be known as 'The Eddington experiment'.

Technically, that wasn't actually incorrect.

Eddington and the astronomer Frank Dyson – the primary architect of the venture – designed the test and organized both expeditions. Eddington was the one who stood up at the Royal Society in November 1919, told the room that the numbers backed Einstein, and then wrote the popular accounts.

He had the better personal story, too: a Quaker who'd risked prosecution as a conscientious objector during the First World War, and spent those years teaching himself a German physicist's theory that almost nobody in Britain would read.

Crommelin and Davidson, by comparison, were Greenwich Observatory staff doing a job – and they don't appear as characters in the BBC drama at all.

Admittedly that made the script easier for viewers to follow, but it does seem a little unfair all the same. And it especially stings for any working photographer who's seen the same pattern on collaborative shoots.

Often, the name that ends up on the results is the one attached to the idea and the presentation – not necessarily the one who pressed the shutter on the shots that are used.

Eddington obviously deserves credit for designing this groundbreaking experiment and for having the nerve to run it at all.

But the photograph that proved Einstein right came out of a spare telescope in Brazil, operated by two men whose names many people reading this article will never have heard of. Andrew Crommelin and Charles Davidson: let's remember them now.

Einstein and Eddington is streaming now on Max (formely HBO Max) and Amazon Prime in the US, and has been released worldwide by BBC DVD.

Cameras that we dismissed as inadequate at the time now coming back exactly because they fall short of perfection? I think the world’s gone mad.

Considering they’ve had a smartphone in hand since birth, the current teenage and twentysomething obsession with ‘vintage’ digital cameras is particularly puzzling. That’s whether we’re talking Panasonic Lumix, Nikon Coolpix and Fujifilm FinePix snappers sourced via eBay, or newer, licensee-badged ‘Yashica’, ‘Minolta’ or ‘Kodak’ cameras.

It would have been mum and dad’s generation that considered dedicated digital cameras a must-have – back when they were twentysomethings themselves and camera phones were in their infancy.

Back then, let’s say the early 2000s, musical ‘flash mobs’ were all the rage. Due to short notice, I only had my phone on me when I headed to Covent Garden to catch US rock band Jane’s Addiction – a group that had previously split up at their festival-headlining height – perform to a hastily assembling ‘crowd’ of 10, maybe 20 people.

Though I witnessed something very special indeed, the blurred, pixellated images I got with my early handset were so bad that I deleted them afterwards in embarrassed disappointment.

Fast-forward a couple of decades and, evidently, I should have held on to them. Not only because Jane’s Addiction has again dissolved, but because unsharp, rough-and-ready imagery – a far cry from the AI-enhanced results delivered by the latest phones – is exactly what the kids want.

Because I’ve tested the latest Kodak and Yashica-branded compacts, now elbowing aside more sophisticated, fixed-lens alternatives from Canon, Panasonic and Ricoh in the bestseller lists, I know that their essence and picture quality remains unchanged from what a cheap, snapshot camera provided 20 years ago.

Granted, there is still demand for the PowerShot, Lumix and GR digital ranges from discerning photographers. But what is currently available here is priced around a grand. These aren’t pocket money-priced, impulse buys.

Potentially to their detriment, bigger, more traditional manufacturers haven’t pursued the stack 'em high, sell 'em cheap sales method (I’d almost forgotten that digicams were once staples of supermarket shelves) embraced by cheaper Chinese imports for years.

But that’s exactly what the current generation is asking for. That demand is not just based on anecdotal evidence – and watching my daughter’s friends go wide-eyed at her own vintage digicam – but reflects hard, current sales data from Japanese camera industry watcher CIPA.

While, as a camera reviewer, I’ve automatically compared any new tech with the very best of what I’ve experienced prior, a lot of the current discourse talks of quality being ‘good enough’. Not the best, but something acceptable.

That a badly shot and exposed image is now deemed ‘authentic’ – as in so bad, it’s authentic – is a further unexpected twist.

Kids today, eh? Continuing to confound, perplex and confuse parental expectations.

You might also like...

Take a look at the best compact cameras and the best point and shoot cameras around today.

Imagine it’s 1996. In the camera business, the runaway success story is the stylish-looking Canon Elph – an APS film camera that quickly becomes one of the best-selling compact cameras of any type, at least in the USA.

Although the new APS film system receives enormous publicity, 35mm cameras still account for the vast majority of camera sales.

One of the biggest sellers continues to be Canon's inexpensive, autofocus Sure Shot series of 35mm compacts, because they offer autofocus, built-in flash and a competitive price of around $100–150, Kodak’s Advantix APS series and the Olympus Stylus 35mm models round out the pack.

In SLRs, Canon had become the leading manufacturer by the mid-1990s – and its Rebel G (known as the EOS 500N in Europe) is a major reason. But Nikon’s N50 (sold as the F50 in Europe) competes directly with the Rebel and sells in substantial numbers, too.

Remember, it’s 1996 and digital cameras make up less than 1% of camera sales. In '96, the market leaders are Canon’s PowerShot 600 (0.57 megapixels), Sony’s DSC-F1 (0.35 megapixels) and Kodak’s DC120 (0.84 megapixels). Most are powered by AA batteries, all have small (typically 1/3in) CCD-type sensors and all sell for between $900 and $1,000.

And then there was the Leica S1.

At a time when Leica’s M6, Nikon’s F5 and Canon’s F1N reigned supreme, it was said that the resolution of Kodachrome 25 was equivalent to a digital resolution of between 20 and 25 megapixels (depending on who you asked).

Yet, in an age where nobody had yet managed to offer a true, 1-megapixel camera, the Leica S1 offered an unbelievable (but true) 26.4-megapixel photographs! There was, however, a big catch: it was a scanning camera that could not take a photograph in the conventional sense.

Introduced at the 1966 Photokina, though not available until the next spring, the incredible Leica S1 was like no other camera ever made. Certainly like no other camera made in the 1990s.

The lens projected the image onto the 36 x 36 mm focal plane and a precision stepper motor slowly moved the sensor across the image plane. The sensor itself had three parallel rows, with each row being sensitive to one of the primary colours.

Each row contained 5,140 photosites, spanning the full 36mm width of the image. After roughly 5,140 scanning steps (and 185 seconds), the complete image measured 5,140 x 5,140 pixels or 26.4 megapixels.

Because each sensor row recorded each color separately, no Bayer filter was needed and colors did not need to be interpolated. Thus, the system offered exceptionally accurate color with virtually no moiré, no false color artifacts and remarkably fine detail.

It was a studio-only camera intended for museums, art galleries, advertising photography and anything else that required absolutely top quality work of static subjects, where speed was not so important.

To function, it was powered by an external (plug-in) power supply – and it needed to be connected to a computer, as it had no internal memory or storage card. I guess you’d properly call it a camera plus high-end scanner hybrid.

It featured a clever, interchangeable lens mount, so optics from Leica, Nikon, Canon and others could be used, making it more attractive to organizations that might already have a set of lenses.

Although the distinctive sweeping metal “arms” were intended to help aim the bulky beast, it would usually be found mounted on a heavy tripod or copy stand as it weighed approximately 7.9lbs / 3.6kg, without a lens!

Some say that as many as 1,500 S1 cameras were made but, according to Leica’s own records, only about 160 complete S1-series cameras (including the Alpha, Pro and High Speed variants) are believed to have been manufactured, making it one of the rarest Leica cameras ever built. Almost all were sold to museums, universities and other such organizations.

New, it cost $21,500 (or roughly $43,000 / £24,800 / AU$66,900 today). For comparison, the Nikon F5 sold for $2,000 and the Canon EOS-1N was $2,500 at the time.

But the Leica S1 was not meant to compete with other cameras. It filled just one function, but it filled it better than anything else at the time – making spectacular, high-resolution digital images at a time it was simply not possible any other way.

Read more of David Young's ongoing series on classic cameras, as well as his book A Brief History of Photography.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best Leica cameras and the highest resolution cameras you can buy today.

AI is apparently coming for everything. Cameras can now recognize subjects before you've even decided what you're photographing, phones can remove strangers from the background of your vacation photos and apparently even spotting scopes are getting clever.

But just how smart are these so-called smart birding optics? Having spent a month with the GoBirding Vision Master APL-ETF-M1, I decided there was only one scientifically rigorous way to find out: try to make it identify something that wasn't actually a bird.

The Vision Master is a seriously clever bit of kit. It's a smart AI spotting scope that can recognize real birds through its built-in identification system, with more than 1,500 species available directly on the device and even more when connected to the GoBirding app.

In normal use you simply press the AI button, position your feathered subject inside the red box that appears on-screen, and within a few seconds it'll tell you what you're looking at. That's all very impressive, but naturally my next thought was: what happens if I cheat?

So I went hunting for fake birds. Not particularly convincing fake birds, either. I tried cuddly toys, teddy birds and various artificial bird-shaped objects that, to a human being from a reasonable distance, could at least vaguely pass for something with wings.

I even recruited a seagull-shaped figure that my own daughter made out of paper plates while at kindergarten for the experiment. Surely, I thought, somewhere inside all that clever AI was an algorithm just waiting to see a beak, two wings and roughly the correct silhouette before confidently announcing that my dog's toy was a herring gull.

Nope.

Again and again, I put my fake feathered army in front of the Vision Master, pressed the AI identification button and waited for my triumphant "gotcha" moment. It never arrived!

The scope simply wasn't interested. Teddy bird? No. Cuddly seagull? Nope. Artificial bird scarer? Still no. I repositioned them, changed angles and generally behaved like someone who had suddenly developed a worrying obsession with proving that a stuffed animal was wildlife. The Vision Master refused to play along.

Rather embarrassingly, the only thing successfully fooled during this experiment was me. What impressed me is that the Vision Master clearly isn't just searching for something vaguely bird-shaped before throwing a species name onto the screen.

There appears to be considerably more happening behind the scenes, analyzing enough visual information to distinguish an actual bird from the sort of thing you'd find in a pet shop or hanging above somebody's vegetable patch.

Of course, this isn't an ISO-certified scientific examination of artificial intelligence. My testing equipment consisted largely of toys and an unreasonable determination to catch the Vision Master making a mistake.

But it does demonstrate why AI identification inside smart optics could become genuinely useful rather than simply another feature that manufacturers can print on a box. When I pointed the Vision Master toward actual birds during my month of testing, identification was impressively fast. When I deliberately pointed it toward impostors, it knew something wasn't right.

And that's perhaps the biggest compliment I can give it. I went into this little experiment hoping for a funny photograph of the GoBirding Vision Master confidently identifying a stuffed seagull as some exotic coastal species. Instead, I came away even more impressed by the technology.

Smart birding optics are still relatively new, and I'm sure somebody, somewhere, will eventually find something ridiculous enough to confuse one. But after spending far too much time waving fake birds in front of the GoBirding Vision Master, I'm admitting defeat.

The birds were fake. The intelligence apparently wasn't!.

Read the Review

If you've enjoyed this slightly weird experiment and want to learn more about this AI spotting scope, I highly recommend taking a look at our full GoBirding Vision Master review for more details

In the days following the announcement of the Capture the Dark 2026 winners, the conversation has shifted from commendation to controversy. It turns out that this year, the competition organizer – DarkSky International, a global NGO advocating for reduced light pollution – recognized images that broke its rules.

The controversy started on August 14, just a day after the winners’ announcement, when disgruntled entrant Raaber Way took to Facebook to condemn the results. And it wasn't long before photography news outlets came across the astrophotographer's post, amplifying the news.

While there’s never some grand conspiracy behind a dodgy photo competition ruling, nor “goodies” nor “baddies,” there are, unfortunately, the rule-abiding photographers who never get their fair shot at recognition.

And from an organization as influential within the astrophotography community as DarkSky International, recognition can have a massive impact on a photographer’s prospects. So it’s for the photographers who entered justly, but were pipped by the offending images, that I write this.

In his Facebook post, Way drew attention to one of the winning images and a runner-up that undoubtedly broke the rules.

These were The Chasm by Tom Rae, an ethereal shot of a cave illuminated by glowworms beneath the Milky Way sky, which won the Creatures of the Night category, and A Dialogue Between Space and Human Light by Mikel Iraeta, an epic depiction of a lighthouse beaming beneath cosmic ecstasy, which placed second in the Impact of Light Pollution category.

The specific rule these composite images broke was that they combined separate exposures taken at different focal lengths.

Capture the Dark allows techniques widely used in astrophotography, including stacking, tracking, panoramas and blending multiple exposures. But all exposures used to create a single submission must be captured at the same focal length.

When the NGO announced its winners, it also released the technical settings used by each photographer – and Way was the first to spot that both Rae and Iraeta had used two different lenses with different focal lengths.

Now, I don’t for one second believe that Rae or Iraeta set out to cheat their way to victory – and I still think that their creations are great works of art. In fact, a few days ago I wrote a piece highlighting the incredible story of how Rae rappelled 330 feet (100m) into the cave to capture his shot.

Even if I knew this image had broken the rules, I still would’ve written that piece. I would’ve highlighted that this was the case, but the story of the daring photographic feat would’ve remained an incredible one regardless.

The fact remains, however, that by DarkSky International’s own rules, both of these images should have been disallowed. Not only were they allowed, but they went on to gain widespread recognition at the expense of two other truly deserving photographers who stuck to the rules.

DarkSky International certainly isn't the bad guy for this but, in my eyes, it has let the astrophotography community down, despite the response it gave on Way’s Facebook post.

In short, the NGO said that it has “heard” the concerns and questions this controversy has raised, but “stands by” its elected winners. To me, the public statement reads more like one of those corporate “admissions” of guilt that uses a lot of jargon without actually saying, “we messed up”.

If my two cents is worth anything, a public apology with a re-election is in order from the organizers. While I agree with them when they say that they’re “only human” and humans make mistakes, humans also admit when they make mistakes and do their best to rectify them.

This would go a long way toward helping the photographers who, per the rules, are deserving of a spot in this year's top three for the Creatures of the Night and Impact of Light Pollution categories, respectively.

And while we’ll never know who the two photographers are that should have, whoever you are, just know that your efforts haven’t gone unnoticed.

You might also like…

Here’s Jame Carter, our expert astrophotographer’s, pick of the best cameras for astrophotography.

Meet the ‘new’ camera, same as the old camera.

Yes, trends come and go – and come back again – and reviving old ideas isn’t always bad. There’s a reason something worked well in the first place, even if it was subsequently deemed surplus to requirements prior to being revived.

Using existing camera bodies and tech is also profitable, avoiding the need for fresh R&D time, expense and guesswork.

And yet it seems, of late, that many of our favourite camera companies’ ideas aren’t just recycled: they’re actively worse than the originals – while delivering an additional punch in the gut for photographers by being more expensive with it.

We’ve seen it so far this year with reissue of the six-year-old PowerShot G7 X Mark III, Canon’s only photographer-focused compact of 2026, in a special 30th anniversary edition, leading to cries of ‘Is that it?’

At the same time, Panasonic’s ‘new’ travel zoom compact, the Lumix TZ300 / ZS300, is identical to the TZ200 before it, yet at the same time worse. Frustratingly, it’s jettisoned an eye-level electronic viewfinder – just like the series-reviving TZ99 / ZS99 the previous year.

And don’t get me started on whether its lauded Lumix L10, itself recycling ideas from Panasonic's LX100 series, last seen in 2018, qualifies as the zeitgeist-y compact camera its manufacturer claims it is.

And that’s just those who have released cameras in 2026. At the time of writing, I’ve yet to see anything new, old or recycled from Nikon or OM System (no, I’m not counting the astrophotography-enhanced OM-3 Astro variant).

I could also add in that there’s been nothing new from Fujifilm’s X or GFX ranges – if dismissing various Instax launches as revenue generators with an accent on fun, rather than serious photographic tools. Which I think is fair.

Yes, there is a camera market slowdown happening currently. There is a shortage of memory chips, too. The two facts are related. And they’re pushing up prices. At the same time, more people have less money in their pockets to spend than before.

So, I can see why camera companies are looking to make savings and are either electing to currently release nothing at all – or, alternatively, having a root around in whatever their equivalent of the back of the cupboard is and finding old gear to reissue with minimal tweaking.

I just miss the days when there was something new and genuinely exciting to write about – and when each new launch was a cause to learn a whole new, brain-expanding, technological vocabulary.

Come on, camera companies – surprise us!

You might also like…

New or "new" or not, take a look at the best mirrorless cameras and best compact cameras currently on the market.

I recently wrote an article condemning a misleading UK government pamphlet for asylum seekers released by the Home Office that says you shouldn’t photograph or video anyone in a public space without their permission or risk being arrested. This is because UK law does not prohibit the capture of images in public places. That said, there are exceptions, including image capture for commercial use and behaviors that stray into other unlawful activities such as, but not limited to, harassment.

But photography in public places remains a contentious subject. It’s not uncommon for photographers to be approached in public spaces and told they’re breaking the law. And the aforementioned pamphlet is doing nothing to quell this misinformation.

What I’ve always found interesting about taking photographs in public places is the disparity between camera phones and dedicated cameras. In my experience, people are inherently more suspicious of a highly visible, dedicated camera than they are of a phone. And the bigger the camera, the more suspicious they get.

Said suspicion is arguably misplaced. Let’s take the unlawful act of upskirting as an example. According to Nelson Guest & Partners Solicitors, a mobile phone is the most likely tool used to commit such offences, while a Crown Prosecution Service press release from 2021 also references the use of hidden cameras. This makes a lot of sense. If you’re up to no good, the last thing you want to do is draw attention to yourself.

So, if you’re new to street or travel photography, or have had a bad experience in the past, let me talk you through how I like to operate. At the end of the day, you cannot control how somebody reacts to your camera completely, but there are a few things you can do to help minimize the chance of a confrontation or quell it should it ever happen.

Street photography mindset and etiquette

I don’t like having my photo taken, so I try to be mindful about how the camera or the photograph would make other people feel. Although it’s legal to take photos in a public place in the UK, I think all photographers have a responsibility to behave in the best way possible.

I’ve said it before, but I’m no fan of the Bruce Gilden method, where you invade the subject’s personal space and get the shot. There’s arguably no entirely ethical practice for street photography, but for me, it’s about being as mindful and unexploitative as possible.

I don’t want the subject to appear or feel vulnerable. Whether the photograph is candid or not, you’re the one with the image, so it’s up to you to decide whether or not it should see the light of day. I would never photograph somebody crying, for example. Sometimes, you can just tell if somebody is happy to have their photo taken or not. If you’re getting the wrong vibe, don’t take the photo and move on.

Speaking of vulnerable persons, although it’s technically not illegal to photograph a minor in a public place, I tend to avoid it. The only exceptions would be if a parent has asked for a photo, or if the child is either too small in the frame or too obscured (like a silhouette) to be identified.

I also want there to be a reason why the photograph exists. For example, I will occasionally shoot from the hip as people walk past. I used this technique during a recent trip to New York City. Most of those images won’t ever see the light of day because they’re not saying anything. But the one that I did keep was of a man walking past with a New York City t-shirt. That t-shirt places the image and kind of becomes the star of the photo.

Staying positive and avoiding confrontation

In a lot of my street shots, subjects are turned away or simply too far away to be recognized, which I never have a problem with. However, another method I use is to simply make my presence very obvious by looking through the viewfinder. This gives people the opportunity to veer away or interact with the camera.

I was taking photos at a crossing, and this young woman walked into the frame and, upon seeing me with my camera, started smiling and threw up the peace sign. Clearly, she wasn’t deterred by the camera at all. Similarly, I once had a cyclist flip the bird with a cheeky smile as he flew by; unfortunately, I missed the shot, but it would have made a great photo.

Another neat method is to set up your frame and simply allow passersby to walk into it. They’ll soon veer off if they’re not happy. I also refrain from lingering too long. A lot of people are happy for street photographers to take a picture or two, but you don’t want to overstay your welcome.

And it might seem like a small thing, but you’d be surprised what a difference it makes if you capture street photography with a smile. If I look like I’m having fun, and people can see that I’m an enthusiast photographer, they tend to relax.

Finally, on those occasions where I have been approached, I always remain cheerful and calm. In my experience, telling somebody point blank that it’s not illegal to take photographs in a public place in the UK doesn’t help. In fact, it risks making matters worse. I prefer to engage with people as politely as possible, explain that I’m a hobbyist photographer, and talk to them about what I’m doing.

I’ll even show them some photographs on my Instagram or ask them if they take photos themselves. Usually, this is effective because most people just want to make sure your intentions are good. If a person does persist that they’re not happy or approach you in anger, it’s always best to simply swallow your pride, apologize and walk away. No photograph is worth putting yourself in harm’s way, and you’ll find plenty of other photographic opportunities around the corner.

This article provides general advice for photographers and does not constitute formal legal counsel.

You might also like...

Want more photography tricks? How to get started in street photography. Plus, here's the best camera for street photography and the best compact cameras.

I have always had a slightly complicated relationship with Leica's Q cameras. I loved shooting with the Leica Q2 Reporter when I reviewed it around its launch, and I have spent plenty of time with the Leica Q3 as well. Both are exceptional cameras in their own right, but there was always one thing stopping me from completely falling for them: that 28mm lens.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Leica's Summilux 28mm f/1.7 ASPH. In fact, optically it is superb, and on both the Q2 and Q3 it makes for an incredibly capable combination. The problem was simply me. At the time, I was almost exclusively a 50mm shooter, so moving to 28mm always felt like I was standing just a little too far away from the photograph I actually wanted to make. The camera was brilliant, but the way it saw the world did not quite match the way I did. The Q2 and Q3 could simulate longer focal lengths through their crop modes, but I always wanted that tighter field of view to be there optically from the start. Then, in September 2024, Leica threw something of a curveball.

Rather than simply updating the Q3 again or releasing another special edition, Leica launched the Q3 43. Fundamentally, it was the Q3 that people already knew, complete with its 60MP full-frame sensor, autofocus system and compact form, but on the front was something completely new: an APO-Summicron 43mm f/2 ASPH. fixed lens. Suddenly the Q was no longer a camera that effectively told you that 28mm was the Leica way of seeing the world. There was another choice. And for me, that changed everything.

I had always thought that if Leica produced a Q with something closer to a 50mm lens, it would make far more sense for the way I photograph. Leica did not quite give us 50mm, but I actually think its decision to go with 43mm was more interesting. The company reasoned that 43mm provides a perspective close to natural human vision, allowing the photographer to see something, raise the camera, and photograph it with relatively little change in perspective. Leica described the focal length as closely mirroring natural perception, and while arguments about exactly which focal length best represents human eyesight will probably continue forever, I completely understood what Leica was trying to achieve.

It also meant Leica did not simply take the existing Q3 and bolt a longer version of the same lens onto it. The APO-Summicron 43mm f/2 ASPH. gave the camera a completely different identity. Some photographers inevitably questioned why Leica had gone from the f/1.7 Summilux on the 28mm Q3 to an f/2 Summicron, but I think that misses the point slightly. This was an apochromatically corrected lens designed specifically for the Q3 43, and Leica clearly wanted outright optical performance as much as outright speed. The company says the lens was engineered to deliver high sharpness and contrast even at its maximum f/2 aperture. More importantly, it opened the Q system up to photographers like me.

Twenty-eight millimetres is fantastic for environmental work, travel, street photography and situations where you want to place a subject firmly within its surroundings. But not everybody sees photographs that way. Some of us naturally isolate things. We see a person across the road, a detail on a building or a moment happening slightly further into a scene and instinctively want to tighten the frame. With 43mm, the Q suddenly allowed you to do that without immediately reaching for a digital crop. That, I believe, is why the Q3 43 mattered far beyond being another Leica launch.

To be clear, Leica did not invent the idea of putting a more normal focal length onto a premium fixed-lens camera. Ricoh had already launched the Ricoh GR IIIx in 2021 with a 40mm-equivalent lens, specifically in response to photographers wanting an alternative to the 28mm GR III. What Leica did differently was take that idea into the very top end of the market and prove that photographers were prepared to spend serious money on it. I do not have Leica's internal sales figures, so I cannot tell you categorically how many Q3 43 bodies were sold compared with the regular Q3. But I can tell you what I saw.

Around the launch, getting hold of one appeared incredibly difficult. Stock disappeared, retailers had waiting lists, and for a while the Q3 43 seemed to be one of those cameras that people were desperate to find. Then something happened that really stuck with me. I was out shooting in London not long after launch and saw six Leica Q3 43 cameras being used in a single day. A week or so later, I saw another two being used on a beach in Cornwall.

Eight cameras might not sound remarkable when you are talking about Canon, Sony or Nikon, where thousands upon thousands of bodies are circulating. But eight examples of the same brand-new Leica, a camera costing several thousand pounds, appearing in front of me within roughly a week? That got my attention.

It suggested to me that the Q3 43 was reaching beyond the traditional Leica audience. These did not feel like cameras being bought simply because somebody wanted another Leica for the collection. The Q3 43 made sense as a standalone photographic tool, and I suspect it brought plenty of photographers into the Leica ecosystem who might never have considered an M camera or an interchangeable-lens SL. That is where I think its wider influence becomes particularly interesting.

Within months, the premium fixed-lens camera market suddenly felt far more important. Fujifilm unveiled the GFX100RF in March 2025, taking its 102MP large-format sensor and putting it into the first fixed-lens GFX camera. Its native lens remained a 28mm-equivalent design, so it was not copying the Q3 43's focal length, but the philosophy was remarkably familiar: take extremely high image quality, pair the sensor permanently with a carefully optimised prime lens and build the whole thing into a camera that photographers could carry without an interchangeable-lens system.

Then Sony returned to a category it had effectively left dormant for almost a decade. In July 2025, it launched the Sony RX1R III, combining a 61MP full-frame sensor with a fixed 35mm f/2 Zeiss lens. Sony even added Step Crop Shooting for 35mm, 50mm and 70mm framing, leaning heavily into the idea that a high-resolution sensor and one exceptional fixed prime could provide more flexibility than the words "fixed lens" might initially suggest.

Can I prove that Leica's Q3 43 caused Fujifilm to build the GFX100RF or persuaded Sony to resurrect the RX1R? No, and development cycles mean those cameras would almost certainly have been taking shape long before the Q3 43 reached customers. But I do think Leica helped validate where the market was heading. It showed there was serious appetite for an expensive, highly specialised camera that deliberately removed the choice of interchangeable lenses and instead concentrated on giving photographers one excellent way of seeing. That is an important distinction.

For years, camera development was largely about giving us more. More lenses, more focal lengths, more megapixels, more video modes, more autofocus modes and more buttons. Cameras like the Q3 43 work almost in the opposite direction. They give you an incredibly capable sensor and then deliberately restrict one of the biggest choices a photographer normally has. Here is your lens. Here is your field of view. Now go and make photographs. And photographers clearly embraced that.

Today, the situation is very different from those first frantic months after launch. In the UK, major retailers now show the Q3 43 either in stock or available in limited quantities rather than with the long waits that surrounded it early on. Park Cameras currently lists it as in stock, while Wex has recently shown limited stock. It has gone from being the Leica everybody appeared to be hunting for to an established part of the Q family.

I think that is perhaps the greatest compliment you can give it. The Q3 43 did not feel like a novelty that Leica produced simply because it could. It became a genuine alternative to the regular Q3. And that changed the conversation around fixed-lens cameras.

The question was no longer simply whether you could live with a fixed lens. It became which fixed lens you wanted.

That sounds like a small difference, but I think it is enormous. Leica effectively turned focal length into a model choice rather than a limitation. Instead of choosing between a compact camera and an interchangeable-lens camera, photographers could start choosing between different interpretations of the same compact-camera philosophy.

The original Q3 remains an incredible camera and, for photographers who naturally see the world at 28mm, it probably remains the better choice. But for those of us who always wanted to step slightly closer without physically doing so, the Q3 43 finally made the Q concept click.

I wanted a Q with a tighter lens for years. Leica eventually gave me one, just not quite the 50mm I expected. And in doing so, I think it helped reshape what the premium compact camera could be.

Shop Leica Q3 43

The memory crisis is showing no signs of stopping. For photographers and tech consumers alike, it’s an alarming time. I bought a Nintendo Switch 2 this month; I’d been mulling over the idea for a while, but an impending price increase strong-armed my decision. Then a colleague of mine bought an Apple MacBook Neo for his daughter’s birthday, and I was surprised to find it had increased by $100/£100.

All across the consumer tech industry, prices are increasing. And although the memory crisis isn’t solely to blame – tariffs, component shortages, and a rising cost of living – it’s having a huge impact. As a photographer, it’s especially worrying because we rely heavily on storage. Memory cards and SSD drives were expensive enough – now they’re through the roof!

But a strange byproduct of all this is that I now find what I once considered aging tech – the humble SD card – to be an absolute lifesaver. Don’t get me wrong, many SD card prices have risen exponentially, too. But they still pale in comparison to XQD and CFexpress prices.

Thankfully, all but the very pro-tier, flagship cameras tend to have either an SD card slot or a dual SD and CFexpress slot. And I have to wonder if that trend will continue as long as the memory crisis. It seems remarkable to me now that Nikon launched its full-frame mirrorless Z mount back in 2018, with two cameras that only contained a single XQD/CFexpress slot.

I mean, cameras are expensive enough as it is, but now the camera and the lens and the spare battery aren’t enough. You’ve got to spend $100/£100+ on a CFexpress card. Don’t get me wrong, CFexpress cards are certainly preferable to their SD card counterparts. They’re faster, more robust and more reliable. But they’re also a lot more expensive.

There is another angle, and that’s built-in storage. I’ve just recorded another episode of Bokeh Face: The Digital Camera World Podcast, and in our Gear Up section we talked about the Sigma BF. Not only is it a gorgeous-looking camera with some impressive specs, but it also doesn’t have a memory card slot. Instead, it has 230GB of internal memory.

Don’t get me wrong, a device with built-in memory isn't immune to the memory crisis, but at least you don’t have to worry about buying a collection of cards. And in 2026, a few CFexpress cards could set you back $400/£400+. That’s madness!

You might also like...

Want more of my ramblings? Orwellian UK government pamphlet contradicts police on photography law. Imagine if Martin Parr had been prevented from taking photos in public. Modern autofocus isn’t the cheat code everyone says it is – you can still miss regularly. “Vertical video is driving me INSANE” says sports videographer. And no, open gate isn’t necessarily the answer…

For years, I thought finding your photographic style was something that happened naturally. You shot enough pictures, used enough cameras, tried enough lenses and, eventually, there it was. Your look. Your voice. Something that made an image unmistakably yours. But for me, that moment only really arrived when I stopped shooting in color.

That decision was not some short-lived experiment either. I have now been shooting predominantly in monochrome for more than four years, and I genuinely have not looked back. What started as a creative change quickly became the way I wanted to see the world through a camera. The longer I have stuck with it, the more natural it has become, to the point where I often find myself seeing scenes in black and white before I even raise the camera to my eye.

That might sound strange coming from someone who spent years working as a professional sports photographer. Back then, color was fundamental to what I did. The colors of the shirts, the advertising boards, the floodlights, the crowd, and the atmosphere were all part of telling the story. Sports photography is about immediacy, and color helps place you right there in the moment. I never really questioned it because it was simply part of the job.

But my photography has changed considerably since then. These days, I am far more interested in documenting the world around me. I want to photograph ordinary places, people, buildings, landscapes and little fragments of everyday life that might not appear particularly important today, but could become incredibly important in 20, 30 or 50 years. And strangely, removing color from those photographs has made me see those subjects more clearly than ever before.

Once I committed myself to monochrome, I started looking at light differently. I began noticing shadows, textures, shapes, and contrast rather than whether the colors within a scene worked together. I have deliberately pushed towards a heavier, higher-contrast black-and-white style, with deep blacks and strong highlights, and it has completely changed the way I approach a photograph. Instead of simply recording what is in front of me, I find myself thinking much more about how the scene will translate into tones.

That change did not happen overnight. Over the past four years, my eye has gradually adapted to the way I now want my photographs to look. I notice strong shafts of light falling across a pavement, the separation between a dark coat and a pale wall, the texture of an old stone building or the way mist flattens a distant landscape. These are the things that now catch my attention, and in many ways I think monochrome has trained me to be more selective and more deliberate.

There is also something wonderfully timeless about monochrome photography. I can photograph something this morning and, under the right conditions, the resulting image could almost have been made 40 or 50 years ago. Obviously, the world leaves clues about when a photograph was taken – cars, clothes, road signs and architecture all give the game away eventually – but black and white somehow removes that immediate timestamp that color can bring. It turns a contemporary photograph into something that already feels slightly archival.

That timeless quality has become increasingly important to me because I no longer want my photographs simply to say, “this is what this place looked like today.” I want them to feel like records. I want someone to be able to look at them decades from now and see not just a location, but a way of life, a mood and a moment that no longer exists in quite the same way.

That is probably why monochrome increasingly feels more documentary to me. I know that is entirely subjective, and documentary photography certainly does not need to be black and white, but when I look at the photographers whose work I find myself returning to, there is often a simplicity and permanence that comes from stripping away color. James Ravilious is a particularly good example. His photographs of rural England were not simply beautiful images of the countryside; they became records of communities, working lives, and ways of living that were gradually changing around him.

That idea resonates enormously with how I want to photograph now. I live in a part of England where so much still feels connected to an older way of life, but I am also very aware that it will not remain that way forever. Old buildings disappear. Independent shops close. Farms change. Villages expand. Traditional pubs are refurbished beyond recognition or vanish altogether. The things we walk past every day without thinking can suddenly become historically significant the moment they are gone.

The modern world moves incredibly quickly, and that makes me want to photograph these things while they are still here. It might be an old sign painted onto the side of a building, a farmer working in a field, a village shop that has barely changed in decades, or simply the way people gather in a particular place. None of these things necessarily feel important when you are standing in front of them, but photography has a wonderful habit of making the ordinary valuable with the passing of time.

And that is where I think monochrome has given my photography a greater sense of purpose. I am no longer simply waiting for beautiful light and making a nice photograph of something because it looks attractive. I am trying to make a record of it. Shooting in black and white somehow encourages me to treat even the most ordinary subjects with a little more seriousness, as though I am creating an archive rather than simply filling a memory card.

There is another benefit too. Removing color removes a distraction. A bright red car, a fluorescent shop sign, or someone wearing an especially vivid jacket can completely dominate a color photograph, even when that was never what initially interested me about the scene. In monochrome, those elements become shapes and tones instead, allowing me to decide what really matters within the frame.

That simplicity has also made me much more confident in my editing. I am no longer endlessly tweaking color temperature, saturation, or individual hues, trying to make an image feel right. My decisions are now much more focused around contrast, exposure, and tonality. Do I want the shadows to fall into darkness? Should that highlight remain bright? Does the image need more separation between the subject and the background? Those choices feel far more connected to the photograph itself rather than simply its color palette.

Perhaps most importantly, monochrome has finally given me the photographic eye I have been searching for. I now recognize the scenes I want before I even lift the camera. Harsh afternoon shadows, mist hanging over a field, weathered stone, an old shopfront, someone standing in a doorway – I can almost see the finished black-and-white photograph before I press the shutter. That certainty was something I never really had when I was constantly thinking about color.

Four years of shooting this way have made that instinct stronger. There is a consistency to my work now that I had struggled to find before, and that consistency is probably the closest thing I have ever had to what people call a photographic style. It is not about applying the same preset to every image or making everything look identical. It is about consistently being drawn towards the same kind of light, the same textures, the same subjects, and the same atmosphere.

And perhaps that is the biggest lesson monochrome has taught me. Style is not something you necessarily manufacture. Sometimes it appears when you remove the things that are getting in the way.

I spent a long time believing that developing a style meant finding a particular camera, lens, focal length, or editing preset. For me, it turned out to be much simpler. I just had to remove something. I stopped shooting in color more than four years ago, and I have not looked back. In doing so, I finally started seeing the photographs I had wanted to make all along.

See our guide to the best cameras for black-and-white photography

Every photographer has, at some point, wished that their gear could do something it simply can't. You suddenly crave a shutter speed fast enough to freeze a hummingbird's wing, or a trigger quick enough to catch a water droplet at the exact moment of impact.

It's nice to fantasize for a few seconds, then most of us just shrug and get on with what we're doing. Eadweard Muybridge (1830-1904) didn't.

In 1878, faced with a question no one could answer, he built his own equipment from scratch. And in doing so, he built his own photographic system for capturing rapid movement in a sequence of split-second exposures – which went on to inspire an entirely new technology and art form.

The question was simple: does a galloping horse ever have all four hooves off the ground at once? Nobody could actually see the answer, because a horse's legs move too quickly for the human eye to resolve. It had become a surprisingly contentious question.

Industrialist and racehorse owner Leland Stanford hired Muybridge – an England-born landscape photographer with no formal training in engineering – in 1872 to prove it.

He did so by building a tool that could actually answer the question, once and for all. He didn't wait for better technology to arrive. He made his own.

How it worked

Muybridge lined up 12 cameras along a racetrack in Palo Alto, California. Each was aimed at a whitewashed backdrop marked with measurement lines. He stretched fine threads across the track at chest height, each one wired to a shutter release.

As the horse ran, her body snapped the threads one by one, firing each camera at the precise instant she reached it. As a solution, the word "ingenious" springs to mind.

He knew no human reflex was fast enough to time the shots by hand, so he removed the human reaction time from the equation. The underlying idea feels remarkably familiar today: let the subject trigger the camera rather than relying on a human to press the shutter.

The only difference between his version and modern iterations was that the former was built from wood, thread and springs – not infrared sensors.

The other challenge was exposure time. In 1878, a typical exposure ran to several seconds. Muybridge needed something closer to 1/1000sec. So he built his own spring-driven shutter mechanism to get there, pushing his glass plates and chemistry to their limits.

To say this was a huge technological leap feels like understatement.

What the photos proved

When the plates came back, they answered the question definitively: a galloping horse does lift completely off the ground.

The airborne moment happens when the legs are gathered tightly underneath the body, mid-stride, a position nobody had ever realized despite watching horses run for thousands of years. What a tribute to the power of photography.

Muybridge could have stopped there. Instead, he built the zoopraxiscope, a spinning glass disk that flashed his sequence of images in quick succession, blending them into the illusion of a galloping horse projected on a wall. Thomas Edison saw the device in action and the rest is history.

(While cinema still needed flexible film and years more invention from others, Muybridge's homemade rig was clearly the start of things to come.)

The lesson for us today? I'd say it's this. The next time you're trying to get a shot and your equipment isn't up to it, don't think: 'Shall I upgrade?' Think: 'How can I work around this problem?' The lateral thinking that can lead to is not only fun, it might change the way you approach photography in the future.

And maybe, just maybe, it might change the world of photography itself.

Just over two weeks after the total solar eclipse of August 12, 2026, eclipse season will deliver a second act. On the night of August 27-28, a very deep partial lunar eclipse will see Earth's shadow cover more than 96% of the moon's visible surface. Although it falls just short of totality — and a so-called “blood moon” moment — the eclipse will be deep enough to turn much of the moon a reddish-orange color, creating a spectacle that will look similar to a total lunar eclipse.

For photographers, it will be one of the best opportunities to capture a lunar eclipse for some time. In fact, no deeper lunar eclipse will occur until the total lunar eclipse on New Year's Eve 2028 — and the next one visible in North America, Europe and the UK won’t be until June 25-26, 2029 — making this a rare chance to capture a dramatically darkened moon.

A lunar eclipse is a relaxing affair. Unlike a solar eclipse, a lunar eclipse requires no special filters, no elaborate safety precautions and no split-second timing. Lunar eclipses are completely safe to view with the naked eye. The event unfolds slowly over several hours, giving photographers plenty of time to experiment, refine their settings and enjoy the experience — though this one arguably comes with a little more jeopardy than others.

Understanding 2026’s partial lunar eclipse

Lunar eclipses can only occur during a full moon — in this case, August’s Sturgeon Moon — when Earth is between the sun and the moon. When the alignment is precise, the full moon passes through Earth’s umbra (the darkest center of its shadow), and sunlight is blocked from reaching the lunar surface; the only light that does reach it is refracted through Earth’s atmosphere. This is totality. As sunlight passes through Earth's atmosphere, shorter blue wavelengths are scattered while longer red wavelengths are bent into Earth's shadow. During a lunar eclipse, the filtered sunlight reaches the moon and drapes its surface in copper, orange and red. It’s the same physics that causes red sunsets and sunrises — but it’s a process that will stop short of being total on August 27-28.

At maximum eclipse, only a thin sliver of the moon will remain outside the umbra. Most of the lunar surface will be darkened and illuminated only by sunlight filtered through Earth's atmosphere. You’ll read that this event is a “blood moon,” but technically that term should be reserved for a total lunar eclipse. Since a small portion of the moon remains outside the umbra throughout the event, Aug. 27-28’s eclipse is officially a partial lunar eclipse, albeit an unusually deep event.

From a photographer's perspective, however, the distinction is mostly academic. Although the human eye may not see much color, to a camera, the moon will appear darkened and reddish, producing images that many observers would struggle to distinguish from those taken during a total lunar eclipse. The only clue will be a tiny sliver of sunlight on the limb of an otherwise dark, reddish moon.

Partial lunar eclipse: understanding the phases

A partial lunar eclipse has two short and one very long phase (times supplied are in Universal Time):

Penumbral lunar eclipse (01:23-02:33 UTC on Aug. 28): when the full moon begins to move through Earth’s penumbral shadow, its fuzzy outer shadow. As it does so, the full moon will dim considerably and lose its glare. It’s an excellent time to simply photograph a full moon.

Partial lunar eclipse (02:33-05:51, with max. eclipse at 04:12 UTC): when the full moon begins to move through Earth’s umbral shadow. The spectacle here is the edge of Earth’s shadow gradually moving across the lunar surface, leaving the covered portion darkened. As the event peaks (maximum), 96% of the lunar surface will be dark, and cameras will pick it up as reddish. The sequence then reverses as the moon moves out of the umbra and back into the penumbra.

Penumbral lunar eclipse (05:51-07:01): simply a repeat of the first phase, as the moon gradually regains its brightness.

Partial lunar eclipse: Europe vs. North America

The official line is that European observers are unlucky because this deep partial lunar eclipse will be lost to moonset in the west. For example, here are the times for London, according to TimeAndDate.com:

London

Penumbral begins: 2:23 a.m. BST on August 28

Partial begins: 3:33 a.m. BST

Maximum: 5:12 a.m. BST

Moonset 6:15 a.m. BST

In Europe, the maximum eclipse comes shortly before dawn, with the moon low in the western sky. That creates opportunities to photograph the darkened moon above city skylines, coastlines, mountains and landmarks while the eastern horizon begins to brighten. For landscape photographers, the combination of an eclipsed moon and dawn twilight may produce more memorable images than a close-up photograph taken through a long telephoto lens.

New York

In North America, the eclipse occurs much earlier, but it depends on where you are. For example, here are the times for New York, which is perfectly placed for a view of the entire eclipse high up in a dark sky, making it ideal for close-up lunar photography.

Penumbral begins: 9:23 p.m. EDT on August 27

Partial begins: 10:33 p.m. EDT

Maximum: 00:12 a.m. EDT on August 28

Partial ends: 01:51 a.m. EDT

Penumbral ends: 03:01 a.m. EDT

Los Angeles

On the West Coast, however, the initial penumbral phase occurs when the full moon is yet to rise, with the partial phase beginning shortly after moonrise. For example, here are the times for Los Angeles:

Penumbral begins: moon below horizon

Moonrise: 7:17 p.m. PDT on August 27

Partial begins: 7:33 p.m. PDT

Maximum: 9:12 p.m. PDT

Partial ends: 10:51 p.m. PDT

Penumbral ends: 00:01 a.m. PDT on August 28

Equipment for lunar eclipse photography

Lunar eclipses are one of the few astronomical events where any type of camera you have can be used:

Wide-angle camera lenses and smartphones: landscapes featuring the eclipsed moon.

70-200mm lens: closer-in on the eclipsed moon in a landscape.

150-600mm lens: detailed shots of the eclipsed moon.

Telescope: close-up shots of the eclipsed moon.

One of the attractions of lunar eclipses is that photographers can approach the event in many different ways. A smartphone is well-suited to capturing the atmosphere of the event, while a wide-angle lens on a mirrorless or DSLR camera will work well in Europe (as it sets in the west at dawn) and on the west coast of North America (as it rises in the east at dusk). Where the eclipse occurs close to a horizon, a foreground is possible. For these shots, a medium telephoto lens in the 70-200mm range should work well. For photographers on the East Coast of North America, the best option is close-ups, using at least a 400mm lens (the bigger, the better!) or a small telescope.

Whatever equipment you choose, a sturdy tripod is a must-have because, as the eclipse reaches its maximum and the moon darkens, you’ll need to use longer exposures.

Camera settings for the partial lunar eclipse

Photographing a lunar eclipse is mostly about adapting to the changing brightness of the lunar surface. For a regular full moon photo, manually focus on the moon using Live View on the camera’s LCD screen, zooming in on the limb of the moon. With that done, the starting manual settings are generally: 1/125 to 1/250 second exposures at ISO 100 and an aperture of around f/8. As the eclipse gets close to its peak, exposures might lengthen to as much as 1/8 second.

During a lunar eclipse, the moon becomes progressively dimmer as it moves through Earth’s shadow. By the time of maximum eclipse, it may be hundreds of times fainter than it was at the start of the night. The solution? Experiment. Expect to adjust settings continuously throughout the event, essentially lengthening shutter speeds as the eclipse develops, with longer exposures allowing the totally eclipsed areas of the lunar surface to look red and shorter ones allowing the partially eclipsed regions to look sharp. Consider combining separate exposures later.

One way to cover your bases is to use automatic exposure bracketing (AEB), which takes multiple exposures at different shutter speeds. The beauty of this tactic is that it helps you get around the problem of extreme dynamic range on the moon, where one portion is brightly lit, and the rest is darkened. Make a plan to combine them later using post-processing software.

Whatever settings you use, always capture in RAW, which will give you so much more data — and so many more options — when processing your images after the eclipse.

An event worth making the effort for

Although it falls just short of becoming a true “blood moon,” the August 27-28 partial lunar eclipse will bring photographers one of the finest lunar photography opportunities until the end of 2028. Whether you’re shooting close-ups from North America or an odd-looking moonset in Europe, Earth’s shadow will put on a memorable show. If the skies are clear, it will be worth making the effort.

Read more:

• Astrophotography tools: the best camera, lenses and gear

• The best lenses for astrophotography

• The best star tracker camera mounts

The Alpa Reflex 1 (commonly known as simply the Alpa Reflex) is one of the most fascinating early 35mm single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras.

Although it never achieved the production numbers of the Kine Exakta or later German and Japanese SLRs, it established Switzerland as a maker of precision photographic equipment. It became the foundation of the prestigious, if somewhat quirky, Alpa series of cameras.

The camera's story began in the late 1930s in Switzerland, the home of Pignons SA – best known for manufacturing watch components. It wanted to diversify into photographic equipment and had commissioned Kyiv-born engineer and inventor, Jacques Bogopolsky (1895-1962), to design a compact 35mm reflex camera.

Bogopolsky (who also worked under the names Jacques Bolsky, Jacques Boolsky and later Jacques Bolsey) was already well known as the designer of the famous Bolex H16 movie camera. His SLR design was completed by 1939, just as Europe entered World War II.

The first prototypes appeared between 1939 and 1942 and carried “experimental” names, such as Bolca, Teleflex and Viteflex. Most were made for testing and only a very small number were exported. By the end of the war, they had settled on the Alpa name – chosen because it evoked the image of Switzerland.

The Alpa Reflex was officially introduced at the Swiss Trade Fair in April 1944. It was a beautifully machined, exceptionally compact, hand-built camera. In 1944 some 115 cameras were made, while 1945 saw that almost quadruple to 434 cameras.

The Alpa Reflex combined two different focusing systems: the expected waist-level finder as well as a coupled optical rangefinder with its separate bright-line viewfinder. The coupled rangefinder was retained until the Alpa 6 came along in 1956. It included a split-image focusing aid, eliminating the need for a separate rangefinder.

Even then, the Alpa 7 (sold concurrently with the Alpa 6) continued to have the rangefinder for those who did not trust ground glass focusing – although your scribe knows of no other firms to attempt this arrangement. The Praktina and a few others had a direct viewfinder in addition to their reflex finders, but not with a coupled rangefinder.

The Alpa Reflex quickly earned a reputation for extraordinary craftsmanship. Production was intentionally small; Pignons preferred quality over quantity and even accepted special-order modifications from customers.

Unlike many manufacturers, Alpa did not manufacture its own optics, instead commissioning lenses from leading European makers including Kern & Co (the famous Kern-Switar series), Angénieux (France), Schneider (Germany) and others.

Most early cameras carried fast 50mm standard lenses of exceptionally high optical quality, often from Kern or Angénieux. Pignons even guaranteed the performance of the lenses it sold with its cameras!

These first-generation Alpa Reflex cameras were built in several production series, designated C (1944-45 – first commercial production, D (1945-47 – improved manufacturing techniques) and E (1947-51 – final version), though these letters were not marked on the cameras.

In 1949 Alpa introduced the Prisma Reflex, replacing the waist-level finder with a fixed pentaprism. It was only the third pentaprism-equipped 35mm SLR, following the Rectaflex and Contax S, though the eyepiece, rather oddly, is angled upward at 45°.

Only these first-generation Alpas had the rangefinder and, in all, around 5,000 first-generation cameras (including the Prisma Reflex variants) had been produced by 1952.

In 1952, Pignons completely redesigned the Alpa line with new die-cast construction and updated mechanics. These second-generation cameras retained the Alpa name but were substantially different internally, marking the end of the original Reflex I design.

In 1959, the then-current Alpa 6, 7 and 8 became the 6b, 7b and 8b models, gaining a rapid film advance lever and an instant-return mirror.

While most cameras of the era wound with a lever that swept back-to-front, the Alpa swept front-to-back – which many photographers initially found odd. Reviewers noted that, although unusual, it quickly became natural in use and enabled the film to be wound without removing the camera from the photographer’s eye.

One of the interesting quirks of Alpa is that the model numbers do not indicate the sequence in which they arrived. Instead, they denoted different specification levels offered at the same time.

The short-lived 4 series was an economy body with a waist-level finder. The 5 models offered a pentaprism and the 6 added a split-image focusing aid. The 7 series had a Leica M-style, coupled rangefinder in addition to the reflex finder, while the 8 models were pure SLRs with every bell and whistle they offered.

The later series of models (the 9, 10 and 11) were named in the order introduced and added metering, and then TTL metering.

Alpas were always a limited production affair, with its peak production being in 1965 when roughly 1,300 cameras were made. Between 1944 and 1990, production was about 45,000 Alpa cameras of all models – making every Alpa Reflex comparatively rare today.

That, however, is not the end of the story. After Pignons ceased camera production in 1990, the Alpa trademark lay dormant until 1996 when it was purchased by Ursula Capaul and Thomas Weber.

Their vision was not to revive the old 35mm SLR, but to build a Swiss-made, medium format camera of the finest possible precision for landscape, architecture, industrial and fine-art photographers: the Alpa 12 series.

They anticipated that digital imaging would eventually replace film, so they designed the system from the outset to accept interchangeable film backs and digital backs from various makers. Even today, you can mount the latest Hasselblad CFV 100C digital 100MP back!

Capaul and Weber sold the company in 2022, although they took great care to ensure that it remained an independent, Swiss manufacturer. Today, the firm is known as Alpa of Switzerland AG.

Read more of David Young's ongoing series on classic cameras, as well as his book A Brief History of Photography.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best rangefinder cameras you can buy today

Most people believe that the oldest surviving photo of a sitting US president is the portrait of President James K Polk (1795-1849), captured by photographer Matthew Brady (1822-1896) at the White House on February 14 1849, near the end of Polk's term.

But what if I told you that another image of the same president was taken three years earlier by a largely forgotten Welsh immigrant, John Plumbe Jr?

Plumbe (1809-1857), a Welsh-born US citizen, started professional life as a civil engineer before moving into photography. In 1840, he came across the work of an itinerant daguerreotypist in Washington, DC, inspiring him to learn the emerging craft.

By the following year, Plumbe had opened his first photography studio in Boston. Eventually, this grew into a massive enterprise of more than a dozen portrait and daguerreian galleries across major US cities, earning Plumbe the nickname "the American Daguerre”.

In 1846, Plumbe captured the image that has come to define his photographic legacy: a group photo of President James K Polk and his cabinet shortly after the declaration of war on Mexico. The frame, now recognized as the oldest surviving photograph of a sitting US president, is also the earliest photographic record of the White House interior.

Over the years, Plumbe has gained wider recognition for his history-defining image. But something many photographers still don't know is that he pioneered a commercial practice used by professional studios to this day.

Plumbe is thought to have been the first photographer to brand the daguerreotypes produced through his various studios with his own name, regardless of which photographer actually made them.

Several notable early photographers and daguerreotypists trained, worked or honed their skills in Plumbe's galleries. These included William Shew (1820-1903), Samuel Masury (1818-1874) and Plumbe's brother, Richard Plumbe, who managed the Dubuque, Iowa, gallery.

But by marking all images with the name "Plumbe”, the pioneering photographer ensured that the brand he created became more recognizable than the individual photographer.

Historians will remember the president, but Plumbe's 1846 image of James K Polk also captures the rise of photography as a commercial industry. Plumbe wasn't merely documenting a moment in history; he was building a photography brand years before anyone else.

You might also like…

Here's our expert pick of the best cameras for portraits. Don't worry, there are no daguerreotype cameras in this list. I've read about these selling at auction for nearly a million!

If you're in the market for a new high-end camera phone, three brands are likely to spring straight to mind: Apple, Google and Samsung. Thanks to their huge marketing might, they enjoy unrivalled brand recognition. It's therefore easy to assume that these industry titans must produce the best camera phones on the market - after all, how could a smaller brand possibly compete?

But the reality is that the competition isn't just catching up, or even equalling the camera phone giants - it's already overtaken them. Massive brand recognition can become an easy way to generate sales, reducing the need for genuine hardware innovation. We’ve seen exactly this from the last few generations of iPhone and Galaxy S Ultra phones, with the latter reusing camera sensors not just for one phone generation but three, and counting. Incremental upgrades are now the order of the day. This is currently somewhat understandable, as the skyrocketing cost of NAND flash is increasing the overall price of camera phones, thereby preventing manufacturers from making substantial camera hardware upgrades without raising unit costs still further. However, this alone doesn't excuse what is now multiple years of stagnating camera phone hardware from the major players.

So if the latest iPhone or Galaxy S Ultra isn't going to give you the most advanced camera experience available right now, what will? For that you need to turn to China. Not content with dominating almost every other area of consumer electronics, China also now gives us the most innovative and impressive camera phones on the market. The three brands at the top are Vivo, Xiaomi and Oppo. For the last few years all three have consistently produced more compelling flagship camera phones than anything from Apple, Samsung or Google. The Chinese contenders pack bigger image sensors, more optical zoom, and extra features that make recent iPhones and Galaxy S Ultra handsets look downright dull.

I've been lucky enough to long-term test Oppo's current flagship, the Find X9 Ultra, for the past three months. With a launch price of £1449, it can't rely on being substantially cheaper than its rivals, but it doesn't need to be. In its Tundra Umber colorway, it's immediately more distinctive than the comparatively bland Galaxy S26 Ultra, even to those not in 'the know'. And if you are a photographer that recognises the Hasselblad design cues, the Find X9 Ultra just looks better still.

Start shooting and the consistency of image quality from the four separate camera modules is immediately apparent. There's seamless focal length transitioning from 0.6x (ultrawide) through to the maximum 10x optical (230mm-equivalent) zoom. But the Find X9 Ultra’s zoom capability doesn't stop there. Through a combination of on-sensor cropping and clever AI zoom, up to 120x reach is possible, and with surprisingly competent image quality. Stick with the default photo mode and shots look immediately appealing, with strong vibrancy and contrast, as well as bags of fine detail. Dynamic range is high, but thankfully stops short of looking over-processed. If you'd rather have an even more natural image aesthetic, there's always Hasselblad Master mode. This has been tuned to emulate the more subtle image quality from Hasselblad's medium format cameras, and it opens up various manual controls. I’m also a fan of the X-Pan mode, which enables instant panorama recording and is a lot more convenient than using the much slower and fiddly sweep panorama mode.

All well and good, but most flagship phones have plenty of optical zoom, along with manual control and a plethora of shooting modes. Where the Find X9 Ultra really pulls ahead of its rivals is its ability to be teamed with Oppo’s Hasselblad Earth Explorer Kit. This contains a bespoke 300mm teleconverter lens, along with a special phone case to which the lens mounts, plus a tripod collar and other small accessories. You might assume this is all a bit gimmicky – after all, clip-on telephoto lenses can be plasticky garbage – but you’d be very wrong. With aesthetics and build quality that are truly befitting of the Hasselblad branding, this is so much more than just a publicity stunt: it turns what’s already a darned good camera phone into a genuinely usable option for capturing sports and wildlife. Check out our full review of the teleconverter lens for more details.

Oppo isn’t the only Chinese brand pushing camera phone boundaries. Vivo also offers a similar case+teleconverter kit for its flagship camera phone, the X300 Ultra, and though I’ve yet to test this, it looks just as impressive as Oppo’s implementation.

I fully admit that optional teleconverter lenses aren’t going to change the camera phone world: as effective as they are, they’ll always be a niche product. Rather, Oppo and Vivo’s camera cases and teleconverters serve as symbols of China’s desire to innovate and enhance the camera phone industry, while also highlighting the comparative lack of hardware development we've seen from the more established brands.

So when the time comes to choose your next phone, and you want something that’s been designed for enthusiast photographers, I implore you: don’t just default to the current iPhone/Pixel/Galaxy S: check out the competition from Oppo, Vivo and Xiaomi, as these are now the brands at the forefront of phone camera development.

The GoPro name is synonymous with the action camera, but the brand’s latest launch sits somewhere between action and cinema camera territory. The move, however, was a long time coming: GoPro says that the Mission 1 series is the biggest leap since the introduction of HyperSmooth.

I met with GoPro’s senior vice president of product management, Pablo Lema, after the launch of the Mission 1 and Mission 1 Pro and ahead of the launch of the company’s first mirrorless camera.

Lema, who has worked with the action camera brand since 2014, says that the series is the GoPro that fans have been asking for since the Hero7 Black in 2018.

“Mission 1 has been a long time coming for us,” Lema said. “I don't say this lightly when I say it to other folks: it was the most important camera we've launched since Hero7 Black. The step up in performance is real, and it's valued by the user reception of it. And we're gonna continue to build from there.”

The Hero7 Black introduced GoPro’s HyperSmooth, a stabilization algorithm that made a significant difference in capturing steady footage from the variety of mounting scenarios that GoPro is meant for.

HyperSmooth continues in the Mission 1 – and in fact, the combination of HyperSmooth with interchangeable lenses is one of the reasons that Lema is most excited for the company’s first mirrorless camera.

But, while DIYers have been hacking GoPros to use different lenses since the Hero4, what GoPro fans have been asking for for several years is a larger sensor. The Mission 1 series delivers that with an 8K-capable 1-inch sensor

GoPro users started getting particularly loud about demanding a larger sensor as competitors like DJI and Insta360 began introducing 1/1.3-inch and 1-inch sensors on competing action cameras.

“The Mission 1 series is probably the GoPro that everyone was asking us for since Hero7 Black,” Lema said. “Myself and the teams, we were pumped to be able to finally get it out to the world. And what's good is that it gave us insights and motivations as to what to build next, which we're already working on.”

While GoPro couldn’t share data on just how many Mission 1 and Mission 1 Pro cameras the company has sold so far, Lema said the series has been “the best reviewed and best-received camera we’ve had at a product level since Hero7 Black.”

But, with the move to a larger sensor comes an entirely new category. GoPro isn’t calling the Mission 1 and Mission 1 Pro an action camera, but refers to the series as a “compact cinema camera” instead.

“We saw that the types of creators that would extract the most out of a 1-inch type sensor with big dynamic range, massive fps, much better low light capabilities as a result of the imaging package were, what we considered to be, well, for lack of a better word, compact cinema creators,” Lema said.

“The high-creativity folks that are on Instagram and YouTube are the ones that we extract the most out of a package like this.”

While GoPro isn’t calling the Mission 1 an “action camera,” the company’s love for accessories remains with the new series. Lema said that the new point-and-shoot grip and wireless microphone – a GoPro first – have been particularly well received, along with bundles that pair the Mission 1 Pro with the Fluid Pro gimbal.

GoPro’s most-asked-for camera couldn’t have come at a better time. The launch of the Mission series comes as the action camera giant faces significant financial struggles.

The company’s latest financial reports indicate a 38% drop in camera sales. Stock market paperwork filings indicate that the company could “be required to significantly reduce, restructure, cease operations, or seek protection under the Federal bankruptcy laws” if the Mission 1 doesn’t help to turn its finances around.

The action camera company is also in the “later stages” of looking for a potential buyer or merger.

The GoPro Mission 1 and Mission 1 Pro have already begun shipping, but GoPro CEO Nicholas Woodman says the ILS will be arriving next month.

This is part of a four-part series with an exclusive interview on the GoPro Mission 1 series. Read part one on the Mission 1 Pro ILS here, or read what GoPro says about the Hero series in the Mission era here.

You may also like

Take a look at the best cinema cameras or the best GoPro cameras.

I have always been a bit of a lens snob. Not necessarily a red-ring, G Master absolutist, but I've always had a preference for first-party lenses.

Up until now, all my Canon cameras have had Canon glass and my Fujifilm cameras have Fujinon optics. My logic followed the consensus that first-party lenses offered the best autofocus, the cleanest compatibility and, supposedly, the fewest compromises.

However, recently I purchased a Panasonic Lumix S9 – and had the world of L-Mount lenses opened up to me. Panasonic makes its own fantastic glass, but there are 11 players currently in the L-mount Alliance including big hitters like Leica and Sigma – as well as rising stars like Viltrox.

I had played around with some super-cheap Viltrox lenses several years back, and optically I thought they were good but I wasn’t sold on the excessively “budget” feeling of the lenses.

However, I was recently sent the Viltrox AF 16mm f/1.8 to test for DCW – and honestly, this lens has shifted my opinion of the brand dramatically.

The AF 16mm f/1.8 is a full-frame autofocus ultra-wide prime available for L-Mount (as well as Sony E and Nikon Z mounts). Outside, it’s built with a solid metal barrel, aperture ring, customizable buttons, dust-resistant sealing and even a small color display showing focus information.

This certainly does not feel like a “budget” lens – despite costing far less than many first-party equivalents. More importantly, it does not shoot like a budget lens either.

It has a fast f/1.8 aperture and a 105.6° angle of view. Inside are 15 elements arranged in 12 groups, including 4 ED and 3 aspherical elements. It is impressively sharp in the center at f/1.8, performs strongly toward the edges when stopped down and controls distortion remarkably well for such a wide lens.

There are still some compromises. At 550g, the Viltrox is hardly featherweight and its autofocus is not quite as polished as the very best first-party motors. Wide-open vignetting is also noticeable.

Yet none of that feels as important when the lens costs around $580 / £530. Meanwhile, Panasonic’s narrower Lumix S 18mm f/1.8 costs $1,099 / £799 and, for Sony shooters, Sony’s own FE 16mm f/1.8 G is $899 / £849.

The bigger story is what this says about Chinese lens makers. Brands such as Viltrox are going from cheap curiosities to genuinely compelling alternatives.

I still understand the appeal of first-party glass, but I am no longer convinced that the logo on the barrel deserves quite such a large portion of my budget.

I’ve been stopped by security guards when photographing architecture in London so many times, I’ve always felt that very few people understand the basics of photography law in the UK.

And if a recent pamphlet released by the government is anything to go by, I feel vindicated, because it would seem that not even the Home Office can make it make sense.

The document in question, which can be found on Gov.uk, is aimed at asylum seekers and claims that you should not photograph or video somebody in a public space without their permission – going so far as to say you “could be arrested”.

Well, unless the UK government has rushed through new legislation that I don’t know about, this is a direct contradiction of UK law. I mean, can you imagine if Martin Parr was prevented from capturing his legendary The Last Resort?

You need look no further than the Metropolitan Police’s own advice on photography to find a paragraph that completely contradicts the government brochure:

“Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.”

It’s common sense, really. Otherwise, taking a photo with a camera phone in a bustling city center would carry the risk of being arrested, right?

Now, that’s not to say anyone wielding a camera can act with impunity. Photographing somebody in public might be legal, but the way you photograph somebody in public rightfully matters.

If a photographer’s actions stray into unlawful activities such as harassment, or authorities have reason to suspect said photographer of unlawful activities, then the outcome can most certainly be very different.

It also matters what you intend to do with the images. Editorial and personal usage is one thing, but images intended for commercial use can differ.

And of course, UK law is rarely simple. There are still exceptions to the rule, so it’s always advisable to familiarize yourself with the latest legislation before you head out with your camera.

And to be fair, the pamphlet also covers activities that most certainly are unlawful. The law around private spaces is too nuanced to go into in detail here, but you can’t just walk onto private premises and expect to take photos.

And although it should go without saying, both capturing and sharing explicit imagery without a person’s permission is absolutely unlawful.

Negative effects on photography

I have two major problems with the aforementioned pamphlet. Firstly, it’s misleading. And secondly, it’s not uncommon for photographers to get harassed when out and about with their camera in public anyway.

We don’t need more people walking around ready to pounce on anyone who vaguely points a Fujifilm X100VI or Nikon D3500 in their direction.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not the sort of photographer who likes to push street photography boundaries. I won’t criticize Bruce Gilden’s work, but I’m no fan of his method. And if I ever took a photograph of somebody and they politely asked me to delete it, I would.

But when I’m out and about capturing travel, street and architecture photos, people inevitably stray into the frame. And that’s the whole point of street photography, right?

Documenting the human element. Using a tiny figure against a huge building to emphasize the sense of scale. Capturing a person with a bright red coat amongst a sea of suited morning commuters. Or capturing the very moment a person walks through a single band of light.

And what about personal surveillance? Dash cams and doorbell cameras capture public footage of people…

What really annoys me is that the pamphlet singles out photographers specifically. Because I can tell you now, phone photographers don’t get approached half as much as actual photographers.

And let’s face it, if you’re up to no good, you’re not going to be using a slick retro camera or a pro mirrorless body that screams, ‘Look at me, I’m a photographer.’ You’re going to be using the most inconspicuous everyday camera available to you – a phone! Or a pair of camera glasses (double ick, as far as I’m concerned).

So, to Andy Burnham, the Home Office and the UK government, please – either change this misleading pamphlet or change the law.

You might also like...

Are you into street photography? Check out the best cameras for street photography and the best compact cameras. Plus, here's how to get started in street photography.

There was a lot of discussion surrounding the Panasonic Lumix L10. But it's fair to say that the bulk of it was about, well, the bulk of it.

It was pretty unaninmous that the L10 is a fantastic compact camera – but it was also pretty unanimous that it was too big to be considered "compact".

Indeed, a lot of people lamented that it's bigger than the Lumix LX100 – a camera that Panasonic doesn't make any more. But just because Panasonic doesn't make it any more, doesn't mean you can't still buy it!

There were so many people saying, "I would buy this if it was smallerm" and "This would be the perfect compact camera if it was the size of the LX100".

Folks, the LX100 already exists! You can buy it right now!

It's always baffled me that camera reviewers – and tech reviewers in general – seem to forget about anything that isn't on the shelves right now. I understand that people want to read about what's new, but kit doesn't cease to exist just because it's not currently being manufactured.

The Lumix LX100 is a perfect case in point.

Right now, everyone is looking for a truly pocketable, powerful compact camera. Everyone wanted that luscious Leica 24-75mm f/1.7-2.8 lens in a smaller body. What they're looking for is the LX100 – or perhaps the Lumix LX100 II.

The Lumix LX100 packs a 16.84MP sensor while the LX100 II's is 21.77MP sensor, with both cameras offering the same multi-aspect ratio shooting experience as the L10 (for up to 12.7MP or 17MP resolution respectively).

The autofocus is Panasonic's more leisurely DFD system (Depth From Defocus, aka contrast detect), which isn't as snappy as the L10's Phase Hybrid AF, but for the sedate kind of everyday, travel and street shooting you'll be doing, it's absolutely fine.

When it comes to continuous shooting, the LX100 actually out-bursts the L10's 30fps by offering up to 40fps in Super High speed mode, though the caveat is that these are low-res 3MP files. Otherwise, both the LX100 and LX100 II match the L10's 11fps mechanical speed (but bursts with AF are limited to 5.5 and 6.5fps respectively).

Obviously there is a gaping chasm in video capability, with the L10 offering 5.6K 60p with all the bells and whistles, while its predecessors are capped at more basic 4K 30p – though pretty much everyone concedes that these are primarily stills cameras.

Still, the most important aspect of this conversation is the size: where the L10 lumbers in at 127.1 x 73.9 x 66.9mm and 508g, the L100 is a mere 114.8 x 66.2 x 55.0mm and 393g while the LX100 II is a bit more butch at 115.0 x 66.2 x 64.2 mm and 392g.

Those numbers may not look like much on paper but, as you can see, in practice they make all the difference. The L10 is the same size as the Lumix S9, a full frame mirrorless camera, while the LX100 (in particular) and the LX100 II are truly compact compact cameras.

The only issue, of course, is that these cameras aren't current… but again, they are still very much available! The LX100 you see here came from MPB, a used camera specialist that's a great equalizer when it comes to conversations like this.

When you buy from somewhere like MPB, you're not limited to what a company is trying to sell you right now – you can explore its entire back-catalog to find the camera you actually want. So, if you want a camera that's closer to the LX100 than the L10, I recommend you give it a look.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best compact cameras, which comprises everything from the best point-and-shoots to the best APS-C compacts to the best full-frame compacts.

I hear a lot of people talking about autofocus as if it’s some kind of cheat code: it’s taken the challenge away from photography – you can’t miss. And while I certainly think that AF algorithms have advanced tenfold in the era of the mirrorless camera, changing the game forever, it worries me that beginner or intermediate photographers might feel like they’re doing something wrong when they miss focus.

Let me tell you, I’m a photography educator with years of experience and I still miss focus regularly. Granted, how much you’re likely to miss depends on what you’re shooting. But it also depends on your standards for critical focus. I’m somebody who likes to know that I’ve absolutely nailed my focus and it really bugs me when I haven’t.

Other photographers have different standards – and that’s not to say they’re wrong. Something I’ve had to work on in recent years is my tendency to overemphasize the importance of critical focus and be a bit more lenient with my images. But what I’m interested to know is where does this myth that you can’t miss actually come from?

The ‘you can’t miss’ myth

Autofocus is so much more than camera tech. The lens, aperture, light, and subject all affect your hitrate. It’s one thing for a camera reviewer to test a body with a ‘nifty fifty’ at f/8 in broad daylight, and a whole other ballgame for a wildlife photographer shooting in drab weather at f/2.8 with a 200mm lens, trying to focus on a red squirrel that won’t keep still! Don’t get me wrong. I’ve been that camera reviewer and the time you get with a new release and the lens that comes with it means that the latter scenario is rarely an option. But you get my drift.

As someone who enjoys photographing both sports and wildlife, I can tell you that no current autofocus system is capable of hitting a darting critter’s eye or the helmet of a superbike rider consistently. These situations usually require long lenses, which complicate things further. You’re usually shooting at a fast aperture in order to gather more light so you can increase your shutter speed and compensate for camera shake.

All of this results in a much smaller depth of field, allowing far less margin for error if you don’t quite hit your intended point of focus. And since long lenses amplify camera shake, the setup is moving around a lot more, causing the camera to refocus more than usual. Add low light into the mix, and even advanced hybrid-autofocus systems will find the situation more challenging. So, not matter how good your autofocus system is, you absolutely can miss. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

You might also like...

Want more of my ramblings? Nikon never bothered to support the Nikon Zf and Zfc with retro-cool lenses, but thanks to Voigtlander it doesn’t need to. You can’t buy heritage: Why Nikon still rules as it celebrates its 109th birthday! Plus, “Overwhelming” demand forces Nikon to halt Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S orders (report).

When you think of the world’s largest camera manufacturers, your mind probably jumps straight to Canon, Sony or Nikon. Leica? Probably not.

Leica is the luxury option; the beautifully engineered German camera brand that makes expensive rangefinders, exquisite M lenses and cameras assembled with an almost obsessive attention to detail. But I recently started counting Leica’s current cameras and something rather surprising happened: I got to 16!

Yes, Leica currently makes 16 distinct camera models. Look at the M-System alone and you have the Leica M11, M11-P, M11-D, M11 Monochrom and the new Leica M EV1 on the digital side. And it still manufactures the M6, MP and completely mechanical Leica M-A for film photographers.

That's eight cameras before we have even left the M-System.

Then there is the SL mirrorless system. Leica currently offers the SL3, SL3-S, and recently introduced Leica SL3-P, giving photographers and filmmakers three distinctly different full-frame professional bodies.

The SL3 concentrates on high-resolution 60MP photography, the SL3-S takes a faster 24MP hybrid approach, while the SL3-P sits between them with a 44MP sensor and some seriously impressive photo and video credentials. Suddenly we are at 11 cameras.

And we are nowhere near finished. The Q family now consists of the Leica Q3 with its 28mm Summilux, the Q3 43 with its more natural 43mm perspective, and the Q3 Monochrom, which takes the same fundamental idea and builds it around a dedicated 60MP black-and-white sensor.

Add the Leica D-Lux 8, a premium compact camera, and the Leica Sofort 2, a luxury hybrid instant camera, and there it is: 16 cameras currently sitting within Leica’s portfolio.

What makes that number even more remarkable to me is that 14 of those 16 cameras are arguably aimed squarely at serious photographers, advanced enthusiasts or working professionals.

I would probably exclude the Sofort 2 and, depending on how strict you want to be, the D-Lux 8 from that description. Everything else is a serious photographic tool.

Leica is not inflating its range with dozens of inexpensive beginner bodies separated by tiny specification changes; it has film rangefinders, digital rangefinders, an EVF-equipped M, dedicated monochrome cameras, professional mirrorless hybrids and some of the most capable fixed-lens full-frame cameras money can buy.

So, does that secretly make Leica the largest camera manufacturer of them all? Literally, no. I am not suggesting for one moment that Leica produces more cameras by volume than Canon, Sony or Nikon, nor that it has suddenly overtaken the Japanese giants in market share.

But judged by the sheer number of serious current camera bodies available from what we continue to think of as a small, specialist luxury manufacturer, Leica suddenly looks enormous. Sixteen cameras is not a boutique selection any more. That is a proper ecosystem.

I think our perception of Leica simply has not caught up with what the company has become. We still talk about Leica as though it essentially makes “the M”, with perhaps a Q sitting alongside it.

Yet today you can buy a completely mechanical film camera with no battery, a metered film rangefinder, a 60MP digital rangefinder, a screenless digital M, an M with an electronic viewfinder, a dedicated monochrome body, a 30fps full-frame mirrorless camera, an 8K-capable professional hybrid or a fixed-lens full-frame compact.

Few manufacturers cover such wildly different interpretations of photography while retaining such a clear identity across all of them.

There is also something rather refreshing about the way Leica has done it. Rather than trying to build one camera that supposedly suits everybody, Leica seems increasingly happy to make highly specific cameras for highly specific photographers.

Want color? There is an M for that. Want black-and-white? There is an M for that, too. Hate rear screens? Leica has you covered. Want an EVF but still want M lenses? That now exists. Want autofocus and interchangeable lenses? Buy an SL. Want the whole experience condensed into one body and one lens? Buy a Q. Want film? Leica will still sell you a brand-new mechanical camera in 2026.

That is why I think Leica might be the camera giant hiding in plain sight. Not the largest by sales, production numbers or market share, but perhaps one of the largest when it comes to the breadth of genuinely serious photographic choices coming from a single premium brand.

For a company whose reputation is built around exclusivity, simplicity and doing things the old-fashioned way, Leica has somehow ended up producing 16 distinct and diverse cameras at the same time. And the strangest thing is that almost nobody seems to have noticed.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best Leica cameras, along with the best Leica M lenses for rangefinders and the best Leica SL lenses for mirrorless.

Since its inception in 1958, NASA has arguably played the most important role in furthering our knowledge of Earth, the universe and natural phenomena.

Through its mesmerizing photos captured by spacecraft imaging devices and pioneering astronauts with handheld cameras, the agency has compiled the premier portfolio of pictures that have helped us, as visual creatures, understand our place in the cosmos.

This World Photography Day, take a look at some of the most iconic of these images, delving into why they helped shape our perception of our very existence.

Man on the Moon (1969)

Just 11 years after its founding, NASA achieved what many would say was its biggest triumph: putting a man on the Moon. On July 20 1969, Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface, immortalizing the moment with his famous words about taking what was a small step, but a “giant leap for mankind".

And while the very act of a human setting foot on a celestial body that wasn’t Earth lit the fires of possibility that we could, one day, venture further into space, it was the images captured during these moments that truly opened our eyes to the realities of this ambition.

When Neil Armstrong took the shot of Buzz Aldrin meandering across the crater-ridden surface using a modified 70mm Hasselblad 500EL camera, he not only captured the glory of Apollo 11, but a frightening realization of how hostile the universe truly is.

The vast pitch-blackness of deep space behind Aldrin was a stark reminder that, despite the triumphant Moon landing, any journey to more distant destinations would be fraught with peril, regardless of how advanced our technology may ever become.

Blue Marble (1972)

By 1972 NASA was sending its sixth crewed mission, Apollo 17, to the lunar surface. Roughly five hours into the journey of astronauts Eugene A Cernan (commander), Harrison H Schmitt (lunar module pilot) and Ronald E Evans (command module pilot), someone clicked the shutter.

While NASA has always credited the Blue Marble shot to all three crew members, over the years Schmitt has maintained that he was the man behind the camera, using it to document weather patterns.

Whether or not Schmitt did, in fact, capture the frame, the image certainly served the purpose for which he claims it was taken. At a distance of some 18,300 miles from Earth, it clearly displayed Africa, the oceans and the Antarctic ice cap, in what was the first time an Apollo trajectory made it possible to photograph the south polar ice cap.

The image served as one of the early fully-illuminated color views of global cloud systems and continental interactions, helping to inspire holistic, planetary-scale climate models rather than localized weather forecasting.

Pale Blue Dot (1990)

While Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin proved to us the dangers of space, the Voyager 1 spacecraft imaged its vastness. In 1990, 23 years after launching, and at an unfathomable distance of 3.7 billion miles from home, the vessel pointed its narrow-angle camera toward the inner Solar System.

At the request of the famous physicist Carl Sagan, who wanted one final photograph of our home world from afar before the onboard imaging system powered down forever, mission control – which initially worried that directly facing the Sun could destroy the camera optics – agreed.

In the frame, Earth appears as nothing more than a speck of light, much like a distant star appears to us from the planet. But the message of the image carried much greater weight than its composition. The scene redefined our perspective of the Solar System, putting before our eyes the absolute vastness of space surrounding our grain of sand in the universe.

Since then, Voyager 1 has continued its journey at a speed of roughly 37,800 miles per hour, becoming the first human-made object to cross the heliosphere and enter interstellar space, now at a distance of nearly 16 billion miles away.

Pillars of Creation (1995/2014)

A little closer to home, and in more recent history, the Hubble Space Telescope captured arguably NASA’s most iconic image: the Pillars of Creation. The famous 1995 frame depicts a trio of giant columns of cool hydrogen gas and dust in the Eagle Nebula, some 6,500 to 7,000 light-years from Earth.

These stellar nurseries are composed of dense pockets of gas collapsing under gravity, which ignites nuclear fusion and births new stars. While NASA already had a rigorous understanding of these processes by 1995, the image visualized, in mesmerizing color and clarity, how the cosmic bodies responsible for generating light are born.

Just shy of two decades later, NASA’s newer telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), re-imaged the Pillars of Creation in even higher definition. JWST’s infrared instruments were able to peer through opaque dust that blocked Hubble’s vision, more accurately revealing newly formed stars.

Hubble Extreme Deep Field (2012)

NASA has also used space telescopes to observe newly formed galaxies and, in 2012, looked further back in time than ever before, capturing the Extreme Deep Field (XDF) image with Hubble.

The space agency pointed the telescope at a tiny section of the cosmos within the constellation Fornax, shooting more than 2,000 separate exposures over a period of 10 years.

The final composite image, which comprised roughly 23 days of total exposure time, revealed around 5,500 galaxies, capturing ancient light that traveled over 13 billion years to reach us.

Through Hubble XDF, we got to witness early galaxy assembly taking place when the universe was less than 5% of its current age, shortly after the Big Bang. The composite scene opened a window onto cosmic evolution, helping scientists better trace the timeline of celestial structures like our own Milky Way.

The future of our existential understading

Later this month, NASA will launch Nancy Grace Roman (NGRST), the latest of its space telescopes. Scientists will use its wide-area panoramic surveys as a scout, efficiently finding interesting patches of the universe to feed to Hubble and JWST’s deeper, narrower-field focus for detailed follow-up surveys.

The NGRST represents the next step in NASA’s mission to continue shaping our knowledge of the universe and our understanding of what it is to exist in this mind-boggling expanse. And, by the next World Photography Day, I’m sure the agency will be sharing new iconic images, adding to this ongoing visual lesson.

You might also like…

Here's our expert astrophotographer, Jamie Carter's, pick of the best cameras for astrophotography.

Skylum is making it very clear that the photographer comes first. That’s right, the company that helped pioneer AI-powered photo editing software, when it launched Luminar Neo (now Luminar) back in 2022, is reaffirming its stance on the relationship between creativity and artificial intelligence.

In a press release for the program’s latest update, Skylum’s CEO, Ivan Kutanin, addressed “growing concerns around tech affecting human talent,” and claimed that Luminar is taking a different approach, “one where technology helps photographers realize their creative potential, rather than overshadow it.”

This might seem a bit rich coming from a program packed with AI-powered tools, but it feels to me like a statement of intent. A promise, if you will, that Skylum will continue to develop its AI attributes, but not at the expense of the creative.

And indeed, Luminar’s current feature set is very much about enhancing existing photographs as opposed to generating an image out of nowhere.

You need look no further than the controversy surrounding EvotoAI at the beginning of the year to understand why Skylum might want to make its stance clear.

When an AI Headshot Generator briefly appeared on Evoto’s website, it received huge backlash from its user base. For a company that had marketed itself on putting professional photographers first, many felt that the move overstepped the mark.

Evoto apologized and explained that the release was a mistake, but the damage had already been done.

Removing friction, retaining authorship

I got to talk to Skylum’s CEO Ivan Kutanin regarding the shift in the company’s tone, where he was keen to point out that very little has changed: “It has never been about asking AI to replace creativity,” he said. “It is about using AI to remove the friction that stands between a person and their creative intent.”

My understanding of this is that Skylum’s goal is to help the photographer get where they want to go as quickly and as easily as possible, without taking away their creative autonomy.

As Ivan puts it: “Technology should expand photographers’ capabilities without taking authorship away from them,” adding that “the photographer should remain the decision-maker”.

As to why the company is so intent on making this clear now, the CEO explained: “As AI is becoming more powerful, this distinction becomes even more important.”

And Skylum has gathered the data to back this up, with internal research finding that “control, authenticity, and personal style are top priorities among photographers.” So much so that these attributes are more important than both speed and automation.

“What they need is AI assistance that understands the image, reduces repetitive work, suggests possibilities and makes difficult techniques more accessible.” Skylum’s goal, then, is to provide AI tools that integrate “seamlessly” into Luminar’s workflow.

“We want the technology to disappear into the workflow and simply help photographers’ creative minds do their magic,” said Ivan.

He used the software’s Atmosphere and Enhance tools as examples. The latter intelligently applies a wide range of tonal adjustments including shadows, contrast, and saturation, in one fell swoop. However, it’s still controlled via a traditional slider.

“AI is not about 'press a button and let AI create.' It is a much deeper collaboration between human creativity and machine intelligence,” he said.

Still an AI photo editing pioneer

I couldn’t help but wonder if all this meant that Skylum’s priorities regarding AI had changed, but Ivan assured me it hasn’t.

“Using technology to expand photographers’ creativity rather than replace it has always been part of our values,” he said. “With this release, no actual change is coming – we are simply underlining what’s been here all along.”

And for existing Luminar fans, that means continuing to strive for improvement but not at the expense of the company’s AI mantra.

Ivan told me that the team is working on tech that’s “more advanced than ever,” but building a clever feature isn’t enough. It must be something that “genuinely helps photographers express their creative vision.”

Luminar update

The latest update will be released in two phases, with the first phase having already been released on August 05. The second phase is set to launch this fall.

As it stands, you can expect enhancements to the user interface and genAI tools. Export speeds that are up to 25% faster. Masking that uses 33% less RAM. Preset previews that load four times faster. And support for the following new cameras: Panasonic Lumix L10, Sony A7 V and Sony A7R VI.

The fall phase is set to feature a more precise and intelligent Crop tool. Atmosphere – Fog, which is said to give users “a more natural way to shape the mood of their photographs.” Improvements to both AI Assistant and Enhance AI. As well as the introduction of a new Web Editor, boosting its cross-platform workflow via browser support.

Skylum isn’t the only photo editing company affirming its stance on AI. This week, Digital Camera World interviewed Capture One CEO Rafael Orta who said: “We think of ourselves as a photography company… we never had any disposition to reinvent ourselves as an AI company.”

You might also like...

Check out the best photo organizing software and the best MacBooks for photo editing. For industry updates, keep checking the latest camera news.

Back in 2019, I got my hands on a Nikon D3500; my first “proper” camera. It was an unexpected 24th birthday gift from my parents, which was around the time I was truly getting into photography and had clearly started to talk to my family about it with some conviction.

Admittedly, it took me the best part of a year to pluck up the courage to turn the dial from auto to manual mode after I finally demystified the exposure triangle with a 15-minute YouTube video.

But at that point, I unlocked the true power of the Nikon D3500 – and what a beginner camera it was. In fact, eight years after its release, I still recommend this camera to photographers starting out.

The main beginner draw to the Nikon D3500 is that it's insanely practical. As a newbie, you don’t want to be faffing with complicated settings and changing batteries all the time. The simplicity of the camera encourages you to shoot, rather than frustrating you.

First off, it’s got a really simple LCD interface that’s intuitive and limited. In the two years that I shot with this camera, I can’t remember a time when I struggled to find a setting or understand what was happening on screen.

It may sound pedantic, but the last thing a beginner needs is a menu packed with pages and pages that will only put them off exploring what their camera can do.

Next up is the battery life, and this is a huge benefit of the Nikon D3500. I kid you not, on a full charge this 14.5oz / 415g beast can snap upwards of 1,500 images. That is absolutely unheard of by today’s mirrorless standards, with entry-level rigs lucky to capture 500 images before their battery runs dry.

As a beginner, you want to shoot. That's it; take pictures and repeat. This is how you build a love for photography. Having to buy several replacement batteries and swap them out after just a few hours can impact this negatively.

Mirrorless cameras do, of course, have their advantages for beginners. I’ve previously argued that they can actually help more on the creativity side of things thanks to all the built-in help. But, in my view, for beginners, practicality trumps creativity.

And while the Nikon D3500 might only feature 5fps bursts, FullHD video and a maximum ISO of 12,800, it’s cheap (roughly $450 / £330 / AU$630) can go for days before dying and is just a joy to use.

So, if you’re thinking about what your first camera is going to be – or, like my parents, you're going to gift someone as theirs – I’d seriously consider the Nikon D3500. While I think practicality is the main selling point, it has other great traits – which you can read about in our Nikon D3500 review, where my colleague Rod called it "an evergreen classic".

You might also like…

Already got one? Make sure you're using one of the best lenses for the Nikon D3500! And here’s our roundup of the best cameras for beginners as well as our pick of the best cheap cameras.

On August 10, the main headline in Oregon was the sad story of a 20-year-old man who fell to his death while taking a picture at a 177-foot-tall waterfall.

Zachary Nicholas Mertens, of Burlington, Kentucky, climbed over a barrier at the top of South Falls’ upper viewpoint at Silver Falls State Park. He then, according to state police, crossed the creek directly above the falls to pose for a photo before tragedy struck.

Now, I must say that the authorities assume that Mertens took the risk for photos, as the Oregon Police bulletins and local news coverage mention nothing about any images being recovered, nor a smartphone or camera.

However, the upsetting report comes amid concerns of Gen Z outdoor explorers getting into increasing trouble while trying to capture Instagrammable content.

And if this was the case with Mertens, then I imagine he was after some gnarly selfies looking down into the torrenting falls, for which he paid the ultimate price.

But even if the assumptions are correct, and even if Mertens had come away with the snaps successfully, I don’t think they would’ve been anything special at all.

I haven’t been to South Falls, but I’ve now looked at enough photos, and also taken enough photos of waterfalls, to know that from atop, the perspective just doesn’t do these landmarks justice.

Maybe Mertens’ pictures would’ve been good. Perhaps they would’ve given us a tight, uneasy feeling in our stomachs.

And after all, renowned photo historian and photographer in his own right, Peter Adams, famously said: “Great photography is about depth of feeling, not depth of field.” Although so many things would’ve had to have gone right for Mertens.

From ensuring he didn’t fill the background with the falling water and not the pool at the base, to getting enough of himself in the frame, the images would’ve been tricky at best.

If only Mertens had looked at pictures of South Falls beforehand, or perhaps taken a second to appreciate how fantastic the falls look amid the surrounding nature, he might’ve realized that the better, and non-life-risking, option would’ve been to shoot it from afar.

I don’t get the impression that Mertens was a photographer by any stretch. There’s no way he would’ve decided to capture the falls from atop if he was.

But even with only a smartphone at his disposal, judging by some of the pictures I’ve included in this article, there’s no doubt he would’ve come away with some great snaps of South Falls if taken from afar.

Now, not all landscape shots are better composed from distance. As someone who does a lot of outdoor photography, some of my favorite images are close-ups of hikers on trails or of the finer details, like leaves juxtaposed against tall trees in the background.

But when getting close is extremely risky, like it was for Mertens, it’s time to reassess your idea for the composition by looking at the scene from a few steps farther back. The likelihood is you’ll find a decent, if not better, frame to take.

You might also like…

Here’s our expert roundup of the best cameras for landscape photography.

When it comes to the production, supply and sale of third-party optics that will fit a slew of different manufacturers’ mounts, lens specialist Tamron says it is number one for global sales – claiming as recently as last month that it holds as much as 60% market share.

No wonder, then, that Sony is eyeing up Tamron for a possible takeover bid – the intention and the approach, if not yet the actuality, currently being confirmed by both parties. As it is already in possession of a 15% stake in the company, the electronics giant’s plan is that it will make the lens specialist a wholly owned subsidiary.

Yes, Tamron currently lists 23 lenses directly compatible with the Sony mount at the time of writing. But it also produces plenty of other directly compatible lenses for Canon, Fujifilm and Nikon users.

If Sony were to acquire Tamron – which has currently set up its own committee to consider the bid – I can imagine Sony taking a similar approach to when it exclusively snapped up Konica Minolta’s imaging expertise in 2006.

Konica Minolta immediately exited the camera business, while Sony was able to quickly introduce its first ever Alpha-branded DSLR, based on existing Minolta tech.

So, my worry for the wider photographic community is that Tamron itself may cease to exist – with its lenses hereon marketed as Sony lenses, with the same mix of decent build quality, performance yet affordability that the optical specialist offers now.

If that scenario plays out, I can’t imagine Sony continuing to do what Tamron currently does in offering lenses to other, non-Sony users. Plus I also wonder how it will impact its current relationship with Nikon, for whom it makes several Nikkor-branded OEM lenses.

Factor in a camera market that is experiencing a slowdown this year anyway, according to official figures from CIPA Japan, and the prospect gets even more intriguing.

Cutting out other camera owners might lessen the value of Tamron as a standalone brand. But if it’s subsumed by Sony, then that becomes academic anyway.

At present it’s not a done deal, just one under serious consideration that Sony certainly has the industry clout to pull off. It all comes down to whether Tamron, which independently has its own ambitious growth targets despite the uncertain economic climate, gives the green light.

If the market for interchangeable lens cameras really is in decline, and the current slowdown persists, I feel Tamron may well be tempted to take Sony’s money and run. However bad that is for competitive pricing going forward – and potentially the wider photographic community.

Ultimately, there will be winners as well as losers if a deal is done.

But to end on a positive note, among the winners will not just be Sony’s existing user base, who may theoretically get a boosted and continuing supply of affordable optics, but also rival third-party lens manufacturers such as Sigma, Laowa, Viltrox and more, who will have one less competitor out there.

You might also like...

Take a look at the best Sony lenses from all manufacturers.

Back in 1902, Hugo Schrader started Plaubel & Company in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Schrader had done his apprenticeship at Voigtländer and later worked for one of the more innovative German camera makers; Dr Rudolf Krügener. In fact, he married Dr Krügener’s daughter, Ruth.

You may wonder why a chap named Schrader would call his firm by a different name. The answer is as simple as it is odd. The Plaubel name comes from Karl Plaubel, Hugo Schrader’s brother-in-law. Apparently, Schrader chose it because he thought it was easier to remember than “Schrader”.

The Plaubel camera company became one of Germany's most respected photographic manufacturers, known for high-quality press cameras, large-format cameras, and later the famous Makina medium-format rangefinders. The firm's history spans more than a century.

Plaubel started by manufacturing lenses (including the Anticomar, Heli-Orthar and Supracomar lines) and selling other firms' cameras to augment its income – though these cameras would nearly always go out the door with a Plaubel lens or two.

Around 1909-1910, Plaubel began producing its own cameras – and in 1912 it introduced the camera that would define its reputation: the Plaubel Makina. The Makina was a compact folding press camera with scissor-strut bellows construction. Over the following decades it evolved into one of Europe's best professional cameras for the press.

During the Second World War, the factory was heavily damaged by Allied bombers. But the firm recovered, resumed making cameras and introduced its Peco line of monorail view cameras – which became highly regarded among studio and architectural photographers for their precision engineering and exceptional build quality.

Curiously, it also made the VeriWide 100 – an ultra-wide-angle medium format camera. The Veriwide 100 was designed around a fixed 47mm f/8 Schneider Super-Angulon lens, giving an angle of view of nearly 100°.

It made seven 6x10cm negatives on a roll of 120 film, with an angle of view roughly equivalent to an 18–20 mm lens on a 35mm camera but with the image quality advantage of 120 Roll film.

It was introduced in 1959 in collaboration with the New York photographic distributor, Burleigh Brooks, Inc. Production ran until 1965 and, depending on who you believe, between 2,000 and 5,000 were made.

In 1975 Hugo Schrader’s son, Goetz Schrader, sold Plaubel to the Japanese Kimio Doi Group. Although the company retained the Plaubel name and the German factory, camera development largely shifted to Japan.

The most famous result of this new ownership was the new Plaubel Makina 67, introduced in 1978. Unlike the original German Makina cameras, it was a sophisticated 6x7 cm folding rangefinder camera equipped with a superb Nikkor 80mm f/2.8 lens and built-in metering.

The metering was a TTL (through-the-lens) match-needle system, which used a semi-transparent mirror just behind the shutter to divert a small amount of the light to a silicon photodiode. The photographer would change the shutter speed or aperture until the meter indicated correct exposure.

Because the Kimio Doi Group did not own a factory, the cameras were made under contract. Early development prototypes (called the Makinette 67) were produced in the German factory, but the production Makina 67 was all Japanese.

Konica’s chief designer, Yasuo Uchida, led the design team with assistance from Professor Udo M Geissler of the industrial design department of the Technical University of Munich.

It seems that Uchida did his best to persuade Doi to use a Konica lens for the camera. However, Doi had already paid Nikon for the development of the 80mm f/2.8 lens specially for the Makina 67. Uchida then asked for a copy of the lens for testing, and legend has it that he was blown away by the results.

In late 1981, the Makina W67 arrived. It was essentially the same camera, but with a wide-angle 55mm f/4.5 Nikkor lens. It was followed in 1984 by the Makina 670, which was a modified Makina 67 that could use either 120 or 220 film.

There was also a Makina 69W Proshift that had a 47mm Schneider Super-Angulon and made eight 6x9cm exposures per roll of 120 film. The lens was mounted on a sliding flange, which allowed for perspective control in the same manner as shifting the front standard of a view camera.

Early production was done by Konica or Copal (there is a lot of uncertainty about this). But it seems certain that in 1981 production shifted to Mamiya, where it remained until production ended for all models in 1986 due to rising costs.

In all, some 24,500 cameras were made across all four models, though the standard “67” accounted for 17,000 of them. Plaubel continued to make its famous monorail cameras in Germany until finally closing its doors in 2017.

Among film photographers, the Makina 67 remains one of the most sought-after medium format cameras. Today, a Plaubel Makina 67 in good working condition sells for considerably more than it did when new – even after adjusting for inflation.

Read more of David Young's ongoing series on classic cameras, as well as his book A Brief History of Photography.

You might also like…

Take a look at the best medium format cameras you can buy today.

Even as an adult, American Emily Rhyne would barely go past her knees into the ocean without having a “ton of anxiety”. But then, in 2021, something clicked.

During a trip to Egypt, the former New York Times videojournalist was inspired by divers at the Red Sea. “I didn't have a dive certification and it kind of got in my ear then that [it] would be something cool to do, like a cool adventure,” she said.

Finally, in 2025, Emily conquered her fears by gaining a diving certification and she was immediately hooked.

By the time Emily was immersing herself in the world of diving, Canadian Nadia Aly, a Canon Explorer of Light and self-professed “water baby”, had already racked up countless hours with a camera in the ocean.

A longtime dive tour operator, she’d spent years capturing footage of some of the biggest ocean dwellers, like sperm whales and orcas.

But what Nadia and Emily will both tell you is that learning to use a camera underwater is just one half of the battle. Scuba diving opens up an alien world full of mesmerizing creatures but, to capture footage of them, you need to be a strong diver first and foremost.

Learn to dive before using a complex camera underwater

Emily’s diving journey began at Cozumel, a small Caribbean island off the southern coast of Mexico, where she eventually racked up her first 100 dives. Throughout all of these, Emily shot on a trusty GoPro Hero13.

“I can't imagine doing it another way,” she said. I always say to people […] when you're 100 feet underwater it's not the time you want to be messing with your [camera] settings.”

ABOVE: One of Emily's early GoPro videos from Cozumel

Although the GoPro wasn’t the filmmaking powerhouse setup she’d been used to while at the NY Times, her focus was on mastering basic dive technique – and the simplicity of the action camera was just the trick when concentrating on buoyancy, safety or rough conditions.

“You want all these things to be second nature. I cannot emphasize enough that I'm still learning like every single dive,” she said. Diving the same reefs day in, day out at Cozumel also meant that Emily began to learn how specific species of marine life behaved.

Learn to read the animal, not chase it

Dive number 70 and Emily came face to face with an eagle ray. The spotted, giant-winged predator was throwing up sand as it foraged the ocean floor for food, but was comfortable with the videojournalist's presence.

Emily gradually came closer until she was “right there” next to the ray, managing to record an intimate sequence before another group of divers scared it away.

In Nadia’s eyes: “You really have to learn how to read animals and approach them. You have to gain their trust.” According to the experienced underwater filmmaker, getting the “amazing shot” isn't only a lens decision, it’s a behavior decision.

“You have to get close to this animal in the water that's swimming, that's faster than you, that's larger than you,” she said. “You can’t charge at them”.

Knowing the place is just as important

After Cozumel, Emily crossed the world setting up base on Komodo, a paradisiacal Indonesian island and diving hotspot. Here she performed some 200 dives, all at the same resort, resisting the temptation to constantly move between destinations, giving herself “time to sink into a place”.

During her last week on the island, Emily shot her Postcards From Komodo video. The impressive footage was the perfect example of how the best underwater shoots don’t come from ticking off as many dive locations as possible.

Instead, they happened once you have a feel for the textures of a place, like how the morning light hits a dive map, things Emily said “take time to notice”.

ABOVE: Watch Postcards From Komodo

Start with a basic, not overwhelming camera

Roughly 100 dives in and Emily went “full throttle”. By this stage the GoPro 13, which had been the perfect starter camera, was beginning to hold her back. So she got her hands on a Canon EOS C50, a Nauticam NA-C50 underwater camera housing and a trio of professional lenses, including the RF 24-50 f/4.5-6.3 IS STM.

Emily now had some serious underwater filmmaking firepower, but the tradeoff was in equipment size and weight – especially when diving in strong currents, which is something she says beginners should avoid.

Unlike Emily, Nadia threw herself in at the deep end. Back in 2010, she came stumbling out of a Monterey, California dive shop with “10 boxes” of equipment in her arms, including a Canon EOS 1-D.

“I look at the guy (store attendant), I'm like, I don't know how – how is this supposed to like… how does the strobe, how does the camera go in?” she recalled.

However, splashing out on high-end gear right away was a tougher learning curve. And Nadia was about to find out the following week while diving at Bonaire, a small Dutch island off the north coast of Venezuela.

“I went to Bonaire and I started taking photos underwater and every photo was black,” she said. “[But] I kept at it [and] I would say by day four I started getting some good exposures.”

Master your gear before the big encounter

Nadia turned her initial Bonaire failures into her biggest lesson. Over each of the next five years, she spent roughly three-hundred days diving while mastering techniques like strobe positioning, understanding her camera settings and choosing the right lens.

“For every trip I went on, I always asked questions, always learned from other people,” she said.

Through trial and error, Nadia now knows that her Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM is ideal for extremely close whale encounters, while wider or zoom options, such as her RF 24-50mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM, come in handy when photographing sperm whales and orcas farther away.

In 2017, after years of mastering dive technique and her equipment, the big moment came.

While scouting for dive locations in La Ventana, off the northwest coast of Mexico, Nadia came across a feeding frenzy of mobula rays. “There were 20,000 plus of these mobula rays, I'm not joking. It's not an exaggeration,” she said.

She snapped a still of the swirling “vortex”, which, three years later, went on to win the prestigious Ocean Photographer of the Year 2020.

Be prepared for everything to go wrong

According to Nadia, at some point, things will go wrong with your gear. “As an underwater photographer, the biggest thing for preparation is redundancy,” she said. “You have to have double of almost everything.”

The dive tour leader always works with duplicate lenses, dome ports, batteries, O-rings and even a second setup. She either dives with her Canon EOS R5 Mark II or R6 Mark III, leaving one rig aboard just in case – like when her underwater housing flooded in La Ventana.

“You hold your camera upside-down so the water fills the dome port and you abort your dive and you go to the surface,” explained Nadia. “You hope that you didn't ruin your setup because that's an expensive leak.”

“Everything that you can think of that could go wrong, you need to just be ready for.”

The best camera is the one you don't have to think about

While Emily and Nadia might have taken different paths to becoming underwater filmmakers, for both of these oceanic creators, this is a craft of two disciplines.

You need enough camera skill that the equipment doesn't distract you from what’s happening in front of the lens. And at the same time, you need to be able to navigate the underwater world while using a camera almost instinctively.

You might also like…

We've got an entire section dedicated to underwater photography where you'll find tips, tricks and tutorials. And here's our pick of the best waterproof cameras along with the best underwater housings for cameras and phones.