Prices change in response to the market and to the arrival of new products. They don't change because you "deserve" lower prices.

Well, that's not true, is it. Sony's top EVF is 9.4M-dot with 0.9x magnification, which is a higher resolution and magnification than anything offered by Canon and Nikon.

There will always be ways for companies to make cameras take more good pictures per given unit of time, faster, and more easily and reliably, in a wider range of conditions. Camera engineers will still have jobs.

The Sony EVF issue, they do drop resolution if you select fps priority. And the EVF/LCD display exposure simulation shows excessive digital noise when you are shooting in a dark area, it's noisier than it actually is.

One step further back similar happens when the recorded sensor data is formed into a RAW file. Manufacturers invest a lot in algorithms to get colour right out of the bayer pattern. That interpretation of the sensor output is then saved as the RAW values but it's not actual raw sensor data. I once met a guy who wrote his own camera firmware with own RAW format so you can get completely different RAWs out of the same sensor. And before that you have the AD conversion hardware that again influences sensor readout.

What was the difference between them? I shot with a 600D for years and have used the 70D. The raw files from all the APS-C Canons were perfectly usable (from billboards to art shows to postage stamps quality was fine).

I'd love to see a large gallery of photos that were only possible with certain mirrorless cameras but I have yet to see that. Show me the money, as they say. If there's that much of a difference one should be able to show the proof. This is photography after all.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

The expectation that new camera models would produce better image quality was just not a significant thing in those days (I started photographing seriously in the 1970s). Yet we all knew that cameras did improve from model to model in dozens of ways outside of image quality.

A lot of the progress in the last 3-4 years has been driven by Nikon and Canon transitioning to mirrorless. That the camera landscape today is radically different from 2018 is mostly down to that shift.

even better would be a detector that could count each photon AND determine it's wavelength so that we can get rid of filters. Once this exists with decent efficiency and resolution .. there will be nothing to improve on the detector side.

Do you have examples, side by side? Seems not likely that it is like this, and Foveon sensors for sure have their issues.

If you use some calibration tool to make profiles, you can make contrast and color look visually inseparable from camera model to camera model, or from camera brand to camera brand.

Open your phone images on a large monitor and compare them to images from a full-frame camera. With .jpeg images the difference will be significant, with processed .raw images the difference will be huge. If you only ever open your phone images on your phone, be happy but don't make claims that are objectively wrong.

@MathiasLauringer Thanks. Agreed. The highlights on MF CCDs and Foveon sensors do have a punch that is hard to explain. I think CMOS sensors has little highlight range that it clips easily to white. Most CMOS cameras shoot underexposed to protect the highlights. CMOS of course great for video and noise or high ISO in still images.

For any Pentax is simple to access it: https://youtu.be/l5xLU6JDyKkThe problem is rather sourcing various screens from third party suppliers.

Nobody questioned that cameras could and did get better year to year, even though the sensor (i.e. film) was staying essentially the same, or at least improving at a much slower rate.

Ha, that made me laugh - I mean I do feel bad for the camera companies, and I want them to continue making money, but maybe the bosses of these companies dont realise/dont want to realise just how much modern software advance the result of older cameras and older sensors.

CF A is too expensive to make it practical for non-pros to buy. And I presume you haven't seen those reports of a1 overheating within 25miuntes during outdoor shoots. It doesn't matter using CF A or CF B, with inadequate cooling, everything overheats.

@ Dave Oddie. Nikon and Pentax don't document anymore the focusing screen replacement. They are still replaceable though. Canon is more open to allowing the user to change the screen. This is for 1DX Mark II: https://id.canon/en/support/8202815700

Well if it was all about (low ISO) image quality we'd all be using Sigma SD1 Merrills.😂I think no one does because the sacrifices involved in poor performance in all other areas, apart from stellar Foveon image quality, are generally not worth it. Oh, and of course Sigma stopped making it quite sometime ago.

I still shoot both formats, M4/3 and FF, often alongside each other. A steep crop of my FF system's output seems to line up pretty well with the results of my M4/3 system, as I'd expect. I still shoot M4/3 for some of the smaller teles (Oly 75/1.8 & 35-100) and smallest bodies FWIW.

Why? Their costs are still rising, and they are putting more into each new body - the new auto-focus is just one example, but it's an obvious one.

DSLRs nowadays are bomb-proof, from their designs, reliable, and lenses are cheap, because many ppl are moving to mirrorless. ;-)

Over decades. It generally didn't change much in the shorter time span of camera model changeovers, which we're discussing here.

Wouldn't it be great if we can have a variable base ISO sensor for photography? Imagine shooting at ISO 1 for landscape and cranking up to ISO 250,000 without any noise at all for fast action or extreme low light.

Then there's also a lot of modern but very high grade manual glass coming out from the likes of Voigtlander, Laowa, etc. As for lens corrections:

If you can identify mirror slap effects while shooting handheld (because when on tripod, of course you'd rather use MLU or live view) with a top Canon or Pentax DSLR, you'll get my award.

I'd never exchange a DSLR for a DSLM, for my type of work, as long as it does work. People don't really know, what "slow AF" really means - they should all shoot a Sigma DP1 - and i haven't had any issues with that, back into 2008 - and static objects... :-)

Personally AI is a game changer especially as i shoot MFT along with FF. Allowing me to work lighter more often. The degree in which you can push files today is actually quite amazing.

For scientific and technical applications and landscape photography too, with no needs for AF and fast readout, the simple DSLR sensor devoid of PDAF pixels, EVF-dedicated pixels and stacking remains the gold standard for image quality.

That's really interesting to hear. We try to use these features but it's hard to get a sense for if/how they're being used by a broader audience.

Even if they weren't why should that have to lower their prices. A price that was a fair price yesterday is still a fair price today.

I think that is a general issue in a lot of discussions here, only very of the users here bought a Nikon flagship series so most users only ever had modern high resolution sensors and their experiences with low resolution sensors are based on very old sensors. And how could people know about something they never experienced?

If sensor images haven't improved as much, then manufacturers should lower their prices. The tech has peaked. Yeah, the software may have improved to make bodies faster, but not all of us are run-and-gun photographers.

Linear motor is a dual blade, yes in general it's silent for video work, but doesn't have all time manual focus in stills.

From R6ii and onwards, there's a function of setting the camera only focus on specific subjects, and not changing the focal plane to the background when subject leave the plane. It's all about how you set the camera.

Well, the last 100.000+ years, human eyes haven't been changed really much, therefore, simple the same kind of "optical Sensors" inside every human being...what a pity! :-)

Just using one EF lens to test and that represents all others is lazy and not professional enough, might as well not doing it.

Adobe's continued working on its Content Credentials system. We sat down with the head of the initiative to discuss new developments and its future.

I think you'd need to define what you mean by 'base' ISO, since it's not clear what that would mean, as distinct from current sensors on which you can vary the ISO setting. For instance, do dual conversion gain sensors have two base ISO or one base ISO but two 'native' ISOs?

Personally I think color accuracy and the in-body NR has gotten better over time, the processing in general has (specially for brands that didn't have as long a legacy, eg Pana/Sony) so I really don't see why out of camera images are getting worse but YMMV.

"Stop Pixel Peeping and Enjoy Your Images Stress Free"https://www.thephoblographer.com/2021/01/18/stop-pixel-peeping-and-enjoy-your-images-stress-free/

Getting back to the original arguments. It’s true to say that sensors aren’t delivering better IQ performance than, say, the chip in the Nikon D850, but it’s just as true to say that the latest lenses and AF systems mean you can more consistently capture images with detail levels that exceed it.

And MP and as well as AF is always a matter of discussion, into 2023+ as well as some 20 years before...the thing is, nobody really needs lightning fast AF, for landscape photography, and even for lightning, there are special triggers for the hotshoe since many years... ;-)

Well the thing is the Micro Four Thirds sensors are smaller too, so they have the same or a higher pixel density than a high resolution Full Frame sensor. So said full frame sensor obviously is better in all aspects except size. You need to compare a modern low resolution full frame sensor to a modern high resolution full frame sensor.

"Wait *as long as you can* to buy something, then buy the best you can, and enjoy the heck out of it, because there will always be something newer, better and faster out there. That's the nature of tech."

Two examples:- The Sony A6000 was launched in 2014 for $650, with its price going down to $400 one year later. Today, its successor A6100 costs $750 (even 4 years after its launch). It still has the same sensor as the A6000, the same display and EVF, the same burst speed, and only improved AF and video.- The Canon M100 was launched in 2017 for $500, with its price going down to $400 one year later (and further down to $200 in some sales). Today, its factual successor R100 costs $500, seems to have the same or a similar sensor, but actually offers _less_ features than the M100; most importantly, no touchscreen and less native APS-C lenses.

I also had a 20D and used it for weddings for years before going to the 600D (as it could also do video). I found it a step forward, though really all the images were acceptable for my use and other improvements (autofocus, liveview, size) were more significant to me. These days I shoot with a Sony a6600 which has a bit more dynamic range though the big difference is tracking autofocus, lighter weight, info-rich EV with magnification and instant liveview at all times (no mirror).

@ m_black: In-camera breathing compensation is great for low end video productions, like social events, reportage, etc. With oversampled 4K, loss of image quality will not even be visible.

Dimensione sensoreiPhone 15 Pro

I don't think I have seen a Canon jpeg since circa my first DSLR in 2007 (exclusively film until that). so no idea how they have evolved or not.

There are lots of areas for Canikon to still catch up, such as in the use of silent linear lens motors and the cooler and smaller CFexpress A card which the Compact Flash Association has mandated but only Sony has so far implemented.

A good bellwether of real like-for-like progress will be the next iteration of the Nikon Z6. The "II" version was more of a point release, while the original Z6 came out in 2018. Assuming a Z6 III next year, how much actual change will we see over 6 years I wonder?

Grandezzasensoresmartphone

As long as the reviewers not disclosing the status of the cameras' AF settings, I will not trust the actual performance of those cameras until I got my hands on them. Panasonic S5ii launch reviews were classic example, overrated at launch, few months later it's showing some areas of unreliability.

I'm looking forward to seeing new sensor tech, even though I'm pretty happy with my gear currently. What I've read about organic film sensors (OPF cmos sensors) is that they might be capable of global shutter as well as some other benefits. However, this OPF cmos has yet to materialize and it might never be produced.

Presumably the Nikon & Pentax screens on their DSLR's are a not user replaceable . I think the Canon's are and if I am correct then this is a far cry form what most people mean by replaceable screens. You want the ability to swap them in and out yourself.

@ zodiacfml you have a point here, video got so important that many manufacturers modified their RAW processing to suit the demands of videographers and this gives dull highlights. So your RAWs don't look that spicy anymore. But not only is all the information there but you actually have much more reserves in the highlights, you just need a different approach to edit them and you might want to adapt your flash setup as well. But the end result has much more potential old cameras can't compete with that RAW capability at all. At least this applies to cameras up to the D6 / Z7, the stacked Sensors have a very different colour capability and so far I'm not happy about that but I need to get more overall experience with them before I draw a final conclusion.

-- 10+FPS with all or most images in focus, on the eye no less. It is possible to capture images that were unattainable just a few years ago. -- Low light images that previously could not be captured without a focus assist lamp or flash are commonplace today.-- News conference, official hearing, meetings, sports... in near total silence the camera can capture images that would not have been allowed for mechanical noise or flash.

I dunno that it's Sony holding everyone back, I mean, I know they're the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to sensors but if the demand was there for faster reading non-stacked sensors then their sensor/semiconductor arm (which is bigger than their camera division) would cater to it, but other camera manufacturers may not be demanding this either.

Tipi di sensori fotografici

@ iso rivolta: Mirror vibrations is of cause not an issue when using live view, but then you are not using the optical viewfinder of the DSLR. You work as with a mirrorless.

As for your other point ALL manufacturers make lenses that breathe. Sony isn't 'the worst', they were just the first to implement the software. Canon now offers it as well. Nikon will eventually do the same.

Raw data is black and white, and every pixels controbute with fine detail resolution where there is a difference in contrast. Debayering is the color part of the processing, where data is extracted from the RGGB filter array and converted to color values. Everything is then merged by the profile we use to make the image we can see on the monitor. The basics for Lightroom, Capture One and other raw converters is the same. Profiles are directing the heavy work done by the computer.

Gerald Undone tests were indoor, at Canada. With free cameras from Sony. It is useful for reference but cannot rely on it.

Great article and our most important subject right now as photographers. How good does the sensor have to be for computational photography and AI to do its magic? I shoot GFX and that is a pretty big sensor as sensors go and I marvel at the resolution and detail. But how much will it beat FF, APSC, 1 inch or a tiny phone sensor when all forms of computational photography, AI and adding different skies, reflections and adding or removing objects is surging forward with incredible advancements? The money is on chip advancements more than sensor advancements. We have CPUs, GPUs, RAM and PCIe Gen 5 SSD storage that is advancing at warp speed while sensor advancements crawl. So, keep the same sensors and utilize newer and faster computational power vs developing advanced sensors that change everything? Maybe we will need no camera 15 years from now. Just speak into your phone and produce anything you want at 500 MP resolution in 20 seconds. AI uses the images we take and post now.

The fundamental flaw in both cases is the unacknowledged assumption that improvements in sensors and improvements in camera mean improvements in image quality. It’s true that we’ve reached a plateau in image quality, but both sensors and cameras continue to improve.

focus breathing lenses are definity bad for video. That last James bond movie, that background to forground transition was too much. It wasn't art, it was annoying. Most milc today are toutign thier video ablity, the lenses not lining up, unless you like focus breathing.

Sony user? Sony is lazy with their designs. Sexy on paper, sure. Small, sure. But the fact their cameras have focus breathing compensation is exhibit A in cutting corners. That means any given lens isn't the advertised focal length at all focus distances.

CF-A isn't an 'inferior format'. It is actually the first CFExpress format designed for still cameras, Type B was created for large format video cams.

Focus breathing compensation is a very useful tool for completely eliminating focus breathing, something no lens can completely do optically.

I'm Back and Yashica launch a digital film module as a full product, nearly a quarter of a century after Silicon Film failed.

With the right subject recognition on, both Sony & Canon Video AF is decent. Personal experience may vary, but that's the difference of scoring 98 or 96 out of 100.

Here is the problem. If you do some types of photography all those "improvements" don't matter at all. What matters is dynamic range and IQ. I would strongly argue landscape photography this is absolutely the case, big chunks of studio photography too. Sure some things might add convenience but and improvement in readout speed is not one of them... Of course if you are a wildlife photographer or journalist that could mean everything.

Micro 4 3 vs APS-C

@ iso rivolta: Sure, but that takes a DSLR with mirror lock up. Which Leica did not offer back then. And jumping ship will always result in a noticeable loss when you have a complete, professional system with lenses from 20 to 560 mm ... ;-)

In film days color negative also "plateaued" in grain and sensitivity. Then Fuji came with a 4th layer solution that should capture colors better.

As a stills shooter using adobe as my PP preference. This year has been an interesting one. By my guess, every single digital camera I own essentially received a 2 stop improvement. I gifted my son my old D700 that hadn’t been used for a long while and just seeing what software does today is genuinely exciting. Not so exciting for the camera companies though :(

A sad sign that things peaked, for me, is how when you compare the dpreview studio test, the gap between sensor size is still the same. If there was a regular progress in low light photos for exemple, you could say, "wow, the mirrorless of 2023 has similar 3200 isos noise level and details than a full frame from 10 years ago!" But it's not, and even APS-C are still not really usable at high isos. My A7III is still destroying any super expansive micro 4/3 or APS-C in image quality as soon as you're not in good conditions. And i'd love the benefits of smaller lenses etc... But the loss is too big in street photo when you need to raise isos and shutter speed dramatically pretty quickly.

"Better" that's a perspective based word entirely. It's also important to keep in mind what isn't getting better- which is also perspective based. A fair analogy of the market is that some things are getting better and some things aren't getting better. It would be nice if progress were merely linear, but it's not. I see all kinds of holes in the camera market that aren't even being looked at. The dev trend from manufacturers is video- and that alone doesn't suit the entire market.

If it were easy, you'd assume someone would have done it. 16-bit isn't the challenge, it's expanding full-well capacity enough to make it worthwhile (without undue impact on high isi performance).

@Impulses, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's not about noise or resolution, it's about colour and contrasts. The difference in that you see at any maginfication. Actually it's worse when the print is smaller, magazines typically print multiple of them ~4x5 cm onto a page. If I'd send them what I get with a Z9 or a Sony they'd complain about lack of image quality and demand not to ever send in something like that because especially at these small sizes in print you need really good contrasts as some gets lost in print anyway and you want these small pictures to pop and catch the eye. And there is just something about high resolution sensors that makes them lose that fine contrasts in the skin tones, or specific colours of fashion in bad light. In the studio it's exactly the other way round, there the high resolution sensors give these amazing contrasts and the low resolution ones or older sensors can't follow. Although the D6 is an exception and really good in both worlds.

@Magnar W what you write would apply to Sensor RAW data. But the RAW files we get are heavily processed already, so switching profile will not change the different signal processing done by the manufacturer. Yes you can use a more pushy profile but that will not even things out it will change a lot of parameters way beyond what is wanted, these profiles are nice to have but they are brutal in their effect. Not comparable to the incredible detailed fine tuning that is done in the camera internal signal processing. You want to preserve that details not murder them with a profile, so you need to develop your own adjustments workflow if you want to get comparable results - which you usually don't want anyway, you want to get the fullest out of the new sensor. So again you need to develop a different workflow for each sensor anyway or you don't come close to it's potential.

Nothing about you as a person, just questioning the arguments you brought up here. ;-) (I too use my real name, and had lots of photos in my gallery before Amazon backed out).

Is no image captured vs. usable or award winning a factor in image quality? New sensor, lens and body technology allow the capture of images that may never have been captured just a few years ago. To me that has been the most remarkable improvement - you actually have an image, and it seems the likelihood of capture gets better each year.

The problem is: for buyers of sub-$1000 cameras (where the mass market is), things have become rather worse than better.

Correction to the correction:Color filters absorb much less than 2/3. There are huge overlap of the recorded spectrum of the R G and B pixels. It is though camera design dependent.

Well if there was no difference in the RAW data there would be no improvement in sensor quality and it was all in the profiles.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/2128193923/a-distortion-of-the-truth-here-s-why-we-re-not-against-software-lens-corrections

I would actually say at times, we are seeing Worse, Out of Camera performance then better these days. In spite of the so called improvement, elsewhere. Hence more and more apparently living in PP. Where also, seemly most of the real advances are being made.

"New sensors aren't bringing better image quality ..."And whose fault is that? Is it really so hard to produce a 16-bit non-medium-format chip with base ISO 25 or something?

Other then my Sony 90mm f2.8 macro and other lens of that type, how many modern day Lens actually give one a decent Feel when Manually focusing. Seems mostly flimsy focus by wire instead, mostly.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.

The LCD screen on a camera only needs to be good enough to show an accurate representation of the image, with good dynamic range, colour, exposure accuracy and detail. Anything beyond that is wasted because you only look at the camera screen to compose and check. Phones are a different issue because people consume content with them.

Sensors do indeed got better in many areas except stills. To me, the image quality of the today's latest and greatest still don't match the CCD and Foveon sensors. It is certainly not about DR or noise, but something else. Not sure but I think these old sensors have wider range in the highlights, giving a smoother roll-off, at the expense of noise.

Can a creative project change your life? Photographer Sam Aziz discovered that it can, after embarking on a project to take portraits every day for an entire year along a single iconic street in his hometown of Philadelphia.

How about the Modern day, overdependence on in Camera In Lens Correction. Nor do many of today lens strike of either great design nor quality. Unless one pays through the Nose. And sometimes even then.

Most nowadays sensors use the RGB Bayern pattern. The whole color pallet is build on those three colors, on the sensor but also on our screens. Is there any further improvement possible in color accuracy in case sensors and screens would be based on four instead of three colors? That intrigues me.

I just compared my Canon 5DMkIV and R6 .... R6 is very nice to use and focuses like a dream, with new RF lenses the IQ is very good. But when I use my 5D with and older 24-74f4 the results are on the same level and definitely the RAW files are as easy to PP.5D has an optical viewfinder , shutter is more noisy and the body is bigger and heavier, AF is fast and reliable ...A photographer with a limited budget and interest in nature, landscape and portraits can get the same IQ - limitations are more like a matter of taste and some people enjoy the optical viewfinder. When should I "upgrade" ? Perhaps in 2027

I see. It's much easier to work from raw files as you can create presets for your preferred look and have a fighting chance at fixing the mistakes you made (or were forced to make by conditions) in the field. Very much akin to the film darkroom in that you take control of contrast and the look for yourself.

Finally, just because sensor output has plateaued, that doesn’t mean image quality has stagnated. Sensors play a fundamental role in image quality but they’re not the sole contributor. The lenses launched in the past five years are some of the best we’ve ever seen. There are a number of factors at play, which I hope to delve into in a coming article, but we’re living through a golden period of lens development.

I think both cameras are examples of what Richard is getting at as the technology in both makes it easier to capture better photos.

The theme for our November Editors' photo challenge is 'Fog'. Show us your favorite fog photos for a chance to be featured in our winners' gallery later this month. This challenge is open to photos taken at any time.

Canon's video Af is not really comparable to Sony's. Jordan has described multiple times how it needs 'babysitting' to not wander onto backgrounds. It is also slower to react in the first instance.

US travel/adventure brand Aether Apparel has made a photographer-friendly waxed field jacket in conjunction with Leica. Is that something we need?

I think there will be a convergence. Cameras will become so smart and easy to use that operation will be super fun because it's self-explanitory. Meanwhile, phones will become so large and heavy that you'll need a separate bag just to carry one. At that point, might as well start carrying a camera again.

Leica has announced the Q3 43, a variant of its full-frame fixed lens compact with a 43mm F2.0 normal lens. We've had the chance to use and test it, to produce an in-depth review.

Thanks for the economics lesson I didn't ask for. You know what world you live in? The world where manufacturers salivate for customers like you who enjoy being overcharge for the same tech year after year with nominal improvements. Grab them ankles, pal.

I agree on the subject of firmware. The A7rV has a 2.1M-dot rear screen, which is finally the same resolution as the R5 and Z7.

That is not how it works, check photon noise, the photons itself arrive in a noisy manner and no sensor is going to chamge that.

@ MathiasLauringer: I just pointed out that we apply profiles that make our photographs look like we want. That's what converting raw data is about.

With the trend of using AI to turn photography more into unreal fantasy, and the public seemly liking it, I don't see objective scientific imaging performance being high on anyone list.

Manufacturers do often lower prices on products which have been in the market for a while - that's because they have paid off (amortised) the fixed costs of developing the product, and they can charge less for the established product and still make the same profit.

For my needs, the D700 is fine, into 2023 and 2033+... I might & will being tempted by the Nikon Zf, if it arrives...someday...and Nikon would throw out some special designed (matched look) lenses...not ordinary Z-Mount S lenses, mounted on a retro body...this looks silly...and a good, quality glass pentaprism (albeit not 100% view) is so much better, than a cheapskate 2.36 mill dot EVF from any brand...YMMV. ;-)

I'm seeing bird photography getting so much better, due to better focusing. Now everyone is shooting birds flying, diving, fighting, etc. In the past it was all birds sitting on branches.

Well that is just not true. Looking at the Nikon web site no mention is made of being able to change the focusing screen on the D6 or D850. Nothing about it for the Pentax K1 II. The Canon web site states you can change screens on the following:

There has been talk of the Z9/Z8 having a constant or 'smoother' resolution image when shooting bursts, but no-one has shown that the A1 EVF drops below the Z9 resolution when tracking and it is three times higher to start with. The A1's 0.9x magnification is optical and does not change.

There was just something I didn't like about them. They never seemed sharp OOC, and the contrast and color always seemed to be a bit off, especially on sunny days. I tweaked and tweaked, but never got there. I have a 20D, and the images out of that were just wonderful from the start. Same as the 90D. After a while I just put it away and rarely used it.

Don't get me wrong, I for one think that the base readout speed for M4/3 (on bodies like the E-M5 III or better at least) and Canon RF being 2-3x faster than average (ie ~1/60 vs ~1/20) is a pretty key advantage, but I don't even see other enthusiasts echoing that, on the M4/3 boards it's taken for granted in a massive way as far as I can tell.

Case in point: The MFT Panasonic G-H6 is a monster of a camera paired with anamorphic lenses and pro grading. (the selling price for a *real* anamorphic workhorse like this, with direct external SSD recording is an absolute steal - this is a camera that can get pro work done, at a lower price than some "low level" FF cameras - and they can not do *real* anamorphic monitoring and direct to SSD recording support)

Medio formato vs full frame

The R6II was the very camera that DPreview claimed needed 'babysitting' in terms of video AF and would wander off a static subject to snag the background.

It’s to assume ‘well, he’s a camera reviewer, it’s at least to some extent in his interest to say new cameras are good.’ But the flipside of that is that I’m a camera reviewer: I’d have got bored long ago if cameras weren’t getting better. I’m currently finishing up my review of the Nikon Z8, so there’s simply no way you can convince me that cameras aren’t getting better.

Will Sigma release a 35mm Foveon sensor? I think a lot of people would like to see that, but Sigma will need to advance their sensor tech to make their high ISO at least somewhat competitive to Bayer.

Even with AF we are hitting plateaus with mirrorless cameras. What began as more meaningful improvements is becoming simply a spec sheet talking point.

Gerald Undone was able to get the A1 to shoot 8K for an unlimited time using a dummy battery indicating that the primary limiting factor in terms of heat dissipation was the battery and not the card.

Type A cards were developed to enable dual matched cards in compact mirrorless cameras. They were developed by a consortium of Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic & others. They need to get their fingers out and implement them like Sony.

I bought an L lens and primes for my 70D trying to find a way to like the images. I still hated them. Then I got a 90D and was absolutely delighted with just the kit lens. The 70D was the problem.

Really? I used it for wedding photography (paid) and for art photography classes and thought they looked excellent (for the time). Later Canons were lower noise but even looking back the 20D raw files still hold up.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

OLED still have higher battery consumption. And tends to be greenish when viewed from sides. Micro LED might be the future.

For technical best results with digital camera, nothing beats a proper exposure. For better images, nothing beats content.

But that's the manufacturer's role. For the consumer, the technology to follow is phones because young people will give up their phones. With cameras, it's like replacing CDs with SuperAudio CDs...while users are listening to .mp3.

Canon has announced the latest lens in its EOS VR System. It's intended to be an affordable way for social media content creators to experiment with new media formats.

Haven't read the comments but I imagine there's an avalanche of complaints about large overpriced lenses... However, I started shooting FF in 2020 when I realized that from UWA thru normal (and as far as UWA zooms goes) I was suddenly able to do so with literally no tradeoffs in lens size vs what I was shooting on M4/3, and most of the FF lenses were cheaper to boot.

I've compared them a fair bit, but in some instances it's academic since my GX850 + 75/1.8 can go places my A7R IV can't even with a similarly small lens. I can't say I see a huge difference in them tied solely to res, other than the larger format having an obvious noise/DR/res advantage.

For one, there's a huge difference to a lot of focus by wire implementations out there. The vast majority of recent Sony primes operate exactly like the 90G only sans the clutch, that is they have a linear mapping implementation for their focus by wire like the 90G does with the clutch engaged, just without the hard stops. It makes a big difference to the feel IMO...

I'm waiting for m43 sensors to get the same kind of dynamic range and file malleability as full frame sensors of today. Full frame and medium format digital will give me all the image quality I could want, but having that in m43 format would be wonderful. Megapixel count isn't that important after 20-24mp for most applications.

Most people can capture the same quality image with DSLR or mirrorless given their subject matter and conditions, as well as the way it will be viewed.

Do you work for Sony or Leica? If you believe that manufacturers should never lower their prices at all, then everyone should still be paying $20k for cameras with 50+ mp sensors.

CF-A.....what should I say. It's an inferior format. Nowadays all camera should opt for CF-B in mid-high end. When cameras are getting bigger grip, there's enough room for dual CF-B.

The market has contracted, prices went up, and manufacturers are focusing on higher end stuff. Hopefully it doesn't turn into more of a niche than it is tho, would hate to end up where the high end audio market did. I think the fact that photography caters to pros and creators rather than just consumers might temper that.

And ergonomics have improved so much over time, especially for people like me with big hands. So while sensors may not be improving a ton, other features are absolutely making cameras more usable for people like me.

Weird, that hasn't been my experience with a 61MP body, I'd love to see some examples of this loss of contrast... And worse color fidelity? Hmm

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

The new Fujifilm X-M5 has sparked renewed interest in Fujifilm’s other compact X-series cameras. We couldn’t help but wonder if a new X-E camera might be on the horizon, and if so, what it might be like.

The last big sensor contributions to image quality were arguably the adoption of more ADCs, close to the pixel (enabling a big leap forward in dynamic range), and dual conversion gain designs that meant you could have this additional DR at low ISOs as well as really good performance at high ISOs. This brought us to the current state where sensors capture significantly more than half the light that hits them, and add very, very little noise of their own. Without a major change in the way color is captured, it’s not obvious where significant additional IQ gains will come from.

"What matters is dynamic range and IQ. I would strongly argue landscape photography this is absolutely the case, big chunks of studio photography too"

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

I’m mostly stills orientated but you see professional production with the GH series and you realise how much software is doing Vs my feeble attempts lol. And that’s the difference . Skills!

However, one may argue that a camera, in the end, is a light box with some gadgetry thrown in. Sure, you can improve the box- but overall nothing really changed in the last 40 years besides AF and digital capture 😇 oh yes; marketing had to step up their game considerably to sell us minimal evolutionary steps…

How should we else get the results we want from the raw files, if not applying profiles and then fine tuning the results from here?

one more comment Dealing again with critical situations like hand-held long telephoto or macro, or in general anything high resolution, the total lack of vibration in mirrorless when coupled with pure electronic obturator (not to mention the silence turns out to be critical. at resolutions above 36Mpx , any vibration is a killer. Of course 2nd curtain shutter only (electronic 1st curtain) achieves most of this, but not in quick sequences. Not having to compensate for mirror shock is a game changer

Nikon may have managed to produce a more consistent experience when burst shooting, (with fewer and smaller-sized files BTW) but that comes at the cost of a lower quality image for regular shooting and playback. Both Chris and Jordan have criticised the low res of the Z8 EVF for manual focussing and playback.

Even if we accept your framing about the primacy of the stacked sensor, Sony has better and more offerings here than anyone else.

If we start considering focus quality as an integral part of image quality ensured by the sensor, I suggest dpreview shoot the studio scene while the scene or the camera is moving erratically relative to the other.

Given the second gain step is a higher ISO with less DR than 'base' ISO, you need to work out what denotes 'base' ISO and what properties you expect it to bring.

2 of the 3 cameras I've bought in the last 8 years were bought largely for their faster readout (E-M5 III) and/or more advanced AF (E-M5 III, GX850, A7R IV)... If it weren't for that I'd have stuck to bodies from 2013-15. I do think those things indirectly contribute to IQ tho, if I can rely on the camera to better find and track a subject at f1.4 then it's enabling a different performance envelope.

Other than half decent R10 none of the other APS-C RF bodies are anywhere as great as their FF RF bodies. In general though it seem like for Big-3 of ILCs crop bodies are unwanted step child.

Smartphones rule the roost because of convenience and marketing imo, not because people are underwhelmed with cameras, which have changed and progressed more in the last few years than they did thru much of the DSLR's heyday. Manual focus is kinda niche with today's advancements *but* there's still two distinct factors catering to it.

The human eye has changed litte, but how we read visual media and understand and create meaning has changed dramatically. The understanding of visual literacy is in general low, so even today some confuse photographs with the outer world and with reality.

As for your comment about '2010-era EVFs', there were no FF mirrorless cameras in 2010, with or without any kind of EVF.

The supposed flaws of DSLRs were never really all that. I shoot mirrorless now and readily admit its advantages in some areas. But for most photography either the DSLR or mirrorless will get the job done just fine.

Sensoreda 1 1 28

The last time I saw any meaningful image comparisons were when the Nikon D800 came out and the sensor amazed everyone with its DR. There you had all sorts of reviewers showing what happened when you lifted the shadows a few stops vs other cameras. It was obvious and easy to see and it didn't require pixel peeping or some other stretch. But it seems after that it's all talk about tech specs but not visual proof of actual meaningful differences. With photography we should all be about visual proof.

Leica has announced it will make 250 platinum-plated film rangefinder kits to celebrate seven decades of its M-series cameras. Each will cost $22.995.

When I got my Olympus E-1 (yes, the original "full size" mount 4/3) camera in 2004, I was more than delighted with its 5mp CCD sensor. Gorgeous colours and crispness and a resolution that put my Nikon Slide Scanner, Ektachrome Slides, and razor-sharp Olympus Zuiko and Zeiss T* primes firmly into second-place.

Maybe crappy lenses were my problem. But like I said I was happy enough with the jpegs that I never really bothered with the rest. A case of too many years of film = WYSIWYG perhaps. One day I should power it up and have another look.

Many times we debate over very arcane tech specs but no one ever shows any meaningful differences in output. If a tech is noticeably better then by definition it should be easily noticed. All one would have to do is post image comparisons. But we rarely see that.

I guess the next breakthrough in image quality will be any type of SPAD sensor, which counts the number of photons entering each pixel and amplifies them in real-time, which could improve the SNR by a factor of 10 compared to the existing CMOS sensors. Canon's latest surveillance camera (MS-500) has a type 1 sensor but its light sensitivity exceeds that of FF - if a company could somehow reduce the power consumption and the amount of heat generated and put it inside a consumer camera body, it would absolutely revolutionise the digital photography in every aspect.

What makes the difference, is the profiles that are applied when we process the raw files! This is about adding a gamma curve so that the images don't look very, very dark on our monitors, debayering to bring out color, etc. At the moment you open a raw file, you apply a profile!

Hm... I'm very sceptical about this sentence " again with limited IQ cost" there is no easy answer to this because there is no one fits all sensor. So it very much depends on what you shoot. In the studio yes, the stacked Sensors of the Z9 are fine. In bad light situations - and note bad light and low light are two different things, although they often come together. So in bad light situations the loss of IQ compared to a D850 is much bigger. And compared to a D6 or even an old D4s is dramatic.Now of course the one is a low resolution sensor so the comparison is not fair because low resolution sensors always did better in tricky light but to my knowledge there are no stacked low resolution sensors on the market. Then again if in the case on Nikon you'd like to Upgrade you have no option and Sony always went for high resolution anyway. The Canon R3 is the only professional low resolution mirrorless at the moment. It's a weird situation that 3-5 years old cameras can be better for IQ.

One side benefit of very high pixel counts is that you get ‘decent’ MP remaining in images even after 2x2 binning. Done right, IIRC this means a 60 MP sensor can deliver 15 MP images with full colour information in every one of those 15 million pixels. No OLPF, no colour aliasing, much better high ISO than a Foveon equivalent…isn’t that worth having?

Nowadays, with hefty pixel peeping, some are even worried about shutter shock. For demanding work this is a real concern, and like mirror vibration, finest detail is smoothed out, taking away the benefit of high resolution sensors. Been there, done that.

New sensors/processors have improved higher ISO performance quite a bit in the last 4 years. True wasn't like the extraordinary improvements made between circa 2008 and 2019.

I also own a Sony RX100 VII with it's 20mp one inch sensor. I have no qualms taking this when out and about with the family where lugging the A7 IV kit and changing lenses brings out sighs and rolling eyes, The quality from that sensor is astonishing, the AF is also very good and of course it is capable of shooting RAW's at 20fps.

Jordan has always been unclear on how he sets the Canon AF, and tendency to bias towards Panasonic & Sony because he is used to them. I still remember he only has an EF 85mm f1.8 USM adapt on R7, and the results aren't the best so he claims it's not good.

@ Thoughts R Us: With DSLR there is often small focus errors if you use the viewfinder, limiting what the sensor can deliver. Then there is mirror shock that can really mess up scenes where highest resolution is the goal. Using mirror lock up - if the camera has this feature - is often not possible, even when working with the camera on a tripod.

" By my guess, every single digital camera I own essentially received a 2 stop improvement. I gifted my son my old D700 that hadn’t been used for a long while and just seeing what software does today is genuinely exciting. Not so exciting for the camera companies though :("

In the days of film I had Olympus OM2 & OMR cameras. About 12 different user replaceable screens available. At that time the user could replace the screens on Nikon FE & FM cameras as well as the pro series F1, 2 etc. Canon with the F1 and also a load of the EOS 600 series allowed it later.

My phone still has way better screen than any full frame camera costing 4 times as much when are we getting OLED 4k rear screens. I f only Samsung still made mirrorless

i took a photo with a sigma merril foveon in store and the same with my dslr at the time. Wen thome the raw files didn't look too far off on the lightroom at the time. I decide no tto buy the used sigma merril. While the talk higher IQ on foveon, I didn't see enough to switch. CCD of the nikon d40 still looks great today, but it was a low megapixel, just don't zoom in.

As an amateur I don't change my cameras very often. I have owned just three interchangeable lens cameras. A Sony A100, a Sony A77 and now a Sony A7 IV.

With a fairly cheap PC these processes are achieved in under a minute! There is really little need for improvement even from my “inferior” MFT system as a result. Software is going to improve at an exponentially faster rate than sensors tech IMO. Concerns around IQ are mostly redundant except for the most professionally demanding users. Just find what colour camera you like. The rest is really on you to get better, not the camera!

I've been critical to dpreview inconsistent measures on AF comparisons. They are sometimes praising A camera for having good AF when subject recognition is on, while criticize B camera for not good enough AF because subject recognition is NOT on.

(cont.'d) The first stacked sensors were only doing double that, I know the newest are up to 1/200-1/250 and that puts them near the travel speed of mechanical shutters but I dunno if they're coming down in price fast enough either. I totally agree the biggest advancements on the body have been on AF and readout speed, and we've barely had a taste of all the other things the improvements in readout speed can lead to.

There is still room for new ultrazoom cameras having all the mobile phone post processing features (denoising, pixel binning, filters).

Recently, a discussion in the DPReview forums posed the question: "What have you learned that you would tell beginners?" We thought we'd share what your fellow readers had to say, along with some insight from our editors.

All cameras should certainly not be 'opting for Type B'. It is not needed in any hybrid camera that uses it, it is being used as a means of saving on internal RAM. It also generates far more heat than Type A and is one of the reasons that the R5 for example has such short recording times in comparison to the A1.

A correction to the article. Sensors only capture a little less than 1/3 of light hitting them. Not half. Bayer pattern absorbs about 2/3 of light still. Getting around this limitation would be a big step forward for sensors.

@Thoughts - just right, therefore, it's more than silly, to exchange a whole system for the "better" mirrorless, aka -DSLM, in terms of cost.

Of course it all depends on the type of photograpy you do. I'm sure the Foveon camera suits quite a few people's photography style, despite it drawbacks. And although no new Foveons are being made, the ones that exist are still working fine. I know mine does.

It's pretty important to separate your thoughts and opinions about Sony's camera division from those about its Semiconductor business. One is a consumer electronics business, the other is a B-2-B whose largest customer is probably Apple (and was the industry's largest sensor supplier long before Sony's Camera division launched its Alpha range).

Sei nel carrello del network di MyOnnik Per finalizzare il tuo acquisto verrai indirizzato alla cassa unificata del network Onnik.it

The reality is cameras are trying to be video cameras now not still cameras because that is the biggest market with the lowest hanging fruit. Cameras makers *could* choose to do more to improve dynamic range, perhaps even leveraging faster readout to provide stacked ultra-HDR images, just to give one example but so far they aren't.

@Impulses, since you don't have a gallery or homepage linked I can't see what you photograph so I can't judge how big an effect that has on your style of photography. But if your gear list is complete you switched from MicroFourThirds to Sony Full Frame. Then you never experienced the comparison.

Projecting on the computer industry, one of the greatest leaps was programming cards (from punch tape) to electronic terminals, and later to graphical user interfaces. But despite all the latest updates to computer processing, graphics accelerators and even augmented reality, the golden age of major leaps stopped decades ago.

Nikon is still only 20fps raw(vs 30 in sony) in a larger and heavier body, with worse AF than a 2+ year old smaller and lighter A1.

A faster sensor, improved autofocus and video see Nikon's third-gen mid-range full-framer go toe-to-toe against Canon's EOS R6 II and the Sony a7 IV. We feel its all-round ability lifts it to the top of the pile.

Don't take that as shade towards M4/3, I'm still clinging to my Oly 75/1.8 & Pana 35-100... But the number of new lenses that have come out for FF mirrorless mounts since 2019 (even for or particularly for E mount, despite already being an established mount) is simply staggering. Some of the 3rd party stuff from the likes of Tamron, Samyang, and Viltrox are better values than ever IMO.

Sensorevideocamera

Anyway, the discussion started from the simple sensors normally found in DSLRs, but it's not necessary to look only at DSLRs to find them.Panasonic S1 series has sensors without any of the above (PDAF pixels, stacking etc) ensuring top image quality, but this has been rather a disadvantage for selling their cameras.

And Sigma included a second battery is for a reason: battery life was atrocious!Then there was the slow & clunky SIGMA Photo Pro software which resulted in 60MP RAW files that I always interpolated to a final 28MP images size.Yes, still better image quality than most of the APSC camera sensors out there today, but a lot of work to get there. And I'm not even sure if Foveon's colour accuracy is what people even want most of the time?

The International Photography Hall of Fame and Museum has announced its 2024 class of inductees, a group that includes photographers, visionaries and historians.

The vast majority of improvements seem to be in Video, where everyone outside of DPR seems to be wholly accepting. Other things like more FPS, deep buffers, and the like, I would say the average Consumer would say, Meh. Unlikely most are like some of us. Hence the use of the so called Smart Phone, instead.

Sony still has the best AF - particularly video AF. They have the highest resolution sensors, both stacked and unstacked, the best overall battery life, the biggest lens line up.

Well, I think there was more change than you may remember. Or maybe you would consider all of these listed below to be small evolutionary steps? Won't argue that either way (although one was clearly a revolution in camera design). Off the top of my head, since roughly 1980:

I have had several cameras, also from Leica, where mirror vibrations were a real world issue with thelephoto lenses. Some cameras did not have mirror lock up, MLU (Leica among them). With MLU, locking up the mirror and not having live view was very troublesome for me in some situations when watchig widlife action.

The Phase One IQ4 150MP Achromatic - which is a full spectrum achromatic sensor (without any filter), has a base iso set to ISO 200. The Fujifilm GFX 100 - using IR/UV cut filter and CFA to limit the amount of light - sports a base ISO of ISO 100 which is half the sensitivity.The Hasselblad X2D has a bit more restrictive CFA in front of the sensor, hence its base sensitivity is ISO 64.The Phase One IQ4 150 is even more restrictive, it eliminates 2 stops of light, hence its base sensitivity is ISO 50.

When the manufacturers say they've created a camera for 'creators' or vloggers, that doesn't mean they've turned their back on photographers.

Advancements in post processing don't inherently mean it's more necessary, it's just another tool, there's less reasons than ever for AI NR but it's better than ever when needed.

Canon's newest, non-extending 70-200mm F2.8 L zoom for RF-mount includes features aimed at both photo and video shooters. It also works with Canon's RF-mount 1.4x and 2x teleconverters.

Sounds like a plea to justify your job lol. My old 5D is still producing stunning images. Just thank the pixel peepers and brand zealots that keep sites like this going (just).

It's the same with burst rates. We now have stacked sensor cameras doing about 20 to 30 fps. But we will probably see spec wars about 40 fps, 50 fps 60 fps, etc. And for what? Most do not need that at all. Even now many action photographers dial back the fps if they can because they don't need it and it only produces more images to cull.

Jpegs. I never had the time or inclination to mess around with RAWS. I sit in front of a computer enough as it is, and having grown up on film I have never got into the whole digital art thing. I pretty much push the button, and then suffer through my own incompetence afterwards.

Probably a fair point that best in breed AF has rarely lined up with the highest detail capture possible. Once in a while they line up but it's been the exception.

The one thing that has changed everything in the last years is not the quality of new cameras. It's the quality of smartphones. And the one thing that never changes is the fact that really good pictures are not a camera problem.

For example if you take a look at the Sony IMX411 / IMX 461 sensors, which use the same photosite (matching pixel well depth).

Raw data is not "heavily processed already" before the raw data is written to the storage medium. There might be some noise reduction at ac/dc level/on chip, else the tone curve is linear from bottom up.

The revolutionary switch from dials to modal control systems (see Canon T90)Multi-segment "smart" light meteringMultiple light meter methods in a single bodyIntegrated motor drivesTTL flash/Advanced TTL flash controlOff-camera TTL multi-flash controlPlastic body constructionMagnesium body construction

Had I been CEO of a big camera company, then easy integration with mobile would be high on the priority list; Imagine nature photography with an iPad Pro, both to control the camera but also judging the result and checking sharpness on a big, bright screen .

Gerald Undone's tests are probably the most reliable we have. Undertaken with a control and repeated multiple times. I'm not sure what you're implying regarding 'free cameras' - he's the antithesis of the kind of influencer who is sponsored by a brand and he always states that 'no money changed hands' and 'I don't get to keep the equipment'. You think he's lying?

For example, eye AF was a great enhancement. But now we have companies touting insect AF, train AF, etc. It's getting a bit absurd and is certainly not the more meaningful advancements earlier.

Raw data is pretty much the same from all cameras - sensor/pixel readings converted to digital values, sometimes with slight noise reduction added. Not much processing else.

This is where the bread and butter of the camera market should be. But from the point of the consumer, it is technologically stagnant if not stale.

Well, that's the problem. Most people want better high ISOs and faster readout, not the better base ISO. They utilize like 5%-20% of their camera potential for stills. When I want better image quality, I go Medium Format, I stitch FF images. Which is rather easy. But it's not the same thing, of course. Maybe when the huge UHD screens become common, the camera sensors will have to adapt and get better.

We are already well past the Dynamic Range limitations. Anything past 10 stops and it is fault of photographer not knowing how to use camera.And Image Quality is defined by Final Image and Viewer, not by the sensor.

New sensors aren’t bring better image quality, but software today is bringing better IQ to older or smaller sensors. Perhaps the time will come where in-camera software offers sophisticated processes such as denoise at capture point.

If things are still getting better but it's difficult to notice without resorting to DxO, the obvious question is what's good enough so that further improvement is of no significant value to most users? The nature of technology is to constantly innovate, even when there is no obvious need. What are the engineers and salespeople supposed to do? Say, "We worked ourselves out of a job" and go home?

But this doesn’t mean sensors aren’t improving. In large sensors, BSI technology’s main benefit is that it allows still more ADCs to be included, allowing faster readout without undermining noise performance. Current Stacked CMOS designs take this even further, allowing the inclusion of still more complex designs that deliver faster readout and, in some cases, in-sensor RAM to cope with these speed increases, again with limited IQ cost.

I've developed tremors in my hands, so the advances in image stabilization have been huge for me. (I traded in my 90D for an R6 to get in-body stabilization.) So while that's not a direct improvement in image quality per se, it means I get a lot more keepers.

There are a couple of quirks, though. E.g.: for Canon there is no form factor equivalent in the R line for the M6 Mk II. Why? Why the countless low spec Rs instead of one with better specs and a small form factor? Other brands have (this) more or less… I love the “travel ready” form factor, as it is not always the case to bag the Z9 or equivalent…

A lot of bits of cameras come from a small number of suppliers. Most manufacturers buy their LCDs from JDI (the small LCD bit of which used to be part of Sony, yet it was typically Ricoh that used their latest products first), and most EVFs panels are made by yet another division of Sony, yet it's not always Sony's camera division using them to their full capability.

Blame limited production lines for that, and the "success" of smartphones, because most ppl are only watching pictures onto their tiny phone displays - or monitors at home, at best...no more being printed, no canvas on the wall. Times have changed. Quantity, not quality.

Right now Sony has great EVF specs, but IRL use is inferior to CanNikon lower resolution EVFs. IMHO it's unacceptable, especially their LCD is generally worse in its class.

The problem with "classic" DSLR sensors is -- drum roll! -- they come in DSLRS! (mostly). And since AF and zoom lenses became widespread, camera manufacturers have chosen to optimize DSLR viewfinder screens for brightness, not accuracy or ease of manual focus. That's a giant disadvantage, because what good is their "purer" sensor, if accuracy and ease of manual focus is sub-par.

Photography IQ has mostly plateaued for a long time in many aspects. No one would be able to spot the differences say in the cover of Vogue shot shot with a 10 year old D800 over a Z9 or whatever, But obviously modern advancements in AF lead to more consistent results and this will be bigger deal depending on the type of photography,Video is where the advancements in image quality is still progressing as it is a much more complicated thing and therefore why just about all camera companies are pouring major R&D into it in order to survive like Nikon.....even Fujifilm. With that said video will start facing similar problems photography faces and sales will slow down. Once 8k 60p is a standard format across all lines like 4k 60p is starting to become now you will really see this slow down....sure 12k will be more common but things will plateau as well. With that said video has bit more room with AF tracking like what Sony is going with auto framing.

@Magnar W yes Foevon Sensors have a ton of issues and they are close to unusable in many scenarios. But in the one to two areas where they shine they are so good that once you used one you don't want to go back to any other camera.

RAW is much more complicated than just profiles. For example CaptureOne does their custom RAW interpretation by using many RAWs of each camera model and based on that develop an interpretation - according to CaptureOne themselves. On top of that the program offers different profiles - but with these profiles you are already limited into the programs basic Interpretation. Lightroom will have a very different interpretation.

Sony's model appears to be one of offering a new model in an estabilished range at roughly the same price as the previous model (taking into account inflation), but with improved functionality. Don't need the new functionality? Sony will sell you the previous model at a reduced price (not all companies continue to offer the previous models - Canon was notorious for removing the previous model almost immediately after releasing a new one).

I remember this conversation getting pretty heated even with the 5Dm3. It was not revolutionary from a resolution/IQ point of view but was well loved due to AF improvements (even though by today's standards it doesn't look that different from earlier DSLRs). Just saying this isn't the first time entire generations have been sold based on usability rather than IQ.

I was never thrilled with the RAWS off my 20D, and just used the jpegs. I also couldn't be bothered faffing around. I'm lucky that I don't do anything life or death that I need to try to be heroic in trying to save. Maybe one day I will motivate myself to greatness and try again.

"Personally AI is a game changer especially as i shoot MFT along with FF. Allowing me to work lighter more often. The degree in which you can push files today is actually quite amazing."

I think a quad bayer design might be the easiest way forward in sensor tech where each resulting pixel has red, green, and blue information in the data, but also varying sensitivities for dynamic range. Fuji had something interesting going with the Super CCD, and it's too bad they dropped the concept. But I'm no engineer, and surely there are some hurdles to get over with improved quad pixel sensors or they'd be here already.

It hasn't been about image quality for last decade. Always laugh when fanboys (typically Sony) claim that that 0.2EV improvement in (engineering) DR just proves how amazing Sony are.

There's no quantum leap in Sensor tech, but organic Sensors, which have been into the works by Panasonic a hell long time, might bring better IQ into some 5-10+ years...if ready for mass production. Also, a Foveon-based triple color layer like Sigma does use might become someday a better design, also for (limited) high ISO, and not only ISO 100-200 being useable...

Sure, when I moved over to M43 in the early teenies with the EM-1, and during COVID, to the EM-1 mk III, I valued the leaps in resolution first to 16mp and then 20mp respectively, but to be fair, when I look back at my E-1 shots, they are still VERY usable images not just for on-screen or social media. They've been in fine print, they've created large posters, and should I be surprised? NO! Because even a good 5mp sensor was out-performing my Nikon CoolScan on high-quality slides.

I'd say most would agree the opposite is the case, that Sony's innovations have pushed Nikon and Canon to greater heights.

We don't usually test a product for ten years before reviewing it, but after a decade of using the Lowepro Photo Sport 300 AW II on an almost daily basis, Managing Editor Dale Baskin tells us why he loves this pack.

Sony did push CanNikon but that's during the 2015-2021 period. After the success of market domination & enthusiasts praised Sony. Sony got complacent, they bring out products that are too specific/niche (ZV series) and so unwilling to provide respectable firmware updates to their flagship a1.

The first link, lol, what a great, sarcastic observation! Thanks for the good laugh! The two other links, good to see that there are content aware photographers out there (of cause there are many - even on forums like this one too).

If micro 4/3 already adapted stacking of images like smartphones do in the background as their default mode of capture, you would have dynamic range of FF already. By stacking, smartphones are basically on the same level as single exposure from best APS-C sensors today when it comes to dynamic range.

Moreover, many film photographers stuck with the films they knew, regardless of whether newer films came along. I know many people who shot Tri-X or Kodachrome for 30+ years.

Not sure Canon RF-S APSC lenses are going through a 'golden age'.... More like the Stone Age! 😂I just cannot understand how they can release such great APSC RF bodies then restrict them with such boring lenses! Especially with the new larger diameter mount design supposedly allowing exciting new design possiblities, which I'm sure they promised when RF was released. This has been true for FF lenses, but Canons crop lenses have gone backwards with less focal range, narrower apertures & less creative possibilities! No other brand RF lenses exist, so why don't Canon engineer a 'kit' lens 16-60 2.8... could be a lifetime lens for a lot of folks.

Exactly, software and its correct application is the key. With the right lenses and understanding it’s not the camera format that is limiting in anyway IMO. For me personally I just like the different look each format offers and how they compliment different approaches. IQ is not a consideration today.

A recent thread on our news forum asked whether sensor technology had reached its peak. This was furthered by an article that said new cameras aren’t getting any better, highlighting that the best-scoring full-frame sensors according to DxOMark are models from six years ago. Neither point, I believe, is true: sensor technology continues to improve and cameras absolutely are getting better.

@ m_black: Same for all brand.Just buy the dedicated video lenses if optical focus breathing correction is meaningful for your work.

It depends on the focusing screen. In many flagship DSLRs the screen is interchangeable. Anyway, for the applications I had in mind in the comment above, the camera is fixed to a tripod or other type of sturdy device (e.g., microscope) and live view is used to manually focus.

Sensore1 pollice

Magnar: For the vast majority of DSLR users, focus errors and mirror shock were non-issues. As you say, only with some very demanding types of work where one actually does pixel peep, this may be a problem. But that's a tiny fraction of photography.

You can't compare the M6 line because the lens mount is smaller. But the R8 is a very competitive and small FF that gives you a lot more than the M6 II.

I can't help but think that the problem is that the photographic camera industry is in the hands of super conservative companies lacking in imagination and interest in innovation. What they would like is for the world not to change and to always be selling the same product with slight improvements or variations at exorbitant prices.Their most beloved client is the one who buys for the prestige of the brand or because she/he has a strong investment in glass and is trapped.There is a company, once important in the photography industry, that in four years has only released one camera with two variations: with a vertical grip and without a grip. It seems to me that the mentality of the people who run these companies is not to offer the best possible but only something they consider "good enough". Of course, at the best possible price for them.

The comapny's bringing its latest chips to some of its most popular computers, and making its nano-texture display available on a laptop.

@ Magnar W, well you might want to read your posting again then because I just picked up on your conclusion and pointed out the contradiction I see. Look, I'm here because I enjoy some tech exchange and I'm happy to share about my experience. I'm registered with my real name, I have my homepage linked. I don't hide anything, don't pretend anything. You can seem my work and decide for yourself what to think of me. And I have zero interest to convince anybody of anything or educate people. But if somebody feels what I write is something that helps them, great stuff. If you too are interested in knowledge exchange or tech discussions you might want to refrain from accusing others of not knowing what they write about because you also could be the one who got it wrong.

Yeah, that's where the bread and butter of the industry *used* to be, it could still be a bigger market than it is IMO but that's not reality, those sub-$1K bodies are no longer the volume sellers and that they've stagnated is in response to that and not the other way around.

Even without improvements in IQ, newer sensors are making cameras better. Faster readout speed can enable features such as more usable electronic shutter modes, faster burst rates, faster and higher resolution feeds to the autofocus processing, less viewfinder lag, as well as faster, smoother and higher resolution video.

Correction of the corrections correction. Please show some actual science here. You must compare a mono sensor to a One shot color. For example a IMX571 comes in both mono and color. The signal observed by the mono will be three time strong for a full septum target. That is science.

What’s the best camera for around $1500? These midrange cameras should have capable autofocus systems, lots of direct controls and the latest sensors offering great image quality. We recommend our favorite options.

The RF 24mm F1.4 L VCM and RF 50mm F1.4 L VCM are part of Canon's new 'hybrid' series of lenses designed to work with both EOS and Cinema EOS cameras.

@magnar…. not really. There is a brand that has excellent lack or very little focus breathing requiring no camera software to compensate. Sony is the worst. But yes, you’re right. If you need none definitively, cine lenses are the way to go. Fortunately Sony accepts PL adapters.

@Spectro Look for images from sensors prior Merrill, they have more potential for IQ. I have seend and collected some samples from Merrills that are great but very few unlike the older sensors. I can't count that times a checked the sample images of D40 back then, it was dream camera for me but I was younger and can't afford it. I agree on CCDs, they looks great but not at large viewing sizes. My Google Photos app continue to remind me of the images I took with a Canon P&S and viewed on my phone. under daylight scenes, it has a lot of punch, colors pop, dense colors, beats my smartphone images.

Each time there has been improvements of the type Richard mentions. The largest leap in capability was going from the A77 to the A7 IV. The IV will even focus my Sony 500mm AF mirror lens faster than than the A77 could via the LE-EA5 adapter.

But I am also extremely picky and noticed that quite some photographers don't see the differences that I talk about. I guess this comes from that among others I'm specialised in high end photography of business events. And this is the scenario where often enough all parameters hit extremes and you really get to know both the limits and possibilities of your equipment and not only get it visible much more so than in other areas of photography. But also reflects in editing times. For example when I need 30 sec. to apply RAW adjustments that took me 2 min before, that's an instant feedback of improvement but not so much a visible one.

You are telling the truth, but websites make a living on selling ad's for the new cameras, so the focus will almost always be on how fantastic the new gear is, and not a single word about that you actually can get similar results with older, cheaper gear. (this article is the exception that proves the rule)

@Magnar W, Yes, RAW data is all just black and white, luminosity values to be more precise + the information if a R, G or B filter was before that pixel. But those luminosity sensor readings are not stored as 1:1 conversion in the RAW file. Nikon itself said so once when they explained how they managed to get so much better skin tones from one generation to another. It's not that they developed a sensor for Skin tones, but they tweaked the signal processing for skin tones. that's what you need such powerful image processors in the cameras for. Yes I remember the discussion of the holy untouched RAW data back in the mid 2000s. The discussion when Nikon started noise Reduction in the RAW in 2007. Times changed and a lot of improvement in the recent years is not only from physical sensor development but both: better signal processing that happens between sensor readout and RAW file and RAW converters getting better in further processing that already pre tweaked information.

I simply don't understand what you mean by "Yes you can use a more pushy profile but that will not even things out it will change a lot of parameters way beyond what is wanted, these profiles are nice to have but they are brutal in their effect."

From the point of view of a camera reviewer, the article is absolutely correct: we still do have improvements, be it in AF, in speed, in blackout times, in colour consistancy (less time playing around with temperature and colour in LR), screen / viewfinder quality or handling. I am glad we have people like Richard Butler who test, compare, measure, and, even more important, write about all this on dpreview.com. Not to fire up GAS (that happens anyway), but to build up guidelines and tons of information the moment we need to buy new gear. 20 years ago, I knew every camera, every product, every detail. Today, I concentrate on taking pictures. I know my Nikon lineup, but all the rest: nothing. Good to have people like Richard sort things out for us.

We caught up with a few product managers and engineers at Adobe Max, and talked with them about the new features in the company's photo editing suite.

Additionally CFE cards cannot be bought anywhere other than specialist stores. Many shooters - especially pros - need to maintain SD clots for redundancy - imagine losing all your CFE cards as a reportage photographer, or having them confiscated & then being unable to report on an event.

"It’s 2021, and Pixel Peeping Has Ruined the Photo Industry"https://www.thephoblographer.com/2021/07/07/pixel-peeping-character-lenses/

Well I don't know how to put it into words, but I'll try to illustrate.People generally try to shoot at ISO 100, 'cause it gives the sharpest, cleanest and has the most DR. As you move higher to ISO 1600, things may start to get noisy, unsharp and has less DR.I was just imagining a single sensor that can shoot at ISO1,600, 6,400, and even 25,000, but has the same quality as ISO 100, just more sensitive to light. That way, our low light photography can be as clean as when shot at ISO 100. So you have something like variable ISOs that can give you the same image quality as ISO 100, just more light sensitive.And how about extending that ISO range to ISO 1 and in between? So that you can shoot a high quality RAW image for motion blur without the need for an ND filter?

Honestly for me it's mostly only been improvements in AF that have driven my requirements. Obviously mirrorless is still fairly new and advances are still being made in EVF's and functionality, but the biggest gripe now is how Sony is holding back the entire market with their glacially slow sensors outside the stacked sensor. At least Nikon gave us essentially a full Z9 in a Z8 body for far less than anticipated but we need a real push to get even entry level sensors to have much faster (not necessarily stacked) sensors. Canon's R6II with it's ~1/70s sensor scan speed should be the bare minimum acceptable going forward at any price point. After that 3.7Md @ 120Hz should also be the entry level EVF specs, again looking at you Sony who are about to announce two new cameras sporting 2010 era EVF's

I was in the industry in the late 1980s and 90s; our camera engineers were very busy, and they did come up with a lot of innovations. Of course, most of those innovations were important on the margins -- if you were shooting landscapes or still lifes, a camera from 1960 was just as good as anything made in 1995.

Maybe they're even losing money on the R100 to try attract people to buy cameras again, but I don't think it'll work. The time has changed.

It's clear from your posts that you're unhappy with the results you've been presented with. I don't really see how an adapted EF lens can be responsible for the AF tracking boxes to leap onto the background and refocus. That would seem to indicate inadequate subject recognition to me. Aside from Jordan both Richard and Dan have spoken about Canon's fidgety video AF and Sony's better video AF.

One proof that the article statement is true is the fact that cameras like the almost 12 years old Nikon D800 have a still relevant IQ in today’s standards.

In parallel with these sensor improvements, more powerful processors and subject recognition algorithms trained by machine learning are making significant changes to what cameras can do and how easy it is to get them to do it. It’s easy to overlook if you’ve not used a recent camera but performance that used to be reserved for professional sports photographers is now available in sub-$1000 cameras, and it’s often easier to use.

@ Magnar W. Mirror shock was never a issue in any modern Canon and Pentax DSLR I know of. Shutter shock can be a problem, the same as in any camera with a mechanical shutter. People use very successfully several Canon DSLRs with electronic first curtain shutter for doing microphotography. Pentax DSLRs have pixel shift that uses electronic shutter. These techniques would not be viable if mirror shock was present. Canon and latest generation Pentax allow pairing optical viewfinder shooting with EFCS or ES. Dpreview studio scene shows no signs of mirror shock in DSLRs. Sometimes shutter shock was found and gone when switching to ES or EFCS.