But do higher resolution images sell better? Is it something that buyers look a lot at?

Not really, but it's much more flexible to work with.

Most buyers use very small resolutions, and people have been printing large posters with great success from 8mp images for years.

Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the ��s anymore.

I tried a few months ago to put for sale higher resolutions (cca 50% higher resolution than previously)

Conclusion:
-no significantly higher sales
-much longer upload time
-more space use on my disks

I'm not saying it does not work at all (maybe for a few commercial extended licenses, it could be a good strategy), however, it's a big lottery with a very unsure return on investment...

Yes I think that's the same as answering this same question over the years, no one knows for sure, but everything costs more and takes longer.

Quote from: Jens G on April 26, 2018, 04:12

But do higher resolution images sell better? Is it something that buyers look a lot at?

Not really, but it's much more flexible to work with.

Most buyers use very small resolutions, and people have been printing large posters with great success from 8mp images for years.

Also true, it does depend on what, who's buying or what they are using the images for. But you hit about the best reason I can think of for a larger sensor (assuming it's the same Mfg. and one can use their already existing lenses!) More Flexible to work with. Someone can take a photo and crop it into different views. You have room to work and recompose.

Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the ��s anymore.

Also a yes if noise is a problem and shooting at high ISO is important. I don't find that necessary over what I have now, for myself. Others might?

My part of the addition consideration would be, how long does it take to make up the cost of the new equipment in a struggling market. That's if one cares about Microstock or Stock as a source of income. Expenses vs income vs cost to produce the products for that market? How important is a new bigger sensor, with much of everything else remaining the same.

I still downsize most of the time for Microstock. But in my case the content is more important than the size. Others may find a different situation. I don't downsize for news agencies and Alamy for example. I make almost everything for SSTK and FT/AS down in the 6MP range, unless it's something that I feel lends itself to a larger size, like a stitched panorama.

I guess everyone needs to decide on their own what their market is and if they need bigger, maybe better, images. New equipment means new debt to pay off. You don't make money until the equipment is paid for... 

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 26, 2018, 06:08

Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the ��s anymore.

I assume you meant ISO?

Better ISO performance is a huge advantage in my opinion. But I'm out and about filming, relying on natural light pretty much all the time. The most exciting things usually happen when light is weak.

A high megapixel count usually means worse ISO performance, however, as the size of the pixels is smaller. The bigger the pixels, the better the ISO performance. So it's always a trade-off, like with most things.

I agree, being able to shoot at higher iso is a big advantage, you can simply work faster not having to lug tripod all the time and still have keepers usable for stock.

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Tapatalk

No and I checked where my sold images were used and all the time they were used at very small sizes, smaller than those large preview images on agencies' sites.

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 26, 2018, 06:08

Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the ��s anymore.

I assume you meant ISO?

Better ISO performance is a huge advantage in my opinion. But I'm out and about filming, relying on natural light pretty much all the time. The most exciting things usually happen when light is weak.

A high megapixel count usually means worse ISO performance, however, as the size of the pixels is smaller. The bigger the pixels, the better the ISO performance. So it's always a trade-off, like with most things.

Yes meant ISO ;-). Thanks so maybe worth getting a more up to date sensor ;-).

Most buyers are buying photos to use on websites, blogs, social media and news outlets. If the photo is at 1200x800, they�re happy. For websites heroes, anything that can be cropped to about 2400 width, it�s usable.

Do you think though the increasingly rare ones that go for "premium" rates are at higher resolutions? Personally I doubt it.

ss blows up any image under 15mp by 100%, so your 15mp image will offered at 30mp a 20mp image will just be a 20mp image

so if you submit a 10mp image, it will be available at 20mp.

not sure what software they use but doubling the resolution of a file which is sharp at 100% will be very soft at 200% ]

t

Quote from: Pauws99 on April 26, 2018, 06:08

Does anyone feel the ability to have lower noise levels at high asa is an advantage....I'm desperately trying to rationalise a new toy but to be honest I'm not sure the marginal improvement in IQ is worth the ��s anymore.

I assume you meant ISO?

Better ISO performance is a huge advantage in my opinion. But I'm out and about filming, relying on natural light pretty much all the time. The most exciting things usually happen when light is weak.

A high megapixel count usually means worse ISO performance, however, as the size of the pixels is smaller. The bigger the pixels, the better the ISO performance. So it's always a trade-off, like with most things.

Before ISO became the International standard we used ASA or DIN number to measure film speed. It's outdated but once was the standard, American Standards Association. In Europe (and maybe other places?) film was rated by a DIN number. Sometime in the late 80s ISO became the standard that is most accepted and most used. But ASA is not obsolete, just barely used anymore.