Have we finally reached the point of "enough" pixels in our sensors? Have we reached the point of diminishing returns?

For all practical purposes we probably have. Sensors now pack so many pixels the limiting factor in resolution and detail capture is now optics. Optics will improve, but the reality is the sensors in our cameras are better than nearly all common output. This is especially true for professional photographers doing anything other than some commercial work and bedspread-sized landscapes prints which cover entire walls.

Where then will the manufacturers go next? Their survival is dependant on us buying new cameras and without "MORE PIXELS" screaming at us, they have to go another direction. But what direction will that be? Is it the end of packing more pixels into the space and if so, how will this get marketed? The answers to these questions may be surprisingly easy to project...

"Pixel Wars" have been with us since the beginning of digital photography. Initially, we had very tiny sensors with few pixels. It didn't take long, however, before larger sensors became available and physical density started to increase. We had our own form of "Moore's Law" taking place. To illustrate the progression of this, let's look at the primary innovator and the most successful line of DSLRs in the photographic industry. In May of 2000, Canon introduced the EOS D30. This series of cameras has been the leader of which all other companies have had to match.

Just as a point of comparison on pixel density, the new DOWNGRADED Canon PowerShot G11 has 10.0 MP stuffed into a sensor at 23.0 MP/cm2. The PowerShot G10 had 14.7 MP at 34.0 MP/cm2. Given that with sufficient in-camera processing and pixel-binning (where the lumenance of two to four pixels are averaged together) , pixel densities of similar amounts in DSLRs are not only possible, but highly likely. A PowerShot G10 sensor in APS-C size would yield approximately 113 MP.

But would anybody actually need 113 MP?  Effectively 10-14 MP meets and exceeds anything possible in printed output for reasonable sizes.  Of course, there will be somebody shooting landscapes wanting to print billboard-sized wall art at 600 pixels per inch, but there is usually little need for this many pixels. Binning the pixels for higher ISO shooting is a way of keeping noise under control and reducing pixel counts for more manageable files. Unless the manufacturers come up with some alternative to the pixel wars, these monstrous file sizes have somewhat run their course as a marketing tool. But that won't stop the manufacturers from trying.