Posted in the best match thread about 20 mins ago by Search Fairy.

I have an update on Best Match.

The search team spent last week trying to figure out how Best Match might have changed.  We are still trying toget to the bottom of that, but over the weekend turned our attention instead to how to make it better from where it is right now.

To that end, we are going to turn some dials, increasing the impact that downloads have in search result sorting, and decreasing the impact of file age.  After the change, in general you should see more images that have downloads on the first few pages, and an increase in relevance because of that.

The change is scheduled to happen overnight, tonight.

Typically we would test changes like this with a small percentage of customers to make sure there are not unintended consequences, but given the urgency of the situation we think it is worth the risk to push it out to all customers.

Let us know what you think of the adjustment.

Thank you for all of the examples, they were very helpful in exploring what is going on.

Hoping its summer slow down to blame, we'll see what happens in Sept.

April is currently 20% down on March, Easter hurt noticeably. Since then it's just been slow days, I am exclusive.

Avoiding all the nonsense in this thread, yes Easter killed me. From Thursday to Monday very little sales. Yesterday picked up a little along with today, hoping things slowly get back on track.

I would like to have the 36 mp to push the edits at ISO 100 then downsize to XXXL or XXL.

Right now for me the D800E with a 14-24 is looking really good against this Mark III. I shoot quit a bit of real estate, architecture and studio and I'd love that resolution. We'll see when the comparisons come out.

I like the upgrades the Mark III offers, the AF, fps, 100% viewfinder, image quality but I'm having trouble justifying the $3500 price tag. The AF on the Mark II is poor I think we can all agree on that, but do I want to spend $3500 to replace that, not at the moment.

Quote from: leaf on February 28, 2012, 19:06

Quote from: gostwyck on February 28, 2012, 17:25

Quote from: TheDman on February 27, 2012, 14:03
I can't believe they're bringing back eye-controlled autofocus. I found that completely useless back on my Elan IIe. When I look through the viewfinder I'm hardy ever staring straight at the point of focus; I'm looking at the overall composition. My eye darts all over the scene. I don't have to stare directly at the point of focus to tell what is in focus. Just another bell that I will pay for and immediately turn off.

I found eye-controlled focus point very good and useful on my 50E. I couldn't understand why they appear to have abandoned the technology just when they finally got it working well.

Btw, it doesn't operate all the time but only when you depress the shutter halfway down (just like the autofocus does normally) so you can still have your eyes 'darting all over the scene' whilst you are composing. Having done so, you then stare at the point where you want the focus to be and depress the shutter __ and hey presto, the focus point should light up where you are looking. Magic.

I've also never used it but I agree, what you just described sounds pretty good.

Quote from: KB on February 24, 2012, 15:58

Quote from: contrastaddict on February 24, 2012, 05:46
Hmmm, thats a lot of money for increased AF and FPS.

There's nothing in the leaked specs about an increase in FPS, is there?

Not the official leaked specs, but it has showed up in the rumors many times with these confirmed specs. Mainly 6.5fps if I remember correctly. So everyone seems to be in agreement that a FPS boost is coming.

Hmmm, thats a lot of money for increased AF and FPS. Don't get me wrong i'd love both of those, the AF on my Mark II is poor and I miss focus quite a bit at the bigger apertures, i'd also like to be able to shoot some faster action with better focus. But that's a lot of money. I guess it comes down to seeing the image quality versus the Mark II.

Quote from: leaf on February 21, 2012, 19:16

Quote from: contrastaddict on February 21, 2012, 19:03
I am fairly certain they will be announcing a high MP camera before the end of March, they have to answer the D800. Whether they split it into two lines with the 5DX as well who knows, but all the rumors are pointing to a high MP camera.

The majority of the rumors I've read point to 22mp.  Where are the ones that point to a high MP camera?

Missed the busted post from CR about the 45 mp camera, still the 5d has always been about high MP. I don't see them abandoning that, especially with the D800 out now. I guess time will tell, I wish they would make an announcement already!

I am fairly certain they will be announcing a high MP camera before the end of March, they have to answer the D800. Whether they split it into two lines with the 5DX as well who knows, but all the rumors are pointing to a high MP camera.

Quote from: wut on February 20, 2012, 23:26

Quote from: contrastaddict on February 20, 2012, 22:48
If the 5DX has that much better noise performance that downsizing from the Mark III will just equal the 5DX then yeah the downsizing would be pointless, but I don't think that's going to be the case

Believe me, it's going to be. I've the whole Nikon D3 range for sports, while the picture was really grainy at ISO 800 using D3x, unusable for anything but smaller prints and web usage, D3's (which is half a year older if I remember correctly) was at least as good at ISO 3200. D3s which was introduced a year later was equally good at ISO 4 or even 5k, but shots taken at ISO 800 were great, I'd say you'd have no problem getting most of them accepted at ms agencies (some darker areas could be problematic). The bottom line is, the lower res, slightly older sensor had a 2+ stop advantage over the hi res sensor. You won't achieve the same results by just splitting the resolution in half.

But since you now told you're updating 5D2, then yes, it might just be better than the mkII, if you'll downsize. I've heard D800 is not all that bad at HI-ISO. May I ask what you're shooting, I mean why do you even need good HI-ISO performance? I shoot lifestyle and I rarely go above ISO 200, usually I just stay at 100, wether I use strobes on location or just shoot outdoors using a single (although huge) reflector. I only needed good Hi-ISO performance twice, once for shooting sports and once because of heavy overcast when the reflector was useless

Good points, I haven't been lucky enough to shoot any of the higher end camera models and see their noise performance. I mostly shoot studio and lifestyle outdoors as well. I am usually around 100-200 as well, occasionally I'll get around 640 to 1200 in the magic hour. As I mentioned earlier, I think the main advantage I want is the ability to make harsher edits which create noise, fill light for example. Another big benefit I see from being able to downsize is focus, I shoot quite a bit between 1.4 and 2.0 and its hard to land good focus that shallow. Being able to downsize with bicubic sharper has saved me quite a few times.

If the 5DX ends up being incredibly better of the Mark III in the noise department I may just spring for it instead if downsizing only brings me to the same level of quality. But I still think I'm going to want the huge resolution to be able to push the editing limits and still get photos accepted.

Quote from: wut on February 20, 2012, 19:34

Quote from: qwerty on February 20, 2012, 19:32

Quote from: wut on February 20, 2012, 18:50

Quote from: contrastaddict on February 20, 2012, 17:04
It doesn't matter that sites don't pay past XXXL, the benefit to having 45 megapixels is the ability to shoot at a higher ISO and then downsize to XXXL and get it approved, along with the ability to perform harsher post processing which can create noise and then downsize to bring back the quality and get it approved at XXXL. This is why I would be interested in such a high mp camera.

This could be the biggest nonsense you've ever written . You're going to buy a camera, that crams double the number of mpix on a sensor of the same size, which leads to a lot worse Hi-ISO performance, then you'll add another step in your workflow, just to get the same (or worse) result you would get straight out the camera on the 22 mpix model. Of course you'll pay double the price, to have double the work. That's just brilliant!

Your ignoring the possibility of improved sensor technology / noise reduction. How long does it take to resize a photo. 5 seconds. Hardly doubling your work.

No, I'm not, cameras are going to be supposedly available at the same time (so the same technology). I didn't write it since I thought it was obvious

Both cameras will be released at the same time I understand that, I also understand that the 5DX will have better noise performance. But what you're missing is I'm not comparing the Mark III to the 5DX, why would I? I'm comparing it to my current studio camera which is a Mark II and I am going to assume it will have better sensor technology. So I can then take a RAW image at 45 megapixels at the same or higher ISO which I would on my Mark II and have way more freedom to post process it because of the sheer size of the image and then go ahead and downsize it to still XXXL size.

I see where your coming from where I might just be downsizing to the same quality that the 5DX would put out in the first place, but I'm banking on the noise performance of the Mark III to be decent enough at 100% to take advantage of those megapixels and downsize images. Downsizing has allowed me to get many images approved that wouldn't have stood a chance, it plays a big role in micro in my opinion. Especially when performing stronger edits when aiming for Vetta type images.

If the 5DX has that much better noise performance that downsizing from the Mark III will just equal the 5DX then yeah the downsizing would be pointless, but I don't think that's going to be the case. And again my original post was the advantages of what the Mark III would offer over my current setup.

It doesn't matter that sites don't pay past XXXL, the benefit to having 45 megapixels is the ability to shoot at a higher ISO and then downsize to XXXL and get it approved, along with the ability to perform harsher post processing which can create noise and then downsize to bring back the quality and get it approved at XXXL. This is why I would be interested in such a high mp camera.

Eh not much in terms of free, everyone is going to suggest Photomatix that's pretty much the standard and your best bet.

Quote from: borg on February 09, 2012, 23:28
So, can we expect response from Canon? What is with MK3, just rumors or...?

http://www.canonrumors.com

The whole reason I would sell my Mark II for the D800 would be the ability to downsize, that resolution from 36 megapixels will allow me to shoot at a higher ISO then downsize to XXXL and get it approved. Not to mention when you do some harsher edits you create noise, so doing a harsher edit on a 36 mp image then downsizing will again give it a higher chance of approval. That to me, would be worth the investment.

The Mark III is rumored at 22 megapixels, so we'll see what Canon does there. But for now, stock is all about resolution assuming your not shooting moving objects all the time. And the D800 is looking pretty good.

Images taken from nikon rumors, camera is supposed to be announced tomorrow with the following specs.

36 MP sensor (7360x4912)
100% viewfinder coverage
Improved AF with face recognition – the D800 will still have 51 points AF point
CF+SD memory card slots
USB 3.0
ISO range: 100 – 6400, ISO LO @ 50 and ISO HI-2 @ 25600
The screen will be larger than 3 inches (probably 3.2 in.)
The D800 will not have built-in GPS
Expeed 3 processor
There will be two different D800 versions/models, one with the antialiasing filter removed
4 fps continuous shooting, about 6 fps in DX mode with optional battery pack
Video modes: 1080p/30/25/24 and 720p/60/30/25/24
Headphone jack, can input from an external device such as a PCM sound recorder
86k pixels RGB sensor
200,000 shutter cycles

Sigh

It's completely vague and has no clear answers as usual.

I'm exclusive, so my only option at Alamy would be RM correct? I've never really looked into it, I wouldn't be able to generate a large enough portfolio as the majority of my work is on IS as RF. I do have a handful of photos I don't submit, however not enough to create a decent port. Not to mention, the RM sales are pretty rare I imagine.

add downsizing to the advantages list.

I just submitted this to Vetta, it got an initial 5 but still didn't make it I don't know what the secret is, but I can't seem to get any more in there.

I'm 24, I consider going full time with microstock quite a bit. Trying to make it my actual career, however since it can be quite a rollercoaster I am a bit hesitant. I worry how many years will this last, and if my income will continue to grow. But for now it is a big part of my income and I plan to stick with it as long as possible.