Camera upgrade

[York1e]

A number friends have prints of my work on there walls, from my times in the lakes and highlands. One of which works for a printing company who produce calenders and postcards and they have offered to purchase some of my work. But only if I upgrade my camera from a 450d.

Do I need to go to a full frame camera?.

As a climber/hiker I need to keep the weight down and I can be away for a couple of days.

In the old film days, I used OM2s and never questioned what camera was used, when selling my work.

[wavemachine]

First question is why do they want you to upgrade from a 450D?

What sort of pictures are you shooting is it just landscapes?

[York1e]

Mainly landscapes, now and again county shows and fete's.

I shoot in Raw.

They dont consider it as a pro or semi pro camera.

They dont seem to have a problem with the images they have seen todate either on screen or as prints.

[KeithT]

A 7d might be the way to go if you are on a budget, or full-frame like a 5d are reasonably priced on ebay. Whatever you choose it will have to be a high resolution camera and decent glass because that is what the trade have come to expect, even though lesser cameras produce decent images.

[chris-p]

They're idiots. Sorry, but thats all there is to it. A printer likes the image, has no issue with technical quality, is fine with the resolution but they want you to upgrade.

Tell them to *@!# off and find a printer who'll do it.

The other question is, why does it have to be a "pro" or "semi-pro" camera that you take the pictures with. If the pictures are good enough, they're good enough.
It's simply ridiculous.

[cosmicma]

chris is right you know

despite what people might think a photo is only as good as the photographer behind the camera regardless of which camera it is

i would try an experiment
strip the exif from the photo and double it's resolution in your favourite editing package then ask the printer is this photo any better now you have used a different camera

one way to find out if the prejudice is against the quality of the image or the camera model

[kiffy]

what bullsh*t, doesnt matter if the camera cost a hundred or ten thousand, as long as the image is of a higher enough standard then the camera model makes no difference.. im with chris, tell them where to go

[AndyStevens]

You could happily join an image library like Alamy and sell images to national newspapers, magazines, guide books etc with a 450D. As others have mentioned, it's what you take, not what you take it with - I have seen some complete rubbish taken on a 1Ds MkII (plonker with more money than sense showing me how 'good' he was).

I'm on Alamy and use a 300D with no problems. I also got a double-page spread in last month's PhotoPlus (the Peacock in Inspirations). Quality is fine...

I would ask the printer what maximum image size and resolution he requires - you're almost A3/300ppi out the camera - I doubt they want to use A3 images on a calendar. Take some images on a memory stick and let him make proof test prints at the required size and see what he says about image quality.

The key thing in your favour? Your images made him sit up and take notice so I'd use the quality of your images as your USP.

[KeithT]

Originally Posted by kiffy

what bullsh*t, doesnt matter if the camera cost a hundred or ten thousand, as long as the image is of a higher enough standard then the camera model makes no difference.. im with chris, tell them where to go

Well, it might be bull***t , and I agree up to a point, but it's a fact of life. I have some really great images taken with a Panasonic LX3 which would grace any publication. But they won't be deemed up to standard. Yes, Alamy will take images from the 450d, but they will generally be used for websites where images will be no more than a large thumbnail. I guess it's why full-time pros pay thousands for gear, otherwise they would all be using 450d's and saving themselves a bucket load of money...

PS Many years ago I wanted to get into calendar publication and I had a pro EOS 1 35mm at the time. It produced stunning slides. But calendar producers would not entertain any images in that format. The minimum quality was medium format, but they still preferred large format and still do to this day.

[kiffy]

i still cant see what the issue with a 450d is when all they want them for is calendars and postcards. the resolution is fine for that size printing. and so should the quality of the images be. and his capability obviously isnt in question as they do want to buy images from him. i think asking him to upgrade is ludicrous

i dont doubt that pros cameras are more capable, they obviously are and with pro standard (and priced) lenses will produce better quality photos than a 450d but were not talking billboard size prints or art gallery quality prints.. were talking calendars