Sensor evolution stuck?

[Jcpastor1]

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!,

 

[grsnovi]

...so, are new cameras just focusing on design and ergonomics?

I think cameras have been getting better. Write speeds are enabling very fast fps rates. Compute power is enabling subject-specific focusing.

Many still feel that shots taken with 12mp sensors from years ago are as good as what can be taken now.

 

[WilyKit]

I've read about at least ten "promising" sensor technologies in nondescript development stages which could be "game-changing" yet no serious company has invested in them, and a few others that were associated with at least one serious company but disappeared like vapor (I guess the organic sensors decomposed).

All kinds of fantastical things that could solve big problems and bring real improvement, but which just don't exist. They never exist.

In reality there has been astoundingly little technological advancement in sensors, and the proof is in the pudding.

I don't expect or anticipate anything anymore except some slightly nice dynamic range improvements in small sensors, and I'm not talking about lies like "19ev" via "computational photography".

Nothing special is coming any time soon.

 

[LeicaEye]

I think you are surely underestimating the newest gear. Shadows, IQ, Dynamic Range, if you are happy with your current gear, you have obviously not PP anything from the latest offerings ex Leica, Nikon, Canon and the rest of today’s product line.

 

[MoreorLess]

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!,

In terms of image quality it does seem that way, FPS and AF have improved significantly in recent years but IQ wise its really only been at medium format with the intro of the 100MP and 150MP sensors we've seen significant upgrades.

I feel like this is probably a significant issue with what was mentioned in the other thread bout "lack of interest" in new gear. Something like ay the D800 made big waves because it was such a big push forward in resolution for example and before that we had big pushes forward in DR and higher ISO performance were as the last decade or more those things have not really advanced much or indeed sometimes declined in favour of other kinds of performance.

If your cynical you could argue thats part of the reason camera companies went so hard after mirrorless, they needed a reason to keep people buying new cameras when advances in IQ were not happening at the rate they did previously.

 

[Bill Ferris]

I would summarize the biggest advancements in sensor design and processor tech since the D750 was introduced 11 years ago as follows:

• Increased resultion
• Increased data processing speed
• Improved autofocus
• Improved video

The D750 is a 24MP DSLR body with excellent dynamic range, good autofocus and a middling burst rate & buffer. The Z6III is the modern day equivalent. It has the same 24MP resolution but superior autofocus, burst rate, and buffer. The Z6III was introduced in June 2024 and hasn't been plagued by the quality control issues that affected the D600 and D750.

Nikon's professional mirrorless bodies are both built around 45MP sensors, and feature better autofocus & buffers, superior build quality, and video performance. When it comes to video, there's no DSLR that comes close to matching the video performance of today's mirrorless bodies.

If you combine these advances with AI noise reduction and sharpening tools, today's best mirrorless bodies are routinely able to output publishable 45MP+ images at ISO 12800 & higher.

Of course, one thing hasn't changed in the last decade-plus. It's the person using the camera that's the biggest factor determining image quality. Any Nikon digital camera from the last 15+ years, if in the hands of a skilled photographer, can be used to make publishable images.

Whichever mirrorless body you choose, you may not find an immediate, obvious jump in image quality in comparison with your D750 images. But depending on how you shoot, you'll find yourself coming home with 3 to 5 times as many keepers. You'll also be able to make keeper images in lighting conditions you wouldn't consider a possibility with the D750's limited AF system.

Also, be prepared to rethink your data workflow and storage solutions.

Good luck with your choice of new cameras.

 

[Richard Butler]

Whichever mirrorless body you choose, you may not find an immediate, obvious jump in image quality in comparison with your D750 images.

Not from the sensor but if you move to the newer lenses designed for mirrorless, their performance plus better AF should mean you do.

Richard - DPReview.com

 

[bastibe]

Current sensors can resolve about as close as it makes sense to the diffraction limit, and are within striking distance of an ideal photon counter. Most of the noise you see in modern images is an accurate measurement of the noise inherent in the light. There isn't much room left for Bayer sensors to get better.

What can still improve is readout speed and saturation behavior , which is where we get dual-gain sensors, stacked sensors, and global shutters. These do not improve stills image quality in most cases, but they can make cameras easier to use, and help with video capture.

(Caveat Emptor, obviously. There are always edge cases where modern sensors are not yet close to ideal.)

 

[Jcpastor1]

Thank you all for your comments.... this picture showcases what I meant...of course there are improvements in terms of IBIS, AF, NR, etc...but in terms of IQ, I am afraid nothing has been improved, old Nikons are still much sharper!

 

[Mako2011]

...but in terms of IQ, I am afraid nothing has been improved, old Nikons are still much sharper!

I'm not sure that comparison really compares sharpness (resolution and acutance) A vs B. Maybe better to use the Studio shot comparison tool in print mode?







--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

 

[DirkPeh]

One of the reasons is the severe decades long crisis of the Japanese economy and that until now the camera market isn’t interesting enough for more innovative economies like China to step in, although DJI/Hasselblad seems interested.

With one of the oldest populations in the world, Japan’s workforce is shrinking. This demographic shift results in a shortage of skilled engineers and technicians, creating a pressing need for reskilling programs and international talent recruitment to bridge the gap.

Imagine Samsung and LG wouldn’t build TV's and there would only be Sony and Panasonic without competition. We would pay 3x the money for worse monitors. Have a look at the “new” Nikon flash for 1.300,-… One could buy 7 better Godox flashes for that money.

I hope for a young Chinese brand to disrupt the camera and sensor market.

 

[Redhenry]

Just my humble opinion, but I think there may be several factors preventing sensors from evolving more quickly. I’ve read several times in these threads that the camera market is now less than ten per cent of what it was a few years ago, so there clearly isn’t nearly as much money available for R&D. Then, of the number of people who DO buy cameras, only a few are going to want better and better sensors. They’re astonishingly good already, and for most people with an interest in serious photography, there’s no need to keep improving resolution, dynamic range and so on. Also, digital camera technology evolved at a rapid rate between about 2000 and 2015, then slowed down, at least partially because it’s as good as it needs to be.
(Bear in mind, though, that this is coming from a guy who, when he does use a camera rather than an iPhone, prefers a 2007 Nikon D40 to anything more modern and thinks that constant economic growth is unnecessary!)

 

[WilyKit]

Thank you all for your comments.... this picture showcases what I meant...of course there are improvements in terms of IBIS, AF, NR, etc...but in terms of IQ, I am afraid nothing has been improved, old Nikons are still much sharper!

Compare full-frame cameras with full-frame cameras, not APS-C (X-T5) and MFT (OM-3). In any case, yes, there has been no real improvement since D850.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Whichever mirrorless body you choose, you may not find an immediate, obvious jump in image quality in comparison with your D750 images.

Not from the sensor but if you move to the newer lenses designed for mirrorless, their performance plus better AF should mean you do.

The D600/610/750 still perform quite well. Take landscape photography as an example. You can pixel peep and see a difference, but at screen resolution a person would be challenged to discern between a photo made by a skilled photographer with one of those DSLRs and a Z8.

As I discussed in my previous post, however, raw image quality isn't the only factor to consider when evaluating the benefits of technological advances over the last decade-plus.

 

[Schrodingers cat]

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!,

I suspect what you were seeing is the fact that improvements in sensor tech only make the greatest visual impact with large format output.

 

[CameraCarl]

Nothing stuck about it in my opinion. Five years ago I couldn't take usable images at ISO 6400 let alone 25600. Plus the dynamic range is so much greater than before. Now, if you don't need these extremes for your type of photography, you probably don't care, so you aren't seeing the improvements, but I sure do..

 

[Ryan Schwartz]

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!,

The emphasis has been more on the speed side - more FPS and AF systems that lock on faster and more accurately, which you get with stacked sensor tech.

There may be some room to grow when it comes to dynamic range, but I think we're close to the point where we can't discern a difference in practical use with additional stops.

Low light performance is already there. 15 years ago, you had to worry about not going beyond ISO 3200 or 6400 or your image became too noisy. There wasn't the software yet to clean it up. Now you can shoot with five figure ISO values and have a usable image.

--
Ryan
I unsubscribe from threads time to time, so if you reply to me and I don't respond, it's nothing personal. Either I have moved along, or I have don't have anything to add to the discussion.

 

[Jcpastor1]

Just my humble opinion, but I think there may be several factors preventing sensors from evolving more quickly. I’ve read several times in these threads that the camera market is now less than ten per cent of what it was a few years ago, so there clearly isn’t nearly as much money available for R&D. Then, of the number of people who DO buy cameras, only a few are going to want better and better sensors. They’re astonishingly good already, and for most people with an interest in serious photography, there’s no need to keep improving resolution, dynamic range and so on. Also, digital camera technology evolved at a rapid rate between about 2000 and 2015, then slowed down, at least partially because it’s as good as it needs to be.
(Bear in mind, though, that this is coming from a guy who, when he does use a camera rather than an iPhone, prefers a 2007 Nikon D40 to anything more modern and thinks that constant economic growth is unnecessary!)

Thanks, makes sense!

 

[Jcpastor1]

Thank you all for your comments.... this picture showcases what I meant...of course there are improvements in terms of IBIS, AF, NR, etc...but in terms of IQ, I am afraid nothing has been improved, old Nikons are still much sharper!

Compare full-frame cameras with full-frame cameras, not APS-C (X-T5) and MFT (OM-3). In any case, yes, there has been no real improvement since D850.

Agree!

 

[BigBen08]

Just my humble opinion, but I think there may be several factors preventing sensors from evolving more quickly. I’ve read several times in these threads that the camera market is now less than ten per cent of what it was a few years ago, so there clearly isn’t nearly as much money available for R&D. Then, of the number of people who DO buy cameras, only a few are going to want better and better sensors. They’re astonishingly good already, and for most people with an interest in serious photography, there’s no need to keep improving resolution, dynamic range and so on. Also, digital camera technology evolved at a rapid rate between about 2000 and 2015, then slowed down, at least partially because it’s as good as it needs to be.
(Bear in mind, though, that this is coming from a guy who, when he does use a camera rather than an iPhone, prefers a 2007 Nikon D40 to anything more modern and thinks that constant economic growth is unnecessary!)

I agree completely. I own the Canon E3 and E5 cameras. For me the sensor performance is excellent and I can't see how a "better" sensor would benefit me.