Quote: (Originally Posted by
Gill Envy)
I was referring to the fact that some stock houses have a minimum file size for submission, basically requiring a raw format origin from a high end camera.
We get surprisingly nice macro shots with such a simple set up as the SD 900's with the cannon stock housings, diffuser and built in flash, every so often I'd like to submit one to a stock house but can't because of fill size is too small (the SD's don't produce raw), even though they are 10 megapixils and prety high rez.
the quandry for us is: will the jump up to something like the 40D with the added expense, hastle, bulk and risk be worth it, when we are happy with what we are doing with a much more compact and managable camera that takes pretty nice pictures as it is. If it would allow us to submit an occasional photo to help support the habit it just might be worth it and of course the 40D would probably take our photography to a whole new level.
here is a flickr set of some photos from a trip last spring (
The Underwater Jungle Of Ambon Indonesia - a photoset on Flickr), they were shrunk to fit on flickr but it gives you an idea of what can be done with a camera that fits in the palm of your hand, and even in a housing that can still be wielded with one hand or even forgotten about in between shots.
g
Gill,
First of all, NICE PHOTOS!!!! I have never been there and I am very jealous!
yes, yes and yes, when you are dealing with a compact camera like the SD 900 that you refer to, you have a smaller area that the original picture is projected onto, therefore your file size will be smaller, even though it is 10mp the "film size" or now the photo receptors makes a huge difference in the file size. the bigger the more detail.
The 40D will give you a much larger array of photoreceptor cells, but is still smaller than traditional 35mm film. This is why if you purchase a DSLR you need to calculate in the magnification factor, it is slightly different in each manufacturer. for the 40D this is 1.6X. Just keep this in mind when buying lenses, for example, a 100mm lens is actually like taking a picture with a 160mm lens with a traditional 35mm film camera.
There are cameras much more expensive than the 40D that have a true 35mm receptor. I love the 40D, I previously owned the 20D and it is well worth the upgrade. You will be able to take RAW photos and convert them to DNG files very easily if you wish for export.
I have yet to get an underwater housing for this, however I think I have narrowed it down to the see&see. I will post results once I make this purchase.
If you are debating on the size of the 40D or other DSLR's vs your point and shoot, that is personal preference. if decide you like point and shoot, you may want to consider the Canon G9, I am going to pick one of these up as well. It allows RAW format, however the files will still be smaller than the DSLR. But you could get the G9 and housing for less than the 40D alone.
I am not sure if that helps, but I hope so.
Tom