I've said what I think. If you disagree, then that's fine. It's your money.


I'd go for image quality every time as I said.


More focus points? I have my camera set to use one because I want to decide where the camera focuses, and not let the camera do it for me.


Auto bracketing? Got it but hardly use it. If I need to bracket shots I shoot manual exposure. I shoot using manual exposure fair bit anyway. It works OK with most of what I shoot.


The articulating screen is actually more useful than you might think, as it allows you to put the camera in awkward positions like very low down and still see the screen.


I've had a quick look online, and I'd probably get the Nikon. As it looks as if the IQ may be slightly better.


Like everything in life, if you overthink it you end up confused.




[size=78%] [/size]

I cant help thinking a short course in basic statistics would reduce the Goldfish like panic/euphoria cycle

While we're on that subject, can we all sign our various governments up to the same course.

Depends. Some cameras will still "beep" when the focus is right. You'd have to look that up for the camera you have.
You can use live view as well, but it's fiddly.

When cameras were manual focus, they generally had better focussing screens. Often "split screen" where the image appears to be split until in focus. Modern camera focusing screens are generally not as good for focusing, but give a better view.
Really though you're worrying about stuff that there is no need to worry about. If you really are an absolute beginner as it sounds you are, get the camera and learn to take photographs with the kit lens first before worrying about other stuff. 

GO for image quality first, possibly also higher ISO performance. You use the IQ every time you press the shutter. Most of the rest tend to be selling points. Things like a camera that will take lots of shots in a burst might be useful if you're really into sport or wildlife photography, but aren't absolutely needed if you don''t do that.

Thanks for the valuable insights and tips!

I am a hobby photographer (with some DSLR shooting & Lightroom experience) and new to stock photography.

I think I am starting to understand the most important metrics (investment in gear, time needed per image and average payout per image).

I am however missing one of the key metrics: How many times is a stock photo (on average) purchased over its lifetime?

Is it safe to assume that for an enthusiast photographer the average number of downloads per image is 5?

Some may reach 50 or even 100+ downloads, but some or bulk of the photos will not sell at all or just 2-3 times.
 
Is 5 downloads on average per image as "lifetime" download too low or high?

I can see the benefit of becoming a better photographer when submitting stock photos to agencies.
But it would be nice to understand the possible income from stock photography and if the initial hard work and patience would ultimately also pay off financially (as a part time / side job).

You can't assume anything. No one can really know what will sell and what won't, or how many times they will sell, although some of the more experienced people here will have an idea.


There really are too many variables, what the subject is, how well it is shot, which agency it's with.


If you are trying to work out how much you can or will make, then the reality is you can't until you have been selling for a while. then you will have some idea.


If you're trying to work out how much to invest in equipment, then my advice would be to keep going with the gear you have until you have made some money.

Is that "New to photography" or "New to stock photography"?
Your's is an often asked question here, and how well you will do depends on which you are.
You need to understand how to take good, if not great, photographs before you will make any money.


As far as "how long to make $x" is concerned. It depends a lot on what I've written above. Someone who is a good photographer, who has some idea about design, and "what stock is" will be a lot more successful than someone who is learning. The former will make money, the latter may make little.


Incidentally don't mistake being accepted by many of the agencies as a recipe for success. It's just being accepted, nothing more really.


Good luck.

Big money if you can get the right gigs. Especially in the USA. I've talked to several people over the years who have worked in, shall we say the "more affordable" end of the business.
I can't think of one of them who wasn't glad to be out of it.

Quote from: stockyme on December 28, 2015, 14:57

Anyone have idea when this slump will be over?

Monday, January 4.

That makes sense, but in my experience it doesn't usually pick up "properly" until the week after. That is nearly the middle of January.
It seems to have got worse for that over recent years. I suspect that all the holidays have / are gradually extending, until by about 2079 there will be five weeks work a year, and 47 weeks holiday.
As I shall be 125, I suspect that I will have been on eternal holiday for some time by then!   

Additionally, does the event where you shot the photo place any restrictions on commercial use of images?  Is the client willing to hold you harmless in writing if any of the three groups (athletes, sponsors, event) decide to sue?  That's the danger in selling your image for commercial use.  The client may want to take the risk, but I wouldn't do it.

That's about my take on it. I wouldn't do it. Just not worth the possible risks.

Quote from: Cylonphoto on December 26, 2015, 02:35

If I was an agency, I would not send Christmas cards. Why?! Because it is not a global holiday. It is bound to one religion only. There are contributors with different beliefs and there are with none.
I would send an e-mail at the end of the year though.

Whose year-end would you choose?

The financial year. . .

^The worrying thing is, that to quote the song from Bachman Turner Overdrive
"You ain't seen nothing yet"
And that goes for this whole business!

Quote from: Difydave on December 03, 2015, 09:36

Quote from: cathyslife on December 03, 2015, 09:04

OMG. At first I thought that was broccoli. LOL.

Good luck with using that excuse in court! :-)


Makes you wonder where the guy is based for that to be legal. Netherlands?

According to his/their Stockfresh port, he/they are based in "Montclair, USA."

https://stockfresh.com/gallery/jeremynathan

None of my business of course. I just wondered. Illegal here in the UK, and lots of other places.
Legal for medicinal use in some places in the States I believe?

Firstly I don't know anything about Canstock's particular requirements. So just what I see. 


Can't see much noise in any of the shots really, but they're tending to be what I'd call "overprocessed" they look slightly "smeary" in some areas, while being oversharpened where there are edges.
Exposure isn't great on a lot of them IMHO. Rather "flat and grey" lacking mid range contrast. The "shells" (whatever they are) have burnt out highlights, and are otherwise underexposed a bit. White balance is too blue as well.


Seems to me that with an older camera like that you'd probably be better staying away from night shots and so on unless you have exposure spot on "in camera", and know exactly how to process to get the result required by a particular agency.