Exactly. And exactly why I'm being "bitter" and "negative" (according to Timmyjoe) about a camera I wouldn't own or use. The Z9 is indicative of where the industry is trending, and I don't care for that direction. That affects me and all photographers, and I think we have a right and responsibility to voice our opinions without being shot down by name-callers. Sometimes the emperor has no clothes, and pointing that out is anything but negative.
............
A few short months ago Nikon introduced the Z fc along with a smallish lens. So, maybe they are, with both cameras, not "trending" anywhere, but just addressing two very different perceived needs from two very different groups of photographers. Some people want one of these cameras, some people want the other, and some don't need or want either of these. "Emperor's New Clothes" signifies some lie that foolish people propagate. How is it that Nikon isn't what it claims to be, that either Nikon or its customers are living a lie, by virtue of either of these two cameras, or the fact that someone, somewhere, thinks they are good cameras for them, and mentions it in public? It is good to point out when the Emperor truly does not have new clothes. Just not seeing it in this case. Maybe I'm just being negative, about someone else being negative, ha, ha. It's all good, great time to be a photographer.
The only place the camera industry is "going" is to lenses that are sharper, and sharper to the corners, with less chromatic aberration, and less aberration of any kind, and to bodies with better AF, with sensors with better dynamic range and better color bit depth. They are doing that, because people already have, and are in many cases satisfied with, lenses and bodies that don't do any of those things. There is no point for manufacturers to build something new that is just like things that people already have, because people, already having those, have no reason to spend money on anything else. And if photographers don't buy, the only place manufacturers will be "going" is "away".
If all the above qualities were currently possible in cameras which were ever smaller and lighter, for the same cost, it's obvious that manufacturers would be doing that. Maybe it's not obvious. Leica may possibly make the worlds's best overall
small lenses (and how much do those cost?), but Leica/Peter Karbe acknowledges that the huge lenses for the SL system are "better" in absolute terms. I won't personally be purchasing either the SL lenses, or an SL (again), or probably the Z 9, but I can't really see any reason for faulting the industry for "going there" since I can't see that they realistically have any other choice than to create products that are intrinsically and demonstrably "better". Whether I need them or not.
