Shutterstock's Top 10 Cameras

[Pixart]

http://petapixel.com/2015/04/17/the-top-10-cameras-behind-photos-submitted-to-shutterstock-in-2014/


[/Of the top 10 cameras, the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and the Nikon D800 had the highest approval rates, with 69% and 68%, respectively.i]   68/69% are the highest rates - Really? 

[Ariene]

I wouldn't treat it to much seriously.

[Pauws99]

Although it takes a special skill to to take  a photo without a camera - nothing wrong with wanting the best equipment.

[Tror]

Cameras don't take photos ~ photographers take photos 

Ummm...I hear that over and over, and yes, obviously you have to be a good photographer. Nevertheless, in the end, it is the camera that freezes the moment the photographer composes and creates. Please create a beautiful natural light apartment scene with three models. Take a, lets say MKIII, with a crappy 5.x lens, take a shot. Then take the same shot with a nice 1.2 prime. See the difference? Light is beautiful. Way closer to what you see and want to create.

Yes, you can take sellable images with a phone! You can create good stuff with your Nokia! I do not want to reduce artists who prefer to go this route :-) Buuut......if you have a professional approach then you have a certain idea in mind even before you start with the preproduction. You have a concept, a theme, you have a certain light in mind, know what mood you want to transmit, know exactly which WB you chose to match the vibe you want to transmit. And obviously, you have the approach to deliver the best quality you can. You chose good equipment. Reliable hardware which brings a nice dynamic range and does not cripple your creation. You want to get 90%+ accepted by the agencies. You do create a product which should have the highest impact possible.

[Pauws99]

Tror....You sum it up brilliantly

[Mantis]

These greedy companies want size. Like the D800, a huge image for .38 cents attracts more buyers but we get nothing more. Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales. Yet there is no benefit, really, for photographers. If I make 5 more .38 cent sales per month because I have super large images, does that pay for my camera? FK NO!

[Rinderart]

These greedy companies want size. Like the D800, a huge image for .38 cents attracts more buyers but we get nothing more. Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales. Yet there is no benefit, really, for photographers. If I make 5 more .38 cent sales per month because I have super large images, does that pay for my camera? FK NO!

Your correct 100% "IF" you only do stock. If you do client work, Clients demand you have Pro equipment. trust, They know the difference and the attitude/trust that goes with it..

[BaldricksTrousers]

So those figures tell us .... errr - that the 5D MkII has been around a lot longer than the 5D MkIII and the 6D? Amazing!

[dpimborough]

Cameras don't take photos ~ photographers take photos 

A decent camera sure makes the job easier

i've seen plenty of  terrible photos taken with top of the range cameras and lots of beautifully shot photos taken with cheap cameras.

You guys are just gear freaks

[dpimborough]

Cameras don't take photos ~ photographers take photos 

Ummm...I hear that over and over, and yes, obviously you have to be a good photographer. Nevertheless, in the end, it is the camera that freezes the moment the photographer composes and creates. Please create a beautiful natural light apartment scene with three models. Take a, lets say MKIII, with a crappy 5.x lens, take a shot. Then take the same shot with a nice 1.2 prime. See the difference? Light is beautiful. Way closer to what you see and want to create.

Yes, you can take sellable images with a phone! You can create good stuff with your Nokia! I do not want to reduce artists who prefer to go this route :-) Buuut......if you have a professional approach then you have a certain idea in mind even before you start with the preproduction. You have a concept, a theme, you have a certain light in mind, know what mood you want to transmit, know exactly which WB you chose to match the vibe you want to transmit. And obviously, you have the approach to deliver the best quality you can. You chose good equipment. Reliable hardware which brings a nice dynamic range and does not cripple your creation. You want to get 90%+ accepted by the agencies. You do create a product which should have the highest impact possible.

Really??? So if you consider photos taken 10 years ago were they any less professional?  Taken that cameras that were no where as good as they are today.

That kind of opine is two a penny "oh if I get the latest Nikon D810 or Canon MkIV" the images will be sooo much better"

It's hog wash developed by the camera companies and swallowed hook line and sinker by gear freaks with too much money. 

[Pauws99]

I don't think anyone is actually saying that you are arguing against a straw man

[Semmick Photo]

I think the cheaper cameras are owned by relative newbies and they will have a higher rejection rate when getting into the business. Once they get their port going, they make more money and want a better camera. At that point they already know what they are doing and their acceptance rate for that new camera is good from the start.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.   

But then, if you shoot a macro with very shallow DoF and not an obvious point of focus they reject the full size version as "blurry" because they don't have time to spend 10 seconds pinning down the precise point of focus. And a photo that's rejected has poor sales chances

[Semmick Photo]

Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.   

But then, if you shoot a macro with very shallow DoF and not an obvious point of focus they reject the full size version as "blurry" because they don't have time to spend 10 seconds pinning down the precise point of focus. And a photo that's rejected has poor sales chances

So all macro photos before 10MP cameras were rejected?

[BaldricksTrousers]

Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.   

But then, if you shoot a macro with very shallow DoF and not an obvious point of focus they reject the full size version as "blurry" because they don't have time to spend 10 seconds pinning down the precise point of focus. And a photo that's rejected has poor sales chances

So all macro photos before 10MP cameras were rejected?

Eh? No, I'm saying that 20 MP macros which do not have a very obvious thing to focus on are at risk. 10MP would improve your chances of acceptance, it's the same as shrinking a 20MP image down, thereby increasing the DoF and making it easier for the reviewers to spot where it is. But 4MP would be best of all. In a side view of food there may be many possible points to focus on and if the reviewer doesn't look closely he/she may not see where it is.

[Mantis]

These greedy companies want size. Like the D800, a huge image for .38 cents attracts more buyers but we get nothing more. Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales. Yet there is no benefit, really, for photographers. If I make 5 more .38 cent sales per month because I have super large images, does that pay for my camera? FK NO!

Your correct 100% "IF" you only do stock. If you do client work, Clients demand you have Pro equipment. trust, They know the difference and the attitude/trust that goes with it..

I was responding to the title of this thread.....SHUTTERSTOCK top 10 cameras.  I wouldn't argue your claim at all outside of stock.

[Mantis]

These greedy companies want size. Like the D800, a huge image for .38 cents attracts more buyers but we get nothing more. Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales. Yet there is no benefit, really, for photographers. If I make 5 more .38 cent sales per month because I have super large images, does that pay for my camera? FK NO!

When I was starting with micros, years ago, people uploading to SS suggested me to downsize files as you say. After some time I decided to upload only large files to SS as there were ODDs and SoDs. I was hoping to increase my earnings with that a lot. To be honest I didn't notice any spectacular increase. In a fact I still work harder and harder to keep the same level of sales. How much more work I'd need to do to make my income 3x, 5x more? Regularly? Large files is not the key - the lesson is done.
I've found it useless to sell my oryginal size work for subs. (still talking ab.SS as I don't sell on other micros anymore), so I now must admit, that people were right. Downsizing files is better option if you want to sell it with subs on SS. In other way it is not worth the effort anymore. Make oryginal size available on your own website (with fair pricing) or other websites where you can expect high price for licence.

We are selling RF! Subscription? Large size, oryginal, full res? Not any more. Not in my case.

Now I'm waiting for the minuses from people who say: "all I care is what I see in my payment day."

Great post. I too have also struggled with that tactic and always uploaded full rez.  As we see the RF market spiral downward out of control, I don't think I'll see any more "out of focus" rejections as I resize from 24mp to 12 or 6 mp (isn't 6mp the minimum these days?). As for minuses, I think many on here (not all) would completely agree with you. The topic of downsizing has been discussed many times here and there are two crowds (as there usually are) to this tactic.  But as commissions drop I personally do not see how agencies can possibly expect that contributors keep uploading the highest resolutions possible. Agencies call this a "competitive edge". I call it another way for them to make astonishing amounts of money at our expense. The agencies are NOT THE ONES who make the capital investments to produce goods. Other than their own system needs, their balance sheet is automatically enhanced each and every time "WE" make a technology investment that will result in a digital asset.  The avoid that cost altogether, yet they want to control how that asset is configured (high resolution versus low resolution, for example). It's the "have their cake and eat it too" mentality. So while we play our own game of chess to survive in this game, their game is how to spend the vast amount of money they make off of our hard work.

Now, for those who will ask me what I am doing about it, I am moving into video and uploading mostly on non-micro sites, although I am on SS & 123.  I have invested some money in equipment, lighting, etc and am seeing a return that indicates video, if done right, can make more money. I am also taking to a couple of other peeps to start my own site and considering paying for a SEO expert to test that investment. I am actively looking at other avenues because I am burned out on being taken advantage of and to see SS starting to take this path tells me micro stock is seeing the bow being tied to the end of something that was once sustainable.

[Semmick Photo]

Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.   

But then, if you shoot a macro with very shallow DoF and not an obvious point of focus they reject the full size version as "blurry" because they don't have time to spend 10 seconds pinning down the precise point of focus. And a photo that's rejected has poor sales chances

So all macro photos before 10MP cameras were rejected?

Eh? No, I'm saying that 20 MP macros which do not have a very obvious thing to focus on are at risk. 10MP would improve your chances of acceptance, it's the same as shrinking a 20MP image down, thereby increasing the DoF and making it easier for the reviewers to spot where it is. But 4MP would be best of all. In a side view of food there may be many possible points to focus on and if the reviewer doesn't look closely he/she may not see where it is.

ok gotcha. I see now that I misunderstood your comment.

[etudiante_rapide]

Cameras don't take photos ~ photographers take photos 

well said. but many salesmen in camera stores still tell their customers not to buy anything other than canon and nikon . they also get commissions to sell just that. but yes, you cannot be a greater painter if you can only afford cheaper brushes. and if you only have the cheapest beat-up guitar like robert johnson, there is no way you are going to be the grandfather of the blues

[Mantis]

Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.   

That's what my "entire" post was saying. BTW, where is SS now? Why aren't they coming in here to "correct" us on image size like Scott used to do? Because in my mind they no longer care to be involved in the "discussion". Their spots are changing.

[Pixart]

Oops I had two tabs open and put this in the wrong thread. 

I only really know about Nikon, what I found interesting was that a Nikon D800 owner can expect only about a 68% approval rate.  In Canadian $ this camera sold for around $3500 and required the FF lens on top of that - not exactly the same range as the pro cameras but throw a $499 grip on it and you are getting close to $6K with a good lens.  You make this kind of investment, you don't put some cheap lens on it - yet still only 68% acceptance?   You would expect a higher level of experience from the photographer who makes this kind of investment.  The D7000 was about $1500 in it's day (half of that now), making it more available to everyone and it is about 62% acceptance. 

It would be really interesting to see WHY those 32% of photos are being rejected!   I expect the owners of this camera to be more semi-pro or pro and I wonder what percentage of the rejections are "rogue reviewer". 

Ya, I'm sure there's a few SMWC who can buy great gear and put an ad on Kijiji to launch their new photo business - and they might bring the approval rate down.