Hi everyone...
I want to weigh in on the megapixel discussion. I'm a commercial photographer and am looking to increasingly move my work over to microstock so that I may flee this country and live modestly with my family in Central America within the next several years. So I am quite serious about the business aspect.
With that context, I have found it makes sense for me to purchase "last year's model" of camera body. I buy used from commercial photographers that I know who are doing national and magazine work. For instance, when my friend moved up to a Canon 1Ds MarkII a few years ago, I bought his 1Ds. I used that, along with a 20D for a 5-month assignment that ended up with images used for PR and in a book. Very cool.
Of course time has marched on and the Mark III has hit the scene. So I moved my 1Ds back to "roustabout" status -- meaning I take it when I plan to really beat up my camera -- and I bought a Mark II from another photographer friend who was moving up.
On all three main cameras (1Ds, 1Ds Mark II and the 20D) I spent about 1/3 the original purchase price.
Currently I have the MarkII, the original 1Ds, a 20D and two snappy little Digital Rebels for shooting outside the country. I'm less concerend about the Rebels being stolen than my other bodies.
So based on my experience, here's what works for me on the megapixel question. get the most megapixels you can for your budget. If you aren't a pro or don't have the cash, the Digtal Rebel or similar is GREAT! Make sure you get at least one good , sharp lense.
However, more megapixels allows you to do a few things:
1. You can downsize your image if you weren't %100 sharp. The bigger image you start with, the more latitude you have to squeeze it down. By the way, I have a baseline of 1800 pixels by 2700 pixels that I won't either crop or downsize past. That keeps mine over 4MP in the final photo which works for everyone except Alamy, which seems to want huge files. So far, I haven't gone with Alamy for that reason.
2. You have a little more control over noise. This is the big bad wolf of microstock. "Noise" or "Artifacts" in the image. If you have a great big image that is a little noisy, you can often solve that by downsizing a bit. The artifacts dissappear into the general pixel field. Of course, noise-reduction software is useful...but it isn't perfect and can degrade the image. Sometimes dropping the size 20% can get you the same result...or better.
Finally, it's not only magepixels, but also clarity of the image that counts. The newer digital cameras with more megapixels are also improved in that regard. They are less noisy. So it's not just megapixel size, but also the improved clarity that comes into play.
For instance, I shot a half black/half white card with my 1DS and my 1Ds Mark II side by side. Here's what I discovered, noise-wise:
At 100 ISO -- Both similar and clean images
At 200 ISO -- Mark II definitely less noise, although both still acceptable for mictrostock.
At 400 ISO -- Mark II clearly better, less noisy. 1Ds probably not acceptable for microstock without serious noise reduction
At 800 ISO -- Mark II passable noise, would need noise reduction. 1Ds...no way.
At 1600 ISO -- They actually get closer together again...both too noisy.
Now, I understand that the Mark III is gorgeous up to about 1600 ISO.
So it comes down to a combination of economy, image size, clarity and noise in my opinion. I don't think there is one good answer...everyone will have a set-up that works best for them.
Oh.
The original question was about whether to go with a DSLR or a compact. I'm a DSRL fan just because of all the control you have.
Cheers,
Scott/Creatista
