Photography exists at the intersection of artistic expression and scientific precision, yet the industry's stubborn refusal to adopt standardized terminology creates unnecessary confusion for practitioners at every level. Unlike established scientific fields that rely on universal naming conventions, camera manufacturers have developed proprietary jargon that makes it difficult for photographers to switch between brands or work in multi-camera environments. While the International Organization for Standardization provides consistent ISO values across all devices, virtually every other function suffers from contradictory naming systems that serve marketing interests more than user needs. This fragmentation particularly impacts photography students, studio professionals, and medical personnel who must navigate different systems regularly.
The autofocus system exemplifies this problematic inconsistency across major camera brands. Most manufacturers label continuous autofocus as either C-AF or AF-C, both reasonably descriptive terms that indicate the camera will continuously adjust focus while the shutter button is half-pressed. However, Canon employs the entirely non-intuitive "AI-Servo" terminology, which misleadingly suggests artificial intelligence involvement where none exists. For single autofocus, the industry generally uses AF-S or S-AF, but Canon again diverges with "One Shot," a phrase that could easily be mistaken for single-frame drive mode rather than focus operation. These arbitrary distinctions force photographers to memorize brand-specific lexicons instead of mastering universal techniques.
Metering mode nomenclature reveals even greater chaos in the pursuit of proprietary branding. Nikon calls its default averaging system "Matrix," while Sony and Pentax use "Multi-Segment Metering," Fujifilm and Hasselblad shorten it to "Multi," and Panasonic opts for "Multiple Metering." Leica prefers "Multi-Field Metering," OM System uses the technical-sounding "Electro Selective Pattern (ESP)," and Canon employs "Evaluative" metering. Despite these elaborate names, all systems perform essentially identical functions—taking averaged light readings and applying subtle algorithms to improve exposure accuracy. Similarly, mode dial designations frustrate users when Canon uses "Av" for Aperture Value and "Tv" for Time Value while the rest of the industry simply uses "A" for aperture priority and "S" for shutter priority.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted his efforts, photographer Ivor Rackham initiated discussions with the British Standards Institute to address these inconsistencies. The BSI, equivalent to America's American National Standards Institute, expressed interest but indicated that at least one major camera manufacturer would need to champion the cause for any standardization effort to succeed. This requirement highlights the fundamental challenge: brands have little incentive to simplify terminology when confusing language helps maintain customer loyalty and complicates brand switching. The resistance mirrors past industry failures, such as the refusal to adopt Adobe's open DNG raw format, which would have streamlined post-production workflows across different camera systems.
The consequences of this non-standardization extend beyond mere inconvenience. In medical environments where multiple departments use different camera systems, staff waste valuable time learning redundant terminology for identical functions. Photography schools and large studios that maintain equipment from various manufacturers must constantly retrain students and employees on basic operations. The learning curve becomes steeper than necessary, discouraging experimentation with different systems that might better suit specific needs. While some manufacturers like Peak Design have embraced universal standards such as Arca-Swiss mounting systems, and Manfrotto has begun offering Arca-compatible heads, these remain exceptions rather than industry norms.
Standardizing photographic terminology would not diminish brand identity or technological innovation but would instead remove barriers to entry and professional development. The scientific community's success with universal naming systems—from biology's binomial nomenclature to chemistry's IUPAC standards—demonstrates that clarity and brand differentiation can coexist. Photography deserves similar treatment as it increasingly integrates with scientific, medical, and educational fields. Until manufacturers recognize that user-friendly standardization benefits the entire ecosystem, photographers will continue wrestling with unnecessary jargon that obscures rather than illuminates the art and science of image-making.
