[photoptimist]

There are larger format digital cameras… but the cost becomes staggering. LargeSense LS911 Hands-On: The First Digital Large Format Camera | PetaPixel

The silicon yields in large sensors are bad. The LS911 has a 12mp sensor that is 9” x 11”, but the sensor is broken into 4 parts likely to reduce costs and the camera is still $106,000.00 - and it is monochrome only and has a base iso of 2100.

The staggering price of the LS911 may be misleading -- the technology they use could actually be a way forward toward large format cameras that are price-competitive with medium format cameras.

We've talked about this camera before (LS911 9x11 inch large format digital camera - PentaxForums.com). The key bit of magic in the LS911 is that instead of etching a sensor on to a silicon wafer (that beastly expensive real estate), they vapor-deposit patterns of silicon and other materials on to a cheap sheet of glass. That sounds hard but it's the same technique used to make flat panel displays for phones, laptops, and TVs and those have become extremely cheap as production has increased.

In essence, their sensor is basically a display panel in which the attached circuitry is designed to read the light levels from each pixel instead of writing the light level to each pixel. (OK, there's some tricky bits to doing that well, but that's what's happening at the panel level.)

If a display panel maker can create a 4k display for a 13" laptop for a $100 (note that large 4k TV have become very inexpensive), then they can mass-produce a 24 MPixel 8x10 sensor for about the same price. And when the display panels reach 8K, the panel makers will be able to make a 96 Mpix large format sensor. The real costly part of the sensor is in the up-front engineering which is probably why the LS911 has such a high price. But once the engineering is paid for, the per-camera price can drop a lot.

[normhead]

I say give me a 24mp WR Pentax body with focus bracketing and I would never need a new camera again.
Honestly I can't imagine what camera companies will come up with to continue existing. We're close to camera being pefrect instruments for still photography.

Hopefully we are back to the point where I buy camera every 10 years instead of every 2 years.

[UncleVanya]

The staggering price of the LS911 may be misleading -- the technology they use could actually be a way forward toward large format cameras that are price-competitive with medium format cameras.

We've talked about this camera before (LS911 9x11 inch large format digital camera - PentaxForums.com). The key bit of magic in the LS911 is that instead of etching a sensor on to a silicon wafer (that beastly expensive real estate), they vapor-deposit patterns of silicon and other materials on to a cheap sheet of glass. That sounds hard but it's the same technique used to make flat panel displays for phones, laptops, and TVs and those have become extremely cheap as production has increased.

In essence, their sensor is basically a display panel in which the attached circuitry is designed to read the light levels from each pixel instead of writing the light level to each pixel. (OK, there's some tricky bits to doing that well, but that's what's happening at the panel level.)

If a display panel maker can create a 4k display for a 13" laptop for a $100 (note that large 4k TV have become very inexpensive), then they can mass-produce a 24 MPixel 8x10 sensor for about the same price. And when the display panels reach 8K, the panel makers will be able to make a 96 Mpix large format sensor. The real costly part of the sensor is in the up-front engineering which is probably why the LS911 has such a high price. But once the engineering is paid for, the per-camera price can drop a lot.

I get the point but that's at commodity scales that photography doesn't have. I doubt demand for this type of giant sensor (or even true Medium format sized sensor will reach levels where the sensor costs will drop to those panel prices unless spare capacity at the same plants can be used.

[Jonathan Mac]

The R3 ought to be out before too long.

And there have probably been a few Leica special editions...

Fewer cameras are being sold, especially at the low end, which means rising prices for those that do sell and fewer units sold. That all adds up to less development of new models, particularly at the low end.

This is the "new normal" for camera releases, as has been clear for a few years now.

[biz-engineer]

First, silicon is probably the most expensive real estate on the planet. If a semiconductor maker can get say $10 for a smartphone sensor that is 24 sq mm (that's $38,700 per sq ft), how much would they want to charge for making a 4"x5" sensor (13,000 sq mm)?

I guess image sensors could be made much cheaper out of the similar manufacturing process used for OLED panels, 50um -> 100um pixels (not sure how small a feature can be with display tech), large format area, relatively cheap => back to film era large format camera concepts: small lens, large camera back, + scheimpflug movements. The problem would be the market size, only a few aficionados would by it, most people these days interested in effortless pocket-able devices.

[biz-engineer]

The trends towards smartphone photography is IMO very pathetic. People really have low expectations, because beside seeing images on a smartphone display or tablet, the image quality from even the best smartphones is far far behind FF DSLR image quality. Just a sign of where society is going, it's very sad for me.

[gatorguy]

The trends towards smartphone photography is IMO very pathetic. People really have low expectations, because beside seeing images on a smartphone display or tablet, the image quality from even the best smartphones is far far behind FF DSLR image quality. Just a sign of where society is going, it's very sad for me.

Smartphones had far more space to improve. Just a few years ago they were barely good for social sharing . But now for example there's the new Pixel 6 with a FAR larger sensor than previous, supposedly gathering "150% more light" than last years smartphone. It has a 48mp rear camera, 12mp front, 4x optical zoom, 94 degree FOV selfie, and a plethora of AI-enabled features we don't see on our mirrorless/dslr's.

While we may understand why we use what we use, for someone who has never had a proper quality camera they are of course amazed at what a smartphone camera offers them. So much is one is software, and even us as serious amateurs/professionals use some of the same digital trickery in post using DxO or Topaz or Lightroom to improve what the camera captured.

Photography is altogether different from what it was 10 years ago. Few people are interested in what was actually captured and far more interested in being shown what they would have liked it to be. I have female friends with permanent beauty filters on their camera phones so every selfie makes them 10 years younger and 10 pounds lighter, and all their friends praise how amazing they look.

We used to use "photoshopped" as a term of derision. Times have certainly changed.
https://9to5google.com/2021/10/09/pixel-6-magic-eraser-camera-features/

[BigMackCam]

The trends towards smartphone photography is IMO very pathetic. People really have low expectations, because beside seeing images on a smartphone display or tablet, the image quality from even the best smartphones is far far behind FF DSLR image quality. Just a sign of where society is going, it's very sad for me.

I think "pathetic" is a bit strong

Most folks using smartphones for photography are either social media users or the same people who used compact cameras a few years ago. They don't need outstanding image quality, but they do need the convenience of a compact device that takes pretty decent photos - hand-held - in almost any lighting situation. Smartphones have advanced so much that they offer good image quality in good light, and acceptable image quality (for the target audience) in low light.

You'll always get better image quality with a modern, larger sensor camera - but it's comparatively big, and in lower light - for certain types of photo - you need a tripod... and some skill.

I used to be dismissive of smartphone cameras, but since I bought my current Xiaomi Redmi Note 9 Pro Max, I've changed my view. It takes great photos. The ergonomics for a photographer are awful, focal length choices are limited, and it over-sharpens JPEGs - but it's always with me, and a quick bit of post-processing tames the sharpening nicely when necessary (or I can shoot in raw and apply whatever level of sharpening I prefer). It has full manual control over shutter speed and ISO (fixed aperture, of course) and a bunch of useful creative features. In no way is it a replacement for my DSLR and mirrorless cameras and lenses, but it's a useful photographic tool in its own right.

There are some very accomplished photographers using smartphones to take amazing photos, fully aware of the intended output media and audience where the image quality produced is more than sufficient

[biz-engineer]

There are some very accomplished photographers using smartphones to take amazing photos, fully aware of the intended output media and audience where the image quality produced is more than sufficient

Im having a super hard time to adapt to millennium mentality, I just can't get it, not that I'm not able to adapt, but adapting to mediocrity is very difficult for me since I've been raised and worked with constant pressure to reach excellence, I'm not able to go backwards. I admire the Ricoh GRIII because it is small , no larger than a phone, yet far superior image quality, it's really a progress and not a bad compromise like smartphones are.

[BigMackCam]

adapting to mediocrity is very difficult for me since I've been raised and worked with constant pressure to reach excellence

Same here

I admire the Ricoh GRIII because it is small , no larger than a phone, yet far superior image quality, it's really a progress and not a bad compromise like smartphones are.

The GRIII, fantastic camera though it is, is thicker than a phone, has worse battery life, costs what many folks would describe as "serious money", and it's a single-purpose device... You have to carry it in addition to a phone if you want all of the functionality that both offer.

As for mediocrity, it all depends on output media, dimensions and viewing distance. My smartphone photos look good on my phone, 10.1" tablet, 17" laptop, 24" QHD BenQ monitor, 43" HD TV... and I dare say they'd look good printed to modest dimensions, hung on the wall and viewed from a metre away (as most people would). I had a few of them (those of our cat) printed onto mugs as silly Christmas gifts for close family. Another was printed on a mouse mat for my Dad. My family were thrilled.

The most important thing is, if I hadn't used my phone to take those photos, I wouldn't have them at all - because when they were taken, I wasn't on one of my dedicated photographic outings, lugging my DSLR, a bag full of lenses and a tripod with me. I was just "out and about". Having a decent smartphone camera allowed me to capture the moment more than adequately. A DSLR would undoubtedly have produced better photos, but for the output destinations I mentioned, the difference wouldn't be so noticeable as when viewing the images at 100% reproduction in my photo editing software. It may not even be noticeable at all.

It's all about the right tool for the right job at the right time. Not every photo has to be a 100MP finely-processed work of art. Sometimes a smartphone is the best camera you have with you... It's convenient, compact, it comes "for free" with your mobile communication device and - with modern phones, at least - the image quality is quite decent. A nice photo with "quite decent" image quality is much better than no photo at all, and depending on what you want to do with it, it can be more than sufficient...

[Serkevan]

Im having a super hard time to adapt to millennium mentality, I just can't get it, not that I'm not able to adapt, but adapting to mediocrity is very difficult for me since I've been raised and worked with constant pressure to reach excellence, I'm not able to go backwards. I admire the Ricoh GRIII because it is small , no larger than a phone, yet far superior image quality, it's really a progress and not a bad compromise like smartphones are.

Eh, in the 80s and early 90s most people had 35mm compacts, normally with a fixed zoom lens. And the IQ on those was meh in comparison with a good phone nowadays.
It's nothing to do with millennium mentality and everything with the fact that most people don't seek excellence. I couldn't tell a 60€ wine from a 5€ decent bottle.

[house]

That all sounds a bit sad. Trauma and psychological deadlocks that force the search for excellence regardless of will and intellect. I hope thats not so because thats one terrible trap to be in.

It makes perfect sense to be happy with documenting and sharing moments at a "good enough" quality. I have use and interest in doing other things with my photographs but it makes perfect sense to me that its a niche.

[Serkevan]

That all sounds a bit sad. Trauma and psychological deadlocks that force the search for excellence regardless of will and intellect. I hope thats not so because thats one terrible trap to be in.

It makes perfect sense to be happy with documenting and sharing moments at a "good enough" quality. I have use and interest in doing other things with my photographs but it makes perfect sense to me that its a niche.

"Done" is better than "perfect".

I enjoy the process of making photographs I am proud of, but if I for a given one I haven't managed as good as I can, well - either's there's a chance for a do-over (so no big deal, I'll just be better next time) or there isn't (and I'm happy with that I did manage).

[Dartmoor Dave]

Im having a super hard time to adapt to millennium mentality, I just can't get it, not that I'm not able to adapt, but adapting to mediocrity is very difficult for me since I've been raised and worked with constant pressure to reach excellence, I'm not able to go backwards. I admire the Ricoh GRIII because it is small , no larger than a phone, yet far superior image quality, it's really a progress and not a bad compromise like smartphones are.

A photograph taken with the latest top-of-the-range Phase One camera and lenses can be utterly mediocre if it's about nothing more than the equipment used, so that it says nothing meaningful about anything. A photograph taken with a smartphone can be a masterpiece if it says something meaningful in a beautiful way. If we reduce ourselves to a conception of quality as being nothing more than resolution and sharpness then we condemn ourselves to. . . well, mediocrity.

[c.a.m]

"Done" is better than "perfect".

And, sometimes, a snapshot taken by a smartphone and shared quickly is better than an image delayed by post-processing and fiddling about. Snap, send, done.

- Craig