Camera innovation seems to have hit a plateau. New cameras often repurpose existing features rather than introducing groundbreaking technology. This trend raises questions about the future of camera development and what it means for users.
Coming to you from Manny Ortiz, this insightful video dives into the current state of camera innovation. Ortiz discusses how recent releases, such as the Canon EOS R5 Mark II, lack originality and mostly recycle features from older models. He points out that the camera industry has been in a state of stagnation for several years, with new models offering incremental improvements rather than significant advancements.
Ortiz notes that the Nikon Z6 III, despite being praised for its impressive specifications, does not bring any real innovation to the table. Instead, it improves upon the Z6 II by incorporating features from higher-end cameras, all packed into a $2,500 price tag. This strategy of enhancing existing models with borrowed features is prevalent across the industry. It shows how manufacturers can create buzz and maintain sales without investing heavily in new technology. This approach can leave you wondering if it’s worth spending money on new releases or if older models suffice.
Ortiz emphasizes that the lack of innovation is not limited to Canon but is a widespread issue affecting all major brands, including Sony and Nikon. He argues that the focus has shifted from technological breakthroughs to user experience and minor refinements. For example, Sony’s introduction of the global shutter in the a9 III marks a step towards future innovation, but significant improvements are still needed. This shift indicates that we might not see radical changes in the near term, but rather a continued trend of incremental updates and enhancements.
Another point Ortiz makes is the stagnation in image quality and sensor technology. He highlights that cameras like the original Sony a7R, released a decade ago, still hold up well against modern models in terms of image quality. While there have been improvements, they are not as substantial as they once were. The emphasis on faster readout speeds and AI-driven autofocus improvements are examples of how innovation is more focused on refining existing capabilities rather than introducing new ones.
Ortiz also touches on the growing integration of video features in still cameras, further blurring the lines between different types of equipment. He mentions that mirrorless cameras are increasingly adopting features from cinema cameras, making them more versatile but not necessarily more innovative. This trend could shape the future of camera technology, where multifunctional devices become the norm. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Ortiz.
I'm not sure if there's really much to be done. In the past read noise was the big problem and most sensor improvements were about reducing read noise. But that's has been a pretty minimal issue for ~10 years now. And there aren't a lot of ways to improve photon noise without a complete overhaul of sensor design. And the technologies for that haven't panned out yet (e.g. organic sensors).
as a recent article stated: I think many photographers would like to see camera manufacturers focus (no pun intended) on IQ (colour, dynamic range, highlight drop-off and "looks") rather than autofocus tweaks and other aspects to do with the functional side of a camera...whether that can be achieved with current sensors and algorithms is another matter.
The development of hybrid cameras, those that provide stills, high FPS shooting, and 4k/8k video are what the manufacturers are spending their development time. Thus, we are only seeing incremental updates when a new camera or updated camera are quickly introduced. Purely photocentric camera development, particularly improving overall image quality is not a priority and in the end, photography in general will not advance or evolve.
I think low light noise is an area that really could use innovation, especially now that they can apply AI to the software.
It largely depends on how one defines "innovation" and let me play the role of contrarian when I say that Ortiz' observations don't hold water. Perhaps the innovations aren't proceeding at the pace he would prefer, however gains are occurring across the board, whether it is in developing stacked sensors, global shutters, faster read out speeds, vastly improved AF, EVF's,... while keeping prices in line with what consumers are willing to pay. I find his comments ironic when one compares the continued pace of innovation against film photography or even the early years of DSLR's.
Adam Rubinstein wrote,
"It largely depends on how one defines "innovation" ..... "
I would define innovation as something that has not yet been done. If they do something that has already been done, but do it in a way that is measurable better, that is NOT innovation. That would be an incremental improvement. I mean if we have 20 FPS and a manufacturer gives us 30 FPS, they have not innovated because they have not given us new capabilities, they have simply advanced the existing capabilities a little further.
Fully global shutter and unlimited high speed synch speeds would be actual innovation.
I think it is more like in a 100-meter race, where going from 14 seconds to 11 seconds will always be easier and more demonstrable than going from 9.7 seconds to 9.4 seconds. For the camera companies, the bulk of technology challenges have already been addressed in a general way, so the public is harder to be wowed by whatever they put in there. But sometimes the new, wow stuff, when it comes, is the result of those seemingly-insignificant gradual developments that don't do much for us these days. It's all a part of a continuum encompassing technology, finances, company cultures, customer response, and digital consumer trends. A brew that is as unpredictable as it is complex. For us impatient photographers, waiting for that new technological world will involve both patience and constant voicing of the need to accelerate progress. Fingers crossed.
What really bothers me is that IQ is actually getting worse with the latest bodies from Canon and Nikon.
Is there a point at which technology innovation can be considered counter productive? Are we going to make a better photograph tomorrow as a result of some camera or post-processing upgrade than we can today? I would guess that technology improvements are relevant mostly to those professionals to whom modest gains equate to increased efficiency in workflow, which translates to more income. Fine. For most other people, it's probably just an excuse to substitute new equipment features for laziness. Make something automatic so we don't have to actually learn how it works. Or imagine that a new camera feature is gonna make us a seriously better photographer. However, think about where this is all going. The natural progression of innovation takes us to AI where you won't even have to get out of the house and get wet or cold to get that great photo. You can just conjure it up in your mind and execute it on the computer, or who-knows-what processing device of the future.
Forget whether I feel like camera technology is stuck in a rut. I actually think I'd prefer to be regressive with technology in some ways. Photoshop and InDesign have always felt like there was such a a race to develop new features that it became bloated with useless stuff. I'm not saying that all technology improvements are bad. I'm thankful for indoor plumbing. But when I get to the point that I don't even know what half the menu items are for in my camera, it becomes sort of like the TV remote control... can't they just simplify the damn thing? You mean I really need 1/20,000 shutter speed, or 100 frames per second? Hmmm... I thought I could make a decent picture with my ten year old Nikon D800.
I forget, is it Canon (?) that now allows you to "take" photos that were shot before you pressed the shutter button!
Kind of scary... but it will inevitably happen. I'm afraid that human thought, indeed, will bypass mechanical connection with our electronic devices. Maybe it's just scary because I'm older. But it was only two generations ago (my grandfather) that could not fathom the idea of getting across country in just a few hours by flying in some contraption in the sky.
Oh, it's going to be scarier than you think. But I'll just leave it there. Enjoy life now!