ClubTread Community

ClubTread Community (https://forums.clubtread.com/)
-   Photography Talk (https://forums.clubtread.com/29-photography-talk/)
-   -   Canon announces an 18MP 7D with APS-C sensor (https://forums.clubtread.com/29-photography-talk/31006-canon-announces-18mp-7d-aps-c-sensor.html)

Andrew Strain 09-08-2009 10:00 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by swebster

Danjurak, if you don't mind me asking, what are the specific requirements of the agency that cause you to need full frame? Pixel count? EXIF data must say it is a FF camera (which would be dumb)?, pass some kind of noise level test?
I'd say its 10% technical and 90% credential.

danjurak 09-09-2009 08:20 AM

Swebster, it's different depending upon the agency. From what I've seen Masterfile has the highest technical requirements.

Even Getty, which is the largest and hardest to get into as one of their stock photographers has lower standards. Things that technically might pass at Getty wouldn't get past Masterfile. Their philosophy is that everything they sell should be able to be reproduced at very high magnification.

They are especially critical of noise, chromatic aberration and color banding. Try burning a corner down too much, banding appears and your photo gets rejected.

Some agencies have a list of approved camera equipment, others take anything, any size. So you need to check out their websites, it's usually on there somewhere.

As someone posted 10% technical and 90% credential, it might be that way with some agencies but Getty could care less who you are, Masterfile or Firstlight for that matter. If you can produce interesting, marketable, high quality images consistently, you're in.

It costs nothing to apply. Look for the agencies links on their websites and send them a link to your portfolio or a submission, whatever they ask for. You'll know within a month if you're in.

It's not a club for name shooters. They're in it for the money. If you provide a product they think they have a market for, they'll represent you.

My mountain landscapes sell very little compared to my other stock. The agencies take them but the market for that stuff isn't as large as for other types of photos.

Good luck,
Dan

BillyGoat 09-09-2009 08:47 AM

Masterfile eh? I'll have to take a look, but they might not like me since my portfolio is also with several microstock agencies. With regard to FF sensors, Im still waiting for Sony to whip out something more like a 16MP FF rather than the 24.6mp's; although the new A850 24.6 FF priced at 2,000 looks rather enticing.
Lets not also forget that lens quality also plays a critical role in the final quality outcome of an image. I recently bought the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 for my A700 and its much better than the other wide-angles Ive used.

Monster 09-09-2009 04:17 PM

And there you have it, as BG points out...

When it comes to the quality of images from modern dlsr sensors, the quality of glass you own will have a far greater impact than all the difference between FF and APS-C put together.

Andrew Strain 09-09-2009 04:29 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by danjurak
As someone posted 10% technical and 90% credential, it might be that way with some agencies but Getty could care less who you are, Masterfile or Firstlight for that matter. If you can produce interesting, marketable, high quality images consistently, you're in.
What I meant was that the camera requirement IS the credential. Big money bodies mean (usually) that you're serious about what you do and weed out most of the wannabes. Odds are, if you're packing a $5k++ body, you know what you're doing (or have way too much money on your hands). For better or worse, its a barrier to entry for the market.

Thom Hogan has something to say on the subject, as well: http://www.bythom.com/sonyenvy.htm

BillyGoat 09-09-2009 06:03 PM

Naw it's still ultimately all about the lenses. You can put a pancake lens on a D3X and it won't look very impressive anymore. I'd say that a D40 with a 300mm F2.8 or even a 70-200 F2.8 would look more impressive and lofty than the D3x with a pancake lens. Look at professional photog's profile shots and they usually have some impressive lens attached to their bodies.
I'm still of the opinion that the money should be spent on the glass and a nice tripod before going with a more expensive FF. High resolution FF's otherwise only give you higher resolution files of compositional and exposure errors and further magnify poor quality glass.
Yeah in one sense I'd love to get a Sony 24MP A900 or A850 but the thing is there's be no advantage at all unless at the same time I plunked down the cash for some really nice FF glass.

Andrew Strain 09-09-2009 07:22 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by BillyGoat

Naw it's still ultimately all about the lenses. You can put a pancake lens on a D3X and it won't look very impressive anymore. I'd say that a D40 with a 300mm F2.8 or even a 70-200 F2.8 would look more impressive and lofty than the D3x with a pancake lens. Look at professional photog's profile shots and they usually have some impressive lens attached to their bodies.
I'm still of the opinion that the money should be spent on the glass and a nice tripod before going with a more expensive FF. High resolution FF's otherwise only give you higher resolution files of compositional and exposure errors and further magnify poor quality glass.
Yeah in one sense I'd love to get a Sony 24MP A900 or A850 but the thing is there's be no advantage at all unless at the same time I plunked down the cash for some really nice FF glass.
Common misconception - crop sensors are actually more demanding on glass than FF - the 7D will provide a much greater torture test for lenses than the 5DII. FF just exposes lenses, especially poor ones, where they are at their weakest: in the extreme corners, beyond the coverage of the APS-C image circle.



BillyGoat 09-09-2009 07:56 PM

That may be so Andrew but the fact remains that excellent quality lenses still help make or break a good quality shot from a great quality shot. I'm sticking with my 12MP APS-C for awhile as it is quite adequate for my work and more than meets the requirements for my clients and stock agencies that I submit to.
I'd still like to see Sony put out a decent 16MP FF DSLR as to me that would be about the perfect size.

Arnold 09-09-2009 09:30 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by BillyGoat

That may be so Andrew but the fact remains that excellent quality lenses still help make or break a good quality shot from a great quality shot.
I totally disagree. I bet you won't be able to tell which lens was used if you were to look at random pictures on the internet (or in print). Sure, you could probably tell, that here a long telephoto lens was used, and there a wide angle lens used, but that would be as far as it would go in most situations, especially for landscape photography. Besides, considering image quality, a cheap prime will always outperform an expensive zoom lens. That's why I don't see here how a technically great shot can be made just a "good shot" by a "cheap" lens.

Monster 09-09-2009 11:01 PM

Seriously Arnold, in all the years I've been doing photography that is the very first time I have ever heard anyone try to make that argument :D

I am not even a pixel peeper but I can promise you there is a vast difference in image quality between good glass and cheap glass even while only observing 100% crops.

Arnold 09-10-2009 07:20 AM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Monster

Seriously Arnold, in all the years I've been doing photography that is the very first time I have ever heard anyone try to make that argument :D

I am not even a pixel peeper but I can promise you there is a vast difference in image quality between good glass and cheap glass even while only observing 100% crops.
Monster, I'm not interested in replying to your insanity. What you just wrote has absolutely no logic, nor you're competent enough on this subject to even open up your filthy mouth.

eeyun 09-10-2009 10:18 AM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Arnold


Monster, I'm not interested in replying to your insanity. What you just wrote has absolutely no logic, nor you're competent enough on this subject to even open up your filthy mouth.
Quoted for longevity, not because I agree. What's with the vitriolic reply to an otherwise reasonable discussion?

Go somewhere else, you're not wanted here.

splitboarder 09-10-2009 10:40 AM

Arnold, while its perfectly clear you received no love as a child, there is no reason to result to calling names because someone has a different viewpoint. Why is it that every topic you post to is just you bullying (unsuccessfully) other members. The value in this forum is the combined input from everyone, regardless of viewpoint, experience, etc. For you to systematically respond with such senseless drivel paints a picture of a sad and lonely individual crying out for help.

Do you need help Arnold? Going through a rough time? I suggest you vent your frustrations elsewhere, you have no idea how stupid you ridiculous you make yourself look...

Now to respond to the quarrel you caused on this topic. I somewhat agree with you, there will be times when a difference cannot be discerned from for example a prime vs. a zoom lens. Good glass vs. bad glass are such general terms though, I wouldn't consider the nifty 50 from canon (ef 50 f1.8ii) to be good glass but yet stopped down its stellar, in fact most poorer lenses are still quite adequate when stopped down. But then there's the times you shoot with wider aperatures, wide open even. There you would certainly see a difference in most comparisons (sticking with prime vs. zoom as the example though there are still exceptions - see above nifty 50 or the 70-200f4L is great wide open). There are also more things to consider then just sharpness/detail. Strong considerations in many lens choices include flare resistance, bokeh, good contrast and colour, qualities that pricier glass is engineered to improve on. SLR lenses span the gamut to match any application, hell I know pro photogs who have never bothered with primes, others still who use them exclusively, they all have their reasons. At an amateur level though, I would agree the difference is mostly insignificant all other things being equal.

Matt 09-10-2009 12:40 PM

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Arnold



I totally disagree. I bet you won't be able to tell which lens was used if you were to look at random pictures on the internet (or in print). Sure, you could probably tell, that here a long telephoto lens was used, and there a wide angle lens used, but that would be as far as it would go in most situations, especially for landscape photography. Besides, considering image quality, a cheap prime will always outperform an expensive zoom lens. That's why I don't see here how a technically great shot can be made just a "good shot" by a "cheap" lens.
You're joking, right?

swebster 09-10-2009 01:29 PM

There are a lot of really great photos taken with very inexpensive lenses, often the kit lenses, out there. Stopped down, a lot of lenses perform very well. I do to some degree agree that it would be difficult to tell the difference between some of these and a technically superior lens. Of course there are many scenarios where the differences are much greater.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome