Canon 75mp, etc. - shall megapixel price evolve like RAM in PCs?

With the 5DSR behind us, the Sony A7R iv coming, and Canon likely surpassing that in the near future, the question came to mind "how much will the next body cost? The EOS R actually surprised me at $2299.00, because aside from the one card thing, it as basically on par with the 5D mk iv and better than the 5D mk ii for over $1000 less.

The new Sony A7R iv will supposedly be in the ballpark of $3500

Not knowing what the future will reveal, I flashed back to my computer around 2000 AD, where a PC's RAM was a sliver of today's capacity for a good chunk of money. Anyone remember how tiny RAM was around 1998 to 2002? Somehow, 16, 32 or 128 rings a bell, but I don't recall. Whatever it was, RAM escalated in the next 10 years and cost leveled.

Wonder if camera bodies and resolution will share some similarity, where resolution and processing boost, but price levels.

It's about application and market.

It's possible to make a large 200Mp sensor. But who needs that realistically at the consumer and commercial level? It will be expensive to make, so costly to sell, and really what's the application for most users?

Advertising is such a huge money engine right now, but more and more of the images for advertising are being served as tiny web-sized versions billions (or more) times every day across all platforms. You don't need a 12Mp or 18Mp or 24Mp sensor for that. Video is becoming more and more important for this too, as the ads are not just images anymore, but becoming video ads. Some of these are fairly good resolution, but again, intended viewing is still low resolution. No need for much more than 8~9Mp really for most of it, so 12Mp cameras are still way plenty for the application.

So where's the application for the 50Mp, 61Mp, 100Mp, or just go ahead and go for 200Mp sensor? Large print really. You can find niche uses (like someone saying they want to use it to do bird in flight and crop from a really wide FOV, well ok, but that's really not the application). But ultimately why would the manufacturer make these if they didn't have an actual market and not just a bunch of amateurs finding creative ways to use it, that's not what fuels this engine, the market for a large sum of pixels has purpose and its not the handful of casuals shooting 100Mp sensors for instagram portraits or travel life style influencer style images, etc.

But yes, big sensors are getting cheaper, more pixels are getting cheaper (and the quality of the pixel). Try buying a full frame camera back in 2,000. Now buy a full frame today. They're not even comparable with how good the sensor has evolved.

Eventually we will have incredible smaller sensors with really good pixels that do better than today's large sensors with good pixels that can nearly see in the dark and still produce high dynamic range. And it'll be cheap. It'll be in everyone's little side arm (read: phone). Just watch. That's where there's a huge market that is super competitive, unlike casual "photography" folk who want it in some dSLR form.

Very best,

Depends on specs, competitor prices, demand, and current gear prices.

For the R $1000 savings, it was due to a number of items where it was deficient or less than the 5D4, so hopefully Canon continues to keep this lower pricing on somewhat comparable RF mount bodies to their DSLR counterparts. I will be surprised if the A9II is priced where the current A9 is sitting.

Of course resolution is the next big thing. We have just about maxed out # AF sensors, ISO levels, and just recently burst rates/fps. The only remaining wilderness to tackle is resolution. We are already in the midst of such a resolution battle, this and processors, whether dual or single.

Our MS VB4 PC build box back in the late 1990s had 32Mb ram, it sucked...

If all manufacturers want to still sell camera gear and in Canon's case, get consumers to buy all new RF lenses, they are going to have to offer strong consumer-friendly pricing on the new bodies.

Na, sensor resolution and computer ram are very different functions. With computer ram, the more you have, the better. Load more programs, less swapping, faster multitasking, more complexity, etc. With sensor resolution you approach a point where physics takes over and adding more resolution does nothing but make file sizes bigger. Now cheaper is another thing. With the scale of mass production kicking in, it's cheaper on a per unit basis when you are able to produce a lot. Unfortunately, dSLRs seem to be on the downswing as a sizable portion of the market is moving away from SLR/mirrorless type cameras for other technologies. So the price of sensors I don't think is going to fall much more.

BTW, my first memory upgrade was on my AppleII when I bought the 48k chips to replace the 4k the machine came with. Cost me nearly $1000. Now I can buy 4 32gig chips for under $400.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18902883
It's about application and market.

It's possible to make a large 200Mp sensor. But who needs that realistically at the consumer and commercial level? It will be expensive to make, so costly to sell, and really what's the application for most users?

I thought the same thing about RAM cost back around 2000.

I'm open to the possibility that new engineering may evolve that cuts costs in half.

As for megapixels, I certainly wouldn't want to see a doubling every other year as happened with RAM. And if a sensor could reach 200 megapixels or more, could the average professional grade lens even deal with it?

mdvaden wrote in post #18902982
could the average professional grade lens even deal with it?

Depends, if we care about airy disc and critical sampling, then yes, lots of lenses can deal with it as most pixels are still way too big for today's larger pixels matched to these really fast focal-ratios.

Very best,

mdvaden wrote in post #18902878
I flashed back to my computer around 2000 AD, where a PC's RAM was a sliver of today's capacity for a good chunk of money.... Whatever it was, RAM escalated in the next 10 years and cost leveled.

Wonder if camera bodies and resolution will share some similarity, where resolution and processing boost, but price levels.

There is a very fundamental difference between RAM and a sensor...

• over time, the transistors shrank in size so that you could have more and more storage fill up the same area of silicon, but the performance of each transistor did not change, and if there was a defect in one memory unit there were enough spares in the design to 'fill in' and still provide the claimed storage, and the subsitution of one memory unit over another did not really matter. Lose a few bits, and it still can be called '64K'...no one knows any better.
  
• over time, an individual pixel has shrunk in area, allowing more of them in the same 24mm x 36mm area, but shrinkage of area comes at the cost of decreased efficiency (increased signal-to-noise) and offsetting techniques have had to compensate (signal processing with lower noise), and when a pixel is bad it is not possible to substitute a 'spare pixel' into the matrix of pixels...the entire chip has to be thrown out when the defect count is too high.
  

I have been busy with the kids showing them ACSLogo (https://www.alancsmith​.co.uk/logo/) on a couple of old iMacs (https://everymac.com …ac/specs/imac_d​v_400.html). I bought them new in 1999 and they have been sitting in the basement maxed out at 128mb.

With demand falling, prices will not rise. As with computers, end user needs will somewhat level out. Further product enhancements will be moderate and track with manufacturing advancements (enherited from other industries) to allow the same efforts to produce better products. Much of the next 5 years advancements have already been developed and are just waiting for it to make financial sense.

Edit: ACSLogo is a great Logo interpreter for kids and n00b adults as well. The documentation is fantastic.

This is all rather comical to read. Do you know how many times this very debate has happened right here on this forum. There was a time with the 1D make it leap from 8 mpx to the mid teens, and people wondered if they would ever need a 20 plus mpx sensor. The same debates. More MPX means more horsepower needed to process.... laws of physics would prevail and slow down the insanity. We used to lust after medium format cameras and their 30 plus mpx capture capability.... But they were slow, and very expensive.

Now they are 1/2 the state of the art, at half the price.

We are no where near the where the state of the art will take us. Look at Tony's test of pixel shifting https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=3526KGRuVHo

This is just the tip of this kind of technology. No one saw that iBIS would take us this direction.... but now that you have moveable sensors enabled by IBIS technology.... we have a whole new world of possibility. Good job Panasonic and Sony. The future is looking bright.

Croasdail wrote in post #18903059
This is all rather comical to read. Do you know how many times this very debate has happened right here on this forum.

No ........

Feel free to quote a link or two for threads that deals with higher megapixel body cost going level dropping in similar fashion as getting gobs more RAM for the same cost or less. Don't recall following that line of thought myself. I've mainly been watching body costs. And, for example, the 5D ii, 5D iii and 5D iv hovered darn close to the same price zone for 20-something pixel bodies.

Last year was the first time I really noticed something with a leap in resolution like the EOS R come in much less.

Teamspeed noted this ..

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18902888
For the R $1000 savings, it was due to a number of items where it was deficient or less than the 5D4, so hopefully Canon continues to keep this lower pricing

But that thought can be a wash-out ... because the EOS R, like it or not, has the extra slide control, a better articulated screen, a next-generation lens mount that takes more lenses, more focus coverage, etc. Aside from one card, the 5D mk iv makes the EOS R seem like a bargain. I think the EOS R with the latest firmware now nudges by a frame with 8 FPS vs. the mk iv's 7 fps.

So now I'm curious whether another RF body with most every 5D mk iv feature, the EOS R features, a couple other advancements and more megapixels, can be sold for the same as the 5D mk iv did when first released.

mdvaden wrote in post #18903066
No ........

Feel free to quote a link or two for threads that deals with higher megapixel body cost going level dropping in similar fashion as getting gobs more RAM for the same cost or less. I've mainly been watching body costs. And, for example, the 5D ii, 5D iii and 5D iv hovered darn close to the same price zone for 20-something pixel bodies.

Last year was the first time I really noticed something with a leap in resolution like the EOS R come in much less.

Actually the 5DIV and the EOS-R share the same sensor. The EOS-R is about $1000 cheaper but not due to the sensor. It's the other stuff not needed when getting rid of the mirror that made it cheaper.

gjl711 wrote in post #18903069
Actually the 5DIV and the EOS-R share the same sensor. The EOS-R is about $1000 cheaper but not due to the sensor. It's the other stuff not needed when getting rid of the mirror that made it cheaper.

And like my last reply about some features, part can be a washout again.

The EOS R shuts out dust. The 5D mk iv has no such mechanism. It could be less parts, but it's there. The mk iv view finder is gone, but replaced by a EVF, as well as more pins and related circuitry from the mount into the body. So I think there's just a little bit less expense when people actually list everything.

mdvaden wrote in post #18903094
And like my last reply about some features, part can be a washout again.

The EOS R shuts out dust. The 5D mk iv has no such mechanism. It could be less parts, but it's there. The mk iv view finder is gone, but replaced by a EVF, as well as more pins and related circuitry from the mount into the body. So I think there's just a little bit less expense when people actually list everything.

1) When changing lenses, there is a mirror and shutter in the way on the 5D4.
2) More dust is deposited on the sensor from zooming lenses and the dirt/dust that gets pushed past the sensor, than with a lens swap.
3) I don't leave my 5D4 open to the elements even when I remove a lens, body cap goes on, or a new lens goes on.

That all being said, a dust shield is the most trivial of parts quite frankly, it is just a differentiator against other mirrorless bodies, a bragging point in a way.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18903112
1) When changing lenses, there is a mirror and shutter in the way on the 5D4.
2) More dust is deposited on the sensor from zooming lenses and the dirt/dust that gets pushed past the sensor, than with a lens swap.
3) I don't leave my 5D4 open to the elements even when I remove a lens, body cap goes on, or a new lens goes on.

Speaking of dust ...

I still have a DSLR and I'm sure the EOS R is not dust "proof". Now that I'm down here in southern Oregon where the only shop that cleans cameras is a half hour away, I'm planning to get a third body to reduce the need for lens swapping. Actually, at the last wedding I did at a ranch by the redwoods, just two lenses was all that was needed.

Also, with the EOS R so new, hard to know for sure the average liability of the little dust cover. It would be a drag to need to shoot and the thing doesn't open.I'm not anticipating it, but thought all the more reason to possibly have a third body on hand.