pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: G1X Mark II for shooting stock  (Read 14200 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 12, 2014, 05:53 »
0
Hello. I am planning to buy a Canon G1X Mark II point & shot camera for shooting stock photos. Is it ok for the standards of microstock agencies? I mean technical potential of the camera, quality

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk



« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2014, 07:50 »
+4
I've not tried the G1X personally but I have yet to find a P&S camera that is 'suitable' for stock photography.

In my opinion virtually any DSLR vastly outperforms any P&S camera for shooting stock. The D1200 for example is half the price of the G1X and yet has 50% more pixels. Pixels matter for stock.

You can shoot stock with a P&S camera ... but you are making the job much harder for yourself if you attempt to do so. Microstock is difficult and competitive enough already. No point in paying a lot of money to disadvantage yourself.

« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2014, 07:54 »
+2
Why not? I have Nikon D810 with many lenses, yet in some cases I use my Sony RX100 with even smaller sensor to take pictures for stock... And the pictures are accepted by the sites.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2014, 07:58 »
0
My BS pic on iS was shot on a G9, because the camera you have with you is your best camera. (Out of probably <10 pics from the G9 I have on iS.)

« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2014, 08:05 »
0
I am not a professional photographer. I admit that I won't be in the elite range of microstockers with super expensive equipment but as I read on many sites,this camera is advertised as dsrl like quality of image.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2014, 08:24 »
0
I am not a professional photographer. I admit that I won't be in the elite range of microstockers with super expensive equipment but as I read on many sites,this camera is advertised as dsrl like quality of image.

There are lots of advantages of a dSLR which for me outweigh the disadvantages (mainly weight).
It's disingenuous to point out that a dSLR camera body is cheaper than a bridge camera, as you then need to add a range of lenses (unless you are one of the lucky few who shoots everything with one lens, which will be possible if you only shoot one genre, probably), and each lens can be as expensive as the body, if not more.
Stock sites usually have (or in iS's case, had) much higher demands for image quality than any of the review sites.
Back in the days when iS had high standards, a few submissions after my BS, my G9 pics were inevitably getting rejected for 'noise', so I went back to the heavy dSLR, but I can't possibly carry it everywhere with me, so I've been missing shots - who knows, maybe one of them would have been my next BS? Or maybe not. Most would be accepted nowadays, but how sales of anything will go there ...

Maybe some people here can tell you whether e.g. SS accepts pics from the camera you're considering.

FWIW, it doesn't seem to be on Alamy's 'unsuitable cameras' Canon list:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/unsuitable-camera-list.asp?cname=Canon

Also, there are several phone cameras which are acceptible for stock sites, 'even Getty', (FWTW too).

« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2014, 08:53 »
+1
I am not a professional photographer. I admit that I won't be in the elite range of microstockers with super expensive equipment but as I read on many sites,this camera is advertised as dsrl like quality of image.

Every iteration of the G-series camera is heralded as "DSLR-like quality" by the review sites. Unfortunately it is never even remotely true (unless you only use it for 6x4" prints).

A cheap, basic DSLR with kit lens will outperform an expensive P&S all day long. Barely used second-hand DSLRs are plentiful in supply and even cheaper on places like eBay.

A single good stock image can recuperate the cost of the camera within one year.  Unfortunately however, if said image is rejected for 'technical quality' then it won't make any money at all.

« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2014, 10:14 »
0
The G1X Mark II should not be confused with the other G-series cameras with small sensors. The sensor in the G1XmkII (18.7 x 12.4 mm) is almost the same size as an APS-C sensor found in many crop body DLSR's from Canon. For this reason and also the quality of the lens, the G1XmkII should be more than adequate for stock if you can deal with the ergonomics of the camera. 

« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2014, 10:26 »
0
I'm on a tight budget and I don't plan to invest in a dslr camera,lens and other upgrades in the near future. That's the reason I want to invest in a very good p & s camera for the moment. I plan to use it for shooting landscapes, nature, food, isolated objects, textures like rusty doors, old walls.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk


« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2014, 10:27 »
+1
Pay an extra $100 and get this instead. Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100 I'm guessing the optics on are way better. I own DSLR Canons, I have a couple of Canon G cameras and am quickly realizing they are falling far behind. Look at the Sony a6000 also.

stocked

« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2014, 10:36 »
0
file quality from g1x is equally to any APS-C DSLR I have the original one the II should have a comparable quality

« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2014, 10:38 »
0
Is G1X MK II not G1X.

stocked

« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2014, 11:55 »
0
again it's certainly equal if not even better. You have asked about the technical quality of the files any camera with an mft sensor equally or bigger and a decent lens (which you have in the G1X and G1x II) has more than enought technical quality for any stocksite the rest is up to you lighting,processing, ideas and creativity doesn't depend on the camera.

« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2014, 11:56 »
+2
80 % of the shots from my G12 have been rejected for quality, while more than 80% of the shots from any DSLR I used (including 350D RebelXT) were approved (shooting RAW only with both). I guess that says something.

stocked

« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2014, 11:57 »
0
80 % of the shots from my G12 have been rejected for quality, while more than 80% of the shots from any DSLR I used (including 350D RebelXT) were approved (shooting RAW only with both). I guess that says something.
the G12 has a TINY sensor in no way comparable to the G1X-series!

« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2014, 12:27 »
0
There are options apart from Canon / Nikon.

You can get a Pentax K5 II with 18-55 WR "kit" lens. (Not a bad lens either) for less than that G1x II.

Images from a DSLR will generally require less processing / more will be of usable quality.

I have had images from an old Canon A65 accepted at iStock before the quality requirements there were relaxed. You can work with images from a lot of cameras if you know what you're doing (and if that camera is accepted at a particular agency), but it's hard work.

stocked

« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2014, 12:34 »
+1


You can get a Pentax K5 II with 18-55 WR "kit" lens. (Not a bad lens either) for less than that G1x II.


Pentax K5 II is great and the Pentax kit lens is the only decent kit-lens on the market. If it's the same price or even cheaper I agree it is the better and more flexible option just not that pockable than the G1x II.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2014, 12:51 by stocked »

« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2014, 12:58 »
+1


You can get a Pentax K5 II with 18-55 WR "kit" lens. (Not a bad lens either) for less than that G1x II.


Pentax K5 II is great and the Pentax kit lens is the only decent kit-lens on the market. If it's the same price or even cheaper I agree it is the better and more flexible option just not that pockable than the G1x II.
A quick look at UK prices before I posted earlier showed the Canon for 649, and the Pentax for  615. That was just a look though. Don't really know who the sellers were etc. Comparable price anyway. If I only had one camera I'd rather have the Pentax personally. I shoot a K5 and I've got an RX100 for pocketability, and I find it very good. It's not a DSLR though. As an aside the Pentax kit lens is good. A lot of my PF has been shot with older one. :)

« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2014, 13:05 »
0
For the moment I just want a good high quality camera pocketable camera like the one I mentioned before. I guess this G1x mk2 is acceptable for shooting stock.

stocked

« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2014, 13:15 »
0
I guess this G1x mk2 is acceptable for shooting stock.
It is

« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2014, 14:13 »
+2
with P&S camera you dont have depth of field, they are useless, you need at least 50mm 1.8 lens for studio shots.

forget g1x

« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2014, 14:16 »
0
The g1x mark 2 has a focus ring which can help to achieve the depth of field effect.

« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2014, 15:09 »
+6
The g1x mark 2 has a focus ring which can help to achieve the depth of field effect.

Why do you ask for advice when you are so clearly determined not to be swayed by any of it? Go ahead & buy your G1X. You'll find out soon enough why you should have spent less money and bought a cheap DLSR instead.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2014, 15:12 »
0
The g1x mark 2 has a focus ring which can help to achieve the depth of field effect.
Maybes aye, maybes naw; and almost certainly only at long telephoto settings if at all.

« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2014, 16:11 »
0
as i said in the other thread about using smartphone for stock, if the image is good enough, go for it. using the top of the line most expensive canon or nikon does not make u a better photographer.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors