An inverted U curve is a graph that shows a relationship between two variables where one positively affects the other until it reaches a peak, then flattens out before it begins to have a negative effect (looks like an upside-down U). It’s a good way to quantify and visualize the concept of diminishing returns. It’s the saying too much of a good thing as a mathematical equation. In my opinion, we reached a point of diminishing returns with our digital cameras several years back.
While pretty much every aspect of a digital camera can be affected by this, a good example is resolution. Most people don’t need any more than 12-megapixels, considering how the vast majority of pictures are viewed. The amount of resolution one needs is dependent on what one is going to do with the picture: if it will only be shared on Instagram and through text messaging, 6mp is probably plenty; however, if you will make poster-sized gallery prints, 6mp is not anywhere close to enough. The percentage of photographers who need 24-megapixels is quite small, and the percentage that need more than that is much smaller (nice to have and need are two different things). Think of it this way: the difference between 16mp and 24mp is about the same leap as between 26mp and 40mp, but since most people don’t even need 24mp, the extra jump to 40mp has no practical advantage for the majority of photographers (only some), while perhaps having a negative effect on storage, since the files are much larger. A photographer is unlikely to avoid a 24mp camera because it has “too much” resolution, but they might a 40mp model (I’ve had a few people tell me this), which illustrates the inverted U curve perfectly.
I’m not meaning to pick on resolution here, it’s just an example. Specs sell cameras, whether or not they have any practical benefit for the person buying. 40mp sounds a lot sexier than 16mp, but probably 80% of those buying the 40mp camera only really need 16mp, and 95%+ likely only need 24mp. One must consider what their individual needs are because we’re all different. Someone might very well find 100mp to be barely sufficient, while another would absolutely hate having such large files. Someone might have a Fujifilm GFX100S II for a specific purpose, a Fujifilm X-H2s for another, and a Fujifilm X70 for another (true story). An individual might find their needs vary greatly depending on the situation, so they have multiple options, and choose the one that best fits the purpose of what they’re creating.
Our cameras today are almost always more capable than we are (with maybe only a few extraordinarily rare exceptions). In fact, I saw that someone recently created a short film on a $9 toy camera. The limitation is not the gear, it’s only what you do or don’t do with it. Ansel Adams famously stated, “The single most important component of a camera is the 12 inches behind it.” Even though most cameras can basically auto-do-everything (and more and more people rely on that), I believe his statement is just as true today as it was when he coined it, if not more so. Those who take charge of their gear (whatever their gear is) and use it in creative ways tend to have a better chance to stand out from the crowd—and boy-oh-boy is it crowded! We’re in a day and age where everyone has a camera with them all the time.
Pretty much every aspect of our cameras—resolution, dynamic range, high-ISO, frames-per-second, autofocus capabilities, etc., etc., etc.—have all reached a point of diminishing returns. They’re all near the top of the inverted U curve. Yes, camera makers can improve these things, as they should. I have no doubts that they will continue to strive to make the greatest products that they possibly can. But… these improvements will have a practical benefit for fewer and fewer photographers. We can gripe over small things—and turn those small things into big things—but there’s never been a better time to be a photographer or videographer. Our gear—whatever it is—is truly amazing! We should appreciate just how lucky we are, and complain less about how our incredible gear just isn’t quite incredible enough for us.
Since most aspects of digital camera technology is near the peak of the inverted U curve, where can camera makers turn to for improvements that will actually have a more wide-spread impact? My advice is user experience. In my opinion, how you feel using your camera is just as important as the technical specs. This could be interpreted as ergonomics and button placement, which are both aspects of what I’m talking about, but not just merely those things. It’s not only how the camera feels, but more so it’s how the photographer feels while using it. I believe that the experience plays a notable role in the image outcome (more than we often give credit), so camera makers should focus more on the emotional side of camera design. If any and every make and model is capable of getting the job done no matter the job (which is pretty much where we are now), why should someone choose your camera? As specs and advancements matter less and less, it’s not necessarily going to be technical improvements that attract buyers, it’s going to be how people feel while getting the job done with the camera in hand.
What precisely that means will vary from person-to-person, and brand-to-brand. What provides me with a good experience might not be the same for you. We’re all different, so that’s why there are different strokes for different folks. For me, it’s Fujifilm gear with retro-inspired designs and traditional tactile controls, and also straight-out-of-camera results that don’t require any editing for the pictures to look good. Each camera brand should consider how they can improve the user experience for their customers, and design their future models with the experience in mind just as much as the technical capabilities. Make your customers feel just as good about the gear in their hand as the potential images that they’ll create with it.