Hello everyone! I am new here and thought I would start with a question. I have been shooting film for a while now and have been reluctant to move over to digital, due to quality issues. Well, I am ready to make the switch, but I need some advice on what DSLR to choose.
Currently I shoot Provia 100 in a Nikon and love my results.
I am looking to go pro with this, and my goal is to get published.
I already sell prints of my work as "art"......
If you want to see the kind of images I take, go to...
www.scottshenton.com
so here is my question.....
What pixel count considered to be on a pro level? I hear a lot about the D70/50/100, but I am not sure if 6.2MP is going to make the cut. And to be completely honest, I dont' like the idea of submurging a $5K 12MP monster.
Any advice?????
Full Version: Pro level DSLR
Hi Scott and welcome to Wetpixel.
The number of pixels really has nothing to do with whether a camera is "pro" or not. My 8 megapixel pro Canon slr has the same number of megapixels as the $350 Ricoh Caplio point and shoot...
To answer your question, a camera is usually considered "pro" based on the robustness of the body, the size of the buffer, and the autofocus system.
Cheers
James
The number of pixels really has nothing to do with whether a camera is "pro" or not. My 8 megapixel pro Canon slr has the same number of megapixels as the $350 Ricoh Caplio point and shoot...
To answer your question, a camera is usually considered "pro" based on the robustness of the body, the size of the buffer, and the autofocus system.
Cheers
James
But isn't there a standard minimum resolution that is considered marketable?
Not really, it all depends on your application. The Nikon D2Hs is a 4 megapixel camera (the same as my Nikon coolpix point and shoot), but is considered a pro body. What sets it apart, as James said, are the speed, robustness and AF system. As far as pro cameras go, Canon has the 1d mkII and 1ds mkII and Nikon has the D2Hs and D2x. Canon's 5D and 20D are semipros, and Nikon is lacking a camera in this segment (the eagerly awaited D200). Nikon's D50, D70 and the Canon dRebels are advanced amateur bodies.
If you are worried about resolution, there is only one thing you should consider, the size of your prints. For magazine (letter) size prints, 6mp is fine, if you go much bigger than that 12-16 are better.
If you are worried about resolution, there is only one thing you should consider, the size of your prints. For magazine (letter) size prints, 6mp is fine, if you go much bigger than that 12-16 are better.
Oh, as far as submerging a 5k body, there is always insurance! And I think that a 5k body is far safer inside a housing underwater than in the streets of many big cities.
A 6 megapixel camera is capable of producing 20x30 prints if they are correctly exposed captures.
Cheers
James
Cheers
James
Seapics.com the major UW stock agency states they will accept nothing less than photos from a 6mp DSLR or higher. They don't want photos from an 8mp P&S.
THerefore, i would suggest that D70 is a good enough place to start.
But, i think you would be happier with the D2X....
THerefore, i would suggest that D70 is a good enough place to start.
But, i think you would be happier with the D2X....
QUOTE (MikeVeitch @ Sep 7 2005, 04:08 PM)
Seapics.com the major UW stock agency states they will accept nothing less than photos from a 6mp DSLR or higher.
That's strange, I find D2Hs photos (4mp) as good as D70 photos (detail at 100%), I don't know if there is a difference in pixel quality, is there such a thing? I also find Canon 1d pictures better than 20D, am I getting crazy? I mean, are all pixels created equal?
Just to clarify the issue on the amount of pixels needed, the ratio of sensor size / pixels amount / technology is important here. 8 mega pixels on a very small 8.80 x 6.60 mm chip is not the same as that of a 28.7 x 19.1 mm chip, you have the same amount but not the same size.
More important than the amount is the way you work those pixels, good post processing skill is a must to learn and will yeld 60" print with a 6 megapixel DSLR. Of course the more the merrier, 6 mega should put a smile on your face but 12 mega will give you a grin
with those kind of resolution your pushing medium format out the door! wise man said: i'm too poor to buy cheap, so get the best you can (or cannot) afford. you won't regret.
cheers
More important than the amount is the way you work those pixels, good post processing skill is a must to learn and will yeld 60" print with a 6 megapixel DSLR. Of course the more the merrier, 6 mega should put a smile on your face but 12 mega will give you a grin
with those kind of resolution your pushing medium format out the door! wise man said: i'm too poor to buy cheap, so get the best you can (or cannot) afford. you won't regret.cheers
My advise is to buy a camera with more MP than the minimum of today's
standards.
No there isnt much practical difference between 4 and 6 or 6 and 8 but you have to compete with everyone else. No one is going to want your 4mp image when there are a doesen people with the same shot at 8mp.
1 year ago all but a few new dSLRs were 6MP. What a coincidece that 6MP is the minimum standard today.
But today, most new dSLRs are 8mp or more. I expect that in a year from now, 8mp will become the standard.
standards.
No there isnt much practical difference between 4 and 6 or 6 and 8 but you have to compete with everyone else. No one is going to want your 4mp image when there are a doesen people with the same shot at 8mp.
1 year ago all but a few new dSLRs were 6MP. What a coincidece that 6MP is the minimum standard today.
But today, most new dSLRs are 8mp or more. I expect that in a year from now, 8mp will become the standard.
Hi Scott,
My view is that lots of people get published that are not "pro" photographers (some in this fourm) and lots of people have "pro" level equipment that do not get paid for their work. The digital market is changing much faster than the film camera market ever did. What is important is that you have equipment adequate to allow your skills to continuously grow.
Ask yourself if your current Nikon lenses will meet your U/W needs with a X 1.5 sensor. If you are going to need all new lenses then start from the ground up. If not, look to what you like from Nikon. Will your current ports and strobes work with the housing you intend to purchase? These are questions that in my mind are more important than numbers of mega-pixels.
Seapix.com may be asking for 8 mp images rather than 6 mp at some point but the quality of Doug Perrine's images taken with a 6 mp camera will continue to sell well into the future just as his film images have.
Time in the water with your equipment will ultimately determine the worth of your images.
Phil
My view is that lots of people get published that are not "pro" photographers (some in this fourm) and lots of people have "pro" level equipment that do not get paid for their work. The digital market is changing much faster than the film camera market ever did. What is important is that you have equipment adequate to allow your skills to continuously grow.
Ask yourself if your current Nikon lenses will meet your U/W needs with a X 1.5 sensor. If you are going to need all new lenses then start from the ground up. If not, look to what you like from Nikon. Will your current ports and strobes work with the housing you intend to purchase? These are questions that in my mind are more important than numbers of mega-pixels.
Seapix.com may be asking for 8 mp images rather than 6 mp at some point but the quality of Doug Perrine's images taken with a 6 mp camera will continue to sell well into the future just as his film images have.
Time in the water with your equipment will ultimately determine the worth of your images.
Phil
QUOTE (Rocha @ Sep 7 2005, 02:14 PM)
That's strange, I find D2Hs photos (4mp) as good as D70 photos (detail at 100%), I don't know if there is a difference in pixel quality, is there such a thing? I also find Canon 1d pictures better than 20D, am I getting crazy? I mean, are all pixels created equal?
There are other factors that affect resolution. There's an anti-alias filter over the sensor that blurs the image to prevent digital artifacts. It's a trade-off, but does affect the resolution. Also, as we discussed in the thread that Rand started, macro shots are often limited by lens aperture and not the number of pixels. In this case, the bigger sensor chips have an advantage. I think in general this is true when resolution is limited by the lens.
A few comments:
Not all pixels are equal! Its a bit like saying that all 35mm ISO100 films are the same - simply not so.
Forget the technology, its the image that counts, BUT
Most Stock Agencies require a 50Mb file - you can interpolate but currently the only viably housable camera to produce an uninterpolated file this size is the Canon EOS1DSMkII (No I don't use one as I find interpolated files from a 1DS to be perfectly adequate). This said, smaller Mpixel cameras will struggle to produce a good 50Mb file. Lastly, the pro world is a strange and competitive place - there is a great deal more to it than taking good photos. My normal advice to anyone wanting to make money out of underwater photography is to suggest that they don't. Simply enjoy it. If you are determined then it is this determination which will enable you to succeed - a part of this is choosing the right equipment for how you want to operate. Amass the facts and go for it.
Not all pixels are equal! Its a bit like saying that all 35mm ISO100 films are the same - simply not so.
Forget the technology, its the image that counts, BUT
Most Stock Agencies require a 50Mb file - you can interpolate but currently the only viably housable camera to produce an uninterpolated file this size is the Canon EOS1DSMkII (No I don't use one as I find interpolated files from a 1DS to be perfectly adequate). This said, smaller Mpixel cameras will struggle to produce a good 50Mb file. Lastly, the pro world is a strange and competitive place - there is a great deal more to it than taking good photos. My normal advice to anyone wanting to make money out of underwater photography is to suggest that they don't. Simply enjoy it. If you are determined then it is this determination which will enable you to succeed - a part of this is choosing the right equipment for how you want to operate. Amass the facts and go for it.
Hi!
Pixels sell. That's most of the hype. I use a 5MP DSLR and I'm happy with it. It produces great colours within a dynamic range that exceeds slide material. The lenses are great too. You have to add up the MTF of your lenses, the resolution of the chip, colour space and dynamic range, firmware processing (noise reduction, sharpening filters) and post processing to define the technical quality of a shot.
Usually, you'll view an image from a distance twice the size of the diagonal. Taken this into account 5 or 6 MP is sufficient to blow up to house wall sizes.
Scanning slides at irrational high resolutions just yields bits. You won't get any more detail or information by pushing the resolution beyond a certain level. Asking for XXX MB sized images is a sure sign of lack of knowledge. First of all it's the image itself. Even the technical perfect 50MB image may be a poor shot in terms of image composition. A great image may be spoiled by a bad workflow. I see statements like "xxx MB", "300 dpi" (without a pixel size) as a joke or mere suggestion. I'm sure if your image is great it'll sell the way you provide it. If it's crap it won't sell even at 50MB image size.
I pay much more for my equipment than it pays me back. I'm far from making a living of it. I just enjoy it. Selling pictures to me is a nice and welcome option.
Helge ;-)=)
Pixels sell. That's most of the hype. I use a 5MP DSLR and I'm happy with it. It produces great colours within a dynamic range that exceeds slide material. The lenses are great too. You have to add up the MTF of your lenses, the resolution of the chip, colour space and dynamic range, firmware processing (noise reduction, sharpening filters) and post processing to define the technical quality of a shot.
Usually, you'll view an image from a distance twice the size of the diagonal. Taken this into account 5 or 6 MP is sufficient to blow up to house wall sizes.
Scanning slides at irrational high resolutions just yields bits. You won't get any more detail or information by pushing the resolution beyond a certain level. Asking for XXX MB sized images is a sure sign of lack of knowledge. First of all it's the image itself. Even the technical perfect 50MB image may be a poor shot in terms of image composition. A great image may be spoiled by a bad workflow. I see statements like "xxx MB", "300 dpi" (without a pixel size) as a joke or mere suggestion. I'm sure if your image is great it'll sell the way you provide it. If it's crap it won't sell even at 50MB image size.
I pay much more for my equipment than it pays me back. I'm far from making a living of it. I just enjoy it. Selling pictures to me is a nice and welcome option.
Helge ;-)=)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.