At PetaPixel, we've been covering generative AI advancements pretty heavily over the last two years for two major reasons. One, the technology is becoming inextricably linked to the software we use to edit photos, and two, it simultaneously represents an existential threat to the art of photography.
The iPhone 15 Pro series and the new iPhone 16 Pro series offer really gorgeous video capture capability, especially thanks to the addition of ProRes Log. The standard video capture suffers from oversharpening, but the log footage doesn't. But the log footage takes up a lot of storage, which means some creators might be tempted to use SD cards.
Point-and-shoot cameras are having a moment right now, but many now-popular models have been long forgotten by manufacturers. Cameras are selling with high markups on eBay and used marketplaces, and the latest generation of pocketable compact models from 2019 are widely sold out.
Since digital image editing tools like Adobe Photoshop hit the scene in the late 1980s, there have been heightened concerns about whether photos can be trusted. This long-time worry has become an increasingly common refrain among artificial intelligence's most ardent defenders, but it doesn't serve as a sound defense against criticisms of AI.
Pretty much as expected, Google leaned hard on the AI capabilities of the Pixel 9 series as selling points over major hardware improvements (a nice new design notwithstanding), but its implementation of these -- especially the generative AI additions -- lacks anything close to the proper levels of disclosure they needs.
Last week, Google updated its agreement with "Team Pixel" members to stipulate that they weren't allowed to support any other smartphone brand or else risk ejection from the platform. Because many in that program considered themselves reviewers, it exposed a major disconnect between how many perceived themselves versus how Google perceived them.
This week, PetaPixel published a podcast where the entire premise was simply posing questions provided by photographers to Adobe. But just the act of publicizing those answers immediately turned some viewers off, showing a huge number need to see action, not words -- if anything at all will work at this point.
Starting earlier this year with the Samsung Galaxy S24 launch, the companies behind the most popular smartphones seem to be dead-set on using AI features as selling points for new hardware. Much of it will be free to start with, but eventually everything comes with a cost.
Yesterday, Ricoh announced the G900 II and G900SE II cameras. Designed for use by businesses, they come packed with multiple security enhancements including a password-locking option that should be a standard feature in every camera.
After today's initial testing of the Canon R5 Mark II sensor by DPReview, it's becoming increasingly apparent that camera makers -- namely the big three in Sony, Canon, and Nikon -- are not only willing to, but happy to, trade still photo image quality for other benefits.
In an opinion piece I authored last weekend, I wrote: "Attracting and supporting professional shooters should be the priority." A commenter asked what I meant, since pros are not nearly as numerous as average photographers, so why do they matter more?
On Tuesday morning, a day before the R1 was announced, I was finalizing our coverage and looking over the materials Canon prepared. "The Canon EOS R1 is Ahead of the Game," a header in the press release promised. I scratched my head in confusion.
In this industry, perception matters -- a lot. Side by side, spec for spec, the Canon R1 is obviously improved versus the R3 but not to the degree that feels like an entirely different camera line.
It's easy to think that the Canon EOS R1 is the main attraction of Canon's announcements this week. The company made a development announcement for it and it's been heavily teased. However, while relegated a bit to the shadows, the Canon EOS R5 Mark II is the more interesting and exciting of the two new Canon cameras.
In some of PetaPixel's images of the Canon EOS R1, you may have noticed that the logo wasn't visible. In some cases, that was due to electrical tape blocking it, which is common practice for pre-release hardware that may be seen in public. In other cases, it's because the "R1" logo actually fell off.
My history with the Canon mirrorless series started in late 2018 with the launch of the EOS R. Since then, I have switched from the EF to the RF mount, and for the past four years, I have worked intensively with two EOS R5 cameras. They have been loyal companions during my projects, and I have completed hundreds of photo and video shoots with them. When I became aware that Canon was launching a successor, I couldn't wait to get my hands on a sample.
Regardless of the complex cultural, social, and political impacts of the attempt on former president and 2024 election front-runner Donald Trump's life, the event has left an indelible mark on the photography world and offers a chance to consider how society consumes, shares, and thinks about images.
Since Nikon announced the Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.4 lens last week, I have been asking myself -- and Nikon -- a lot of questions about it. What about the 35mm S-Line lens on the roadmap? Is this new lens a sign of affordable f/1.4 lenses to come? What's Nikon's overall strategy?
The Nikon Z6 III's peak dynamic range can't keep pace with its predecessor, the Z6 II. The gap isn't minor, either. But how much does it matter, and does it mean photographers should opt for the older model?
For the past several weeks, photographers have been expressing a recurring sentiment online: the lack of supply for highly sought-after cameras like the Fujifilm X100VI, Ricoh GR III, or Pentax 17 is actually a strategy to "build hype." That's absurd.
Earlier this week, Nikon announced the Z6 III to considerable fanfare, and for good reason. It packs so many features into a $2,500 system that it manages to be a camera that is more than a compromise, even at that price. But the Z6 series has always been accompanied by the Z7 series yet this time, that wasn't the case.
Arguably, the Sony a7 IV has been the top dog in the mid-range camera space since it released in late 2021. And it's an excellent camera, as is 2023's Canon EOS R6 II. However, the Nikon Z6 III does something those cameras haven't: be more than a compromise.
Last week, Canon clarified that while the aperture control rings on its 24-105mm f/2.8L Z and 35mm f/1.4L VCM don't work in photo mode with its existing cameras, that will change with any camera announced after June 2024. That's really weird.
Humane's AI Pin didn't review well, but the company is still pushing forward. Today, it sent out an email with a link to a YouTube Short that glorifies the experience of letting life happen instead of actively trying to capture it on camera. It instead wants users to rely on the AI Pin and its lackluster hardware.
Another week, another public relations nightmare for Adobe. While not every controversy is Adobe's fault, each is understandable in the larger context: Adobe lost people's trust a while ago, and everything it does is under a microscope.
As someone who earns a living from digital media and keeping plugged into the photographic and videographic industries, it’s only natural that I spend a lot of time cruising around on the information superhighway and frequently interacting with people all over the world on the subject of cameras and the field writ large.
While preparing PetaPixel's coverage of Canon's impending Cinema EOS launch this week -- which included a corner of an unknown RF-mount cinema camera -- I realized just how little support the line has gotten since the launch of RF mount.
Electronic shutters no longer harm peak dynamic range performance in the way they once did, at least not with modern image sensor architecture. It's time to change course on an earlier story and see where I went wrong.
This week on The PetaPixel Podcast, Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake give their insight into camera press trips and whether or not they believe they allow for ethical evaluation of equipment.
In the days and weeks after the launch of the new iPad Pro from Apple, I noticed quite a bit of discourse responding to critical reception of the tablet that boils down to this: If iPadOS is so bad, why are so many creators using nothing else?