MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Improve Sales with a Higher Quality DSLR?  (Read 6017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 12, 2008, 15:48 »
0
For those of you who upgraded from a 40D or an XSI to a higher quality camera (like a 5D), have you noticed an increase in sales? It seems that whenever I'm looking at iStockphoto, the pictures that are created from 5D and greater cameras sell a lot more. Maybe it's just my imagination. Most people say that the lenses are more important than the camera bodies, which is why I'm asking whether or not it really matters that much. Thanks for your responses.


« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2008, 15:56 »
0
well both play a big roll and it depends on how old your camera is.  If you have an old Canon 10D, an upgrade to a 40D or a 5D will improve your pictures A LOT.  But most people say buy lenses instead of cameras because a lens you will have for 20 years - so they dont depreciate so quickly.

But as far as stock goes, I have heard that some sites give higher search rankings to cameras with more megapixels (perhaps they have camera quality ratings as well).  If that is true, then a 5D images would come sooner in the search than an image from a 20D and thus sell more.  This is all hypothetical though, I dont know if it is true.

vonkara

« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2008, 16:41 »
0
I noticed at least at Istock that the zoom feature could be used a lot. I have great looking images at thumbnail size that are not that much great at 100% who never sell there while it sell elsewhere more often. Mostly old ones from when I started stock.

But still I can't say it's because of the zoom feature. I had one who have been initially rated by the reviewer who have sold like 40 times in a short period. There could be some kind of rating who play also and not the contributors ones
« Last Edit: October 12, 2008, 16:43 by Vonkara »

« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2008, 16:45 »
0
I believe more megapixels may help when someone needs a really big image, but smaller sizes make a huge part of my sales, so I don't think this is the main factor.  I believe good lenses count more above all aspects, for the sharpness, low CA, etc.  Next I believe noise may be something to worry about, and I suppose that newer pro models handle it better, especially at higher ISOs (am I right?).

Regards,
Adelaide

Xalanx

« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2008, 17:44 »
0
This is a very good topic. I will upgrade my dslr in a few months and I'll be interested in whether camera type has an effect on sales. Maybe an admin from a stock agency can come and post something in this thread...?

« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2008, 17:57 »
0
This is an question that has been asked across the ages.

Is it the equipment that makes the professional better, or the professional that makes the equipment better?

As a matter of fact, Nike made an ad campaign (with Michael Jordan) based around this question ("It's gotta be the shoes").

While equipment does play a part in success, I believe that it has a lot more to do with who is behind the camera.

I would probably think that the reason that you are seeing more sales from better cameras is because that is what the pros usually use.  Most pros won't go out and buy a lesser camera.

Getting a Canon EOS 5D will probably allow you to receive higher royalties (since it will probably allow larger size downloads), but images from this camera will also sometimes get a higher rejection rate (because some reviewers think that they see graininess in the image at large resolutions).
« Last Edit: October 12, 2008, 18:00 by GeoPappas »

Xalanx

« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2008, 23:43 »
0
Getting a Canon EOS 5D will probably allow you to receive higher royalties (since it will probably allow larger size downloads), but images from this camera will also sometimes get a higher rejection rate (because some reviewers think that they see graininess in the image at large resolutions).

LMAO.... :))))))) You're funny dude. Getting a 5d, huh?

Alight people, I will try an experiment with removing all the EXIF before uploading and see how it goes. Or maybe even better, changing the info, making the camera type the EOS 5d mentioned above..?

« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2008, 03:13 »
0
I just wonder if your camera pixel count really does affects the search on some sites. It's another ponderable!
I have my doubts - as there could be equally good or better images in the database that have been shot at a lower res and would not show up.

I feel if it is so, then the site in question should state this, as it would only encourage contributors to upgrade their kit and thus provide better quality images for the agency to market.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2008, 03:14 by takestock »

« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2008, 11:19 »
0
Getting a Canon EOS 5D will probably allow you to receive higher royalties (since it will probably allow larger size downloads), but images from this camera will also sometimes get a higher rejection rate (because some reviewers think that they see graininess in the image at large resolutions).

LMAO.... :))))))) You're funny dude. Getting a 5d, huh?

Alight people, I will try an experiment with removing all the EXIF before uploading and see how it goes. Or maybe even better, changing the info, making the camera type the EOS 5d mentioned above..?


I had a greater number of pictures rejected on istock with Canon 5D (i rented it) than with Nikon D80 and I had way more pictures made with D80. So...your photo gotta be good and clean and well isolated, obviously. 5d reveals more details which can make things more complex to isolate.

Xalanx

« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2008, 12:07 »
0
Can I please get the 5d? Even rented? For one week? PLEASE?!?!?! I'll give in return my darn annoying 350d and even my "in-family" 40d :D:D
I'll promise to make bad photos with sharp detail that I isolated bad on white, blue, black, whatever!!

bravajulia

  • I will do it only for money!!
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2008, 23:38 »
0
question is: are the photos taken with your camera good enough?
I have a nikon d200 and i see a lot of noise in the dark area also in the shot taken at 100 Iso in the full day light. Of course it will be rejected or over filtered if you try to remove noise.
So better camera better accetance rate i think. Any similar experience?

« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2008, 02:26 »
0
I've definitely experienced an increase in $/download over time. I suppose there are many factors affecting this; changes in pricing structures on the sites, improved technique over time, larger images from my 5D.

One thing I have noticed since upgrading, is a reduction in "noise" rejections from SS. But like many others here, I still get a bewildering number of rejections for "over-filtered" images on virtually unedited pics, shot in RAW and with "L" glass. All part of the game!

I think that upgrading kit is a natural progression in the development of a photographer. I suspect though, that this is not the major factor in increasing micro-stock sales.

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2008, 10:13 »
0
I moved up from a Nikon D-70 and Tokina 80-200 ATX f/2.8 to a Nikon D-300 and the Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VR combination.  My acceptance rating improved on every site except iStock by about 20 to 30 percent.

My sales are pretty much unchanged.  So I figure that the sales are more related to the demand for the particular subject matter after the image has been accepted.  Photogs using models or people in general tend to do much better than those reluctant or unable to  work with models due to cost or just not being interested in using models.  I suppose many shy away from people shots as they do not like getting model releases signed.

On a final note, I doubt if I will earn enough over the next three years to reimburse me for the cost of my equipment.  So the equipment I use will generate more accepted images on the five sites I will continue to support, but it is doubtful that my images will sell any better.  In fact I haven't uploaded to four of the five sites for the past four months.  I just haven't had the desire to go on a shoot.  I'm beginning to think that pretty near every possible subject has already been shot.  Guess you can tell I don't take things seriously anymore. ;D

hali

« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2008, 11:38 »
0

One thing I have noticed since upgrading, is a reduction in "noise" rejections from SS. But like many others here, I still get a bewildering number of rejections for "over-filtered" images on virtually unedited pics, shot in RAW and with "L" glass.
I had several of that rejections too. I think to some reviewers , in their little 4 MP minds, it's impossible
to get such noiseless images. so they assume and reject them as over-processed.

micro stock IS  a crazy game!
I have to agree with Roadrunner... " don't take things seriously anymore".
When you see what is selling , sometimes you wonder who is buying!  ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
3904 Views
Last post February 27, 2009, 18:35
by CraigSwatton
19 Replies
4294 Views
Last post September 28, 2011, 09:44
by luissantos84
74 Replies
11774 Views
Last post March 15, 2013, 10:22
by Mantis
6 Replies
2817 Views
Last post October 19, 2012, 13:30
by sweetgirll
7 Replies
1740 Views
Last post April 09, 2013, 18:04
by click_click

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results