olli.pekonen Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I'm considering setting up a photographic studio, and it is my understanding that for stock work something along the medium format quality is needed. How would you compare the Canon EOS1Ds-MIIwith some digital medium format cameras, or with a standard mediumformat camera with a digital sensor pack. I currently have EOS20D as the body. Can Canon EOS1Ds-MII pull off what the medium format cameras can, image quality wise. I inted to shoot portraitures and groups of people. Or is a film scannera and a good'ol film Hasselblad stillthe way to go? I know that this is a bit of a vague question, but all help is appreciated before I end up spending 7350? for the Canon EOS1Ds-MII :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Which level of scanner? Desktop, Imacon, or Drum? Are you currently with a stock agency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olli.pekonen Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Dear Ellis, About scanners - I had in mind the top Nikon models costing around 2000-3000$, dedicated film scanners, not the flatbed ones. No, I'm not with a stock agency, but I want to make sure that the images produced are not substandard if I ever will be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian yarvin Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Olli: There is really no such thing as "stock work." "Stock" is a way of selling, not shooting. As a person with over three decades of experience in the industry, I suggest you find out what the people at the top of the specialty you want to shoot are using and then get something a bit better. There are markets where a 10d is perfectly fine and others where only large format film and drum scans make the cut. Do a bit of research by asking photo buyers or agents, they'll know what's really selling instead of what people are trying to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
model mayhem gallery Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I don't know much about stok photography what ever exactly that means, but I am a little confused as to why they would require a medium format. I have had isues when trying to print really large images, something medium format cameras are often used for. However, I found a simple remedy to this with my 6 MP Digital Rebel. I use image stiching. Basically, I take 4 pictures of an object zooming in on each quadrant and then lace them together later to make really large files for big prints. In any case, I don't think quality is based on the size of the file, but the skills of the photographer. The 1DS MArk II is a great camera if your skills require that much camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olli.pekonen Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 OK, thank's for the input. This is actually the text snippet from the Canon marketing material (press release for the 16 megapixel EOS) that caused me to ask this question: "Featuring a full-frame 36 x 24mm 16.7 Megapixel CMOS sensor, the EOS-1Ds Mark II produces images with outstanding colour rendition and dynamic range. It has sufficient resolution to produce files which convert to 50MB uncompressed TIFF at 24 bit colour depth, now considered standard acceptable size by leading international photo agencies and stock libraries." But it is absolutely true that you have to know the standards of a certain photography sector, and follow those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds-mk11-vs-p25.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc p. Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Olli, Keep in mind that if you ever sell images from film to a stock agency, they will do the final scanning on a high end scanner, not you. You would most likely send them low res files of your portfolio for them to assess them, and then send them the negatives for scanning. So unless you want to print yourself, no need to dump big $ on the scanner. As for the difference in quality, my take is if you are willing to make an investment such as a high end back for medium format, you should be able to try it before purchase. That would be the best way for you to determine quality and see if any system fits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot_n Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 'Keep in mind that if you ever sell images from film to a stock agency, they will do the final scanning on a high end scanner, not you.' If only! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 $$$$$$$$! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_phan Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 There are comparisons here: http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/oceharb04_comps.htm http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/santaysablefarm.htm http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/missionslr_comps.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now