The Best Camera

MOST OF us who have made a nice image or two over the years have likely heard from an admirer of the image: "Wow. You must have a really good camera." For years, I would patiently explain that there is a lot more to it than a "nice camera." Recently, a friend told me he just agrees and says: "yes, I do." 😁 I am so going to steal that one.

A more useful question would probably be: "what is the best camera for me?

IN KEEPING WITH the notion that it is somehow the camera, or camera system that makes our photography, in addition to the social media pages devoted to an apology for a particular brand or system, I see a lot of "which camera should I buy?"  questions. Maybe not be the best place to get useful, unbiased information. Just sayin'. It's not that you won't get some good information on those pages. It's just that you are equally likely to get inaccurate, or just downright bad information. This is especially true of those pages dedicated to a system, brand or model of camera. While it is true that there should be people on there who are very knowledgeable about a camera you may be considering (and there definitely are a few such folk who are very helpful), my own experience tends to be that many of the responses you get to inquiries come from folks who are inexperienced, or in some cases are even what we used to call brand "fanboys" (do we still say that?). It stands to reason that if you are in the "Red Camera Group," and you ask if you should get a red camera, the majority of answers are probably going to be yes.

That one "best" camera doesn't exist

THERE IS also a line of reasoning (largely driven by advertising and social media hype in my view) that makes people think: "I need the best" camera. I think of cameras as a lot like cars. What would you think about the question: "what is the best car?" We all know there are a lot of good vehicles out there, and that some of them are very good. We also know they have different attributes, which make them good for some things and not so good for others. We also know that there is probably not one "best" car. Likewise, cameras. That one "best" camera doesn't exist.

A MORE useful question would probably be: "what is the best camera for me?" That's really what we want to know, isn't it? The answer to this question is a mix of factors, including intended use, budget, existing compatible gear, and possibly experience and expertise.

LET'S START with intended use. I just recently read a post on one of the M4/3 group pages on Facebook (FB). It asks a kind of difficult to answer question. Not difficult because of the subject matter. Difficult because of the way the question was posed: "Looking at switching from my (mirrorless "full frame" [FF]) to M4/3. I shoot birds, and will do some macro. Are there reasons for me not to switch?" As I alluded to above, there are several factors to consider. The poster didn't really give us much to work with. Birds and Macro. Can be done with either camera. Are you going to be doing serious cropping? How do you plan to display your images. Do you want to make large prints? Will you be submitting the images for advertising or publication? Or will you be content to post the images on FB, Instagram, blogs and the like?. Something to keep in mind is that you may be going along, posting to social media sites, getting lots of "likes," etc. Then suddenly out of the blue you may get contacted by someone who wants to use your image for commercial purposes. If that happens, you just might wish you had made a larger, higher resolution image. For the most part, however, if you are just posting images, you probably do not have a need for lots of megapixels (the poster above's FF camera was 45mp and the M4/3 is a maximum of 20 mp. As well, the sensors and the pixels are physically smaller on the M4/3). Nor is a larger sensor a requirement for prints and commercial use. I know there are plenty of shooters out there using the small sensor cameras and still selling their work.

ANOTHER FACTOR is (unfortunately) budget. There are many of us who just cannot afford the best equipment money can buy. My friend Rich has the 50mp Sony A1. He shoots a lot of birds - often in motion. From his research it appears that the A1 is Sony's best equiped camera body for birds and other animate subjects. It also retails for $6500. The m4/3 OM Systems OM-1ii is probably the closest M4/3 matchup and, at less than $2,500, it is less than half of that. It is important to understand that the specifications are different, given the "FF" sensor vs. the m4/3. How much of a factor is that for you? I know from reading on line that there are 1000's of happy m4/3 bird shooters, for example, that are perfectly satisfied with their choice. It is not just the shear ability to afford it, though. In my own case, I do not shoot birds, sports, or wildlife and do not plan to do so (at least not on a regular basis). My primary emphasis is on landscape, citi-scape and travel subjects. As such, I just don't need the specs that come with those models. Most of my work is done from a tripod or, if handheld, during generally daylight conditions. For my needs, I have been able to make two bodies - two different systems - work very well for me. If I wanted - or felt I "needed" the higher "flighted" bodies, I could do it. But it doesn't make sense for me to do so just because I can. That would not, by any stretch of logic, make them the "best" cameras for me. Your photography style will dictate the specifications you ultimately settle on. Your setup may end up more or less expensive than mine.

Spend as little as you have to, and save that $$$ for glass!

IF YOU are a new shooter, (in which case, this information may be doubly important for you), compatible existing equipment will probably not be a factor. For the rest of us (perhaps the majority of readers here), we have already invested in at least one system or brand over the years. This factor is really in lock-step with the above "budget" factor. If money is no object, disregard and invest in the system that fits for other reasons. Again, for the rest of us, it does factor in. If you make a complete system or brand change, you are also going to have to change your lenses, and the bulk of your other peripherals (ironically, if you are going from FF to M4/3, all of that equipment is generally less expensive and may be a factor to consider). Don't forget to consider other things, like specialized brackets, filters, batteries, chargers, remote cables and flash accessories. They will all add into the mix. For that poster above thinking of moving from FF to M4/3, I have to wonder if he mixed that all into the decision matrix?

I ALSO added experience and expertise into the mix. This is a variable factor. If you are just starting out, there are really some fundamentals that you need in a camera. In most cases, an "entry-level" model would probably do just fine. However, it may also make some sense to plan ahead. How confident are you that you will be making this a long-term proposition, putting in the work required to become an accomplished photographer? If you are, it may actually be more cost-effective in the long run to acquire a more advanced model, than to buy 2 or 3 times just to get where you will eventually end up. This is especially a factor if you are buying new equipment. Conversely, there is something to be said for getting a "tryout" model, learning a bit about your photographic interests and then moving up when you are more certain. It brings to mind the historical beginnings of this blog. It started out with a series of e-mail answers to questions from one of my sisters, and turned that into the beginnings of this blog. She had been visiting me and she had a point and shoot camera. At some point she decided she wanted to "up her game." I helped her find and purchase a used DSLR on eBay. It seemed to make sense to do that as an entry into the interchangeable lens world, and see where things went. Turns out it was the right move, as she discovered the DSLR route was not for her. Ultimately, she traded it for a much higher-specced Point & Shoot camera, and made lots of really nice and really memorable photos with that one.

[Buying used] . . . is a calculated risk

THE ANECDOTE also brings to mind another consideration. I have had very good luck in the "used" photography market. It is funny. I once had a pro acquaintance who I corresponded with quite a bit. When I brought up used gear once, he immediately panned the idea. He didn't even want to think about having a shoot on the line using somebody else's hand-me-down gear, not having any idea about what it may or may not have been through, and having no recourse if there was a problem. Understandable. It was how he made his living. For us less dependent hobbyists, however, I have always thought it was worth the risk - at least for certain equipment. Of all the cameras I have owned, several of them were purchased used. My current "workhorse" Sony a7rii was purchased very gently used. It is a discontinued model, and if/when I have to replace it someday, if I stay with the series, I will have to buy an a7riv to get at least equivalent spec if I buy new. Used, I am confident I can find a iii or iv for half of that or less. I may not be something you are comfortable with. I have had good luck. I have also bought a few lenses used. I think it is a calculated risk. If it is a one-time purchase and you don't have the ability to replace it - buy new and insure it.

THE BEST camera? As Sylvester Stallone says in his new series: Tulsa - "there's no sucha (sic) thing." 😃 There is a such thing though, as the best camera for you. My advice, find the one that does the stuff you really need/want, not just because its "cool." Spend as little as you have to, and save that $$$ for glass!

[We are off again on travel for the next couple weeks in Switzerland, Germany and the Czech Republic. I know I will have some new images and experiences to share here when we return]

"The Dark Light"

Soo Locks Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan - Copyright Andy Richards 2005 - All Rights Reserved

B

ACK IN 2021, I posted about light. Even more recently, I posted about the effect of absence of light. Given my "brand," (for lack of a better description) LightCentricPhotography, it shouldn't be a surprise that much of my photography, thinking, and commentary centers around light. That's o.k., because light the essence of the photographic art.

I HAVE  spent a lot of the waking hours over my lifetime reading. I love to read. I read every day. My reading list is broad. I like history, some current political commentary, photography, and fiction. Most of my fiction tends to be lighter, like mystery, thrillers, etc. Sometimes toward the whimsical. When my daily fiction reading collides with photography in any meaningful way, I think that is pretty cool. For a couple years now, since we moved to Florida (a state about which I knew almost nothing), I have been reading the sort of beach bum, ex-military spy, retired (and not so successful) sports figure and "gumshoe," type books set in Florida. I had already read through several contemporary authors when I found and turned to Randy Wayne White's "Doc Ford" series. For all I knew, Doc Ford's was a restaurant in Fort Myers Beach: Doc Ford's Sanibel Rum Bar and Grill (appropriately owned by Randy Wayne White). One of White's books I recently read has a passage that resonated with me. In the book: "The Dark Light,"  the protagonist, Doc Ford, says:

 "Our perception of reality is visually based. Change the light and our reality is changed." 

(Doc Ford)

PRETTY COOL for this to come up in a paperback novel. Of course, the author, Randy Wayne White, really said it, but it is more "cool" quoting Doc Ford. At least I think so (although I have probably used up my quota of the word, "cool" - for this post anyway). 😎 The majority of the images here are based on light or the absence of light. The opening image was shot at sunrise, at the Soo Locks connecting Lake Huron to Lake Superior in the Great Lakes. The locks are on the St. Mary River, which flows from Lake Superior, eventually into Lake Huron and which also serves as the border between the U.S. and Canada, at the northeastern-most part of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Not surprisingly, the area around the locks is substantially commercial-industrial, and marine oriented. In the revealing light of day, it is cluttered and not particularly photogenic. The bridge is not architecturally aesthetic. In the dark, even though things are artificially lighted, there is simply not enough of anything revealed to make what I find to be an appealing photo. I think the sunrise and particularly the sun star (even the flair spots), give the scene some drama, and change the otherwise potentially drab, industrial reality of the image.

Barcelona Cruise Port - Barcelona, Spain - Copyright Andy Richards 2019 - All Rights Reserved

THE DAYLIGHT shot of the Port of Barcelona (actually just after sunrise) is a pretty realistic presentation of the Cruise Ship portion of Barcelona's very impressive seaport. From the top deck of our cruise ship, I went wide with this to get the sweeping curve of the access road and the engaging architecture of the bridge. It also shows the wider setting of the city's old Gothic Quarter and mountains in the background. Barcelona is a geographically diverse and large city. The image also displays some of Barcelona's unique architecture. Still, it is a pretty plain, "record" shot. Shot from the very same spot, this time in the dark of night however, the image below paints a very different, appearance. I have always been a sucker for a water reflection, and the different colored reflective lights here are fascinating to me (as well as putting something more interesting in what was kind of a blank space expanse of grey water in the daylight image). It definitely illustrates Doc Ford's point: change the light and our reality is altered.

Barcelona Cruise Port - Barcelona, Spain - Copyright Andy Richards 2019 - All Rights Reserved

 AS I said earlier, sometimes the absence of light is fun to work with. Not the complete absence. Instead, just enough to reveal. Going through some old images a few months back, the image of the working boat in San Francisco harbor just underneath the Bay Bridge kind of "spoke" to me. It was what some might call a silhouette. My own sensibility says it's a "near-silhouette."  I didn't want to completely silhouette the boat, but I didn't want any real detail either. My own ability to get this one looking the way I wanted, stems from the beauty of digital processing. The wet darkroom equivalent would have been possible but would have taken way more skill than I will ever have. So I brought the shadows up just enough to suggest the white color of the superstructure, without making it visually obvious.

Bay Bridge - San Francisco, California - Copyright Andy Richards 2014 - All Rights Reserved

Iwo Jima War Memorial - Washington, D.C. - Copyright Andy Richards 2011 - All Rights Reserved

WHEN I was a much younger man in my early 20's I spent a college semester in Washington, D.C. The historical part of The District is very compact - easily driven (indeed most of it walkable) during odd hours when there is no traffic - and easily walked or combined with mass transit. I lived in Rossyln (nothing more than a subway stop and really part of Arlington, Virginia). It was directly across the Potomac River from the Kennedy Center, and a short walk to the capital, the Mall, and most of the city's famous monuments. The Iwo Jima U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial is a bit more off on its own, and my favorite time to visit it is at night. This monument is in Arlington, immediately adjacent to Arlington Cemetery, directly across Arlington Boulevard (U.S. Route 50, more or less bisecting The District, north and south) from my Arlington Towers high rise. I loved to do what I called the night monument circuit, visiting - among others - The Washington Monument, The Lincoln Memorial, and The Jefferson Memorial (this was some years before the Viet Nam Wall) as they were lit by spotlights. My favorite was probably the Iwo Jima Marine Memorial. They are all impressive enough in daylight. Daylight often reveals more than it should in my view. We tend to see them - grandiose as they are - as structures built from concrete and stone. The directional, artificial illumination at night, I think, brings them to life. Especially Iwo Jima.

Sunrise - Crystal Beach, Florida - Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

WE PHOTOGRAPHERS often say (perhaps because it is true) that the best photographic light is during the relatively short period from just before, to about an hour after sunrise, and then again, about an hour before sunset until shortly after the sun has completely set. "The golden hours." One of the best subjects for shooting during these times are marine scenes. I have a favorite little spot, just a couple miles up the road from my Palm Harbor, Florida home: Crystal Beach. The Crystal Beach Pier, in my opinion, makes a very nice subject to frame the warm, soft light of sunrise, as well as the golden sunset hours. The images here are just 2 of the many that I have made (and will surely make in the future) of this scene.

Sunset - Crystal Beach Fishing Pier - Copyright Andy Richards - All Rights Reserved

THE TWO images set completely different moods (or realities, according to Doc Ford). The first brings a calm, new day just before sunrise. The quality of the light is brighter (it will be too bright in the cloudless, clear blue sky almost as soon as the sun comes up above the horizon). The sand seems cleaner and lighter, and the greens bright. The reddish color of the wooden pier is apparent. The pink horizon foretells the sun soon rising. Our eyes tell us this is morning; the dawn of a new day. The second image is taken on a night that threatens to storm. The first picture feels calm. The second image is - in my view - more dramatic. The colors are deeper; less bright, and more mysterious. The mostly silhouetted pier is obviously wood, but its reddish color not now apparent. The shadows reveal just enough light for us to see the green vegetation, and the gentle wave action tells us intuitively that there is a breeze in the air.

Lisbon, Portugal - Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

AS I look at the shadows area in the Crystal Beach after- sunset photo, the Bay Bridge photo, above, and the Soo Locks photo, it occurs to me that there could be a lot of different approaches to presenting those areas in final image. This is just another reasons why I love this art form, and the ability it gives us to each bring our own vision. I know that if 5 people were asked to "process" one of these images, we would get 5 different interpretations of the light. Especially in the shadows. That thought brings up one other comment on the subject here. Recently, for about a month, I joined a page (supposedly) dedicated to Photoshop and Lightroom on FB. I left the group recently. I found it to have a majority of persons who had "agendas," were just using it to show their work, or in many cases gave anything from incredible ignorant, to just kind of sophomoric - and certainly myopic advice and commentary. One of the things I saw people post time after time, with nearly no regard to the question asked or advice being sought, was the old "get it right in the camera, and you don't need post processing." O.k. I don't disagree with the "get it right in the camera" sentiment. I agree with that and try (though don't always succeed) to do that. But this was - after all - supposed to be a forum dedicated to post processing software (specifically LR and PS). So yeah. Lets all get it right in the camera, but then photos still yield some great oppportunity to process for your vision!

Tokyo, Japan - Copyright Andy Richards 2015 - All Rights Reserved

ANOTHER "REALITY" is that there is usually much more human activity at sunset than at sunrise. In the sunset fishing pier shot, there are people on the pier mainly for the purpose of watching the sunset. On the shot of our Key West - bound boat in the early morning hours from Fort Myers Beach, Florida, there is almost no activity yet, as our part of the world was waking up.

Doc Ford's Rum Bar - Ft. Myers Beach, Florida - Copyright Andy Richards 2017 - All Rights Reserved

OH, AND the final image? Kind of a drive-by snapshot. but I just couldn't resist tying it all together for Doc. 😊

 

Confusing Concepts - Digital Image "Sharpness"

HOPEFULLY, THIS final installment of my 3-part series will tie some things together. The concepts of resolution, diffraction, and image sharpness are integrally related, and difficult to discuss separately, even though I have attempted to do so. In my view, the last concept is the most important. If an image looks acceptably sharp, I normally do not care how it is effected by the other two concepts. They are still part of the equation, though. In my own photography, I try to achieve sharpness in the parts of the image that I think should be sharp. That doesn't mean every photo must be sharp across the entire image. In some cases, we are purposely trying to have parts of the image remain out-of-focus. Also, in the very rare case, we may not want any part of an image to be in sharp focus.

There is no perfectly "sharp" digital image

THE MOST common approach, though is to try to ensure that our photographs are in sharp focus. What does that mean, though? As I have noted here in the past, lack of sharp focus will usually ruin an otherwise nice photograph. In the numerous times I have discussed "sharpness" here, I have often described the concept as apparent sharpness.

WHY DO I call it "apparent?" There is no perfectly "sharp" digital image. There are many things that influence our perception of sharpness in a digital image, including contrast, viewing distance, focus, camera and/or subject movement, lens quality and design, image sensor size and design, and of course, resolution, and diffraction.

The concepts of resolution, diffraction, and image sharpness are integrally related

THERE IS a more fundamental element that goes to the heart of "apparent sharpness:" the way a digital image is recorded and displayed. Most of us remember a little bit of computer-programming science from way back, and are familiar with the way a computer compiles information in "bits and bytes," or 1's and 0's. That is the same basic building blocks that make up digital images. They start out as black and white 1's and 0's, which are recorded and as they accumulate, they stack against each other, to create shape. The "line" we see that creates the outer outline of detail in an image is created by contrast between these "pixels." The contrast is created by a black and white pixel opposite each other. Now that is really a kindergarten (maybe even pre-school) explanation, but it is probably the best I am qualified to do.

There are many things that influence our perception of sharpness

IN THE first installment in this series ("Resolution"), we introduced two filters that are used in the above process. By the time our final recorded image is made, the light rays must pass through a lens (which almost always a series of glass lenses constructed together to "bend" the light a certain way), whatever filter(s) we might be using in front of the lens, an "anti-aliasing" filter, and a (color) Bayer filter. All that glass in front of the sensor means we are going to have some inherent softness in any digitally recorded image. If we want color images, there is no avoiding the Bayer (or some other substitute) filter. We can, however, exert some control over the other physical elements. Many (if not most) newer cameras no longer use the anti-aliasing filter. When I selected my own Sony a7rii, I did so in large part due to Sony's purposeful exclusion of an anti-aliasing filter on their "r" versions. That does introduce another potential issue (moire) which is normally easily fixed by the photographic approach and with post processing. I have said many times here that I only rarely put a filter on the front end of a lens. My thinking is that I don't spend the money on quality glass, just to put another piece of glass on the front of it that will surely effect the image quality. I applied the same reasoning to the anti-aliasing filter.

NO MATTER what, though, the other factors above are going to result in some softness of an image. Our goal is to obtain as much apparent sharpness as possible. One way to do that is to create more well-defined contrast between pixels along the edges of an image. Generally, this means making the contrasting blacks more pure black and the whites more pure white. Every software sharpening process involves an increase in contrast along those edges. There is a lot of nuance to the process. For years, sharpening in Photoshop was a process of almost alchemy. The generally agreed best tool in the drawer at the time was called (ironically) "unsharp mask." That goes back to a traditional wet darkroom masking process that is not only beyond the scope of this blog, but beyond my ability to explain. 😅 For me (and plenty of others, I am sure), using the "unsharp mask" was mostly trial and error. The trick was to make the adjustments subtle, or your "sharpened" image could become a ghastly looking mess.

All that glass in front of the sensor means we are going to have some inherent softness in any digitally recorded image

OF COURSE most of us are working with color and of course there are many images where the edges do not consist of pure black and white pixels. Often, we do not want the pixels in between (which we usually refer to as mid-tones) to have high contrast, and part of the "unsharp mask" alchemy was adusting so only the parts we wanted to sharpen were effected. Left to their own mischief, sharpening tools can not only effect an image's apparent sharpness, but they can also introduce color casts. One approach to this was to sharpen in just one of the color channel which make up the rgb color image; a channel which contained only brightness information and no color information (the "Luminosity" channel). Applying this to selected portions of the image required some skill that not all of us found easy to master. Thankfully, some of those who did - and were really good at it - provided us with some pre-made masking tools. In the early 2000's, a photographer named Tony Kuyper made the luminosity mask popular by offereing his Photoshop Actions for a very reasonable nominal cost. I have them somewhere, but never really mastered them - though I know some others who have.

I DID spend an awful lot (too much) of time studying and trying to master the art of sharpening on my own. The best (and still seminal, in my opinion) text resource is "Real World Image Sharpening," an Adobe Photoshop and Light Room focused book, written by (the late) Bruce Fraser, and Jeff Schewe (two of my favorite digital processing authors). It is a $50 purchase on Amazon, so it is not inexpensive. Nor is it "Readers Digest" level reading. If you like technical "under the hood" stuff (I do), it is a fascinating read. Fortunately, there have been some folks (including Fraser and Schewe themselves) who have - over the years - provided us with a relatively easy to use pre-programmed version of their handi-work. Today, most software post-processing programs contain sharpening utilities. Some are better than others. Years back we didn't have the number of post-processing choices. In  2009, PK Sharpener was introduced by a company called Pixel Genius, founded by Fraser, Schewe, Seth Resnick, and a few other known Photoshop gurus (interestingly, the Nik collection contained Nik Sharpener Pro and was brought to market in 2006 - but I had not yet been introduced to Nik at that time). Like Photoshop itself, most of the utilities in the package were beyond my needs (and ability to understand). But what I could use, did a better job than I had ever been able to do before. A couple years back, I did some of my own empirical experimentation between the Nik and PK Sharpen. I found the differences to be "nuanced." I ultimately stayed with the PK Sharpen program (which I believe is no longer available). The point is that we don't have to become "under-the-hood" sharpening experts, as that has been done for us and incorporated into virtually every software out there today. The Nik and PK software can be easily loaded as "plugins" to Photoshop and Lightroom (how and if they work with other software, I don't really know).

WHAT ALL this work done by the experts on digital processing has given us is a nice collection of tools to achieve the most "apparently sharp" images we can with our own recorded digital images. In their Real World book, Fraser and Schewe brought a sharpening process to light. There are "recipes" in the appendix of the book for Photoshop Actions that will accomplish the process they espouse in the book." I don't know if very many people even write their own actions anymore. But if you are that type, it may be worth the $50. Their process, the one that seems to be the accepted approach today, posits that sharpening should be done in three separate phases or steps. The first phase is what they referred to as "pre-sharpening," and is (mostly) applied to raw files to account for the issues I spoke about above that were created by the lens and sensor filter issues. Every raw image converter I know of contains a pre-sharpening algorithm. In my "empirical" testing above, I concluded that the Adobe Raw Converter "default" sharpening tool does as well as any of the others (including my PK Sharpener), and so I leave it at its default setting (25%) to save myself the step of presharpening in my workflow. If you prefer a more "hands-on" approach, the setting can be set to zero. I put "empirical" in quotes because - of course - there is going to be some subjectivity in this analysis. It is what my own subjective conclusion is, but you should probably do your own.

THE SECOND phase of sharpening is best done, in my view, with a more "hands on" approach. It is sometimes referred to as "Targeted Sharpening." Targeted sharpening can be applied globally to an image, or to just select parts of it. Some images benefit from only sharpening certain areas. Shadow areas often won't benefit from sharpening, and sharpening them can sometimes make the image worse, as the sharpening "highlights" unwanted noise in the image. In some images with areas of of shallow depth of field, we want to leave them out of focus and unsharp purposefully, while sharpening other parts of the image that we want to be in critical focus. The beauty of the targeted phase is that we can use various masking techniques to selectively sharpen the image. This can be done manually, or some of the software has algorithms that do a pretty decent job of doing that for you.

FINALLY, WE should consider whether every image should be sharpened for "output." For many years, I made my own inkjet prints. There are major differences in the way an image is "projected" on a screen from the way it is printed with ink. Ink is laid onto paper in microspic droplets of colored pigment. Because they are liquid, even though microscopic, those droplets are going to have some "runout." They are also a reflective media, and as such, are going to be percieved visually very differently than projected media. I often found that I needed to apply much stronger sharpening to my print files. On screen, they would have an oversharpened look, but on paper, they were just right.

TODAY, WE have another new approach to sharpening denominated "AI" sharpening. This sharpening algorithm uses so-called artificial intelligence, using a memory bank of hundreds of thousands of images, to sharpen by replacing pixels with sharp(er) new pixels. Personally, I have not been as impressed with it as all the testimonials seem to suggest. I have tried it a couple times and have either felt it didn't live up to the hype, or it looked fake. I have consistently said you cannot fix a truly blurry image in digital processing. With AI, that view will undoubtedly change. I have seen so much "progress" with AI in just a couple short years. In my view, it is not there yet. But it is certainly worth keeping an eye on. It is coming.