ernest Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 While browsing on Alamy, I see photos weighing 60 MO, 70. How is it possible ? With which camera ? Is it useful to have such heavy photos if it's only for stock ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Wow, some really terrific images there, Ernest. I love it that you've named the different tribal groups. 70MP? Maybe they're going for on the super hi-way mural clients? I'm sure some people will be along any minute now naming many "heavy" cameras. Keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinS Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Ernest, I can't answer your question but felt compelled to comment on your photos. You have an amazing collection of photos! It is great to see such a well-edited portfolio on Alamy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 Not all that long ago Alamy's minimum file size was something like 48MB. My older photos were scanned with a Nikon Coolscan LS 5000ED at 4000 ppi yielding a 55 mb file. My Nikon 610 files run about 69 mb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted September 11, 2016 Share Posted September 11, 2016 If you mean MB, 70 MB is around 24 megapixel, which is pretty average nowadays. If you have a look at my G3HDXC, you'll see: File size: 7952 x 5304 px | 67.3 x 44.9 cm (300dpi) | 120.7 MB The 120.7 MB is the size of the file when it's an uncompressed bitmap, like a TIFF or BMP. 7952 x 5304 = 42177408 px is 42 megapixel. (= a A7RII) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Ernest, Some great images, but can you say "Vertical?" LOL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kumar Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Nikon D800 results in +103 Mb uncompressed file sizes ! Not sure though as to what you refer to as MO ??? Sorry, if it is MP (megapixels).Kumar, India Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernest Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 Yes, MO means MB ( megabit) not MP ( megapixel). Thanks to those who like my collection. To fotoDogue, I started this discussion after seeing your photos. I was reading another thread and you were there, writing about the Nikon D3300. Indeed, my camera ( Nikon D700) broke down some times ago. So I'm looking for a new Nikon body. D700 is good stuff unfortunately there is one drawback, photos are not really heavy ( 34 MB).So D3300 is good choice ? I'm looking for something not too expensive, something you take photos more heavy than 34 MB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 The D3300 is a very decent entry level camera with very good image quaity for the still amazingly cheap price of £289 in the UK (seems to have avoided the big post-Brexit referendum price increases of most Nikon kit here). It is DX-format but that might suit your portraiture very well. Compared to the full frame FX-format D700, it will feel very light and fragile but the image quality is more than decent and it is 24MP (about 72 MB). Nikon are bringing out the D3400 but I don't know what the differences are except that it is quite a lot more expensive. Incidentally, file sizes (MP or MB) are not usually described as heavy in English although it may be a very apt description. A more typical way of describing file sizes would be simply to say larger than rather than heavier than - so you are looking for a camera that produces images larger than the 36 MB files from the D700. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 All good points, MDM. When talking about technique things it's best to use standard English rather than slang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 Also image sizes are usually in megapixels, because the amount of Mb we have talked about here are all 8bit. There's 16bit as well. Then there's compressed RAW; uncompressed RAW; compressed TIFF and JPG. All with different file sizes. So a file size is in byte or megabyte (MB); an image is in pixels or megapixels (MP). (Megabit or Mbit is a decimal unit - just in case.) wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 To fotoDogue, I started this discussion after seeing your photos. I was reading another thread and you were there, writing about the Nikon D3300. Indeed, my camera ( Nikon D700) broke down some times ago. So I'm looking for a new Nikon body. D700 is good stuff unfortunately there is one drawback, photos are not really heavy ( 34 MB).So D3300 is good choice ? I'm looking for something not too expensive, something you take photos more heavy than 34 MB. The D610 is probably the most affordable full frame Nikon these days and at 24 megapixels it gives me ample room to crop. The price was recently lowered to about $1500 U$ at reputable camera shops here in New York, and as low as $995 from questionable sources on the internet. I still shoot with my old D300 (12 megapixel) when I want to take advantage of the DX format but the D610 is currently my camera of choice. fD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlMillerPhotos Posted September 28, 2016 Share Posted September 28, 2016 Definitely a nice portfolio there. Makes me want to take my two lowly sales and give up. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wawa Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Hi Ernest, You could pick up a used D700 in very good condition for about $700. Still a good camera even today, you've obviously proved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Hi Ernest, You could pick up a used D700 in very good condition for about $700. Still a good camera even today, you've obviously proved it. If he's in NYC I'll sell him mine for $550. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ernest Posted October 4, 2016 Author Share Posted October 4, 2016 Have bought a used D700 in the nearest photo shop. 850 euros, 12 000 clicks. I'm always astonished by people who sell such good cameras while they are almost new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Ernest, the move to lighter, smaller mirrorless cameras has been discussed to death in this forum. Perhaps when you get older you'll understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.