The changing fortunes of Japanese camera manufacturers
petapixel.com
petapixel.com
His point being that carrying around a bunch of heavy gear is not pleasant.
A lot of camera and lens sales were driven by progress at the margins without any serious benefit to the average user. Until the smartphone. Now, the number of people with surprisingly good cameras which they have with them almost constantly is absolutely astounding.
Yes, I can still roughly tell the processed shots from portrait mode on my phone from a much better camera but the differences aren't as drastic as you'd imagine. Most importantly, I have the camera with me.
The smartphone camera can never "fully" replace an actual camera gear simply because of the choice of lenses and therefore the fields of view that the camera gives us. Optics is somewhat heartless in this respect.
AI and image processing can to a point simulate the feeling that the fixed focal length lenses of these cameras give us, but currently (and for the foreseeable future of at least a decade) they have a tough time going beyond that.
What we see now is the camera market shifting from mass use to a niche. "Prosumers", videographers, YouTubers and such.
This. I have my Apple TV set up to cycle through my favorite shots in my photo stream and I can tell immediately the quality difference between my slr shots and ones taken on my iPhone. The colors are more accurate, the bokeh more subtle, and excellent sharpness. Even when comparing shots from 7 years ago to todays iPhone 14.
Unfortunately my slr sits collecting dust because, well, the phone is “good enough”.
Or for beginner film makers. "Start with the camera you already have" (i.e. your phone)
Shooting narrative with a phone is a gimmick - with very few and specific hidden camera doc exceptions. Phones don't teach you anything about the mechanics of camera work or post, from how different lenses change the feeling of a shot to pulling focus ISO, t-stop, color spaces, data rangling etc. They teach bad habits like relying on autofocus and IBIS.
They may be the best camera that isn't a camera, but in terms of starting as a beginner filmmaker - you'd be much better off learning with even very outdated DSLR.
I think you and I have very different ideas what a "beginner film maker" means. If you have never told a story using the medium of moving pictures you should not worry about film festivals, or ISO, or t-stop, or colour spaces, or major releases / distribution, or anything like that.
Go grab the stuff you already have. Try to tell a story with that gear. Show it to your friends. Did they like it? Awesome, keep at it. Did they not like it? Get better friends, or tell better stories. Improve your art and craft as you progress one step at a time.
People who worry about film festivals, but haven't ever put two frames after each other are delusional.
There is a tendency in a lot of people to think that they should not try to do things until they are somehow anointed by someone or something. They think they could make a film, only if they would have a professional camera. Or they think they could do it only if they get into a school where they become something they are not yet. This advice is for those people. Instead of waiting around to do something some day they should start now and start getting better with what they have today.
Sure, heavy DSLR's are annoying to care on trip but again... If you are casual snapshot taker, then smartphone is enough.
Or there are compact professional cameras like Fujifilm x100 series.
People editing camera raws in Lightroom still export them to sRGB JPEG at the end of the day. The main thing they’re doing with the dynamic range in those sensors is getting rid of it because there’s no ecosystem to view it. (Oddly, there is an ecosystem for HDR video, just not stills.)
And if you have a still subject, any serious camera will allow you to do bracketing so you can combine shots.
Being P3 (WCG) doesn't mean it's also HDR or that it's calibrated well or that the display software is handling it.
> And if you have a still subject, any serious camera will allow you to do bracketing so you can combine shots.
So you can combine them how into what? There's no good software for it. HDR combining software typically creates SDR images, not eg EXR files, and it usually looks bad doing it.
> and plenty of people take pictures to print them
What's that got to do with HDR?? Surely reflective media has less dynamic range than transmissive media…
There are plenty of monitors with both a larger gammut and higher dynamic range.
> So you can combine them how into what? There's no good software for it. HDR combining software typically creates SDR images, not eg EXR files, and it usually looks bad doing it.
So you can combine it into a raw image with higher dynamic range. FF cameras generally have 12-13 stops of dynamic range without bracketing at 14 bits per channel, so you can absolutely tonemap them into an HDR image, even without bracketing. With bracketing, you can generate a raw image which will have 24 bits or more of dynamic range, which will actually be useful.
I'm not talking about cheesy HDR combining software, I'm talking about, for example, combining images into Lightroom with a high bit-depth workflow which can then be exported as an EXR or TIFF image. There's plenty of software that can generate even higher bitdepth, and these are often used in CGI to generate HDRI maps, for example.
The dynamic range of the actual image of the camera far exceeds any screen you might show it on. You're really only limited by the noise floor (which is close to the theoretical limit).
> What's that got to do with HDR?? Surely reflective media has less dynamic range than transmissive media…
Reflective media has theoretically infinite dynamic range, you're only limited by how black your black is and of course by the printer.
With your logic, you can say that we can make static image with same results with any sensor.
We can't do that because of lenses and diffraction, but that's different from being able to avoid exposure and sensor noise issues. You can in fact avoid those with more sampling.
And a honda accord driver won't be able to drive a formula one faster than a formula four around the track, give it to someone who knows how to drive and the difference will be drastic
Almost all digital cameras, mirrorless cameras, phone cameras, iPhones, etc - regardless of maker / manufacturer, uses Sony sensors.
The purchase of Minolta unified sensor tech + software development + lens development and formulation + body ergonomics in one house - something no other maker is able to do, probably aside from Canon (who also uses Sony sensors depending on model) and Leica, which borrows sensors from other makers but has their own imaging tech that they add.
No matter how much money any Nikon, Canon, Pentax, OM system makes, Sony will always be part of the supply chain of those cameras.
Sony and Samsung are both producing a lot of sensors for mobile devices though. For example Apple has used a lot of Sony sensors over time. And likewise most camera manufacturers do not design their own sensors at this point.
(and once Sony makes the money, it uses the same profits from Fuji to compete against Fuji.)
It's a sort of reverse competition, where by Sony is guaranteed victory simply because they participate in their competitor's victories.
Also it doesn't really explain why Canon is a "juggernauts" while Nikon has struggled. From a mildly interested observer, the Nikon and Canon DSLRs seems roughly comparable and Canon only has a slight lead in mirrorless (vs Nikon). What made Canon successful but not Nikon?
Nikon makes cameras, lenses, medical and consumer lines, but their market cap is roughly 529.86 billion JPY
So the Canon company is a lot larger.
Sony itself is even more Juggernaut. They make a ton of things and market cap is about 12 trillion yen.
Market cap doesn't tell the whole story, but you can understand why Sony and Canon are referred to as "juggernauts" compared to Nikon.
On the imaging side of things, I think the current rise of casual videography is eating Nikon alive.
Even if you don't have youtuber / OF aspirations, almost all cameras that sell today need to have some kind of video mode. Cell phones excel in this segment, being able to take short videos of people just walking around doing their day-to-day stuff, having fun, working, etc. In my opinion, video has taken the place in society that taking still photos had back in the 1980's and 1990's.
Anything that goes viral these days is a video uploaded on worldstar or youtube or tiktok or instagram etc.
Canon and Sony both have pro-video recording line (used in TV/cinema industry), and I think what they did was cross pollinated the video knowledge very early on with their consumer digital cameras.
Nikon has always been a "stills first" camera company. They did put a lot of video features into their cameras, but it wasn't enough.
Whereas apparently Sony and Canon didn't.
Edit: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2016-00127...
So seems the full story is about the EU. Digital still image cameras (which were made in the EU?) were not taxed. Digital camcorders (which were mostly made in Japan) were taxed at either 4.9% or 14%. One distinguishing as to whether a camera was still or camcorder was "Whether the device can record at least 30 minutes of video."
The law was repealed in 2019.
Same story with mirrorless to be honest. Too little too late is the story of Nikon's plight with digital photography for the last decade.
The thing is, they were really innovative in the DSLR space and could go toe to toe with Canon, but in the last decade or so Nikon has been late with each product focus (video, mirrorless, etc)
Incidentally, Canon stumbled, in a fashion, onto DSLR video. They apparently only added video after years of suggestions from media photographers. And then at first they got the frame rate wrong. A year or so later, the deigned to fix the bug and of course the rest is history: jillions of their lenses, and DSLR bodies, sold to established and aspiring video/film shooters alike.
Meanwhile, Nikon clung to their roots trying to sell cameras to photographers and never overcame the Canon sports hegemony and video windfall. They had awful software and were even less responsive to the changing market than Canon was.
Most of this is dredged up from memory. For details, and data, go back ten or 20 years on https://bythom.com/
This statement has made me more money than everything else combined.
> Purchased for a reportedly svelte $125 million, Ricoh has de-invested from medium format at a time when Fuji, Phase, and Hasselblad have successfully expanded the market.
Interestingly, their most profitable products in recent years don't appear to be from their professional or pro-sumer camera lines, but rather their relatively low-tech Instax cameras [1].
[1] https://www.fujirumors.com/latest-fujifilm-financial-results...
Nevermind that they have a successful line of digital APS-C cameras plus the aforementioned medium format cameras and are a pioneer of professional-quality mirrorless cameras. They're also still growing.
I’ve been thinking about one of the sony alphas for a while now
Fuji’s medium-format line is called GFX; I don’t know too much about it except that it’s well regarded and inexpensive by medium-format standards. I would look into it if you are interested in landscape photography or high-resolution studio work and you are willing to spend serious money to make that happen.
Fuji’s APS-C line is focused on producing something which is pleasant to physically handle and use. It’s historically been smaller and handier than full-frame competitors and focused on physical controls for a lot of core settings. The different models within the APS-C range are distinguished as much by their form factors and controls as by their technical capabilities. Some of these advantages have been eroded over the years as they have competed with bigger cameras, particularly in video. But they have just released the X-H2 and X-H2S, targeted at action and event photographers, which should free the classic X-T and X-Pro series to return to their roots.
Concrete APS-C models to check out: X-T4 if you want an SLR-style mirrorless with more physical controls; X-Pro3 if you love old rangefinders; X-H2 and X-H2S if you want a PASM dial or heavy video. Fuji is expected to announce the X-T5 on November 2, and the rumors have it looking good, so I’d keep an eye out for reviews.
All of their cameras take great photos regardless and their glass is great. Just read some reviews.
If I had to buy a digital camera today I'd go for an x100v or an xe-4 with a film era lens
As an amateur photographer I feel this is just the natural order of things where companies succumb to the competition. Eventually leading to two or just three competing makers. Similar to Playstation, Xbox, and Switch.
My personal vision for a better camera is interoperability and an open source community.
Imagine if the major parts, pieces and software of the camera can be interchangeable rather than just the lenses.
Focus system of brand x, sensor of x, screen interface of x and view finder of x etc…
In this way, the components and technologies can be prioritized individually.
Open specifications can allow others the chance to invent.
Edit: another serious issue are the prices. This can be improved on greatly.
I never really fully understood the reasons behind it but it's clear to see that it creates stickyness that any company outside of photography would envy.
It’s kind of sad to see only one or two people with SLRs at any “vista point” I visit because it brings back memories of talking with other amateur photographers and sharing our profiles on sites like trek earth or whatever.
But I'd say "serious photography" is about where it's always been, maybe a little reduced. It's always been expensive to have a proper setup. The huge difference is that the new consumer stuff (phones) are just much much better than it used to be (point and shoots).
There's still a big difference though between what you can get out of a phone and what you can do with a "real" camera. I have never seen anything out of a phone that can match what you can do with a full frame and a fast 55 or whatever. Sure you can add fake depth of field in software but I'm not sure it will ever be possible to really duplicate in a phone. Especially the interface - phones just don't have the physical controls you need to play some of the tricks "real" cameras can do, like grabbing focus or white balance from somewhere else then holding it as you compose your real shot. At some point just the lack of dedicated buttons is holding you back. I know there's apps that can give you more control than the default apps but with a physical body I can set up that shot in 1 second.
I actually felt this acutely just last night. One of my friends went all out with halloween makeup and wanted me to take some pictures, but I only had my phone on me. They came out OK, pretty good even, but I know for a fact I would have been able to do much better with my half-broken old a7sii and a decent lens. Much, much better. But it's the camera you have with you...
I have a very basic Sony mirrorless camera gathering dust somewhere.
I used to much better photos even on just that.
Far from it, it’s just that phone cameras are good enough to replace DSLRs or full-featured P&S for most users.
DSLRs are pretty much dead. The handful of pros I know either have or plan to transition to mirrorless. Or, a few shoot medium format.
Most of my friends have at least one mirrorless. Sometimes several. Along with a stack of both current and vintage lenses. But, they’re a well-to-do crowd with hipster tendencies, so YMMV.
My parents had several film SLRs over the decades. But when their Pentax was stolen on a vacation in the late-90s or early-00s, they didn’t replace it. They got a compact P&S and now rely on their phones. The SLR was only ever used for snapshots, not photograhpy as a hobby.
Personally, I grew up using their SLR plus a pile of cheap or disposable P&S. Then a few compact digitals. Bought my first DSLR in my mid-20s to get better family shots. Transitioned to a mirrorless about 10 years ago, have two bodies and a pile of lenses, but 90% of the time just use my phone. The cameras only come out for events, vacation, or on the odd occasion the mood hits.
Take a look at the Nikon Z9, which is a professional mirrorless and shutterless camera.
It can take essentially infinite shots without wearing out. DSLRs need maintenance every few hundred thousand shots, which sounds like a lot, but some pros take 10-20K per day. Timelapse videos especially are murder on DSLRs and can take big chunks out of the shutter mechanism lifetime.
The lack of moving parts means it can be totally silent and take full-res shots at 30 fps without mirror blackout. Lower-res shots can be taken at an astonishing 120 fps, which allows photographers to capture fleeting moments that would be missed otherwise.
Focus is as-good, if not better than any other DSLR in the world. E.g.: eye-tracking auto-focus is generally not possible on DSLRs because they can't use the full-resolution sensor while the mirror is down, and eyes are too small to recognise with the phase-detect array.
They've thrown in 4K and 8K HDR video capture as well, because why not, and this works with the viewfinder. That's not possible on DSLRs because the mirror blocks the viewfinder in video mode.
I’d much rather use two Z6iis. The only reason I haven’t upgraded is because I’m anticipating a Z6iii soon and I’d love for it to be ~33mp as I think that’d be the sweet spot for me.
The autofocus advantage is huge, and the viewfinder is typically much easier to see. Yeah, I need to swap batteries at least twice as often. One battery still makes it through a 2 hour portrait session just fine.
The AF on my a7 III is nothing short of miraculous compared to any mirrored camera I've ever used, even in light where I'm shooting at 128k ISO, 1/125, 2.0f. Quick and accurate locks every time.
I shot 1000+ photos over 3 hours at an event last week, and honestly I couldn't even tell you how much battery I used. Because I wasn't paying attention, because it's a non-issue. Even if it was, batteries are cheap, small, and easy to swap.
Gordy details, but the image helps see:
https://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-wo...
On camera sensor focusing was slightly different “contrast detection”. My understanding is modern cameras integrate those phase detection sensors on the image sensor itself. It might effect image quality but nobody notices and focus is fast and reliable. It’s tech that works well so generally nobody cares how it works.
https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/trainin...
Recent sensors have AF phase-detect sensors built into the image sensor, by splitting one "pixel" into two sensors (and having lots of them; sometimes in Canon sensors more than half of the pixels have this functionality; on some cameras you can extract the raw image including the different data on those pixels for bigger resolution). The difference between phase detect and contrast being that a phase-detect sensor will give exact values on how to adjust the focus, whilst contrast detection needs focus hunting in small adjustments, so it's slower.
And the bodies are relatively cheap at ~$2000 (half that for a previous generation or enthusiast grade body). Lenses tend to start around $1000, go up to $10k, and a pro will have 10 or more of them.
Battery life is solved, you get 1000+ shot with modern mirrorless, batteries are $20 a pop
My wife learned in the digital era, but has recently got into film with a couple of 35mm cameras and now a Rolleiflex 120-format twin-lens reflex from family friends.
She struggles with, but likes, the ideas that you have to think much harder about your shots with film (especially 120: 12 shots per roll!), and that you have to keep records of your shots in a notebook or similar, because you won't see them for a while. She loves the different effects of the different film types.
The result has been moving from a 1:15 keeper ratio to closer to a 1:6 or 1:4 ratio.
Film cameras are heavy, though. Something in carbon composite would be nice. And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.
> And possibly a dual-media camera: take a preview on digital, then if you want, take the shot on film.
Here are some guys using an analog version of your idea to preview their product shots:
https://doragoodman.com/goodlab-project/goodman-zone-medium-...
My wife uses Olympus (micro four-thirds) digital, which is much lighter. Olympus make (made?) some great lenses.
The Rollei T is great but I was fed up with the crank issues on my 3.5 MX-EVS and bought an inexpensive 'cord. What kept me away from the T was the >1 kg weight and also the price. The 'cord is 830 grams but the viewfinder is qiute dim and not usable in weak light.
I too use a digital micro four thirds camera, but a Panasonic with the Leica 15 mm f1.4 and the first edition 20 mm Lumix lens. It's not much lughter than the 'cord
Whenever I shoot on film I definitely have a much higher keep ratio, but a much smaller overall keep volume.
It's simply not practical, either time/money/physically, to shoot on film the same amount and things that I do digital.
For quick snaps of moving wildlife, or tricky light, or a quick snap, the iPhone is incredible, and often she has a very sharp shot before I have the lens cap off and start thinking about shutter speed, etc.
The iPhone photos are great for fb or insta or anything on small screen. The immense difference comes when I load photos into Lightroom and get to work, upping shadows, cropping or reducing highlights. They’re not even remotely the same. And all of that is just with one all purpose lens on the Sony. Throw a BIG zoom on the front and the comparison is a thousands times different... or a nice wide fast lens and again, whole different ball game .
Of the many hundreds of My photos That have run in print magazines, maybe two or three have been from a phone.
I don’t think a print worthy shot like this comes off phones (yet)
https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
But enthusiasts who wants to practice the craft of photography are thriving. Cameras have never been this good, especially for their price.
If you earn your living through photography, things are of course different.
As someone who used to lug around the D700 everywhere I went years ago (I stopped when I got my Olympus mirrorless), this complaint from someone about D8xx in studio use blows my mind.
I use my mirrorless camera and a supertelephoto lens for things my phone just can't capture: birds and many distant animals.
Photography never went away.
In fact, we share and post way way way more videos and images than before. No development time means you can get all 5000 photos that you snapped online with data everywhere!
https://www.diyphotography.net/why-i-dont-use-dslr-cameras-a...
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4296660253/5-reasons-why-i...
Of course there are also a lot of situations where big-sensor, interchangeable lens cameras still excel, such as low light, telephoto, shallow depth of field, and resolution. So my Sony also gets a lot of use.
Photography isn't dead. Smartphones have just become serious photography tools.
For contrast Toronto is choke full of people with SLR and mirrorless cams. Not that there are not enough people taking pics with smartphones either. What is virtually gone (from my perspective) are those small point and shoot cameras,
Sigma makes great lenses compared to some of the other 3rd party manufacturers like Tamron and Tokina.
Not just film cameras but VCRs, consumer grade time pieces and much else that the Japanese are experts at mass manufacturing has been replaced by a circuit board.
With digital things, either it works or it doesn't (once you have taken it apart and put it together again). With mechanical gadgets the same applies but there is usually more to it than 'drat, I forgot to plug that bit in'.
The Olympus Camedia C800 around 1995 was my first digital camera and webcam (new shot every 5 seconds so people could see if I'm at my desk or not)
Any story that doesn't note that camera makers should've begun adopting Android at least a decade ago, and that doesn't note how poorly cameras integrate with smartphones, is missing a big part of the story. I have a Fuji mirrorless camera, and only people who are very interested in final image quality will tolerate the poor software.
There are other forms of malinvestment too: the article says "While Olympus has doggedly pursued the Four Thirds format since the 2003 release of the E-1, small sensors have largely been ill-fated with APS-C both more popular and a better-understood quantity by the consumer." It's not just about image size: Olympus has had sub-par autofocus relative to relevant competitors since at least 2016 or 2017, if not longer, and Panasonic has similar problems. But these are sideshows relative to software quality.
Cameras have a very tight energy budget. It’s not uncommon for current mirrorless camera to not get even 300 shots per batt charge. I’m not sure running a full-fledged multipurpose OS like Android would help that? And why is the software a problem exactly? I don’t care running apps on my camera.
> I don’t care running apps on my camera.
I'm sure that's true, but people love their image editing apps on their phones, and love being able to post clips directly to TikTok.
I've never noticed a difference between AF and MF lenses in battery use. What matters most by far is how long the EVF/display is on. Distant second is how many shots you actually take.
Sony utilizes both Linux and the AV real time operating system (µITRON RTOS) on its arm cores.
Some of the nikon coolpix I believe were full android devices but are just a glorified phone / p&s not a dslr.
Nikon also uses µITRON RTOS on its proprietary expeed ASIC cores.
Canon has a proprietary inhouse OS named DRYOS for its DIGIC ASICs.
I agree mirrorless cameras could do more, but I’m not sure if it’s worth the compromises (power, cost, etc). The cameras don’t need all the processing since they have plenty of real signal to work with. If they did use a bunch of processing, it would need to be entirely new techniques from what phones do since those are pointless when you already have a quality image.
(I'd also question the "near-mirrorless-level" statement. My iPhone's camera is quite good, but my Nikon D750—admittedly not mirrorless, but a professional camera—is still on another level.)
I'm not sure if this was a ironic comment, but assuming not: all serious cameras have been able to do this for 20 years.
It’s Mac only, but fantastic. Even a two photo stack produces much better noise reduction than I could get from software.
The app also says it uses a "simplified" version of the approach google lays out, but doesn't provide more details about what was simplified out. (and I haven't dived through the code)
Yeah, since I don't have a tripod I've found it to be basically useless (although it's very possible I haven't found the right software). I have always assumed (possibly incorrectly) that the camera's physical shutter prevented getting shots in as quick succession as a phone.
The thing is, the camera has enough dynamic range I don't feel like I need more than one shot anyway.
I don't want or need an app store, I don't want or need messaging, and for god's sake please don't put an internet connection with a cell baseband chip in my camera. I need that battery life already.
Better integration? Sure. I'd like to see it. Snapbridge works acceptably but is slow.
But at the end of the day taking the picture is usually step one before culling, cropping, and editing so while it's a small irritation it's far less important than things like being able to get the shot in the first place (so autofocus, IBIS, etc.).
Of course, the OM-1 came out after the sale. Going back to 2016, the E-M1 II is, unsurprisingly not as good as newer cameras. It's notable, however that everything above it on the list is newer with the Sony A6500 (2017) and Fuji X-T3 (2018) being the oldest competitors to perform better.
Panasonic, on the other hand does have a problem with autofocus because it insists on using only contrast detection, while other manufacturers use contrast and phase detection in combination.
[0] https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for...
The software is just awful. Why they can't just go with "put the updated firmware on the SD card", I have no idea.
I don't think adopting Android would have helped them (they'd still be on 4.0 right now and a security nightmare, let's be real).
Same with many device manufacturers as well (something something most car infotainment systems and companion apps). Apple isn't for everyone (I'm an Android user) but they're one of the few organizations that is trying to think of software and hardware as components that should work well together even though they also make some hilarious missteps.
At this rate, mirrorless and DSLR cameras will keep getting a smaller slice of users and phone photography will keep improving for the 99% of people out there. Maybe that's okay.
I do wish my Sony AIII had great Google Photos integration.
A friend of mine has a pet complaint about the camera industry: in the 1980s if you bought a 110-film camera you could pull it out of your pocket aim at a subject, and take a picture, and the slowest part of that from 'cold boot' is pulling it out of your pocket. No digital camera can replicate that (unless you walk around with an 'on' camera in your pocket at all times). Your suggestion immediately made me think of him, and how not only have we lost something we had in the past, we're marching firmly away from it.
Edit: Even more so when autofocus speed is taken into account.
Except for the part about fitting in your pocket, any DSLR can easily replicate that. That's one of the many factors that keep me using them, they are instant-on and have zero lag when taking a photo.
With a toddler, that's priceless. The only delay in taking a photo is the time it takes me to lift the camera to my eyes. Or even less, as I have many photos where I realize I won't have time to look through the viewfinder so I just grab the camera and release the shutter, the DSRLs are so fast this always works. I can straighten and crop later.
With a phone, by the time I unlock the screen, bring up the camera app, let it slowly focus, let the slowly-responding touch screen button activate, the toddler is in the other room.
I do think that computational photography features (e.g. snapping a lot of photos and merging them) have the potential to be a big driver of camera sales for whoever is able to integrate them first into a large sensor camera. But this isn't just a matter of software but also processing power.
I personally would love to see Apple put out an interchangeable lens camera, but I'm not holding my breath as I don't think the market is large enough for them to bother. Also I'm not sure I could afford to buy one even if they did...
That would be horrible. So now my camera would need a constant stream of security patch updates (which the manufacturer will stop supplying). And surely use a lot more battery.
What I love about Nikon DSLRs is the firmware is just for taking photos, hyper-optimized for that. There's no baggage. And it will keep working forever.