Author Topic: Shutterstock's Top 10 Cameras (Read 14826 times)

Pixart · « **on:** April 18, 2015, 01:16 »

http://petapixel.com/2015/04/17/the-top-10-cameras-behind-photos-submitted-to-shutterstock-in-2014/

[/Of the top 10 cameras, the Canon EOS 5D Mark III and the Nikon D800 had the highest approval rates, with 69% and 68%, respectively.i] 68/69% are the highest rates - Really?

Ariene · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2015, 01:28 »

I wouldn't treat it to much seriously.

dpimborough · « **Reply #2 on:** April 18, 2015, 03:35 »

Cameras don't take photos ~ photographers take photos

Pauws99 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 18, 2015, 03:55 »

Although it takes a special skill to to take a photo without a camera - nothing wrong with wanting the best equipment.

fotografer · « **Reply #4 on:** April 18, 2015, 04:30 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on April 18, 2015, 03:35

Cameras don't take photos ~ photographers take photos

A decent camera sure makes the job easier

Tror · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2015, 05:33 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on April 18, 2015, 03:35

Cameras don't take photos ~ photographers take photos

Ummm...I hear that over and over, and yes, obviously you have to be a good photographer. Nevertheless, in the end, it is the camera that freezes the moment the photographer composes and creates. Please create a beautiful natural light apartment scene with three models. Take a, lets say MKIII, with a crappy 5.x lens, take a shot. Then take the same shot with a nice 1.2 prime. See the difference? Light is beautiful. Way closer to what you see and want to create.

Yes, you can take sellable images with a phone! You can create good stuff with your Nokia! I do not want to reduce artists who prefer to go this route :-) Buuut......if you have a professional approach then you have a certain idea in mind even before you start with the preproduction. You have a concept, a theme, you have a certain light in mind, know what mood you want to transmit, know exactly which WB you chose to match the vibe you want to transmit. And obviously, you have the approach to deliver the best quality you can. You chose good equipment. Reliable hardware which brings a nice dynamic range and does not cripple your creation. You want to get 90%+ accepted by the agencies. You do create a product which should have the highest impact possible.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2015, 06:03 »

Tror....You sum it up brilliantly

Mantis · « **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2015, 08:49 »

These greedy companies want size. Like the D800, a huge image for .38 cents attracts more buyers but we get nothing more. Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales. Yet there is no benefit, really, for photographers. If I make 5 more .38 cent sales per month because I have super large images, does that pay for my camera? FK NO!

Rinderart · « **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2015, 19:07 »

Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49

These greedy companies want size. Like the D800, a huge image for .38 cents attracts more buyers but we get nothing more. Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales. Yet there is no benefit, really, for photographers. If I make 5 more .38 cent sales per month because I have super large images, does that pay for my camera? FK NO!

Your correct 100% "IF" you only do stock. If you do client work, Clients demand you have Pro equipment. trust, They know the difference and the attitude/trust that goes with it..

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2015, 22:59 »

So those figures tell us .... errr - that the 5D MkII has been around a lot longer than the 5D MkIII and the 6D? Amazing!

dpimborough · « **Reply #10 on:** April 19, 2015, 02:11 »

Quote from: fotografer on April 18, 2015, 04:30

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on April 18, 2015, 03:35
Cameras don't take photos ~ photographers take photos
A decent camera sure makes the job easier

i've seen plenty of terrible photos taken with top of the range cameras and lots of beautifully shot photos taken with cheap cameras.

You guys are just gear freaks

dpimborough · « **Reply #11 on:** April 19, 2015, 02:18 »

Quote from: Tror on April 18, 2015, 05:33

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on April 18, 2015, 03:35
Cameras don't take photos ~ photographers take photos

Ummm...I hear that over and over, and yes, obviously you have to be a good photographer. Nevertheless, in the end, it is the camera that freezes the moment the photographer composes and creates. Please create a beautiful natural light apartment scene with three models. Take a, lets say MKIII, with a crappy 5.x lens, take a shot. Then take the same shot with a nice 1.2 prime. See the difference? Light is beautiful. Way closer to what you see and want to create.

Yes, you can take sellable images with a phone! You can create good stuff with your Nokia! I do not want to reduce artists who prefer to go this route :-) Buuut......if you have a professional approach then you have a certain idea in mind even before you start with the preproduction. You have a concept, a theme, you have a certain light in mind, know what mood you want to transmit, know exactly which WB you chose to match the vibe you want to transmit. And obviously, you have the approach to deliver the best quality you can. You chose good equipment. Reliable hardware which brings a nice dynamic range and does not cripple your creation. You want to get 90%+ accepted by the agencies. You do create a product which should have the highest impact possible.

Really??? So if you consider photos taken 10 years ago were they any less professional? Taken that cameras that were no where as good as they are today.

That kind of opine is two a penny "oh if I get the latest Nikon D810 or Canon MkIV" the images will be sooo much better"

It's hog wash developed by the camera companies and swallowed hook line and sinker by gear freaks with too much money.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 19, 2015, 02:24 »

I don't think anyone is actually saying that you are arguing against a straw man

Ariene · « **Reply #13 on:** April 19, 2015, 03:33 »

Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49

These greedy companies want size. Like the D800, a huge image for .38 cents attracts more buyers but we get nothing more. Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales. Yet there is no benefit, really, for photographers. If I make 5 more .38 cent sales per month because I have super large images, does that pay for my camera? FK NO!

When I was starting with micros, years ago, people uploading to SS suggested me to downsize files as you say. After some time I decided to upload only large files to SS as there were ODDs and SoDs. I was hoping to increase my earnings with that a lot. To be honest I didn't notice any spectacular increase. In a fact I still work harder and harder to keep the same level of sales. How much more work I'd need to do to make my income 3x, 5x more? Regularly? Large files is not the key - the lesson is done.
I've found it useless to sell my oryginal size work for subs. (still talking ab.SS as I don't sell on other micros anymore), so I now must admit, that people were right. Downsizing files is better option if you want to sell it with subs on SS. In other way it is not worth the effort anymore. Make oryginal size available on your own website (with fair pricing) or other websites where you can expect high price for licence.

We are selling RF! Subscription? Large size, oryginal, full res? Not any more. Not in my case.

Now I'm waiting for the minuses from people who say: "all I care is what I see in my payment day."

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #14 on:** April 19, 2015, 03:42 »

I think the cheaper cameras are owned by relative newbies and they will have a higher rejection rate when getting into the business. Once they get their port going, they make more money and want a better camera. At that point they already know what they are doing and their acceptance rate for that new camera is good from the start.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #15 on:** April 19, 2015, 03:50 »

Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49

Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #16 on:** April 19, 2015, 04:44 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 19, 2015, 03:50

Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49
Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.

But then, if you shoot a macro with very shallow DoF and not an obvious point of focus they reject the full size version as "blurry" because they don't have time to spend 10 seconds pinning down the precise point of focus. And a photo that's rejected has poor sales chances

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #17 on:** April 19, 2015, 04:45 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 19, 2015, 04:44

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 19, 2015, 03:50
Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49
Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.

But then, if you shoot a macro with very shallow DoF and not an obvious point of focus they reject the full size version as "blurry" because they don't have time to spend 10 seconds pinning down the precise point of focus. And a photo that's rejected has poor sales chances

So all macro photos before 10MP cameras were rejected?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2015, 06:45 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 19, 2015, 04:45

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 19, 2015, 04:44
Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 19, 2015, 03:50
Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49
Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.

But then, if you shoot a macro with very shallow DoF and not an obvious point of focus they reject the full size version as "blurry" because they don't have time to spend 10 seconds pinning down the precise point of focus. And a photo that's rejected has poor sales chances
So all macro photos before 10MP cameras were rejected?

Eh? No, I'm saying that 20 MP macros which do not have a very obvious thing to focus on are at risk. 10MP would improve your chances of acceptance, it's the same as shrinking a 20MP image down, thereby increasing the DoF and making it easier for the reviewers to spot where it is. But 4MP would be best of all. In a side view of food there may be many possible points to focus on and if the reviewer doesn't look closely he/she may not see where it is.

Mantis · « **Reply #19 on:** April 19, 2015, 07:33 »

Quote from: Rinderart on April 18, 2015, 19:07

Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49
These greedy companies want size. Like the D800, a huge image for .38 cents attracts more buyers but we get nothing more. Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales. Yet there is no benefit, really, for photographers. If I make 5 more .38 cent sales per month because I have super large images, does that pay for my camera? FK NO!

Your correct 100% "IF" you only do stock. If you do client work, Clients demand you have Pro equipment. trust, They know the difference and the attitude/trust that goes with it..

I was responding to the title of this thread.....SHUTTERSTOCK top 10 cameras. I wouldn't argue your claim at all outside of stock.

Mantis · « **Reply #20 on:** April 19, 2015, 07:50 »

Quote from: Ariene on April 19, 2015, 03:33

Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49
These greedy companies want size. Like the D800, a huge image for .38 cents attracts more buyers but we get nothing more. Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales. Yet there is no benefit, really, for photographers. If I make 5 more .38 cent sales per month because I have super large images, does that pay for my camera? FK NO!

When I was starting with micros, years ago, people uploading to SS suggested me to downsize files as you say. After some time I decided to upload only large files to SS as there were ODDs and SoDs. I was hoping to increase my earnings with that a lot. To be honest I didn't notice any spectacular increase. In a fact I still work harder and harder to keep the same level of sales. How much more work I'd need to do to make my income 3x, 5x more? Regularly? Large files is not the key - the lesson is done.
I've found it useless to sell my oryginal size work for subs. (still talking ab.SS as I don't sell on other micros anymore), so I now must admit, that people were right. Downsizing files is better option if you want to sell it with subs on SS. In other way it is not worth the effort anymore. Make oryginal size available on your own website (with fair pricing) or other websites where you can expect high price for licence.

We are selling RF! Subscription? Large size, oryginal, full res? Not any more. Not in my case.

Now I'm waiting for the minuses from people who say: "all I care is what I see in my payment day."

Great post. I too have also struggled with that tactic and always uploaded full rez. As we see the RF market spiral downward out of control, I don't think I'll see any more "out of focus" rejections as I resize from 24mp to 12 or 6 mp (isn't 6mp the minimum these days?). As for minuses, I think many on here (not all) would completely agree with you. The topic of downsizing has been discussed many times here and there are two crowds (as there usually are) to this tactic. But as commissions drop I personally do not see how agencies can possibly expect that contributors keep uploading the highest resolutions possible. Agencies call this a "competitive edge". I call it another way for them to make astonishing amounts of money at our expense. The agencies are NOT THE ONES who make the capital investments to produce goods. Other than their own system needs, their balance sheet is automatically enhanced each and every time "WE" make a technology investment that will result in a digital asset. The avoid that cost altogether, yet they want to control how that asset is configured (high resolution versus low resolution, for example). It's the "have their cake and eat it too" mentality. So while we play our own game of chess to survive in this game, their game is how to spend the vast amount of money they make off of our hard work.

Now, for those who will ask me what I am doing about it, I am moving into video and uploading mostly on non-micro sites, although I am on SS & 123. I have invested some money in equipment, lighting, etc and am seeing a return that indicates video, if done right, can make more money. I am also taking to a couple of other peeps to start my own site and considering paying for a SEO expert to test that investment. I am actively looking at other avenues because I am burned out on being taken advantage of and to see SS starting to take this path tells me micro stock is seeing the bow being tied to the end of something that was once sustainable.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #21 on:** April 19, 2015, 07:58 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 19, 2015, 06:45

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 19, 2015, 04:45
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 19, 2015, 04:44
Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 19, 2015, 03:50
Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49
Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.

But then, if you shoot a macro with very shallow DoF and not an obvious point of focus they reject the full size version as "blurry" because they don't have time to spend 10 seconds pinning down the precise point of focus. And a photo that's rejected has poor sales chances
So all macro photos before 10MP cameras were rejected?
Eh? No, I'm saying that 20 MP macros which do not have a very obvious thing to focus on are at risk. 10MP would improve your chances of acceptance, it's the same as shrinking a 20MP image down, thereby increasing the DoF and making it easier for the reviewers to spot where it is. But 4MP would be best of all. In a side view of food there may be many possible points to focus on and if the reviewer doesn't look closely he/she may not see where it is.

ok gotcha. I see now that I misunderstood your comment.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #22 on:** April 19, 2015, 10:33 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on April 18, 2015, 03:35

Cameras don't take photos ~ photographers take photos

well said. but many salesmen in camera stores still tell their customers not to buy anything other than canon and nikon . they also get commissions to sell just that. but yes, you cannot be a greater painter if you can only afford cheaper brushes. and if you only have the cheapest beat-up guitar like robert johnson, there is no way you are going to be the grandfather of the blues

Mantis · « **Reply #23 on:** April 19, 2015, 11:24 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 19, 2015, 03:50

Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49
Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.

That's what my "entire" post was saying. BTW, where is SS now? Why aren't they coming in here to "correct" us on image size like Scott used to do? Because in my mind they no longer care to be involved in the "discussion". Their spots are changing.

Pixart · « **Reply #24 on:** April 19, 2015, 15:24 »

Oops I had two tabs open and put this in the wrong thread.

I only really know about Nikon, what I found interesting was that a Nikon D800 owner can expect only about a 68% approval rate. In Canadian $ this camera sold for around $3500 and required the FF lens on top of that - not exactly the same range as the pro cameras but throw a $499 grip on it and you are getting close to $6K with a good lens. You make this kind of investment, you don't put some cheap lens on it - yet still only 68% acceptance? You would expect a higher level of experience from the photographer who makes this kind of investment. The D7000 was about $1500 in it's day (half of that now), making it more available to everyone and it is about 62% acceptance.

It would be really interesting to see WHY those 32% of photos are being rejected! I expect the owners of this camera to be more semi-pro or pro and I wonder what percentage of the rejections are "rogue reviewer".

Ya, I'm sure there's a few SMWC who can buy great gear and put an ad on Kijiji to launch their new photo business - and they might bring the approval rate down.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #25 on:** April 19, 2015, 15:26 »

Quote from: Mantis on April 19, 2015, 11:24

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 19, 2015, 03:50
Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49
Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.

That's what my "entire" post was saying. BTW, where is SS now? Why aren't they coming in here to "correct" us on image size like Scott used to do? Because in my mind they no longer care to be involved in the "discussion". Their spots are changing.

I must have misunderstood your comment as well then. I have been a bit couch potato this weekend. Watched Godfather Trilogy for the first time.

Mantis · « **Reply #26 on:** April 19, 2015, 15:34 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 19, 2015, 15:26

Quote from: Mantis on April 19, 2015, 11:24
Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 19, 2015, 03:50
Quote from: Mantis on April 18, 2015, 08:49
Scott Braut was clear about this. DO NOT DOWNSIZE, he has said, it increases your chance of sales.

Of course Scott says that. They want whats best for them. He is not going to say that they want 4mp images or that it doesnt make a difference.

That's what my "entire" post was saying. BTW, where is SS now? Why aren't they coming in here to "correct" us on image size like Scott used to do? Because in my mind they no longer care to be involved in the "discussion". Their spots are changing.
I must have misunderstood your comment as well then. I have been a bit couch potato this weekend. Watched Godfather Trilogy for the first time.

I sent you a horse head.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #27 on:** April 19, 2015, 15:38 »

I'll make you an offer you can't refuse

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #28 on:** April 19, 2015, 17:45 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on April 19, 2015, 02:18

Really??? So if you consider photos taken 10 years ago were they any less professional? Taken that cameras that were no where as good as they are today.

That kind of opine is two a penny "oh if I get the latest Nikon D810 or Canon MkIV" the images will be sooo much better"

It's hog wash developed by the camera companies and swallowed hook line and sinker by gear freaks with too much money.

ask any professional store specialist and they will tell you the only reason why you buy a "pro" camera is that your mileage is high like you need a good german car if you do all that driving and expect the car to stay in good shape after thousands of miles. it doesn't make you a better driver, just that you don't have to run out to buy another car before it's time.
the same with pro cameras.
but these days, esp in USA and Canada cameras are cheaper to buy, so lots of guys with cameras carry better equipment than some pros. ever been to one of those car exhibition where girls wear far less and more leather than the upholstery of the car? you will find more pro cameras there
being carried by guys with cameras who really only shoot with auto , and i don't mean automobile.
and yes, the girls also posed more for the guys with the biggest and best cameras because they think they are the pro photographers.
if you think needing top of the line makes you a better photographer,
then your grey matter is no smarter than those girls at the automobile -exhibition

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #29 on:** April 19, 2015, 17:46 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on April 19, 2015, 17:45

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on April 19, 2015, 02:18
Really??? So if you consider photos taken 10 years ago were they any less professional? Taken that cameras that were no where as good as they are today.

That kind of opine is two a penny "oh if I get the latest Nikon D810 or Canon MkIV" the images will be sooo much better"

It's hog wash developed by the camera companies and swallowed hook line and sinker by gear freaks with too much money.

right on!

ask any professional store specialist and they will tell you the only reason why you buy a "pro" camera is that your mileage is high like you need a good german car if you do all that driving and expect the car to stay in good shape after thousands of miles. it doesn't make you a better driver, just that you don't have to run out to buy another car before it's time.
the same with pro cameras.
but these days, esp in USA and Canada cameras are cheaper to buy, so lots of guys with cameras carry better equipment than some pros. ever been to one of those car exhibition where girls wear far less and more leather than the upholstery of the car? you will find more pro cameras there
being carried by guys with cameras who really only shoot with auto , and i don't mean automobile.
and yes, the girls also posed more for the guys with the biggest and best cameras because they think they are the pro photographers.
if you think needing top of the line makes you a better photographer,
then your grey matter is no smarter than those girls at the automobile -exhibition

robhainer · « **Reply #30 on:** April 19, 2015, 18:35 »

The good thing about the D800 is that all the megapixels give you more flexibility. You can crop, you can downsize, you can do whatever you need to do and still get good stock images. There's more room for error, not less, when you account for the fact that you can downsize to 16 or 12 mp, or even 6 if you have to. I believe, and I could be wrong, but it seems this way to me, that you get a sharper less noisy image if you downsize from 36 mp to 12 than if you downsize from 16mp to 12.

Sometimes I have to downsize just to get the image to be less than the maximum memory size because it won't upload. Some sites won't accept an image larger than 25 or 30 megabytes. If you have good color and tones like in an HDR, you can easily get a 36mp image to be bigger than 25 megabytes.

Some at Shutterstock have claimed that larger megapixel images sell better. I don't think that's the case. I recently submitted two very similar photos, one lit with natural light, one lit with bounced flash. The bounced flash was 30mp and the natural light one was downsized to 6 mp because I had to shoot it at higher ISO and it wasn't as sharp because I shot it at a slower shutter speed. The natural light one is selling better across the board at all sites it's on.

spike · « **Reply #31 on:** April 21, 2015, 05:37 »

I'm not sure how indicative this is.

I believe many pro contributors strip their exif data (I know I do, and I'm not a pro), so probably these percentages might not be too informative for an average full-time microstocker. But again, who knows. Maybe I'm in the small minority thats strips exif.

Rinderart · « **Reply #32 on:** April 22, 2015, 18:44 »

Quote from: spike on April 21, 2015, 05:37

I'm not sure how indicative this is.

I believe many pro contributors strip their exif data (I know I do, and I'm not a pro), so probably these percentages might not be too informative for an average full-time microstocker. But again, who knows. Maybe I'm in the small minority thats strips exif.

Hmmmm. intriguing, In all my time I never knew of anyone doing that. Just curious as to why?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #33 on:** April 23, 2015, 01:35 »

I was recently shooting inside a dark building with a Nikon D7000 where flash and tripod were prohibited would any of you artists out there like to suggest how I go about getting my fine compositions accepted for microstock and not rejected for noise or poor focus?

Thats the point we are talking about the tools needed for microstock - don't mistake that for the art of photography

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #34 on:** April 23, 2015, 02:05 »

Noise reduction in lightroom and downsize to 4.1 mp

Pauws99 · « **Reply #35 on:** April 23, 2015, 02:08 »

Thanks will give it go but suspect IQ will still not be good enough other than for some of the more forgiving sites. Think it might be easier with a D810 - but not economically justified!

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #36 on:** April 23, 2015, 02:13 »

I gave images with ISO 5000 accepted on SS. Commercial RF. But they are more forgiving on noise on editorial images.

ArenaCreative · « **Reply #37 on:** April 23, 2015, 10:31 »

Quote from: robhainer on April 19, 2015, 18:35

The good thing about the D800 is that all the megapixels give you more flexibility. You can crop, you can downsize, you can do whatever you need to do and still get good stock images. There's more room for error, not less, when you account for the fact that you can downsize to 16 or 12 mp, or even 6 if you have to. I believe, and I could be wrong, but it seems this way to me, that you get a sharper less noisy image if you downsize from 36 mp to 12 than if you downsize from 16mp to 12.

Sometimes I have to downsize just to get the image to be less than the maximum memory size because it won't upload. Some sites won't accept an image larger than 25 or 30 megabytes. If you have good color and tones like in an HDR, you can easily get a 36mp image to be bigger than 25 megabytes.

Some at Shutterstock have claimed that larger megapixel images sell better. I don't think that's the case. I recently submitted two very similar photos, one lit with natural light, one lit with bounced flash. The bounced flash was 30mp and the natural light one was downsized to 6 mp because I had to shoot it at higher ISO and it wasn't as sharp because I shot it at a slower shutter speed. The natural light one is selling better across the board at all sites it's on.

Agreed. The megapixel race isn't really a big issue as much anymore. Sure, there are 4k displays and new technologies like these coming out, but most displays are simply still 72dpi and that's not really asking much in terms of pixel dimensions of an image. Print needs to be 150-300dpi, and those pixel densities murder resolution when resampled. Print is just a method of getting people to the web, nowadays... it's a dying medium. The more clean image space you can capture, the greatest freedom you have in terms of making something useful out of your own technical errors. I can save images that are slightly out of focus, or slightly too noisy at ISO3200 with post processing and downsize/resharpening the files out of my 21mp 5d markII... where I could never get away with such a thing half as much, back when I was shooting an 8 megapixel 20D or 10 megapixel 40D.

Not surprised the 5D2 is most popular. I think it's one of the best bangs for the buck, in terms of full frame, low noise bodies. ISO 1600 looks like ISO 400 did on my old 40D crop. I'm so happy with mine, I have no plans to upgrade bodies in the near future. I'd rather invest in some new toys to strap onto the front of it

Rinderart · « **Reply #38 on:** April 23, 2015, 23:30 »

I want the best, The best cameras, The best Glass, Best studio Equipment I can get. Because i can afford it. Does it make me better or more competitive as a working pro? I think so. Can I do stock with a 6MP Camera? Yes I can and have. Can you? I don't know. Any camera sure isn't gonna matter if you can't. Im a admitted gear Junkie and I buy the best for one important reason......Re-sell value. I've sold many lenses for as Much or more than I paid for them...A kit lens? Is a doorstop!!! I learned a long time ago to buy the best. Otherwise, If this is more than a hobby your buying again which costs even More money. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I've had Most leicas made, most Hasselblads and Mamiyas and every pro Nikon Since 1959 , 4 x 5's,8 x 10's and 11 x 14's. I like precision made products. Good cars, Great kitchenware and furniture that lasts. So Sue me....LOL!!

Like said , If this is all I did or wanted. I would still Own a Nikon D100 or a new Gh4.

The megapixel Race has to stop....Why? Because Nikon Nor Canon cannot produce glass to resolve the MP's. Fact. and they Know it. The best Nikon Glass on My D800 Is Pretty Good But you Put a Zeiss prime on and your in another world......A Completely Other world. A D810 is 20% Better than My D800. Im waiting for the next Jump and then will Invest in Zeiss Primes.Probably 20K+

Images and resolution dont Lie. Folks that have no clue Pretend.

Come on...Jump all Over me...It's cool I love Cameras and I love resolution even More. I shot the Pentax 645Z all last week. Very Nice 50MP Camera. Body Only is about $8500.00 +Glass. I also Shot the Phaseone. Not that Impressed. Im Lucky I get to try this stuff for free.

I do think in a year or so.Maybe Longer that Mirrorless is the future.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #39 on:** April 24, 2015, 02:53 »

When I read that I wonder why you get worked up over 38 cent images? LOL. My images sit next to yours, but my overhead is 100x lower than yours. I never understood why you are in Microstock anyways. All you do is complain about it. At your age you need to enjoy a stress free life and enjoy the money you earned all your life. Why work yourself up over pennystock. Just go out and shoot for the love of it, shoot those $50k images for your big clients, chase the light you love so much. Shooting a stunner sunset over the Canyon with a $20K lens makes sense. Shooting a tube of toothpaste isolated on white doesnt. Why even bother with stock man.

indyedge · « **Reply #40 on:** April 25, 2015, 11:58 »

I have a friend trying to sell me his old Canon 5D full frame camera. I have a couple of Canon 7D cameras at the present as I shoot a lot of sports & wildlife. Can the Canon 5D still cut the mustard for a studio camera ? The price is right but I haven't used a older Canon full frame before.

Rinderart · « **Reply #41 on:** April 25, 2015, 15:10 »

Quote from: indyedge on April 25, 2015, 11:58

I have a friend trying to sell me his old Canon 5D full frame camera. I have a couple of Canon 7D cameras at the present as I shoot a lot of sports & wildlife. Can the Canon 5D still cut the mustard for a studio camera ? The price is right but I haven't used a older Canon full frame before.

Actually the Original 5D has become a collectors Item for Folks that have Leica Glass. Mainly for Landscape work. If You can get a good price. I would snag it. If Ya dont want it. Pls PM me with a Link to the owner.

robhainer · « **Reply #42 on:** April 27, 2015, 12:28 »

Quote from: Rinderart on April 23, 2015, 23:30

I want the best, The best cameras, The best Glass, Best studio Equipment I can get. Because i can afford it. Does it make me better or more competitive as a working pro? I think so. Can I do stock with a 6MP Camera? Yes I can and have. Can you? I don't know. Any camera sure isn't gonna matter if you can't. Im a admitted gear Junkie and I buy the best for one important reason......Re-sell value. I've sold many lenses for as Much or more than I paid for them...A kit lens? Is a doorstop!!! I learned a long time ago to buy the best. Otherwise, If this is more than a hobby your buying again which costs even More money. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I've had Most leicas made, most Hasselblads and Mamiyas and every pro Nikon Since 1959 , 4 x 5's,8 x 10's and 11 x 14's. I like precision made products. Good cars, Great kitchenware and furniture that lasts. So Sue me....LOL!!

Like said , If this is all I did or wanted. I would still Own a Nikon D100 or a new Gh4.

The megapixel Race has to stop....Why? Because Nikon Nor Canon cannot produce glass to resolve the MP's. Fact. and they Know it. The best Nikon Glass on My D800 Is Pretty Good But you Put a Zeiss prime on and your in another world......A Completely Other world. A D810 is 20% Better than My D800. Im waiting for the next Jump and then will Invest in Zeiss Primes.Probably 20K+

Images and resolution dont Lie. Folks that have no clue Pretend.

Come on...Jump all Over me...It's cool I love Cameras and I love resolution even More. I shot the Pentax 645Z all last week. Very Nice 50MP Camera. Body Only is about $8500.00 +Glass. I also Shot the Phaseone. Not that Impressed. Im Lucky I get to try this stuff for free.

I do think in a year or so.Maybe Longer that Mirrorless is the future.

I think it's important to remember that the top cameras aren't all that expensive anymore. A D800 is only $2500-$3000. You can get good lenses for less than $2,000 each (24-70 2.8 and 70-200 f4), so you can have a complete camera-lens kit for less than $7,000. It used to cost almost that much for a top professional body all by itself. Even if you specialize and add a wide zoom like the 12-24 or get the 70-200 2.8 instead of the f4 and add a couple of flashes, you're still coming in at $8,000 to $10,000 max.

Even then, you can cut lens costs by going with fixed lenses if your budget is tight.

And like Laurin says, if you go mirrorless like the Fuji system which has great glass, your costs are half of what a good pro Nikon system costs.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #43 on:** April 27, 2015, 23:46 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on April 23, 2015, 02:13

I gave images with ISO 5000 accepted on SS. Commercial RF. But they are more forgiving on noise on editorial images.

i think nowadays modern sensors are not showing us the real ISO, this is obvious shooting in high ISO in daytime but also in low ISO in nighttime, nikon and canon are trying their best to camouflage the realistic limits of their sensors ...

i don't know if agencies are now more tolerant on noise, for sure they're more forgiving on De-noising but this probably because on a 24 or 36MP images it looks less ugly than on a 6 or 12MP ?

Hobostocker · « **Reply #44 on:** April 27, 2015, 23:53 »

Quote from: robhainer on April 27, 2015, 12:28

Even then, you can cut lens costs by going with fixed lenses if your budget is tight.

indeed.
a Pro body with a Pro prime lens is a top notch combination, if your images still su-ck maybe the problem is YOU and not your gear.

Rinderart · « **Reply #45 on:** April 28, 2015, 00:48 »

heres the Issue. Canon and nikon Both DO NOT have the glass to resolve this many megapixels and they Know it. Once it passed 18 which is the max for there glass. You have to be very Careful, as Bad technique will Bite you Big time. Small Mistakes become very Big Mistakes. If....Stock was all I did 12 Good megapixels is just fine, 16 MAX and that means ...as always using the best glass. Glass/ Optics is 90% of the war. Cameras don't mean that much compared, Then comes technique.

When I switched to digital Full time, my first camera was a Nikon D1. It cost $6,499.00. It was 2.2 Megapixels and the screen was 1.5 Inches By 1.2 inches. A 1GB IBM CF Microdrive was $499.00. I've had every Pro Nikon made since then.
D2H. Ground breaking Camera
D2X Great Camera
D3 Total pro Camera And Miss mine terribly
2 D100's
2 D70's
D200 and 300
D7000
D800

All said...The D800 is a very Nice machine and with the best glass and in good hands is quite an Improvement But, It is also Very Unforgiving in the wrong Hands. and after tests I've done A d800 or 810 with Zeiss Glass is beyond Belief compared to Nikon Glass. really astounding for studio Or landscape work. Do I consider the D800 as a "Pro" camera? No. I do not. if you compare it to the D4 doing wildlife or sports, at the pro level.. Is it overkill for stock? Yes.

Also.. I get to use and test whatever i want and process the Images in controlled environments. The D810 IS...In My view 20% better than the D800. All things being equal...ie;Glass

Do you need this as a stock shooter? No. do you need technique and knowledge and creativity? Yes. Much More than any camera made or will be made. OK, after saying that...Watch Out for these mirrorless wonders coming along, seems like weekly. Nikon and Canon Completely dropped the ball on this. megapixels is a myth. Good megapixels is far more Important.

mojaric · « **Reply #46 on:** April 28, 2015, 01:06 »

cathyslife · « **Reply #47 on:** April 28, 2015, 09:44 »

For photographers shooting things other than just stock photography, I totally agree that if you can afford the best, buy it. It is unfortunate, but brand names and expensive equipment help attract the crowd that will pay more money. That is true in all of life. Real estate agents usually drive BMWs or Benz's. Same reason. Image and perception.

For photographers shooting stock and getting paid .38 per image? No, not so much.

It is unfortunate that the agencies are approving work based on what camera was used instead of the merits of the actual photo. That is when you know it is all about money and status, and not so much about talent.

ArenaCreative · « **Reply #48 on:** April 28, 2015, 10:14 »

Laurin's right. Outresolving the glass isn't necessarily a great thing. Neither is when these point-and-shoots shoot 20-30 megapixel files on them with tiny sensors. Pixel density according to the physical size of the sensor has a lot to do with it too, not just megapixel resolution. Still, I've never shot hassies or high end stuff, so I'm not personally spoiled to that kind of quality. I don't even want to - I'm still blown away with what simple Canon and Nikon glass can do.

In terms of AF... Until you start shooting sports/action or birding nonstop, an older full frame body with decent autofocus will serve you right. I've shot skateboarding on my 20D, 40D, and 5D2 and with as much as people complain about the autofocus on the 5D2, I must have gotten a later model... servo mode nails the focus just about 90% of the time, even shooting wide open no matter if I'm using the 24-70, 17-40, or 70-200. The 20D and 40D missed a lot more than the 5D2. That helps a lot, so now all I need to really be concerned with is the amount of light available, and my shutter speeds to capture the motion (unless I'm trying to intentionally pan or capture the movement). I'm sure the 5D3/7D af system is much better, but I can't see spending more when I'm happy with the tools I have.

I'm also a pretty frugal guy, though. For example, I just bought a (1 of 400 made) collector's edition sports car with low miles, just 7 years off the lot, for the price of a new Honda or Hyundai econo-box. Is it an amazing car? Heck yea, but no way in heck it's worth $70,000 to me. I hope the first guy felt that he got his money's worth out of it. I enjoy nice things (who doesn't?) I just refuse to pay top dollar for them. Let those who enjoy to have the "latest and greatest" break the stuff in, then I can scoop it up a few years later at a fraction of the cost.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #49 on:** April 28, 2015, 10:15 »

Quote from: cathyslife on April 28, 2015, 09:44

It is unfortunate that the agencies are approving work based on what camera was used instead of the merits of the actual photo. That is when you know it is all about money and status, and not so much about talent.

My acceptance rate didnt change because of the camera I used. My 450D did a great job, its just that the 6D does a better job. But a good photo is a good photo. I dont think agencies reject on camera model at all. Some images I submit dont even have meta data as they are created from a blank canvas. Plus I use my own donor/template images for some work, that were shot with the 450D back then. They still get accepted.

dpimborough · « **Reply #50 on:** April 28, 2015, 10:38 »

I still shoot and submit photos taken with an 8 year old camera and acceptance is around 95%.

It's not the number of mega pixels its the size of the photosites on the sensor that counts

Big photosites

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #51 on:** April 28, 2015, 11:09 »

The lens resolution vs sensor resolution issue is a bit complicated and it seems nowhere near true that in all circumstances the cameras are outresolving the lenses. Here's something from the Canon Rumours site three years ago:

"The highest resolution Canon sensor on the market today, their 18mp APS-C sensors, resolve 116 lp/mm (see quote above for reference and details about how this number is derived.) If we assume a perfect lens, at f/2.8 and 50% contrast, you can resolve about 247 lp/mm, which is slightly more than twice what Canon's highest resolution sensors are capable of resolving (for reference, you would need a 210mp FF or 81mp APS-C sensor to resolve that much detail.) Given that real-world lenses are aberration-limited at wide apertures like f/2.8, lets take a more realistic aperture. The Canon 7D 18mp APS-C sensor is diffraction-limited at f/6.9, so if we assume an f/7.1 aperture, we can resolve roughly around 95-100lp/mm. The sensor is now outresolving the lens at this aperture, and all apertures smaller than f/7.1. At f/8 the lens can only resolve 86 lp/mm, f/11 it drops down to 63 lp/mm, and at f/22 it is at a mediocre 30 lp/mm!! The same lens at f/6.3 would probably resolve just about 118 lp/mm, just ever so slightly better than what the sensor is capable of resolving itself."

So I wouldn't worry too much about that - but it's worth being aware that high f numbers (f/8 upwards) can automatically degrade your images. The diffraction limit varies from camera to camera, Cambridge in Colour website has a calculator that can tell you where your camera is. I regularly get images accepted on SS that are past the diffraction limit (they're more likely to reject for a shot with a shallow DoF than one that is diffraction limited).

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #52 on:** April 28, 2015, 11:21 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on April 28, 2015, 10:38

I still shoot and submit photos taken with an 8 year old camera and acceptance is around 95%.

It's not the number of mega pixels its the size of the photosites on the sensor that counts

Big photosites

what you say and baldricks trousers following comments are interesting. i was wondering myself about the newest dslr vs the older dslr too. many times when i eyeball the side by side shots of the identical shoot using 3 generations of dslrs all shooting at each sweet spot , i noticed the oldest camera being spot on in sharpness while the newest actually dropping in 3rd place .
i am not one for tech datas, but i can see with my own eyes at 100% mag the images of the oldest gen dslr actually out performs.
maybe it is like the old nikon F vs the newest gen of film 35mm, it is the same case too
which is why we all stay with the oldest nik , canon, etc.
like hot rods buffs claim too the same thing, as with guitars from the PAF humbuckers Les Paul .
all that talk of being dinosaurs not evolving is really only for the guys who must have always the latest with bells and whistles but not the working photographer, hot rodder, guitarist,etc..

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shutterstock's Top 10 Cameras (Read 14826 times)

dpimborough

Tror

Rinderart

dpimborough

dpimborough

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Rinderart

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

Rinderart

Semmick Photo

Rinderart

Rinderart

Semmick Photo

dpimborough

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors