The real problem with Canon sensor technology?

[PhotographyFirst]

Wanna know the true reason Canon has not improved low ISO DR much in the last few years?

Because idiots like myself value workflow, ergonomics, quality lenses, reliability, high ISO performance, etc... over having low ISO DR of 14+ stops. As long as us stupids keep buying Canon's innovative and high performance lenses, there is little incentive for Canon to put money into something that will kill short term net profits. If only we were smarter people, we would realize how low ISO DR trumps everything else. We would ditch Canon and let them go bankrupt or be forced to improve their "crap" sensors.

I mean, bracketing my shots when needed and then exposure blending them is like pulling teeth compared to not having the lenses I want to use, or having to fiddle with adapters, or having poor live view implementation, or tiny buttons, or poor customer service, or poor reliability, or poor battery life, or poor ergonomics, or EVFs. or lossy RAW files, or no aperture control in Live View, or no histograms, or AFMA with only one focal setting, or having to press two buttons at once to change ISO, or... well you probably get the idea.

Getting rid of my Canon gear for another brand would be like kicking an attractive woman out of bed for eating crackers. Sure I would prefer her to not get crackers in the bed, but why ruin a good time?

 

[Stu_bert]

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

I guess it depends on your passion. For most people, changing household infrastructure is likely too much of a pain in the rear to even consider. Ed Begley Jr may, however.

For many people, changing cameras is more like changing phones (especially given that most cameras come with a lens), or laptops, or tablets. I'll think you'll find as much silly analysis on iOS vs android threads and OS X vs Windows threads and Galaxy vs iPad vs surface vs whatever threads as you do on Sony vs canon threads.

I think a lot of people here have more invested in their cameras than that (smartphone or laptop). When I go to Canon repair just for a lens calibration, my camera & lens is worth more than my car. Which tells you a lot about my relative priorities, lol.

But yes, I agree, some people seem to go to the nth degree to justify their decision, no matter the tech. I was curious if it overspilt into cars & white goods, and if it doesnt it just peaked my curiousity as to why.

Like I said, I understand discussing diferences. It's educational, and I've learnt a lot here, and elsewhere. I would not have known that BSI can help alleviate vignetting for instance. But I think you can just state that (as was done), without having to infer that one's choices (already made) are flawed.

Maybe it's just me, but it just becomes irrelevant noise (pun intended)... ;D

Its about passion, is your hobby racing or drifting? then you will care about cars/engines/gear box/wheels/air and oil filters/brake and clutch disks/....etc.

Are you a gamer or a programmer? then graphic cards ATI vs nVidia, Asus vs EVGA vs Gigabyte vs MSI/sound cards/PCI, 8 channels vs 16/dual triple and quad channels memory/CPUs Intel vs AMD/Power Supplies/keyboards mechanical vs gaming vs curve/Mice/Windows vs Mac/open source vs Microsoft/.... and so much more, and it also depends on your level of passion, some programmers don't know how to troubleshoot windows, some build their own computers, when I bought my last PC I spent 6 months reading on the current technology and the current products to get the most for the money.

The same for photography, before I bought my first DSLR I spent 5-6 months readying about photography, light, and composition though it was all articles and Wikipedia, reading about Canon vs Nikon, Which lenses to get, third party lenses, and while waiting for it I used my friend's DSLR to practice.

I completely agree it's about your passion, and what drives you. And I love the technology behind dSLRS, as I mentioned, I've been educated a lot by people on here... Not much of that however will make me a better photographer.

But passion is not me telling you that your camera is inferior to mine...

When you'd researched your PC and components. Did you then go onto a bunch of PC forums and tell everyone that there kit was unable to run windows as well as yours? Is lightroom or whatever your editor of choice producing better pictures cause the underlying HW is better?

I know it's a rumours forum, and biased towards the hardware therefore, it's just that there seems to be an awful lot of irrelevant "contests". Competition and choice are great, I'd just wish that from time to time, people could post it less to offend or bate people, or just plain direct it direct to the vendor...

 

[Stu_bert]

The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...

Doesn't anyone else here get tired of defending their choice? Do you think you're going to convert people? Every company has it's fanatics, but maybe for some of them it's the fact that the kit they have matches or exceeds their abilities, and swapping wont change that, which means they have not swapped brands.

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

Honestly, whereas I enjoy discussing merits to a point, when it comes to threads where people want to enforce that current users are clearly wrong, the only people who benefit are those that run the site. More advertising = Good for them!

Everyone has their criteria on what they want from a camera. Can't we just accept that and go spend more time understanding our chosen tools and using them out in the field, improving our photography by using our tools, not slating others. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Sony, Canon - they make kit which if used correctly produces stunning pictures.

Go take a look at the Widlife photograher of the year, and when you look at the pictures, if you first thought is "I wonder what sensor was used" or indeed anything about the tech other than the techniques used to take the shot then wow, you need to seek help.

/rant off.

This is one of the more rational posts I've read in a long time.

My view: Photography is by nature both very easy and very hard. Almost anyone can take a decent picture and as technology has improved it has made it easier to do so.

Unfortunately, this technical ease is deceptive and leaves many people with the false impression that they only need better technology to get better.

But, once you've got the basics down, the real challenge begins. And, this is where problems arise. At some point, the left side of the brain will only carry you so far and unless you have real talent and vision, you are going to hit a wall.

Photography is very much like music in that respect. You can master all the technical aspects of music, but that won't make you a great musician.

So, there will always be a certain segment of the population who blames their tools and believes that if they just had the right tool, they would be great. As the tools improve, and they still don't achieve greatness, then people have to focus on smaller and smaller aspects of their tools and infuse those small aspects with an importance far beyond the reality.

Cameras and photo processing software have advanced so far in the past dozen years that the differences which exist between equipment has become insignificant. The lowest cost interchangeable lens camera, whether it be Nikon, Canon or Sony is so good that 99% of photographers in 99% of situations don't need anything else.

But, we have to justify our purchases and desire for more. We also have to justify why we can't get the perfect picture. Blaming equipment is easier to accept than looking in a mirror.

So, what we end up with is a lot of technologically-minded individuals who believe that the right technology will make them talented. But, it's not going to happen.

Couldn't agree more, and thank you to everyone who has confirmed that I am not the only one with this view, lol.

Please dont get me wrong. I still think we should push every manufacturer to give us more, for less and keep highlighting where features which another system has would be brilliant on ours, or features that just dont plain work as expected or at all. Without feedback and competition, we'd still have AF which doesn't work in heat / direct sunlight!!

Music is a great example, I have to admit I have zero skills and zero knowledge... Always wanted to play a saxaphone though (no idea why I shared that, )

PS. love the crackers comment

 

[Mitch.Conner]

The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...

I agree. Anybody that doesn't agree with this statement is an idiot. ;D

 

[meywd]

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

I guess it depends on your passion. For most people, changing household infrastructure is likely too much of a pain in the rear to even consider. Ed Begley Jr may, however.

For many people, changing cameras is more like changing phones (especially given that most cameras come with a lens), or laptops, or tablets. I'll think you'll find as much silly analysis on iOS vs android threads and OS X vs Windows threads and Galaxy vs iPad vs surface vs whatever threads as you do on Sony vs canon threads.

I think a lot of people here have more invested in their cameras than that (smartphone or laptop). When I go to Canon repair just for a lens calibration, my camera & lens is worth more than my car. Which tells you a lot about my relative priorities, lol.

But yes, I agree, some people seem to go to the nth degree to justify their decision, no matter the tech. I was curious if it overspilt into cars & white goods, and if it doesnt it just peaked my curiousity as to why.

Like I said, I understand discussing diferences. It's educational, and I've learnt a lot here, and elsewhere. I would not have known that BSI can help alleviate vignetting for instance. But I think you can just state that (as was done), without having to infer that one's choices (already made) are flawed.

Maybe it's just me, but it just becomes irrelevant noise (pun intended)... ;D

Its about passion, is your hobby racing or drifting? then you will care about cars/engines/gear box/wheels/air and oil filters/brake and clutch disks/....etc.

Are you a gamer or a programmer? then graphic cards ATI vs nVidia, Asus vs EVGA vs Gigabyte vs MSI/sound cards/PCI, 8 channels vs 16/dual triple and quad channels memory/CPUs Intel vs AMD/Power Supplies/keyboards mechanical vs gaming vs curve/Mice/Windows vs Mac/open source vs Microsoft/.... and so much more, and it also depends on your level of passion, some programmers don't know how to troubleshoot windows, some build their own computers, when I bought my last PC I spent 6 months reading on the current technology and the current products to get the most for the money.

The same for photography, before I bought my first DSLR I spent 5-6 months readying about photography, light, and composition though it was all articles and Wikipedia, reading about Canon vs Nikon, Which lenses to get, third party lenses, and while waiting for it I used my friend's DSLR to practice.

I completely agree it's about your passion, and what drives you. And I love the technology behind dSLRS, as I mentioned, I've been educated a lot by people on here... Not much of that however will make me a better photographer.

But passion is not me telling you that your camera is inferior to mine...

When you'd researched your PC and components. Did you then go onto a bunch of PC forums and tell everyone that there kit was unable to run windows as well as yours? Is lightroom or whatever your editor of choice producing better pictures cause the underlying HW is better?

I know it's a rumours forum, and biased towards the hardware therefore, it's just that there seems to be an awful lot of irrelevant "contests". Competition and choice are great, I'd just wish that from time to time, people could post it less to offend or bate people, or just plain direct it direct to the vendor...

Actually I was just answering the question of why people care too much about their DSLR sensor than the specs of the fridge or the washing machine, yeah I didn't go to a forum to brag about my PC, but if someone ask me what brand of graphic cards to get I will tell him what makes which better, or if someone comes to me saying Linux is better than windows, then I would give him a piece of my mind ;D

 

[benperrin]

The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...

Doesn't anyone else here get tired of defending their choice? Do you think you're going to convert people? Every company has it's fanatics, but maybe for some of them it's the fact that the kit they have matches or exceeds their abilities, and swapping wont change that, which means they have not swapped brands.

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

Honestly, whereas I enjoy discussing merits to a point, when it comes to threads where people want to enforce that current users are clearly wrong, the only people who benefit are those that run the site. More advertising = Good for them!

Everyone has their criteria on what they want from a camera. Can't we just accept that and go spend more time understanding our chosen tools and using them out in the field, improving our photography by using our tools, not slating others. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Sony, Canon - they make kit which if used correctly produces stunning pictures.

Go take a look at the Widlife photograher of the year, and when you look at the pictures, if you first thought is "I wonder what sensor was used" or indeed anything about the tech other than the techniques used to take the shot then wow, you need to seek help.

/rant off.

This is one of the more rational posts I've read in a long time.

My view: Photography is by nature both very easy and very hard. Almost anyone can take a decent picture and as technology has improved it has made it easier to do so.

Unfortunately, this technical ease is deceptive and leaves many people with the false impression that they only need better technology to get better.

But, once you've got the basics down, the real challenge begins. And, this is where problems arise. At some point, the left side of the brain will only carry you so far and unless you have real talent and vision, you are going to hit a wall.

Photography is very much like music in that respect. You can master all the technical aspects of music, but that won't make you a great musician.

So, there will always be a certain segment of the population who blames their tools and believes that if they just had the right tool, they would be great. As the tools improve, and they still don't achieve greatness, then people have to focus on smaller and smaller aspects of their tools and infuse those small aspects with an importance far beyond the reality.

Cameras and photo processing software have advanced so far in the past dozen years that the differences which exist between equipment has become insignificant. The lowest cost interchangeable lens camera, whether it be Nikon, Canon or Sony is so good that 99% of photographers in 99% of situations don't need anything else.

But, we have to justify our purchases and desire for more. We also have to justify why we can't get the perfect picture. Blaming equipment is easier to accept than looking in a mirror.

So, what we end up with is a lot of technologically-minded individuals who believe that the right technology will make them talented. But, it's not going to happen.

Agreed. Great post.

 

[sanj]

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

I guess it depends on your passion. For most people, changing household infrastructure is likely too much of a pain in the rear to even consider. Ed Begley Jr may, however.

For many people, changing cameras is more like changing phones (especially given that most cameras come with a lens), or laptops, or tablets. I'll think you'll find as much silly analysis on iOS vs android threads and OS X vs Windows threads and Galaxy vs iPad vs surface vs whatever threads as you do on Sony vs canon threads.

Agree. It is fun for many photographers including me to keep in connect with latest technology and want to upgrade. It is a feel good factor which may or may not improve the actual photography.

 

[Antono Refa]

I suspect the real problem with Canon sensor technology is that Sony's is better.

That is to mean, Canon's tech is good enough, but

1. Some people will buy the best, whether they need and/or put the difference to good use or not.

2. Some people will bitch about Canon's technology not being the best.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

Excellent description of what I, too, experience when talking with folks who claim to love the act of photography, but who seem to constantly be in search of "better" equipment.

Brooks Jensen over at Lenswork Magazine noted a couple years ago that current image making technologies will allow a greater number of potential artists to realize their images easier than we could just a decade ago. He noted that at the dawn of photography you might have a couple truly outstanding artists. They were the people who could understand the technology and use it to make wonderful images.

With the advent of dry plate and film technologies we saw perhaps 10 or 15 photographers in any given generation who could work the tech and come way with outstanding images.

Technology presently hides many of the unpleasant/time-consuming details of how to operate a device, thus freeing people to concentrate on the image. It was Brook's contention that we could see perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 truly outstanding photographic artists as a result.

Coming back to the conversations about technologies, it seems to me that we miss valuable opportunities to improve our own work by expecting the manufacturers to solve our art problems for us. They can't and they won't.

What they do provide are amazing tools for creative expression. The technologies seem to be evolving rapidly. Just 7 years ago I was thrilled to be able to afford the then new 5D MkII. But I sold my entire Canon system just over a year ago after I realized that the new generation of tools better met my needs. They were smaller, sharper, and offered network connectivity that I knew I could make use of. This doesn't mean the Canon's sensors weren't sufficient to the task. It just means that my overall needs to downsize in terms of weight and mass having lead me inadvertently to sharper off the sensor images came as a bonus.

... My view: Photography is by nature both very easy and very hard. Almost anyone can take a decent picture and as technology has improved it has made it easier to do so.

Unfortunately, this technical ease is deceptive and leaves many people with the false impression that they only need better technology to get better.

But, once you've got the basics down, the real challenge begins. And, this is where problems arise. At some point, the left side of the brain will only carry you so far and unless you have real talent and vision, you are going to hit a wall.

Photography is very much like music in that respect. You can master all the technical aspects of music, but that won't make you a great musician.

So, there will always be a certain segment of the population who blames their tools and believes that if they just had the right tool, they would be great. As the tools improve, and they still don't achieve greatness, then people have to focus on smaller and smaller aspects of their tools and infuse those small aspects with an importance far beyond the reality.

Cameras and photo processing software have advanced so far in the past dozen years that the differences which exist between equipment has become insignificant. The lowest cost interchangeable lens camera, whether it be Nikon, Canon or Sony is so good that 99% of photographers in 99% of situations don't need anything else.

But, we have to justify our purchases and desire for more. We also have to justify why we can't get the perfect picture. Blaming equipment is easier to accept than looking in a mirror.

So, what we end up with is a lot of technologically-minded individuals who believe that the right technology will make them talented. But, it's not going to happen.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Canon. Nuthin' special. Good enough for the masses. (The K-cars of the camera world?)
/mild_rant

Good enough for the masses? So, by implication, Canon's pro gear is only good enough for the masses too?
Having used some of the best that Nikon can offer (no others make comparable gear) I thought they were quite good for non serious use. Unfortunately the owners of the Nikon Superteles and "PRO?" bodies I was trying were using my Canon gear in the meantime, oh dear they were FAR from happy! What use is the wonderful sensor of the D810 if it can't focus until the subject has moved? What use is the better high ISO of the D4/D4S when you have clunky AF tracking and sub Canon lenses?
The mid range Nikon bodies definitely have advantages over some Canons, but when you hit the 7D2/5D3 level or higher then things start to alter quite a bit. As to Nikon long lenses? Well I hope the, just released 500 & 600 lenses, are comparable to Canon equivalents as their predecessors were mediocre at best. Having used Nikon gear I feel for their customers who shoot anything other than fairly static subjects with short lenses.
Just my experience - but what do I know? I have only used the gear.

You've nicely argued your choice of compromise.
Many others have chosen differently and are happy with their choice.

The point of the OP is the problem with Canon's sensors which I answered by stating that they're good enough for those who chose them.. so why should Canon bother to invest the capital and effort to improve that aspect?
Your post just justified my post.. In short, you're content with the IQ of your chosen system for various reasons as you explained. So why would Canon improve the sensor if you're happy with the results?

I argued my case of avoiding compromise or at least minimizing it! Regardless of the advantages of the Sony produced sensors (which I have yet to see - though I keep an open mind) they are of little relevance if the manufacturers who use them don't make suitable lenses or adequate camera bodies, or both in the case of Sony.
Would I like a "better" sensor in my current camera? Certainly! But how do I get one? The finest sensor in the world is of no importance if the rest of the system is inadequate.
So the wonderful Sony sensors (NO sarcasm - they appear to be very good) are completely useless is a flimsy Sony body with no lens because they don't make a suitable one! When these sensors are incorporated in Nikon bodies the situation improves dramatically (especially as Nikon seem to know how to get the most out of them) but they still lag significantly behind Canon in other areas eg. AF and tracking.

Therefore I would contend that, for many users (especially me), that Canon make the very best sensors simply because they put them in the cameras that will get me the image and produce (most of the time) the best lenses for the job. I hate to think of the frustration that I would have had if I bought a D4S or a D810 and a Nikon Super Tele! If I were doing landscapes then the D810 is GREAT! But for anything that moves Nikon lag behind Canon and Sony aren't in the game - so their sensors are not as good as they are in systems that are poorer(Nikon)/useless (Sony) at getting the image I require in the first place.
These days the sensor is just a small part of the system and other factors are more significant - especially for anything that moves or needs fast response.

Now it the new Nikon 500 and 600 Superteles are up to snuff and the impending Nikon D5 is a great leap forward then I may have to eat my words! We shall see????

 

[Rocky]

Men buying photograghic equipment is just like women buying jewelry. They buy what they want and goes way beyond the need.

 

[scyrene]

Men buying photograghic equipment is just like women buying jewelry. They buy what they want and goes way beyond the need.

Aside from the sexism, the two are not quite alike - as jewellery is entirely decorative. For some at least, cameras are functional.

 

[sdsr]

Wanna know the true reason Canon has not improved low ISO DR much in the last few years?

Because idiots like myself value workflow, ergonomics, quality lenses, reliability, high ISO performance, etc... over having low ISO DR of 14+ stops. As long as us stupids keep buying Canon's innovative and high performance lenses, there is little incentive for Canon to put money into something that will kill short term net profits. If only we were smarter people, we would realize how low ISO DR trumps everything else. We would ditch Canon and let them go bankrupt or be forced to improve their "crap" sensors.

Sure, but if Canon made sensors with better low ISO dynamic range (which is all we're talking about, isn't it?), Canon's lenses, high ISO performance, ergonomics, etc. wouldn't get worse. Do we know that Canon can't afford to develop such a sensor?

 

[sdsr]

People seem to fixate on sensors, but I find that a great piece of glass has more impact on my photography than any sensor does.

Yes. And it's interesting (or something) that lenses don't seem to generate this sort of antagonism - except perhaps the 50L.... (My perspective is somewhat paradoxical - the reason why I like Sony's latest cameras is not the DR of their sensors, nice though that is, but because they they make it easier than any other FF cameras to use a very wide range of lenses, many of them, luckily, inexpensive.)

 

[Don Haines]

Men buying photograghic equipment is just like women buying jewelry. They buy what they want and goes way beyond the need.

Aside from the sexism, the two are not quite alike - as jewellery is entirely decorative. For some at least, cameras are functional.

And this is why you never see a somebody using a pair of 1DX as earrings.....

 

[9VIII]

Men buying photograghic equipment is just like women buying jewelry. They buy what they want and goes way beyond the need.

Aside from the sexism, the two are not quite alike - as jewellery is entirely decorative. For some at least, cameras are functional.

And this is why you never see a somebody using a pair of 1DX as earrings.....

But if your let it hang just right I'm pretty sure it has served as a codpiece.

 

[aj1575]

The real Problem with Canon sensor technology?

My first respond to this title; is there a problem? I'm not sure. Yes Canon is lagging behind Sony at the moment in some aspects of sensor technology, mainly DR at low ISO. But Canon also shows its strength (250MP FF sensor; ISO 300'000 sensor...). So Canon is working on sensor technology.
Sony got a lot of praise for their sensors lately. But please go over to dpReview to look at the real images, not the synthetic DXO measurements. The much hyped high ISO performance of the Sony, just does not show in the pictures, they look about the same to me. You could also get the impression that Sony has the high ISO, high DR, high resolution monster sensor; but they don't. They have a low resolution high ISO sensor, they have a high resolution sensor with an okay high ISO performance, and they have something in between. I just wonder what people would say when Canon would do the same; aren't they able to make a sensor who does it all? Sony has some nice sensor tech, but they are cocking with the same water as Canon does. On a test bed, the Sony is ahead, but how much of it does show in the real pictures?

And then, the sensor is just a small part of the system that let's us take pictures. So I think it get's too much attention, especially since todays sensors are all quite damn good.

 

[msm]

BSI is definitely the future for all the reasons Jirsta states and more but the one area Sony needs to work on is the color science of processing their images they are renown for issues with Reds & flesh tones. Canon are much better at processing the image signals as are Arri in cinematography.

This is a claim I often see on this forum and I just don't believe it is true. What I suspect happens is someone using some random conversion in a random raw converter using some random profile and prefers the Canon colors and mistakenly think that has something to do with the cameras ability to capture colors. And yes Adobe Standard profiles are random, they are not even consistent among Canon cameras.

When you shoot raw Canon does not even process the image signals, your raw converter does.

If you want accurate colors, make your own profile.

 

[PhotographyFirst]

BSI is definitely the future for all the reasons Jirsta states and more but the one area Sony needs to work on is the color science of processing their images they are renown for issues with Reds & flesh tones. Canon are much better at processing the image signals as are Arri in cinematography.

This is a claim I often see on this forum and I just don't believe it is true. What I suspect happens is someone using some random conversion in a random raw converter using some random profile and prefers the Canon colors and mistakenly think that has something to do with the cameras ability to capture colors. And yes Adobe Standard profiles are random, they are not even consistent among Canon cameras.

When you shoot raw Canon does not even process the image signals, your raw converter does.

If you want accurate colors, make your own profile.

Maybe it has more to do with the lenses than the sensors? I know back in the film days, there was a visible difference between a Nikon lens and a Canon lens when shooting the same film.

I personally had a D800 for a while and found the white balance to always be inaccurate in temperature and hue. All of my Canon cameras have been much better and rarely need any correction in post. Every single one of my D800 images needed correction in post. Always seems to be a little too green.

With that said, I find the images coming from the D750 RAW files to look much better than any other Nikon I have seen. The colors and white balance seem to match more to what I would expect from a Canon.

 

[unfocused]

Brooks Jensen over at Lenswork Magazine noted a couple years ago that current image making technologies will allow a greater number of potential artists to realize their images easier than we could just a decade ago. He noted that at the dawn of photography you might have a couple truly outstanding artists. They were the people who could understand the technology and use it to make wonderful images...

...Technology presently hides many of the unpleasant/time-consuming details of how to operate a device, thus freeing people to concentrate on the image. It was Brook's contention that we could see perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 truly outstanding photographic artists as a result.

A very interesting observation. I often wonder what the future of photography as an art holds. I think his estimate of 10,000 to 15,000 may actually be conservative. But, I wonder what the ramifications are. The infrastructure of the art world (which largely remains in the 19th and 20th centuries), is ill-equipped to handle a world where there are even 1,000 truly outstanding photographic artists practicing today.

By necessity, these artists will need to bypass the traditional gallery and museum-based infrastructure. Most likely taking their work directly to the public through the web. But, that's also a difficult challenge.

When the world of photojournalism collapsed in the 1960s and 70s, the book publishing and art gallery world stepped in and offered an outlet for many creative photographers who were left without a market. Now, the mass marketed photo book is largely dead as well (that is, the cost of publishing and distribution is so great that publishers are unwilling to take a risk on new artists and would rather stick with tried and true classic but intellectually unchallenging photographers. Thus the perennial popularity of reprinting Ansel Adams images from the 1920s and 30s).

Getting noticed as an artist in the ocean of talent that exists today is harder than ever before. I have no solutions, only questions. But, I will say, this is a much more interesting subject than arguing about the dynamic range of sensors.