I am no expert... D80 should be a good choice with the very good metering available...http://budding-nature-photographer.blogspot.com/..
You probably ought start by choosing a lens.
The ideal is around 22mm EFL at almost 90 degrees field of view, so you can maximise the view of the interior. Bathrooms are particularly difficult to shoot because of the compactness of the room..
Its better if the lens is reasonably fast has low distortion vignetting and CA. If you need to stop down because of edge softness or vignetting then you require more powerful flash. Yes you can get out of that with higher iso, but then you have less dynamic range to play with..
You will need to balance outdoor light through windows, mixing tungsten lighting with flash warms the scene..
These are the reasons I went 4/3rds, and I should add, I shoot interiors for a living.
I generally shoot F4 with shutter between 1/30th and 1/250th. I dont use tripods unless I have to (not the worlds best paying field so it pays to be quick and to inconvenience clients less)..
I have FL-36 flash and a Metz 54MZ3, primary lens is an 11-22/2.8-3.5 any 4/3rds body will do. I shoot manual mode..
Riley.
Real men get zippo haircuts..
Coalcliff wrote:.
Budget similar to Cannon EOS 400D with twin lens kit.
Forget this kit, it's no use to you. The camera's great, but 18-55 kit lens isn't wide enough, and it's hard to see where the 55-200 would be useful..
As Riley pointed out in his post, you need a 90 degree field of view - just over is better than just under in fact, making a 20 mm equivalent focal length ideal. You can stand in one corner and see the other three in your viewfinder - just. You won't quite manage that with a 22 mm equivalent lens. Another point to bear in mind is that you must keep the camera level to avoid unpleasant perspective effects, and having a little extra field of view will minimise the need to tilt the camera..
Are you familiar with how crop factors work? Take the actual focal length of your lens, and multiply by the crop factor to get the lens which would have the same field of view on your old 35 mm film camera. So Riley's 11 mm lens is equivalent to 22 mm, because his camera has a 2x crop factor. (I have a sneaking suspicion that his 22 mm recommendation owes as much to lens availability as to the field of view requirement!).
The 400D with it's 1.6x crop factor needs a 20/1.6 = 12.5 mm lens or wider. There are three excellent choices - Canon's own 10-22, Sigma's 12-24, and another Sigma, the 10-20 DC. That would be my order of preference, but they're all good. Google for reviews, there are loads of them, or just look here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/.
Macros for specific detail spotlighting eg sandstone texture.
Just going back to the Canon twin lens kit again - the 55-200 has quite poor close focusing ability, another reason to give it a miss..
The answer to this one depends on how far away the subjects are. I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX "Macro" (I'll explain the quotes in a minute) which is superb for close focusing but I don't know whether 50 mm will be long enough for you. If it's the texture of a wall that you can walk up to, 50 mm will be ideal. If it's architectural details on a roof, it won't be. Let us know and people will be able to recommend specific lenses..
Just to explain the "Macro" thing. True macro lenses are prime (single focal length) lenses which can focus down to 1:1, i.e. a 22.5 mm wide object will fill the 22.5 mm wide sensor on the 400D. There are numerous zoom lenses on the market with a "macro" designation but they are close-focusing rather than true macro. My Sigma 18-50, for example, goes down to 1:3, which is good but it's a long way from true macro..
But as I said, give us a bit more detail about what you want to do..
One final comment. You will obviously have to use flash some of the time, but there is nothing nicer than natural light when it is available. Choose a camera with good performance at high ISO speeds. The 400D is good; the 30D is better. You will be able to use quite slow shutter speeds with an ultra-wide lens and good technique, hopefully removing the need for a tripod. A monopod could be handy though...
As other have said, it is the lens and technique that is important... not the camera. A wide angle zoom is essential, if you get and APS-C camera, then something like a 10-20mm would be ideal..
Check out:http://photographyforrealestate.net/..
I seldom recommend one do-it-all lens for photography because you often lose out in focal-length or image quality. However, in your case, you have restricted your needs pretty succinctly. So, for Real Estate Photography, here's what I would use (I have deliberately ignored full frame cameras because of the initial cost involved)....
Canon 30D camera - this is my go-to camera. I also have a Rebel XT (350D) and have "fooled around" with the XTi (400D) and think that the handling of the 30D far surpasses the Rebel series cameras (Although, there is probably not a great deal of difference in the quality of the imagery)..
Right now, in anticipation of the release of the 40D; prices of new and refurbished 30D cameras have gone down. I got a refurbished Canon 30D from an authorized Canon Reseller (Important since this validates the warranty - 90 days in the case of a refurb) for about $750. This is about $100 more than B&H charges for a new XTi and, I believe, less than what a lot of retailers charge for the XTi..
I would pair the 30D with a wide angle lens. The "general purpose" zooms which start at 17 or 18mm are not wide enough for interiors. I would definitely opt for a lens that has 10 or 12mm as it's wide side. This includes models from Canon and Sigma and also includes my favorite (which is also the least expensive) 12-24mm Tokina f/4 ATX..
I can't say enough good things about this lens. Some photographers claim that the 10mm give you more coverage. It does, but also introduces more distortion..
The image quality and build of the 12-24 Tokina is superb and the price of $500 with lens shade (always use a shade even indoors) is IMO a bargain..
So for about $1,200 or so, you will have a pretty darn good camera/lens setup. You will however benefit from a few more accessories..
If I were going to do architectural photography, a tripod would be mandatory. Not for all shots but especially for panos. Many real estate web sites offer 360 degree panos of the properties which they are selling. A piece of cake with a decent tripod..
I would also get a good flash AND LEARN HOW TO USE IT EFFECTIVELY. You can do good work with bounced and diffused flash. However, if you really wanted to get creative, using a pair of flashes (the 420ex or 430ex on a small stand with diffusers slaved to a 550ex or 580ex)..
Finally, one more optional but extremely useful piece of equipment that will allow you maximum flexibility in your real estate photography. I use a Panosaurus, Fully Spherical Panoramic Tripod Head to assist me in shooting panos. Rather than my trying to explain the use of the Panosaurus, just go to this web site..
Http://gregwired.com/pano/Pano.htm.
The Panosaurus head will allow you, among other things, to shoot panos with your camera in the vertical or portrait position. This will give you better coverage top-to-bottom on your frame than would be possible with the camera in the landscape position. Left-to-right coverage is limited only by the number of images you desire to shoot. The Panosaurus will also enable you to effectively make use of panos indoors at close ranges..
Retired Navy Master Chief Photographer's Mate. I was a Combat Cameraman, Motion Picture Director, and a Naval Aircrewman. I also had experience in reconnaissance and intelligence photography. I have had considerable commercial photo experience in weddings and advertising photography. I am fully retired now although I dabble occasionally in dog portraiture. I presently use Canon DSLR cameras...
Take a look at the Oly E-510 and the 11-22 lens.......perfect combo..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
God bless our troops!...
Thank you all for your responses.
Special thanks Steve B, Riley and rpcrowe fro the detailed answers and thanks to keirana for the link..
Now my only problem is do I wait for the cannon 40d ..... Cheers and again thanks for welcoming a newbie to your site with great detail...
I think 22mm because it holds generous room coverage without excessive floor/ceiling areas in view, and without the risk of pushing details too far back in larger spaces. I typically have about 2 minutes post processing on images that balances light, corrects WB, straightens the verticals, and sharpens the image acceptably..
I like that I can shoot wide open F2.8 at iso 100 like in this shot without soft edges or corners, and without fall-off/vignetting..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
22mm EFL F4.5 gives a good account of itself in small spaces like bathrooms and holds the outside detail within the depth of field..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Or an F4 predominantly flash lit scene pushing a quite small FL-36 flash out to 22ft.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Working with flash for sharp images on an aged E-300, that is comparatively noisy when judged against newer 4/3rds cameras that have little trouble at sio800.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Riley.
Real men get zippo haircuts..
Rriley wrote:.
I think 22mm because it holds generous room coverage withoutexcessive floor/ceiling areas in view,.
I wasn't suggesting for a moment that 20 mm should be used all the time - only that it is good to be able to go a little wider than 22 mm..
But there is a more fundamental point that you may have missed. I agree that more height is rarely wanted. But you are using a 4:3 aspect ratio, and I'm using 3:2. 22 mm equivalent on your camera is 78.6 deg wide and 63 deg high. 20 mm equivalent on my camera is 84 deg wide (less than I thought from memory, actually, but still a lot wider than your 11 mm lens on four-thirds) and... only 62 deg high. So no excessive floor/ceiling area, quite the opposite in fact...
Steve Balcombe wrote:.
Rriley wrote:.
I think 22mm because it holds generous room coverage withoutexcessive floor/ceiling areas in view,.
I wasn't suggesting for a moment that 20 mm should be used all thetime - only that it is good to be able to go a little wider than 22mm..
But there is a more fundamental point that you may have missed. Iagree that more height is rarely wanted. But you are using a 4:3aspect ratio, and I'm using 3:2. 22 mm equivalent on your camera is78.6 deg wide and 63 deg high. 20 mm equivalent on my camera is 84deg wide (less than I thought from memory, actually, but still a lotwider than your 11 mm lens on four-thirds) and... only 62 deg high.So no excessive floor/ceiling area, quite the opposite in fact..
Impressive math is better when it's righthttp://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1122_2835/index.htm.
"Translated to classic 35mm film terms the angle-of-view (53 to 89 degree) resembles a 22-44mm lens.".
Http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/11-22_28-35/.
And if in any event that were not enoughhttp://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/7-14_40/index.html.
"The ideal ultra-wide zoom lens (fixed F stop type) has 114 angle of view at the wide-end and is equivalent to 14-28mm on a 35mm camera.".
Riley.
Real men get zippo haircuts..
Rriley wrote:.
Steve Balcombe wrote:.
Rriley wrote:.
I think 22mm because it holds generous room coverage withoutexcessive floor/ceiling areas in view,.
I wasn't suggesting for a moment that 20 mm should be used all thetime - only that it is good to be able to go a little wider than 22mm..
But there is a more fundamental point that you may have missed. Iagree that more height is rarely wanted. But you are using a 4:3aspect ratio, and I'm using 3:2. 22 mm equivalent on your camera is78.6 deg wide and 63 deg high. 20 mm equivalent on my camera is 84deg wide (less than I thought from memory, actually, but still a lotwider than your 11 mm lens on four-thirds) and... only 62 deg high.So no excessive floor/ceiling area, quite the opposite in fact..
Impressive math is better when it's right.
Yep..
Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1122_2835/index.htm"Translated to classic 35mm film terms the angle-of-view (53 to 89degree) resembles a 22-44mm lens.".
Http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/11-22_28-35/.
That is the diagonal field of view, which is what is conventionally used by every lens manufacturer as a raw measure of the properties of a lens. It makes sense to do that because it is the same measure as the diameter of the image circle (or at least, the usable part) and it is independent of aspect ratio..
Here, however, we are talking about a subject where the horizontal field of view is usually the main concern; you then quite correctly raised the issue of height as well. So I used those measures, and clearly stated that I was doing so. All the numbers I have given are accurate..
And if in any event that were not enoughhttp://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/7-14_40/index.html.
"The ideal ultra-wide zoom lens (fixed F stop type) has 114 angle ofview at the wide-end and is equivalent to 14-28mm on a 35mm camera.".
I know, but that is not the lens you recommended...
Ok I can live with that as an explanation, but to get 3 room corners even 90 degrees wont get you there as the camera and lens take some of that room.
Steve Balcombe wrote:.
The 400D with it's 1.6x crop factor needs a 20/1.6 = 12.5 mm lens orwider. There are three excellent choices - Canon's own 10-22, Sigma's12-24, and another Sigma, the 10-20 DC. That would be my order ofpreference, but they're all good. Google for reviews, there are loadsof them, or just look here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/.
Google all the 'reviews' you can, it cant make accurate tests go awayi dont really think any of these lenses stack up for professional useyou really need to stop down to F5.6 or beyond to avoid the worst of their ills.
Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456/index.htmhttp://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1224_4556/index.htmim not going to bother with the canon, which is why the sigmas are more popular.
That puts them a full 2 stops slower than a usable F2.8 on a 4/3rds body, or 1 stop to the 7-14 which none of that stuff will get close to anyway. The 12-24 is considerably better than it's 10-20 partner but like the 7-14 it cannot take a filter without a filter thread. Either of them have no where to go against quality glass and neither of them have any measure of weather sealing..
One final comment. You will obviously have to use flash some of thetime, but there is nothing nicer than natural light when it isavailable. Choose a camera with good performance at high ISO speeds.The 400D is good; the 30D is better. You will be able to use quiteslow shutter speeds with an ultra-wide lens and good technique,hopefully removing the need for a tripod. A monopod could be handythough..
The loss of stops requires you to use higher iso or much more powerful flash, probably GN50 and the odd slave or two for longer rooms, or drag out the tripod and double/tripple your time on the job. Each stop of iso you forgive to get some speed back gives you 1 stop less in dynamic range and quality subtends. Shooting low speeds puts your outside views overexposed to white, for which.
Shooting exposed outdoor views is easy with the following combinationturn the camera to manual mode and set the flash to TTLset your depth of field as appropriateset the speed to sync the daylight thru the windowswith very good views you need to expose them accurately.
But with more average views, it looks more natural to let them overexpose just a littleRiley.
Real men get zippo haircuts..
Ok Steve and Riley.
The Tonika 12 -24mm f/4 AT-X 124 Pro DX has great reviews for the price but the Sigma AF12-34 f 4.5-5.6 g asm dg has what the review says a full format lens and is future proof. What is a full format lens and what is it's advantages/disadvantages?..
Coalcliff wrote:.
Ok Steve and Riley.
The Tonika 12 -24mm f/4 AT-X 124 Pro DX has great reviews for theprice but the Sigma AF12-34 f 4.5-5.6 g asm dg has what the reviewsays a full format lens and is future proof. What is a full formatlens and what is it's advantages/disadvantages?.
Full format means it fits full frame cameras too.
Some people prefer the Tokina to the sigma's.
It doesnt have the edge softness, but it does have a stack of CA (chromatic aberation) actually the most that photozone have ever recorded. I think it was Ken Rockwell who recommended it above the others mentioned..
Http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm.
Hmm personally, I'm still not impressedRiley.
Real men get zippo haircuts..
Thanks Riley.
Nice site Ken Rockwell, plus great links like to onexposure.net.
Man, it is doing my head in though.... Olympus 510 with the live view and stabiliser... wait for the canon 40D.... or go straight to a full frame style. I dont want to jump in and get lenses suitable for the 4/3 format only to find that I really need the full frame..
However from sites I have viewed product like the canon 30D produces great pics and the canon 10-20 mm has a great write up. I will wait to hear if canon has something to say at the end of august..
Meantime I will keep harassing camera store staff and getting my head around it all..
Cheers..
Coalcliff wrote:.
Thanks Riley.
Nice site Ken Rockwell, plus great links like to onexposure.net.
I dont mind him and his 'independence' but hes hated by a lot of canon usershe shoots real estate so he's relevant herehe uses Nikon, often because of the better flash performance Nikon offersthats a fair point for interiors.
Man, it is doing my head in though.... Olympus 510 with the live viewand stabiliser... wait for the canon 40D.... or go straight to a fullframe style. I dont want to jump in and get lenses suitable for the4/3 format only to find that I really need the full frame..
If you dont know, dont move, you will know when you have it right for you.
FF may have the resolution and iso performance, but of all the Canons it's UWA performance sucks. If it's to be a Canon for gods sake make it APS Ci dont mind 30D, it doesnt look like 40D is all that great an improvementso s/h examples of 30D might be cheap real soon.
However from sites I have viewed product like the canon 30D producesgreat pics and the canon 10-20 mm has a great write up. I will waitto hear if canon has something to say at the end of august..
Meantime I will keep harassing camera store staff and getting my headaround it all..
Yes thats a good thing to do, handle the camerasi would hang around relevant forums too, ask questions, get comfortableand look for examples of interior views from their wide lensesdont take peoples word for things, look it up, check it outread the EXIF on the images, check the corners and edges for sharpnessrefer to good sites like this for lens datahttp://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.htmlcheck out the lenses you are interested inthink of the impacts on your mission, eg flash performance etc.
Lastly, the images I posted are from an aged E-300 with really terrible iso performance above iso200, yet it is capable of good work,in the end, it's not the camera, it's the photographer that counts.
Interior pano.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
Riley.
Real men get zippo haircuts..
Rriley wrote:.
Coalcliff wrote:.
Thanks Riley.
Nice site Ken Rockwell, plus great links like to onexposure.net.
I dont mind him and his 'independence' but hes hated by a lot ofcanon usershe shoots real estate so he's relevant herehe uses Nikon,.
Actually he uses a 5D now. Loves the 16-35L he says...
Tony Terranova wrote:.
Rriley wrote:.
Coalcliff wrote:.
Thanks Riley.
Nice site Ken Rockwell, plus great links like to onexposure.net.
I dont mind him and his 'independence' but hes hated by a lot ofcanon usershe shoots real estate so he's relevant herehe uses Nikon,.
Actually he uses a 5D now. Loves the 16-35L he says..
Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htmCanon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM LVerdict.
The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L was able to produce a very good performance in most aspects. The center resolution of the lens is exceptionally high regardless of the zoom and aperture settings. The border performance is lower specifically towards the extreme ends of the zoom range and at large aperture settings. At medium apertures the border performance is one a very decent level. The sweet spot of the lens is clearly at 24mm where it easily outperforms all tested Canon fix-focals to date. Typical for most full frame lenses vignetting is no big issue on an APS-C DSLR.
The build quality of the lens is great and it is a joy to use. All-in-all it is a very good lens but if you don't need the f/2.8 setting and that extra mm at the wide end you may as well save quite some bucks by preferring the EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L which performs basically just as good.Riley.
Real men get zippo haircuts..
Pretty sure the Canon 40D will keep me busy, coupled with a Tokina 12-24and in Australia they are kitting the body with the Canon 17-85 lens..
The body and 17-85 lens rrp $2799 can be sourced for $2499 and the best price so far for the body only is $1899. So is the 17-85 lens handy to have for $500-600 aussie??.
Http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm.
Now I just need another pay cheque or two for speedlight, memory, accessories and eventually a longer zoom for wildlife/sport etc..
Thanks for you independent and often challenging advice...
With a crop factor of 1.62x it's not really wide enough at 28mm, and it's also on the slow side. If you could get the 40D as body only, and use that cash on a wider lens as previously discussed ? .
Riley.
Real men get zippo haircuts..
Rriley wrote:.
With a crop factor of 1.62x it's not really wide enough at 28mm, andits also on the slow side. If you could get the 40D as body only, anduse that cash on a wider lens as previously discussed ? .
Riley.
Real men get zippo haircuts.
The tokina 12-24 is not wide enough?? Maybe you missed that bit in my previous post but I appreciate your advice...
Coalcliff wrote:.
Rriley wrote:.
With a crop factor of 1.62x it's not really wide enough at 28mm, andits also on the slow side. If you could get the 40D as body only, anduse that cash on a wider lens as previously discussed ? .
Riley.
Real men get zippo haircuts.
The tokina 12-24 is not wide enough?? Maybe you missed that bit inmy previous post but I appreciate your advice..
No thats fine,sorry, somehow I understood you were going for the 28mm EFLRiley.
Real men get zippo haircuts..