Author Topic: Image Size (Read 2441 times)

Rainer123 · « **on:** September 22, 2015, 04:36 »

Hello everybody,

right now im shooting with a Nikon D3200 plus Sigmas 17-50 2,8 and 105 2,8. Coming from a photojournalistic background i am used to work the bigger bodies, so i am looking at a D7000 as an upgrade.

Doing that, i would "lose" some MP, from 24 to 16, knowing it doesn´t affect picture quality.

Question is: Do you think there is a significant loss of money on the agencies because of the lower image sizes?

Mantis · « **Reply #1 on:** September 22, 2015, 07:42 »

Why not pick up a D7100? That's 24MP. Can probably find one fairly cheap. Anyway, with microstock I would not sweat it about 16 versus 24 mp. I still sell 6mp images for $100 on SS and on Alamy. The key is good images that hook buyers. Some, like SS, will claim that that more MP hooks buyers who are looking for certain sizes. I will never know because I don't have 36MP. I would venture a guess that it isn't that big a deal for a once in a while sale.

But I would consider the D7100 (same as D7000 with a few upgrades) over the D7000 just for the MP. If you have to downsize you can do so from 24mp to 16mp.

Just a thought.

Rainer123 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 23, 2015, 08:17 »

@Mantis: Thanks! There are a few hundred euros between D7000 and D7100

My thought on the microstock prices was: Looking on Fotolia, you get higher prices for bigger pictures. I´m wondering, if it really makes a significant difference of income

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Image Size (Read 2441 times)

Rainer123

Mantis

Rainer123

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors