[Wheatfield]

I think there is no plateau, it is just that consumer bubble vanished. You underestimate technology too much, there are great changes beyond the corner. I've read lately about Canon 1 megapixel SPAD sensor, smartphone makers will be implementing liquid lenses this year I think, there is HUGE potential for AI based image processing and I would be surprised if Pentax and/or Fuji wont be first to use this for "film emulation". Pentax to give better photo experience, Fuji to push further its classical film emulations.

Just because most camera companies are sitting there on classical tech new it does not mean that new tech developed for other industries will not trickle into ILS. Who would not want a camera with SPAD sensor? It would be gigantic leap forward.

Look at the real improvements that have been made over the past 5 years or so. Other than moving buttons around and pretending they've made something new and exciting, there really hasn't been any real major improvements. Sony, arguably at the top of the tech game, has gone from 42MP in 2015 to 61mp in 2019. That sounds like a big jump, but 42mp is 7952 x 5304 while 61mp is 9504 x 6336. Since 2015, Sony has managed to add ~1000 x 1500 pixels to their full frame sensor in six years, since there has been no movement in the past 2 years..

That is the very definition of a plateau.
What they have been doing is leaning hard into mirrorless and pretending everything is new.

What you are saying is that because there MAY BE big things in the future, things haven't leveled off over the past half dozen years. That is an incorrect assessment, sort of like saying that because the path you are hiking has been level for the past few miles, it is still uphill because at some point the trail might have another ascent.

You are couching your post with terms like "will be" and "would be". You are saying the relatively flat technology curve over the past 5 years is not a plateau because of what the future might bring.
The future might (and probably will) bring wonderous things, but that doesn't alter the fact that the past 5 years has seen a reinvention of the wheel and not much else.

Right now, the camera industry is on a plateau. Next year, or even next month that might change, but that is not how it is now.

---

Last edited by Wheatfield; 06-03-2021 at 09:18 AM.

[Sir Nameless]

It looks like apsc DSLR can produce prints equivalent of what could be produced with 24x36mm film, full frame DSLR can produce as good or better prints than what medium format film was capable of, and medium format digital can produce what 4x5" film is able to produce as prints.

This is good to know, thanks.

That's something to be aware of and to be grateful for.

Absolutely!

[Wheatfield]

It looks like apsc DSLR can produce prints equivalent of what could be produced with 24x36mm film, full frame DSLR can produce as good or better prints than what medium format film was capable of, and medium format digital can produce what 4x5" film is able to produce as prints. That's something to be aware of and to be grateful for.

So now when I use the K1, it's like using a medium format film, plus the autofocus , speed and convenience of digital. And if I'd use a medium format digital kit, it'd be like shooting 4x5 film, with regards to print quality (and without considering film grain aesthetics).[COLOR=Silver]

This is good to know, thanks.



Absolutely!

What you get with 4x5 that you don't get with a conventional digital camera, be it APS-C, full frame or medium format, is the flexible camera body that bellows cameras feature.
What you lose then, is the tilt/ shift capability that large format gives every lens, not just the few specialized ones that you can stick onto a DSLR, and more importantly for landscape photographers, is the huge depth of field that can be had via swings and tilts of the film.

When I was still shooting film, I was simply unable to secure adequate depth of field with my medium format gear (Pentax 6x7) when doing landscape work. I didn't do much with 35mm because the image quality simply wasn't there in a postage stamp sized negative.
I'm now shooting with a full frame K1, and still find I often cannot acquire sufficient depth of field that was routine for 4x5. The solution for me has been to do focus stacking, but that means sometimes doing a couple of dozen exposures to get similar depth of field to what I was able to secure on sheet film.

It's not just about megapixels and noise sometimes, and it's something to be aware of when deciding what equipment one is going to use.
4x5 film has about 15 times the area of 35mm film. A decent 35mm scanner these days will give something like a 20mp scan, while a drum scanner, which is, admittedly, outside the price range of most hobbyists, will give somewhere around a 720mp scan of 4x5 sheet film, presuming my math is correct.

I expect that in reality, the 80mp figure cited is closer to realistic for most people. And with this in mind, I wouldn't bother shooting film of any format with the intention of scanning it. It is far to easy to shoot everything on a digital camera using multiple exposure techniques and combining files in post processing to both gain pixels and gain depth of field.

[beholder3]

I find that to be mostly true, although I would take cameras from 2010. Sensors significantly improved from 2010 to 2011 (from CCD to front illuminated CMOS, my K-5 CMOS sensor was from 2011) and to 2016/2018 (BSI CMOS).

The K-5 is from 09/2010...
And BSI until today did not bring any meaningful improvement in any sensor or camera per se.

[biz-engineer]

The K-5 is from 09/2010... And BSI until today did not bring any meaningful improvement in any sensor or camera per se.

That's right. And there is dual gain, even lower high ISO noise, better IQ + detail at higher ISOs (about half a stop to a stop better).
I have 24x36"prints, sharp detailed , from my K1. And the high res. Sony, Nikon, recent Canon FF models would do even better, I guess (slightly better resolution).
Checking out Ben Horne's print shops, his biggest print size is about 24x30", enlarged from his 8x10 view camera. That means, I print at the same size images captured with my Pentax K1, and not even using pixel shift.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Checking out Ben Horne's print shops, his biggest print size is about 24x30", enlarged from his 8x10 view camera. That means, I print at the same size images captured with my Pentax K1, and not even using pixel shift.

Yes, but Ben Horne could make an 8"x10" contact print straight from a negative that would utterly blow away a downsampled 8"x10" from your K1.

[biz-engineer]

Yes, but Ben Horne could make an 8"x10" contact print straight from a negative that would utterly blow away a downsampled 8"x10" from your K1.

I'm not sure my eyes could tell a difference between a 8x10 contact print and K1 image printed at that same size. I can't detect any lack of detail of a 16"x 24" print from a K1 (that's 300ppi), and I have a 8"x10" 400ppi continuous tone print from K1+D-FA* 70-200, when I take a close look at it I say to myself "Geee...so much fine detail, unbelievable". Maybe I could tell the difference between 8x10" contact print and 8x10" C-type print, if compared side by side only, I don't know.

---------- Post added 04-06-21 at 14:23 ----------

According to Polielettronica S.p.A. - Products - Digital Printers , it can make C-type digital prints up to 1219 dpi , continuous tone RGB. Would a contact print be better than that?

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-04-2021 at 05:24 AM.

[beholder3]

That's right. And there is dual gain, even lower high ISO noise, better IQ + detail at higher ISOs (about half a stop to a stop better).

And none of this is a meaningful improvement, just like BSI is not. All dual gain sensors actually perform worse than the old gen K-1 sensor. None of them reach the same level of ISOless capabilities, offering lower max dynamic range only.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I'm not sure my eyes could tell a difference between a 8x10 contact print and K1 image printed at that same size. I can't detect any lack of detail of a 16"x 24" print from a K1 (that's 300ppi), and I have a 8"x10" 400ppi continuous tone print from K1+D-FA* 70-200, when I take a close look at it I say to myself "Geee...so much fine detail, unbelievable". Maybe I could tell the difference between 8x10" contact print and 8x10" C-type print, if compared side by side only, I don't know.

---------- Post added 04-06-21 at 14:23 ----------

According to Polielettronica S.p.A. - Products - Digital Printers , it can make C-type digital prints up to 1219 dpi , continuous tone RGB. Would a contact print be better than that?

It's an interesting question that could actually be meaningfully answered by double blind testing. Take identically framed (and identical depth of field) shots with both a view camera and a K1, then make a contact print from the 8x10 camera and the highest resolution 8x10 that technology allows from the k1. Show the prints to an assortment of people under double blinded conditions and see if they can reliably tell which one is the view camera and which is the K1. You could include some big 24x36 prints in the same test under the same conditions too.

So much of people's opinions about photographic quality comes down to anecdotal / personal preference stuff, so it would be nice to subject things to some proper testing methodology for once.

[biz-engineer]

Look at the real improvements that have been made over the past 5 years or so. Other than moving buttons around and pretending they've made something new and exciting, there really hasn't been any real major improvements. Sony, arguably at the top of the tech game, has gone from 42MP in 2015 to 61mp in 2019. That sounds like a big jump, but 42mp is 7952 x 5304 while 61mp is 9504 x 6336. Since 2015, Sony has managed to add ~1000 x 1500 pixels to their full frame sensor in six years, since there has been no movement in the past 2 years..

Yep. Really depends how we look at it and what we do with the pictures. On a 24x36" print, moving from , say, 36Mpixel to 61Mpixels, using a high quality lens, does make a difference, but of course it's hard to justify the cost of moving from 36 to 61Mp. Already with 36Mp K1, the glass makes a significant difference in print. I'm convinced I could make 25% larger prints taking pictures with a D-FA*50 or D-FA*85 , compared using a D-FA 28-105. That's when considering a relatively large print (in that case 24x36"). The difference between zoom and prime or 36 and 61Mp won't make any appreciable difference on 8x10" prints. For the prints I do, the difference between K5 images and K1 images is pretty substantial, thanks to the better K1 glass and also thanks to the larger sensor.

[BigMackCam]

Yep. Really depends how we look at it and what we do with the pictures.

Not just what we do with the pictures, but what our audience does with them too (see below)...

On a 24x36" print, moving from , say, 36Mpixel to 61Mpixels, using a high quality lens, does make a difference, but of course it's hard to justify the cost of moving from 36 to 61Mp. Already with 36Mp K1, the glass makes a significant difference in print. I'm convinced I could make 25% larger prints taking pictures with a D-FA*50 or D-FA*85 , compared using a D-FA 28-105. That's when considering a relatively large print (in that case 24x36"). The difference between zoom and prime or 36 and 61Mp won't make any appreciable difference on 8x10" prints. For the prints I do, the difference between K5 images and K1 images is pretty substantial, thanks to the better K1 glass and also thanks to the larger sensor.

Per a previous discussion of ours, viewing distance makes a huge difference here. That jump from 36 to 61MP on a 24x36" print might be noticeable when finely examining the printed image up close - as some photographers might when critiquing their work (and, perhaps, some high-end fine art photography buyers, as you've educated me in the past); but Joe Public, viewing a print at 1.5 to 2 times the diagonal in a gallery or their home, isn't going to benefit appreciably (if at all) from those extra megapickles. They're more interested in the subject, composition and light. Most won't even realise that's what they're admiring - they simply find the imaging appealing or they don't.

In fact, 61MP vs 36MP only buys you a few inches closer viewing potential for the same size print - or a slightly larger print at the same viewing distance - before the limitations of sensor resolution become noticeable again...

[Rondec]

Current cameras are "good enough" for most people, but so were cameras from 5 years ago. People will replace gear at the rate that it needs replacing, not because they some amazing new feature that just arrived.

The problem is that most of the advancements in recent gear have to do with faster read out speeds (once you get to 6 or 7 frames per second most people are satisfied), better video (I am convinced that most people still shoot video on dedicated camcorders not their ILCs), and more PDAF points on the sensor (once again, once you get to a certain point, people just don't care and these can actually degrade image quality).

Someone mentioned the K-1 and K-3 III and they do serve different purposes. My guess is that when Pentax replaces the K-1 II next year, it will be more of a landscape camera. It'll have more megapixels than the K-1, have a little faster frame rate and better auto focus, but probably still be under the K-3 III's rate. From what I can tell, the K-3 III is selling at or above Pentax's expectations, which is a good thing. It isn't really surprising considering the time from when the K-3 II came out till now.

I think most camera companies would do well to cut down on their number of models. I think they just end up dividing the same number of customers between a larger number of models. It's a little like the man who went to the pizza shop and they asked him if he wanted his pizza cut into 4 or 8 slices. He considered then said, "Well, I'm not very hungry so probably just four slices this time."

[Wheatfield]

Yep. Really depends how we look at it and what we do with the pictures. On a 24x36" print, moving from , say, 36Mpixel to 61Mpixels, using a high quality lens, does make a difference, but of course it's hard to justify the cost of moving from 36 to 61Mp. Already with 36Mp K1, the glass makes a significant difference in print. I'm convinced I could make 25% larger prints taking pictures with a D-FA*50 or D-FA*85 , compared using a D-FA 28-105. That's when considering a relatively large print (in that case 24x36"). The difference between zoom and prime or 36 and 61Mp won't make any appreciable difference on 8x10" prints. For the prints I do, the difference between K5 images and K1 images is pretty substantial, thanks to the better K1 glass and also thanks to the larger sensor.

Remember also that if you are using the most recent Photoshop program, and I am sure there are others that do this, your 36mp raw file can be opened to 144mp with no apparent quality drop via the magic of artificial intelligence and Adobe's very deep understanding of digital imaging.
At this image density, lenses and technique are going to have a very significant impact on image quality, much more so than it will with lower resolution sensors.
That is one of the forgotten beauties of large format. A huge print, say 24"×36" is only a 8x enlargement from 4x5, while the same print from a 35mm format camera needs a 24x enlargement.
This gives large format a very real advantage to postage stamp sized captures.

---------- Post added Jun 5th, 2021 at 10:42 AM ----------

I think most camera companies would do well to cut down on their number of models. I think they just end up dividing the same number of customers between a larger number of models. It's a little like the man who went to the pizza shop and they asked him if he wanted his pizza cut into 4 or 8 slices. He considered then said, "Well, I'm not very hungry so probably just four slices this time."

All industries do this whenever they can. Dividing the market into as many segments as they can makes customers think they have more options than they do.
The camera industry took this lesson from the automotive industry and its preponderance of different models all built on essentily the same chassis.

[c.a.m]

All industries do this whenever they can. Dividing the market into as many segments as they can makes customers think they have more options than they do.The camera industry took this lesson from the automotive industry and its preponderance of different models all built on essentily the same chassis.

Reminds me of toothpaste that one finds on the drug store's shelves. Much of it is based on the same active ingredients, give or take a few percentages, but brands package their products in various ways to occupy as much shelf space as possible.


- Craig

[BarryE]

Reminds me of toothpaste that one finds on the drug store's shelves. Much of it is based on the same active ingredients, give or take a few percentages, but brands package their products in various ways to occupy as much shelf space as possible.


- Craig

Oh, you cynic. Consumers are never that gullible. Those little beads of whitening goo are surely worth a 300% lift in price, otherwise we'd just use baking soda like olden times.