true and well said.

we keep forgetting that some of the greatest photography were created by cheaper and lousier lenses. eg. matthew brady,etc...

but then, we are in a materialistic culture, whether what we own is more important than what we can do with it. i sell camera as a part-time job, it's not uncommon for someone to come in my store with a charge card because they want their son or daughter to be a photographer and she /he told daddy or mommy it's got to be the most expensive DSLR if she/he is going to be successful 

i agree, i took a portrait with a  lumix fs3 and it 's incredible. point and shoot
but with leica lense , can't get a better glass at that price. blows the competition point and shoot away. even some low end DSLR.
but of course, when my lowend DSLR customers look at me in disbelief, i don't say anything. it's their choice.

Hmmm. I love my Kodak z612. For non-commercial work, it is all a person mostly needs.

But Dreamstime rejected all of my submissions of my test entry late last summer. Well, two or three of them were due to things I can learn from, and I appreciate that, but ALL of them, including the 80% that had no other reason, were due to 'sensor size' or 'lens quality'. Theoretically, according to the label, that is a Schneider-Kreuznach (sp?) lens. Good glass.

So, I *assume* that it is a sensor size issue. If so, to get into stock photography, do I not need a 23mm sensor? That is, a DSLR? (the 35mm sensors are too expensive for me) I'm about ready to blow all of my Christmas money on a DSLR hoping to begin to actually be able to submit successfully and maybe even make a little money. I do realize that making enough to say, recoup the investment, will take quite a while, that this is something that builds slowly.

Am I being foolish?

Do 'they' care about the brand of the camera? Due to my budget, the kind of shooting I do, due to my research, and due to my existing half-dozen lenses from the old days, the Pentax k200d looks like the right starter for bootstrapping up to replacing it with something better when I get that far.

Does one have to have the name Canon or Nikon in order to not be rejected?

For all you guys to read

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three.shtml

I have a 30D and a 5DII, and I love them both.  And I can take photos just as technically good as your D3's, D3x's and A900s.

Its time we focused on the photographers skills

and maybe the glass in front of these insane machines

Happy Holidays

Oh I dont think so!  I can do better with Seans Point-and-shoot, then your 5DII and as far as the glass in front? I just stick a pint of lager there and I get a very warm WB indeed.
Hows that?

enjoy your holiday.

Do 'they' care about the brand of the camera? Due to my budget, the kind of shooting I do, due to my research, and due to my existing half-dozen lenses from the old days, the Pentax k200d looks like the right starter for bootstrapping up to replacing it with something better when I get that far.

Does one have to have the name Canon or Nikon in order to not be rejected?

The K200D is a good camera, and the Pentax lenses are some of the best out there, particularly their "Limited" primes. If on a budget, I would rather have a Pentax with the 31mm f/1.8 than a Canikon with some plastic fantastic zoom glued to the front. The 31 is probably the best "normal" lens for crop-sensor digital cameras from any manufacturer, and it's a full frame lens, so it will be a great WA lens if Pentax decides to launch a full frame camera. With the in-camera IS of the Pentax bodies, it's even image stabilized.

Hmmm... now I want a Pentax again...   

For all you guys to read

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three.shtml

I have a 30D and a 5DII, and I love them both.  And I can take photos just as technically good as your D3's, D3x's and A900s.

A900 suck hard
D3x have the same sensor as A900 but slightly modified... It still suck
D3 was a revolution in term of noise performance. The 5D Mark II is AT LEAST equal if not better than the D3 at all iso's. That with almost the double pixels on the same sensor size.

You have a very good camera Ichiro, it's just that Nikon suck hard... Proud owner of a "unable to shoot over 200 iso Nikon D300"

Canon?

Just get my H3DII 50 out and BLAST you all!!  together with Tulleys Guiness filter. No problem.

Im not dirtying my hands on little DSLRs.

a good year to all of you.

Canon?

Just get my H3DII 50 out and BLAST you all!!  together with Tulleys Guiness filter. No problem.

Im not dirtying my hands on little DSLRs.

a good year to all of you.

Too bad if your subject is moving you will have 50 MP of slow :p

H3D II is a great studio camera.  Have fun with such a great tool

Camera bodies like computers are a mere commodity, not an investment, since technology advances so rapidly. Today's nec plus ultra is obsolete tomorrow. Often the price of a repair after two years is higher than the price of a new body with the same performance.

I, for me, would refuse to pay more than 1,000 Euro for a body that is worth 3-400 two years later. After all, it's the stock agencies that push us forward to the best technical quality and with 33 cents per sold subscription image, images that often end up in a 150px wide sidebar, that is just ridiculous. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

A D3X for 8000$? Come on, only a few can afford that from their stock income, and then, what about the other costs like insuring a capital like that? The D3X doesn't even have video like the D90 and no IS on sensor. The trend in microstock is to keep production costs low per image. A D3X won't help. That can be different if you're Yuri Arcurs or you're commissioned to do the centerfold of Vogue.

I would rather invest in top glass and good strobes, business wise spoken.