Have we reached ‘peak’ image quality?

Messages
3,501
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Perusing some very sharp images from my D810/D850 I cant imagine that anyone would want/need better iq nor could ‘better’ be easily perceived/resolved by the human eye.

Whilst af fine tuning my D850 today with a 70-200 I had to go to 300% to see the difference it was making.

Whilst a computer maybe able to split hairs amongst the best lenses the human eye simply isn’t that good.

So have we reached ‘peak’ image quality?
 
Messages
7,278
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
That really depends on the final use of the image... there is nothing saying that an image may not be viewed at 600% or even more.

And "percent view" doesn't really mean anything in itself... i.e. is your monitor resolution set to 72ppi, 160ppi, or something else?
And what is 100% when printed? If for some dumb reason we say it is 300ppi; that means a 100% print would only be ~ 27" long edge for a D850 image. But what if I want to make a fine art gallery print at 60"?
 
OP
Brazo
Messages
3,501
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm guessing people said the same thing about other cameras a long time ago.
I don’t know.... when I shot with film I was never bowled over when stood by the enlarger!!
 

Caerus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
755
Edit My Images
Yes
Fancy pants people in the media world would say medium format Hasselblad`s are better IQ
 
Messages
2,566
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
You seem to be equating image quality with resolution. Most of image quality has nothing to do with the camera. Lighting is entirely independent of the camera as is composition. So is colour rendition. Tonal range is partially related to the camera but also to the skill of the photographer.
 
Messages
2,092
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
To suggest we are at a "Peak" suggests that it's going downhill from here...

Very unlikely, but just like breaking records, future improvements are going to get progressively smaller.
 
OP
Brazo
Messages
3,501
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
You seem to be equating image quality with resolution. Most of image quality has nothing to do with the camera. Lighting is entirely independent of the camera as is composition. So is colour rendition. Tonal range is partially related to the camera but also to the skill of the photographer.
I’m more thinking pure raw technical iq, rather than composition or other qualities a person can bring in photographic terms.
 
OP
Brazo
Messages
3,501
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
To suggest we are at a "Peak" suggests that it's going downhill from here...

Very unlikely, but just like breaking records, future improvements are going to get progressively smaller.
Maybe I got carried away with the term peak! Perhaps I should have said as good as it gets!
 

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
4,828
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Perusing some very sharp images from my D810/D850 I cant imagine that anyone would want/need better iq nor could ‘better’ be easily perceived/resolved by the human eye.

Whilst af fine tuning my D850 today with a 70-200 I had to go to 300% to see the difference it was making.

Whilst a computer maybe able to split hairs amongst the best lenses the human eye simply isn’t that good.

So have we reached ‘peak’ image quality?
I understand where you’re coming from, but you can’t consider image quality in isolation. It needs to be considered alongside the many other pieces of the jigsaw which make up how we see the image - printer quality, paper quality, viewing distance, screen resolution, processing algorithms, viewing distance, eyesight, especially aided. I doubt we will ever reach peak perceived image quality.
 
Messages
84
Edit My Images
No
I don’t know.... when I shot with film I was never bowled over when stood by the enlarger!!
There can be a huge difference between what a good pre press tech can pull out of a large format trannie using a drum scammer and what someone can get out of an enlarger.
 
Messages
25,012
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
When I had my Canon 5D I thought I'd never want or need a better camera.

I'm sure I read somewhere that someone at Sony said they were aiming to equal the human eye, so there's a target but I'd have thought that the processing that goes on behind the eye is perhaps more important and a more difficult task to better, but maybe one day. I suppose one day blown highlights will be a thing of the past too, so there's that to look forward to.

Other than image quality other stuff would be lovely to have, a global shutter will possibly come pretty soon too and who knows what else will come along.

I do suspect we haven't seen the peak yet.
 
Messages
1,862
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
When I had my Canon 5D I thought I'd never want or need a better camera.

I'm sure I read somewhere that someone at Sony said they were aiming to equal the human eye, so there's a target but I'd have thought that the processing that goes on behind the eye is perhaps more important and a more difficult task to better, but maybe one day. I suppose one day blown highlights will be a thing of the past too, so there's that to look forward to.

Other than image quality other stuff would be lovely to have, a global shutter will possibly come pretty soon too and who knows what else will come along.

I do suspect we haven't seen the peak yet.
That a low for ambitions. The human eye is very poor in resolving power but the processing software behind does a hell of a job making up for it.
 
Messages
25,012
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
You might be able to find something on that if you google. Maybe they were talking DR.

I did think it a bit odd but I assume people saying these things know more than I do. With my relatively old now Sony A7 I can often after processing see things that I couldn't see by eye because I was being blinded by the sun and that's a good thing but I'm quietly confident we're not at a point yet at which things can't get any better.
 
Messages
806
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
I’m sure we’re not. Even if the improvements are small there are new cameras every year that get better. Im not it’ll happen but we might get to a point when medium format sensors are pretty normal.
ive wondered what to stop someone from making a large format sensor. Might well be overkill but I imagine landscape photographers would love it. Some are prepared to lug around 8x10 cameras after all
 
Messages
25,012
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I'm sure I read somewhere that it may be possible to empty a well and fill it again and count how many times it's been done. That could be one way of doing it. Maybe. There may be other ways too such as some new sensor tech. I'm pretty sure it'll happen.
 
Messages
6,932
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
No
Camera manufactures will always say the newest model is the best yet, they have to, so they can sell them. Usually it is only a few tweeks here and there that are different.
 
Messages
18,230
Edit My Images
No
Camera manufactures will always say the newest model is the best yet, they have to, so they can sell them. Usually it is only a few tweeks here and there that are different.
That's because they have to be, there are incremental updates but there are also leaps, especially in the case of milc.
 

4wd

Messages
2,433
Name
North York Moors
Edit My Images
Yes
When I had my Canon 5D I thought I'd never want or need a better camera.

I'm sure I read somewhere that someone at Sony said they were aiming to equal the human eye, so there's a target ..........
Most cameras are probably already better than the human eye, you can often see far more detail in a frame later than we can see just looking - and that's the whole scene not one little area we might focus on and do reasonably well.
 
Messages
18,230
Edit My Images
No
There are tweaks yes but I’d say those numbers are within the realms of testing error and you’ve gone to an extreme iso to show a difference.
No chance are those numbers within realms of testing error, the A7iii is a much better performer, like I said, I have used both extensively. An extreme ISO? Plenty of people shoot at ISOs that high.

Heres another sample if you think thats an extreme difference, 1 stop cleaner.

s3.JPG
 
Messages
18,230
Edit My Images
No
Well your quoting me one website and I’m quoting you another. The dxo testing is well within margin of error. I don’t trust dpreview. Ymmv.
Im using multiple sources to prove the same thing. Everybody in the Sony thread will confirm the A7iii IQ is way better than the original A7 (if theyve used both). So you dont trust a huge difference in measured differences from DXO or dpreview or what anybody says, have you used these cameras alongside?
 
Last edited:
Messages
10,302
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
No
Still a long way to go yet . And while modern stuff is good it’s not perfect .a perfect design of camera would/ should incorporate a automatic exposure compensation control so you never have to worry about highlights and shadows again ,plus a built in grenade launcher to clear unwanted people from your composition
 
Messages
2,566
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
The grenade launcher is a good idea (particularly for that large chap who always sees me about to take a shot so stands right in front of me to get it very slowly himself) but I really do not want my camera making many decisions for me - highlight and shadow control is too important artistically to not do it myself.
 
Messages
414
Edit My Images
No
In a top of the range DSLR today there are so many thing that can be improved with time that a 16 year old taking up photography today will not see the end to improvements if he/she lives to be 100 as every few years some major new development will filter down in to the camera market.

Whether the general public NEED all those improvements or not there will be some who WANT (and use) them.

Take mobile phone cameras, years ago they were quite low megapixel compared to today's camera phones. The pixel tarts (as I call them) rush out to get the latest phone with the highest mp they can get, shoot some photos and brag to there relatives & friends just how sharp their 24 mp pictures are by showing them on the phone screen. They might even show then at a much higher resolution on their 8 mp 4K TV discarding 2/3 of the cameras available pixel.

Personally I don't need the quality my camera is capable of or all the features it has but I do want its quality of image and many of the features to create, at the highest quality I can realistically afford, my photos in the hopes that one day I will get 'THAT' one shot that makes it all worth while. If I do it will be printed out at it's larges size at the best quality of printing, professionally framed and hung on the wall. I won't even care if no one else sees or likes it, I will and to me it will be all worthwhile.
 
Messages
25,012
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Personally I don't need the quality my camera is capable of or all the features it has but I do want its quality of image and many of the features to create, at the highest quality I can realistically afford, my photos in the hopes that one day I will get 'THAT' one shot that makes it all worth while. If I do it will be printed out at it's larges size at the best quality of printing, professionally framed and hung on the wall. I won't even care if no one else sees or likes it, I will and to me it will be all worthwhile.
I don't buy too many cameras but I do buy lenses and I do look for the first picture I can look at and think that made buying it worthwhile, if only because I only get the pictures because I went out to play with that lens :D
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No

RWDW

Brotha from Anotha Brotha?
Messages
383
Name
Robert
Edit My Images
Yes
I think NO is the simple answer. Computational photography is in its very early stages and there is lots to be done in this area. A camera will behave like the human eye in the future.
 
Messages
6,303
Edit My Images
Yes
Hmm. My Z6 is significantly better in low light, certainly, than my D600. I admit the difference isn't so apparent at lower ISO's/ in good light. But I think sensors have improved a bitmore than a 'jot'...
I don't think the D600 is a particularly good benchmark to compare more recent high-end cameras against? It's contemporary, the Canon 6D, tiddled all over it at the time, both for low light performance and colour rendition, so I'd be very surprised if your Z6 didn't have a significantly better sensor, processor/processing software than the D600 did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've heard/read, I believe even dyed in the wool Nikon fans seem to agree the D600 wasn't one of Nikon's finest cameras?
 
Last edited:
Top