A lot will say that they still sell old 4mpx in huge quantities, that most photos are downloaded for web use.
But consider two other sides:
- You might be missing on sales for other uses, large prints and such.
- With more mpx body you have more ability to crop and more importantly you have more room for downsizing not so perfect photos to mask out the imperfections which will enable you to shoot more relaxed, not to worry much about ISO, tripod, heavy post etc and include photos that otherwise you would discard for lack of technical quality.

I totaly get both of you ,thanks for your commets @Uncle Pete and @qunamax.Do you think in long term will more megapixels worth to try  or just travel more with that money and use the same equipment ?  By the way I have only one account in istock exclusive photography and video ,I dont know if this is called microstock.

All things being equal the higher MP would be better, but all things aren't equal. I think the photo and keywords and where they show up in search are more important than the megapixels. If you make few sales with lower sized images it is unlikely you will make a lot with a bigger sensor.

There are advantages to newer and better cameras and lenses and other toys. I'm not sure that actually making more $ in this business is one of them. I have not noticed any increase in sales with better cameras - that might be more in the nature of the decline in microstock over the same time period. Moving from a point and shoot to a dslr made it a lot easier to get images accepted. Moving from a 10 mp to a 16 mp made much less difference as did moving up to a FF. In my experience there are very few sites where there are a lot more large size big $ downloads. Most of the large size downloads are subs and make no more $.

Interesting. I normally use 12mpx but I guess more than 24mpx is just exaggeration.

About this, I have had some rejected photos (specially in Adobe) and you are saying it would be a good idea to reduce the megapixels in order to reduce imperfections and avoid technical difficulties. How do you that in Lightroom? I would like to give it a try. For example reducing from 12 to 8 mpx in order to enhance quality.

Thank you.


Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk

In the Export window you have a Resize section. Or you can do it in Photoshop - Image - Resize - Best for reduction option.

Without knowing what sort of work you do, I would suggest that there'd be other things to spend any spare cash on that might help you more than a camera with a higher number of pixels. Good (off camera) lighting and lighting modifiers, for example.

If you find you can sell a decent volume of work using your existing equipment, you might then consider upgrading your gear. If you're not selling, I very much doubt the issue is your 16mp camera. I'd also suggest that you upload to other agencies as iStock probably isn't a good place (these days) to test your ability to produce saleable stock.

I have to supply pictures large enough to be able to print a double spread at 300dpi - about 65mb.

Sent from my Presto using Tapatalk

Quote from: slayer35 on February 23, 2019, 09:00

Hi there ,I own a panasonic g85 and couple panasonic lenses (12-35 and 35-100).I started to upload some photos and videos to istockphoto .As you may now my camera is 16mp , and I want to ask is megapixels so important in stock photography? Do I need to change my camera to a newer one with more megapixes? (forexample a7riii or a7iii).
Thanks ...

Years and years ago when iStock was easily the most successful stock agency they offered pictures in various sizes - from small to medium, to large, extra large etc.  The largest size was XXL and equated to about 21mp.  Sometimes they skewed the search to place an emphasis on those images available at the largest sizes.  This caused many photographers to want to upgrade equipment to at least 21mp (and why the Canon 5Dii was such a big seller).

However life has changed a lot since those days, with the largest share of the buyers market being for electronic delivery (web pages) where such large sizes are simply not necessary.  As web pages change daily what those buyers want is a huge supply of attractive and relevant images but they only need sizes for their web designs.  Yes there is still a market for printed media, billboards, company reports etc but those markets are dwindling.  The newest market is cellphones of course and an increasing need for images just to display on phones and tablets.

So I don't think size matters any more.  And to show how relevant this is, iStock took away their various size options and now offer only a one size download.

If you are an ad agency photographer shooting fashion, advertising etc for the big corporations, then it's still important to deliver maximum size and quality.  But for basic stock photography anything in the 24-36mp area is certainly large enough.  And frankly most high quality starter cameras now come at 24mp.

Thanks for your answer.Mine is 16mp ,and in istockphoto my photos are only XL  ,that's why I was thinking a higher mp camera.But I totally get you ,nowadays higher mp is not so necessary like in the past.

Size only matters in porno. In Stock average to small size is just fine.

Agree. some Of My best sellers were 6MP Images, 2004. .  My Normal day to day camera Is 47 MP. I have One Client That leases me the Phaseone 150IQ camera and Lenses for specific scientific things They make. There is Not One image In My port thats Over 3200 x 2000 Thats about 6.5 MP. 14 YRs ago and 4 Days ago. Buy what ya want. But it isn't gonna make you any More Money or sell More.my Master Files are full size. Thats for Gallery prints if need be.

Quote from: slayer35 on February 23, 2019, 09:00

Hi there ,I own a panasonic g85 and couple panasonic lenses (12-35 and 35-100).I started to upload some photos and videos to istockphoto .As you may now my camera is 16mp , and I want to ask is megapixels so important in stock photography? Do I need to change my camera to a newer one with more megapixes? (forexample a7riii or a7iii).
Thanks ...

I have seen customers that wouldn't buy an image because it did not meet a minimum size requirement they felt they needed. As I recall it was around 4000 megapixels on the long side, they didn't want to even look at content smaller than that.

While I agree with the overall sentiment that the size is not as important as other elements such as keywords and overall content quality in the grand scheme of thingsI do still believe that size matters in stock. My recommendation is to upload the maximum files size your camera is capable of producing. Customers can always downsize the file if they don't want it that big. The reverse isn't necessarily true. You could be potentially limiting your customer base if you upload a file smaller than you can.

-Mat

Roughly speaking that's 12MP. 

I still sell photos taken with my first 6MP Nikon D70, I sell the most from my old 12MP Nikon D700 and a lot from my 16MP Nikon D5100 and Olympus EM-1 ... and now from my 42MP Sony a7rii....

Here are my thoughts.

For iStock, which is microstock, 42MP is a big investment. The files are also huge and in order to process them more quickly I just invested over $4,000 in a new computer, and will need another $500+ in backup drives soon as well, so it is not just the $2,000+ for the camera.

I sold all my Nikons, kept the Olympus since it is so light and I use it a lot even though the Sony is a superior camera, because the files take up less room and I have finally decided to actually embrace microstock as a larger part of my portfolio (I also find 16MP is plenty big enough for Alamy) and I really don't want to upload 42MP photos on the micros. 16MP is huge for the web, and big enough for print (except maybe billboards) - I've licensed countless  6MP & 12MP photos for book and magazine covers, so 16MP is also sufficient for print.

If you are just starting out and only supplying microstock agencies, clearly 16MP is plenty.

On the other hand, if you want to sell large prints, you can't beat the Sony a7rii and a7riii or other excellent large MP cameras, but you need expensive lenses because with all those MP you can see every tiny flaw and good glass (lenses) is expensive.

If you hope to shoot for high end stock sites, more MP is bette but by the time you have a portfolio ready for a higher end site, if you are just starting now, their requirements could change, so I'd stick with what you have and upgrade when your skill set is such that you are ready to approach higher end sites.

I would say that when you upgrade, going for a full frame camera is a good investment. My 12MP D700 beat out both of my 16MP cameras - the Oly & the Nikon - nothing came close until I got the 42MP full frame Sony - it is not just megapixels.

I assume you have an Olympus or Panasonic since you said you have a micro four-thirds setup. I love my Oly, since the MFT format packs a lot of punch in a super light package. For travel it can't be beat. I shot some fine art prints when I was traveling in January using both the Olympus and the Sony. I'm very happy with the prints achieved from both cameras, and with the Oly I only have the prosumer lenses vs. the G Master series on the Sony. The Sony is superior and amazing in low light but the Olympus is a tiny workhorse. Also, the Sony shuts down when the temperature goes below freezing, which the Oly keeps shooting.

The Sony camera is small and light, but the lenses are mostly large and heavy, making your kit nearly as heavy as it would be with a DSLR depending upon which lenses you choose. My $100 Olympus 40-150mm (80-300mm equivalent) weighs next to nothing and is sharp throughout its range. The equivalent Sony high end lens costs a fortune and weighs a ton - far superior optics but you need to take the camera with you and if it is heavy to lug around, you might not. I can toss the Olympus with a 17 or 25mm lens in my pocketbook if I'm out and at the end of the day, if I haven't used it, my shoulder is no worse for wear.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Sony and with a wide angle lens it is light and great for travel, but you are investing more than $2,000+ in the camera if you go that route - you'll need a few thousand for lenses and you'll need a fast computer, plenty of storage space, so weigh your options.

Quote from: mj007 on February 27, 2019, 19:51

Size only matters in porno. In Stock average to small size is just fine.

Agree. some Of My best sellers were 6MP Images, 2004. .  My Normal day to day camera Is 47 MP. I have One Client That leases me the Phaseone 150IQ camera and Lenses for specific scientific things They make. There is Not One image In My port thats Over 3200 x 2000 Thats about 6.5 MP. 14 YRs ago and 4 Days ago. Buy what ya want. But it isn't gonna make you any More Money or sell More.my Master Files are full size. Thats for Gallery prints if need be.

Last year you said you owned the Phaseone to impress clients, now you tell us you lease it from one client. Whats the next story. Not one image that's over 3200 x 2000 6.5 MP. Honest or is that made up too. Tell me about your famous neighbor or someone you knew because that's impressive. You should go back to reading gum wrappers not making up fairy tales.

Quote from: JAFO on April 05, 2019, 20:38

Quote from: rinderart on April 05, 2019, 11:30

Quote from: mj007 on February 27, 2019, 19:51

Size only matters in porno. In Stock average to small size is just fine.

Agree. some Of My best sellers were 6MP Images, 2004. .  My Normal day to day camera Is 47 MP. I have One Client That leases me the Phaseone 150IQ camera and Lenses for specific scientific things They make. There is Not One image In My port thats Over 3200 x 2000 Thats about 6.5 MP. 14 YRs ago and 4 Days ago. Buy what ya want. But it isn't gonna make you any More Money or sell More.my Master Files are full size. Thats for Gallery prints if need be.

Last year you said you owned the Phaseone to impress clients, now you tell us you lease it from one client. Whats the next story. Not one image that's over 3200 x 2000 6.5 MP. Honest or is that made up too. Tell me about your famous neighbor or someone you knew because that's impressive. You should go back to reading gum wrappers not making up fairy tales.

Why you having a snipe at Rinder?  This isn't the shutterstock forum you know

He didn't get the memo about being nice to old people?