Which compact camera is considered DSLR-like by Alamy ?

[Bryan]

 

Hi Allan. The A6000 is one I've often seen referred to, and is one of the options I'll be looking at. From what I've seen so far in my research of the other options people here have suggested, my main worry is a lack of zoom range. The more range though, generally speaking at least, the worse the quality, especially at the far ends. My aim was initially an alternative to buying a standard zoom for similar cost, but the more I think about it, the more I can imagine how much nicer it would be to have a wider angle lens on a small camera.

 

I've just checked the A6000 for a very rough idea on price, and it's not a bad price with a lens - Although I haven't looked into what sort of lens that is or other details of the camera yet.

 

I'll add it to my list of cameras/lens options to read up on. Thanks for the suggestion and have a good Christmas.

 

Geoff.

The standard lens on the a6000 is the 16-50, sadly not the best. Not a complete dog, I've sold images taken with it and never had an Alamy QC failure with it, but it just doesn't do it for me. Allan is using a Zeiss lens which is considerably more expensive.

 

The Sony compact system cameras have long had this problem, the lack of affordable, but decent quality, glass. There are good lenses available, but they are very expensive.

 

It's maybe one of the reasons why people are opting for Fuji, although, as this thread illustrates, there are some unhappy Fuji owners out there!

[Martin P Wilson]

Has anyone experience of the Canon G5X as an alternative to the Sony RX100. I appreciate the size is a little more bulky but any thoughts about the quality?

[Allan Bell]

 

 

Hi Allan. The A6000 is one I've often seen referred to, and is one of the options I'll be looking at. From what I've seen so far in my research of the other options people here have suggested, my main worry is a lack of zoom range. The more range though, generally speaking at least, the worse the quality, especially at the far ends. My aim was initially an alternative to buying a standard zoom for similar cost, but the more I think about it, the more I can imagine how much nicer it would be to have a wider angle lens on a small camera.

 

I've just checked the A6000 for a very rough idea on price, and it's not a bad price with a lens - Although I haven't looked into what sort of lens that is or other details of the camera yet.

 

I'll add it to my list of cameras/lens options to read up on. Thanks for the suggestion and have a good Christmas.

 

Geoff.

The standard lens on the a6000 is the 16-50, sadly not the best. Not a complete dog, I've sold images taken with it and never had an Alamy QC failure with it, but it just doesn't do it for me. Allan is using a Zeiss lens which is considerably more expensive.

 

The Sony compact system cameras have long had this problem, the lack of affordable, but decent quality, glass. There are good lenses available, but they are very expensive.

 

It's maybe one of the reasons why people are opting for Fuji, although, as this thread illustrates, there are some unhappy Fuji owners out there!

 

 

 

I'm reading similar things elsewhere. I've done a lot of research during the past couple of days and I'm starting to drift back to thinking I'm better off going for a standard zoom for my DSLR (or even 2 primes). I do still want a compact for some tasks, but from all I've read, I'm not going to be happy with the quality, particularly in low light. Unfortunately it all comes back to finances (lack of!), and what has to come first.

 

I do think mirrorless is the future, but mirrorless cameras now with interchangeable lenses and APS-C sensors cost as much as a decent DSLR, and I'd have to start again with building up a selection of lenses. I have considering moving over to full frame from APS-C (I currently have a Nikon D7100), but after finding that even my fairly new 150-600mm lens isn't getting close enough to many subjects (amazingly!), I'm appreciating the extra apparent focus length a cropped sensor gives me.

 

Thanks for your thoughts Bryan.

 

Geoff.

 

 

 

Agree with Bryan on the 16-50. That is why I went for the 16-70. Apart from extra reach it is a Zeiss lens made for Sony with their name on it. The 16-50 is almost being given away when you buy the body so I think Sony realise it not the best for IQ.

 

When I bought the 16-70 lens I got it with the A6000 camera body from WEX and received a 5% discount on the lens. Also Sony are giving £60 cash back on the lens too.

 

Allan

[djmorgan]

The last time I uploaded was in 2013, back then I shot with Canon 5D MkII +III, I am now using Nikons and vowing not to go overboard in costs again, given the poultry sum paid for images today.

So my first upload in November was Failed QC the reason given Soft or lacking definition Digital camera not suitable for Alamy so I came here looking for the camera list and read it no longer exists but I wonder if it is still used secretly.

 

My first upload, met all the technical size criteria stipulated by Alamy it was however a modern 'bridge' camera with a small sensor but what is called a 'super zoom' 3 or 4 years ago this technology did not exist, today it is common place so my question to the forum was this rejected because the EXIF would show Nikon P900?

 

This image was accepted by Getty Images

 

 

 

 

Understanding this is not a studio shot is wildlife and a flash involved so I know it has noise but natural

[Bryan]

It looks sharp at that size, but I guess that we're not seeing an actual pixels shot here, so it's impossible to say.

 

I've just taken a look at a comparison of images taken with the P900 and other cameras on DPreview and, while being an undoubted miracle of technology (excellent lens, incredible zoom range etc), it doesn't compare all that well with say the little Sony RX100, whose output is accepted by Alamy.

[TABan]

If you're considering the Panasonic LX100, you may also want to look at the GX80/85 (85 in N. America, 80 elsewhere) as it's about the same size and uses m4/3 lenses. I'm heading to a actual camera store today to look at one. From what I've read and seen, it appears to be very good. No anti-aliasing filter and it has 5 axis in body stabilization that's just a bit less effective than Olympus' and works in tandem with in lens IS. I'm heading out today to handle one in an actual camera store.

 

Here's a review: http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/05/18/panasonic-gx85-gx80-review/

[Gervais Montacute]

I like the Sony RX100 MkII, although it's a challenge sometimes and can get noisy in the wrong conditions. I like the articulating screen allowing you to hold it at waist height for example and just look down, rather than having the camera up at your eyes. Mostly the photos come out well. The other one I use is the Fuji X100 and that is very good picture quality.

I like the Nikon D800 for other types of photography when different lenses might be called for, like for instance a 70-200mm zoom etc.

 

If Leica made the Q with an articulating screen, I would probably opt for that.

[djmorgan]

It looks sharp at that size, but I guess that we're not seeing an actual pixels shot here, so it's impossible to say.

 

I've just taken a look at a comparison of images taken with the P900 and other cameras on DPreview and, while being an undoubted miracle of technology (excellent lens, incredible zoom range etc), it doesn't compare all that well with say the little Sony RX100, whose output is accepted by Alamy.

 

Thanks for your response, you only have to click on the picture to see the full image.

 

Happy New Year

[Niels Quist]

At 100% the image seems to have artifacts giving some weird softness in the area around the eye, snout and whiskers where the focus is. I can understand why it failed QC.

 

Happy New Year.

 

Edited: the artifacts seem to be more general, not only in the focused area.

[Bryan]

It is a remarkable image, given the camera used, but the full sized view has the look of a painting rather than a photograph, I've not seen anything quite like it before. Maybe excessive in camera sharpening coupled with heavy handed noise reduction?

[spacecadet]

When you whack up the NR slider in LR above about 60 something like that happens- the image breaks up into polygons and the aliasing goes crazy.

Nowhere near a QC pass, G notwithstanding. Alamy's only criterion is QC.

 

 

Edit: I see that camera has an 83x(!) zoom and a sensor smaller than my fingernail. Not a hope. Back to the DLSR?

[Betty LaRue]

Pixel peeping the image, it looks much like some of the images I've processed using the PS watercolor filter for artistic effects for FAA.

Some of those images of mine actually passed Alamy QC, but only because I also used background textures. They were very obviously digitally manipulated images and reflected that in caption and keywords.

After PU reared its head, I deleted those 30+ images.

Was Nik,Topaz or PS filters used on this image?

Betty

 

Added. If I had an image I really liked but just barely failed the sharpness needed for Alamy, I could do various things to the image artistically. Those images have been sellers for me on FAA.

[wiskerke]

That image is fine at 2200 x 1650. Which is too small for Alamy.

The camera is known for aggressive noise reduction. The real resolution is 4 megapixel or lower.

No RAW. The sensor size is 1/2.3" = 6.17 x 4.55 mm.

However an Iphone 6 sensor is even smaller and you can use those for Stockimo.

 

wim

[John Walker]

 

All my 4000+ Alamy images were taken with Sony RX100 M1  and for the last year or so the Sony RX100 M3 .

 

Sales every month and no QC failures.  It suits my type of stock photography but would probably not suit specialist areas.

 

Click on my image total on the left to see what the camera will do.

 

John

John,

Do you submit the full size image or do you ever feel the need to downsize for QC?

 

Hi Paul

 

It's a mixture,  Most are full size but where I've pushed the camera under more difficult situations I downsize to the longest side being 4000 pixels but only to be on the safe side for QC.

 

John

[djmorgan]

Thanks for all your comments and I don't disagree, I have a portfolio with Alamy for many years shot on Canon FF equipment and just getting back into it with Nikon DSLR.

 

The industry will not evolve if we don't embrace new technology.

 

I pickup the P900 on a whim but could not fault the versatility of the camera and end product given we have a focal range 24 to 2000mm (35mm equiv) with 1 lens and 1 body!

 

It does not shoot RAW a thing Nikon corrected with their B700, but think of the versatility a photographer has carrying a single camera with that reach and producing an image that is self explanatory, yes the image I put up was a 'snap' taken quickly and with a flash! but as a nature photograph it requires no explanation, I can't recall what processing I did but it would not have been a lot.

 

The point is if they accept smart phone images why not 'bridge camera'?

 

Here is a similar image I am reasonably sure straight out of the camera not even a CC notice again click for full size.

 

[wiskerke]

Yes that image quality is really awful. As I said before the real resolution is probably around 4 megapixel. Reduce to 2200x1650 and the smearing is not that obvious anymore. If you could live with a 600mm equivalent, have a look at the Sony RX10 mk3. The 1" sensors are still a bit borderline in low light situations, but with careful pp they can go through QC.

Btw the image is not straight ooc: no exif.

 

wim

[djmorgan]

Yes that image quality is really awful. As I said before the real resolution is probably around 4 megapixel. Reduce to 2200x1650 and the smearing is not that obvious anymore. If you could live with a 600mm equivalent, have a look at the Sony RX10 mk3. The 1" sensors are still a bit borderline in low light situations, but with careful pp they can go through QC.

Btw the image is not straight ooc: no exif.

 

wim

Hmm AWFUL! well in your opinion anyway, you don't happen to be an inspector are you? did you click to see the full image?

Because Alamy won't host off site pictures I had to use a third party so the EXIF is there but you can't see it! no reduction and true size, I could live with a 200mm but why?

 

I am shooting with a Nikon ASP-C the P900 was an experiment.

 

Here is the FULL and unabridged EXIF for your 'picking'

 

File: DSCN1731.JPG

Date Created: 31/10/2016 7:55:35 PM

Date Modified: 14/12/2016 6:05:33 PM

File Size: 7.05 MB

Image Size: 4608 x 3456

File Info 2

Date Shot: 31/10/2016 19:55:35

Image Quality: Jpeg Fine (8-bit)

Artist: David Morgan

Copyright: David Morgan

Camera Info

Device: Nikon COOLPIX P900

Focal Length: 107mm

Digital Zoom Ratio: 1.00

Converter:

Focus Mode: AF-F

VR: ON (ACTIVE)

Exposure

Aperture: f/5

Shutter Speed: 1/125s

Scene Mode: Auto

Exposure Comp.: 0EV

Metering: Matrix

ISO Sensitivity: Auto (ISO 560)

Flash

Flash Sync Mode: Front Curtain

Image Settings

White Balance: Auto, 0, 0

Noise Reduction: OFF

Active D-Lighting: Auto

Skin Softening: OFF

Picture Control

Picture Control: [sD] STANDARD

Base: [sD] STANDARD

Quick Adjust: -

Sharpening:

Contrast: Active D-Lighting

Brightness: Active D-Lighting

Saturation:

Hue:

Filter Effects:

Toning:

Location Info

Latitude: S 28°4.323' (28°4'19.4")

Longitude: E 153°23.985' (153°23'59.1")

Altitude: 2.09m

Altitude Reference: Sea level

Heading:

UTC: 31/10/2016 09:55:23.00

Map Datum: WGS84

[epixx]

I have been considering a compact for as long as digital cameras have existed, and apart from the Canon A95 that I bought back in 2004, I've always come to the conclusion that there are too many compromises, particularly when it comes to AF. On the DSLR side, I started with Fuji in 2005 before moving to Nikon while experimenting with 4/3 (Olympus and Panasonic) and m4/3 (Panasonic). It all peaked with a D810 a couple of years ago, with a D700 as a backup, many large and heavy lenses and a camera bag that could be used as an anchor, still without a compact that would satisfy my needs.

 

I decided then to reduce weight dramatically (camera bodies, not the human one) and searched for a combination of cameras that would give me high image quality and the option of very small size, all within one system. What I ended up with is the Panasonic GM5 (m4/3) and a trio of very good lenses (12-32mm f/3.5-5.6, 35-100mm f/4-5.6, 25mm f/1.7, crop factor is 2x) weighing a total of around 500 grams. For more advanced needs, I purchased a Panasonic GX8 which uses the same lenses but I'm adding a 12-35mm f/2.8 and a 35-100mm f/2.8 as well for that camera. Later, I'll buy a Panasonic G80/85 (uses the same battery as the GX8) or a GH5 for use with larger lenses and advanced video work (larger camera with a better grip plus the option of a vertical battery grip) and probably the 100-400mm Panasonic Leica lens.

 

This way, I've gotten my compact camera as an integrated part of a system that offers image quality that is more than good enough for all my needs, including stock photography. It's not up there with the D810, but surprisingly close, particularly the GX8, and the weight is just a fraction of what I used to carry.

 

Here's the 500 gram set, and those lenses are very good. The GM5 features an electronic viewfinder in addition to the LCD and a real command wheel on the back. Weight of body plus the 12-32mm is around 300 gram:

 

[wiskerke]

 

Yes that image quality is really awful. As I said before the real resolution is probably around 4 megapixel. Reduce to 2200x1650 and the smearing is not that obvious anymore. If you could live with a 600mm equivalent, have a look at the Sony RX10 mk3. The 1" sensors are still a bit borderline in low light situations, but with careful pp they can go through QC.

Btw the image is not straight ooc: no exif.

 

wim

Hmm AWFUL! well in your opinion anyway, you don't happen to be an inspector are you? did you click to see the full image?

Because Alamy won't host off site pictures I had to use a third party so the EXIF is there but you can't see it! no reduction and true size, I could live with a 200mm but why?

 

I am shooting with a Nikon ASP-C the P900 was an experiment.

 

Here is the FULL and unabridged EXIF for your 'picking'

 

File: DSCN1731.JPG

Date Created: 31/10/2016 7:55:35 PM

Date Modified: 14/12/2016 6:05:33 PM

File Size: 7.05 MB

Image Size: 4608 x 3456

File Info 2

Date Shot: 31/10/2016 19:55:35

Image Quality: Jpeg Fine (8-bit)

Artist: David Morgan

Copyright: David Morgan

Camera Info

Device: Nikon COOLPIX P900

Focal Length: 107mm

Digital Zoom Ratio: 1.00

Converter:

Focus Mode: AF-F

VR: ON (ACTIVE)

Exposure

Aperture: f/5

Shutter Speed: 1/125s

Scene Mode: Auto

Exposure Comp.: 0EV

Metering: Matrix

ISO Sensitivity: Auto (ISO 560)

Flash

Flash Sync Mode: Front Curtain

Image Settings

White Balance: Auto, 0, 0

Noise Reduction: OFF

Active D-Lighting: Auto

Skin Softening: OFF

Picture Control

Picture Control: [sD] STANDARD

Base: [sD] STANDARD

Quick Adjust: -

Sharpening:

Contrast: Active D-Lighting

Brightness: Active D-Lighting

Saturation:

Hue:

Filter Effects:

Toning:

Location Info

Latitude: S 28°4.323' (28°4'19.4")

Longitude: E 153°23.985' (153°23'59.1")

Altitude: 2.09m

Altitude Reference: Sea level

Heading:

UTC: 31/10/2016 09:55:23.00

Map Datum: WGS84

 

 

Thank you for the EXIF. No it was not there when I downloaded it. Normally Exifviewer will take care of the metadata when an image is online. I did try a couple of sizes in Photoshop. It's a toss up between 2400 and 2200 px long side. To err on the safe side with QR, I decided on 2200px. And thus went clearly over the edge for submission.

The things I wanted to pick were firstly: ISO obviously;

and second: focal length vs aperture.

With these small sensors diffraction probably sets in at the widest opening already.

That 107mm would that be the 35mm equivalent or the real focal length? Sony for instance gives both.

Not that it matters much after seeing the original, it's clear that it's the jpg engine and it's faults we're looking at.

My guess is that it should mainly be used at 100 ISO under perfect lighting conditions for perfect subjects.

With RAW there would probably be some more latitude.

 

Jeff Greenberg did a whole set of tests with his new RX10 mk3. They're in this thread.

I'm thinking about a camera like that and the choice is not that big. I have rented the RX10 mk1 and mk2 before and probably will try out the mk3 too before I'll decide.

 

I have used a 2/3" (8.8 x 6.6 mm) sensor in a bridge camera very early on in the digital era. It was useless beyond 80 ISO, even in the studio, but I have used (well the client did) it for billboards, four stories high. No problem high up on an office block along a highway ;-)

We have come a long way since though. Here we've noticed a couple of years ago that QC got stricter. It was officially denied, so it may have just been that everybody is so much more used to really good quality files from larger sensors, that we do expect that quality from smaller sensors also.

Because the minimum file size has come down, it's easier to satisfy QC by just downsizing to the smallest permitted size.

However once they have declared a camera not suited, some here think they indeed do judge a file not just by the image quality, but by the EXIF info too. I'm not sure about that, but there's an easy way to test that. I think I don't have to explain how ;-)

Be careful with your nine lives in QC though.

Or just sell them at that other place ;-)

 

wim

[djmorgan]

In over 4K approved images I have never downsized nor enlarged from what comes out of the camera, and I don't know what you are going on about regarding size, here is the dimensions from my PSCC 2017

 

 

And if you were to save the image from this page to your computer it would be 4608 x 3456 only 75 DPI

 

It was not my intention to consider the Sony or any other camera for that matter, whilst I do not frequent the forum as much as you obviously do, I am sure you can see by my portfolio that I am not a novice to taking photographs, I think we should move on from here clearly we are at crossed purposes.

 

David

[spacecadet]

You may not downsize but some of us who have had the odd QC problem do. For high ISO I sometimes downsize to the minimum, 3250 long side.

wiskerke is suggesting that you might just squeeze through at minimum size at low ISO at the right aperture before diffraction kicks in.

Novice or otherwise we have to get through QC whatever tools we use.

Verdict on the P900 seems to be, rather like the farmer asked for directions in a field: I wouldn't start from here.

Stockimo is a different game. Phones only. There seems to be some suggestion that you can get other images through indirectly via the phone app though.

[djmorgan]

You may not downsize but some of us who have had the odd QC problem do. For high ISO I sometimes downsize to the minimum, 3250 long side.

wiskerke is suggesting that you might just squeeze through at minimum size at low ISO at the right aperture before diffraction kicks in.

Novice or otherwise we have to get through QC whatever tools we use.

Verdict on the P900 seems to be, rather like the farmer asked for directions in a field: I wouldn't start from here.

Stockimo is a different game. Phones only. There seems to be some suggestion that you can get other images through indirectly via the phone app though.

 

I never started by asking how I get my images through! and it was only ever 1! since then I have had other approvals, must get around to key-wording!

 

Some here seem to think that if you don't frequent the forum you are a novice! I have been with Alamy since 2009 and have over 2400 images approved. My original question was," IS there a list or did somebody use the EXIF!" now the slant of the conversation is downsizing, I know full well what that it is, and would never do it, I sell elsewhere but never really had that good an image I couldn't do again or just forget.

 

So can we focus? Have a Happy New Year, I promise I won't be a frequent visitor to the Dorothy Dix advice column, I don't find it that good 

 

David