MicrostockGroup

I have been using a 10MP camera for years.

With everything equal e.g. subjects, lighting, composition etc. would I be able to make more money by upgrading to a 18MP camera?

One obvious disadvantage I see is slowing down uploading time with larger files.

A few of my friends are istock exclusive shooters using 21MP cameras. They told me they rarely sold files of such size in istock. But one of them said 21MP files give him better ranking in istock.

That's a question that is impossible to answer. Maybe some search engines promotes files according to size or even according to the camera used. I think the XXXL files have maybe become a little more popular at iS since other content got priced above them creating greater acceptance of the price-point... but then sales overall are way down over there.

Even subscription sites might (or might not) favour certain camera/file sizes.

There are probably benefits in helping you to meet the quality targets, however, if you process files as I do, going across the whole image area at "actual pixels" viewing size then it takes much longer to process. Larger images also make camera shake more of an issue so you need to take greater care when shooting.

I think the advantage doesnt lie so much in the megapixels but in the resolution of the single pixels.
Downsizing can play a role.

But megapixels for megapixels sake, is not so important.
its more the quality of the pixels.

I have had a Nikon d 200 10,1 mpix since 2006.
Works fine.
Lately I upgraded and bought a new camera: Another Nikon d 200.
For stock it didnt seem to matter, if I had one of the new cameras, with a better performance. I shoot much of my stuff with strobes at iso 100 and the better high iso performance with new cameras (and so good is it not) is not so important.

If you are going to keep the sensor size the same, then I don't see the point of upgrading. But if you are going to upgrade to a full-frame sensor (24*36mm) then you are going to get noticeable better pixels.

I shoot at 21 mpix, but I often crop and downsize my images so they are usually in the 4 to 12 mpix range. Maybe 40% of my images are 21 mpix.

Sure, large files sell some times, but they also more often get rejected by noise (yes, even good cameras with correct exposure are noisy in some solid-color areas), downsizing helps this. Also some large-aperture shots may benefit from downsizing.

I think the question is are you going to make more money with an 18MP camera on stock than a 10MP camera?

The answer is pretty simple, all else being equal, yes you are.

The larger file sizes are priced higher on enough agencies - DT, FT and IS amongst others - that it does make a difference. I doubt that there is currently any best match bonus given to large files on IS, but there are definitely some buyers who are looking for the largest file sizes and buying them.

The biggest jump in prices is to 12MP - because that's where a number of agencies stop, and because the volume of sales of XL images is higher than XXXL.

If you're exclusive on iStock and reasonably serious about it, then its really worth shooting at 21MP+ - really I wouldn't consider going below 18MP for my main camera. If you're non-exclusive then 12MP is pretty much the bottom resolution to consider.

Very true indeed. Then again as a photographer called, Pete Turner,  once said to me. Good equipment does help. Cameras come and go,  its all about the optics,  they do help. Apart from that its all about the eye.

It depends on the agency.  At the micros, no, not really.  If you submit to traditional agencies, some require 12mp images and the additional 6mp can come in handy if you are going to crop in on the frame for better composition.

OffTopic

iphone pics on SS? I would love to see them, I am serious

Don't know about SS, but JJ has some on iS.

A must watch Video. iphoneography is huge and gonna get Much bigger for what we do. Watch this guys.

http://www.creativelive.com/courses/iphoneography-jack-hollingsworth

If "what we do" is sell photography courses to consumers, then yeah its going to be huge!

DING!

Jack Hollingsworth is an award winning, 30-year career veteran in commercial photography.

He could probably take better photos than I do, with a broken folding Brownie 1A.

Wait, I have it. Lets do a school on how to be a NFL lineman, hosted by Antone Davis. See all you need to do is pay me some money and take the class...

(no this isn't the same as The Rinder School, or his books, where people are on equal footing and can learn and succeed.)

iPhoneography, Give Me A Break!

What kind of tr-ipod  is that in the background?

Yeah, baby I need the "Full Monty" so I can have the amazing experience. I'm getting an affinity for "the movement" - "teach a man to fish and he'll be out in a boat, drinking with his buddies, until all hours of the night. And on weekends..." No I'm not app crazy, I don't have an iPhone (that makes me one of the swine I'll admit) Now I need to get in the zone.

Hey, he's really right, shoot for fun. Don't lose that. But please use a camera. When my camera starts making phone calls, I'll have to consider Canonversations and maybe teach my friends about it.

Iphone smokes a DSLR? (no I don't hate an iphone) But be real. You mean my pocket camera, or DSLR can't be fun or creative? "This isn't about images this is about stories." Glad he included me for when I get the HTC with the led lighting.

Manifesto. Cute graphic slip. "I'm not selling anything..." Ho Ho well not phones, but come on Jack. Snow me some more. About to explode in 2012, reminds me of some other predictions which are conveniently forgotten when they pass. (Comets, the Millennium, dire hurricane predictions to name a few)

27% taken with mobile phones? That's all? I would have expected more like 57%. I mean people don't carry cameras (yeah we do...) But most people bring them someplace, don't have one with them all the time. Of course, phones are fantastic for a quick snap. I don't even take my DSLR unless I think in advance I'm going to be shooting. But I do have a pocket camera. Lets go back in time. How many photos were taken with a disk camera, Polaroid, Instamatic, or rangefinder vs 35mm SLR. WOW, an avalanche. I can't believe that the number 27% of all photos taken with mobile devices is so low.

Nice going Jack, you do good work and you speak well and I hope you succeed, But I'm not drinking the Cool-Aid quite yet. 

For anyone else, here's my newest camera.



Canon A1200 12MP (but really a six) built in flash, (not a pop-up!) does 720P HD video, (iPhone wins it's 1080p) uses SD cards and one of my primary reasons for getting this one AA batteries that are available anywhere, any time. No it doesn't connect to the internet. My Kindle does, my netbook does, my laptop does... No it doesn't make phone calls either. $84 delivered. How much is that iPhone which will be out of date in a year? How do you change the batteries in the iPhone if you are running them down shooting?

Pricing for the iPhone 4S starts at $199 for a 16-Gbyte version of the phone, rising to $299 for a 32-Gbyte phone and $399 for a 64-Gbyte device.

Pocket camera? Last one lasted 5-6 years of being in my pocket 24/7 and going everywhere with me. Still works, I just upgraded to something over 3.2MP in case I have something for Micro. That's the only reason. It takes nice photos and makes nice 4x6 prints. If the new one is anything like the last, that means in 2017 I'll be looking for a new pocket camera. How many $300 iPhones later is that?

All the fun aside, and Jack does do a great job of marketing and his class could probably help anyone with any camera, A phone is not a camera. All the cliches aside and happy feelings for snapshots from phones. It's not a camera, it's a phone. It makes pictures.

My Honda is not the same as the Honda that Indycar races, but hey, they are both Hondas? I can carry much more camping gear and go get groceries. So I suppose by the same logic as this iPhoneography thing, I'm in the same circle as a race driver, because I have a Honda and I drive a stick shift and my car has tires? Right?