Hmmm. I love my Kodak z612. For non-commercial work, it is all a person mostly needs.

But Dreamstime rejected all of my submissions of my test entry late last summer. Well, two or three of them were due to things I can learn from, and I appreciate that, but ALL of them, including the 80% that had no other reason, were due to 'sensor size' or 'lens quality'. Theoretically, according to the label, that is a Schneider-Kreuznach (sp?) lens. Good glass.

So, I *assume* that it is a sensor size issue. If so, to get into stock photography, do I not need a 23mm sensor? That is, a DSLR? (the 35mm sensors are too expensive for me) I'm about ready to blow all of my Christmas money on a DSLR hoping to begin to actually be able to submit successfully and maybe even make a little money. I do realize that making enough to say, recoup the investment, will take quite a while, that this is something that builds slowly.

Am I being foolish?

Do 'they' care about the brand of the camera? Due to my budget, the kind of shooting I do, due to my research, and due to my existing half-dozen lenses from the old days, the Pentax k200d looks like the right starter for bootstrapping up to replacing it with something better when I get that far.

Does one have to have the name Canon or Nikon in order to not be rejected?

Interesting thought. 

Though my lenses are all Pentax K-mount. Nothing outstanding, but I do already have them.

I'm learning on a fast curve here. I looked at a demo image from a K20D which is highly spoken of for image quality, and it has the same artifacts. . . And even some mottling, which I only get when very underexposed. Maybe it was just that one image. I will keep learning (!)

Seren is basically right, just not how she said it :-)

  

Well, even well-lit scenes show 'noise' in soft focus portions of the image, such as the sky, or leafy backgrounds. It is subtle, but it is definitely there. It doesn't compare to the hot pixels I had in my old Oly 725, and looks no worse than a friend's Rebel produces, but I am suspecting either the sensor isn't good enough, or else the jpg software, even in the 'fine' setting, is compressing too much. And only jpg is available (grr).

I'll try, but I wonder if it is possible to bootstrap up from this camera.

Madelaide,

The Kodak Z612 IS is a 'bridge' rather than a compact. And it says that it has Schneider-Kreuznach Variagon 35mm-420mm equivalent lens. Maybe that isn't true? Most importantly to me, I could afford it, and it had manual everything. I'm very unhappy that it doesn't have RAW or TIFF. I'm someone who'd be happy with a K1000 if it had a digital back and in-camera metering. I prefer to set aperture, shutter and focus manually, I don't really like the automatic forms. I'm not saying I'm a great photographer, or that there isn't a -lot- for me to learn.

At the present, since I take a lot of pictures when it is snowing or could suddenly cloudburst, my wish-camera is the Pentax K20D. There are better cameras out there, no doubt,(for 8 times the price) but I like the weather-proofing and that it has in-body stabilization and will use my old lenses from my film days. It is seven times the price I paid for the refurb Kodak.

I was kinda dreaming - I don't think that it is realistic, that I could make money towards that DSLR through stock sales. Ok, that is probably unrealistic, but that was my thinking.

Thank you, Adelaide :-)

Steve

Seren, I know this. I even said so in my post. As I said in it, when I can, I will get a decent DSLR. At present, I cannot.

I believe I read in this thread that when you take a 6mp image and blow it up to 5025x3800 (give or take) that imperfections will appear. It was a very low light picture that I tried this on, I might get different results with a daylight shot. I am not new to photography, just digital photography. I know about settings. The sensor might also be to blame. I doubt a prosumer long zoom is going to have nearly as good a sensor as even a bottom-end DSLR. But you can't get a K20D or a 40D or a D80 (or better) with 100 dollars Christmas money. Take a deep breath. You answered what I already told you in my post. I did ask questions in it, so if you have any answers to -them-, they would be welcome.

I'm brand new to this. I scaled up a 6mp image to 5025wide and got a 170 megabyte image in the GIMP. That should be a 48 megabyte image if I am understanding this thread correctly.

So, what am I missing here?

It is a late sunset image, so naturally it is 'grainy' at that scale.

I only have a Kodak Z612 IS at present, which is 6 megapixels. Is that good for -anywhere-? If so, is it then the best route to sell through microstock sites until I can get a 'real' camera? And only sell the images from the DSLR through traditional sites like Alamy? Or would I be permanently banned from traditional stock sites due to having sold micro in the past?

I am baffled by the contracts, such as Alamy's. I don't understand clearly what I am binding myself to.