Sensor evolution stuck?

John Crowe said:

I used a Sony A6000 for two years. My 90D does a far superior job, thanks to it's awesome sensor!

This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with camera advancements in capturing the moment. I absolutely agree all that is getting better. Although, I can't believe that AF has been such a difficult task to handle having been around now for forty years!

This discussion is about the fact that once one has gotten the image that they want there is little to no change in that image quality over the past ten to twelve years.

I can't justify a top-of-the-line MILC until the actual image quality can noticeably beat my two top DSLRs.

I admit that I can't justify the latest-and-greatest, but relying on my photography skills, developed over the past forty-five years, continues to deliver amazing image quality with what I have. It has been a long time since I have posted images here, so I will have to do so soon. There is more than one way to skin a cat. But one still needs a sensor that can deliver the results.

Click to expand...

Jcpastor1 said:

Hi all, I am a photographer With more than 30 years of expericene (mostly Nikons, NikkortMat, F90, F100, F3, D700, D750... but also some medium format). I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparisson pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750....so, are new cameras just focussing on design and ergonomics? Is sensor technology evolving at a lower pace?

Just my thouthgs and my first post on this great site!

Thanks!,

Click to expand...

• what you shoot,
• how you share your pictures,
• if you print and at what sizes.
• And of course if you're a total pixel peeper or not (I'm absolutely not).

John Crowe said:

I used a Sony A6000 for two years. My 90D does a far superior job, thanks to it's awesome sensor!

This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with camera advancements in capturing the moment. I absolutely agree all that is getting better. Although, I can't believe that AF has been such a difficult task to handle having been around now for forty years!

This discussion is about the fact that once one has gotten the image that they want there is little to no change in that image quality over the past ten to twelve years.

I can't justify a top-of-the-line MILC until the actual image quality can noticeably beat my two top DSLRs.

I admit that I can't justify the latest-and-greatest, but relying on my photography skills, developed over the past forty-five years, continues to deliver amazing image quality with what I have. It has been a long time since I have posted images here, so I will have to do so soon. There is more than one way to skin a cat. But one still needs a sensor that can deliver the results.

Click to expand...

John Crowe said:

Quoted from the OP's original question:

"I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparisson pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor."

While the topic was more general, the specific question was not.

Click to expand...

John Crowe said:

The vast majority of APS-C cameras are 24MP, which was introduced over twelve years ago. A new 24MP APS-C sensor from today offers little difference from a twelve year old sensor. The 90D is one of a handful of APS-C cameras, only made by two manufacturers, that goes well beyond 24MP. Even that sensor goes back six years. I brought it up, because it will take a noticeable improvement in the sensor before I move back to a MILC.

AGAIN, I appreciate the improvements in camera systems, but sensor imaging quality has plateaud, in GENERAL, over the past ten years for FF, and twelve years for APS-C.

Take care, and absolutely enjoy your new equipment.

Click to expand...

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

John Crowe said:

I am an enthusiast photographer, not a scientist. I am sure all the developments you refer to are wonderful. However, all one has to do is look at the studio comparison photos here on dpreview to see that the images made by all these different sensors, of similar megapixels, over the past ten to twelve years, have not changed considerably.

There may have been some advancements in dynamic range and ultra high ISO performance, but these will only provide nominal improvements in real world use.

Click to expand...

Wow! You're totally missing the point.

Sensor technology has way more to do with photography than taking pictures of static setups, on a tripod, in a studio. If you read the thread, many of us are enjoying HUGE advances in AF technology. If you compare the high-ISO performance (3200 and above) you'll see great advances in DR (greatly lower noise) that are very useful outside of a studio on a tripod. Read out speeds give us another set of very useful advantages for taking actual pictures.

Global shutter, in its infancy, has a whole bag of additional advantages and who knows what we'll enjoy once Sony gets its three-layer stacked sensor into a camera.

Click to expand...

The OP, Jcpastor1 was referring to image quality alone. While there have been some advances in IQ over the last decade they are marginal at best and require careful examination at 100% to see. In some cases IQ has gotten a bit worse because on sensor PDAF actually has a slight negative effect on IQ while greatly improving the speed and photographic experience.

Click to expand...

The thread titles is, "Is Sensor Technology Stuck.." The answer is no, if you actually take pictures. If all you do is look at static images, shot on a tripod, at base ISO, with artificial lighting, then maybe only a little.

Click to expand...

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

John Crowe said:

I am an enthusiast photographer, not a scientist. I am sure all the developments you refer to are wonderful. However, all one has to do is look at the studio comparison photos here on dpreview to see that the images made by all these different sensors, of similar megapixels, over the past ten to twelve years, have not changed considerably.

There may have been some advancements in dynamic range and ultra high ISO performance, but these will only provide nominal improvements in real world use.

Click to expand...

Wow! You're totally missing the point.

Sensor technology has way more to do with photography than taking pictures of static setups, on a tripod, in a studio. If you read the thread, many of us are enjoying HUGE advances in AF technology. If you compare the high-ISO performance (3200 and above) you'll see great advances in DR (greatly lower noise) that are very useful outside of a studio on a tripod. Read out speeds give us another set of very useful advantages for taking actual pictures.

Global shutter, in its infancy, has a whole bag of additional advantages and who knows what we'll enjoy once Sony gets its three-layer stacked sensor into a camera.

Click to expand...

The OP, Jcpastor1 was referring to image quality alone. While there have been some advances in IQ over the last decade they are marginal at best and require careful examination at 100% to see. In some cases IQ has gotten a bit worse because on sensor PDAF actually has a slight negative effect on IQ while greatly improving the speed and photographic experience.

Click to expand...

The thread titles is, "Is Sensor Technology Stuck.." The answer is no, if you actually take pictures. If all you do is look at static images, shot on a tripod, at base ISO, with artificial lighting, then maybe only a little.

Click to expand...

Here's what the OP said in the body of his post.

" I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparison pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750"

That strongly suggests that to him sensor technology means image quality.

Click to expand...

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

Here's what the OP said in the body of his post.

" I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparison pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750"

That strongly suggests that to him sensor technology means image quality.

Click to expand...

His view is artificially limited and not valid at all.

He's suggesting that checking static image comparison pages is the way to compare sensors. It's not. I look at them, to consider weaknesses and strengths, but realize that the ability to actually take pictures is more important for me than shots taken in a studio on a tripod.

Click to expand...

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

Here's what the OP said in the body of his post.

" I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparison pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750"

That strongly suggests that to him sensor technology means image quality.

Click to expand...

His view is artificially limited and not valid at all.

He's suggesting that checking static image comparison pages is the way to compare sensors. It's not. I look at them, to consider weaknesses and strengths, but realize that the ability to actually take pictures is more important for me than shots taken in a studio on a tripod.

Click to expand...

The studio shots eliminate all other variables beyond pure IQ. The studio shots represent the best possible results under ideal conditions. There are other advances in sensor and camera design that have made it possible to get better IQ under a wider range of conditions. The biggest for me have been on sensor PDAF points and the associated increase in processing power to facilitate better AF tracking and subject recognition.

Click to expand...

Gato Amarillo said:

By chance I read Thom Hogan's take on sensor evolution earlier today. Now I see new action on this thread.

https://bythom.com/newsviews/is-that-all-there-is-image.html

As he says: Sensor evolution is not stuck, it's been diverted"

Click to expand...

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

Here's what the OP said in the body of his post.

" I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparison pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750"

That strongly suggests that to him sensor technology means image quality.

Click to expand...

His view is artificially limited and not valid at all.

He's suggesting that checking static image comparison pages is the way to compare sensors. It's not. I look at them, to consider weaknesses and strengths, but realize that the ability to actually take pictures is more important for me than shots taken in a studio on a tripod.

Click to expand...

The studio shots eliminate all other variables beyond pure IQ. The studio shots represent the best possible results under ideal conditions. There are other advances in sensor and camera design that have made it possible to get better IQ under a wider range of conditions. The biggest for me have been on sensor PDAF points and the associated increase in processing power to facilitate better AF tracking and subject recognition.

Click to expand...

Thom Hogan said:

Gato Amarillo said:

By chance I read Thom Hogan's take on sensor evolution earlier today. Now I see new action on this thread.

https://bythom.com/newsviews/is-that-all-there-is-image.html

As he says: Sensor evolution is not stuck, it's been diverted"

Click to expand...

You know, after writing that article and reading all the others (plus posts) that have come about recently, I have to wonder why no one's questioning whether or not we should have evolved better eyes by now ;~).

Why can't I see more detail, more dynamic range, a wider angle with my eyes? (disclosure: after cataract surgery, I can see more detail, quite a bit more detail since we corrected somewhat past 20/20 at distance).

I don't ask that question blindly (pardon the pun). One of the reasons why we're not seeing fast progression on some image sensor parameters is that what does that really give us in our results that we would then perceive? We could certainly evolve image sensors faster than human eyes, but what would that accomplish?

Note that smartphones aren't really going to 40mp image sensors to provide more detail on the phone's screen, they're using the extra pixels to build virtual zoom lenses, amongst other things. A 4K display is only 8mp, after all, so what does a 40mp capture do for that display? Remember, most photos are being looked at now on phone and tablet displays, and those are all really FullHD to 4K in nature.

Meanwhile, a 24" print, which is about as big as I see most people making these days, is really 7200 pixels across the long axis, so ~40mp is fine for that, too.

I think the camera makers are well aware of both those things and not overly compelled to go fast on more pixels at the moment when there are plenty of other things they can do instead at the image sensor that would have more impact on most of us photographers.

That said, I've mentioned this before: there's going to come a time when your living room (and bedroom) wall is a screen (that time happened for Bill Gates in the 90's ;~). Said wall will likely have much more than one image displayed on it most of the time, but at some point we're all going to want 8K+ images to project. The demand simply isn't there for that today, though.

Click to expand...

green_badger said:

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

Here's what the OP said in the body of his post.

" I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparison pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750"

That strongly suggests that to him sensor technology means image quality.

Click to expand...

His view is artificially limited and not valid at all.

He's suggesting that checking static image comparison pages is the way to compare sensors. It's not. I look at them, to consider weaknesses and strengths, but realize that the ability to actually take pictures is more important for me than shots taken in a studio on a tripod.

Click to expand...

The studio shots eliminate all other variables beyond pure IQ. The studio shots represent the best possible results under ideal conditions. There are other advances in sensor and camera design that have made it possible to get better IQ under a wider range of conditions. The biggest for me have been on sensor PDAF points and the associated increase in processing power to facilitate better AF tracking and subject recognition.

Click to expand...

Meh, they most certainly don't. Case in point, the Fujifilm X samples are still taken with their stalwart copy of the old 56 f/1.2 and processed with the standard (and, for Fujifilm, famously suboptimal) Lightroom preset. There's no such thing as "eliminating all other variables beyond pure IQ", the best you can do is establish an arbitrary standard while openly acknowledging its limitations. DPR's refusal to come through with the second half of that is a major reason people still think you can't take sharp pictures with X-Trans cameras, by the way.

Click to expand...

green_badger said:

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

Here's what the OP said in the body of his post.

" I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparison pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750"

That strongly suggests that to him sensor technology means image quality.

Click to expand...

His view is artificially limited and not valid at all.

He's suggesting that checking static image comparison pages is the way to compare sensors. It's not. I look at them, to consider weaknesses and strengths, but realize that the ability to actually take pictures is more important for me than shots taken in a studio on a tripod.

Click to expand...

The studio shots eliminate all other variables beyond pure IQ. The studio shots represent the best possible results under ideal conditions. There are other advances in sensor and camera design that have made it possible to get better IQ under a wider range of conditions. The biggest for me have been on sensor PDAF points and the associated increase in processing power to facilitate better AF tracking and subject recognition.

Click to expand...

Meh, they most certainly don't. Case in point, the Fujifilm X samples are still taken with their stalwart copy of the old 56 f/1.2 and processed with the standard (and, for Fujifilm, famously suboptimal) Lightroom preset. There's no such thing as "eliminating all other variables beyond pure IQ", the best you can do is establish an arbitrary standard while openly acknowledging its limitations. DPR's refusal to come through with the second half of that is a major reason people still think you can't take sharp pictures with X-Trans cameras, by the way.

Click to expand...

sportyaccordy said:

green_badger said:

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

Here's what the OP said in the body of his post.

" I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparison pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750"

That strongly suggests that to him sensor technology means image quality.

Click to expand...

His view is artificially limited and not valid at all.

He's suggesting that checking static image comparison pages is the way to compare sensors. It's not. I look at them, to consider weaknesses and strengths, but realize that the ability to actually take pictures is more important for me than shots taken in a studio on a tripod.

Click to expand...

The studio shots eliminate all other variables beyond pure IQ. The studio shots represent the best possible results under ideal conditions. There are other advances in sensor and camera design that have made it possible to get better IQ under a wider range of conditions. The biggest for me have been on sensor PDAF points and the associated increase in processing power to facilitate better AF tracking and subject recognition.

Click to expand...

Meh, they most certainly don't. Case in point, the Fujifilm X samples are still taken with their stalwart copy of the old 56 f/1.2 and processed with the standard (and, for Fujifilm, famously suboptimal) Lightroom preset. There's no such thing as "eliminating all other variables beyond pure IQ", the best you can do is establish an arbitrary standard while openly acknowledging its limitations. DPR's refusal to come through with the second half of that is a major reason people still think you can't take sharp pictures with X-Trans cameras, by the way.

Click to expand...

I am one of those people.... the studio shots look mushy. I will take a gander at Flickr. Fuji X is still FF expensive though....

Click to expand...

tbcass said:

green_badger said:

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

Here's what the OP said in the body of his post.

" I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparison pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750"

That strongly suggests that to him sensor technology means image quality.

Click to expand...

His view is artificially limited and not valid at all.

He's suggesting that checking static image comparison pages is the way to compare sensors. It's not. I look at them, to consider weaknesses and strengths, but realize that the ability to actually take pictures is more important for me than shots taken in a studio on a tripod.

Click to expand...

The studio shots eliminate all other variables beyond pure IQ. The studio shots represent the best possible results under ideal conditions. There are other advances in sensor and camera design that have made it possible to get better IQ under a wider range of conditions. The biggest for me have been on sensor PDAF points and the associated increase in processing power to facilitate better AF tracking and subject recognition.

Click to expand...

Meh, they most certainly don't. Case in point, the Fujifilm X samples are still taken with their stalwart copy of the old 56 f/1.2 and processed with the standard (and, for Fujifilm, famously suboptimal) Lightroom preset. There's no such thing as "eliminating all other variables beyond pure IQ", the best you can do is establish an arbitrary standard while openly acknowledging its limitations. DPR's refusal to come through with the second half of that is a major reason people still think you can't take sharp pictures with X-Trans cameras, by the way.

Click to expand...

Download the RAWS and process them yourself.

Click to expand...

green_badger said:

tbcass said:

green_badger said:

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

Here's what the OP said in the body of his post.

" I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparison pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750"

That strongly suggests that to him sensor technology means image quality.

Click to expand...

His view is artificially limited and not valid at all.

He's suggesting that checking static image comparison pages is the way to compare sensors. It's not. I look at them, to consider weaknesses and strengths, but realize that the ability to actually take pictures is more important for me than shots taken in a studio on a tripod.

Click to expand...

The studio shots eliminate all other variables beyond pure IQ. The studio shots represent the best possible results under ideal conditions. There are other advances in sensor and camera design that have made it possible to get better IQ under a wider range of conditions. The biggest for me have been on sensor PDAF points and the associated increase in processing power to facilitate better AF tracking and subject recognition.

Click to expand...

Meh, they most certainly don't. Case in point, the Fujifilm X samples are still taken with their stalwart copy of the old 56 f/1.2 and processed with the standard (and, for Fujifilm, famously suboptimal) Lightroom preset. There's no such thing as "eliminating all other variables beyond pure IQ", the best you can do is establish an arbitrary standard while openly acknowledging its limitations. DPR's refusal to come through with the second half of that is a major reason people still think you can't take sharp pictures with X-Trans cameras, by the way.

Click to expand...

Download the RAWS and process them yourself.

Click to expand...

Indeed, that's the ideal - and in my opinion, that's what it should say in big, red letters above the studio scene comparison tool.

Click to expand...

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

dcstep said:

tbcass said:

Here's what the OP said in the body of his post.

" I have started to consider upgrading my equipment but when I see some wonderful cameras such as Fuji XT5 OR OM3 and I take a look at these amazing reviews and check the image comparison pages, I see that the quality is not better than the quality that I get from the >10 years old sensor that I got in the D750"

That strongly suggests that to him sensor technology means image quality.

Click to expand...

His view is artificially limited and not valid at all.

He's suggesting that checking static image comparison pages is the way to compare sensors. It's not. I look at them, to consider weaknesses and strengths, but realize that the ability to actually take pictures is more important for me than shots taken in a studio on a tripod.

Click to expand...

The studio shots eliminate all other variables beyond pure IQ. The studio shots represent the best possible results under ideal conditions. There are other advances in sensor and camera design that have made it possible to get better IQ under a wider range of conditions. The biggest for me have been on sensor PDAF points and the associated increase in processing power to facilitate better AF tracking and subject recognition.

Click to expand...

The big plus for me that I see in those studio shots is high-ISO performance, aided to some extent by dual base ISOs on Sony's top models. As a wildlife photographer, I often shoot at high ISO and love that I can get very clean files where I couldn't not long ago.

Click to expand...

dcstep said:

Not related to sensor performance, but DxO Photolab and Topaz AI have moved noise reduction ahead very substantially. When you combine sensor advances with NR advances, the advances have been huge since 2018.

Click to expand...

Thom Hogan said:

Gato Amarillo said:

By chance I read Thom Hogan's take on sensor evolution earlier today. Now I see new action on this thread.

https://bythom.com/newsviews/is-that-all-there-is-image.html

As he says: Sensor evolution is not stuck, it's been diverted"

Click to expand...

You know, after writing that article and reading all the others (plus posts) that have come about recently, I have to wonder why no one's questioning whether or not we should have evolved better eyes by now ;~).

Why can't I see more detail, more dynamic range, a wider angle with my eyes? (disclosure: after cataract surgery, I can see more detail, quite a bit more detail since we corrected somewhat past 20/20 at distance).

I don't ask that question blindly (pardon the pun). One of the reasons why we're not seeing fast progression on some image sensor parameters is that what does that really give us in our results that we would then perceive? We could certainly evolve image sensors faster than human eyes, but what would that accomplish?

Note that smartphones aren't really going to 40mp image sensors to provide more detail on the phone's screen, they're using the extra pixels to build virtual zoom lenses, amongst other things. A 4K display is only 8mp, after all, so what does a 40mp capture do for that display? Remember, most photos are being looked at now on phone and tablet displays, and those are all really FullHD to 4K in nature.

Meanwhile, a 24" print, which is about as big as I see most people making these days, is really 7200 pixels across the long axis, so ~40mp is fine for that, too.

I think the camera makers are well aware of both those things and not overly compelled to go fast on more pixels at the moment when there are plenty of other things they can do instead at the image sensor that would have more impact on most of us photographers.

That said, I've mentioned this before: there's going to come a time when your living room (and bedroom) wall is a screen (that time happened for Bill Gates in the 90's ;~). Said wall will likely have much more than one image displayed on it most of the time, but at some point we're all going to want 8K+ images to project. The demand simply isn't there for that today, though.

Click to expand...