MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Photography Equipment => Cameras / Lenses => Topic started by: Will Dutt on July 16, 2011, 04:32
-
Hi All,
I am about to invest around $600 - $700 (AU) into my first DSLR :) I currently have several cameras in mind:
Olympus PEN E-PL3:
http://www.teds.com.au/olympus-pen-e-pl3 (http://www.teds.com.au/olympus-pen-e-pl3)
Olympus PEN E-PM1:
http://www.teds.com.au/olympus-pen-e-pm1 (http://www.teds.com.au/olympus-pen-e-pm1)
Samsung NX100 + 20-50mm and Flash:
http://www.teds.com.au/samsung-nx100-hybrid-20-50mm-sef15-flash-kit (http://www.teds.com.au/samsung-nx100-hybrid-20-50mm-sef15-flash-kit)
Sony NEX3:
http://www.teds.com.au/sony-nex3 (http://www.teds.com.au/sony-nex3)
Personally I believe the Olympus PEN E-PL3 is the best, but I am no expert in cameras or photography :P If you were in my position which of the above cameras would you purchase and why? Also which of the above has the best lens?
To help you all out a bit more I will be using the camera for Landscape, Objects, Sports and People. The primary use is mainly landscape and objects though.
Look forward to reading your replies.
Kind Regards
-Will Dutt
-
I'm afraid that you don't understand what DSLR means. IMO you should choose between Nikon D3100, D5100, Canon 1100D, 550D or Pentax K- X or K-R.
-
Anything that's flat like a cigarette packet is probably a point and shoot. DSLRs are bigger and clunkier. The rule of thumb is 'can i fit it in my pocket or down my bra?'. If you can't , or if people point and look at you funny, it's probably a dSLR.
You'll definitely need a 50dd bra cup, coupled with an actual 75a cup in order to wedge a dslr down there. Try to avoid bras filled with gel, because they can burst all over your camera and do a lot of damage - even with this so called 'weather-proofing' bait n switch lie the camera makers pedal us.
-
I'm afraid that you don't understand what DSLR means. IMO you should choose between Nikon D3100, D5100, Canon 1100D, 550D or Pentax K- X or K-R.
Will, while you say you want to do this, it seems you're lacking even the most basic of knowledge and equipment. I'm still not sure why you think you want to shoot stock. If I were you, I'd just shoot what I like, and put it into blurb books for friends and family.
-
A lot of friends and workmates have come to me looking for camera advice because they were so enthusiastic by a photo course they were doing or going to do. They all wanted a camera with all the possible features, even if not a SLR, and my advice has always been to invest on something with the basic advanced functions (exposure modes, for example) and then later, according to evolution, move to a more advanced solution.
Most did not follow my advice, bought something advanced and more expensive, and none of them ever took any serious step in photography after the initial enthusiasm faded. ;D
-
I am a happy Olympus user. I think it's a good choice for your first DSLR, since it costs a bit less that Nikon or Canon with similar characteristics.
But the "Pen" series are point and shot, not dSLR
This one is a dSLR (including start-kit lenses):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TX9P6W/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=msp0-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=B001TX9P6W (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TX9P6W/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=msp0-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=B001TX9P6W)
-
Can barely done with lens in your budget if you want to buy in Aus. We get ripped off something shocking by the camera manufacturers. You would need to budget around $aus800 at least.
If you import from the US you can save a fair bit, but camera bodies aren't covered by international warranties, so some risk is involved.
-
It seems you want those here to do all your work for you.
Most successful people don't say "I want to" or "I'm going to" do anything without putting in some time before making such statements. They usually do the research, learn by trial and error or by study then "do" before they give opinions or make statements they are not qualified to make. "Personally I believe the Olympus PEN E-PL3 is the best, but I am no expert in cameras or photography."
From your previous posts it is hard to tell if you are some teenager with enthusiasm, high expectations for something that you know little about or a hobbyist who has had friends and family ooh and aah over their snapshots. You have obviously found this forum through some internet search and that is a place to read and take in the past wisdom without jumping in as if you are an expert. Many here are generous to share their wisdom and experiences.
Your enthusiasm is heartening and it makes us all think back to when we started. There is nothing wrong with asking questions but try to ask ones that need more than basic answers here. Perhaps you don't know the difference. And, unlike some other forums this is not one of the typical places to just "chat" back and forth (well, sometimes it is). This is a forum with professional photography members who have been at this for some time.
It seems you would do well to take a community college class first, ask the teacher many questions and then come back here to fine-tune what you've learned after you have taken many photos. There have been some young shooters who jumped in with both feet and have become very successful but it was through much trial and error. They will ask a question here and there but only if they are entirely stumped after reading everything they could get their hands on or finding a mentor who is a pro.
Good luck to you but this will take dogged perseverance. It's a little late in the game to enter this market. How about selling fine art prints? Is there an outlet for that in your area. Perhaps a camera club nearby that you can join? Camera club members like to talk and give advice as well as tell you that they like everything you shoot. As others have said, learn the technical details but begin by shooting what you like and then trying your hand at selling, whether it be stock photos or craft fair prints.
No disrespect given, I wish you much luck but it takes more than luck. Do your homework.
-
It seems you want those here to do all your work for you.
Most successful people don't say "I want to" or "I'm going to" do anything without putting in some time before making such statements. They usually do the research, learn by trial and error or by study then "do" before they give opinions or make statements they are not qualified to make. "Personally I believe the Olympus PEN E-PL3 is the best, but I am no expert in cameras or photography."
From your previous posts it is hard to tell if you are some teenager with enthusiasm, high expectations for something that you know little about or a hobbyist who has had friends and family ooh and aah over their snapshots. You have obviously found this forum through some internet search and that is a place to read and take in the past wisdom without jumping in as if you are an expert. Many here are generous to share their wisdom and experiences.
Your enthusiasm is heartening and it makes us all think back to when we started. There is nothing wrong with asking questions but try to ask ones that need more than basic answers here. Perhaps you don't know the difference. And, unlike some other forums this is not one of the typical places to just "chat" back and forth (well, sometimes it is). This is a forum with professional photography members who have been at this for some time.
It seems you would do well to take a community college class first, ask the teacher many questions and then come back here to fine-tune what you've learned after you have taken many photos. There have been some young shooters who jumped in with both feet and have become very successful but it was through much trial and error. They will ask a question here and there but only if they are entirely stumped after reading everything they could get their hands on or finding a mentor who is a pro.
Good luck to you but this will take dogged perseverance. It's a little late in the game to enter this market. How about selling fine art prints? Is there an outlet for that in your area. Perhaps a camera club nearby that you can join? Camera club members like to talk and give advice as well as tell you that they like everything you shoot. As others have said, learn the technical details but begin by shooting what you like and then trying your hand at selling, whether it be stock photos or craft fair prints.
No disrespect given, I wish you much luck but it takes more than luck. Do your homework.
Luckily plato didn't say to his students 'fe*k off from under this tree and look it up in a book.'
And why is it so late in the game? Is there a photographers' constant, so finely balanced that any new microstocker coming in could explode the universe?
There is a valid and legitimate place in microstock for those who've never read a book and thinks a classroom is one of the lesser comfortable places to fall asleep in. It's great to be stern and serious and stuff but saying things like "Most successful people don't say "I want to" or "I'm going to" do anything without putting in some time before making such statements." is just disheartening and quite frankly false. Some of us don't, you know. Think, I mean. The fact that it doesn't work out OK is just a myth.
-
Luckily plato didn't say to his students 'fe*k off from under this tree and look it up in a book.'
All I was trying to say is that it takes hard work to achieve, whether with help or if you are self-taught. And, I did suggest a mentor. Some effort has to be put into it either way. And, even Plato seems to agree...
And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul? Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul.
Plato
I never did anything worth doing by accident, nor did any of my inventions come by accident; they came by work.
Plato
He also said,
He was a wise man who invented beer.
Plato
-
Luckily plato didn't say to his students 'fe*k off from under this tree and look it up in a book.'
Luckily Will Dutt is not our student.
-
I think the OP was pretty straightforward when he said "I am no expert in cameras or photography" so I don't see the justification for the patronizing put-downs. I learned a lot of what I know about photography, and stock, by posting newbie questions on forums like this, and receiving helpful replies. I suspect many others did too.
Will - a DSLR is a digital "single lens reflex" which means, among other things, that it has a true optical viewfinder which sees what the lens sees. It also implies that the camera uses standard interchangeable lenses. Because it uses full size, high quality lenses, it can produce better images than a point-and-shoot even if the sensors were comparable (and I believe they generally aren't). You'll need this quality for microstock. A previous poster is correct when he suggests looking at cameras like the Nikon D5100.
-
Did they have DSLRs when Plato was around? I think any DSLR wil pretty much do the job - the advantage of Nikon/Canon is that should your ambitions equipment wise expand theres a huge range of options/upgrade path. Personally I like my Nikon but you will ind as many opinions as there are photographers. Stock I think has far more to do with business/marketing than equipment/technique.
-
Stock I think has far more to do with business/marketing than equipment/technique.
And with having, and developing, a sense of what looks good in a photo.
-
and SELLS!
-
and SELLS!
Oh yeah that too :-)
These are the hard parts. Any reasonably smart person can learn DSLRs and digital photography. But not everyone has aesthetic and commercial sensibilities. Guess what - some people who come in the door as clueless newbies will turn out to have serious photographic talent.
-
I think the OP was pretty straightforward when he said "I am no expert in cameras or photography" so I don't see the justification for the patronizing put-downs. I learned a lot of what I know about photography, and stock, by posting newbie questions on forums like this, and receiving helpful replies. I suspect many others did too.
Many of the replie to him may sound rude, but in fact I believe most are concerned with his preocupation in buying something he doesn't really know what it is, just because apparently he thought it was a cool idea to become a stock photographer, despite his very basic knowledge of photography at this point.
At least my intention is to make him see that he has a long way and doesn't really need a new camera until he is really sure photography is something he wants to pursue. As I said, I know many people who got a sudden interest in photography that soon faded away.
-
Will pm'ed me (hope it's ok to 'out' ya), and he's a teenager. I wish you would have come in introducing yourself that way, and you would likely get a different response as as a young adult looking to learn about photography.
-
Thank you all for your posts!
First off I would like to start by appologising for my lack of photographic and microstock knowledge. The reason I have joined here is because I love photography, it has been and always will be a passion of mine.
I am at a stage where I want to take my photography skills past my Cybershot and Mobile Camera, and that is why I post so many questions on these forums.
Every time I revieve a reply, I learn a little more. So maybe some people would like to see me do a bit more individual research before posting, im cool with that and will try google deeper before asking here.
Many of you are very encouraging, and have clearly stated that microstock is not an easy industry. However I am always up for a challenge and always looking to improve.
We all have to start someone, there is only one way from here. Practice does make perfect, and I plan to be practicing for a while.
I hope all the support, knowledge and experiences will never stop. Lets hope with hard work, determination and trial and error I will be able to share my knowledge and experiences (eventually) with other newbies with minimal knowledge.
Thank You All
-
Will pm'ed me (hope it's ok to 'out' ya), and he's a teenager. I wish you would have come in introducing yourself that way, and you would likely get a different response as as a young adult looking to learn about photography.
I would believe that Will Dutt is a teenager, truly looking to get into micro as a newbie, from the posts in this thread, but I saw posts by this person in other threads where he was giving other microstock contributors advice about contributing. Something's not adding up.
In fact, after I read a number of his (or her, who knows on the internet) posts, and the questions that were being asked, I figured he/she was writing a blog, book or something and just wanted everyone else to do the work for them.
Color me suspicious. :-\
-
I would believe that Will Dutt is a teenager, truly looking to get into micro as a newbie, from the posts in this thread, but I saw posts by this person in other threads where he was giving other microstock contributors advice about contributing. Something's not adding up.
In fact, after I read a number of his (or her, who knows on the internet) posts, and the questions that were being asked, I figured he/she was writing a blog, book or something and just wanted everyone else to do the work for them.
Color me suspicious. :-\
Ahh, no im not writing a blog or a book :P The advice I gave was just advice that others had given me, I was just trying to help. And no I dont want everyone else to work for me, I just need a little guidance.
-
Will, you may be getting the impression that microstock is difficult and requires years of training in order to enter its hallowed portals. But there is a hidden side, the side no one talks about - and it's filled with microstockers who didn't know what . they were doing, or which proper button to press, but started doing it anyway and learned on the go.
Most martial arts masters would say you are the perfect student, coming with an empty ricebowl just waiting to be filled up with juicy fat learning. I mention martial arts, because while bladed weapons aren't permitted or possible in virtual space, I can see them metaphorically slicing through this thread if I focus hard enough. I also saw rainbows once too, but apparently that just means a giant migraine is coming. Which is slightly unfair when you think about it.
-
Ok, Will, assuming you are a teenager with little cash who wants to learn on an SLR, why not think about something like a Zenit-E or Praktica film camera? You should be able to get a decent one for about $30 (with lens). Film is cheap as long as you don't burn too much and you don't have to get prints (which is the expensive bit), you could get a scanner like an Epson V500 for less than $200.
A film SLR has the same creative possibilities as a digital SLR, allowing you to see what the lens sees, switch lenses, select your apertures and focus point and use macro tubes etc. for extreme close-ups. Master a film SLR and switching to digital later on is easy.
That set-up won't get you into microstock but it will let you learn "proper" photography on a pay-as-you go basis, without having to put $1,000 up front for a cheap digital SLR. If buying and processing 35mm film costs you $5 per roll, you can burn your way through 6,000 frames before the cost gets up to what a cheap, new DSLR would set you back. If you shoot that much film in a year or two you should be damned good by the end of it.
Actually, it is possible to get 35mm Epson film scans accepted on microstock, but you have to be very, very careful in the shooting, processing and scanning to get acceptable small-size files so it's certainly not a good way of getting into the microstock biz.
-
Ok, Will, assuming you are a teenager with little cash who wants to learn on an SLR, why not think about something like a Zenit-E or Praktica film camera? You should be able to get a decent one for about $30 (with lens). Film is cheap as long as you don't burn too much and you don't have to get prints (which is the expensive bit), you could get a scanner like an Epson V500 for less than $200.
A film SLR has the same creative possibilities as a digital SLR, allowing you to see what the lens sees, switch lenses, select your apertures and focus point and use macro tubes etc. for extreme close-ups. Master a film SLR and switching to digital later on is easy.
That set-up won't get you into microstock but it will let you learn "proper" photography on a pay-as-you go basis, without having to put $1,000 up front for a cheap digital SLR. If buying and processing 35mm film costs you $5 per roll, you can burn your way through 6,000 frames before the cost gets up to what a cheap, new DSLR would set you back. If you shoot that much film in a year or two you should be damned good by the end of it.
Actually, it is possible to get 35mm Epson film scans accepted on microstock, but you have to be very, very careful in the shooting, processing and scanning to get acceptable small-size files so it's certainly not a good way of getting into the microstock biz.
Yeah, but you can buy a decent entry level digital canon or nikon for $300 second hand. If you want to learn, lots and lots of input and lots and lots of practice is the best way - and 50,000 shots on a dslr costs nothing. With film you just get a few chances for practice, and it's a lot slower. Do we have to practice in gokarts before we get the car? Learn to use a stick before we use a brush? Become expert at the cup and string before it's advisable to get our first phone?
It's like learning a language - total immersion is the best way. Film just can't do that - the number of shots you can take is terrifyingly small. I'm not even sure teens today can handle numbers that small, or timescales that slow.
-
Hi All,
I am about to invest around $600 - $700 (AU) into my first DSLR :) I currently have several cameras in mind:
Olympus PEN E-PL3:
[url]http://www.teds.com.au/olympus-pen-e-pl3[/url] ([url]http://www.teds.com.au/olympus-pen-e-pl3[/url])
Olympus PEN E-PM1:
[url]http://www.teds.com.au/olympus-pen-e-pm1[/url] ([url]http://www.teds.com.au/olympus-pen-e-pm1[/url])
Samsung NX100 + 20-50mm and Flash:
[url]http://www.teds.com.au/samsung-nx100-hybrid-20-50mm-sef15-flash-kit[/url] ([url]http://www.teds.com.au/samsung-nx100-hybrid-20-50mm-sef15-flash-kit[/url])
Sony NEX3:
[url]http://www.teds.com.au/sony-nex3[/url] ([url]http://www.teds.com.au/sony-nex3[/url])
Personally I believe the Olympus PEN E-PL3 is the best, but I am no expert in cameras or photography :P If you were in my position which of the above cameras would you purchase and why? Also which of the above has the best lens?
To help you all out a bit more I will be using the camera for Landscape, Objects, Sports and People. The primary use is mainly landscape and objects though.
Look forward to reading your replies.
Kind Regards
-Will Dutt
Look into the Panasonic options if you're going with something like micro 4/3. If you're shopping in Australia, remember you can order from B&H in New York and get the product shipped at a cheaper price and not pay GST if its under A$1000. Cameras in Australia are an absolute rip-off...
-
50,000 shots on a dslr costs nothing. With film you just get a few chances for practice, and it's a lot slower.
50,000 digital shots doesn't cost nothing. You probably have to buy a stand-alone hard drive or two to store them and if you are going to get much benefit from them you need to review each shot for, say, 10s to get an idea about the depth of field, choice of focus point, effect of lighting etc. Half a million seconds is just about an half a year of your life gone, working eight hours a day, just to glance at each pic for 10 seconds. [I've just realised why I have such a mountain of old digital photos sitting on drives that I have never got round to sorting out, including stuff that might sell well].
Hammering off tens of thousands of shots without thinking about them doesn't teach you much. Shooting a thousand or two, thinking carefully about what you are doing and why, is likely to be a better education. Of course, you can do that with digital just as easily as with film but the temptation is to machine-gun shots and hope for a lucky hit.
Still if a decent secondhand DSLR and lens can be had for as little as $300 then it would be more in keeping with the zeitgeist.
-
how about my D90 with 50k clicks, mint condition, not a single stratch and 1 year ??
-
My 2p on the advice you've had above:
"Aesthetics and commercial" - in stock, commercial trumps aesthetics, but of course, some aesthetics matter, in particular, not cluttering your image.
"Camera clubs" - I'm actually a happy member of a camera club, but they're all about aesthetics/pictorial, so I show the photos I love there, >80% of which I wouldn't submit to micro. They generally don't obsess about really nitpicky technical issues, so you can get a shock when you hit micro and get rejections for things you didn't even know existed! Once we had a speaker didn't turn up, and the chairman grabbed me as I went in the door and asked if I could talk about 'something photographic' - well, with no warning and no slides or powerpoint, all I could think of was iStock, so I blahed on about that for about 20 mins. The next week, several members said, more or less, "I had a look on iStock and the pics there that sell well wouldn't do well in competitions". I had to say the vice was also very much versa.
Camera: buy into Canon or Nikon second hand for more flexibility later on. You need a 'decent' camera body, but the quality of the lenses is even more crucial. It's hard to know what your first lens should be. Many people will tell you to get something like a 50mm f1.8, so I'm guessing many people use that sort of lens, but it would be almost useless to me. If I had to have only one lens for myself, it would be a 100-400 zoom, but for micro, I use my 24-105 most. YMMV.
-
I mostly use the 24-70 f2.8L for stock. I doubt if it is possible to get much accepted with a zoom "kit lens" these days, so the standard 50mm prime becomes about the only cheap option for stock. Second-hand DSLRs may be cheap but hardly anybody dumps a good, pro-quality zoom lens on the second-hand market (and I wouldn't trust one without trying it). A good zoom alone is way over his budget.
-
Will,
Does your current camera allow aperture and shutterspeed priority and manual exposure? Does it allow white balance adjustment? Does it have the option to show an histogram?
Many compacts these days have these options, and I think this is the basics to get you started in photography and improve your current skills, and as you advance you may go on buying an used DSLR as suggested here, or even a new one if your budget by then allows it.
-
I mostly use the 24-70 f2.8L for stock. I doubt if it is possible to get much accepted with a zoom "kit lens" these days, so the standard 50mm prime becomes about the only cheap option for stock. Second-hand DSLRs may be cheap but hardly anybody dumps a good, pro-quality zoom lens on the second-hand market (and I wouldn't trust one without trying it). A good zoom alone is way over his budget.
I am thinking of that 24 70 lens too but Nikon version.. But the true is that 60% of my pics were done and approved with a Sigma 18-200, about 30% on the 50mm (which I use almost all the time now) and 10% on a Nikkor 18-135 that I got months ago once was tired of the cheap sigma quality..
that means that agency are still approving pictures with cheap lens like the 18-135 zoom lens.. Stock ainīt that demanding so far..
-
that means that agency are still approving pictures with cheap lens like the 18-135 zoom lens.. Stock ainīt that demanding so far..
Well, like everything, it will depend on the agency and the reviewer and whether he had a punch up with his girlfriend last night. But with a cheap zoom I think you would need to avoid all the extremes - avoid the widest wide angle, avoid pretty much every aperture except f/5.6 and f.8, then, yes, it would probably be satisfactory. Also, you can be lucky or unlucky with a lens/camera combination. If they happen to be a good match they will do better than if they aren't.
-
that means that agency are still approving pictures with cheap lens like the 18-135 zoom lens.. Stock ainīt that demanding so far..
Well, like everything, it will depend on the agency and the reviewer and whether he had a punch up with his girlfriend last night. But with a cheap zoom I think you would need to avoid all the extremes - avoid the widest wide angle, avoid pretty much every aperture except f/5.6 and f.8, then, yes, it would probably be satisfactory. Also, you can be lucky or unlucky with a lens/camera combination. If they happen to be a good match they will do better than if they aren't.
keep in mind I shoot always with high F, from 9 to 18, unless I want shallow depth of field.. the 50mm is a great great lens that I use almost always, I am ditching the 18-135 everytime I can.. but I can tell you that 50% of my IS portfolio is on a sigma 18-200 (which after shooting with a 50mm I got the feeling how crappy it is and forget about it)
-
I would believe that Will Dutt is a teenager, truly looking to get into micro as a newbie, from the posts in this thread, but I saw posts by this person in other threads where he was giving other microstock contributors advice about contributing. Something's not adding up.
In fact, after I read a number of his (or her, who knows on the internet) posts, and the questions that were being asked, I figured he/she was writing a blog, book or something and just wanted everyone else to do the work for them.
Color me suspicious. :-\
Ahh, no im not writing a blog or a book :P The advice I gave was just advice that others had given me, I was just trying to help. And no I dont want everyone else to work for me, I just need a little guidance.
Fair enough.
Looks like you are getting some good advice here, so good luck!
-
the 50mm is a great great lens that I use almost always
Me too! I love this little lens - and it's always so reliably spot on. Sports is the only thing I can't use it with (personal safety reasons only).
If I were ever to go travelling, I really like the idea of taking just this. Plus - and bonus - people think you have a normal camera, not a scary one, so it's great for the sneaky flyby moments. And you can really throw it around. Cheapness and robustness often seem to go together...
I don't know if nikon has an equivalent, but for me, if you don't have much cash, it's worth going canon just for this lens.
-
THNX for advice but Willy must change his pampers now so he will not be available for a while.
-
I don't know if nikon has an equivalent, but for me, if you don't have much cash, it's worth going canon just for this lens.
nikon has it too, kind of famous, the Nifty Fifty!
-
that means that agency are still approving pictures with cheap lens like the 18-135 zoom lens.. Stock ainīt that demanding so far..
Well, like everything, it will depend on the agency and the reviewer and whether he had a punch up with his girlfriend last night. But with a cheap zoom I think you would need to avoid all the extremes - avoid the widest wide angle, avoid pretty much every aperture except f/5.6 and f.8, then, yes, it would probably be satisfactory. Also, you can be lucky or unlucky with a lens/camera combination. If they happen to be a good match they will do better than if they aren't.
keep in mind I shoot always with high F, from 9 to 18, unless I want shallow depth of field.. the 50mm is a great great lens that I use almost always, I am ditching the 18-135 everytime I can.. but I can tell you that 50% of my IS portfolio is on a sigma 18-200 (which after shooting with a 50mm I got the feeling how crappy it is and forget about it)
I think you lose sharpness on most lenses when you go much over f9, around 7 is usually the sharpest aperture.
-
I don't know if nikon has an equivalent, but for me, if you don't have much cash, it's worth going canon just for this lens.
nikon has it too, kind of famous, the Nifty Fifty!
dammit i thought that was the name for the canon one. Thrifty fifty doesn't have the same ring : ( and is also difficult to say at high speed.
-
I think you lose sharpness on most lenses when you go much over f9, around 7 is usually the sharpest aperture.
Yes, that's why I suggested sticking at around f/5.6 to f/8
It's not the fault of the lens, it's to do with the aperture itself and the size of the sensor/the magnification for viewing. Every lens is the same in this regard
-
I don't know if nikon has an equivalent, but for me, if you don't have much cash, it's worth going canon just for this lens.
nikon has it too, kind of famous, the Nifty Fifty!
dammit i thought that was the name for the canon one. Thrifty fifty doesn't have the same ring : ( and is also difficult to say at high speed.
The Canon one is the "plastic fantastic" :)
-
The camera I am currently looking at is a Canon EOS 1100D, which comes with 18 - 55mm lens. I think it should be adequate for starting stock photography, in the future I will be able to upgrade lenses to a 75 - 300mm lens if needed.
@Baldricks:
Funny you should mention a film camera, my granddad offered one to me last week. He says it was a very good quality camera that my father use to own. I think I shall give it a try, it will be a good learning experience for me.
-
I would avoid the cheap canon 75-300 lens. When my 17-50mm 2.8 lens got fungus in it last year I went back to the old non-is supposedly poorer 18-55 kit lens and the 50mm 1.8. I used the 1.8 for stock when I could, but for landscapes I wanted the wider angle and used the kit - it has some limitations, but you can work within them and at least last year I was able to get most images accepted from it. (this is with a canon xti aka 450d) - It might not be as good for the higher resolution sensor, but at least to get started you can downsize a bit if it isn't sharp.
By the way, back in 2006 I started w/ a sub 4 megapixel point and shoot and gradually upgraded with my microstock earnings. I think things are a little tighter now, but with some effort, you can still learn and earn.
-
that means that agency are still approving pictures with cheap lens like the 18-135 zoom lens.. Stock ainīt that demanding so far..
Well, like everything, it will depend on the agency and the reviewer and whether he had a punch up with his girlfriend last night. But with a cheap zoom I think you would need to avoid all the extremes - avoid the widest wide angle, avoid pretty much every aperture except f/5.6 and f.8, then, yes, it would probably be satisfactory. Also, you can be lucky or unlucky with a lens/camera combination. If they happen to be a good match they will do better than if they aren't.
keep in mind I shoot always with high F, from 9 to 18, unless I want shallow depth of field.. the 50mm is a great great lens that I use almost always, I am ditching the 18-135 everytime I can.. but I can tell you that 50% of my IS portfolio is on a sigma 18-200 (which after shooting with a 50mm I got the feeling how crappy it is and forget about it)
I think you lose sharpness on most lenses when you go much over f9, around 7 is usually the sharpest aperture.
I guess I know what I am saying, you might know too but on studio I play with high F and it worked very nice and I do test quite often and compare results.. I am sure I am not the only one playing with high F, if I have enough light I go up if not I go down keeping the ISO always at 100 unless one or two exceptions.. the 50mm doesnīt need that high F I know but I like to pump it up, I am not getting rejected for focus or other so I am not doing anything wrong at least in shooting :)
-
By the way, back in 2006 I started w/ a sub 4 megapixel point and shoot and gradually upgraded with my microstock earnings. I think things are a little tighter now, but with some effort, you can still learn and earn.
My best sellers are still the pics I shot in 2005 with a 3.3 megapixel Fuji Finepix S602. I'm not like most of you with many photos (I've only got 100 on one site, download per image of 10.5) but my few sell consistently from year to year. In many ways I enjoyed that old Fuji more than my Nikon with all the lenses.
-
The camera I am currently looking at is a Canon EOS 1100D, which comes with 18 - 55mm lens. I think it should be adequate for starting stock photography, in the future I will be able to upgrade lenses to a 75 - 300mm lens if needed.
@Baldricks:
Funny you should mention a film camera, my granddad offered one to me last week. He says it was a very good quality camera that my father use to own. I think I shall give it a try, it will be a good learning experience for me.
Yes, why not run a couple of rolls through it, if you have a free SLR camera on offer. At least you will get the feel for how it works.
In addition, if it is either a Canon EOS camera or any kind of Nikon SLR then any lenses it has got with it should fit today's digital Canon or Nikon digital cameras. They may or may not have autofocus, depending how old they are, but if you can get good glass for free then it might be worth buying a camera body that fits on the glass since a high-quality lens can easily cost more than a modern DSLR body and the lens will last pretty much forever.
The EOS1100D is a good camera, of course. I had the first version of the 75-300 and it was a horrible lens. At 300mm the aperture was only f/5.6 which meant it needed long exposure times (and at 300mm you want short times to avoid camera shake) and because the viewfinder was dark (due to the small aperture) it was slow to autofocus and hard to focus by hand. They've probably improved autofocus since then but a slow, long lens is pretty limited.
The trouble with cheap modern AF lenses is that you still have to pay for the internal motor to drive the lens, so the manufacturers have to save money on the rest of it, including the optics. The expensive 24-70 and 70-200 lenses are much better. You probably won't use 300mm on a crop-sensor camera, anyway. 24-70 or 24-105 is likely to be much more use to you (and the 24-70 is the better lens from Canon, judging by reports comparing it with the 24-105).
Very big zoom ranges appeal to newbies because it sounds great if you can get all that magnification in a single lens .... but there is a heavy price to pay in image quality, because the longer the zoom range the harder it is for the designers to control all the different distortions that light suffers from as it passes through lenses.
-
If you want a small "micro four thirds" camera, then you want the GH2, best sensor of all the micro 4/3 cams (see http://www.dxomark.com (http://www.dxomark.com)) and look specifically at the dynamic range portion of the tests, and even more specifically the low iso DR performance. However, the best affordable DSLR right now is the Nikon D5100 $850 with lens, again according to DXO mark this sensor beats out Hasselblads, all Canons except the 1DS mark III, and is on par with the more expensive D7000, and D 700 Nikons, a real bargain. $1600 will get you the Pentax K5 which rates even higher in the DR portion. DR is IMO probably the most important factor when looking at a camera. But the Nikon is great all around, is light, and has a great movie mode as well if you're interested in that. I'm a Canon guy so no fanboy propaganda on my part. Just looking at the numbers.
-
A major factor for me in choosing a camera, is its feel. I am really fussy when it comes to how good a camera feels in my hands. A lot of people shoot with Canon 500d or 550d. I find them really awkward to hold, the body just seems too slim (and I don't have big hands), I imagine the 1100D is similar. I was playing around with a Canon 50D in a shop recently and that just feels so right. I currently have a Pentax K-x, which is a pleasure to take photos with.