Author Topic: DSLR vs. ProSumer for Microstock Photography? (Read 21791 times)

Daneel · « **on:** February 19, 2007, 05:47 »

Hi all,

this question is one which has been going through my mind for a long time. It is clear that the DSLR is the more versatile camera and really shines compared to ProSumer cameras in particular at higher ISO.

However, in this discussion I would like to discuss DSLRs vs. ProSumer cameras in a controlled environment, as the one which we are mostly using for our Microstock photography, i.e.,
- Very good lighting
- Shooting at lowest ISO (e.g., ISO 80)

This discussion / my question is based on a discussion which is going on at dpreview, where the basic conclusion is that DSLRs do not have much (if any) advantages over ProSumers in a controlled environment, such as the one described above. Their really advantages appear at higher ISOs.

The dpreview discussion is in located here, for your review:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=21836849

I think one of the advantages of DSLRs vs. ProSumer cams in a controlled environment is faster autofocus, which is relevant when working with models.

Other than that - what do you think? I would love to hear your objective and well-founded opinions.

All the best,
Michael

ps: Disclaimer: I currently own a Canon Powershot S3, which I succesfully use for Microstock at iStock, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia.

epixx · « **Reply #1 on:** February 19, 2007, 06:28 »

Some of my top sellers are shot with an "old" Canon A95, one even at ISO 400. Still, I find it much easier to control all parameters with my DSLR's (I have a Fuji S3 and an Olympus E-1). Added to that is the fact that the high quality lenses that are available for DSLR's gives better contrast and colours out of the camera. It saves me a lot of time during post processing, since there's simply very little that needs adjusting.

Any debate around cameras for stock photography will sooner or later boil down to a question about lenses. If the p&s or prosumer camera has a top quality lens, it's really up to the skill of the photographer.

leaf · « **Reply #2 on:** February 19, 2007, 06:41 »

well there is defiantly a lot more options with an slr and getting to them is easier (if the prosumer camera has the options) Switching between f/2.8 and f/22 takes a couple of seconds on a slr, on a prosumer you might not be able to do it at all, or else you have to fiddle with the switches a while.

Using flash photogrphy, strobes, or speedlights is way more compatable with a dslr. Most prosumer cameras don't have a hot shoe, not sure about a connector for a strobe.

The biggest difference I think would be the lens. I used to have a comparison on here between the difference of a cheap canon lens and an L series lens and it was very noticeable. The difference between a prosumer camera/lens and an L series lens would be even more drastic. If there was no difference, why would most studio shooters both with medium format. According to most pro's 35mm isn't even good enough for the studio.

Daneel · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2007, 06:59 »

Hi all,

many thanks for the replies so far (please keep them coming).

Switching aperture, shutter speed is a quick an painless thing to do on the Canon Powershot S3, it also has all the other options of a DSLR. In addition it has a live histogram preview and a live preview of the final photo thanks to the electronic viewfinder. I think DSLRs neither have a live histogram or an eletronic viewfinder, due to their architecture. I think I would definitely miss these features. How do you cope with that?

The point of high quality lenses for better contrast and colours is well taken. I guess that's a strong point for the DSLR. I also heard that the autofocus is much better than with ProSumer cameras.

People say that pictures speak more than a thousand words: It would be awesome to see a microstock photography comparison (e.g., an object isolated in a light tent) with both a DSLR and a ProSumer camera in order to get a better idea about the "drastic image quality difference because of the lenses".

All the best,
Michael

All the best,
Michael

CJPhoto · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:12 »

lens and options are the advantages of the DSLR even if you say the quality from the Sensor is identical (I dont know the technical things about sensors but I tell the girls that bigger is better and they agree

).

Re live histogram - more handy in action than the studio. in the studio, if the after the fact histogram is wrong, just change the setting and retake. You should also have a better indication of what it would turn out like. In action though, you might wait fro the perfect time just to find out you should have adjusted exposure because the light changed or you got more of the sky in.

Re live preview - cant get much better than looking though the lens (ie. infinite resolution compared to a screen of ??) but agree that seeing a screen is easier than putting your eye to the eye peice with some angles.

have you got any friends with DSLR's? It would be interesting to get your feedback. Most people only got back to P&S from DSLR for size/weight reasons, not quality.

Daneel · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:19 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on February 19, 2007, 07:12

lens and options are the advantages of the DSLR even if you say the quality from the Sensor is identical (I dont know the technical things about sensors but I tell the girls that bigger is better and they agree ).

The larger size of the sensor of DSLRs helps to minimize noise at higher ISOs or uncrontrolled environments.

Quote from: CJPhoto on February 19, 2007, 07:12

Re live preview - cant get much better than looking though the lens (ie. infinite resolution compared to a screen of ??) but agree that seeing a screen is easier than putting your eye to the eye peice with some angles.

Sorry about my ignorance, but will the live preview of a DSLR show you a live preview of the effects of aperture and shutter speed? I got the (wrong?) assumption that an optical viewfinder can't do that.

Quote from: CJPhoto on February 19, 2007, 07:12

have you got any friends with DSLR's? It would be interesting to get your feedback. Most people only got back to P&S from DSLR for size/weight reasons, not quality.

Unfortunately not, at least not that I know. I'm considering getting one to improve my stock photography (mostly isolated objects in a light tent or outdoor photos, no models yet) and I'm trying to find out if it's worth it.

All the best,
Michael

epixx · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:20 »

How I would cope with not having an electronic viewfinder? I'm not sure if I could cope having an electronic viewfinder. The viewfinder in a DSLR has higher resolution (obviously, since it shows reality, not a "TV"-picture), is usable in all kinds of light and is much faster (see point one).

As for live histogram, I've taken photos for very many years without one (obviously, since they were introduced with digicams). I understand that it can be a help for some, but understanding light used to be an important basis of all photography. In my view, it still is.

epixx · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:25 »

Most DSLR's have a button to stop down the lens to working aperture. Only DSLR's can do that, and it's the only way to see the real depth of field (DOF). No camera can show you the consequence of changed shutter speed, since it includes movement. In that respect, our eyes are too fast: they will not see blur until it's on the photo.

Daneel · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:29 »

Quote from: epixx on February 19, 2007, 07:25

No camera can show you the consequence of changed shutter speed, since it includes movement. In that respect, our eyes are too fast: they will not see blur until it's on the photo.

For still images of objects in my light tent, the electronic viewfinder of my Canon S3 does a pretty good job at indicating the exposure effect of the selected shutter speed in the viewfinder (assuming a constant aperture for this example).

Except for some artistic photos, I'm usually not shooting many if any (fast) moving objects for Microstock (given that Microstock is our focus in this thread).

All the best,
Michael

epixx · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:35 »

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 07:29

Quote from: epixx on February 19, 2007, 07:25
No camera can show you the consequence of changed shutter speed, since it includes movement. In that respect, our eyes are too fast: they will not see blur until it's on the photo.

For still images of objects in my light tent, the electronic viewfinder of my Canon S3 does a pretty good job at indicating the exposure effect of the selected shutter speed in the viewfinder (assuming a constant aperture for this example).

Except for some artistic photos, I'm usually not shooting many if any (fast) moving objects for Microstock (given that Microstock is our focus in this thread).

All the best,
Michael

What the camera shows you is the exposure. You read that from the meter of a DSLR.

Daneel · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2007, 07:39 »

Hi!

Quote from: epixx on February 19, 2007, 07:35

What the camera shows you is the exposure. You read that from the meter of a DSLR.

But, again naively said: Exposure = Shutter Speed + Aperture, right? So, assuming a fixed aperture, the electronic viewfinder will show me the consequence of a changed shutter speed (which is the exposure).

Sorry, I don't mean to nit-pick, just want to understand.

Thanks,
Michael

epixx · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2007, 08:08 »

I guess you are right. Using a DSLR, I'm used to thinking differently. Exposure is still a result of aperture, shutter speed and ISO, but you don't see it in the viewfinder in the same way.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2007, 08:17 »

Another pro for DSLR's - depending on the lens, they also have a much shallower DoF that P&S

Daneel · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2007, 16:25 »

Thanks for all the tips so far. I'm going to the states soon, maybe I should get my first DSLR while I'm there :-)

All the best,
Michael

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2007, 20:05 »

Quote from: Daneel on February 19, 2007, 05:47

I currently own a Canon Powershot S3, which I succesfully use for Microstock at iStock, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia.

How "successful" are you right now using your S3 for stock? If you have an average 75% or greater acceptance rate over all the sites, if you're uploading a lot of files regularly, and if you're actually getting steady (if not huge) sales at the moment, then you obviously know how to use your equipment. Do you plan to stay with microstock for a while? If so, and if you're comfortable with the equipment you have now, then I think it's better to stick with what got you there for a while, or at least until you feel very much at home shooting microstock. Otherwise learning to use some new gear all over again will probably just slow you down and if you're doing well now, then it's pretty iffy whether you'll do better very soon just because of an equipment upgrade. In photography it's always been the eye behind the camera and not the camera itself that makes people successful or not. I'd say you should get very used to this stock world first before you start fiddling with many different equipment options.
You can take all that for what it's worth (about 2 cents

Greg Boiarsky · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2007, 21:05 »

There is obviously a place for both types of cameras. The P&S excels where you cannot or should not bring a bulky, expensive camera. It also excels when you don't need shallow depth of field. Nonetheless, I really prefer a DSLR.

It seems to me that many of the comments about the differences between DSLRs and point and shoots is about handling characteristics. That's fine, but for me the major difference is about image quality as well as handling.

1. Even at ISO 100, a DSLR is typically superior. There is less noise and the image tends to be crisper because more light hits each of the sensor wells. If you don't believe me, check dpreview. You'll see at least some cameras with objectionable noise at 100. P&S cameras with low noise can cost as much as an inexpensive DSLR with a lens. And, should you need ISO 200, the DSLR is superior.

2. The so-called "live preview" of the P&S is inferior to the viewfinder in my DSLR. It is grainy, jumpy, and slow to react. Also, the image you see in the live preview is, at best, a low resolution copy of what gets written to your card. How many megapixels do you see on your LCD? Less than 1 megapixel. Thus, the color representation, focus, and associated depth of field are very difficult to assess.

3. The live histogram is useful for a less experienced photographer. I know my cameras and, while I make many many many many mistakes, I have a good sense of the appropriate exposure to use based on my metering. If I'm fooled, it's usually by flash exposure or by high-contrast scenes such as mid-day sun or snow.

4. Focus speed and accuracy are superior in a DSLR. And, with a low contrast subject, I can always switch to manual focus. Manual focus on a P&S, if available, is often stepped rather than continuous. Faster, more accurate focus=better images.

5. White balance on a DSLR is usually more accurate and flexible than that on a P&S. This is critical in studio work, even if you shoot RAW.

6. Speaking of RAW, Canon is moving away from P&S cameras that provide RAW.

7. And, as Tyler says, a DSLR gives you flash and strobe lighting controls typically unavailable in a P&S.

I don't differentiate between studio and field use, as you can see. I use my camera in both places, and the majority of my imagery to date is from out in the field rather than my studio.

Just my usual, opinionated two cents worth.

Daneel · « **Reply #16 on:** February 20, 2007, 02:58 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on February 19, 2007, 20:05

How "successful" are you right now using your S3 for stock? If you have an average 75% or greater acceptance rate over all the sites, if you're uploading a lot of files regularly, and if you're actually getting steady (if not huge) sales at the moment, then you obviously know how to use your equipment.

Yes, this all applies.

Quote from: HughStoneIan on February 19, 2007, 20:05

Do you plan to stay with microstock for a while? If so, and if you're comfortable with the equipment you have now, then I think it's better to stick with what got you there for a while, or at least until you feel very much at home shooting microstock. Otherwise learning to use some new gear all over again will probably just slow you down and if you're doing well now, then it's pretty iffy whether you'll do better very soon just because of an equipment upgrade. In photography it's always been the eye behind the camera and not the camera itself that makes people successful or not. I'd say you should get very used to this stock world first before you start fiddling with many different equipment options.
You can take all that for what it's worth (about 2 cents

I'm feeling comfortable with it, but I also learn about its limitations. The S3 has DSLR-like controls, so I believe that there would not be much of a slow down. I have to think over it, but my thread in the "Photo Critiques" forums makes me believe that now my equipment is constraining my success / acceptance rate, so as soon as my stock earnings will pay for it, I'll probably consider getting a DSLR. I do have a well-paid day-job but I do want this hobby to pay for itself (which it so far does very nicely) :-).

All the best,
Michael

Bateleur · « **Reply #17 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:14 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on February 19, 2007, 07:12

... Most people only got back to P&S from DSLR for size/weight reasons, not quality ...

Yeah. I have Nikon bodies, both 35mm film and digital, together with a number of lenses. And I try to have a camera with me at all times. You never know when a photo opportunity may present itself. But lugging even one body and lens around on, say, a day's skiing is a real pain ... in every sense of the word.

I'm seriously considering a high-quality P&S that will slip in a pocket for such trips (I'll never give up my Nikon) but give high enough quality for stock, both macro and micro. Anyone know of one?

Daneel · « **Reply #18 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:16 »

Hi!

My Canon S3 does great for Microstock. Probably won't work that well for Macro (only 6 MP).

All the best,
Michael

Bateleur · « **Reply #19 on:** February 20, 2007, 03:18 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on February 19, 2007, 08:17

Another pro for DSLR's - depending on the lens, they also have a much shallower DoF that P&S

Is that an advantage? Surely, it all depends on what you want to photograph. If I'm doing macro I want all the DOF I can get.

leaf · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2007, 07:28 »

Quote from: Bateleur on February 20, 2007, 03:18

Quote from: CJPhoto on February 19, 2007, 08:17
Another pro for DSLR's - depending on the lens, they also have a much shallower DoF that P&S

Is that an advantage? Surely, it all depends on what you want to photograph. If I'm doing macro I want all the DOF I can get.

Perhaps he meant to say, DSLR lenses have the possibility to have a much shallower DOF (larger aperature). So if you want to throw the background out of focus you can.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #21 on:** February 20, 2007, 10:20 »

Quote from: leaf on February 20, 2007, 07:28

Quote from: Bateleur on February 20, 2007, 03:18
Quote from: CJPhoto on February 19, 2007, 08:17
Another pro for DSLR's - depending on the lens, they also have a much shallower DoF that P&S

Is that an advantage? Surely, it all depends on what you want to photograph. If I'm doing macro I want all the DOF I can get.

Perhaps he meant to say, DSLR lenses have the possibility to have a much shallower DOF (larger aperature). So if you want to throw the background out of focus you can.

that is what I meant.

there has to be some advantage to getting the 70-200 f2.8L over the 70-200 f4.0L.

epixx · « **Reply #22 on:** February 20, 2007, 11:05 »

Quote from: Bateleur on February 20, 2007, 03:14

I'm seriously considering a high-quality P&S that will slip in a pocket for such trips (I'll never give up my Nikon) but give high enough quality for stock, both macro and micro. Anyone know of one?

Nikon launched a new, advanced p&s today, the P5000. It weighs in at 200g, has VR and even a command wheel to change parameters.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022006_nikonp5000.asp

Bateleur · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2007, 16:01 »

Quote from: epixx on February 20, 2007, 11:05

Quote from: Bateleur on February 20, 2007, 03:14
I'm seriously considering a high-quality P&S that will slip in a pocket for such trips (I'll never give up my Nikon) but give high enough quality for stock, both macro and micro. Anyone know of one?

Nikon launched a new, advanced p&s today, the P5000 ...

Looks really great! Thanks. I'd be seriously thinking about it, except ...

... it only does JPEG!

Why on earth do they include silly things like a 'Time Zone Function' (whatever that is) but not RAW files?

leaf · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2007, 16:36 »

probably because they want to make it as dummy friendly as possible.

time zone functions might help the average user, but raw files will just confuse them. Most point and shooters do not want to process every image. They just want to take a snap to remember a moment, not to create an artwork.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: DSLR vs. ProSumer for Microstock Photography? (Read 21791 times)

Daneel

epixx

leaf

Daneel

CJPhoto

Daneel

epixx

epixx

Daneel

epixx

Daneel

epixx

CJPhoto

Daneel

HughStoneIan

Greg Boiarsky

Daneel

Bateleur

Daneel

Bateleur

leaf

CJPhoto

epixx

Bateleur

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors