Real Estate Photography Kit

Good [whatever time of day it is for you];

I have been a professional real estate photographer for the past four years and I have evolved from the Canon T3 through the T3i through to the 80D and from the kit 18-55mm to 10-18mm STM to 10-22mm USM! I really like the results I get with my 80D and the 10-22mm, I have been limited to 1.6x crop sensors due to financial reasons, plus, I really like the pop-out screen on the T3i and 80D for when I am crammed into the corner of the room.

I have recently come into a decent sum of money and *maybe* looking to upgrade to a full frame camera. I like the look of the new 6D MkII (as it features the pop-out screen), however, I have been told by employees in camera stores that it's not that great, even compared to my existing 80D.

So, my question is; is it worth the upgrade? I was thinking of pairing it with the Canon 14mm L lens to get a little wider angle that I get with my 10-22mm for those super small rooms. I was also considering the 5D MkIV with the same lens, would the extra $1200 spend over the 6D MkII be worth it?

I will be using this camera for general photography as well, landscapes, wildlife and family photography, with the 24-105mm L. I'm not one to spend money just to have the bragging rights, the upgrade has to make a tangible difference to my photography, I'm no kit snob.

Thank you in advance for your opinions/views.

Jason

myownalias wrote in post #18471950
Good [whatever time of day it is for you];

I have been a professional real estate photographer for the past four years and I have evolved from the Canon T3 through the T3i through to the 80D and from the kit 18-55mm to 10-18mm STM to 10-22mm USM! I really like the results I get with my 80D and the 10-22mm, I have been limited to 1.6x crop sensors due to financial reasons, plus, I really like the pop-out screen on the T3i and 80D for when I am crammed into the corner of the room.

I have recently come into a decent sum of money and *maybe* looking to upgrade to a full frame camera. I like the look of the new 6D MkII (as it features the pop-out screen), however, I have been told by employees in camera stores that it's not that great, even compared to my existing 80D.

So, my question is; is it worth the upgrade? I was thinking of pairing it with the Canon 14mm L lens to get a little wider angle that I get with my 10-22mm for those super small rooms. I was also considering the 5D MkIV with the same lens, would the extra $1200 spend over the 6D MkII be worth it?

I will be using this camera for general photography as well, landscapes, wildlife and family photography, with the 24-105mm L. I'm not one to spend money just to have the bragging rights, the upgrade has to make a tangible difference to my photography, I'm no kit snob.

Thank you in advance for your opinions/views.

Jason

Do your work photographs end up on the MLS or are you doing brochures in addition? I'm sure every area is unique to some degree but around here, the MLS destroys photographs with low resolution, etc.

If they end up online in a better format, full frame photographs would or could be better, but at what cost?

Now for your hobby/fun stuff..... It might make a difference there, but that really depends on you. I do mostly wildlife stuff and esp. birds. I love the photographs I get out of my 1D IVs. I have a 6Dc for inside family stuff. I have only had the 6Dc for a few weeks so I don't have much history with it. I took a few hundred photographs of a wedding reception a few days after I got it. They came out alright but I used the 1D IVs for all the outside, beach wedding shots and truth be told, I like those files better. Of course, it's not a fair comparison... indoors to late afternoon sunshine.

Thanks for responding Phoenixkh,

I do both, my primary work is as a digital marketing manager, which involves uploading to our corporate website, which does resize physical dimensions (max width of 1950px), but not quality. I upload my images at 1024 h/v for web use and use 2400 h/v for print, which yields good results for a lower storage cost.

My wife is a realtor and I take photos for her for upload to the MLS, I also have a few other realtor clients, who do the same. I deliver the photos in 1024 h/v and they upload the images themselves to the MLS.

Another bit of useful information would be, that I shoot in 5 bracket HDR using LR /Enfuse with my 80D on a tripod, which obviously lengthens my workflow. I was wondering whether full frame would give me a better dynamic range to take a single shot and process it in Lightroom only.

My primary use would be work, being the thing that makes me money,

Thanks,
Jason

The differences in DR for a single shot at ISO 100 might be 2-3 stops from the very best new SONY to your old T3i. The DR usually seen in RE photography requires bracketing way more than that.

So, does the 80D have more working room at base ISO than the 6D? Yes. Is it going to impact your work in a meaningful way? Probably not.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18472655
The differences in DR for a single shot at ISO 100 might be 2-3 stops from the very best new SONY to your old T3i. The DR usually seen in RE photography requires bracketing way more than that.

So, does the 80D have more working room at base ISO than the 6D? Yes. Is it going to impact your work in a meaningful way? Probably not.

That is what I heard, the 6D tends not to have the best dynamic range compared to its little 80D brother. However, I don't shoot at 100 ISO, I use 320 ISO, F5.6, which gives me front to back sharpness with my 10-22mm. Maybe if I had a full frame camera, I would shoot at 100 ISO due to the bigger sensor size. That said, shooting at 320 ISO produces very little noise, even at 1:1, plus I crop down and/or resize to 2400px, which makes any noise disappear.

The reason I mentioned ISO 100 was to establish a consistent starting place and also because that is where the greatest difference lies in DR between different sensors. As ISO increases, the differences shrink.

In other words, the rate Canon's DR decreases with ISO increases, is less than the rate a Nikon with a Sony sensor decreases. Depending on exact models being compared, Nikon and Canon are even at 800. For me, this is why the DR argument is a bit overblown, if I'm shooting at 100 there is typically enough light to not worry about shadows. If I'm shooting at 1600 or higher, I'm doing just as well or better than a "higher DR camera".

Regarding sensor size and ISO, there is nothing magical about a lager sensors ability to gather light that will allow you to shoot at lower ISO values. 400 5.6 is a typical starting place for me with my 6Dc. Speaking of the original 6D, at less than half the price of the 6DII, for RE shots, I would choose it all day long. Wifi tethered shooting is better than a tilty screen.

One needs to keep in mind that 'dynamic range' really has MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS.

1. Instantaneous DR...the range of brightnesses in a photo capturable from White with detail to Black with detail, with zero playing with 'pushing'
   
2. ISO invariance 'dynamic range'...the ability to underexpose a shot by -3EV to -5EV, and then 'push' it in postprocessing, with minimal banding and other noise artifacts, without making the 'shadow' areas objectionable with digital noise
   

Thank you, Left Handed Brisket and Wilt.

LHB, I just prefer the pop-out screen, I tested the remote shooting via Wi-Fi on my 80D and really didn't like it.

My process is importing into Lightroom, export to LR/Enfuse, then reimport into Lightroom for final exposure and cropping, for 24 photos, that takes about 2 hrs.

I will stick with what I have if I still have to use the same workflow to get the same results after spending out $4k on new kit, the 80D with 10-22 gives good results using bracketed shots and HDR. This gives good bright interiors while still exposing for the windows.

The reason I asked here is that I have been told time and time again by other photographers that I can't be a professional photographer without full frame and L lenses. Not that I have believed it as I have seen their shots and they look no better than mine in a resized and/or cropped final format.

I actually had the debate when I was handed a bunch of photographs taken by an apartments[dot]com photographer and instructed by my boss to upload those images, so I arranged a meeting with my boss and compared the two sets of photos and he actually agreed that mine was better.

Anyway, thanks for your comments, I appreciate it, my question was answered, I'm not going to spend more money for little to no return in this use case.

Jason

Surely you should be looking at the 24mm TS-E Mk2 for real estate

troutfisher wrote in post #18473376
Surely you should be looking at the 24mm TS-E Mk2 for real estate

NOT unless OP is getting rid of APS-C for FF!
When I mount my OM 24mm Perspective Control lens, it is on a 5D, not on a 7DII.

Wilt wrote in post #18473395
NOT unless OP is getting rid of APS-C for FF!
When I mount my OM 24mm Perspective Control lens, it is on a 5D, not on a 7DII.

Agreed... I often take photos of kitchens my wife designed... with a crop, I used the 15-85 to get it near 24mm on a full frame.

I use the ID IV now... if there is enough light.. I will use my new to me 6Dc in low light situations, with the 16-35 f/4 IS.

I've decided for the time being to stick with the 80D and 10-22mm EF-S, If I were to upgrade to FF, I would either get the 14mm or 16-35mm, I don't see a need for a T/S lens as I don't have a problem with converging lines in my shots using the 10mm. Maybe if I was in somewhere like New York where I could charge much more money, the average shoot price is $100 in Kansas, and a T/S lens is very expensive for this market!

myownalias wrote in post #18472771
Maybe if I had a full frame camera, I would shoot at 100 ISO due to the bigger sensor size.

I shoot my 6d at ISO 400. Now, I use off-camera lighting, and the higher ISO means I can run my flash units at lower power, saving battery life. The 6d handles noise very well up through at least ISO 1600. My biggest issue has been the lack of good focusing points outside of the center one. The 6dMKII has apparently resolved that issue. For wide angle, I use the Tokina 16-28 F/2.8.

this boils down to do you need to upgrade or not.

I owned the 6D and the 5D mk III, both amazing cameras.

Full frame will always be better than crop sensor.
when it came time to upgrade I was torn between the 5D mk iv or sony a7rii

that being said, I actually left canon and went to sony and I have never looked back.


Now that I have gotten into real-estate photo and video I am even more happy that I made that decision.


the technology is far more advanced and the image quality goes unparalleled.


Last thing to keep in mind is that you're buying a camera, not a sensor.

You wanna make sure the camera you're "upgrading" too is gonna be something that fits all of your needs and some.


I would definitely consider this seeing as you have basically no investment into canon (kit lens and non L lenses/art series lenses aren't worth not switching for imo)
you could easily sell your stuff and jump ship.

Just keep that option in mind. You'd be surprised how much more fitting a sony mirrorless may fit into your tool kit.

Thank you for all your responses, I know it has been a while since I last visited, I've been very busy with real estate photography. Because of this increase, I have purchased an EOS 6D mkII with 16-35mm F/4, didn't see much point in paying double the price for the F/2.8 and I have been very happy. I also invested in an EOS 5D mkIV for none real estate work, such as portraiture, which my wife takes care of, for that we have the 24-105mm F/4, USM 85mm F/1.8, and USM 50mm F/1.4.

I tried to use the 5D4 for real estate, but it wasn't working out, the lack of articulating screen made getting into tight corners to maximize the wide angle in smaller rooms difficult, I'm not skinny enough to fit between the tripod and wall to make that work. With the 6D2, I could shoot handheld with the better ISO capability, I shoot at 800 ISO with little to no noise, but because I use HDR for real estate, I need to use a tripod.

It would have been nice to not have to spend the extra $2,000 on the 6D, but overall I am happy with the 6D2, even if it is not quite as good as the 5D4.

In regard to Sony, their latest mirrorless FF cameras look very nice, but for now, I am heavily invested in Canon, maybe in a few years, I will jump ship, to Sony, definitely, not to Nikon, I need a camera that is also good with video as much as stills.