I want to do product photography. I want to capture some products high resolution image and want to edit images on photoshop. After editing i want to upload those on my website's service page. But the problem is, I do not have a DSLR camera. I have my mobile phone which has 13 px camera. Now my question, will this be enough to capture images for my work?
The answer is really - it depends. It depends on what level of quality is required, how the pictures will be used (website, print), what phone you have, lighting....
Here are a few considerations
The number of megapixels does not mean better quality. The sensor size is important. Here is a good article that discusses this point.
I could go into other things like lighting but perhaps provide more information on what you actually are going to do and advice can be directed more to that.
I actually need for website. I am going to offer clipping path service which includes background removal, image masking, photo retouch, color correction, clipping path, shadow creation, etc. search with clipping path service, go any website and service pages. The images you are seeing, actually I need similar.
If you're doing serious photography work, a good camera would probably be the way to go. It would allow for much more control over focus. You could even pick the right lens for the specific photo required.
I looked at the following site:
From what I can see in the above, I'm even more convinced that getting a good camera rather than just relying on your phone would be the best approach.
Thank you Dean.
Have there any source from where I could get some image. Currently I don't have a camera.
You could always start small and experiment with your phone.
When you ask for a source where you can get images, what exactly are you asking for? There are image libraries that you could access stock photos. Adobe even have one:
The stock photo libraries typically allow purchase of image son their own or subscribing so you can access as many as you like on your monthly fee.
Please visit us at [link removed by moderator] for any kind of photo editing and retouching services.
My first DSLR was 6 megapixels. Those images can still be used for print, and if reduced to web-size it's not an issue at all.
Phone cameras have other problems. To get an idea, open in Photoshop and look at individual channels. Usually the blue channel is mush. There may be pixels, but both the lens and the sensor are of very inferior quality.
My first DSLR was 6 megapixels.
So was mine, a Nikon D70. It had a cheap 18-70 zoom which was very sharp, at least up to 50 mm.
Later I got a D300 with a 12 MP sensor, but the 18-70 couldn't cope with the increased resolution, and was useless with the new camera.
Below is a full size jpg (from an original raw) shot with the D70, 18 mm at f/11. The quality is quite impressive when viewed at 100%.
I went exactly the same route. D70 - D300, then D700 - D800 - D810. And then the Sony a7rII, although I still use the Nikons.
The D800 was the real paradigm shift, the one that turned the world upside down. But that was only possible because the optics had caught up. The real revolution is in lens optical resolution, forced by these new sensors. I still have some of the older lenses, both manual and early autofocus D-series lenses, and they are not in the same league.
With film I always used the single-digit models (F2-F3-F4) - but in the digital age these have taken on a different role, and they are now mainly press cameras optimized for high speed operation and low light conditions. Image quality is not the priority in these models.
When I got my current phone which has 12MP and will shoot RAW I compared it directly to a 12.7MP Canon 5D on the basis that they had roughly the same pixel count. I took the same photos with each. The result - no real contest. The DSLRs far superior lens and larger individual pixels resulted in images with far less noise and far more detail.
The phone camera is handy - in that it is always in my pocket, but out of choice use a camera.
As Dag points out - it is not that long since we were happily using 6MP SLRs (which will still outperform the phone) - those are now very cheap second hand. Would it be possible to get one that way - or even borrow one?
Yes, your suggestion was great. I will try to borrow a camera from someone for a day and do some photography. Thank you
You do not need a great expensive camera to capture very good images. You need a good eye, knowledge, good lighting, and good exposure setting and a steady cameras. My wife's iPhone 8+ 12MP cameras can capture very acceptable images. My old Cannon 1D Mark II 8MP with my cannon 300mm f2.8 L lens with good lighting will capture better quality image IMO. However her iPhone is handy fits in your pocket where my Canon 1D + 300mm camera is bulky at 10Lbs it is hard to hand hold. The iPhone 8+ was $800.00 the 1D+300mm was $8,000.00. Both cameras have their place and good images from either can be used on the Web. Our 1D Mark IV 16Mp
capture 16MP. So what its a bulky 3Lbs body for the web who need that? A 1K display image is 1920x1080 around 2MP where a 4k Display image is 3840x2160 images around 8MP. Image in web pages are not normally full display size. How many 33MP 8K Display 7680×4320 are out there?
If you have 4MP of high quality pixels your image will even print well.
I found another image from the D70 that looks even better than the one I posted before. This was taken at 22 mm, which may be the sweet spot of the lens, at f/9.5.
What strikes me is that it's almost approaching medium format quality (I have a Fuji GFX 50S).
This is because the pixels are big compared to most current DSLRs – they are even bigger than the pixels on the GFX.
The D70's sensor is 23.7 mm wide, with 3008 pixels on the long side. 23.7:3008 = 0.078 mm pixel size.
The GFX's sensor is 43.8 mm wide, with 8256 pixels on the long side. 43.8:8256 = 0.053 mm pixel size.
So the D70 pixels are more than 40% larger than the GFX pixels. I'd say that the results are pretty good for a 14 year old sensor, but you can of course not print very big with only 6 megapixels. But for prints up to A4 (possibly a bit bigger), and for web images, this is actually a great camera, if you can live with the small screen and small viewfinder.
Lovely pic, and the really incredible thing is that a quick web search shows several D70 bodies on sale from photographic dealers at less than £60 each.
And for a little bit more, you can have it with the 18-70 lens.
That's very impressive quality, and I'm sure that could work as a magazine spread. Which goes to show that quality beats quantity.
And it makes sense when you think about it. As long as the pixels are sharply defined, how much do you have to enlarge before you can actually see those pixels to the point where they become a visual distraction? Pretty much, it turns out.
I tried to make some kind of comparison with the Sony a7rII at 42MP (7952 x 5304). Here's a direct pixel size comparison:
At 100% there isn't much to distinguish them. I couldn't find a similar shot, so these aren't directly comparable of course. Per's image seems slightly sharper in the mid distance, so that's where I made the crop. The lens on the Sony was the Zeiss 35mm/2.8 at f6.3.
(I should add that the Sony shot is late evening at ISO1600, so there's a bit of noise reduction applied).
Looking some more at sensor pixel sizes. This is a relevant parameter, after all, that has always been the main raison d'etre for full-frame sensors as opposed to DX/APS-C crop sensors. More light per pixel, less noise, better definition.
Nikon D70 0.0078
Fuji GFX 0.0053
Sony a7r 0.0045
Then there's another interesting candidate: the Nikon D700. This is a full-frame sensor at 4256 x 2832.
Nikon D700 0.0084
I had a D700 for a short while at work, didn't get to use it much privately so can't share examples here. But it's a splendid camera, highly regarded in its day. Shouldn't be too expensive second-hand today.
........and for the Canon crowd, the 5D from the same era with 4368 x 2912 and 0.0082 pitch. All of these cameras available second hand for a tiny fraction of their original price and still capable of as good a quality image as they were on day one.
The lens on the Sony was the Zeiss 35mm/2.8 at f6.3.
It doens't look bad compared to the Fuji GF 45 mm either, although the GFX resolves fine detail better. Not surprising, since this is a top-of-the-line, modern medium format camera.
I had a D700 for a short while at work
So did I, but it was quickly replaced by a D800E, which again will be replaced by a D850 in the next week or two ...
So you're going for the D850, and not the Z7?
There should be an advantage to wide angle lenses with mirrorless. Without the mirror, there's no need for complicated retrofocus designs. The Zeiss is certainly very sharp corner to corner. I also have a Sigma ART 24mm, but that doesn't count since it's a standard retrofocus design with added tube length.
There's another thing. With the D810 and D800, I've had to fine-tune the autofocus for each of my lenses. Not much, just a couple of steps up or down, but with the paper-thin plane of critical focus with these sensors, it can make a difference. On the Sony, however, this hasn't been necessary - autofocus is always dead on. I think this is because focus is measured directly off the sensor instead of through a dedicated separate system.
Apologies for going off-topic, but I think the OP's question has been thoroughly answered: Yes, 13MP is plenty enough, but with a good camera, not a phone with its cheap sensor and lens.
Yes it a matter of pixel quality as to how good an image is in the end. However an iPhone image can be very acceptable on a web device. Most displays are not high resolution displays with grate color. Phone are very convenient and may capture images the otherwise would not have been captured. A Phone will not produce Art gallery quality image but you will see more Phone image on social media and web then you will see art galley quality images. Who want to make their Art Galley quality images available on the web. Only low quality image should be on the web. So if you want very good Art Galley prints you need good DSLR. I think with all the stock Image Web sites that it would be very hard to offer Images for sale on the web and make profit. How often do people buy Art to hang on their wall. Why would they buy yours or know yours are available at a reasonable price. You must be knows for people to seek your images.
The OP stated they want to put their images on the web. I do not know what 13Mpx phone they have but I have seen many of my wife 12Mpx iPhone 8+ images that would look great on the web once processed by Photoshop. The iPhone 12MPx images quality are not as good as our 8Mpx and 16Mpx Canon 1D images and are not normally printed. But they fill some of our family social media needs. It was great recently buying a new used car all family members could put their two cent in from wherever they were. Still I got the car I wanted..
So you're going for the D850, and not the Z7?
You got me thinking. At first, I wrote this:
I have a number of reasons for choosing the D850 over the Z7 – although the latter seems to be an excellent camera – and much smaller and lighter than the D850.
Then, I spent a few hours reading reviews and articles about the Z7, and now I'm not so sure anymore.
The 24-70 lens does look promising. It has gotten somewhat mixed reviews, but I have a feeling that it's better than the F-mount 24-70. And I love f/4 lenses - they're small and lightweight, and I don't need anything faster.
Well, those are all good arguments. Particularly the one about battery life - the EVF eats battery power for breakfast. The Sony came with two batteries for this reason. On the plus side, the battery can be charged in-camera, like a phone, either from USB or mains adapter.
And it's not like the D850 is outdated. From everything I hear, it was a bigger improvement over the D810, than that was over the D800. It is regarded everywhere as close to the perfect camera.
I got the Sony mainly for the silent electronic shutter. Back then, the Nikon Z7 wasn't even a rumor, so Sony was it if you wanted high sensor resolution. As it turns out, the silent shutter is less useful than I thought, because the rolling/scanning shutter interferes with LED flickering in a certain shutter speed range. This was discussed in another thread recently.
So I usually keep the mechanical shutter on. With no mirror, it's still much quieter than the D810, which in turn is a good bit quieter than the D800. The D800 can really stir up a racket in delicate situations.
The mechanical shutter on the Sony only goes off in those situations where you could hear a needle drop...
In other situations it doesn't matter so much