Today’s contemporary digital camera systems have reached such a high point of sufficiency and competency across every sensor size that the idea floated by the “fool frame” crowd about full frame (i.e. using digital sensors that are the same size as analog 35mm film frames) being the only true way to photograph digitally is laughable at best. I’m continually surprised and pleased at the technical quality produced by cameras with anything but fool frame. On the web in particular I can’t tell the difference. The only time I know what sensor size was used in the creation of an image is when it’s called it out. The distinguishing factor is the talent of the photographer behind the camera, not the gear they used.

I would be more impressed with Nikon’s and Canon’s latest if I thought they would lead to interesting new areas of creativity, but they won’t. They’ll wind up as points of trivial tribal arguments on various forums and websites (like ThePhoblographer). Nikon and Canon’s latest are a response by the two companies to halt the leakers from leaving their respective brands. But I don’t expect to see anything different visually.

The cost of the latest from Nikon and Canon, along with Sony’s fool frame cameras, are outrageous. They have become what Mike Johnston over at The Online Photographer has labeled as a Veblen good (he did that with Leica, but it applies here equally). A Veblen good is when you telegraph how rich you are that you can participate in conspicuous consumption by purchasing such a good as a status symbol because of its expense. Unfortunately talent and financial ability to afford these cameras don’t go hand in hand (that’s why the phrase “starving artist” exists and has for centuries).

In any event, I won’t purchase anything from these two, any more than I won’t line up to buy from Sony. The price is too great for the functionality and true value provided.