Will Modern Sensors Drive up the Price of Glass?

The pixel density, ISO capability, and overall IQ produced by the latest generation of imaging sensors in recently released cameras is unbelievable. So much so that it is becoming much easier for amateur photographers to produce good results with consumer grade lenses. I'm beginning to see discussions on various forums questioning the conventional wisdom that glass is more important that the camera body. And it's a valid point of discussion. High ISO performance produces results with smaller aperture lenses and pixel density allows heavy crops eliminating the need for as much reach.

So the thought occured to me, will serious amateurs begin to put more money into the newest bodies and less into glass? If so, market economics would dictate that prices increase on high end lenses in order for the manufacturers to make a profit with lower sales volumes. Ironically, the race to produce the best DSLR bodies could cost the big two sales in the high end lens market.

Thoughts?

Actually, I think it will work in precisely the opposite way since you need really, really, nice glass to get the most out of those high resolution sensors. It's genius really, because in this way the extra megapixels (largely hype for the majority of people) are creating a larger high end lens market. There may be a shift towards smaller aperture lenses, but they will still need to be made with incredible precision and high end glass to resolve those new sensors.

I'm with Floris on this. The final resolution in any image is a result of both the optic and the recording medium.

Yes, massive amounts of pixels will lead to a lot more cropping, using smaller sensor areas and reaching the resolution limit of the lens sooner.

My point is that the vast majority of people don't even get what you guys have pointed out. But they do get that more pixels is good and they will buy the crop factor because it's way cheaper the 500mm glass. No doubt pros will look for even higher quality glass but it will come at a premium if they are the only ones buying it.

I agree with those folks. Image quality is definitely more closely related to lens quality than the number or quality of pixels on a sensor. Also, if the 'vast majority' of people won't even get what they are saying, then I doubt they will understand anything about crop factors (field of view) as it relates to lenses.

My thought would be that there is a huge amount of overlap between "people who currently buy high end lenses" and "people who want to get the most out of their new sensor". The scenario you mentioned - where someone looks at the sensor as a replacement for high end glass - probably means that person was never going to buy something like a 500/4 lens anyway. I don't think the sale of the high end lenses will change much (although that's just a guess).

I have been curious just how much the quality of lenses has degraded over the years and then started improving. From my perspective the quality of lenses has just improved and improved because most are designed by computers and the ability to produce the glass and the coatings has dramatically improved from the days of only film. The lenses that we would have thought of as junk 20 years ago are really quite good. The limiting factor will right now be the sensors and now the sensors - even on the D800 have not quite passed the resolution of film - maybe the higher ASA films but certainly not Kodachrome 25 and are just pushing the limits on the 50 ASA films. Other factors determine the resolution ability of the sensor - aliasing for example. The size of the glass - diffraction limit, and the quality of the glass and coatings - chromatic aberration, will for quite awhile still be the limiting factors. A 50 or 100 Mpixels FF sensor doesn't make much sense if your lens can't resolve to the level. But the nice Nikon lenses and the Canon lenses that we used 20-30 years ago produced amazing pictures on amazing film. Today's lenses have to be that good or better so they are still performing beyond the limits of our current sensor technologies. I keep rereading this and it seems to go in circles. So, buy the best glass you can - it makes a difference, but the sensor technology is not quite there yet as to resolution compared to good glass - other factors come into play.

Charley... I don't think you're going in circles if you just straighten out what you're saying a bit :

-- Good lenses have always well out resolved film
-- Current sensors of ~10 MPixels (or more) have better resolving power than film
-- Current lenses are significantly better than older lenses - even among the more common kit type lenses
-- Current good lenses still out resolve even the best sensors and sensors likely have a long way to go until there won't be any benefit from more megapixels, at least in some circumstances. And by then, the lenses will have likely improved.

So there's nothing circular there at all, except that both sensors and lenses continue to get better. The lenses have stayed ahead of the sensors though, and likely will for a while.

A bit more on the digital versus film thing... you said :

The limiting factor will right now be the sensors and now the sensors - even on the D800 have not quite passed the resolution of film - maybe the higher ASA films but certainly not Kodachrome 25 and are just pushing the limits on the 50 ASA films.

That depends on whether or not you're talking about 35mm film. As far as I know from lots of reading (having never shot film) this is absolutely not true for 35mm, and hasn't been for several years. The actual resolving power of film versus digital is better on digital once you get to the 10-12 megapixel range, and might be even lower if you have good pixels and processing. Some online searches of lots of studies will bear this out.