On 1/6/07 9:47 AM, "daveinkelso" <iconma...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> Corrective work? Something is wrong there. I don't shoot with Canon, > though we use Canon file all the time, and wouldn't want to have > anything as large as a 1D bodied camera on me.
Different cameras will produce files that look different, not just in color but in quality. This can be objectively seen, and can be shown to exist when variables such a lens, or profile, or color rendering are accounted for.
You may not agree that these differences are significant (sometimes I donıt think these differences are significant), but they exist, and have lead some agencies to believe that certain flaws are more prevalent in some cameras than others.
What is your strategy to deal with this?
Jonathan Clymer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The important / critical decision the photographer has to make when it comes to technical proficiency in the digital world (scanning and photoshop) is whether or not they have the time, aptitude, patience and skill to deal with producing images that meet the standards of the industry (even though these standards fluctuate on a daily basis).
Personally, I enjoy the challenge of scanning and photoshopping, and think the time spent learning the basic and advanced techniques is time well spent; the control is in your hands, not an outsider's. Of course, I enjoy the process of capturing emotional, compelling images, much more, but I like to expand both sides of my brain, the emotional and the technical.
Others among us do not have the time or patience to deal with the technical side, and that is, of course, an individual decision. My point with all this ' Canon, Nikon ' hype is that most established brands of cameras, lenses, scanners, etc that I have researched are more than capable of producing images of a technical quality that should be acceptable for 99.9% of the intended stock usages.
For those individuals who chose not to do it themselves, there are 'approved suppliers' that can handle these tasks. For those, like me, who chose to 'do it ourselves' and maintain control, we should make sure that we get all the facts about minimum quality standards, and submit only those images that meet those requirements, or else risk losing your credibility.
regards,
Len Holsborg (proud user of non-Canon, Nikon equipment ;-} lenswo...@aol.com
-----Original Message----- From: blogmas...@zavesmith.com To: STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 9:54 AM Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)
Len
While I agree with you that content is king. I have heard from Art Directors about problems caused when they downloaded an image for a comp, sold the idea to their client, went to purchase said image and discovered that the technical quality of the image was not up to snuff and/or fell apart when used an desired size. We photographers sometimes forget how hard it can be for an art director to get an image approved and the last thing that they want to do is start over.
This is why the better agencies insist on certain cameras that they know can produce images that will meet the technical requirements for reproduction.
Zave Smith New York Photo Group 88 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10016 212-580-2380
Zave Smith Philadelphia 1041 Buttonwood Street Philadelphia, PA 19123 215-236-8998
Member: APA & SAA
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> On 1/6/07 9:47 AM, "daveinkelso" <iconmags3@...> wrote:
> > Corrective work? Something is wrong there. I don't shoot with Canon, > > though we use Canon file all the time, and wouldn't want to have > > anything as large as a 1D bodied camera on me.
> Different cameras will produce files that look different, not just in color > but in quality. This can be objectively seen, and can be shown to exist when > variables such a lens, or profile, or color rendering are accounted for.
> You may not agree that these differences are significant (sometimes I donıt > think these differences are significant), but they exist, and have lead some > agencies to believe that certain flaws are more prevalent in some cameras > than others.
> What is your strategy to deal with this?
I test digital SLRs professionally and have tested cameras for 35 years. There are differences, and they certainly don't all favour the Canon 1D series or the Nikon D2X. I don't need a strategy and would not consider working for any library or agency which told me what I could or could not use - for one thing, I may use a dozen difference DSLRs each year at the minimum, and each trip may be taken on a different kit. I certainly don't want any to be told I must duplicate every shot on a 1Ds MkII.
Back 30 years ago, I wouldn't work with Pictor because Alberto Sciama said I'd have to reshoot my 35mm work on 5 x 4 and must never use anything but Ektachrome, which I hated. Tony Stone said yes to the 35mm and if the image was right, accepted our Agfa RS and even the GAF500 and strange stuff like Anscochrome 64, multiduplicated Orwochrom and Recording Film 2480. In 1978 I switched to using a bulk film branded as Barfen. It was a Fuji product related to Fujichrome 100; we tested it and we knew for sure it could wipe the floor with Ektachrome. Since it had no identification on the film rebates, countless agencies and publications accepted. Fuji set up shop in the UK in 1981 and we switched to the real thing and it is amazing how much resistance was met, but my studio took large accounts off competitors who stuck with the dull, cold industry standard.
Even as late as 1985, I remember one quite funny meeting with Mark Kaplan and Hans Wiesenhofer at Time-Life in London. I'd been to another publisher and had some specimen sheets on me. Hans shot entirely Kodak and Time-Life specified Ektachrome or Kodachrome. But you should have seen Mark's face when my sheet of Fujichromes went on the lightbox. I was not pitching for work (certainly not in the company of a friend who was there for work!) and I listened to both of them justify never using Fujichrome, because all these colours were too bright, they could never be reproduced and really they did not have the character of Ektachrome and Kodachrome.
There has not been a single DSLR made since the Nikon D100 and Canon D60 (except maybe the Fuji S1) which can't deliver a file good enough for A3 DPS at top quality - or for a billboard. The giant Nike shoe which covered a building 100 ft long and five storeys high in Glasgow was shot on a Nikon D100 when it was the first affordable 6-megapixel.
I think the reason that some agencies force certain camera types to be used has less to do with quality than trying to avoid photographers who don't follow the herd. If you work with naturally compliant, controllable people you can do pretty much what you want with them. Personally, if I was an agency, I would rather work with photographers who are desperate to try every single different medium/brand/format/lens or whatever is out there.
Alamy's approach of judging what passes QC is better. If the photographer makes choices which don't pass QC, they remain free to adjust their gear or methods. They might well end up using the same gear as found on the permitted lists of others. Or not.
I deal with this issue the only way I know how (short of going bankrupt and purchasing top end Canon/Nikon gear) :
I concentrate on dealing directly with most clients, and letting the image stand on it's own merits, without any mention of the tools used to create it. Same goes for my current or future agents - if the image is technically acceptable, but more importantly, MARKETABLE, it will be accepted by most clients and agencies, with open arms. Tools used to create it are a non-issue.
Should I be forced into manipulating EXIF data, or purchasing overkill equipment? Not in my opinion, and reality. I'll put my chances of success on my vision, not my equipment.
Will I succeed, or starve to death ? Time will tell, but I'm still alive (and 10 lbs overweight ) :-}.
"Important agencies" is a very subjective term, there are a plethora of agencies and options available to photographers that may not have the status of 'King or Queen', but they know a marketable image when they see one.
-----Original Message----- From: jcly...@pelaezproductions.com To: STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: approved cameras (was Stock Submissions & EXIF Data)
On 1/7/07 9:09 PM, "Len Holsborg" <lenswo...@aol.com> wrote:
> I just find it presumptuos that certain agencies 'force' their > photographers to use certain equipment. It's an attitude that, I believe, will > hurt sales more than help.
OK, but what are you going to do about it? You disagree with me, which is no big deal, but you also disagree with some very important agencies, which is a very big deal. What is your strategy?
Jonathan Clymer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The simple answer to the camera question is this. What agency or client in their right mind would pay a photographer to use second best of anything? What photographer wants to use second best?
I don't see it as an agency stipulation but a personal decision with only one obvious choice.
In the days before digital professionals used a small number of cameras for a very special reason. Professional reputations depends on results. Would I go on a £20,000 shoot with a Haselblad or a Lubitel? Would I risk my client's money by not using equipment which was less than other professionals, and myself, had decided was the best? The difference with digital is that improvements have come so thick and fast that the life of a body is not what it was. This is causing some very distorted thinking. When I sold by Haselblad after over twenty years of use I got back more than I had paid for it. My 1ds mk1 is unlikely to fetch much but that does not alter the fact that the 1ds mk 1 and mk2 that I bought are a negligible part of my business costs.
Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the business of professional photography is in the wrong business.
Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with professional level specs.
On 6 Jan 2007, at 14:09, STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> On 1/3/07 4:45 PM, "lenswo...@aol.com" <lenswo...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Are there really agents (distributors) that arrogant and close > minded that > > they wouldn't review submissions based on the type of camera > used ???
> > Would agents (distributors) really want to forgo marketable > imagery based > > solely on the tools used to create it? A scary, illogical, short > sighted > > policy indeed !
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob, I offer the following responses/opinions to the points you raise in your post:
(caps, where used, are for emphasis, not shouting ;-} )
<Bob: "What photographer wants to use second best?"
And just what constitutes best? If I can achieve images that meet the same technical requirements for reproduction that your 'best' does, does that mean that '2nd best' , or 3rd or 4th or 5th..........is unacceptable ?? I challenge you to show me that at sizes up to full page in a magazine, pictures from 'the best' look any noticeable amount better from one 10 megapixel SLR camera to another - perhaps at a miscroscopic level, but not at a level necessary for 99.9% of repro houses. Does a race car team with a rich client sponsor always use 'the best' equipment ? No, they get the maximum performance out of the equipment they have, which in most cases is comparable to other race equipment, and 9 times out of 10, the team with the less expensive equipment wins ! It's the skill of the team (driver/mechanic,etc.) that wins the race, not the equipment (just one of many analogies that back up my opinion, I could list hundreds of others).
<Bob: "Professional reputations depends on results. Would I go on a £20,000 shoot with a Haselblad or a Lubitel? Would I risk my client's money by not using equipment "
Success in stock photography depends on producing MARKETABLE images that meet minimum established standards of 'professionalism' - i.e. they are in focus, are properly exposed, and (if digital) have a minimum resolution level or film size if working directly from film. REPUTATIONS are made on CONTENT, not on equipment. If it were at all possible, it would be interesting to see in $$$ what percentage of total worldwide stock sales are made with 'the best' vs 2nd, 3rd, 4th..........best' - my guess - 2nd, 3rd, 4th ....best would outnumber 'the best' 10 to 1.
<Bob: "Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the business of professional photography is in the wrong business."
So, any successful photographer making a nice income shooting with '2nd, 3rd, 4th..........best' is in the wrong business ?? Some of us choose to use equipment that can produce images that in many cases probably far outsells images shot with 'the best' - why ? because the added cost of 'the best' is not justified if '2nd, 3rd, 4th....best camera images meet appropriate technical standards, and their CONTENT is more marketable. Again, the best equipment in the world is useless if it produces unmarketable imagery.
>Bob: "Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple
reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with professional level specs."
'Serious' and 'best' are very subjective terms - Professional level specs, or professional level name ?? I am 'serious' about my photography in that I strive to shoot images that are interesting, compelling, emotional, and MARKETABLE - either to an agent, an end user, a gallery visitor or an art show customer. I've managed to do pretty good over the years with 'non-best' equipment, by using my 'best' instincts when it comes to what makes a good image. Would I be doing better if I used the 'best' equipment available - I hardly think so.
But, of course, we're all entitled to our opinions - one man's 'best' is another man's folly - regardless of what other 'professional and serious' photographers think. Is a picture any less effective because the equipment used to create it wasn't 'the best' ? are the only truly great images the ones shot with 'the best' equipment ?? Does shooting with 'the best' give you an edge ???
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
><Bob: "Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the >business of professional photography is in the wrong business."
>Len : So, any successful photographer making a nice income shooting >with '2nd, 3rd, 4th..........best' is in the wrong business ?? Some >of us choose to use equipment that can produce images that in many >cases probably far outsells images shot with 'the best' - why ? >because the added cost of 'the best' is not justified if '2nd, 3rd, >4th....best camera images meet appropriate technical standards, and >their CONTENT is more marketable. Again, the best equipment in the >world is useless if it produces unmarketable imagery.
>>Bob: "Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple >reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with >professional level specs."
>Len : 'Serious' and 'best' are very subjective terms - Professional >level specs, or professional level name ?? I am 'serious' about my >photography in that I strive to shoot images that are interesting, >compelling, emotional, and MARKETABLE -
>My answer to these questions is a resounding no !
Len I would agree that it is all about the image but I have read many posts on this and other groups about which camera files are acceptable to agencies. I have also read postings about resizing of files to make them large enough and removing IPTC data so the client won't know which camera was used?
I would agree with Bob regarding the importance of being properly equipped to do the job. A better camera will not make you a better photographer but have the right tools is essential and this will mean using a camera that will give a file that is acceptable to your clients. Now if your shooting on assignment and all that is required is 300 dpi at 4 inches then any number of cameras will suffice but if you are shooting stock and don't know the intended use of your pictures then the cameras that Bob suggested or other higher end cameras should be used. If you are providing files that are smaller for a brochure or advert, no matter how good a photo it might be, what do you do when a client comes back and asks for a larger file of the same picture so they can run the advert on a trade show display?
David Barr -- __________________________________________
> Smile of the day ol' buddy - that must be what it means when the > bride's mother likes the pix so much she says "you must have a very > good camera!" :-)
Iım perplexed as to why there have been several messages that are so adamant about using cameras that some agencies donıt approve. Forgive me for this observation, but the tone of these messages suggests defensiveness and confrontation. Not a problem here, we are speaking freely on this forum. But if you feel this strongly about this, how do you express this to the agencies?
I need to pick my battles with agency editors. I need to cajole them to turn images around faster. I talk them into accepting images that they may have not seen value in. I need cooperation when royalty reports are ambiguous or seem to be incomplete. I need their suggestions and creative input for the shoots we will schedule. These are important matters and I donıt want to dilute my influence with editors by taking up their precious time trying to convince them I prefer to shoot using a different camera (believe me, corporate managers are putting editors under tremendous pressure and they are under crushing time constraints these days). I need to be on the BEST possible terms with them. The issue of which cameras they want me to use is trivial. As part of the total cost of producing stock images, the cost of the cameras is trivial (as Bob Croxford has pointed out). The cost/benefit ratio on this issue is, at least to me, a loser.
Jonathan Clymer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>What about "what a good picture - it´so sharp!" :-)
>Jacques Jangoux
>--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, "John Fowler" <john@...> wrote:
>> Smile of the day ol' buddy - that must be what it means when the >> bride's mother likes the pix so much she says "you must have a very > > good camera!" :-)
My favourite is "what a great picture! my brother has a good camera and takes pictures just like that"
--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, David Barr <photobar@...> wrote:
If you are providing files that are
> smaller for a brochure or advert, no matter how good a photo it > might be, what do you do when a client comes back and asks for a > larger file of the same picture so they can run the advert on a > trade show display?
Most photographers have never seen a decent 6 megapixel image. I bet Bob has not had his 1Ds MkII set up by Fixation. He probably lives with the inaccuracy of setup, programmed by Canon to compensate for errors, but only effective under specific conditions. All the newspapers and major agencies won't use a Canon - 1D series or any other - out of the box without getting it fixed.
Get a 6 megapixel DSLR correctly adjusted and reprogrammed for zero AF offsets, and you will beat a box-delivered 16 megapixel. Speak to Fixation in London if you want to know more, don't question me on this. I know how AF systems are programmed and how DSLRs are set up. I've got slightly drunk with the owner of Fixation, and I know what their business is!
Formula One cars are a good comparison. DSLRs can be blueprinted, like racing cars. Do this with a good 6, 8, 10 or 12 megapixel and it will equal an off the shelf model with double the pixel resolution.
Most digital images are just not sharp, at all, before you even start processing them. Agency demands based on camera are made in ignorance and propagate prejudice. They should, instead, insist that all cameras used be individually checked and set up for zero software correction offsets. If you don't know what those are, obtain a service manual for your DSLR.
If you are providing files that are smaller for a brochure or advert, no matter how good a photo it might be, what do you do when a client comes back and asks for a larger file of the same picture so they can run the advert on a trade show display?
David Barr
Hi David,
When I make my initial low res jpg submissions to an agent for review, or when I get a direct request for a certain 'concept' or subject, I make it clear up front in the submission cover letter which images, by file #, are film originals, which are hi res scans from film, and which are digital originals, so there is no confusion as to what my maximum resolutions available are.
I could count on 1 hand those situations where my maximum resolutions, or film originals, did not satisfy a client's needs, but I will admit that I have never licensed an image for 'trade show display' usage. However, I will say that I personally have had hi res files commercially printed for my gallery and art show displays up to 30 inches by 40 inches with fantastic clarity and sharpness. I would venture to guess I could go higher if need be, but I find that my best selling work is 16 x 20 and 11 x 14 inch framed and matted prints, which I do myself on my Epson 2400.
I will reiterate, that if the image content meets the client's needs, a film original, or an un-interpolated 60 mb, 16 bit Tiff, or 30mb 8 bit Tiff, (or a 10mb RAW) will meet 99.9 % of most clients needs, whether it's a small brochure, a magazine cover, or a trade show advert.
If and when a discussion about file size is raised, I politely, and professionally, try to explain why this should not be an issue, and in 99.9 % of cases it isn't. Yes, I have had a few potential clients turn down submissions because of file size, but that is the 0.01 %. I stand by my assessment that the if the content is right, the image will sell in the formats and resolutions that I have.
As far as agencies go, a certain 'unnamed' agency has my film originals from a previous agent they bought out, and I no longer submit new images to them for other reasons I won't go into here. My other agent gladly accepts my 35 mm slide film originals for the jpegs they accept, and does the scans themselves (small scan fee deducted at time of sale ), or accepts my 60 / 30 mb scans I do myself on a ' non- best ' film scanner.
I will reiterate once again, IMHO and experience, sale / licensing of an image is 99.9 % content and .01 % miscellaneous like camera / file size.
>If and when a discussion about file size is raised, I politely, and >professionally, try to explain why this should not be an issue, and >in 99.9 % of >cases it isn't. Yes, I have had a few potential clients turn down submissions >because of file size, but that is the 0.01 %. I stand by my >assessment that the >if the content is right, the image will sell in the formats and resolutions >that I have.
>I will reiterate once again, IMHO and experience, sale / licensing of an >image is 99.9 % content and .01 % miscellaneous like camera / file size.
Len you can't argue with success and if the pictures from smaller file sizes are selling then is there really any point in going to the expense of upgrading equipment? However even if it is seldom needed I would prefer to have as large a file as possible.
I am using a 1Ds and justifying the purchase was easy. $8K to $12K on film and processing every year and over a three year period it easily covered the cost of the new Canon gear.
Now I look at the newer 1Ds MarkII and while that is my first choice it is harder to justify the expense when my first camera is still working fine. If my Canon packed it in tomorrow should I replace it with the MarkII or go with the 5D?
--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Clymer <jclymer@...> wrote:
The issue of which cameras they want me to use is
> trivial. As part of the total cost of producing stock images, the cost of > the cameras is trivial (as Bob Croxford has pointed out). The cost/benefit > ratio on this issue is, at least to me, a loser.
This issue is not 'which cameras they want me to use' - the issue is that they want to control your possible choices of camera. An agency which says a Nikon D200 image is acceptable and a Nikon D80, Sony A100 Samsung GX10 or Pentax K10D image is not acceptable could, I think, be taken to court for defamation (implying that something is unsuitable for its purpose). A test report writer - like me - can say that the Sony A100 is hopeless at high ISOs or the Pentax K10D has a very soft in-camera JPEG process, or the Nikon D80 tends to be too generous when auto matrix exposing in high contrast situations. I have to prove it, and I have to qualify my opinion by making it clear my findings relate only to one sample and the conditions under which I tested the equipment
The cameras mentioned all use the same physical 10.2 megapixel CCD with difference in low-pass filtration, channel feed, gain amplifiers and A to D processing. Correctly processed raw image files from any one of these cameras are all excellent and of professionally acceptable quality. The later introductions slightly improve on the overall IQ of the first to appear - the D200 - yet guess which is the only one generally approved by agencies/libraries?
I do not wish to see the choice in the overall photographic market reduced to just two well-known names. I value the innovation and diversity as well as the favourable pricing which has come from healthy competition at all levels, including professional. Set lists of equipment you are allowed to use, often stipulated in ignorance, annoy me in the same way that pointless EU regulations do.
--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, "daveinkelso" <iconmags3@...> wrote: Hello,
Does anyone know the equivalent of Fixation in the US? In the good old days (20 years ago or more) you had your camera fixed or adjusted by Marty Forscher´s (Professional Camera Repair) on 47th Street in New York. Marty even modified a Hasselblad for NASA (was it for the moon trip?). Have they gone digital? Or has another repair shop replaced them?
> --- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, David Barr <photobar@> wrote:
> Most photographers have never seen a decent 6 megapixel image. I bet > Bob has not had his 1Ds MkII set up by Fixation. He probably lives > with the inaccuracy of setup, programmed by Canon to compensate for > errors, but only effective under specific conditions. All the > newspapers and major agencies won't use a Canon - 1D series or any > other - out of the box without getting it fixed.
> Get a 6 megapixel DSLR correctly adjusted and reprogrammed for zero AF > offsets, and you will beat a box-delivered 16 megapixel. Speak to > Fixation in London if you want to know more, don't question me on > this. I know how AF systems are programmed and how DSLRs are set up. > I've got slightly drunk with the owner of Fixation, and I know what > their business is! > David
>>> "Len you can't argue with success and if the pictures from smaller
file sizes are selling then is there really any point in going to the expense of upgrading equipment? "
Well, I consider 'success' one of those 'subjective' terms ;-} I am hoping to do better, of course, but I remain at a comfort level that I find reasonable for my individual lifestyle and circumstances. I'm retired after full time work in the Aerospace industry for over 25 years, and have developed other sources of income in that time to keep me going when my photo income 'declines' periodically . I don't go through the expense that alot of people here do for things like hiring models, shooting at exotic locations around the globe, nor do I succumb to the whims of agencies and art directors with misguided notions of file sizes and Canon / Nikon fixations :-}.
Having said that, and not knowing what mp the 1ds is, but seeing that the 1Ds Mk11 is 16. 7 mp vs 12.8 mp for the 5D, in my opinion the 5D is more than enough power and resolution for my proverbial " 99.9 % " of stock uses.
I want to make it clear that my intent is not to be 'confrontational' or 'derisive' here - we each have our own standards and ways of thinking when it comes to acceptable levels of quality and marketability - we each make our own decisions based on our experiences and by listening to the experience and opinions of our colleagues in places like stockphoto.net and others.
What works for me 'should' work for others in most cases, but as they say ' to each his own'.
Regardless of what cameras you are using, or what film you are scanning, or what file sizes you obtain, good luck and success.............
> In the days before digital professionals used a small number of > cameras for a very special reason. Professional reputations depends > on results. Would I go on a £20,000 shoot with a Haselblad or a > Lubitel? Would I risk my client's money by not using equipment which > was less than other professionals, and myself, had decided was the > best? The difference with digital is that improvements have come so > thick and fast that the life of a body is not what it was. This is > causing some very distorted thinking. When I sold by Haselblad after > over twenty years of use I got back more than I had paid for it. My > 1ds mk1 is unlikely to fetch much but that does not alter the fact > that the 1ds mk 1 and mk2 that I bought are a negligible part of my > business costs.
> Anyone suggesting that cost of equipment is a big factor in the > business of professional photography is in the wrong business.
If one follows the logic you describe above, one would conclude you were walking around with a 39MP Hasselblad, not a puny Mk II.
Any 39MP Hasselblad-carrying photographer who reads the above will wonder if you are, yourself, in the wrong business, no?
Unless you are implying that 39MP Hasselblad owners are walking around with equipment that is "less than... the best" and are "risking their client's money" by not using the equipment you, and all other "professionals" have decided is "the best": the Canon 1ds Mk II?
Hmmm, me thinks there is some distorted thinking going on...
"Serious stock photographers bought the Canon 1ds for the very simple reason that it was the first fully portable digital camera with professional level specs."
If I still shot in the studio I would still be using Hasselblad which is OK on a tripod but one of the worst cameras in the world for hand held images.
> If one follows the logic you describe above, one would conclude you > were walking around with a 39MP Hasselblad, not a puny Mk II.
> Any 39MP Hasselblad-carrying photographer who reads the above will > wonder if you are, yourself, in the wrong business, no?
> Unless you are implying that 39MP Hasselblad owners are walking > around with equipment that is "less than... the best" and > are "risking their client's money" by not using the equipment you, > and all other "professionals" have decided is "the best": the Canon > 1ds Mk II?
> Hmmm, me thinks there is some distorted thinking going on...
|
