I would like to see a photo...

...that would have sold for less money, or not sold at all, if it had been taken with lesser equipment.

Clearly, some cameras have definite operational advantages over others which makes capturing the photo in the first place the differentiator between cameras (e.g. fast and accurate AF).  However, what I'm talking about here is a photo that was successfully captured, and would have been successfully captured with lesser equipment, but the difference in IQ was substantial enough to either make the photo unsellable, or, at least, sell for less.

For example, show me a pic that would sell if it was taken with a 5D3, but would not sell (or sell for less) if it had instead been taken with a 40D.  I mean, we all know the 5D3 does produce photos with higher IQ, all else equal, and enjoys substantial operational advantages, but how does the IQ differential translate into the commercial value of the photos taken?

So, let's see the pic.  Show me a pic (or pics) you took that would sell, but not sell (or sell for less) if it had been instead taken with, say, a 40D.

I agree with the sentiment.  I like using nice gear, but I realize that practice of a craft is the most important part of my "gear"..

If a pro shoots a memorable image with a smartphone, then the smartphone is pro gear, in the most pure sense.

Sure, take that capture, with APS-C for arguments sake.  One camera with 2012 tech and one with 2005 tech. D70 vs D3200 perhaps.  Blow it up for sale at say 24x36. Put both in the gallery for $100 each. Make many copies so that if one is sold you can immediately replace it so the comparison is not lost. At the end of a year...see how many of each print you have left.

There might even be some very high DR range scenes that might not do well in the side by side sale test at even 8x10. Those types of scenes though aren't often encountered by many. Buyers don't have a critical eye so they could be easily fooled into paying same price for the lesser output, I would think. Would be fun to see the results.

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

If the IQ of any image limits print size, it automatically limits the sale price of that image as a print.

For example, if you can print an image to a maximum size of 16" x 24" & sell it for say £100, a 20" x 30" print might sell for £130.  It's just as likely to sell at the smaller size, but larger sizes increase the number of options & potential profit.

For examples, check out any site selling prints...my website for example.

Of course - there are plenty of examples out there. The field of sports and wildlife should provide a rich ground for finding such examples. I'm thinking there would be many examples in that field that could not have been captured with, say, a small compact or an iFad device as successfully.

IQ never limits print size.  In some cases it can limit how good a print looks at close range, depending on which aspect of “Q” is being judged.  However, you can print any photo at any size.

A large print of an unusual subject or great artistic merit will often sell for more than a technically superior print (higher IQ, in your words) that is uninteresting.

since i shot 40d for 5 years and 5dc for last three years I have some experience

the 40d is junk at iso 3200 - see colored blocks at link.  It tops out at iso1600 for usability imo

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-50D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

my first wedding with 5dc - actually the reason I got the 5dc -- I was put in back of candelight church -- a Christmas Eve Service -- no flash allowed ceremony -- and only way to get close was 70-200 f2.8L @ F2.8, 200mm,  ss 1/80, on pod - iso 3200 - 2 stops better high iso noise.

now that I have 60d and T4i, there is only 1 stop differential with my 5dc - reason I sold 40d

between a 40d and a  5d3/6d --  3 stop differential -- your calculation doesn't reflect visuals I've studied for years.

Wedding photographers go into no flash allowed ceremonies with 5d3/6d and use iso 10,800.  No way would 40d keep up.  my 60d can get iso6400 if I'm in a jam though using ETTR

The examples:

1) No Flash Low Light Ceremonies

2) Profound shallow dof

I think your premise might be flawed.  Obviously, if the prints are identical then they could be sold for the same price.  But in the case where one print is better and they’re displayed side-by-side at the same price, who would ever choose the inferior print?

I believe there would be a very large number of situations where it would make absolutely no difference to a buyer.  But if you’re implying that there are no photos where a print from a 1DX, 5D3 or D800 would be better than a 40D or 50D print, I’d have to disagree with that.

Anyway, how could anybody post a print here to satisfy your request  Or are you limiting the question to web photos, where most would agree that even cell phones can capture great images?

Technically true but there comes a size that simply looks horrible in my livingroom compared to the same picture taken with a higher resolution camera and printed to the same size and hung on my living room wall.

But the OP was specific in limiting his examples to the same scene and not different ones.

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

I don't disagree, but that doesn't contradict what I said.  Also, just because it doesn't look good to you in your living room doesn't mean it won't look good elsewhere.  On the side of a bus, for example.  There are many reasons that photos are purchased, and my only point was that there is no size limit, contrary to what Nigel wrote.

It wasn't a reply to the OP.  Just addressing what I believe to be a misstatement in the specific post to which I repleied (and quoted).

Photos which are "shared" are the ones seeing the light of day. There was a big news story here in Dutch Harbor, Alaska last summer and I got good photos. I got 25 calls about the pictures and made two sales....The Huffington Post called three times wanting "to share." They went with the guy who gave away his seriously inferior photo for free. Who bought mine? Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. No media was willing to pay. Last month Dan Rather's show bought six images. So that's the first sale to real media. It's not necessarily about quality as much as it's about being free.

But I do have a story about quality. The linked photo was taken during the war in the former Yugoslavia. The pilot they're carrying was being exchanged for another prisoner. The Italian Magazine Panorama, if I remember correctly, would have used this as a cover shot but the quality of the processing was substandard. It did run a full page inside, but they wanted really top-quality for the cover. But that was in 1992 and the market for photos has changed dramatically since then.

http://www.pbase.com/zidar/image/58093967

In the past, I know that some stock agencies had a size limit such that many lower MP cameras would not qualify. Now we have pocket cameras such as the RX100 with 20MP which does have the image size and qualiy for that application.

Correct, and no contradiction was intended.

Correct.

Yes there is no size physical limit. Nigel didn't really imply there was in the context he was referring to. I understood that. There is a size limit to what looks good in a particular situation, though. You could say that's simply not the case for most folks attending a school for the blind, and you would be technically correct.

In that regard then, you have to take into account that he was replying to the OP...in that context, he was quite accurate. To suggest otherwise would be taking his words out of context.

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Most of us do not shoot for money. You'd better ask this question in the Pro Digital Talk forum.

May not be able to name the camera models involved... If you have an image from a 40D that is indistinguishable from that made with a 5D3, I know somebody screwed up with the 5D3. I presume that most folks in this forum who have owned more than one camera, especially cameras from different generations, can see the difference between the two.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.

I ran into the same thing.  A new local restaurant wanted to use the linked photo of our marching band/color guard for their wall.  I gave them a price, got sign-off from the girls, and then found out a month later that they went through someone else who gave them a blurry shot from a point and shoot for free.



https://picasaweb.google.com/117940154357867441025/MemorialDayParade2011?authkey=Gv1sRgCM6FvJnhtNSrpgE&feat=embedwebsite#5612643920499633666

Tom
My photos http://www.alicoatephotography.com

Pretty much what I was thinking although maybe I don't follow GB exactly on this.  My 5D3 is capable of much better shots in a poorly lit gym than the T1i that I started with, both using 2.8 lenses.   (at the time my T1i was slightly better than my friend's 40D).

You're a landscape photographer, right?  So, for example, are you saying that some of the landscape pics you took with lesser equipment than you have today would no longer sell, or sell for less?

Or, are you saying, for example, that you could sell that landscape at, say, 12x18 inches if it had been taken with a 40D, but not be able to sell it at 20x30 inches, whereas if you had taken it with a 5D2, you would have?

That's a shame.  I'm quite a fan of "the money shot". 

Good point.  I think I'll do just that after I get some more insight from this thread.

Yes, but that is an artificial limitation.  I mean if you, personally, were selling the photo to a client who was the end user of the photo.