Are modern cameras too good for...

Adrian Harris said:

For about 4 years now since upgrading to the OM1 I have lost all interest and desire to get another camera - and the same applies to much other equipment.

Some cameras may finally have caught up and be fractionally better in a few areas. But at what point is equipment good enough?

As I have moved between photographing different subject genres, I have acquired lenses to suit, but other than than that, I have now reached the point that there is possibly nothing more I need.

This possibly also applies to many other people now and sadly this is no doubt very bad news for camera and equipment manufacturers.

The amazing features and capability of the OM1 means that if something is a problem or not good enough, then it's not the kit, it's me!

However I can see me spending on processing and raw converting software, as the recent incarnations from various software companies have made a huge leap forward.

None are yet quite perfect, but my goodness, they are now pretty amazing.

I've ways kept my slightly older cameras as backups, so hopefully I'll never need to purchase another, but do hope manufacturers survive.

What are your feelings about this?

Click to expand...

1. Sensor Resolution - Progress here is essentially "over" IMO. Most cameras on the market today have more resolution than most people will actually use. There's certainly areas where higher MP sensors are going to make a photo better, but this is not as much as a differentiator as it once was.
2. Auto Focus - For the main players, progress here is also essentially "over" given that even entry-level cameras have very, very good systems with good speed, accuracy and ease of use with Subject Detection. I will say that I think MFT is a laggard here since entry levels are still relying on Contrast Detect.
3. Low Light Performance - We've gotten through most of the progress they're going to make here. Most ILCs at this point are pretty good. Sure, some are still better than other if you're looking at the extremes past ISO 6400, or are working with very slow lenses, but it's not like it was 15 years ago.
4. Sensor Readout Speed - This will probably be one of the bigger sources of Progress in the next 5-10 years. We'll continue to see progress here with more and more stacked sensors in less and less expensive bodies, with higher-end bodies using global shutters eventually. That said, I don't think this is a big differentiator for casual photographers, so probably not a big needle mover for most.
5. Drive Speed - This seems to have plateaued as well, with some cameras actually regressing in terms of FPS supported in stills. As more and more cameras end up with faster sensor readout speeds, electronic shutters make this pretty much irrelevant as a "spec" and will become less of a differentiator.
6. Computational Photography - This is the elephant in the room - none of the manufacturers have made a serious attempt to introduce computational photography as a core part of their imaging pipelines (unlike OMS' approach, which is more of a built-in post-processing approach, if that makes sense). Smartphones have been doing this for over a decade to be able to overcome the deficiencies of small sensors and lens packaging limitations. This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick.

Sam Bennett said:

Adrian Harris said:

For about 4 years now since upgrading to the OM1 I have lost all interest and desire to get another camera - and the same applies to much other equipment.

Some cameras may finally have caught up and be fractionally better in a few areas. But at what point is equipment good enough?

As I have moved between photographing different subject genres, I have acquired lenses to suit, but other than than that, I have now reached the point that there is possibly nothing more I need.

This possibly also applies to many other people now and sadly this is no doubt very bad news for camera and equipment manufacturers.

The amazing features and capability of the OM1 means that if something is a problem or not good enough, then it's not the kit, it's me!

However I can see me spending on processing and raw converting software, as the recent incarnations from various software companies have made a huge leap forward.

None are yet quite perfect, but my goodness, they are now pretty amazing.

I've ways kept my slightly older cameras as backups, so hopefully I'll never need to purchase another, but do hope manufacturers survive.

What are your feelings about this?

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of truth to this. Over the past 20 years, we've seen a few key areas of innovation/progress in ILCs....

1. Sensor Resolution - Progress here is essentially "over" IMO. Most cameras on the market today have more resolution than most people will actually use. There's certainly areas where higher MP sensors are going to make a photo better, but this is not as much as a differentiator as it once was.
2. Auto Focus - For the main players, progress here is also essentially "over" given that even entry-level cameras have very, very good systems with good speed, accuracy and ease of use with Subject Detection. I will say that I think MFT is a laggard here since entry levels are still relying on Contrast Detect.
3. Low Light Performance - We've gotten through most of the progress they're going to make here. Most ILCs at this point are pretty good. Sure, some are still better than other if you're looking at the extremes past ISO 6400, or are working with very slow lenses, but it's not like it was 15 years ago.
4. Sensor Readout Speed - This will probably be one of the bigger sources of Progress in the next 5-10 years. We'll continue to see progress here with more and more stacked sensors in less and less expensive bodies, with higher-end bodies using global shutters eventually. That said, I don't think this is a big differentiator for casual photographers, so probably not a big needle mover for most.
5. Drive Speed - This seems to have plateaued as well, with some cameras actually regressing in terms of FPS supported in stills. As more and more cameras end up with faster sensor readout speeds, electronic shutters make this pretty much irrelevant as a "spec" and will become less of a differentiator.
6. Computational Photography - This is the elephant in the room - none of the manufacturers have made a serious attempt to introduce computational photography as a core part of their imaging pipelines (unlike OMS' approach, which is more of a built-in post-processing approach, if that makes sense). Smartphones have been doing this for over a decade to be able to overcome the deficiencies of small sensors and lens packaging limitations. This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick.

TL;DR - Most dedicated cameras are pretty good at this point, progress is going to slow and computational photography is probably the areas we'll see the biggest changes.

This is part of the reason why Fuji doesn't spend all their time "chasing specs" and is focus on delivering an overall appealing "experience" - good looking bodies, premium feel (in some cases), direct controls, viewfinders, novel ways of capturing photos, etc. They get it.

Click to expand...

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

Adrian Harris said:

For about 4 years now since upgrading to the OM1 I have lost all interest and desire to get another camera - and the same applies to much other equipment.

Some cameras may finally have caught up and be fractionally better in a few areas. But at what point is equipment good enough?

As I have moved between photographing different subject genres, I have acquired lenses to suit, but other than than that, I have now reached the point that there is possibly nothing more I need.

This possibly also applies to many other people now and sadly this is no doubt very bad news for camera and equipment manufacturers.

The amazing features and capability of the OM1 means that if something is a problem or not good enough, then it's not the kit, it's me!

However I can see me spending on processing and raw converting software, as the recent incarnations from various software companies have made a huge leap forward.

None are yet quite perfect, but my goodness, they are now pretty amazing.

I've ways kept my slightly older cameras as backups, so hopefully I'll never need to purchase another, but do hope manufacturers survive.

What are your feelings about this?

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of truth to this. Over the past 20 years, we've seen a few key areas of innovation/progress in ILCs....

1. Sensor Resolution - Progress here is essentially "over" IMO. Most cameras on the market today have more resolution than most people will actually use. There's certainly areas where higher MP sensors are going to make a photo better, but this is not as much as a differentiator as it once was.
2. Auto Focus - For the main players, progress here is also essentially "over" given that even entry-level cameras have very, very good systems with good speed, accuracy and ease of use with Subject Detection. I will say that I think MFT is a laggard here since entry levels are still relying on Contrast Detect.
3. Low Light Performance - We've gotten through most of the progress they're going to make here. Most ILCs at this point are pretty good. Sure, some are still better than other if you're looking at the extremes past ISO 6400, or are working with very slow lenses, but it's not like it was 15 years ago.
4. Sensor Readout Speed - This will probably be one of the bigger sources of Progress in the next 5-10 years. We'll continue to see progress here with more and more stacked sensors in less and less expensive bodies, with higher-end bodies using global shutters eventually. That said, I don't think this is a big differentiator for casual photographers, so probably not a big needle mover for most.
5. Drive Speed - This seems to have plateaued as well, with some cameras actually regressing in terms of FPS supported in stills. As more and more cameras end up with faster sensor readout speeds, electronic shutters make this pretty much irrelevant as a "spec" and will become less of a differentiator.
6. Computational Photography - This is the elephant in the room - none of the manufacturers have made a serious attempt to introduce computational photography as a core part of their imaging pipelines (unlike OMS' approach, which is more of a built-in post-processing approach, if that makes sense). Smartphones have been doing this for over a decade to be able to overcome the deficiencies of small sensors and lens packaging limitations. This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick.

TL;DR - Most dedicated cameras are pretty good at this point, progress is going to slow and computational photography is probably the areas we'll see the biggest changes.

This is part of the reason why Fuji doesn't spend all their time "chasing specs" and is focus on delivering an overall appealing "experience" - good looking bodies, premium feel (in some cases), direct controls, viewfinders, novel ways of capturing photos, etc. They get it.

Click to expand...

Good summary, Sam. I would like to just comment on your points about Computational Photography, and this in particular.

Click to expand...

gary0319 said:

6. Computational Photography.... "This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick".

I think there may some competing interests here.

First off is the reluctance of those "real photographers" to even try anything that may seem threatening to tried-and-true norms. Part of this is simply the result of being mentally incurious while "aging in place" and time will resolve this soon enough.

Click to expand...

gary0319 said:

It doesn't seem that the more traditional camera makers want to spend the R&D on this type of development lest 1) it introduces another point of comparison ("why isn't the new XYZ computational feature just introduced by Camer X as good as the one in my iPhone 16?") and 2) see the part about the older "real photographers".

Click to expand...

1. Compute Power - ILCs have processors that are fine tuned to running the camera and its imaging pipeline. Smartphones contain a wider variety of the type of processors (that are tuned to doing particular tasks - neural engines vs graphics processing, etc) since it needs to solve more general problems, not just imaging. The more sophisticated the computational photography gets, the more specialized CPUs you need and the more power you need to do it in a way that is satisfying to users. OMS' cameras do some cool stuff, but they don't do it "invisibly" - whereas smartphones do even more mind-blowing things without the user even knowing (ex. HDR in video).
2. Operating System - A smartphone's operating system is waaaaaay more flexible in terms of the things you can do within it. This makes things that could be really difficult in a more basic operating system on an ILC much easier (and thus, less costly) to do on a smartphone. Cameras don't need all that flexibility, but they could use more. And there's an unbelievable amount of resources that's gone into the iPhone and Android OSes that camera manufacturers could never dream of replicating.
3. Battery Power - With greater processing power comes a need for more battery power to maintain a certain expectation about how long you can use a camera on a charge. This poses packaging problems where, generally, camera manufacturers want to keep cameras as small as they practically can, given other limitations.
4. Heat Management - More power also means more heat to manage. This is already a problem manufacturers are struggling with and part of the reason cameras are getting larger and larger (to the dismay of many in this channel).

Sam Bennett said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

Adrian Harris said:

For about 4 years now since upgrading to the OM1 I have lost all interest and desire to get another camera - and the same applies to much other equipment.

Some cameras may finally have caught up and be fractionally better in a few areas. But at what point is equipment good enough?

As I have moved between photographing different subject genres, I have acquired lenses to suit, but other than than that, I have now reached the point that there is possibly nothing more I need.

This possibly also applies to many other people now and sadly this is no doubt very bad news for camera and equipment manufacturers.

The amazing features and capability of the OM1 means that if something is a problem or not good enough, then it's not the kit, it's me!

However I can see me spending on processing and raw converting software, as the recent incarnations from various software companies have made a huge leap forward.

None are yet quite perfect, but my goodness, they are now pretty amazing.

I've ways kept my slightly older cameras as backups, so hopefully I'll never need to purchase another, but do hope manufacturers survive.

What are your feelings about this?

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of truth to this. Over the past 20 years, we've seen a few key areas of innovation/progress in ILCs....

1. Sensor Resolution - Progress here is essentially "over" IMO. Most cameras on the market today have more resolution than most people will actually use. There's certainly areas where higher MP sensors are going to make a photo better, but this is not as much as a differentiator as it once was.
2. Auto Focus - For the main players, progress here is also essentially "over" given that even entry-level cameras have very, very good systems with good speed, accuracy and ease of use with Subject Detection. I will say that I think MFT is a laggard here since entry levels are still relying on Contrast Detect.
3. Low Light Performance - We've gotten through most of the progress they're going to make here. Most ILCs at this point are pretty good. Sure, some are still better than other if you're looking at the extremes past ISO 6400, or are working with very slow lenses, but it's not like it was 15 years ago.
4. Sensor Readout Speed - This will probably be one of the bigger sources of Progress in the next 5-10 years. We'll continue to see progress here with more and more stacked sensors in less and less expensive bodies, with higher-end bodies using global shutters eventually. That said, I don't think this is a big differentiator for casual photographers, so probably not a big needle mover for most.
5. Drive Speed - This seems to have plateaued as well, with some cameras actually regressing in terms of FPS supported in stills. As more and more cameras end up with faster sensor readout speeds, electronic shutters make this pretty much irrelevant as a "spec" and will become less of a differentiator.
6. Computational Photography - This is the elephant in the room - none of the manufacturers have made a serious attempt to introduce computational photography as a core part of their imaging pipelines (unlike OMS' approach, which is more of a built-in post-processing approach, if that makes sense). Smartphones have been doing this for over a decade to be able to overcome the deficiencies of small sensors and lens packaging limitations. This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick.

TL;DR - Most dedicated cameras are pretty good at this point, progress is going to slow and computational photography is probably the areas we'll see the biggest changes.

This is part of the reason why Fuji doesn't spend all their time "chasing specs" and is focus on delivering an overall appealing "experience" - good looking bodies, premium feel (in some cases), direct controls, viewfinders, novel ways of capturing photos, etc. They get it.

Click to expand...

Good summary, Sam. I would like to just comment on your points about Computational Photography, and this in particular.

Click to expand...

Thanks! In retrospect, "Dynamic Range" should be on that list as well.

Sam Bennett said:

6. Computational Photography.... "This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick".

I think there may some competing interests here.

First off is the reluctance of those "real photographers" to even try anything that may seem threatening to tried-and-true norms. Part of this is simply the result of being mentally incurious while "aging in place" and time will resolve this soon enough.

Click to expand...

Wow, that's a dark take. But I think as long as this becomes an "opt-in" option that is backed by a good set of controls, they can see some success. And if people want to ignore the feature, fine.

Sam Bennett said:

It doesn't seem that the more traditional camera makers want to spend the R&D on this type of development lest 1) it introduces another point of comparison ("why isn't the new XYZ computational feature just introduced by Camer X as good as the one in my iPhone 16?") and 2) see the part about the older "real photographers".

Click to expand...

The "barriers" that are there right now are really interesting to think about. I don't think it's a barrier around competitive concerns. My assumption here is that the biggest barriers are more "practical" than that...

1. Compute Power - ILCs have processors that are fine tuned to running the camera and its imaging pipeline. Smartphones contain a wider variety of the type of processors (that are tuned to doing particular tasks - neural engines vs graphics processing, etc) since it needs to solve more general problems, not just imaging. The more sophisticated the computational photography gets, the more specialized CPUs you need and the more power you need to do it in a way that is satisfying to users. OMS' cameras do some cool stuff, but they don't do it "invisibly" - whereas smartphones do even more mind-blowing things without the user even knowing (ex. HDR in video).
2. Operating System - A smartphone's operating system is waaaaaay more flexible in terms of the things you can do within it. This makes things that could be really difficult in a more basic operating system on an ILC much easier (and thus, less costly) to do on a smartphone. Cameras don't need all that flexibility, but they could use more. And there's an unbelievable amount of resources that's gone into the iPhone and Android OSes that camera manufacturers could never dream of replicating.
3. Battery Power - With greater processing power comes a need for more battery power to maintain a certain expectation about how long you can use a camera on a charge. This poses packaging problems where, generally, camera manufacturers want to keep cameras as small as they practically can, given other limitations.
4. Heat Management - More power also means more heat to manage. This is already a problem manufacturers are struggling with and part of the reason cameras are getting larger and larger (to the dismay of many in this channel).

T --
Sam Bennetto
Instagram: @swiftbennett

Click to expand...

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

Adrian Harris said:

For about 4 years now since upgrading to the OM1 I have lost all interest and desire to get another camera - and the same applies to much other equipment.

Some cameras may finally have caught up and be fractionally better in a few areas. But at what point is equipment good enough?

As I have moved between photographing different subject genres, I have acquired lenses to suit, but other than than that, I have now reached the point that there is possibly nothing more I need.

This possibly also applies to many other people now and sadly this is no doubt very bad news for camera and equipment manufacturers.

The amazing features and capability of the OM1 means that if something is a problem or not good enough, then it's not the kit, it's me!

However I can see me spending on processing and raw converting software, as the recent incarnations from various software companies have made a huge leap forward.

None are yet quite perfect, but my goodness, they are now pretty amazing.

I've ways kept my slightly older cameras as backups, so hopefully I'll never need to purchase another, but do hope manufacturers survive.

What are your feelings about this?

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of truth to this. Over the past 20 years, we've seen a few key areas of innovation/progress in ILCs....

1. Sensor Resolution - Progress here is essentially "over" IMO. Most cameras on the market today have more resolution than most people will actually use. There's certainly areas where higher MP sensors are going to make a photo better, but this is not as much as a differentiator as it once was.
2. Auto Focus - For the main players, progress here is also essentially "over" given that even entry-level cameras have very, very good systems with good speed, accuracy and ease of use with Subject Detection. I will say that I think MFT is a laggard here since entry levels are still relying on Contrast Detect.
3. Low Light Performance - We've gotten through most of the progress they're going to make here. Most ILCs at this point are pretty good. Sure, some are still better than other if you're looking at the extremes past ISO 6400, or are working with very slow lenses, but it's not like it was 15 years ago.
4. Sensor Readout Speed - This will probably be one of the bigger sources of Progress in the next 5-10 years. We'll continue to see progress here with more and more stacked sensors in less and less expensive bodies, with higher-end bodies using global shutters eventually. That said, I don't think this is a big differentiator for casual photographers, so probably not a big needle mover for most.
5. Drive Speed - This seems to have plateaued as well, with some cameras actually regressing in terms of FPS supported in stills. As more and more cameras end up with faster sensor readout speeds, electronic shutters make this pretty much irrelevant as a "spec" and will become less of a differentiator.
6. Computational Photography - This is the elephant in the room - none of the manufacturers have made a serious attempt to introduce computational photography as a core part of their imaging pipelines (unlike OMS' approach, which is more of a built-in post-processing approach, if that makes sense). Smartphones have been doing this for over a decade to be able to overcome the deficiencies of small sensors and lens packaging limitations. This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick.

TL;DR - Most dedicated cameras are pretty good at this point, progress is going to slow and computational photography is probably the areas we'll see the biggest changes.

This is part of the reason why Fuji doesn't spend all their time "chasing specs" and is focus on delivering an overall appealing "experience" - good looking bodies, premium feel (in some cases), direct controls, viewfinders, novel ways of capturing photos, etc. They get it.

Click to expand...

Good summary, Sam. I would like to just comment on your points about Computational Photography, and this in particular.

Click to expand...

Thanks! In retrospect, "Dynamic Range" should be on that list as well.

gary0319 said:

6. Computational Photography.... "This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick".

I think there may some competing interests here.

First off is the reluctance of those "real photographers" to even try anything that may seem threatening to tried-and-true norms. Part of this is simply the result of being mentally incurious while "aging in place" and time will resolve this soon enough.

Click to expand...

Wow, that's a dark take. But I think as long as this becomes an "opt-in" option that is backed by a good set of controls, they can see some success. And if people want to ignore the feature, fine.

gary0319 said:

It doesn't seem that the more traditional camera makers want to spend the R&D on this type of development lest 1) it introduces another point of comparison ("why isn't the new XYZ computational feature just introduced by Camer X as good as the one in my iPhone 16?") and 2) see the part about the older "real photographers".

Click to expand...

The "barriers" that are there right now are really interesting to think about. I don't think it's a barrier around competitive concerns. My assumption here is that the biggest barriers are more "practical" than that...

1. Compute Power - ILCs have processors that are fine tuned to running the camera and its imaging pipeline. Smartphones contain a wider variety of the type of processors (that are tuned to doing particular tasks - neural engines vs graphics processing, etc) since it needs to solve more general problems, not just imaging. The more sophisticated the computational photography gets, the more specialized CPUs you need and the more power you need to do it in a way that is satisfying to users. OMS' cameras do some cool stuff, but they don't do it "invisibly" - whereas smartphones do even more mind-blowing things without the user even knowing (ex. HDR in video).
2. Operating System - A smartphone's operating system is waaaaaay more flexible in terms of the things you can do within it. This makes things that could be really difficult in a more basic operating system on an ILC much easier (and thus, less costly) to do on a smartphone. Cameras don't need all that flexibility, but they could use more. And there's an unbelievable amount of resources that's gone into the iPhone and Android OSes that camera manufacturers could never dream of replicating.
3. Battery Power - With greater processing power comes a need for more battery power to maintain a certain expectation about how long you can use a camera on a charge. This poses packaging problems where, generally, camera manufacturers want to keep cameras as small as they practically can, given other limitations.
4. Heat Management - More power also means more heat to manage. This is already a problem manufacturers are struggling with and part of the reason cameras are getting larger and larger (to the dismay of many in this channel).

T --
Sam Bennetto
Instagram: @swiftbennett

Click to expand...

On the battery power issue, I think that doing away with removable batteries would allow for more power at less bulk. But we run into that “real photographer” syndrome again. And of course we would need some maintenance scheme to upgrade should there be the need to replace it.

Click to expand...

Sam Bennett said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

Adrian Harris said:

For about 4 years now since upgrading to the OM1 I have lost all interest and desire to get another camera - and the same applies to much other equipment.

Some cameras may finally have caught up and be fractionally better in a few areas. But at what point is equipment good enough?

As I have moved between photographing different subject genres, I have acquired lenses to suit, but other than than that, I have now reached the point that there is possibly nothing more I need.

This possibly also applies to many other people now and sadly this is no doubt very bad news for camera and equipment manufacturers.

The amazing features and capability of the OM1 means that if something is a problem or not good enough, then it's not the kit, it's me!

However I can see me spending on processing and raw converting software, as the recent incarnations from various software companies have made a huge leap forward.

None are yet quite perfect, but my goodness, they are now pretty amazing.

I've ways kept my slightly older cameras as backups, so hopefully I'll never need to purchase another, but do hope manufacturers survive.

What are your feelings about this?

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of truth to this. Over the past 20 years, we've seen a few key areas of innovation/progress in ILCs....

1. Sensor Resolution - Progress here is essentially "over" IMO. Most cameras on the market today have more resolution than most people will actually use. There's certainly areas where higher MP sensors are going to make a photo better, but this is not as much as a differentiator as it once was.
2. Auto Focus - For the main players, progress here is also essentially "over" given that even entry-level cameras have very, very good systems with good speed, accuracy and ease of use with Subject Detection. I will say that I think MFT is a laggard here since entry levels are still relying on Contrast Detect.
3. Low Light Performance - We've gotten through most of the progress they're going to make here. Most ILCs at this point are pretty good. Sure, some are still better than other if you're looking at the extremes past ISO 6400, or are working with very slow lenses, but it's not like it was 15 years ago.
4. Sensor Readout Speed - This will probably be one of the bigger sources of Progress in the next 5-10 years. We'll continue to see progress here with more and more stacked sensors in less and less expensive bodies, with higher-end bodies using global shutters eventually. That said, I don't think this is a big differentiator for casual photographers, so probably not a big needle mover for most.
5. Drive Speed - This seems to have plateaued as well, with some cameras actually regressing in terms of FPS supported in stills. As more and more cameras end up with faster sensor readout speeds, electronic shutters make this pretty much irrelevant as a "spec" and will become less of a differentiator.
6. Computational Photography - This is the elephant in the room - none of the manufacturers have made a serious attempt to introduce computational photography as a core part of their imaging pipelines (unlike OMS' approach, which is more of a built-in post-processing approach, if that makes sense). Smartphones have been doing this for over a decade to be able to overcome the deficiencies of small sensors and lens packaging limitations. This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick.

TL;DR - Most dedicated cameras are pretty good at this point, progress is going to slow and computational photography is probably the areas we'll see the biggest changes.

This is part of the reason why Fuji doesn't spend all their time "chasing specs" and is focus on delivering an overall appealing "experience" - good looking bodies, premium feel (in some cases), direct controls, viewfinders, novel ways of capturing photos, etc. They get it.

Click to expand...

Good summary, Sam. I would like to just comment on your points about Computational Photography, and this in particular.

Click to expand...

Thanks! In retrospect, "Dynamic Range" should be on that list as well.

Sam Bennett said:

6. Computational Photography.... "This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick".

I think there may some competing interests here.

First off is the reluctance of those "real photographers" to even try anything that may seem threatening to tried-and-true norms. Part of this is simply the result of being mentally incurious while "aging in place" and time will resolve this soon enough.

Click to expand...

Wow, that's a dark take. But I think as long as this becomes an "opt-in" option that is backed by a good set of controls, they can see some success. And if people want to ignore the feature, fine.

Sam Bennett said:

It doesn't seem that the more traditional camera makers want to spend the R&D on this type of development lest 1) it introduces another point of comparison ("why isn't the new XYZ computational feature just introduced by Camer X as good as the one in my iPhone 16?") and 2) see the part about the older "real photographers".

Click to expand...

The "barriers" that are there right now are really interesting to think about. I don't think it's a barrier around competitive concerns. My assumption here is that the biggest barriers are more "practical" than that...

1. Compute Power - ILCs have processors that are fine tuned to running the camera and its imaging pipeline. Smartphones contain a wider variety of the type of processors (that are tuned to doing particular tasks - neural engines vs graphics processing, etc) since it needs to solve more general problems, not just imaging. The more sophisticated the computational photography gets, the more specialized CPUs you need and the more power you need to do it in a way that is satisfying to users. OMS' cameras do some cool stuff, but they don't do it "invisibly" - whereas smartphones do even more mind-blowing things without the user even knowing (ex. HDR in video).
2. Operating System - A smartphone's operating system is waaaaaay more flexible in terms of the things you can do within it. This makes things that could be really difficult in a more basic operating system on an ILC much easier (and thus, less costly) to do on a smartphone. Cameras don't need all that flexibility, but they could use more. And there's an unbelievable amount of resources that's gone into the iPhone and Android OSes that camera manufacturers could never dream of replicating.
3. Battery Power - With greater processing power comes a need for more battery power to maintain a certain expectation about how long you can use a camera on a charge. This poses packaging problems where, generally, camera manufacturers want to keep cameras as small as they practically can, given other limitations.
4. Heat Management - More power also means more heat to manage. This is already a problem manufacturers are struggling with and part of the reason cameras are getting larger and larger (to the dismay of many in this channel).

T --
Sam Bennetto
Instagram: @swiftbennett

Click to expand...

On the battery power issue, I think that doing away with removable batteries would allow for more power at less bulk. But we run into that “real photographer” syndrome again. And of course we would need some maintenance scheme to upgrade should there be the need to replace it.

Click to expand...

I think it bears consideration for certain markets. 99% of the time with my OM-3, I'm charging in camera. But for the cameras I use for my "professional" work, I have to have easily replaceable batteries. For most events I don't need to switch, but having to plug in to charge just wouldn't fly for a lot event work.

Click to expand...

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

gary0319 said:

Sam Bennett said:

Adrian Harris said:

For about 4 years now since upgrading to the OM1 I have lost all interest and desire to get another camera - and the same applies to much other equipment.

Some cameras may finally have caught up and be fractionally better in a few areas. But at what point is equipment good enough?

As I have moved between photographing different subject genres, I have acquired lenses to suit, but other than than that, I have now reached the point that there is possibly nothing more I need.

This possibly also applies to many other people now and sadly this is no doubt very bad news for camera and equipment manufacturers.

The amazing features and capability of the OM1 means that if something is a problem or not good enough, then it's not the kit, it's me!

However I can see me spending on processing and raw converting software, as the recent incarnations from various software companies have made a huge leap forward.

None are yet quite perfect, but my goodness, they are now pretty amazing.

I've ways kept my slightly older cameras as backups, so hopefully I'll never need to purchase another, but do hope manufacturers survive.

What are your feelings about this?

Click to expand...

I think there's a lot of truth to this. Over the past 20 years, we've seen a few key areas of innovation/progress in ILCs....

1. Sensor Resolution - Progress here is essentially "over" IMO. Most cameras on the market today have more resolution than most people will actually use. There's certainly areas where higher MP sensors are going to make a photo better, but this is not as much as a differentiator as it once was.
2. Auto Focus - For the main players, progress here is also essentially "over" given that even entry-level cameras have very, very good systems with good speed, accuracy and ease of use with Subject Detection. I will say that I think MFT is a laggard here since entry levels are still relying on Contrast Detect.
3. Low Light Performance - We've gotten through most of the progress they're going to make here. Most ILCs at this point are pretty good. Sure, some are still better than other if you're looking at the extremes past ISO 6400, or are working with very slow lenses, but it's not like it was 15 years ago.
4. Sensor Readout Speed - This will probably be one of the bigger sources of Progress in the next 5-10 years. We'll continue to see progress here with more and more stacked sensors in less and less expensive bodies, with higher-end bodies using global shutters eventually. That said, I don't think this is a big differentiator for casual photographers, so probably not a big needle mover for most.
5. Drive Speed - This seems to have plateaued as well, with some cameras actually regressing in terms of FPS supported in stills. As more and more cameras end up with faster sensor readout speeds, electronic shutters make this pretty much irrelevant as a "spec" and will become less of a differentiator.
6. Computational Photography - This is the elephant in the room - none of the manufacturers have made a serious attempt to introduce computational photography as a core part of their imaging pipelines (unlike OMS' approach, which is more of a built-in post-processing approach, if that makes sense). Smartphones have been doing this for over a decade to be able to overcome the deficiencies of small sensors and lens packaging limitations. This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick.

TL;DR - Most dedicated cameras are pretty good at this point, progress is going to slow and computational photography is probably the areas we'll see the biggest changes.

This is part of the reason why Fuji doesn't spend all their time "chasing specs" and is focus on delivering an overall appealing "experience" - good looking bodies, premium feel (in some cases), direct controls, viewfinders, novel ways of capturing photos, etc. They get it.

Click to expand...

Good summary, Sam. I would like to just comment on your points about Computational Photography, and this in particular.

Click to expand...

Thanks! In retrospect, "Dynamic Range" should be on that list as well.

gary0319 said:

6. Computational Photography.... "This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick".

I think there may some competing interests here.

First off is the reluctance of those "real photographers" to even try anything that may seem threatening to tried-and-true norms. Part of this is simply the result of being mentally incurious while "aging in place" and time will resolve this soon enough.

Click to expand...

Wow, that's a dark take. But I think as long as this becomes an "opt-in" option that is backed by a good set of controls, they can see some success. And if people want to ignore the feature, fine.

gary0319 said:

It doesn't seem that the more traditional camera makers want to spend the R&D on this type of development lest 1) it introduces another point of comparison ("why isn't the new XYZ computational feature just introduced by Camer X as good as the one in my iPhone 16?") and 2) see the part about the older "real photographers".

Click to expand...

The "barriers" that are there right now are really interesting to think about. I don't think it's a barrier around competitive concerns. My assumption here is that the biggest barriers are more "practical" than that...

1. Compute Power - ILCs have processors that are fine tuned to running the camera and its imaging pipeline. Smartphones contain a wider variety of the type of processors (that are tuned to doing particular tasks - neural engines vs graphics processing, etc) since it needs to solve more general problems, not just imaging. The more sophisticated the computational photography gets, the more specialized CPUs you need and the more power you need to do it in a way that is satisfying to users. OMS' cameras do some cool stuff, but they don't do it "invisibly" - whereas smartphones do even more mind-blowing things without the user even knowing (ex. HDR in video).
2. Operating System - A smartphone's operating system is waaaaaay more flexible in terms of the things you can do within it. This makes things that could be really difficult in a more basic operating system on an ILC much easier (and thus, less costly) to do on a smartphone. Cameras don't need all that flexibility, but they could use more. And there's an unbelievable amount of resources that's gone into the iPhone and Android OSes that camera manufacturers could never dream of replicating.
3. Battery Power - With greater processing power comes a need for more battery power to maintain a certain expectation about how long you can use a camera on a charge. This poses packaging problems where, generally, camera manufacturers want to keep cameras as small as they practically can, given other limitations.
4. Heat Management - More power also means more heat to manage. This is already a problem manufacturers are struggling with and part of the reason cameras are getting larger and larger (to the dismay of many in this channel).

T --
Sam Bennetto
Instagram: @swiftbennett

Click to expand...

On the battery power issue, I think that doing away with removable batteries would allow for more power at less bulk. But we run into that “real photographer” syndrome again. And of course we would need some maintenance scheme to upgrade should there be the need to replace it.

Click to expand...

I think it bears consideration for certain markets. 99% of the time with my OM-3, I'm charging in camera. But for the cameras I use for my "professional" work, I have to have easily replaceable batteries. For most events I don't need to switch, but having to plug in to charge just wouldn't fly for a lot event work.

Click to expand...

I can see the necessity for paid work, just like a spare body. But for casual stuff, where computational features have more acceptance, in-camera charging/power bank seems to work fine for me.

Click to expand...

Adrian Harris said:

For about 4 years now since upgrading to the OM1 I have lost all interest and desire to get another camera - and the same applies to much other equipment.

Some cameras may finally have caught up and be fractionally better in a few areas. But at what point is equipment good enough?

As I have moved between photographing different subject genres, I have acquired lenses to suit, but other than than that, I have now reached the point that there is possibly nothing more I need.

This possibly also applies to many other people now and sadly this is no doubt very bad news for camera and equipment manufacturers.

The amazing features and capability of the OM1 means that if something is a problem or not good enough, then it's not the kit, it's me!

However I can see me spending on processing and raw converting software, as the recent incarnations from various software companies have made a huge leap forward.

None are yet quite perfect, but my goodness, they are now pretty amazing.

I've ways kept my slightly older cameras as backups, so hopefully I'll never need to purchase another, but do hope manufacturers survive.

What are your feelings about this?

Click to expand...

Sam Bennett said:

Computational Photography - This is the elephant in the room - none of the manufacturers have made a serious attempt to introduce computational photography as a core part of their imaging pipelines (unlike OMS' approach, which is more of a built-in post-processing approach, if that makes sense). Smartphones have been doing this for over a decade to be able to overcome the deficiencies of small sensors and lens packaging limitations. This is probably the richest areas for progress in ILCs over the next ten years. Being able to introduce this in a way that doesn't actively turn off "real photographers" in the process is the trick.

Click to expand...