pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New Canon full frame DSLR 50MP!  (Read 19093 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dook

« on: January 30, 2015, 08:26 »
0


« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2015, 08:48 »
+20
OH,  YESS, excellent for us, "happy stockers".
I need two pieces.
With the first I will shoot for Canstock and with the second for Bigstockphoto.
 :P

« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2015, 08:51 »
+3
probably its fake,

" Regular sensitivity: ISO 100-6400"

 

6400 is too low for a that level os camera

1.3x and 1.6x crop modes? don't make any sense


but this is just my opinion

« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2015, 09:12 »
+7
probably its fake,

" Regular sensitivity: ISO 100-6400"

 

6400 is too low for a that level os camera

1.3x and 1.6x crop modes? don't make any sense


but this is just my opinion

I disagree. This is a studio camera, geared to compete with medium format. For that, high ISO is secondary to high MP and generally high image quality at low ISO. I think Canon is trying to do to medium format what its 7D did to full frame -- provide a cheaper, lighter, more flexible alternative to the incumbent product.

« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2015, 09:18 »
+18
Sounds like a great camera but probably will be too expensive to justify using it for 35 cents a download!

« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2015, 09:51 »
+7

1.3x and 1.6x crop modes? don't make any sense


Crop modes make sense if you are shooting birds, distant objects or sports, where the action may only fill a small part of the frame and the rest of it is essentially waste space that soaks up memory for nothing.

« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2015, 12:41 »
0
I don't know about the rest of you, but i'm downgrading my cameras. I'm finding MFT a complete pleasure to shoot. Super light, not too expensive, and when you're making pennies per image, darn well good enough.


No Free Lunch

« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2015, 13:42 »
+3
A 50mp sensor seems like overkill to me.

It is an over kill! Both on the images and our pocket books... :-\


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2015, 14:35 »
+3
A 50mp sensor seems like overkill to me.

Everybody has different needs. For me, more megapixels means I make more money. If you shoot micro, sports, weddings, or whatever, you probably don't need 50MP.

But I don't want a 50MP DSLR. I'm waiting on Sony's 50MP A-series.

« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2015, 14:51 »
0
A 50mp sensor seems like overkill to me.

Everybody has different needs. For me, more megapixels means I make more money. If you shoot micro, sports, weddings, or whatever, you probably don't need 50MP.

But I don't want a 50MP DSLR. I'm waiting on Sony's 50MP A-series.
What subject area do you need it for, Paulie?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2015, 14:53 »
-1
A 50mp sensor seems like overkill to me.

Everybody has different needs. For me, more megapixels means I make more money. If you shoot micro, sports, weddings, or whatever, you probably don't need 50MP.

But I don't want a 50MP DSLR. I'm waiting on Sony's 50MP A-series.
What subject area do you need it for, Paulie?
Landscape/Cityscape

If you shoot micro you may not need anything more than a camera phone these days.

« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2015, 15:10 »
+1
A 50mp sensor seems like overkill to me.

Everybody has different needs. For me, more megapixels means I make more money. If you shoot micro, sports, weddings, or whatever, you probably don't need 50MP.

But I don't want a 50MP DSLR. I'm waiting on Sony's 50MP A-series.
What subject area do you need it for, Paulie?
Landscape/Cityscape

If you shoot micro you may not need anything more than a camera phone these days.

so true. sort of laugh when i read the required cameras in some of the agencies.
one site even insist the buyer should  know which camera u use.
i tell them, then they better expect to pay a lot more than pennies to us per download.


 with the kind of money you make and the type of lighting even a PNS is too much for microstock.
50MP is more than overkill. like using a Ferrari to drive across town to do your shopping when a secondhand boneshaker is all u need.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 15:14 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2015, 15:13 »
+1
50MP is more than overkill. like using a Ferrari to drive across town to do your shopping when a secondhand boneshaker is all u need.

The trouble is, the girls don't hang around my Hyundai outside the supermarket the way they do with my neighbour's Ferrari  :(
(And my pickup line of "Hi, girls, fancy a ride on my boneshaker" never seems to attract any interest, for some reason)
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 15:24 by BaldricksTrousers »

Tror

« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2015, 16:37 »
0
I`m waiting anxiously for the release. I will be most likely one of the first ones to pre-order. I aim at raising my quality as much as I can - Micro or not. In Studio I rarely go over ISO 200, but enjoy rich detail in the final image.

For low light shoots I should buy a Sony a7s, but am still too stubborn to switch to another mount system and buy adapter or e-mount lenses and too rarely shoot under natural light for now. I would welcome some low-MP, high sensitivity option from Canon for for this as well.


Dook

« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2015, 16:38 »
+5
I was in buyers shoes some time ago. A friend of mine wanted a couple of cityscapes for an interior, to be printed big. So, I recommended him the maximum size, and I was the one to download them for him. I was so disappointed with the quality of this pictures. I guess it was an older APS sensor camera. And since it was not subscription, they were not cheap at all.I will never ever again buy from microstock for large prints, especially not from that particular photographer. And who is losing here? The photographer, of course!
So, saying that even a smartphone is an overkill for microstock is childish. Why shoot for microstock at all then? Do it proper way or don't do it at all.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 16:41 by Dook »

« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2015, 16:45 »
0
And who is losing here? The photographer, of course!

ALL the photographers - not just the one who put up the picture.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2015, 17:04 »
+2
I was in buyers shoes some time ago. A friend of mine wanted a couple of cityscapes for an interior, to be printed big. So, I recommended him the maximum size, and I was the one to download them for him. I was so disappointed with the quality of this pictures. I guess it was an older APS sensor camera. And since it was not subscription, they were not cheap at all.I will never ever again buy from microstock for large prints, especially not from that particular photographer. And who is losing here? The photographer, of course!
So, saying that even a smartphone is an overkill for microstock is childish. Why shoot for microstock at all then? Do it proper way or don't do it at all.

Who said a smartphone is overkill? A smartphone is probably plenty for most micro situations especially the ones that are putting out over 20MP. I've seen people do really nice studio portfolio work with strobes and an Iphone. Plus, your competitive threat really isn't the pro photographer with the Canikon D7X Mark MCMXLV any longer. It's the bazillion ordinary Joes/Janes with camera phones.

I'm pulling all of my high resolution cityscape stuff out of micro. Prices and sales volume are in a downward spiral. To produce high resolution and quality cityscape pictures costs me a lot of money. New 50MP camera, lenses that can resolve 50MP, airfare, hotel, cabs, gas, food, and the list never ends. And what, for a few dollars? No thanks. Soon my images will only be available through me and it won't be at micro prices.

« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 18:46 by PaulieWalnuts »

Dook

« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2015, 17:38 »
+3
I'm sorry to hear that you, or anybody, is pulling his stuff from micros.
But I can't agree with you that a smartphone is good enough for anything serious . I have the latest smartphone and its pictures are a joke.

« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2015, 17:58 »
+1
I'm sorry to hear that you, or anybody, is pulling his stuff from micros.
But I can't agree with you that a smartphone is good enough for anything serious . I have the latest smartphone and its pictures are a joke.

You bought the wrong smartphone then. The iPhone's photos are quite sufficient to sell as Stock and have been ever since the 4S. That being said, it is of course nonsense that the phone is enough to shoot all kinds of photos and in all kinds of situations.

MxR

« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2015, 18:02 »
+4
that stupid  megapixels war ...

« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2015, 18:14 »
0
Sounds like a great camera but probably will be too expensive to justify using it for 35 cents a download!

Both you and Enstoker make super valid points about how much is enough for this crummy market we endure.  We keep upgrading in technology and they keep cutting our commissions or keep them at pennies. I know this is a "micro" buysiness which means "micro" commissions, but investing in technology can actually help the agencies attract new customer types who need this kind of resolution. So if I were to invest in something like this I would not ever compensated more than if I was still shooting with a 6.2MP camera with a $50 lens.

« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2015, 18:15 »
0
I'm sorry to hear that you, or anybody, is pulling his stuff from micros.
But I can't agree with you that a smartphone is good enough for anything serious . I have the latest smartphone and its pictures are a joke.

You bought the wrong smartphone then. The iPhone's photos are quite sufficient to sell as Stock and have been ever since the 4S. That being said, it is of course nonsense that the phone is enough to shoot all kinds of photos and in all kinds of situations.

I have started submitting iPhone pics and iPhone video, both of which have been accepted to my sites. I sell some regularly on SS and DT.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2015, 18:45 »
+1
I'm sorry to hear that you, or anybody, is pulling his stuff from micros.
But I can't agree with you that a smartphone is good enough for anything serious . I have the latest smartphone and its pictures are a joke.

Not sure what phone you have but the pics that come from my iPhone5 are pretty good and by no means a joke. Pics from my Lumia 1020 are scary good. There are some phones out there with mediocre cameras and you must have gotten one of them.


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #24 on: January 30, 2015, 19:04 »
+2
I was in buyers shoes some time ago. A friend of mine wanted a couple of cityscapes for an interior, to be printed big. So, I recommended him the maximum size, and I was the one to download them for him. I was so disappointed with the quality of this pictures. I guess it was an older APS sensor camera. And since it was not subscription, they were not cheap at all.I will never ever again buy from microstock for large prints, especially not from that particular photographer. And who is losing here? The photographer, of course!
So, saying that even a smartphone is an overkill for microstock is childish. Why shoot for microstock at all then? Do it proper way or don't do it at all.

Who said a smartphone is overkill? A smartphone is probably plenty for most micro situations especially the ones that are putting out over 20MP. I've seen people do really nice studio portfolio work with strobes and an Iphone. Plus, your competitive threat really isn't the pro photographer with the Canikon D7X Mark MCMXLV any longer. It's the bazillion ordinary Joes/Janes with camera phones.

I'm pulling all of my high resolution cityscape stuff out of micro. Prices and sales volume are in a downward spiral. To produce high resolution and quality cityscape pictures costs me a lot of money. New 50MP camera, lenses that can resolve 50MP, airfare, hotel, cabs, gas, food, and the list never ends. And what, for a few dollars? No thanks. Soon my images will only be available through me and it won't be at micro prices.

LOL, I got a -1 for this. For what?

The right smartphone is plenty good for micro.

And anybody who doesn't believe the average Joe/Jane phone user is a threat to you, good luck. Maybe you should take a look around at all of the companies that are using real people for their advertising by asking those people to send pics of them using their products. Hey look at me drinking a Coke having the time of my life with my friends at our summer cottage. It's brilliant and catching on like wildfire. The company gets  authentic looking pics instead of smily-cheesy-stock that buyers no longer want. Real people are endorsing their product which is exponentially more valuable than a staged model. Those companies used to pay a ton of money for custom contract shoots and stock photos. Now they get it for free from average Joe/Jane smartphone user.

So, go ahead and pile on more minuses. Doesn't really affect me if someone doesn't get it.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2015, 19:13 by PaulieWalnuts »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
7270 Views
Last post October 02, 2007, 04:46
by stokfoto
10 Replies
6229 Views
Last post January 24, 2011, 21:43
by dnavarrojr
8 Replies
4782 Views
Last post January 10, 2012, 16:36
by rinderart
4 Replies
3431 Views
Last post September 12, 2012, 11:01
by cobalt
13 Replies
6476 Views
Last post May 27, 2018, 18:28
by sharpshot

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors