Which Camera Maker Smokes the Most Crack?

February 12, 2010

January and February are months when the air hangs thick with new-camera introductions.

DP Review went a bit lightheaded keeping track of them all; but now, they’ve updated their camera database to reflect the latest unveilings and announcements.

We’re also approaching this country’s wildest Lost Weekend of photo-equipment marketing, PMA 2010, which starts February 19th.

So, it’s the right moment to look our camera industry straight in the bleary eye, and ask the hard question. Are you on drugs?

Crack Detail

"I can stop adding megapixels any time"

Regular readers of this blog know my arguments well: Overdosing cameras with millions of teensy pixels is risky behavior—in fact, irrational and damaging.

Not unlike drug abuse.

But to survey the full breadth of this scourge, I’ve needed to pore over DP Review’s specs listings—noting the pixel density of every model introduced since January, 2008. (There were almost 400 in total.)

No doubt I’ve missed some models somewhere, or copied some numbers wrong. But I’ve made a sincere attempt to find out: Which brand has the worst megapixel-monkey on its back?

Here’s how it works:

  • Camera models of 35 Mp/sq. cm or more (but less than 40) earn one crack pipe
  • Models having 40 Mp/sq. cm or above (but below 45) get two crack pipes
  • Any model with 45 Mp/sq. cm or “higher” is awarded the unprecedented three crack pipes.

But a camera maker can redeem themselves, somewhat. All I want to see is evidence they’re entering rehab and doing community service.

That is,

  • Any model with a pixel density of 5 to 15 Mp/sq. cm subtracts one crack pipe
  • A camera having 2.5 to 5 Mp/sq. cm knocks off two pipes
  • A model of less than 2.5 Mp/sq. cm expunges three whole pipes.

[Note: Currently, the last category only includes Nikon’s high-end D700 and D3s. The Micro Four Thirds models included are all a whisker over 5 Mp/sq. cm.]

First, we must single out Sigma—Boy Scout among camera makers.

Better known for their lenses, they have a small lineup of cameras using the Foveon sensor, which is 20.7 x 13.8mm.

This makes them the only current camera manufacturer to be 100% CRACK FREE. We may find their products a bit geeky and lacking in social graces, but at least they’re leading the clean life.

But for the others, it’s a grim tragedy. In reverse order of crackheadedness, here is the ranking:

  • Ricoh: 2 crack pipes
  • Pentax: 12 crack pipes
  • Tied, with 24 crack pipes each: Sony and Kodak

I must interrupt here to mention that Sony’s crack score should have been 20 points higher—except that, like an agitated street person muttering “I’m getting my life together!”, Sony somehow introduced eleven different DSLR models in the past two years.

But I’m going to let that slide. Sony has at least admitted a problem. Their new (and unproven) detox plan involves a medication named “Exmor R,” and a risky procedure called “back illumination.”

Sadly, we all know how fragile recovery can be.

  • Okay. Back to Nikon: 25 crack pipes
  • Fujifilm: 31
  • Casio: 34
  • Canon: 37

(Canon does earn a special “we’re getting help” mention—for tapering off their S90 and G11 models to a slightly lower dose of 10 mg. Er… Mp.)

  • Samsung: 39

Samsung! Snap out of it! There’s still time to go home to your family, bringing more NX-mount cameras. I am speaking to you as a concerned friend.

And finally—we get to the two saddest cases in the whole megapixel ward.

Like many addicts, they always seemed able to hold it together in public. But the numbers don’t lie.

  • Yes, Olympus: 54 crack pipes

…and perhaps most shocking,

  • Panasonic: 67 crack pipes
67 Crack Pipes

This is Panasonic's Brain on Drugs

Tell me it’s not true. The two leaders of Micro Four Thirds? The upstanding citizens who gathered us all in the church basement, to spread the good news about large chips in compact cameras—living a lie?

It’s tragic. One day, you’re a respected member of your industry. Then suddenly, you’re passed out in a seedy motel, wearing nothing but a frayed terry-cloth robe, surrounded by crumpled marketing plans.

Camera makers: There is still time to clean up, and save yourselves.


15 Responses to “Which Camera Maker Smokes the Most Crack?”

  1. Andrea Says:


    What I want to see is what percentage of all possible crack pipes each maker has produced – not raw counts, but shares of the whole. That’s a slightly more insightful figure, since Ricoh probably makes fewer models than Panasonic, no?

    • petavoxel Says:

      Good point, Andrea! The numbers of cameras from each brand were,

      Canon, 48
      Casio, 27
      Fujifilm, 35
      Kodak, 29
      Nikon, 46
      Pentax, 23
      Olympus, 52
      Panasonic, 46
      Ricoh, 10
      Samsung, 36
      Sony, 42
      Sigma, 3

      That’s 397 models total (I must’ve mis-counted earlier. I’m correcting the number in the post above.)

    • petavoxel Says:

      After some coffee, I’ve re-checked how the ranking changes if we use Andrea’s suggestion: crackiness as a fraction of models introduced.

      Casio (who I’d inadvertently left out of my original post—that’s fixed now) jumps into the second-worst spot. Samsung and Olympus drop to #3 and #4 respectively.

      But Panasonic still clearly leads as the most crack-addled brand.

  2. a different phil Says:

    Have you received (or observed) any reactions to your recent analyses from the camera manufacturers? If not, is there any way to get your work published in a higher profile way? Maybe an article for PopPhoto would shake things up.

    • petavoxel Says:

      Thanks, Phil. These are tough times for all magazines, so I’m skeptical any of them are in the mood to print a blistering attack on their advertisers.

      I’ll stick with the purity of fist-shaking from my little soapbox here.

  3. Omar Modesto Says:

    Whoa! This calls for a serious intervention, especially on Panasonic and Olympus. They’re in a world of their own, those two. That must be some seriously good dope.
    I wish these posts of yours would make their way to the manufacturers, if they haven’t already.

  4. Gwac Says:

    This is hilarious!! Great post… keep it up!

  5. Ranger 9 Says:

    Phew, I think I smell an overworked metaphor here…

    I suspect you can produce any specific statistics you want from this depending on how you want to contort the data, but any manufacturer whose product mix skews toward low-cost, high-volume models is going to look bad. But what can you do when you’re catering to an uninformed consumer who’s been brainwashed by the computer industry that “more is better”? Walk away and leave the sales to the less virtuous?

    Unless Petavoxel is ready to go out and bust every salesperson who’s saying, “Yes, the megapixel rating determines how sharp and clear your pictures are going to be”… not to mention every punk who sneers, “Dude, my PHONE has, like, more pixels than your CAMERA!”… then blaming the manufacturers is just a fig leaf…

  6. Huggs Says:

    I don’t consider Casio, Samsung or Panasonic good camera makers anyway. They are the equivalent of rappers/singers becoming actors-out of their league.

    The title is hilarious, btw.

    • petavoxel Says:

      Well, I’m going to give Panasonic and Samsung a bit of credit for at least trying the “EVIL” concept, a bigger sensor in a smaller-than-DSLR body.

      But their crack scores went way up because of all the 14 Mp point & shoots they’ve been pushing lately.

  7. Patrick Says:

    Another way to slice this would be to look at sales volume times pixel density. Just looking at camera models may not account for one company slicing up a market segment with three cameras that another covers with one. Looking at sales volume would account for the total amount of crack on the street rather than the number of local dealers for a given cartel (i.e., manufacturer).

  8. alex-virt Says:

    Great post and so funny! 😀

  9. […] 17, 2010 I’m sorry I called you a crackhead, […]

  10. […] is the Samsung TL500 (to be called EX1 in Europe). A friend asked me if this would change my “crackhead” assessment of Samsung; and the answer is “a little.” Samsung TL500 […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: