MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: D800 vs. 5D mark III - the ultimate thread :-)  (Read 15264 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rinderart

« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2012, 20:26 »
0
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period. 

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2012, 21:36 »
0
Only thing I can think of would be greater allowance for cropping, that's it, but a photographer with basic skills should at least be able to frame/compose properly and stop being so lazy, utilize their feet more, alternatively a longer lens and/or charm to get in close enough to their subjects.

I never heard of charming a Goldcrest, but no doubt you'll publish a tutorial.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2012, 23:47 »
0
Only thing I can think of would be greater allowance for cropping, that's it, but a photographer with basic skills should at least be able to frame/compose properly and stop being so lazy, utilize their feet more, alternatively a longer lens and/or charm to get in close enough to their subjects.

I never heard of charming a Goldcrest, but no doubt you'll publish a tutorial.

Look out for Animal Planet's "The Goldcrest Whisperer"...

traveler1116

« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2012, 23:59 »
0

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period. 

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.

Myth #4.  Who to believe?  http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html

CarlssonInc

« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2012, 01:44 »
0
We are all different and work differently. I'm a stock photographer - to me and my work that means that 95% of the time I'm in control of the image/subject/light etc. Grabshots where control is more limited I consider bonus shots. Of course I will eventually move up in MPs when the MKII is worn out and I'm confident that there is the RIGHT glass to match.

Togs that agrees/thinks the following should/could consider the D800

- Confident that the investment will pay-off/increase revenue making it a sound business decision to upgrade.
- Confident that their existing or planned glass line-up is up to the task
- Have a need for the ability for extreme crops due to either being grab/snapshot togs, physically unable to move closer to subjects or are unable/don't like (or can't get long enough) longer glass.
- Feel that their high ISO shooting is best combated with extreme downsizing (instead of other perhaps better performing sensors under such circumstances).

Did I miss anything?

lagereek

« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2012, 02:38 »
0
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period. 

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.


Too true!  we dont have the glass, simple as that, we simply have to make do with whats on offer.It is possible though, to manufacture glass which is totally flawless, trouble is, the prices would be astronomical.
Strictly on a personal basis and out of interest, a few Schneiders, the 38 mil, Biogon, fixed on the Hasselblad SWC and the 80 mil, Planar optics, I would say are as close to perfection as todays science will permit.
A few years back I converted a Schneider lens to the D3X and the differance was just incredible. :)

« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2012, 02:44 »
0

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period.  

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.

Myth #4.  Who to believe?  http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/02/d800-megapixels.html

I remember reading a scientific report in a magazine recently that concluded that more megapixels improves the quality of images even with lenses that aren't the highest quality.  It might show up lens faults but the lens/sensor combination still has more detail.  I love the quality from my 550D and I think that packs in the pixels about the same as the D800.  Can't see any problems that aren't easily fixed with decent lenses.  They've had 2 years to make improvements over the 550D and it looks like they have with the G1 X sensor.  I don't really care if a boffin thinks it doesn't work, I will take the 18mp 550D IQ over my 6mp 300D any day.

If I wasn't doing stock and didn't make any big prints, I would be happy with 4mp.  My first digital camera was 2mp and I was pleased with that but it wouldn't make me much money now.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2012, 02:46 by sharpshot »

« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2012, 03:03 »
0
- Confident that the investment will pay-off/increase revenue making it a sound business decision to upgrade.
Do your cameras last forever?  I change mine every few years.  I'm in no rush to buy a new camera, I wait for the prices to drop a lot and sometimes buy second hand or refurbished at a big discount.
Quote
- Confident that their existing or planned glass line-up is up to the task
I make that decision by looking at lots of full size images taken with the same lenses I have before making my purchase.
Quote
- Have a need for the ability for extreme crops due to either being grab/snapshot togs, physically unable to move closer to subjects or are unable/don't like (or can't get long enough) longer glass.
I don't carry a 500mm lens around with me all day, so being able to crop is an advantage.  There are many times when I have the wrong lens on the camera and no time to change it.  I like doing single frame panoramas.  Try joining multiple frames with people moving or big waves, it doesn't work.  There are other advantages with bigger files, sometimes you can get 2 or 3 different looking photos from 1 frame.
Quote
- Feel that their high ISO shooting is best combated with extreme downsizing (instead of other perhaps better performing sensors under such circumstances).
I don't use over 400 ISO much.  Haven't found a problem with the 550D that packs in the pixels.  I also use some noisy compacts and can deal with the shadow noise quite well.  I would rather have a bit of noise that I can deal with in a much larger file than a much smaller noise free image.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2012, 03:08 by sharpshot »

« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2012, 08:28 »
0
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2012, 08:38 »
0
Let's not forget: It's not about resolving details, it's also about resolving color! A 12mpix (bayer) sensor has 3mpix red pixels, 3mpix blue pixels and 6mpix green pixels.
You might not get much more details with 36mpix vs. 21mpix, but you will get more exact colors on pixel level.

If quality optics resolve detail suitable for a 21mpix sensor, we would need 84mpix to get more exact color for each pixel.

(does anyone understand what I'm trying to say here? :))

CarlssonInc

« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2012, 09:31 »
0
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

My experience is the same in the traditional RF market, but as you say it might well be very much subject dependent and certain areas might sell boatloads of XXXLs.

MY experience is that larger file sales are very few, I've heard many others saying the same thing - the majority of sales are large/medium to xs (by istock's definition), XL and above are "rarish" in my experience both on iStock and Getty, few enough that after 20MPs it is no longer a consideration for me if I was in the market for a new camera.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows what kind of equipment suits them and their subject matters the best. If you are certain to sell enough XXXLs to justify getting equipment to do that then of course you should, if you are the type that needs to crop heavily for whatever reason then get it too, if you just get a buzz of having loads of MPs and the latest model get it too - there is no right or wrong here, just personal preference/opinions.

« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2012, 11:34 »
0
Mine is on order!

lagereek

« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2012, 11:51 »
0
Mine is on order!

Which one!  the Point/shoot or the Instamatic?

lagereek

« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2012, 11:56 »
0
In Stock photography, its best to leave the cropping factor to the buyer, we never know the final outcome, do we?  all too many times we have heard "leave ample space around the mainsubject"  and thats exactly how it works.

I have yet to shoot for an AD, agency, desinger, etc,  who does not want lots of space to work with.

« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2012, 12:18 »
0
In Stock photography, its best to leave the cropping factor to the buyer, we never know the final outcome, do we?  all too many times we have heard "leave ample space around the mainsubject"  and thats exactly how it works.

I have yet to shoot for an AD, agency, desinger, etc,  who does not want lots of space to work with.

Yep __ they all say that. Funny how it is always the heavier cropped version that sells far more though (about 3x more in my experience).

CarlssonInc

« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2012, 12:37 »
0
In Stock photography, its best to leave the cropping factor to the buyer, we never know the final outcome, do we?  all too many times we have heard "leave ample space around the mainsubject"  and thats exactly how it works.

I have yet to shoot for an AD, agency, desinger, etc,  who does not want lots of space to work with.

Yep __ they all say that. Funny how it is always the heavier cropped version that sells far more though (about 3x more in my experience).

Totally agree with this. "Ready" images, with original perfect framing or cropped to "perfection" outsells the "wide berth" ones by far.

« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2012, 12:54 »
0
Is it true that full frame lenses for Canon are usually cheaper than for Nikon?

lagereek

« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2012, 12:59 »
0
In Stock photography, its best to leave the cropping factor to the buyer, we never know the final outcome, do we?  all too many times we have heard "leave ample space around the mainsubject"  and thats exactly how it works.

I have yet to shoot for an AD, agency, desinger, etc,  who does not want lots of space to work with.

Yep __ they all say that. Funny how it is always the heavier cropped version that sells far more though (about 3x more in my experience).

Not in my case!  anyway, I was reffering to commissioned work. For stock alone, I suppose you can supply any old thingy. :)

rinderart

« Reply #43 on: March 21, 2012, 13:18 »
0
In Stock photography, its best to leave the cropping factor to the buyer, we never know the final outcome, do we?  all too many times we have heard "leave ample space around the mainsubject"  and thats exactly how it works.

I have yet to shoot for an AD, agency, desinger, etc,  who does not want lots of space to work with.

Yep __ they all say that. Funny how it is always the heavier cropped version that sells far more though (about 3x more in my experience).

Totally agree with this. "Ready" images, with original perfect framing or cropped to "perfection" outsells the "wide berth" ones by far.

In My Case....I agree also.

rinderart

« Reply #44 on: March 21, 2012, 13:32 »
0
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period. 

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.


Too true!  we dont have the glass, simple as that, we simply have to make do with whats on offer.It is possible though, to manufacture glass which is totally flawless, trouble is, the prices would be astronomical.
Strictly on a personal basis and out of interest, a few Schneiders, the 38 mil, Biogon, fixed on the Hasselblad SWC and the 80 mil, Planar optics, I would say are as close to perfection as todays science will permit.
A few years back I converted a Schneider lens to the D3X and the differance was just incredible. :)

Agree and hence the reason lots of old timers are buying up Original 12MP 5D's and using there leica glass. I've seen the work. quite astounding. it always go back to Optics.

lagereek

« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2012, 14:15 »
0
I have spent the better part of my life switching camera brands, so I got fed-up and today I work with all of them, Canon, Nikon, Leicas, HD4, the lot. So let me be blunt! in six months time we will find there isnt any differance at all between the D800 and the Canon MIII,  exactly the same nonsense differance we expected between the MII and the Nikon D3X, when in fact the little MII, gives a far cleaner file then the D3X.
The minute you get over 20MPs, you are working with quality equal to MF and more, so whats the point?  the logical step to take is ofcourse to embark on MF and digital backs with far more MPs.
On an A3 print, from lets say a D800, MIII, D3X, MII,  you wont see any differance at all. Only when you get to 50MP, then you will notice a slight improvement, if you are trained to see it, that is.

We need optics!  the more high-res cameras demands the very best of optics!  just try and stick a mediocre zoom onto a D3X and see what happens? youve just wasted the camera to gutter-level.
Before running away wasting hard earnt cash,  wait six months and see what the general opinion is.

I couldn't agree more. bottom line is Nikon and canon do NOT have the glass to resolve this information Period. 

Something to consider.

I just spent a week in Hawaii with the undisputed expert on the planet on Optics who works for the government On top secret Jobs he can't even tell his wife. Hubble and the keck observatory to name just 2.Many Phds in Physics,astronomy and so forth. We were talking about the new Nikon D800 36 MP Camera, he found a site that has all the optics and sensor specs that aren't usually Published. He got out his calculator and said that camera with the current Lineup Of top glass from nikon will be useless and go Backwards past F8.If your talking Optimum Resolution.
He referred to the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem

And supports my and others Theory that past 18MP, All the DSLR makers other than Leica don't have the optics necessary to resolve that detail.Zeiss and mamiya, Med format are slightly better.Perceived sharpness is quite different Than actual detail and resolving Power. it's about the optics and making a purchase decision based on what you see posted is downright silly. BTW, My friend is not a Photographer but a leading Optics expert.


Too true!  we dont have the glass, simple as that, we simply have to make do with whats on offer.It is possible though, to manufacture glass which is totally flawless, trouble is, the prices would be astronomical.
Strictly on a personal basis and out of interest, a few Schneiders, the 38 mil, Biogon, fixed on the Hasselblad SWC and the 80 mil, Planar optics, I would say are as close to perfection as todays science will permit.
A few years back I converted a Schneider lens to the D3X and the differance was just incredible. :)

Agree and hence the reason lots of old timers are buying up Original 12MP 5D's and using there leica glass. I've seen the work. quite astounding. it always go back to Optics.


Quite often for product shooting, I use the LF Sinar-Eyelike system,  the quality is beyond belief!  enough for a 10 meter billboard. :)

« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2012, 00:40 »
0
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

My experience is the same in the traditional RF market, but as you say it might well be very much subject dependent and certain areas might sell boatloads of XXXLs.

MY experience is that larger file sales are very few, I've heard many others saying the same thing - the majority of sales are large/medium to xs (by istock's definition), XL and above are "rarish" in my experience both on iStock and Getty, few enough that after 20MPs it is no longer a consideration for me if I was in the market for a new camera.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows what kind of equipment suits them and their subject matters the best. If you are certain to sell enough XXXLs to justify getting equipment to do that then of course you should, if you are the type that needs to crop heavily for whatever reason then get it too, if you just get a buzz of having loads of MPs and the latest model get it too - there is no right or wrong here, just personal preference/opinions.

I think you missed my main point which was that with 14 XXXL files in your portfolio, its difficult to assess how many XXXL sales you're missing out on, or to judge overall sales volumes. Looking at your portfolio on iStock, less than 1/5 are even available in file sizes above Large. Presumably like many of us you started with a smaller MP camer and have upgraded. When talking about these statistics, how many people are actually calculating XXXL sales as a percentage of those that are available in that format as opposed to an overall percentage?

For me, yes M/L sales are dominant, but I get many L sales on files that are only available in as a large file from the days when I was using an 8 or 10MP camera. Its impossible to tell how many of those sales, if any would be XL, XXL or XXXL if they were available in that format. I'm also in the position where a majority of my files aren't in the largest formats, with only 1/3 available at XL and above, but the stats tell me that (1) it would be a big mistake to shoot at less than XL size for microstock (yes, one I made for too long) (2) that in the long term having files available at the largest sizes pays off if you're an iStock exclusive (much more marginal for non-exclusives because the highest price point for other agencies seems to be mostly at 12MP). 

To me the real advantage of the D800 is that its a 35MP FF camera and a 15.3MP DX crop camera in one - out in the field that difference can be massive - it potentially means one less lens to carry and a lot less lens changes. At the moment its not enough to make me jump in and swap systems, but if I was looking at it starting from scratch it would heavily influence the decision, because unlike most other areas of photography, in stock MPs do actually matter.

lagereek

« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2012, 01:16 »
0
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

My experience is the same in the traditional RF market, but as you say it might well be very much subject dependent and certain areas might sell boatloads of XXXLs.

MY experience is that larger file sales are very few, I've heard many others saying the same thing - the majority of sales are large/medium to xs (by istock's definition), XL and above are "rarish" in my experience both on iStock and Getty, few enough that after 20MPs it is no longer a consideration for me if I was in the market for a new camera.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows what kind of equipment suits them and their subject matters the best. If you are certain to sell enough XXXLs to justify getting equipment to do that then of course you should, if you are the type that needs to crop heavily for whatever reason then get it too, if you just get a buzz of having loads of MPs and the latest model get it too - there is no right or wrong here, just personal preference/opinions.

I think you missed my main point which was that with 14 XXXL files in your portfolio, its difficult to assess how many XXXL sales you're missing out on, or to judge overall sales volumes. Looking at your portfolio on iStock, less than 1/5 are even available in file sizes above Large. Presumably like many of us you started with a smaller MP camer and have upgraded. When talking about these statistics, how many people are actually calculating XXXL sales as a percentage of those that are available in that format as opposed to an overall percentage?

For me, yes M/L sales are dominant, but I get many L sales on files that are only available in as a large file from the days when I was using an 8 or 10MP camera. Its impossible to tell how many of those sales, if any would be XL, XXL or XXXL if they were available in that format. I'm also in the position where a majority of my files aren't in the largest formats, with only 1/3 available at XL and above, but the stats tell me that (1) it would be a big mistake to shoot at less than XL size for microstock (yes, one I made for too long) (2) that in the long term having files available at the largest sizes pays off if you're an iStock exclusive (much more marginal for non-exclusives because the highest price point for other agencies seems to be mostly at 12MP). 

To me the real advantage of the D800 is that its a 35MP FF camera and a 15.3MP DX crop camera in one - out in the field that difference can be massive - it potentially means one less lens to carry and a lot less lens changes. At the moment its not enough to make me jump in and swap systems, but if I was looking at it starting from scratch it would heavily influence the decision, because unlike most other areas of photography, in stock MPs do actually matter.



Holgs!  I agree with you, you are a travel photographer and out in the field, a cam such as the D800, is extremely versatile. In fact many travel photographers wont look at anything beneath Medium format.
Travel and landscape photography are a few areas where hi8gh-res cameras pay off.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2012, 01:45 »
0
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

My experience is the same in the traditional RF market, but as you say it might well be very much subject dependent and certain areas might sell boatloads of XXXLs.

MY experience is that larger file sales are very few, I've heard many others saying the same thing - the majority of sales are large/medium to xs (by istock's definition), XL and above are "rarish" in my experience both on iStock and Getty, few enough that after 20MPs it is no longer a consideration for me if I was in the market for a new camera.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows what kind of equipment suits them and their subject matters the best. If you are certain to sell enough XXXLs to justify getting equipment to do that then of course you should, if you are the type that needs to crop heavily for whatever reason then get it too, if you just get a buzz of having loads of MPs and the latest model get it too - there is no right or wrong here, just personal preference/opinions.

I think you missed my main point which was that with 14 XXXL files in your portfolio, its difficult to assess how many XXXL sales you're missing out on, or to judge overall sales volumes. Looking at your portfolio on iStock, less than 1/5 are even available in file sizes above Large. Presumably like many of us you started with a smaller MP camer and have upgraded. When talking about these statistics, how many people are actually calculating XXXL sales as a percentage of those that are available in that format as opposed to an overall percentage?

For me, yes M/L sales are dominant, but I get many L sales on files that are only available in as a large file from the days when I was using an 8 or 10MP camera. Its impossible to tell how many of those sales, if any would be XL, XXL or XXXL if they were available in that format. I'm also in the position where a majority of my files aren't in the largest formats, with only 1/3 available at XL and above, but the stats tell me that (1) it would be a big mistake to shoot at less than XL size for microstock (yes, one I made for too long) (2) that in the long term having files available at the largest sizes pays off if you're an iStock exclusive (much more marginal for non-exclusives because the highest price point for other agencies seems to be mostly at 12MP).  

To me the real advantage of the D800 is that its a 35MP FF camera and a 15.3MP DX crop camera in one - out in the field that difference can be massive - it potentially means one less lens to carry and a lot less lens changes. At the moment its not enough to make me jump in and swap systems, but if I was looking at it starting from scratch it would heavily influence the decision, because unlike most other areas of photography, in stock MPs do actually matter.



Holgs!  I agree with you, you are a travel photographer and out in the field, a cam such as the D800, is extremely versatile. In fact many travel photographers wont look at anything beneath Medium format.
Travel and landscape photography are a few areas where hi8gh-res cameras pay off.

I somewhat agree - my gut feeling is that this is true for a "higher-end" travel/landscape photographer well established in the traditional market. I doubt, but would really like to be proven wrong, that it does better than just paying off in the microstock market (we don't just want to break even do we). Essentially what I'm "doubting" is that a 36MP with a suitable lens line-up (probably has to be more expensive) is outperforming a 16-22MP with a standard lens line-up sufficiently enough to warrant the upgrade.

I'm guilty like so many others of always having wanted and justifying to myself of having the latest/the most/the best equipment, but to me that (in terms of cameras) kind of changed with the MKII - key reason being that files then were sufficiently large enough to go straight to traditional libraries without any interpolation - I can't seem to find any evidence in my own experiences that being able to offer larger file sizes than this would give a large enough upswing in royalties to warrant an investment of let's say 5000 which would be more than covered by sales of XXXL files.

However, if Canon were to release a 36MP camera without any quality issues (quality on par with MKII or above) I would definitely want it and get it, but I would feel rather silly trying to justify it purely on a financial basis that I would sell significantly more larger files than I currently do.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 01:53 by CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production »

lagereek

« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2012, 02:14 »
0
Didn't know that the cropping/framing was this sensitive. So before everyone gets their knickers in a twist, I state that this was just MY opinion - that the ability to crop heavily would not be justification alone to make me jump ship for the D800 or any forthcoming high MP cameras - for ME it would feel that such "obstacles" could most often easily be overcome by using ones feet, longer lens, charm and wit to get closer to the actual subject - you can never get close enough, but not necessarily by cropping.

For sales reason, micro and traditional alike there is also no justification to move up based on my experience to be able to sell larger files in the RF market - sales of really large files are really really really few and far in between and one would not re-coup an investment based purely on being able to provide super humongous file sizes.

Also, I don't like Nikons, they are ugly! ;)

With all of 14 XXXL files in your portfolio I can't really see how you can make that sort of assessment of the RF market. Maybe sales of large files are limited in the market for photos of Stilettos isolated on white, but in other areas, they sell far more regularly.

Seeing as we're talking about stock photography, its worth remembering that its often the end users than need the room for cropping - the original doesn't always fit perfectly into whatever layout they're producing. Larger files sometimes don't just mean the difference between an XXXL sale price and just an XL, they're often the difference between making the sale and getting nothing.

My experience is the same in the traditional RF market, but as you say it might well be very much subject dependent and certain areas might sell boatloads of XXXLs.

MY experience is that larger file sales are very few, I've heard many others saying the same thing - the majority of sales are large/medium to xs (by istock's definition), XL and above are "rarish" in my experience both on iStock and Getty, few enough that after 20MPs it is no longer a consideration for me if I was in the market for a new camera.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone knows what kind of equipment suits them and their subject matters the best. If you are certain to sell enough XXXLs to justify getting equipment to do that then of course you should, if you are the type that needs to crop heavily for whatever reason then get it too, if you just get a buzz of having loads of MPs and the latest model get it too - there is no right or wrong here, just personal preference/opinions.

I think you missed my main point which was that with 14 XXXL files in your portfolio, its difficult to assess how many XXXL sales you're missing out on, or to judge overall sales volumes. Looking at your portfolio on iStock, less than 1/5 are even available in file sizes above Large. Presumably like many of us you started with a smaller MP camer and have upgraded. When talking about these statistics, how many people are actually calculating XXXL sales as a percentage of those that are available in that format as opposed to an overall percentage?

For me, yes M/L sales are dominant, but I get many L sales on files that are only available in as a large file from the days when I was using an 8 or 10MP camera. Its impossible to tell how many of those sales, if any would be XL, XXL or XXXL if they were available in that format. I'm also in the position where a majority of my files aren't in the largest formats, with only 1/3 available at XL and above, but the stats tell me that (1) it would be a big mistake to shoot at less than XL size for microstock (yes, one I made for too long) (2) that in the long term having files available at the largest sizes pays off if you're an iStock exclusive (much more marginal for non-exclusives because the highest price point for other agencies seems to be mostly at 12MP).  

To me the real advantage of the D800 is that its a 35MP FF camera and a 15.3MP DX crop camera in one - out in the field that difference can be massive - it potentially means one less lens to carry and a lot less lens changes. At the moment its not enough to make me jump in and swap systems, but if I was looking at it starting from scratch it would heavily influence the decision, because unlike most other areas of photography, in stock MPs do actually matter.



Holgs!  I agree with you, you are a travel photographer and out in the field, a cam such as the D800, is extremely versatile. In fact many travel photographers wont look at anything beneath Medium format.
Travel and landscape photography are a few areas where hi8gh-res cameras pay off.

I somewhat agree - my gut feeling is that this is true for a "higher-end" travel/landscape photographer well established in the traditional market. I doubt, but would really like to be proven wrong, that it does better than just paying off in the microstock market (we don't just want to break even do we). Essentially what I'm "doubting" is that a 36MP with a suitable lens line-up (probably has to be more expensive) is outperforming a 16-22MP with a standard lens line-up sufficiently enough to warrant the upgrade.

I'm guilty like so many others of always having wanted and justifying to myself of having the latest/the most/the best equipment, but to me that (in terms of cameras) kind of changed with the MKII - key reason being that files then were sufficiently large enough to go straight to traditional libraries without any interpolation - I can't seem to find any evidence in my own experiences that being able to offer larger file sizes than this would give a large enough upswing in royalties to warrant an investment of let's say 5000 which would be more than covered by sales of XXXL files.

However, if Canon were to release a 36MP camera without any quality issues (quality on par with MKII or above) I would definitely want it and get it, but I would feel rather silly trying to justify it purely on a financial basis that I would sell significantly more larger files than I currently do.

Thats it!  if Canon was to release a 36MP, then I would go for it. Im both a Canon and Nikon user but somehow with Nikon you have to go carefully, My D3X, for example, I had to change it THREE times to get a good sample and even so its not perfect and there were many having to do the same thing. I had to change a Nikon 200 mil, 2.0,  twice to get a good sample. Sadly Nikon has become a hit and miss, what fell of the production-line enigma.

Ofcourse here we are, with extremely high-res cams, next thing that follows is an upograde to top notch lenses, a 36MP camera wont suffer anything but the best. Primes only, is the simple answer and six months later, after carting around some 20 kilos ofequipment you need back surgery. :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2357 Views
Last post May 09, 2008, 15:18
by anonymous
8 Replies
6378 Views
Last post June 05, 2008, 22:36
by helix7
7 Replies
2666 Views
Last post July 19, 2009, 23:23
by microstockinsider
94 Replies
16981 Views
Last post February 25, 2012, 00:11
by luissantos84
17 Replies
3635 Views
Last post May 03, 2012, 10:14
by tab62

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors