Camera for taking references to sell them online

Rorsh

Hello, I registered here because I wanted to ask you for advice.

I am looking for a camera (and lens) to take references photos to sell online. In terms of topic of references I am thinking about photographing both, huge things outdoors (enviro, cars, etc.) and smaller things both out and indoor.

I am looking for camera that will have quality good enough for people to actually want to pay for pictures. My original plan was to buy both camera and lenses for around 1300$ but if it would be needed I could go higher to maybe 2000$. I did some research and I was thinking about buying Sony Alpha 7 II (III is a bit pricey and I don't see much improvement?) and in terms of lenses I am not sure if I should go for just 50mm or go for something like 18-105mm or 55-210mm?

I wanted to ask you, what do you think about this? Do you think that this 50mm will be enough or I should go for varifocal lens?

Is Alpha 7 II good for reference pictures or I should go with something else?

Thank you

FrankPolygon

It all depends. What equipment do you currently have? What's the overall sales goals?

The best gear to start with is the gear you already have. If you already own a phone with a decent camera you can use it to put together a pack to get a feel for the amount of work and cost involved in producing this type of content. From there borrowing or renting a camera and lens is a lower risk way of figuring out if this is something you'll want to invest this much money into. Start sketchy with a minimum viable product then dial back the sketchiness.

Photography is a competitive market so it will take some work to make it a full time job. If it's not possible to recover the costs on a minimal time and equipment investment then it may not be viable beyond a hobby. There's absolutely nothing wrong with making a side hustle out of a hobby but it's important to be realistic about cost recovery if the goal is to make this anything more than a hobby that slowly covers equipment costs over a longer period of time.

As a quick example: on the ArtStation marketplace the average photo reference pack sells for between $2-12 and contains a couple hundred photos. Assuming an average price of around $7 there's a 15% sales fee which leaves about $6 (ignoring transfer fees and taxes). If each photo pack has 150 photos and it takes around 2 minutes to process each photo (cull bad shots, batch color matching, export, package, upload, tag, etc.)  that's 5 hours of work.

Figure your time is worth around $20/hr that's a cost of $100 (not including the time spent walking around taking photos) that has to be recovered before even touching the payback on the camera system. With a portfolio of around 10 image packs that means the total cost (not counting the time spent taking the photos) is $1,000. With sales netting around $6 per that means just covering the processing labor requires making 166 sales. If the camera system costs $2,000 that requires making another 333 sales.

Add that together and that's around 500 sales to recover the cost of the camera system and processing the photos. This doesn't include costs like software licenses, taxes, entry fees to special locations / events and the time spent taking the photos. Additional costs could easily double the sales requirements. Royalty payments also vary from site to site and some (3D specific) stock sites take a hefty commission.

As far as gear goes: Digital camera bodies tend to depreciate faster than lenses do. Buying a new camera body, even if it's one generation behind, doesn't leave much for lenses if the total budget is $2,000. A 50mm prime is a good all round lens but if you want to cover a wide range of subjects it's going to become a limiting factor. Larger subjects and landscapes will tend to need wider angle lenses and longer lenses can be used to focus in on distant subjects or isolate individual elements. Small subjects and detail shots will require some degree of macro capability. Extension tubes can be used on regular lenses but the performance will not be as good as a lens with dedicated macro capabilities.

A higher quality professional level zoom lens (wide to short telephoto range) with some macro capability may make the most sense for the wide range of subjects you want to photograph. It won't be the best at everything but it should be workable in most situations without being overly expensive or intrusive.

With interchangeable lens cameras it makes more sense to look at the price to performance and resale value of the glass and weight it slightly higher in the initial purchase decision than the feature set in the camera body. A lot of the newer mirrorless cameras have a lot of extra video centric features that won't necessarily be useful to a pure photography workflow. That's not to say they can't be useful but rather they won't offer the same image quality as raw files and therefore are less relevant to photography.

There's two good reasons to focus on buying better quality glass right away: If selling photo references works out then you can sell the older camera body and upgrade to a newer one. If selling photo references doesn't work out you'll get more of your money back if the higher quality lenses are gently used. Lower quality consumer lenses are cheaper to purchase but tend to bring less money on resale.

Reducing the overall cost of the camera system (lenses + camera body) would go a long way towards making it easier to recover the total costs of the investment. It also lowers the risk if it doesn't work out. Used camera bodies from reputable sellers and used lenses can be a great way to pickup quality photography equipment at a more reasonable costs. It's possible to pickup a good zoom with macro capabilities and a wider prime for the price of one new zoom lens.

Buying a gently used camera that's higher in the product line and one or two generations behind would be a less costly way of getting into photography without compromising too much on image quality. Another option would be to look at under priced but gently used professional level DSLRs that are one or two generations old. These cameras are photography workhorses that have good image quality for the price but lack some some of the more contemporary features found in mirrorless cameras.

Renting equipment for the first couple of packages may make the most sense. The biggest thing is you're not taking on the risk of carrying a depreciating asset while you're trying to make money. You only really need the camera when you plan to go somewhere and gather photos. It's a fraction of the cost of purchasing the equipment and if you batch a couple of photo trips during the rental period it reduces the cost per rental. It also lets you experiment with different lenses and camera setups to figure out exactly what you need before buying a camera.

Again it's worth reiterating that the best place to start is with what you already have. Give it a try with your phone's camera and get a feel for the process then use this experience to look at exactly what you need out of a camera.

gnoop

Imo the only thing worth buying is  photogrammetry scans    i.e.   color image + height map + low res mesh.     Could be done with any modern camera starting from  $400.       Resolution  is 1 pix per mm .    Total scale and cover is what might be competitive since usually what's available including Megascan  rather small 2x2 meters  things  , repetitive like  hell.  

     So something big and complete , fully covered  saved as UDIM tiles  might be useful my guess.

Rock formations,  a whole tree trunks with big brunches.   10-20 meters of some walls,   cracked asphalts  and so on.   In a word  big cover.     

Still could be a risky business  requiring more  investment in soft and processing power rather than a camera.

 

Rorsh

@FrankPolygon
Thank you very much for your answer. You are right in many places. I don't plan on quitting my current job, I like my job. I am just looking for something that could be 50% my hobby and 50% my side "mini business".

Yes, I did the math, it would probably take a longer time to actually pay for that camera from sales. I have a camera currently borrowed but the quality of the pictures is not good. In my opinion it's not quite enough to compete in the market (like you said, many people are already selling reference packs and they have good equipment to do so).

I also wanted to start with renting, but the math behind it looks like this. In my country renting a body is around 35$, renting lenses is around 45$, it's 80$ per 24 hours. Most of them work in a way that will prevent me in renting this gear just for one day. It will be probably 2 days. It's already 160$, and I wanted to take at least 3 to 4 trips before opening my little business to actually have several packages ready. That would be really a lot now.

And I was thinking, that if in several months I decide that it's not worth further work, I can sell the camera that I bought "today" for around 75%, maybe even a little bit higher. That's why I mostly wanted to actually buy this and not rent or not go with what I have currently.

@gnoop
Thank you very much for your answer. Yes, I am still thinking what exactly I would like to sell, but it seems that many references packs are actually selling well (as far as I know ofc.). I was also thinking that I could maybe provide photos to make scans but not scans itself? I am open to any ideas to be honest.

FrankPolygon

@Rorsh Avoid overestimating the barriers to entry on this type of product. Artists and photo buffs are two different market segments. It's really worth considering what artists are looking for when they're purchasing reference packs. Based on what's out there and what tends to appear in best seller lists it seems that unique content with interesting subjects and good composition is valued above generic stuff with higher image quality. IQ being dynamic range, low light performance, sharpness, resolution, etc.

What camera and lens combination do you currently have access to and would you be able to share some sample images? Pretty much any professional or high end consumer grade interchangeable lens camera made in the last 10 years should be capable of producing acceptable images for this type of work.

Noticeable IQ issues with any mid level ILC released in the last 4-6 years is more likely than not going to be caused by problems with exposure settings, lighting, composition and post processing. To a lesser degree there's also a noticeable difference between consumer and professional lenses but for reference images that's neither here nor there.

Even if the currently borrowed equipment is THE bottle neck here: putting together a pack and getting feedback of the salability of the content, without having to layout significant expense, is an informative exercise that will push you a lot harder then a new camera will.

Managing national level advertising media production for over two years: some of our best photographers were using D750's and 5D III's that were 4-6 years old at the time. The cameras were only a small part of what made their work desirable. Above all else it was the ability of these photographers to get out every day, create new content and deliver it on time that kept getting them callbacks.

Normally I don't comment on this type of stuff because in the end whatever camera you use and make money with is good enough but speaking from experience: new gear or expensive gear doesn't make you a better photographer and it doesn't really add any significant evolutionary pressure to get out and make products.

Low profit margin products that take a lot of time and effort to produce also tend to take a long time to generate returns and it can be really tempting to justify expensive purchases for a hobby on the idea that it will make money some day. If it's a hobby and the purchase brings you enjoyment then go for it but business wise it's better to find minimum viable and work up from there. The barrier to entry for stock images and reference photos is very low because you don't need expensive equipment to get started.

The hard truth often is that if you're not already doing something with what you have then what tends to happen is the new gear gets used once or twice then it sits on a shelf and the cost recovery payback never materializes.

Overall the idea isn't to discourage you from purchasing equipment but rather to encourage you to get started making content now with the tools you have and figuring out what sells before making significant investments into equipment that probably won't increase the value of the product or the overall sales numbers. The results of a pack put together with what you have access to now may surprise you.

Rorsh

@FrankPolygon

Thank you very much for your post. I think that you are right. I currently borrowed Nikon D90 with lense 18-108mm.
Here are examples photos - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fNPIJ4f2Fm6kcvngAPbopVXen-4u8Rz4?usp=sharing
These were taken as NEF (raw format) and I did some quick post production in photoshop including lightness and sharpness. I saved them as JPEG's (with highest quality).

Eric Chadwick

Do a bit of market research. What seems to work well for others, and how can you adapt the lessons they learned to apply to your own niche? For example:
https://polycount.com/discussion/199141/photo-reference-packs-from-nomad-photo-reference/p1

FrankPolygon

@Rorsh Thank you for providing those sample images.

The Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 VR DX is one of their softer kit lenses. Stopping down to somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8 should help sharpen things up a bit. It also looks like the camera is having some minor back focusing issues in the first two photos. Stopping down to sharpen the images will also widen the DOF which should compensate for minor focus issues.

Of course the downside is this will require brightly lit scenes or raising the ISO and lowering the shutter speed but the noise levels look pretty good for a consumer level DSLR released in 2008. The first couple of shots look a little smudgy but the third one seems to have a decent balance between noise reduction and natural looking grain. Some noise grain is acceptable so avoid over processing the image with noise reduction. It's better to keep things sharp, even if means having a little bit of noticeable grain in the image.

Overall the IQ isn't horrible but the age of the camera and the quality of the lens definitely explain why you're looking to upgrade. It's still possible to create salable reference images with the D90 but it's just going to be a lot more work to balance out the exposure triangle and keep everything sharp and in focus. The camera's sensor and focusing system could be better but that particular lens isn't doing it any favors either.

As far as future upgrades go: the A7 II is kind of middle of the road with 24MP. The A7S II is more for low light and video work. If shooting a wide variety of subjects for reference photos is the goal then maybe the A7R II makes more sense? It's a more photo centric camera with a 42MP ff sensor. This would give you a lot more options for cropping and processing compared to the 12MP sensor in the A7S II and the 24MP sensor in the A7 II.

Most of SONY's higher end cameras have good dynamic range and high ISO performance so extreme low light probably won't even be an issue. In terms of cost all three of these cameras are pretty close but that extra resolution may be worth paying a bit more since it provides a bit of future proofing and a lot more processing flexibility.

For an all around lens it's nice to have professional glass with constant aperture and optical stabilization. The FE 24–105 mm F4 G OSS is a decent all rounder but it's fairly expensive. Cheaper variable aperture lenses either don't have the same focal length range or are so close in price it's hard to justify not spending a bit more to get significantly better performance. If you can afford it, it's generally better to buy one and cry once. A good E mount G should outlive a couple of camera body upgrade cycles.

An alternate option would be to go with a shorter third party lens like the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN | A which costs a bit less and has a faster aperture but a bit shorter focal length range and no optical stabilization. Their art series lenses are generally regarded as very good value for money but the price is close to the 24-105mm F4 G. Having a longer focal distance and optical stabilization of the native E mount G lens is probably worth that little bit more.

This is just personal preference but when looking at gently used gear from reputable sellers, if the price difference is only a couple hundred dollars between new and used it just seems better to go with new if you can afford it. Though this only counts for newer lenses and camera bodies where it's still possible to get warranty support. With older stuff that's dropped off support lists it makes more sense to shop around to find the lowest price on stuff that's in really good shape.

There's definitely some QOL improvements on newer camera systems that will improve the workflow but challenge yourself by trying to put together a few small sample packs with that D90 and get some feedback on those images. Take what you've learned from that and roll that into the technical requirements for your future camera purchase.

Any sales from these sample packs can help offset any initial purchases and will get things moving so you can iron out any bugs with the process before making serious investments. Once your reference pack portfolio grows you can always trim the ones that don't sell or aren't up to your current quality standards.

Also a second on what Eric has recommended. Develop the product first then start looking at how to improve the overall image quality.