Today saw the release of a couple of 12 megapixel digital compacts! Theoretically, these should offer more image detail than any DSLR except the 5D and the 1Ds II. For technical reasons related to dynamic range and noise, they won't, even at base ISO (and they won't come close above base ISO). 10 mp compacts don't look any better than 7 mp models (many are worse), and these 12 mp models almost certainly will be no better than the 10s and the 7s. Compacts have hit a wall, using 7 to 12 mp to produce images that, in ideal lighting and with a short scene contrast range, might rival a 6 mp DSLR. Increase either ISO or scene contrast, and they'll quickly end up producing a less satisfying image than even an old 3 mp Canon D30...
Have DSLRs also hit a similar wall, or are they close? The highest resolution DSLR around today, which also wears the image quality crown at low ISO (1Ds II), was introduced in late 2004. All other pro SLRs, except for the speed-optimized 1D mk III, are 2005 introductions. We've only seen two new DSLRs over $1000 since 2005, plus the M8, and all are specialized cameras (1D III, S5 Pro, M8) (ignoring the D2xs and 30D, both of which are very modest refreshes to existing products). From May 2000 to September 2004, the highest image quality around in a 35mm-sized camera moved from the 3 mp EOS D30, which was equivalent to 35 mm film in some conditions (better at small print sizes, didn't enlarge as well) to the nearly 17 mp 1Ds mk II, which solidly exceeds the image quality not only of 35 mm film, but of medium format as well, in almost all conditions. With similar conditions to those placed on the D30 equalling 35mm film, the 1Ds II approaches 4x5...
From September 2004 to May 2007, the image quality bar has not moved at all. Does anyone really think that 18 months from now (late 2008), we'll have a DSLR that has image quality as much superior to the 1Ds II as the 1Ds II is above the D30? It would have to be roughly 85 megapixels, with about 1.5 stops more dynamic range than the 1Ds II, and a nearly noiseless ISO 1600, with a very usable 3200 and perhaps 6400. It would exceed the quality of 4x5 film in all circumstances, challenge 8x10 in most, and be equivalent to 11x14 in certain conditions. Most predictions I'm seeing for the 1Ds III and the Nikon D3 (or D3x) are more like a 22 mp camera, perhaps with an extra half stop of dynamic range. The ISO possibilities will improve, possibly by as much as a stop or two (in this regard, it may be close to as big a step as the 1Ds II was).
There were at least three generations of image quality between the D30 and the 1Ds II - the 6 megapixel group (Canon D60, Nikon D100, etc...), the original 1Ds and the 1Ds II. Over the next equivalent time period, by December 2008, instead of three generations of image quality , we will see only one (1Ds II to 1Ds III/D3), and it will be perhaps less significant than any of the preceding three. The 1Ds III and D3 (or D3x) will both be quite new (less than a year of real availability) at the end of 2008, assuming that the D3x has appeared at all (if Nikon follows the same path (D2h first, D2x over a year later) with the D3 line that they did with the D2 line, the D3x will be touch and go to appear in 2008 at all).
Why has progress slowed so much? I can think of four possible reasons...
1. What do you do with a file that size, anyway? The 1Ds II already makes gorgeous 20x30 prints of complex landscapes. At some point, you don't need more resolution, because you have to step back to see the whole image. The only way to see the extra detail is either by pixel-peeping on screen or by examining a very large print unnaturally closely. I don't know if the 1Ds II is over that line, but it's very close to it.
2. Have the laws of physics reared their ugly head? Compact camera makers are willing to introduce cameras with more megapixels, but equivalent or even inferior image quality, because the megapixels look good on marketing posters. That doesn't work for pro DSLRs! Most people who buy a $5000 - $8000 camera want to see that it really does look better on a print than what they have!!! Most buyers of these cameras are very experienced photographers (professionals, artists and longtime amateurs) who know what they like and don't about their current camera's images, and buy something that does better at what they don't like.
In my own case, I switched systems from Nikon (D200) to Canon (1Ds II) looking for resolution, but primarily for shadow detail. I got roughly twice the resolution (the 1Ds II is a little better per pixel, plus it has 1.7 times as many pixels), and I'd say an extra stop in the shadows, which was what I was looking for for my landscape work. Because most of us know what we're looking for, neither Canon nor Nikon will release a new camera in this class that doesn't offer REAL improvements in image quality over anything they already offer. It is possible that the 22+ mp sensors that fit with 35mm lensmounts, which both makers are experimenting with, are enough noisier than today's sensors that the images are actually no better. If that is the case, it could either be a simple engineering issue (a better sensor is possible, but we're not quite there yet) or an actual physical barrier (decreasing pixel size will inevitably add noise - we've hit the limit). If we're close to, but not quite at a physical barrier, each step closer to the barrier will be harder and take more time than the one before...
3. Is it the lenses? The 1Ds II already has a reputation for out-resolving lenses, especially wide-angles, and especially at the corners. Is it possible that any higher resolution camera simply out-resolves most existing lenses, and offers no meaningful improvement in image quality because of it?
4. Is it the marketing department? A new high-end SLR is a huge commitment of research and development funds, especially if it will use an entirely new image sensor. A 1Ds mk IIn might not be, if it was simply the existing mk II sensor (or a slight improvement at the same resolution with lessons learned from the 5D) in the 1D mk III body, and I'm sure Canon will introduce that soon if they don't have anything else in the pipeline (it would give the 1Ds line 5 fps, improved buffers, better AF and a better LCD screen). Anything more than that, from either Canon or Nikon (even more so from Sony or anyone else, as only Canon and Nikon have the lenses to support this sort of camera), is an investment of millions of dollars for a camera that sells a few thousand units per month. The prices are high enough that the camera will eventually turn a profit, but is it AS profitable as building yet another vehicle for the ubiquitous 10 mp Sony sensor (anyone except Canon), or for a 20D or XTi sensor (Canon) - much lower R and D, many more sales (at a lower price)...
What do other folks think?
-Dan