CalevPhoto

Previous Post: Introduction to Microstock Photography – Some Last Examples   Next Post: Slowing down with IStockPhoto

Canon 5D Mark II and microstock

I have owned my Canon 5d Mark II for about four months now and have taken around 3500 shots.  Overall I am very impressed with it but I had not yet truly tested it in terms of microstock.

Lately I have taken the attitude that I will not waste my time with the microstock sites.  I take the shots that I like to take, and later on figure out if something may sell.  This works out the best for me, as I do not feel pressured to take particular shots that I would not have taken other than to sell them.  When these shots are not accepted or are accepted and do not sell, I have wasted my time.  However, if I take the shots I like in the first place, my time is never wasted.

I went through my shots and found a bit over forty that looked stock ready.  Now was the moment for the true test of the 5D Mark II – what would the editing experience be like?

 

The first thing I was interested to see is the dust.  On my old 5D, this was constantly a problem – especially with my macro shots using the MP-E 65.  On the new Mark II – this is improved considerably.  I have not cleaned my sensor once – even with an air blower – since buying my camera and I change lenses quite often.  Dust was almost non existent in my first 2,000 shots but has recently started to turn up.  Still, it is far less than what I had with my original 5D after even 1,000 shots.  In particular on my old 5D I had severe dust problems in the corners.  With the Mark II, dust is more evenly spread around the sensor and rarely occurs in the corners.  I will still need to clean my sensor from time to time but overall this was a big positive.

My other big concern was the resolving capacity of my lenses.  As many of you know, the microstock sites will reject an image if it is not tack sharp at 100%.  As the 5D Mark II is a 21 megapixel camera, that means getting a tack sharp image is more difficult.  The lens needs to resolve this resolution and I need to hold the camera still enough and use the proper shutterspeed to prevent blur.

The overwhelming majority of my shots used the MP-E 65, 180L macro, and the Canon 100-400.  I can say for sure that these lenses can definitely resolve 21 megapixels.  In general, I found more keepers with the 5D Mark II than I did with my 5D.  How can this be?  The answer is that I have more options with downsizing my picture than I ever did before.  This is particularly the case with the MP-E 65 above 3x.  Now when images are slightly out of focus I simply resize the picture down to around 11 megapixels and things look much better.  I did not have this flexibility with my old 5D.

Of course, I am more cautious about my shutterspeed and keeping the camera steady now.  For instance, I always use a monopod with my 100-400.

The resolution is simply amazing at times.  I was stunned at some of the detail on my fly shots and noticed some things I had never noticed before (mentioned in more detail in an upcoming post).  When I get the shot right on, which is most of the time except when I take the MP-E 65 above 3x, the details are simply stunning.  When the focus is slightly off, I have the flexibility to reduce the size of the shots.

Interestingly enough, the size of the shots produced by the Mark II can be an issue.  While most microstock sites are with the times, StockEXpert rejected one image for being too large.

Even stranger, I am still a bit confused about the results I am seeing with my 180L.  On my 5d, I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed with it.  All of my shots appeared to be slightly soft and in general I felt that my MP-E 65 outperformed it.  Therefore, when I started processing the shots I took with it I was ready to downsize them when I noticed that they were already very sharp and did not require downsizing.  The math certainly does not make sense but my 180L is now a very sharp lens.  I have not setup AF micro adjustment yet and even if I did it would not make a difference as all of my macro shots are manual focus.  I truly have no idea why this is but the results are unmistakable.  Perhaps I have just learned to use the lens better – who knows…

In terms of noise at high ISO, I was quite impressed compared to my old 5D.  With my old 5D the rule generally was ISO 100 and 200 no noise reduction was required.  At ISO 400, I needed to use Noise Ninja.  ISO 800 was iffy and usually the shot was beyond saving but one or two miracles did occur.  With the Mark II, I have no problem submitted pictures at ISO 1600 with a Noise Ninja pass.  I did not have any shots at ISO 400 or 800 so I cannot tell there, but I was awfully tempted to submit the ISO 1600 shots without noise reduction, but still did because I know the microstock sites are picky.  I also submitted one shot at ISO 3200 but I think it will most likely be rejected.  Therefore, I will not hesitate to shoot up to ISO 1600 in the future for stock pictures.  At ISO 6400, the pictures are clearly beyond saving but can still make a good 8×10 of the kids.

Overall I am very happy with the camera and feel that it will definitely allow me to be more profitable in microstock, even though I will continue to take only the shots I like.

Addendum:

At the time I wrote this the shots had not yet gone through the reviewers.  While so far they have only gone through Shutterstock, I at least have some data here.  Somewhat predictably with them, of the 42 shots I submitted only 12 were accepted.  Interestingly, the ISO 3200 image was not rejected for noise, but for poor lighting (which admittedly wasn’t so great).  The following were the rejection reasons:

5 were rejected for noise.  This is typical SS as all but one of the images were shot at ISO 100.  Another reviewer would have probably accepted them.  One of the images was shot at ISO 1600 and was dark.

6 were rejected due to focus.  Most of them were drop photos where the drop is OOF, though the icicles above were IF.

5 were rejected due to poor lighting.  All of them were shots where I had used shadow/highlight which indicates this reviewer did not like the effect.  I kind of agree, but in the past reviewers did not have issues with it.

1 shot was rejected due to ‘overuse of noise reduction software’.  This is interesting as I took the shot at ISO 100 and did not use noise reduction software.

13 were rejected due to ‘limited commercial value’.  This is a big issue with insect shots as it is entirely at the whim of the reviewer.

Overall more submissions will be necessary to see at what ISO I can submit shots.  They did not seem to have a problem with the ISO 3200 image, but perhaps the reviewer did not examine the noise after seeing the lighting issue.  The ISO 1600 image was rejected but it was dark in the first place – so more noise is likely.  Still, two images and a Shutterstock reviewer are not enough to determine the high ISO capabilities of the Mark II regarding microstock.

Focus was not a big issue so I am clearly not outresolving my lenses.  Other than that the issues were very typical with Shutterstock.  For IStockPhoto, I suspect they will agree with the lighting issues and will agree with most of the focus issues – though one or two drop shots may get through.  They will probably reject the ISO 1600 shot, but the shots at ISO 100 they will not reject for noise.  I suspect they will not reject my ‘limited commercial value’ shots, but may reject them for other reasons.

Overall I am pleased so far.  Shutterstock reviewers have become more difficult as the site grows and macro and insect shots are notoriously difficult to get through.  Also of the 42 shots submitted, 30 had no technical problems (I don’t buy noise at ISO 100).  In the past, I have just waited a few months and resubmitted the shots with a high acceptance rate which I may do in this case as well.

All in all I think the Mark II is working very well for microstock.

Addendum 2

I just received the results of my first 15 images from Dreamstime, which is more similar to IStockPhoto in its reviews than Shutterstock.  Of the 15 images, 12 were accepted.  Interestingly enough, the ISO 1600 image was accepted.

No related posts.

Tags: 5d, 5D Mark II, canon, experience, microstock, photography