MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Cameras / Lenses => Photography Equipment => Canon => Topic started by: adrian3008 on October 12, 2014, 05:53
-
Hello. I am planning to buy a Canon G1X Mark II point & shot camera for shooting stock photos. Is it ok for the standards of microstock agencies? I mean technical potential of the camera, quality
Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
-
I've not tried the G1X personally but I have yet to find a P&S camera that is 'suitable' for stock photography.
In my opinion virtually any DSLR vastly outperforms any P&S camera for shooting stock. The D1200 for example is half the price of the G1X and yet has 50% more pixels. Pixels matter for stock.
You can shoot stock with a P&S camera ... but you are making the job much harder for yourself if you attempt to do so. Microstock is difficult and competitive enough already. No point in paying a lot of money to disadvantage yourself.
-
Why not? I have Nikon D810 with many lenses, yet in some cases I use my Sony RX100 with even smaller sensor to take pictures for stock... And the pictures are accepted by the sites.
-
My BS pic on iS was shot on a G9, because the camera you have with you is your best camera. (Out of probably <10 pics from the G9 I have on iS.)
-
I am not a professional photographer. I admit that I won't be in the elite range of microstockers with super expensive equipment but as I read on many sites,this camera is advertised as dsrl like quality of image.
Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
-
I am not a professional photographer. I admit that I won't be in the elite range of microstockers with super expensive equipment but as I read on many sites,this camera is advertised as dsrl like quality of image.
There are lots of advantages of a dSLR which for me outweigh the disadvantages (mainly weight).
It's disingenuous to point out that a dSLR camera body is cheaper than a bridge camera, as you then need to add a range of lenses (unless you are one of the lucky few who shoots everything with one lens, which will be possible if you only shoot one genre, probably), and each lens can be as expensive as the body, if not more.
Stock sites usually have (or in iS's case, had) much higher demands for image quality than any of the review sites.
Back in the days when iS had high standards, a few submissions after my BS, my G9 pics were inevitably getting rejected for 'noise', so I went back to the heavy dSLR, but I can't possibly carry it everywhere with me, so I've been missing shots - who knows, maybe one of them would have been my next BS? Or maybe not. Most would be accepted nowadays, but how sales of anything will go there ...
Maybe some people here can tell you whether e.g. SS accepts pics from the camera you're considering.
FWIW, it doesn't seem to be on Alamy's 'unsuitable cameras' Canon list:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/unsuitable-camera-list.asp?cname=Canon (http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/unsuitable-camera-list.asp?cname=Canon)
Also, there are several phone cameras which are acceptible for stock sites, 'even Getty', (FWTW too).
-
I am not a professional photographer. I admit that I won't be in the elite range of microstockers with super expensive equipment but as I read on many sites,this camera is advertised as dsrl like quality of image.
Every iteration of the G-series camera is heralded as "DSLR-like quality" by the review sites. Unfortunately it is never even remotely true (unless you only use it for 6x4" prints).
A cheap, basic DSLR with kit lens will outperform an expensive P&S all day long. Barely used second-hand DSLRs are plentiful in supply and even cheaper on places like eBay.
A single good stock image can recuperate the cost of the camera within one year. Unfortunately however, if said image is rejected for 'technical quality' then it won't make any money at all.
-
The G1X Mark II should not be confused with the other G-series cameras with small sensors. The sensor in the G1XmkII (18.7 x 12.4 mm) is almost the same size as an APS-C sensor found in many crop body DLSR's from Canon. For this reason and also the quality of the lens, the G1XmkII should be more than adequate for stock if you can deal with the ergonomics of the camera.
-
I'm on a tight budget and I don't plan to invest in a dslr camera,lens and other upgrades in the near future. That's the reason I want to invest in a very good p & s camera for the moment. I plan to use it for shooting landscapes, nature, food, isolated objects, textures like rusty doors, old walls.
Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
-
Pay an extra $100 and get this instead. Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100 I'm guessing the optics on are way better. I own DSLR Canons, I have a couple of Canon G cameras and am quickly realizing they are falling far behind. Look at the Sony a6000 also.
-
file quality from g1x is equally to any APS-C DSLR I have the original one the II should have a comparable quality
-
Is G1X MK II not G1X.
-
again it's certainly equal if not even better. You have asked about the technical quality of the files any camera with an mft sensor equally or bigger and a decent lens (which you have in the G1X and G1x II) has more than enought technical quality for any stocksite the rest is up to you lighting,processing, ideas and creativity doesn't depend on the camera.
-
80 % of the shots from my G12 have been rejected for quality, while more than 80% of the shots from any DSLR I used (including 350D RebelXT) were approved (shooting RAW only with both). I guess that says something.
-
80 % of the shots from my G12 have been rejected for quality, while more than 80% of the shots from any DSLR I used (including 350D RebelXT) were approved (shooting RAW only with both). I guess that says something.
the G12 has a TINY sensor in no way comparable to the G1X-series!
-
There are options apart from Canon / Nikon.
You can get a Pentax K5 II with 18-55 WR "kit" lens. (Not a bad lens either) for less than that G1x II.
Images from a DSLR will generally require less processing / more will be of usable quality.
I have had images from an old Canon A65 accepted at iStock before the quality requirements there were relaxed. You can work with images from a lot of cameras if you know what you're doing (and if that camera is accepted at a particular agency), but it's hard work.
-
You can get a Pentax K5 II with 18-55 WR "kit" lens. (Not a bad lens either) for less than that G1x II.
Pentax K5 II is great and the Pentax kit lens is the only decent kit-lens on the market. If it's the same price or even cheaper I agree it is the better and more flexible option just not that pockable than the G1x II.
-
You can get a Pentax K5 II with 18-55 WR "kit" lens. (Not a bad lens either) for less than that G1x II.
Pentax K5 II is great and the Pentax kit lens is the only decent kit-lens on the market. If it's the same price or even cheaper I agree it is the better and more flexible option just not that pockable than the G1x II.
A quick look at UK prices before I posted earlier showed the Canon for Ģ649, and the Pentax for Ģ615. That was just a look though. Don't really know who the sellers were etc. Comparable price anyway. If I only had one camera I'd rather have the Pentax personally. I shoot a K5 and I've got an RX100 for pocketability, and I find it very good. It's not a DSLR though. As an aside the Pentax kit lens is good. A lot of my PF has been shot with older one. :)
-
For the moment I just want a good high quality camera pocketable camera like the one I mentioned before. I guess this G1x mk2 is acceptable for shooting stock.
-
I guess this G1x mk2 is acceptable for shooting stock.
It is
-
with P&S camera you dont have depth of field, they are useless, you need at least 50mm 1.8 lens for studio shots.
forget g1x
-
The g1x mark 2 has a focus ring which can help to achieve the depth of field effect.
-
The g1x mark 2 has a focus ring which can help to achieve the depth of field effect.
Why do you ask for advice when you are so clearly determined not to be swayed by any of it? Go ahead & buy your G1X. You'll find out soon enough why you should have spent less money and bought a cheap DLSR instead.
-
The g1x mark 2 has a focus ring which can help to achieve the depth of field effect.
Maybes aye, maybes naw; and almost certainly only at long telephoto settings if at all.
-
as i said in the other thread about using smartphone for stock, if the image is good enough, go for it. using the top of the line most expensive canon or nikon does not make u a better photographer.
-
on the dof issue, see if you can get someone with the camera to let you check it out. Each camera is different, but this is a comparison between my G9 and my 5D2 (from a PP slide - I was asked to contribute to a presentation on specifically bird /nature photography with bridge cameras versus dSLR. The focal length was the same or very close, but I forget what it was.)
(The difference in colour is a total mystery.)
(http://www.lizworld.com/dof.jpg)
From my point of view, the huge, insuperable advantage of dSLRs, particularly full frame, is quality at high ISO, but that is irrelevant to many stockers.
-
(http://www.canoncamerageek.com/images/Canon-sensor-size-comparisons.jpg)
People in this thread should look up what the G1X actually is!
It is not a normal P&S it has a sensor about the same size as an APS-DSLR and about six times larger than the sensor of a normal P&S like the G-Series. Therefore you can work with Depth-of-field and the image quality is equal to a DSLR.
The G1X-series looks similar to the G-series on the outside but the inside is totally different.
-
Well, please let us know how the g1x m2 does when you work with agencies. i am sure many people are interested, if only as a second camera.
I love my ricoh gr as a small camera and also have the current sonyrx100 m3.
but the canon looks interesting.
Like others have said a dslr is much cheaper and will give you more options if you want to take stock seriously.
Alternative: shoot with your iPhone. I have had many normal images accepted that were done with my phone. And not just for mobile stock. You need very good light, but for outdoors and travel it is certainly possible.
-
It works but why do you want to make your life harder? Just get an entry level dslr.
-
It works but why do you want to make your life harder? Just get an entry level dslr.
This really says it all. If you can only afford one camera a DSLR will perform better and make life easier.
Saying things like "The g1x mark 2 has a focus ring which can help to achieve the depth of field effect." makes me think that you have been reading manufacturers blurb or similar somewhere and have fallen in love with the idea of the G1x from that.
Good luck with it. I'm sure it will mostly do what you want.
-
What? Someone posts a photo from a G-9 vs 5D to argue against a G1x MkII? Lets use a VW to see if a Porsche is better. I mean they both have four wheels and come from the same company?
It works but why do you want to make your life harder? Just get an entry level dslr.
There's the answer. You can add more lenses when you get more money. Sue is right, it's not the same, but also your G1x MKII has one lens and will always have only one lens. :) DSLR allows you to have options and make changes, depending on what you want to do.
In round numbers a Canon Rebel T5i 18MP with an 18-55 kit lens will give you more control and better images, than the G1x MkII, 12.2MP. The T5i costs $100 less. Why would you want the G series camera?
Let me toss in a monkey wrench in this discussion. EOS-M less expensive, interchangeable lenses. Pocketable APS-C. I like mine, and if they ever come out with a mirrorless Rebel size or Prosumer camera, I'd buy that. Hopefully it will use the standard EF lenses.
But if you are going to have one camera and are serious about stock and photos, don't bother with the G1x. It's a great little bridge camera, I've had at least a few G series cameras. EOS-M replaced that, but none of the little cameras, P&S or Bridge, are up to the quality and results from a DSLR.
-
Plus bridge cameras are far more complicated in use. (or maybe it's just me).
-
Can you recommend me a good dsrl + kit lens? My budget is 1300 dollars. Thank you.
-
Any of the big companies, canon, nikon, sony, ricoh...all have dslrs that work easily for stock.
Personally I like the sony nex series, mirrorless small cameras and with an adapter you can use any lens.
But a simple introductory cam from canon and nikon will work well. you can also buy last years model, it will be more than enough. In addition to the kit lens I would buy a 50mm 1,4 or 1,8 lens. For portraits, but also as a good walk around camera. Or a good quality 35 f2.
Any money left, Iīd invest that in good light, a flash with a 360 degree rotating top, reflectors. You can buy it all used to save money and then upgrade your system with your stock earnings.
-
I'm on a tight budget and I don't plan to invest in a dslr camera,lens and other upgrades in the near future. That's the reason I want to invest in a very good p & s camera for the moment. I plan to use it for shooting landscapes, nature, food, isolated objects, textures like rusty doors, old walls.
I think we should take a step back.
I'd have to say that these subjects are pretty much done to death on all of the agencies - take a look at any of the agencies, do searches, and ask yourself what you can bring to the table which is new.
Secondly, what are you shooting with now? What's wrong with the equipment you have? When you've identified the weaknesses or gaps in what you already have, you'll know what you need to get.
Thirdly, it's very, very difficult for newbies to get established nowadays. What the market really wants is model and/or property released images, but even they are pretty saturated. If I were starting now, with your range of subjects (which would have done well ten, maybe even five years ago) I wouldn't expect to recoup $1300 any time soon. (I'm assuming you don't have a vast, stockworthy backcatalogue. If you have, why not upload these first and see how they do?)
-
I don't have any photo equipment right now because I am a graphic designer and my portofolio contains only vector images. Is it a good ideea to extend myself in this photographic journey or forget about it and remain in the graphic designer area? Maybe you are right. As a newbie in photography I don't have many chances when the agencies are already flooded with high quality photos. I don't know what decision to take.
-
But donīt you enjoy photography? Do you take pictures of family and friends and travel?
I would just buy the camera you would want to use for daily life or your own projects anyway and then test stock.
Like someone here said, just because there are pizza restaurants everyhwere, it doesnīt mean yours canīt be successful.
The subjects you mention have been done to death, but as a graphic designer, maybe you can come up with trends that are missing. usually graphic designers do well, at least among my friends, because they know what the clients need.
Making the money you invest back, wonīt be easy. But if you already have portfolios and people come to check you out, I would at least try it and then see what happens.
-
Can you recommend me a good dsrl + kit lens? My budget is 1300 dollars. Thank you.
Difydave already recommended the Pentax K5 II it's a good choice as you get more for your bucks, the entry level cameras of Canon and Nikon or mostly unnatural limited to not compete with their higher priced models but everything is good nowadays and for 1300,- Dollar there is a lot to choose from.
-
Personally nowadays I wouldn't get involved unless I was already a photographer. Might have been OK coming in cold 5 years ago. Now I reckon you'll still have the steep learning curve, and will be hard pushed to make back the money spent on your gear in a reasonable amount of time. Most people here will have been at least competent amateurs with gear before they started in this business, and will have been doing it for several years at this time.
Graphic designers do tend to do better than average though. :)
As said by Stocked I'd at least look at the K5 II. Good kit lens. All water resistant. You get more for your money.
-
Thank you all for your answers
-
Graphic designers do tend to do better than average though. :)
I have to agree with this If I would be good at graphics I wouldn't bother with photos for microstock, unfortunately I'm only good with photography.
-
Can you recommend me a good dsrl + kit lens? My budget is 1300 dollars. Thank you.
Difydave already recommended the Pentax K5 II it's a good choice as you get more for your bucks, the entry level cameras of Canon and Nikon or mostly unnatural limited to not compete with their higher priced models but everything is good nowadays and for 1300,- Dollar there is a lot to choose from.
I think he should go with entry level Nikon. It's logical choice since Pentax isn't future proof. This is coming from a Canon 5D3 user. The new D750(well, 800 600 series, too) outperform canon sensor. The noise performance is simply amazing. Canon works absolutely fine in controlled light but outdoor above iso 800 it's a wreck.
I love canon ergonomics but I might move to Nikon soon if canon can't get their next 5 series right.
-
A friend of mine has a Sony Rx100 ( the first one ) as a second camera and most of his photos get accepted.
I tried it a few days ago and i am seriously thinking of buying one ( its quite cheap now ) so i can carry it always in my bag , and don't miss subjects.
The 7D + lences are too heavy to carry around everywhere i go everyday.
Plus it has 20 mp , so you can downsize a little bit.
But i wouldn't recommend the RX100 or the G1x as a main camera for stock. As people said above , go for a dslr ..
-
I plan to but a canon M (not canon M2) with 1855 and 22 lens.
ANY buddy know canon M.
Is it good for stock?
-
Good for stock is what you do with it. Quality of the images are fine and the lenses are adequate.
Same sensor as the T4i/T5i and digic 5 processor, but EOS-M has, no built in flash, no viewfinder, lens choices are limited.
Let me say this again: get the T5i DSLR not a pocket camera, you will have more control and be much happier over time.
Canon EOS Rebel T5i DSLR Camera with EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens $699 (if you can find a deal on a T4i it's almost identical!) Dial change, different texture and custom settings preview. Problem is for some odd reason, they are priced higher than the T5i? For a discontinued model? I don't understand.
EOS-M $329, 18-55 $109, Flash $59 = $497
As much as I like my EOS-M, for anyone serious, the DSLR has better control and options, I'm also partial to cameras with viewfinders. :) Images should, in theory, be identical, because the sensor and processor is identical. Built in flash is fine for parties and snapshots, either camera you will want something better.
And if you aren't married to Canon like I am, look at Nikon.
I plan to but a canon M (not canon M2) with 1855 and 22 lens.
ANY buddy know canon M.
Is it good for stock?