Camera recommendations?

[3CROWS]

I've started to sell some of my photography prints locally and I wanted to expand that, so I was just checking out Getty Images except I saw that they want camera RAW files and I'm just using a Nikon Coolpix L100, so it's looking like all my previous work is a no go for that.

I'm just looking for some professional recommendations on what I should be looking for as an upgrade.

Thanks

 

[KmH]

Cameras that can capture images as RAW data file run anywhere from $500 to $150,000.

What price range are you looking at?

Professional level cameras start at about $3000 not including lenses.

 

[3CROWS]

Well definitely not the $150,000 range! haha
I'm not a professional by any means, more a hobby photographer but I've been told I've got some good stuff. So I think anywhere between $500-$1500 or so, give or take.

Here's some of the stuff I've done: 3CROWS: photography
Don't know if that gives a better idea for recommendations?

 

[Dao]

I believe all of the DSLR camera are capable of shooting RAW. (At least all of them I seen in person or from the web). And some of the high end Point and Shoot type cameras such as the Canon G series (i.e. G11) are also able to save image in RAW format.

If you do not mind carry the photo gears and change the lenses (which is the beauty of SLR cameras), I will say go with the DSLR or SLR type camera.

 

[Guido44]

If you shot all of those photos with a P & S, I'd say invest in a good DSLR. You've got a very good eye for compostion in my humble opinion.

Depends on how comitted you are to the photography end of your business.

I own a Nikon D300. Great camera.

I'm saving up for a D700. But, that means going from DX to FX lenses. (cropped sensor vs. full frame sensor) Fx lenes are a much bigger investment. Just something for you to consider.

Good luck!

Dan

 

[KmH]

Well definitely not the $150,000 range! haha
I'm not a professional by any means, more a hobby photographer but I've been told I've got some good stuff. So I think anywhere between $500-$1500 or so, give or take.

If you're leaning towards the d-SLR market and the versatility of interchangeable lenses, the lenses you have are somewhat more important than the camera. At any rate lenses don't change as often, or depreciate as fast/often as cameras do.

Canon and Nikon have about equal shares of 85% of the d-SLR market. Pentax, Olympus, Sony, Sigma, Fuji and others split the remaining 15%.

Nikon seems to have a technical edge over Canon at the moment and all the camera companies should be showing new products next month at a large yearly trade show.

Entry level d-SLR's are sold with kit lenses that are fine for amature use. More capable d-SLR's can be bought without a lens (body only) on the assumption the buyer already has a selection of lenses that will work on the camera or so a buyer can get a lens having a higher quality than a kit lens.

Kit lenses are the least expensive, camera makers offer mid-range price range consumer lenses that can cost from a few to about $1000, and professional quality lenses that can cost from several hundred to over $10,000 each.

Any Nikon lens made since 1959 will fit on any Nikon camera made today. Older lenses won't have all of the auto functions available today but they can be used manually to make images. Nikon uses the F-mount

Canon changed their lens mount in 1987 or so. It's the EF-mount and they introduced a second mount, the EF-S in 2003 that is for use on their entry level cameras only. I'm pretty sure, Canon EF-mount lenses can be used on any Canon SLR camera made since 1987.

I use Nikon gear myself.

 

[3CROWS]

Thanks for all the help everyone, sounds like I'm going to be poor for a bit haha. Might be going to Iceland and Africa this year so I'll hopefully be picking up something new soon.

 

[Big Mike]

Thanks for all the help everyone, sounds like I'm going to be poor for a bit haha.

If you think the cameras are expensive, wait until you look at good quality lenses.

I'm surprised that a stock agency want's RAW files. :scratch:

 

[peterfcassidy]

That is if you want to stay with the small form-factor format. Really. I've run Leica and Canon 35mm with conventional, off-the-shelf Leica and Canon optics and Kodachrome and Velvia/Provia - and always been pleased. In no way do I think, imagewise, I am taking a dive using the pocketable E900. It's 9 Mpx sensor really brings back very true colors, often usable right out of the camera. The RAW files it produces can be imported straight into Photoshop. If you've cranked up the preferences to Hard resolution in RAW mode and if you're printing very big, you will be able to detect some jaggies on non-vertical and non-horizontal edges. (Like you have to blow it up to 300X in PS to see them on screen.)

The Fujinon optics are just fine.
Color trueness is surprising.
The images are encoded (in RAW mode) as 18 meg files.
Runs on AAs you can buy in a grocery store.

Here are a few examples of images straight out of the camera. The night shot took a little post-processing to illuminate the waterline the way I saw it that evening.

drop.io PeterCassidyPix
drop.io PeterCassidyPix
drop.io PeterCassidyPix
drop.io PeterCassidyPix

Caveats: the E900 can be a complete spazz in low light or evening shooting. The menu is kind of obtuse. It can eat batteries quickly; Use the best Lithium cells and you won't be surprised by dead batteries. It is out of production; if you really like it, find another one and store it away.

Peter

I've started to sell some of my photography prints locally and I wanted to expand that, so I was just checking out Getty Images except I saw that they want camera RAW files and I'm just using a Nikon Coolpix L100, so it's looking like all my previous work is a no go for that.

I'm just looking for some professional recommendations on what I should be looking for as an upgrade.

Thanks

 

[johnj2803]

they want camera RAW files

wow is this a norm? i thought HQ jpeg images are the norm...

they might be doing this to actually "own" your image... not a good thing

 

[KmH]

Thanks for all the help everyone, sounds like I'm going to be poor for a bit haha.

If you think the cameras are expensive, wait until you look at good quality lenses.

I'm surprised that a stock agency want's RAW files. :scratch:

The OP is mistaken:

Directly from Getty -

• We will only accept JPEG images which have been converted from uncompressed 47.5-52 MB TIFF files, (flattened, with no layers, paths or channels) - 24 bit RGB Color, 8 bits per channel (8 bit file)
• Metadata (also known as captioning) must also be supplied to us digitally in IPTC, XMP, Excel or Text File formats

 

[3CROWS]

Thanks for all the help everyone, sounds like I'm going to be poor for a bit haha.

If you think the cameras are expensive, wait until you look at good quality lenses.

I'm surprised that a stock agency want's RAW files. :scratch:

The OP is mistaken:

Directly from Getty -

• We will only accept JPEG images which have been converted from uncompressed 47.5-52 MB TIFF files, (flattened, with no layers, paths or channels) - 24 bit RGB Color, 8 bits per channel (8 bit file)
• Metadata (also known as captioning) must also be supplied to us digitally in IPTC, XMP, Excel or Text File formats

Can't remember where I saw it said RAW but regardless, my camera cranked up to max res only puts out TIFF's that are 2-4 MB, not even close to what they're asking.