Let's have a quick look at realities:

Sony launched their first DSLR 20 months ago, the A100, which was basically an upgraded, re-badged KM 5D. Currently, they sell 4 different DSLR models, ranging from 10-14MP. According to the rumours, they will launch 4 more models within 2008, of which 3 will be full frame. Nobody else have that.

Currently, they have 26 different lenses in their line-up, and new ones are appearing all the time. Surprisingly many of the lenses are pro quality.

If we look at a comparable market, the pro video market, Sony has owned the top segment there more or less uninterrupted since 1982, when they launched Betacam. In other words: they know the pro market, and how to handle it.

Sony has not entered this market to be number 3 or 4. They are going for top spot, and the obvious target is Canon. If they do this the right way, and so far, it has been relatively promising, they are number two or better within 3 years.

And for those who think that electronic corporations can't get that far within the photo business: how many cameras did Panasonic, Samsung and Casio sell 10 years ago? If it wasn't zero, it was very close. And Nokia? I suppose that in reality, they are the biggest camera manufacturer in the world.

I don't think I'll change to Sony overnight, unless one of those 24MP cameras are very, very cheap, but if was going to buy my first DSLR, I would have considered it very carefully.

Pariseye, if you think so, I believe your market is macrostock.

Maybe microstock market is as ikea, low prices with great sells.

Problem is: Featurepics won't get more momentum with lower prices. They get more momentum with better marketing. Designers don't care if an image costs 1 or 5 or 10 dollars. The price is so low anyway, so the difference doesn't impact the project cost in any significant way.

However, the difference has big impact on the photographers, who need money for cameras and food, and Featurepics, who need money for marketing.

There's an ocean of difference between the microstock price of 10$ and a typical macrostock price of several hundred dollars. That's where the savings are for the designers.

I had my first $25 sale there today, generating a $7.50 commission.

When I started uploading there, I decided to price all my best microstock photos at $25 and a few photos that are also at macro agencies at $50. This seems to pay off   

Quote from: grp_photo on February 01, 2008, 18:36

Imho it's dumb to submit editorial images to Microstock-agencies and news related editorial even more.

I agree with that unless they apply a different pricing structure to it I don't see much point uploading editorial content a microstock site.

Agree

The rumour now is that there will be three 24MP FF cameras from Sony within the next 12 months, and that one of them will be a 5D competitor. I'm not surprised to see this at all. Sony regard camera bodies as short-lived consumables that can be priced low, while their lenses last "forever" and are rather expensive.

Except for stock photography, megapixels as such have lost their value. In a way, it's a good thing and very democratic. What camera people can afford will no longer be important for the quality of the photos. The abilities of the photographer still will.

Some interesting figures, comparing my Jan 07 sales with the Jan 08 sales:

SS has increased by 15% from 07 to 08

The total of all agencies, except SS, have increased by 116% from 07 to 08

The SS part of my earnings have gone down from 47% in Jan 07 to 32% in Jan 08. I have not added any agencies with significant earnings the last 12 months.

This is in my view a rather dramatic development, and there's another side to it as well: as much as 36% of my sales at SS are vectors, something I sell very little of at other agencies. If I deduct the vectors, SS represents only 22% of my total sales, at least, that is the situation for for January 2008.

Are things going well in microstock? Yes, they are for me, but I'm not so sure about SS.

Quote from: sharpshot on January 31, 2008, 17:29

Given that SS has raised the commission to contributors by 5 cents the last few years, it will probably be the same again.  They do seem to be losing some customers to DT and StockXpert, so they will have to come up with something to keep the buyers and contributors happy.  I wish they would have pay per download on their main site.  Just having subscriptions doesn't seem like the best way to make the most money from our images.

I agree that they should have some sort of pay-per download on their main site. Crestock pulls it off nicely with a simple $5 small $10 medium $15 large. Sure, it's not very common to get one of those downloads, but they are a nice boost, even at the 20% commission that Crestock gives. I suggested this on SS forums but was shot down by pretty much everyone. 

Strange that they do it. They have a good opportunity to increase their sales as well as profits for all involved, by allowing single downloads. The only reason why I never buy anything from SS is that it isn't possible without a subscription.

This month, I have more earnings at Scanstockphoto than I've had at LO since I started, more than a year ago   

It's a smart choice to only have full frame lenses. My next lenses would surely be in that way also. But I heard it cost 50$ for Nikon to produce the DX sensors and 500$ for the FX.

Maybe it will be less in a short time whit more FX bodies launched. It seem my dream to have a 3000$ FX of 16mpx is far to come true.

The higher price for the FX sensor is a result of a combination of volume and yield, and the latter is by far the most important. While that may improve in the  future, I wouldn't bet on it. At the same time, the crop-sensors get better and better, so there's really very little to worry about.

The wide-angle lens argument is hard to understand. Some of the best WA zooms on the market are the Zuiko 7-14/4 and 11-22/2.8-3.5, both for the 4/3 format that is even smaller than DX. One of the most important reasons for the quality of those lenses, is the principle stated in the 4/3 concept that light should hit the sensor at a 90 degree angle to avoid light falloff and softness at the corners. The result is some very sharp lenses.

With a small sensor, this is relatively easy to achieve. With an FX sensor, the lenses would have to be rather large to follow that same principle, and I doubt that Nikon's lens mount is large enough to accommodate such a lens. Still, Nikon has managed to achieve astounding results with the new 14-24/2.8.

I use Nikon as well as Olympus btw., but my next upgrade will probably be to an E-3 before I consider the D300. The Olympus cameras and lenses are simply easier to live with, and the quality is really first rate   

I fail to see the scam artist aspect and why someone would close the account just a few cents short of payout. DT is one of my top earners and pay me regularly for sales of my images. Is there something I'm missing here?

Yep - they appear to be launching twenty new compact cameras...

... but more importantly THREE new tilt/shift lenses.

I'd take one of those tilt/shift lenses over a new camera any day. Perfect for product as well as architectural photography. The only problem is: They are not cheap, and I've forgotten where I've hidden that large pile of money   

The rumors does speak pretty strongly for a D40X replacement as Nazdravie says. And just as the argument against a 'FX D300' - it would effectively be a D3 - so I think the model you mention would be too close to a D300, eating into sales while its selling like mad at the moment. Nikon should know better than compete against itself - but, we'll see in a weeks time 

Nikon obviously knows very well that they shouldn't compete against themselves, so a cheaper FX camera would probably be much cheaper, even cheaper than the D300, and with a limited feature-set. Probably something in the direction of an FX D40 or D80, but for almost D300 price. That would be an ideal camera for studio use, stock photography, weddings etc., and would sell in huge volumes, probably more than the relatively successful 5D.

5D is definately an attractive option. But I'm carrying the Nikon flag so I'm pretty anxious to see what's coming out at PMA. If it's only a D40X replacement then I'm picking up a D300.

I believe it's the D80 that is due for replacement. It's not competitive against the 40D or K20D anymore. The new one will most likely have the D300 sensor and viewfinder, but in a plastic body like the D80.