Pentax KX image quality v.s K10D/K20D
- Thread starter repairedlens
- Start date
night86mare
Deregistered
i think perhaps if you read more about microstock/stock photography you will realise that most dslrs have acceptable image quality.
what they are more concerned about tends to be noise, and whether you have overmanipulated it such that at high resolution the pixels have somewhat degraded. for example, if you submit a k-x image at iso3200, versus a k10d image at iso100, you bet they'd take the second over the first if they had to take one, all other things equal.
and of course, the nature of your images. stock images tend to be very.. typical, somehow. things that relate to advertising, things that fit in advertising. you are right that stock agencies do not tend to care much about whether an image is award winning, or whether the composition is great, they are looking out for certain things. i know friends who took up stock photography pretty seriously, some of them got in too deep, and it became a bit tiresome to hear them evaluating every image in relation to stock, e.g. "this image can be used for stock, and is nice, not bad", or "this image is bad, but a stock agency will have use for it so i will shoot it".
did they earn money? yes. but to me they didn't quite get sufficient renumeration for their effort. possibly because they used the stock agencies with less than satisfactory compensation. i won't know, what i saw was that stock photography tended to kill one's interest in photography for the things i held dear, so my advice for anyone who takes photography up as a hobby - if you do not need that extra income, try not to get too serious in stock photography. of course there are people who can maintain that balance and keep stock and hobby apart, but not everyone can do that, and that's something to think about.
even if you have a 6 megapixel image, i wager you can find a stock agency to take it, just that you won't be able to sell it at the higher end of reso if there is such an option.........?
Last edited:
repairedlens
Deregistered
strange person, sound very arrogant, i know what is ISO3200 and ISO100, and what make you think you read more about microstock than me. and do you mean your "opinion"? quite strange someone make own opinion as '"advice" to everyone who take up this hobby.
night86mare
Deregistered
btw, just for your information:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/recommended-digital-cameras.asp
Pentax:
* Pentax K-7
* Pentax K20D
* Pentax K200D
* Pentax K10D / Grand Prix
* Pentax K-x
* Pentax K2000 (K-m)
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/recommended-digital-cameras.asp
Pentax:
* Pentax K-7
* Pentax K20D
* Pentax K200D
* Pentax K10D / Grand Prix
* Pentax K-x
* Pentax K2000 (K-m)
Last edited:
Color is user settable. Also, you can do PP to get to whatever color tones that suit you. But this is just my opinion.
The basic sensor is the same. It is the image processing algorithms that are different. Nowadays, with so many sensors being used across different levels of camera bodies, the defining factors that separate cameras from different levels are the feature sets offered apart from the sensor.
That said, with regards to electronic items, newer is usually better. But we are just saying that certain parts are better (like the sensor, or LCD..etc), but in terms of handling and feature set, an entry level K-x might not be suitable for you if really need features from a K10D, K20D body that is not available on a K-x. But my personal opinion for consumer electronics is to buy first hand whenever possible. Things break a lot easier nowadays.
night86mare
Deregistered
listing for k10d STOCK IMAGES:
http://www.shutterpoint.com/camera/PENTAX Corporation PENTAX K10D
you can do broad search for k20d, also got listing.
hey presto, even got k100d images:
http://www.shutterpoint.com/Photos-ViewPhoto.cfm?id=500101
http://www.shutterpoint.com/Photos-ViewPhoto.cfm?id=640348
shrug.
http://www.shutterpoint.com/camera/PENTAX Corporation PENTAX K10D
you can do broad search for k20d, also got listing.
hey presto, even got k100d images:
http://www.shutterpoint.com/Photos-ViewPhoto.cfm?id=500101
http://www.shutterpoint.com/Photos-ViewPhoto.cfm?id=640348
shrug.
Last edited:
Take it easy. If you read night86mare's post properly, he wasn't dissing you at all. Don't be so sensitive and no need to get so aggressive. If you cannot even take any viewpoint but your own, why even bother asking anything in a forum at all? Might as well find a bunch of yes-men.
All his post is saying is pure and simple.
- All images clean enough will be suitable for stock photography. Any DSLR at low iso will produce acceptable quality.
- Success in stock photography is more of taking photos people will use, and that may not be in line with what you want/like to shoot.
- And no one is saying you know nothing about stock photography.
So cool it. Shoot more, live long, and prosper.
night86mare
Deregistered
thanks for the summary.
sometimes i wonder if what i write is really so offensive. :dunno:
Nowadays people are very touchy la. Very sensitive one, very emo.
I wonder if we can just set it in-cam? PP for every photo we take I think is very time consuming.
IMO, definitely KX high ISO has lower noise than k10D/k20D. But, the noise signature is different. KX doesnt have the film-grain like noise. Depends if you like which type of noise I guess.
repairedlens
Deregistered
cool, let's get back to discussion.
repairedlens
Deregistered
I think if one really talk about image quality terms in technical way, more JPG out of camera have been processed and compressed by their in-camera processor, every brand of camera had fine-tuned what they think it is 'best' for user.
base on your guys experience, it seems to me as long as it stays low ISO the image quality won't differ too much.
base on your guys experience, it seems to me as long as it stays low ISO the image quality won't differ too much.
I think in stock image, it must not have any noise whatsoever. Coz I did joined shutterstock once(itchy hand anything join haha) but when I read the terms...wah piang until cross-eyed. Thats why people who do this need a good camera and a good hands too.
But I do agree, getting a 1st hand is much better. Never know when will the 2nd hand will break down unless its a 2nd hand kx or newer models which u not need to worry.
2cents
fengwei
New Member
I don't know much about stock photos (or shutter stock in this case), but after my 5min browsering there, I think the most important thing for stock photos is still the photo quality instead of pixel quality. Yes, pixels count for the value, but your photos have to be good to begin with.
If you care about pixel quality more than photo quality, go and get a full frame camera, then your photos would have better chance to be sold. Most APC-C cameras are good enough to make good photos, but pixelwise still can't compete against full frame cameras.
If you care about pixel quality more than photo quality, go and get a full frame camera, then your photos would have better chance to be sold. Most APC-C cameras are good enough to make good photos, but pixelwise still can't compete against full frame cameras.
repairedlens
Deregistered
Hi Fengwei, it is true and also untrue for those microstock agency..of course photo quality is important. Most scanned slide or negative images will be rejected unless it is done by high-end scanner.
microstock is a bit different from Alamy or Getty... i give you an example, they sell something like an apple isolated on white background. Some designer will buy that to use for their design, like illustration or image manipulating..
Oh I see... I thought must sui-sui take great pic. Coz I read the term in Shutterstock like very scary.It made me stress until I never take any pic for them hahaha
You're right - in the 'conditions' of one I was looking it it specified you had to do noise reduction process on every shot - so obviously they like that artificial plastic-type Canon look plus over saturation. Makes everything look like computer graphics.
Tim
repairedlens
Deregistered
if you are interested of those website, may check my blog link,
http://bobobuha.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/microstock-website-big4-2/
actually different microstock website may have different kind of images they try to accept, just like different people have different taste of images, but it is also not true that a 'clean' or heavy photoshopped images are preferred. Imagine the buyer is usually will use the images for more photoshop and montage in some effect or enhancement, so saturation or other photoshop fine-tuning of your photos should keep to minimum.
IMHO altho IQ is impt, what will the image be used for is what will determine the IQ needed. If the agency needs images on a big wall, of course IQ is very impt. But to use images for brochures, standard posters, the difference in IQ will be insignificant. The photographers images will not please or be accepted be everyone. So is IQ important, my answer is "it depends". my one-cent worth.
Similar threads
