Help with Purchase, Ultra Wide Lens & Body for Real Estate Business (Indoor Shooting)

bastardino · February 1, 2011

Hello everyone.

I am fairly new to photography and have a few questions and would appreciate any feedback from the experts. My question is split into 2 parts:

We are in real estate business so we need a high end ultra wide lens and new camera body. In the past, I used a Canon Rebel with 6 megapixels, however, was disappointed with light and color contrast.

Question #1

We are looking now to upgrade and were suggested the following items:
Body: Canon EOS 550D

Lens: Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM

Both of these appear to have very good reviews and it seems both these items would result in around $1500 or so in total charges.

With a budget of about $1500-$2000 for both lens and body, would the above options be ideal for us? Our shots are almost all indoors and often with not too much light.

Question #2

For another office location for the same business, we also need a camera with wide lens for real estate. However, for this office I am looking at possibly going with Sony and the following lens:

Sigma 10-20mm f3.5

I am not yet clear on which body to get for this lens. For office #2, we intend for the camera to be higher end than Canon so I was thinking Sony was it. If we have a $2000-$3000 total budget here, what are our best options? Again, the goal here is indoor real estate shoots, with minimal adjustment on PC of images.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Matthew Saville · February 1, 2011

Honestly, when it comes to architectural photography, it's going to be a completely different ballgame than any other type of photography. The first thing I would do is buy a dang good tripod, a big and tall one, and maybe even a step ladder depending on what kind of property you photograph, and whether or not you already own a ladder haha.

Trust me, this is going to make 100x more difference in your images compared to any body you buy, even the lens.

Of course the lens has got to be awesome too, but since you'll be shooting on a tripod 99.9% of the time, I feel safe recommending the older Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. It's sharper than the new f/3.5 version, and of course cheaper.

Then, also because you're going to be on a tripod the whole time, just get whatever DSLR body you have money left over for. 10+ megapixels would be nice if you're going to be doing any print ads with these images, especially if you're concerned about perspective correction because what you'll have to do is shoot with the 10-20 lens perfectly level, then crop up. (To keep vertical lines from bending. This isn't very important if you're just shooting snapshots for a realtor brochure for home buyers to take, but if you look in any architectural magazine you'll notice that almost EVERY vertical line is perfect. ;-)

So, a Canon Rebel ought to do the trick no problem, just shoot in RAW, use the tripod so you can keep your ISO way down, and read up on perspective etc.

As far as a "higher end system" is concerned, I'm not sure why you're thinking that Sony is better than Canon. For architecture, Canon has a much better lens selection. If you're going to be the person operating both systems, I would stick with the same system if I were you. So either get a Sony for both jobs, or get a Canon. Or a Nikon. ;-)

The Sigma 10-20 f/4.5-5.6 should be available (used, $350-$450) on any system. Just test out different cameras, and see what camera feels the most intuitive to you.

If you do have up to $3000 to spend for the pro system though, I gotta say I recommend a Canon 5D and a 24 TSE. For architecture, there's nothing like a tilt-shift lens to minimize post-production. Like I said earlier it depends on what your standards are, perspective correction may not be that important. But as a camera geek, I'd consider it a standard worth achieving. Or you could get a Canon 5D mk2 and a Sigma 12-24, which is currently the WIDEST full-frame lens that isn't a fisheye. Many architectural photographers love this lens for it's incredibly wide angle, even if it's not as sharp as a Canon 16-35 mk2 or something. ;-)

If you're not interested in full-frame or perspective correction though, like I said just go handle cameras and see which feels the best for you.

The camera body itself becomes VERY un-important when you shoot architecture, because like I said it's really all tripod work, at your base ISO, with manual focus etc. At least that's how I shoot my architecture jobs! ISO 100, f/8, and whatever shutter speed is necessary. In fact I'd say that's most likely the cause of your dissatisfaction with an older 6 megapixel rebel, was probably the high-ISO performance, combined with the poor processing tools available back then. Nowadays, if you gave me a 6 megapixel Rebel with the right lens, a good tripod, and a copy of Lightroom 3 or Bridge CS3+, I could rock ANY architecture job. It's all about the lens and the tripod.

=Matt=

ziggy53 · February 1, 2011

Don't forget that lighting will often make the difference between "snapshots" and images that have a professional feel. Take some time to learn lighting techniques that match your goals. You might employ a professional photographer familiar with this type of photography, and who can supply you with a portfolio of appropriate images proving their experience and capabilities, and have them walk you through common lighting scenarios. That way you'll also learn what lighting to purchase.

ThatCanonGuy · February 1, 2011

Lighting is very important, and I will recommend a TS-E lens also... also a remote control. Sony is not better than Canon; for some pruposes Canon bodies are better, and Canon has the better lens selection. I'd go with Canon and Canon or Nikon and Nikon if I were you.

"Higher end than Canon..."

You can't get higher end than Canon

Nikon comes just as high but not higher ;~)

Maybe you meant higher than a Canon Rebel? I personally don't like Rebels at all, and I'd suggest a 50D, 60D, or 5D for you. But it doesn't matter as much as in other types of photography, because you should have the camera on a tripod with a remote in your hand.

Grainbelt · February 1, 2011

I would suggest that you save room in your budget for off-camera flashes. The quality, quantity, and color of light indoors can vary dramatically, particularly with the open floorplans so common now.

I don't know how the pros do it. I'd probably travel with a case full of light bulbs.

Matthew Saville · February 2, 2011

Grainbelt wrote: »

I would suggest that you save room in your budget for off-camera flashes. The quality, quantity, and color of light indoors can vary dramatically, particularly with the open floorplans so common now.

I don't know how the pros do it. I'd probably travel with a case full of light bulbs.

One architectural photographer I know, just uses one or two flashes popped in separate frames, and then photoshops the final image together. Kind of a lotta work on the back-end, but you can travel a ton lighter!

But I do agree that yeah, you may need a bunch of lights. The more the merrier, and you may need pretty powerful ones cause for architecture interiors you may be shooting a lot at ISO 100 and f/11.

Like I said it depends on your standards, I do some architectural jobs with nothing but natural light and a tripod, it works fine if that's all the realtor / client needs. As long as you're not shooting hand-held at ISO 1600, you'll be fine.

=Matt=

Scott_Quier · February 2, 2011

Seriously, pick your camera body of choice. I don't think can make a bad choice. I would put the budget towards:

Check out Really Right Stuff for a pano rail and pano clamp
Tripod - a good one, as you don't want to re-purchase
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II Tilt-Shift
Lighting is important for interior shots - really

Something to be aware of - with the UWA lenses, you are going to suffer perspective distortion in your images. This, I would assume is not something you will want to have in your architectural photos.

With the above items, the resolution of your camera become a bit of a moot point as you can take multiple exposures and stitch them together in the photo editing software of your choice. And, with a good tripod, the abilty of your camera to handle low-light issues is also no longer an issue.

bastardino · February 2, 2011

Thank you again for all of your responses, it is greatly appreciated.

I guess it does not make sense to get 2 different bodies, I am glad I brought this up.

At this point, I guess I have to determine if we should splurge and go for the Canon 5d mk II which I guess with the lens will be like $4000 since it will produce best results or go with something under $1000. Seems to be not point of considering something in the middle.

Thank you for comments about tripod - seems to be the #1 advice from every pro.

I also forgot to mention that I also would like to possibly do some digital films with the camera (we require short clips of the properties we feature). I just realized that Canon 5D MK can do this very well, while a camera under $1000 would not have ability to do this at all. So this is something I must consider as well.

Any further feedback would be greatly appreciated. Also, is there some basic software that you would recommend to run our images through to add more color / make them more attractive? Again, all images are of indoor real estate. I do not wish to spend much time playing with settings and was wondering if there is some basic, good batch type of software we can run on them.
Also, the other thing I am considering is that if I do get more heavily into photography as a hobby, which is my intent. I guess it makes sense to have a really nice camera vs. upgrading a few years later. While i know little about this, it seems to me that DSLR are not likely to make the type of technological progress in the next couple of years in terms of image quality that they have in the last 5 years or so.
Thanks again

ThatCanonGuy · February 2, 2011

As for video, the 7D does it well at $1300 and the 60D does also at $1000. Cams under $1000 (Rebels for example) can do video, some of them. If it weren't for video, I'd say 5D Mark I. It's $1000 used, full frame. I'd put most of your money towards accesories/lenses.

DSLRs may not make the booming progress that they've made in recent years, but they will make progress. Buying a good DSLR now will be great for you for years.

ziggy53 · February 2, 2011

The Canon dRebel T2i/550D can do video:

1920 x 1080 (1080p, 16:9) @ 30/25/24 fps
1280 x 720 (720p, 16:9) @ 60/50 fps
640 x 480 (4:3) @ 60/50 fps
Quicktime MOV format (H.264 video,linear PCM audio)
Up to 29 min 59 sec (or max file size 4 GB)
(for either HD format the run time is around 12 minutes.)

That camera will yield very similar image quality to the 7D and 60D. Live View mode allows extremely accurate manual focus, also similar to the 7D and 60D.

The T2i does not have the same build quality, shutter, AF speed, responsiveness or weather seals as the other cameras mentioned, but the image quality for either still images or video is really very nice.

The best lenses and appropriate lighting are extremely important and you could upgrade the camera later if you find the T2i limiting.

Matthew Saville · February 3, 2011

bastardino wrote: »

Thank you again for all of your responses, it is greatly appreciated.

I guess it does not make sense to get 2 different bodies, I am glad I brought this up.

At this point, I guess I have to determine if we should splurge and go for the Canon 5d mk II which I guess with the lens will be like $4000 since it will produce best results or go with something under $1000. Seems to be not point of considering something in the middle.

Thank you for comments about tripod - seems to be the #1 advice from every pro.

I also forgot to mention that I also would like to possibly do some digital films with the camera (we require short clips of the properties we feature). I just realized that Canon 5D MK can do this very well, while a camera under $1000 would not have ability to do this at all. So this is something I must consider as well.

Any further feedback would be greatly appreciated. Also, is there some basic software that you would recommend to run our images through to add more color / make them more attractive? Again, all images are of indoor real estate. I do not wish to spend much time playing with settings and was wondering if there is some basic, good batch type of software we can run on them.
Also, the other thing I am considering is that if I do get more heavily into photography as a hobby, which is my intent. I guess it makes sense to have a really nice camera vs. upgrading a few years later. While i know little about this, it seems to me that DSLR are not likely to make the type of technological progress in the next couple of years in terms of image quality that they have in the last 5 years or so.
Thanks again

If you need to do video, then I suppose the 7D and the 5D mk2 are your best bets.

Honestly though, I'd rather have a 7D, a 10-20, and a bunch of good lighting equipment and a killer tripod than a 5D mk2 and just a 24 TSE plus little or no lighting equipment and a half-decent tripod.

As we have mentioned, resolution is not as important unless you are publishing these real estate images in a magazine or something... Perspective, stability, and light are going to be the most important things. Without a TSE lens, you can just buy an ultra-wide lens, frame all your shots level, and quickly crop to your desired final image with no photoshop trickery required.

I just remembered that a new lens recently came out, the Sigma 8-16 (?) super-ultra-wide, which basically gives you 12mm or 13mm depending on which camera system you buy. On a Nikon D7000 (slightly less crop, 1.5x) you'd get a clean 12mm equivalent angle, like I mentioned the older Sigma 12-24 on full-frame. Except this newer Sigma 8-16mm is WICKED sharp, at least for the price. It's amazing. You could easily compose any shot that a full-frame camera could get on a 24 TSE, and then just crop to what you need...

Then if all you do is get a Nikon D7000 or Canon 7D, and a Sigma 8-16 or just 10-20, ...you'd have tons of cash left to buy a great tripod, ballhead, and some lights. Maybe even a more all-purpose lens like the Nikon 16-85 or Canon 15-85, both which are again, wicked sharp when you stop them down on a tripod.

=Matt=

Manfr3d · February 5, 2011

I think you should give a hint on where/how your images are going to be used. There is no need
for a high-end camera if those images are only for the web. However I echo the recommendation for the
Sigma 10-20 on a crop Camera (hey the 500D also does video). If you want professional quality
photos you will need to learn lighting with two to four remote flashes which poses a learning process
in itself. Another thing you are going to have to learn is proper use of photoshop in order to stich
images and to make the best out of the color and light you captured. I can't imagine that starting
from zero will yield you the best results. But I wish you good luck, I sure is fun to shoot interiors &
real estate!

The cheapes setup I can imagine would be:

4x used Nikon SB-24 Flashgun
1xCrop Camera
1xSigma 10-20mm + A standard zoom (a tele is also useful for details)
1xAluminium Tripod with center column (the bigger/larger the better, will weight more than 4kgs)
1xHot Shoe Bubble Level
1xRadio flash trigger+4xReciever (can be found cheap on eBay, Youngou Triggers are a step up from the cheap ones)

If you had no budget restrictions, well:

+ 5D Mark II
+ 17mm f/4.0 L TS-E
+ 24mm f/3.5 L TS-E II
+ Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX
+ a Standard zoom and a Tele (f4 is fine)

mr peas · February 6, 2011

Quick q': What type of real estate business would this be for? Are you making indoor-outdoor home tours? Are the homes furnished and formally lit? If so, the Canon 10-22 and the T2i is perfect. All you would need to do is fix the lens distortion when its used at the wide end (ie. 10mm). The live view and video will work wonders for you especially if and when you need to do video or you're stuck at a corner of a room and it makes for a difficult frame to see. As from the questions you are asking, I can tell you're not yet experienced with DSLRs (no offense), so I would suggest perhaps renting the camera and lens together (www.borrowlenses.com) and see how you like it. Then play with the files on Adobe Photoshop or whatever editor of your choice and also look up 'fixing lens distortion' on Google to see ways to minimize that in your photos. This will help you make a better decision on what you need rather than overspending on everything.

I've personally shot for a home-tours company where I primarily used a good tripod, a remote for the camera, a camera body (Rebel XT) and a Canon 10-22mm lens. For when I required the use of lights, I'd simply use a Speedlite or a studio strobe attached to a soft-box, but that was very rare. Usually the homes I covered were already furnished and so I kept the lighting as natural as possible. I would read a lot of books on 'interior photography' from the library and see what you can learn. I see a huge list of gear people are posting here and these a pricey machines, I would definitely look into what you really need first, rent the gear you wish to use or borrow them, in order to make a better decision.

Best of luck, I always loved shooting interiors, I'm sure you'll enjoy it too.

Overfocused · February 6, 2011

What's coming to my mind reading this forum is that 'real estate' photography and 'architectural' photography are 2 completely and separate things but are being perceived as the same thing. Matt, just saying, I think you jumped the gun here and skipped over that line. I personally know a real estate agent, and the main point of the photography is to acquire an attractive feel that will sell a property. Yes perfect straight lines are nice but with an ultra wide you will never get that. Slight post production is necessary to minimize that.

In this case for interiors, feelings sell, %100 straight lines don't. Unless those lines make that feeling stronger. Lol. Perspective is fairly easy to fix with perspective crop option / lens correction in photoshop. Not sure if that crop option is in LR, would need someone else to confirm that.

So, all that said: If a lens doesn't create a distracting amount of distortion, I'd recommend Adobe lightroom for the easy/quick workflow with minimal post production. That's what lightroom is made for. Personally if I were in your shoes, I'd use the money saved by not buying TS lens and put it toward something else like software you'll need for good basic video and photo post production. The feel and atmosphere of the picture in real estate is much more important than all %100 straight lines.

You'll also need basic video editing software for the video part of any of the cameras if you want to put tours and etc together. The videos are pretty large, so you'll have to do a little research on a decent video editor that doesn't cost a lot. I've tried many many free video editors, and most of them blow major chunks in one way or the other. For the most basic kind of editing, AVS video editor has given me good results in editing 1080P .MOV files straight from the 5D MKII, exporting as well as editing. It has its quirks but not too many, and it doesn't run unstably from my experience. It has a lack of options for video filters, so I'd still look around if you have a personal need for an editor to apply nicer effects.

CaiusMartius · February 10, 2011

Yeah, the Sigma seems like a really good deal, but I agree with going with the older f/3.5-4.5.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/307-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-hsm-ex-dc-lab-test-report--review

CaiusMartius · February 10, 2011

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc?start=1

Would also be an interesting choice.

Shima · February 11, 2011

I use my 5D2 + 16-35 whenever I need to take Real Estate photos, and shoot it at 16mm so I can fit the most of the room in.

Photo I took of the place I'm moving into this month

I do own a 24 TS-E though, so I'd be most interested in seeing how people have used it for these types of shoots as now I want to try...

CaiusMartius · February 11, 2011

Shima wrote: »

I use my 5D2 + 16-35 whenever I need to take Real Estate photos, and shoot it at 16mm so I can fit the most of the room in.

To achieve the same viewing angles from a crop sensor would require a 10mm lens. (Nice shot btw!)

JimKarczewski · February 12, 2011

14mm Rectilinear.. But you'll blow your budget just on the lens...

fstopFitzgerald · February 20, 2011

Architectural Recommendations
I echo what I have read here on several fronts and would just add my limited advice to what has been said.

Super stable tripod and good tripod head - multiple bubble levels

Remote shutter device - ebay for about $20

Wide angle - I have good luck with a 14-24mm wide angle zoom

Camera - Big chip & FX lens = great image quality, latitude and forgiving headroom but I have done well with DX too.

Flash - any old flash that has controlled output - you "paint" with light

Technique - Modified HDR fusion using multiple exposures on one frame plus
exposure variability (one under, one on and one over)

Post Process - Lightroom and Photmatix Pro

These have worked very well for me and I run a successful one-man shop.
I will say that the perfect technique still escapes me because every situation demands new thinking because of the challenges you face. I guess that's why I do it!

Michael

neffworks.com

BigAl · February 21, 2011

A point: Matt recommended a tall tripod or a step ladder, something which has been glossed over in the discussion. The perspective distortion from an UWA lens shown in Shima's pic can be avoided to a large extent by keeping the lens horizontal. To keep the lens horizontal one usually needs height to get in the relevant details and not have wide expanses of floor.

Sigma 10-20 @ 16

Sigma 10-20 @ 10 with two slave flashes

Sigma 10-20 @ 11 with one slave flash on left, main flash pointing right

In the last pic, more height would have been advantageous to get a feel for the height of the pitch of the roof, and less floor.

Help with Purchase, Ultra Wide Lens & Body for Real Estate Business (Indoor Shooting)

Comments