First, I think many mistook 'plateau' for 'pinnacle'! By plateau, I meant that improvements in image quality would slow and other aspects of development would supersede. A plateau is a breathing point and is usually not constrained by technology development, but cost, manufacturing or other practical considerations. It is a point where the user might say 'good enough for now'. Additionally, we are talking DSLR. That is using a 24mm x 36mm sensor.
If we use MP (proxy for captured resolution), dynamic range, color depth and high ISO performance as our measure of image quality. Then a poster in this thread indicated the D4 represented that threshold for him. And I believe there is a lot of others that would agree. That is, 16MP was good enough and other considerations out weigh his desire for additional MP. If you asked most D4 shooters, however, if they could get everything they have now, would they prefer the camera to output 24MP, I think most would respond positively. If, however, you move that to 36MP, what would the answer likely be? I know for certain many photographers have shied away from the D810 specifically because they do not need, nor want to deal with 36MPs worth of data. Are there photographers that would like to have more than that, absolutely, but the questions become is there a better, more cost effective solution than a DSLR sensor for that and is it likely to sell well enough to make it feasible for the manufacturer, at least in the near term?
I would love to see the sales projections versus actual sales for the D800/D800e twins. I suspect total sales for the twins well outstripped Nikon's sale projections and that the D800e demand outstripped projections to a greater degree than the D800. I'm pretty sure the D810 is the result.
I also agree with the poster that mentioned processing power as the next area where advances could be made (allowing for onboard power constraints). Current generation RADAR algorithms, a computationally intensive process, are much less sophisticated than they used to be precisely because the amount of processing power available is so much larger. Processing power obviously would help frame rates, focusing and metering and overall usability. I personally have 2 things I would love to see from cameras that processing power/memory would make possible.
1. User save-able presets (no I don't mean U1 and U2 on Enthusiast Nikons or the half-assed shooting banks). Every setting on a modern camera, even if there is a mechanical switch like live view or the mode dial on the D750 is set electronically. What I want is the ability to setup the camera how I want and save with a name those settings (complete state of the camera which would preclude mutually exclusive options). A camera might say hold 10 such settings. You could get at them from a menu or a button/dial setup. Maybe there would be 3 or 4 buttons in a group on the camera that you could save 3 or 4 presets for direct access.
2. The ability to run 3rd party apps directly on the camera. Thinking something like Helicon Remote, for example. In studio, I'd prefer running this tethered to a PC with a large screen and more efficient keyboard/mouse interface, but in the field it would be better done in camera than tethered to my Samsung Note II.
Just my thoughts!
