MicrostockGroup

Yeah, when i was reading my blogs this morning it seemed like every other blog was talking about it.  The internet can sure create a buzz quickly.

Gizmodo has a nice write up as well, with some sample videos
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/03/canon_rebel_t1i_handson_50ds_sensor_1080p_vids_899_-2.html

looks pretty nice and seems like a good upgrade for those shooting for a 350d or similar.

yes, probably.

I submitted my first images to Alamy from a Canon 10D which was 6.4 MP
Then used a Canon 5D which was 12 MP

This is 15 MP so you have higher resolution.  The only problem is a bit more noise, but if you keep the ISO down, your files should look as good as the 5D files.

Is HD video at 20fps only good enough for stock video?

The same sensor as the 50D, who's actually a good one. Nice deal for amateurs. Nikon have to react now...

Nikon almost lost me. The gap between the D700 and the D3x is too wide. They are far too commercial and one day it might explode in their face. The D5-MKII is clearly a winner. I almost had it in the kit version, but at the moment they're out of stock in Europe, and I need it in 10 days.

Yes it's quite heavy especially outdoors. You get used to it. I'm used to a 1kg cam with my D200 and it has also the advantage of being less prone to motion blur when shooting manually in the field.

But in the mean time I got an email that the 5D-II kit is in stock in Aachen/Germany, so the issue is settled. Sorry Nikon, you just dragged your feet too long with the mythical D400. If I need new glass (Canon) I can as well start with FF. The 30fps HD is convincing too, I saw the videos of Miklav. 20fps won't do. It would save me an extra HV30 videocam of almost 900 euro.

Thanks to Lisafx, Leaf, and many others that convinced me of the quality of the D5-II and being fit for stock. Especially a warm thanks to Miklav who pointed me to the shop and who was very helpfull with his PMs.

Well you told once you're a JPGer... that wasn't such a bad idea since the processors in new cams do a better job than the RAW software since they handle the sensor idiosyncrasies better. A new cam will always be better software-wise than an older cam, so there is a point in the 500D being more expensive than the 50D. The big difference between the D80 and the D90 is the software, fringe and vignette removal.

I read in the DP review forums that stores list the canon recommended price until the camera is in stock and then usually give it around a 30% discount, so perhaps it wont be so expensive.  I used to use 99% jpeg but now I use 95% raw, I changed when the price of big hard drives fell and there was no longer extra expense storing the raw files.

Regarding the video option, now that a vid cam / camera is in my budget I'm considering video submission for micro stock. Would someone be so kind as to expound on the minimum, least expensive, software requirements and workflow for video for microstock for someone with -0- knowledge of video editing?  Thanks.

Is anyone using this camera for stock please, especially with the 18-55 IS kit lens, and how do you find it?

My main camera is the 1Ds MkIII but combined with the 24-70L lens it weighs in at 2.4Kg. When I'm on vacation, in hot countries especially, and just want to take a few happy snaps of the girlfriend and/or the location then lugging around the 1Ds is often more hassle than it's worth. Same when I want to go for a good long walk on the coast, when again photography is not the main issue, but it would be nice to have a camera with me if the opportunity for a decent shot presents itself.

Last year I bought the G10 as a lightweight camera but I absolutely hated it (the usual shutter lag, noise and lousy image quality problems) so ended up selling it after just 115 shutter operations.

The 500D with kit lens weighs in at less than 700g and is also fairly compact so I figure it might do well as a 'travel camera'. I'd appreciate anyones input if they have experience of using the 500D for stock.

I use the predecessor of its predecessor, the 400D for everything I do (I don't have the kit lens, though).

So, yes, it is good enough to produce pictures accepted on stock sites.

When I was buying it, the seller forced me to go with Tamron SP AF 17-50 mm F/2,8 instead of the kit lens telling me it is much better deal (still likely not matching the L lenses).