Worth upgrading to 5D for stock photography?

shootaway wrote:
Go with the 5D for larger images, my experiences with stock has been that (and it does depend on the use of images) is the larger images do sell better. cropping won't be such an issue.Just one thing that SkipD mentioned about resolution when cropping. The 20D is about 62% of the size of an 5D ,and it won't make much if any difference when cropping to same size. 5D (4368 x 2912 pixels)= about 12.7mp , 20D (3504 x 2236 pixels)= about 7.83mp thus been 62% of 5D . The area you stated of ( 2730 x 1820 pixels)= about 4.97mp which is about the difference in size between the two not the final size of the 5D cropped the way you say. At 300DPI cropping it the same size shouldn't change the actual size. AT 300dpi a 5D is about 14.56in x 9.71in ,20D is 11.68in x 7.45in. If you cropped the 5D image about (2.88in horizonally) and (2.26in vertically) you should be very close to the same image(At 300dpi).

Cameras

eos 3,10d,20d,5d

Lenses

16-35mm f2.8
24-70mm f2.8
50mm f 1.4
70mm-200mm f 2.8 IS
100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS

I think my brain just exploded!

i thought i smelled smoke....

Sorry to say it, but you ain't got a clue as to what I was talking about. It has nothing to do with printing resolution.

What I was trying to illustrate is this (with no math involved): Assume you are using a 200mm lens on a 20D, photographing a squirrel up in a tree. You are at a distance that has the squirrel nicely filling the viewfinder in the 20D, so you take the shot. Now get your 5D and put the same 200mm lens on it and take the same shot from the same place. You will have a lot of cropping to do (resulting in an image with 39.4% of the original area) to come up with the same framing as the 20D's image. After doing that cropping of the 5D image to match the 20D image, you will be left with far fewer pixels than the (uncropped) 20D image has.

A "full-frame" digital camera (a body with a 24x36mm sensor) that would allow the cropped full-frame image described above to have the same pixel density as the uncropped 20D image would have to be a almost a 21 megapixel camera.

The bottom line is that if your photography consists mainly of using longer telephoto lenses, you'd be better off using a 20D than a 5D.

A good point Skip, however if you look at the OP's website in his signature, he obviously shoots mainly portrait/glamour. This would render the 20D's focal length advantage irrelevant and making the 5D a better camera for the him.

Gary.

Every thread here seems to think that after blowing $2000.00 more than you should have buying a 5D, with full frame, short DOF, true wide angle, and another $5000.00 in some good glass; all you want it to do is imitate the 20D.

Cameras are becoming more and more like lenses; tell us what you shoot and how you want to present the subject, and we can tell you which camera you need.

Is it worth? Depends... will you get that much more money with 5d, so you get this expense back in less then year... preferably less then half year? Yes? Good go for it. No? Well I guess it's not worth then.
But there's always option question should be set different way. Instead of "is it worth upgrading for stock photography" dilema is in fact "I want new camera and I need excuse to buy new one". If it's so and you have money, go for it, especially if it will make you happy. Afterall we all live only once.
PS: I'm not going into reincarnation debate here

What you're saying is correct Skip, but your premise needs some adjustment. If I were shooting the squirrel with my 5d, I wouldn't be using a 200mm in the first place if I couldn't frame the squirrel properly; I would use a 300mm. Any cropping necessary later, still beats the 20d.

sorry... Skip i didn't explain myself properly i was talking about difference in sensor sizes ,and what you say is true ,but im assuming the subject matter in framed the same , the larger image from a 5D would sell better for stock .If images are for a Publication then the 20D would be good enough. It all goes back to usage, personally i use the 20D for sport and 5D for most other things, Model portfolios, stock ,landscape, portraits etc. I sometimes even use my Eos 3 film camera but that was mainly when i needed wide angle ,5D fixed that problem.

I do a combination of glamour photography and stock photography. I make more money from stock photography, so that is why I base my decisions more on this premise.

The higher pixel numbers are not necessary for my glamour type work, except in a few rare occasions. With stock photography, it seems like they demand the higher pixel numbers to be successfull in the long run.

I was mainly wondering how important the higher pixel count really is toward being more successfull with stock photography.

Here's a simple answer: Take the number of pixels in the 20D and multiply it by pi, then subtract the number of pixels in the 5d and cube it. Add the number of pixels left over and put them in the pi. Of course if you're talking about a strawberry pi you mght have problems because they won't be in season until April unless you go to Argentina. In that event make sure you do NOT go to Mar Del Plata when the president is there, unless that is, you have a Hugo Chavez Tshirt. If you do, blend in to the crowd and mix well. Just don't throw the pi when anyone is looking. This took me a long time to figure out; I hope you appreciate it.

Who do you submit your stock images too?

I submit to Alamy, Shutterstock, 123Royaltyfree, Bigstockphoto, Canstock, and a few others. Alamy is really the only one that demands the high resolution files.

I have decided that for $3,000 I do not get enough of a benefit to justify a 5D. Instead, I will buy 1 additional studio light, another reflector, a 60" umbrella, and a few more seamless paper rolls. This will cost me much less and will really kick my studio work into high gear.

I can wait for a while. I'm sure that in a year or 2 there will be similar cameras available at a cheaper price.

Bodog wrote:
What you're saying is correct Skip, but your premise needs some adjustment. If I were shooting the squirrel with my 5d, I wouldn't be using a 200mm in the first place if I couldn't frame the squirrel properly; I would use a 300mm. Any cropping necessary later, still beats the 20d.

I'd just buy a bag of peanuts and lure him out of the tree, then shoot him with my used Elan II and the nifty-fifty.