Almost every time a camera maker announces a new model, I spot a few comments that follow a familiar script: someone sees the price, winces, and declares the company “greedy.”

It’s not just cameras. The same charge gets thrown at smartphone makers, appliance manufacturers, and even app developers who choose to charge a subscription. I see it far more often today than I did ten years ago, and in most cases, I think it’s misguided.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand sticker shock, and I feel it too. My colleague Richard Butler has done a great job explaining why your sense of camera prices might be out of date and why launch prices always seem high. Even with that perspective, though, we still feel the sting of higher prices. But a price that makes us cringe isn’t evidence of greed.

Mitchell Clark

Few people start a business to give something away, and camera companies aren’t charities. Like most companies, their goal is to make money, ideally as much as they can. That’s not wrong – it’s business.

Consider what that means. Camera makers want the highest price they can get today. But they wanted the same thing five years ago, and ten years before that. Their appetite for profit didn’t suddenly appear when prices went up, and that appetite always has to be tempered by what people are willing or able to pay. What has changed is what it costs to design and build a camera, and what we’re comparing new prices against.

In fact, it can be in our interest for camera companies to be profitable. Profit keeps them in business and pays for R&D. And let’s be honest – making cameras isn’t exactly a gold mine. Olympus sold off its camera business, and Samsung walked away from the market entirely, just as it was emerging as a more serious player.

Additionally, we always want more. I’ve never seen a camera launch where everyone said, “That’s it. This camera is perfect. It’s all we’ll ever need.” There’s always a “but.” But if it only had this one feature… The catch is that nobody agrees on what that feature is, so manufacturers have to keep developing. That requires money.

Am I suggesting that manufacturers never overreach? Of course not. We’ve all seen a company swing for the fences on price, sometimes to the point of being laughable. As Richard pointed out, launch prices in particular are essentially an opening bid, the most a company will ever get for a product, and they’re often optimistic.

However, consumers have power too: we can choose not to buy. If a camera sits on shelves, its price will come down. It almost always does. And if it sells out at full price, that tells us something too, even if we don’t like what it says.

Richard Butler

Is the system perfect? No. A handful of brands dominate the camera market, and once you’re invested in a system, switching is neither easy nor inexpensive. Companies do have real leverage over pricing, and it tends to show up where you’re locked in: proprietary batteries, pricey accessories, or even mounts that restrict the use of third-party lenses. Those are fair targets for criticism. But it’s a much more specific complaint than “this camera costs more than I want to pay, so the manufacturer must be greedy.” And when it comes to the cameras themselves, you have alternatives.

The next time a new camera’s price makes you cringe, try asking a different question. Instead of “why are they so greedy?”, ask “is this worth it to me?” If the answer is no, don’t buy it. It’s the most effective message a camera buyer can send.

That message has its limits, though. Holding off on buying might bring an optimistic launch price down, but it can’t make a camera cheaper to manufacture. If enough people decide the answer is yes, that price may simply be the new normal. If enough decide it’s no, we’re more likely to get a cheaper camera than the same camera for less.

I’m going to argue that Sigma’s 50-120mm F2.8 is one of the most interesting lenses this year. And not just because I’ve been asking for something like it, for years.

Different formats have different strengths and weaknesses, generally offering a different balance of size, price and image quality. But they can only live up to their full potential if they have lenses that let them deliver the size or price benefits they should be capable of.

For various reasons that have very little to do with the merits, or otherwise, of APS-C, most of the biggest camera makers have heavily focused their lens development on full-frame. This has left us in the odd situation where Canon, Nikon and Sony all make some quite nice APS-C bodies, but with lenses for them being distinctly few and far between.

But, as was the case in the DSLR era, third-party makers such as Sigma and Tamron have helped fill the gap. And, refreshingly, for the most part, the big camera makers have let them.

Finally, with the arrival of Sigma’s new 75-180mm equiv zoom, APS-C users across multiple systems can put together some pretty flexible kits that take full advantage of the size, price, image quality balance that the format should be able to provide.

Richard Butler

Incrementally, the choice of compact primes for APS-C has expanded, with autofocus options from the likes of Sigma, Tokina and Viltrox spanning a wide range of focal lengths. In terms of zooms there are a choice of wide-angles, and both Tamron and Sigma offer some interesting fast standard zooms

Even the camera makers themselves seem to recognize this need, with Nikon, Sony and Fujifilm all offering 16-50-ish F2.8 options. And, collectively, these options will cover a wide range of photography situations.

The addition of a modern approximation of a 70-200mm equiv for APS-C rounds out this lineup. It means you can keep your kit small and relatively affordable across an even wider range of photography. And it’s hard to convey just how small the Sigma 50-120mm is, until you see it in person.

Obviously, a 50-120mm F2.8 is not fully equivalent to an F2.8 75-180mm lens on full-frame (120/2.8 ≠ 180/2.8), but it lets you do the things that make a 70-200mm lens on full-frame so popular, while maintaining the size and price benefits you get in return for the image quality trade-off.

I loved the original APO Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 EX II HSM in the DSLR era because it was two-thirds the size of a 70-200 and two-thirds the price. It was a much easier to handle and less potentially intimidating lens than a 70-200, helping give me the confidence to shoot some of my first public portraits. And it was much easier to carry than the second-hand 70-200mm F2.8 I’d previously bought and that sat at home unless I was absolutely sure I’d need it.

Richard Butler

The new Sigma not only repeats that trick but improves on it. It’s so much smaller and lighter than an actual 70-200mm lens (even compared with Canon’s RF 70-200mm F4 with which it’s approximately equivalent) that it means I can keep it with me, even if I’m not anticipating needing it.

So, APS-C users, you have a choice: you can believe the bottom-line-benefitting talk of ‘upgrade paths,’ and saddle yourself with a heavy, expensive 105-300mm equiv lens (which can have their uses, but that aren’t necessarily the same as those of a 70-200mm), or you opt for the Sigma, and gain approximately 70-200 utility in a lens you can fit in a coat pocket. As an APS-C shooter, I know which makes sense to me.

Alongside the addition of a variable aperture and manual controls, Apple introduced an interesting feature to the iPhone 18 Pro: it’s called Reference Image, and is designed to prove that a photo wasn’t altered at any point after the photons hit the sensor.

This system, which currently only works on the iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max’s main camera, is a distinct mode in the camera app and is aimed primarily at journalists. It tries to overcome several technical hurdles to ensure that both the data as captured by the sensor and the processed result of that data, can be tied back to a specific device within a narrow period of time. In other words, it tries to authenticate both the Raw and the processing that turns it into a viewable image.

Dale Baskin

Apple isn’t the first company to try to solve this problem. A coalition of companies, including Adobe and several major camera manufacturers, has thrown its weight behind Content Credentials, another system designed to be able to prove that an image is what it claims to be in the age of wholesale AI image generation and assisted editing.

While we’ve written extensively about Content Credentials, Apple has characteristically taken a completely new approach with its own system. So why has it invented its own tech, rather than using the existing standard that some of its competitors have adopted, and how does it work?

What problems is Apple trying to solve?

Apple says it designed the Reference Image system to meet three requirements:

• The resulting image “must faithfully show what the sensor captured,” and you can verify both the Raw capture and the process that turned the raw data captured into a viewable photo
• A false image created via tampering with the sensor, cryptographic software or phone’s OS will fail the verification process. If it’s later discovered that the system verified an image it shouldn’t have, the certificate marking it as authentic must be able to be revoked.
• The images can’t reveal who took them, or whether the same device took any two images. Apple shouldn’t be able to tell what’s in the image when it’s signing it.

The company argues that existing systems like Content Credentials don’t meet these standards. Part of that is because they have different goals; one of the explicit appeals of Content Credentials is that it lets you bake image attribution into the file in a way that’s hard to remove. But Apple also argues that adding a credential after the image is created, as Content Credentials does, leaves space for bad actors to create false images and then sign them as authentic (something that one of our forum members was able to demonstrate with the implementation in the Nikon Z6III).

The system looks to be incredibly robust, which is unsurprising given the level of attacks Apple’s devices have to defend against. (It basically has to assume its systems will be tested by the full capabilities of a hostile government.) It’s built to protect against verifying images made by feeding fake data to the sensor itself through its electrical contacts or by removing it from the phone, and from quantum computers being used to break its encryption, something Apple says no other image provenance systems do. The company says this is to make sure the images are verifiable far into the future; traditional encryption algorithms can withstand most kind of attacks, but because quantum computers work fundamentally differently from the computers they were designed for, they can easily crack them.

What does taking a reference image look like?

The high-level overview is that the phone isn’t always taking Reference Images. You have to purposefully switch to taking them in the camera app, which will reboot the sensor into a special mode. So far, this is only available on the iPhone 18 Pro or Pro Max’s main camera – either in 1x or 2x mode, though not night mode since it appears to only use a single exposure – as it’s a hardware-based feature. Even then, it isn’t available in the EU or China (likely due to its reliance on Apple’s Private Cloud Compute service, which we’ll cover shortly).

Dale Baskin

After you take a reference image, you then have to choose to “develop” it before you’re able to view or share it. You can share the developed HEIC file as a normal photo, viewable by anyone, or as a special reference image that, currently, can only be viewed using an Apple device running its latest software. The person receiving it will be able to see a version with any edits you’ve made, as well as what the camera originally captured, and the interface can even highlight the differences. It will also show verified metadata, such as when the photo was captured. This does, however, rely on them using Apple software on Apple hardware: otherwise, it’ll just render like a normal HEIC.

How does a Reference Image work?

Apple’s document on the technical details of the Reference Image system is, unsurprisingly, pretty complex, so I’ll try to explain it in a way that will make sense to most people.

The process for creating a reference image starts at the factory, when the phone’s sensor and security chip are tied together in a way that Apple can check later, to confirm that the two actually worked together to create and secure the data that it’s interpreting as a photo.

Dale Baskin

When you switch to the camera’s Reference Image mode, it reboots the sensor into a secure mode that basically ignores what the operating system is doing, except for receiving a “digest” that contains a securely computed timestamp range and some identifying information for the device and its security chip. The sensor then collects light and digitizes it into data (as cameras tend to do). It then cryptographically signs it before sending it off the chip. This basically means that the raw data the camera captured can’t be changed by the sensor firmware, phone’s processor, operating system or anything else. Otherwise, the signature created by the sensor won’t match the signature produced by the data, and the system could tell something was wrong. The secure metadata, including what time the photo was taken, is also included in that package, before it’s handed back to the OS for storage

This leaves you with what Apple calls a “secure digital negative,” stored as a DNG Raw file, which you can edit and share like normal if need be. However, to make it a Reference Image, you need to then be able to trust the process that turns that “negative” into a viewable file, as the raw data from the image sensor isn’t actually an image. Even when opening a Raw file on your computer, what you’re actually seeing is that data processed in several ways, like demosaicing to interpret color, lens corrections and the application of a tone curve. You are seeing your program’s interpretation of the Raw, not the data itself (which is why it may look different from program to program).

This is where the second part of the system comes in. After you’ve taken the picture, you can choose to “develop” it into a Reference Image (something that doesn’t happen automatically, and which requires an internet connection). When you do, that “digital negative” is sent to Apple’s Private Cloud Compute servers, which will then recompute the “digest” containing the timestamp and data from the phone and its security chip, ensure the certificate matches the raw data and that it was actually issued by the sensor. It checks a few other things too, making sure that the sensor and the security chip haven’t been altered since they left the factory.

Apple says it takes great pains to ensure that the timestamp attached to the image is accurate. Rather than using on the device’s clock, your phone routinely gets cryptographically-signed timestamps from Apple’s servers, which it uses to create a window of time that the image must’ve been taken in, based on the timestamp it received before it was taken, and the next one it received, after. (Apple says this happens on average every 15 minutes, though it’ll depend on network connectivity; it can also account for phones that are offline for long periods of time).

After the Private Cloud Compute service has checked over all the certificates, it creates what’s called a confidence score for the image, which decides how likely it is that it is a real photograph based on how well the data matches “physical characteristics expected of raw output from our sensors.” It then turns the Raw into a JPEG before “hashing” it, creating a signature that ensures that the rest of the development process won’t change it, and to identify any subsequent changes that occur after the image is returned to the user.

The JPEG’s unique identifier, the hash for its Raw, the confidence score and the sensor’s ID, though not the JPEG itself, are sent to a separate service, which checks a few things. Most importantly, it makes sure the image wasn’t created by a sensor that’s been added to a revocation list for having uploaded fake or suspect data. Apple keeps a running tally of the confidence scores attached to the images submitted by each sensor; if that number gets low enough, indicating that something suspicious is happening with that device’s reference images, the Private Cloud Compute service will never sign pictures from it again.

If everything checks out, though, the service signs the JPEG with Apple’s signature, letting everyone know that it passes the company’s technical checks. Importantly, this replaces the photographer in the chain of trust: the company says the system intentionally doesn’t provide a way to identify who took a reference image, to the point where you can’t even use it to tell if two photos were taken by the same phone. It only tells you that Apple can attest to it being unaltered from the point of capture. The Private Cloud Compute server then sends the JPEG, packaged as a HEIC, back to the phone, and moves the “digital negative” to the trash, for deletion after 30 days (though you can tell it not to delete it within that timespan if you want).

Whenever you go to view that image on a supported device, using supported software, it’ll check to make sure it still has the signature, and that Apple’s system hasn’t retroactively revoked it. From there, you’re able to make edits to it, though the end user will be able to see the original, provided you share the Reference Image HEIC, rather than an exported JPEG.

In Apple we trust?

Apple

As with most security standards, whether or not you believe an Apple Reference Image is a source of truth*will require putting some amount of faith in the company. The company has a relatively solid track record when it comes to security and cryptography, so it’s not implausible that it could implement a system like this, and Apple says the Private Cloud Compute software that turns those into viewable photos is publicly auditable. Of course, if you’re not a security and cryptography expert, you will have to trust researchers to actually do that work and communicate that it is, in fact, safe.

To me, the real act of faith won’t be in deciding whether the pictures Apple certifies are genuine. It’s trusting the company to never revoke a certificate of a legitimately-captured image for any reason, something that it appears to have the power to do. I also have to assume the system will occasionally get it wrong, either signing an image that shouldn’t have been signed, or not signing one that should, and the test will be how Apple reacts in such situations. Or, indeed, whether it bothers to continue operating the service indefinitely, irrespective of profitability and take-up.

The company has a history of standing up to governments – even powerful ones in the US and UK – when ordered to compromise user privacy and security, and offers some of the most comprehensive protection modes you can get on a phone. However, its track record isn’t spotless. It famously handed off control of the iCloud data for its users in China to comply with the country’s laws, a move that Reuters reports will give that government “far easier access to text messages, email and other data.”

Notably, the Reference Image feature isn’t available in China. It’s also not immediately launching in the EU – Apple is currently in a spat with the bloc over how much privilege it gives its own services on iOS – but the company has at least promised that it’ll bring the feature to the EU at some point in the future.

The chicken and the apple

Mitchell Clark

I’d like to leave you with a few parting thoughts. While there is undoubtedly use for pictures that are in some ways verifiable – especially as journalistic institutions change, and as news is increasingly captured on phones, both by professionals and everyday people – it’s also worth considering how much that can actually move the needle.

We live in a relatively low-trust environment, where large groups of people can’t agree on even relatively basic facts. (Calling topics “debated” would be giving too much credit; debate implies people are willing to change their minds based on evidence presented.) While people not being able to trust images is certainly a problem, especially at scale, there are a lot of examples of hard evidence being ignored because it’s inconvenient.

This is, frankly, not really a problem that Apple can even solve, no matter what technical expertise it brings to bear. I also shudder to think of us handing over that responsibility to a private company, more than we already have. But I also think that it’ll be hard to get back to a place where images are trustworthy again, because it’s a chicken and egg problem: you can’t rely on things like Reference Image or Content Credentials as an indicator of whether an image is fake or not until most or all of the real images you see have them attached. Sure, they can “prove” an image is authentic, but with their limited market penetration, they’re currently not very useful in spotting fakes.

Even if you could flip a switch today and have every picture taken on an iPhone be easily verifiable on any platform where they’re displayed (something that’s currently absolutely not true of the much more widely-adopted Content Credentials), it would probably still require sweeping social changes for that to actually matter. Again, though, that’s not really within Apple’s control. But as things stand, there’s at least one more tool that journalists and citizens can use to try to prove that their images are authentic… assuming the viewing public trusts the system, and that those trying to verify the image own enough new Apple products to do so.

* As much as any photograph can be. Pictures can depict what happened in a moment, but you still have to trust that the photographer or person or organization sharing the image are being honest about the context surrounding it.

As a reviewer covering the camera industry, I spend a lot of time in comments sections, forums and subreddits, seeing what people think of the latest releases and the rumors of what’s coming next. While I often see smart, informed discussions happening, this habit also exposes me to some… interesting takes.

As an example. This is more of a problem on other sites and on social media than on DPReview (though it’ll occasionally happen here) I’ve noticed a recent trend under many articles about new or upcoming cameras – even budget models – where there will be a few comments that are something along the lines of “No global shutter?” And then other people will chime in agreeing that the camera is DOA without one, and an example of manufacturers cheaping out or being behind the times.

And I just have to say: what are you all talking about?? Do you even know what a global shutter is, or are you just asking for one because you’ve heard it’s cool?

Thankfully, these comments aren’t common here on DPReview, and I know most of you are familiar with the concept of a global shutter. But for those that aren’t: it’s a sensor design that lets you capture and read out every pixel, simultaneously, as opposed to having to read them out line-by-line like you have to on cameras with a rolling shutter. This essentially instantaneous readout is even faster than a traditional focal plane mechanical shutter, and is much faster than standard e-shutter readout modes.

Richard Butler

It is a genuinely useful technology for certain scenarios. It lets you sync with flash at effectively any shutter speed (though it can take some trial and error), and capture even the fastest-moving subjects without any risk of the skewing that can happen with rolling shutter*. It can also reduce the risk of banding when shooting under LED lights or photographing a subject with an electronic display behind them. There is still the risk of catching a display when its dark or refreshing, depending on your exposure duration and how fast the screen is, but it gets rid of any potential mismatches between refresh and shutter rates. Global shutters are luxurious for video, too, as there’s absolutely no Jell-o effect no matter how fast your pan, or if you point your camera out of a moving car or towards an arriving train.

Mitchell Clark

I get that it can kind of feel like camera technology has stagnated in recent years, and that people are hungry for a big leap forwards in performance. But let’s take a step back and look at the reality of the situation for a second.

There has only been one full-frame hybrid mirrorless camera released with a global shutter: the Sony a9 III. It is aimed at professional sports and action shooters, and is priced accordingly, coming in $6800. The tech is a bit more common in the world of cinema cameras, but doesn’t come for cheap there, either.

The a9 III also has a notable drawback: its complex readout circuitry limits how much light it can tolerate, pushing its base ISO up to 250 and limiting the image quality you can get out of it compared to other full-frame cameras. The best image you can take with it will have up to a stop and a third more noise than the best image out of another full-frame camera with a base ISO of 100. Its peak IQ performance is much closer to that of an APS-C camera, though at the same ISO settings it’ll still out-perform a camera with a smaller sensor.

With a sample size of one, it’s hard to say if this is inherent to modern global shutter designs (some older CCD chips also had global shutters), or is simply an aspect of this particular sensor, but it’s certainly worth noting if you’re advocating that basically every new camera should have a global shutter. They are not an unalloyed upgrade in every way. Instead, current global shutter sensors make trade-offs in order to be better for some niche use-cases.

Which is why I really do not understand why people say that they should be in every camera, from the most budget options on up. Putting aside whether that’s even economically realistic, do we really think beginner photographers absolutely need perfectly parallel lines in action shots using e-shutter, and that it’s so important that it’d be worth giving up some image quality for?

I want to make it clear that I’m not advocating for consumers to just take what they’re giving and not ask for more from companies. It’s totally fine to look critically at cameras and say “I think you could do better.” (I mean, that is essentially my job.) And I understand the desire for there to be at least one or two less expensive options with global shutter for those that would use them for their purpose, but that don’t have the cash for a top-of-the-line pro camera.

But I think that if we’re going to spend energy campaigning for improvements, they should be ones that are actually sensible, and that are good matches for the target market. It’s one thing to recognize that image quality appears to be plateauing, but, to me, it’s hard to say that means every camera should include a more expensive technology that trades some IQ for a behavior that’s only really useful in very specific situations.

*- To be fair: the fastest stacked sensor cameras with rolling shutters, which have readout speeds within the 2-4ms range, have also essentially eliminated that risk.