Suggestions New Equipment for Architecture Photography

[loosecanon]

TS17 image quality better than perspective corrected 14mm (or with the sigma 12mm) ? Yes. How much you need the better quality is up to you and what you need the images for, and how much you are willing to pay to get the best image quality.
Always when correcting perspective you are likely to lose some of the image, hence why I say a corrected 14mm would give you roughly a TS17mm, and by reducing the pixels used so some image quality will be lost.

[rpcrowe]

I also suggest that you switch the RC2 quick release system to an Arca compatble QR system. I find the Arca compatble QR system far more user friendly.

However, if you decide to stick with the RC2 system, I suggest that you obtain a Manfrotto Architectural Plate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ist_Quick.html

This plate will prevent/reduce the cameras rotation around the tripod screw when the camera is in the portrait position...

[William W]

Well, after reading the above posts, I'm pretty convinced that I should keep my 5D and get a 17mm tilt/shift lens. What other lenses would you folks suggest as being essential for shooting real estate/architecture?

I'd like clarification on what exactly it is, that you will be shooting.

I think that most Professionals who specialize in "Architectural Photography" would have necessarily used monorail and or view camera: that's why (for my response at least) I emphasized Tilt Shift Lenses for DSLR work.

On the other hand, if you are talking "Real Estate Photography" which was a staple income of mine for a long time - a good UWA Zoom Lens and a and few portable Flash heads, modifiers and some gels would be what I would use.

For Real Estate work the return was never there for the investment in such a specialist lens as a TS-E 17 and the technical critique and the necessity of the work as a finished product, did not demand the investment either. I very much doubt in the declining $ for return in many areas of Photography, within the arena of "Real Estate Photography" it would be even more difficult to rationalize the purchase of such a specialist $2.5K lens.

Obviously, if this is for the joy of shooting and/or the capital expenditure is not an obstacle, then one or even two TS-E lenses would be wonderful: but a steep learning curve, I expect, if you have not used a Camera with Movements before.

***

I already have a Sigma 12-24mm, 1 4.5-5.6. Will the 17mm T/S be that much better? And would it be just as quick to correct perspective in Photoshop?

(I am purposely avoiding using the word 'perspective') sufficient to state that one cannot "correct" in Photoshop what the two Camera Movements (i.e. Tilt and Shift) can accomplish at exposure.

WW

[Rob Ekins]

What other lenses would you folks suggest as being essential for shooting real estate/architecture?
Dave

Not essential but a 70/200 f2.8 would be nice to have for detail shots..

It's on my wish list ..

Robbie.

[lukaswerth]

My personal experience: for architecture, there is nothing like a tilt-shift lens (shift is the essential, actually). Correcting perspective in PP is nice, but not the same (for one thing, you don't get the same angle anymore). There is a Samyang 24mm TS which is, I think, somewhat affordable. I haven't heard bad things about it yet.
If you get yourself a Nikon and get the Nikon 24mm PC-E, try it out thoroughly first, and watch the fringes: it is my impression from what I read on the net that quite some of them need to be re-centered - mine needed, and it fringe performance (and when shifted) improved dramatically.

Lukas

Lukas

[Colin Southern]

(I am purposely avoiding using the word 'perspective') sufficient to state that one cannot "correct" in Photoshop what the two Camera Movements (i.e. Tilt and Shift) can accomplish at exposure.

Just to expand on Bill's reply ...

With photography if you don't keep the camera sensor exactly parallel to the plane your shooting, you'll get converging or diverging lines. Since buildings are exactly vertical, you need to have your camera sensor vertical. Unfortunately ... that means that unless you have an exceptionally wide angle lens you won't be able to capture all "up high" stuff and even when you do, you'll often need to crop off a lot of extra stuff at the bottom (unless you want things like tripod legs in the shot). So for tall architecture, it's not a great solution.

What the shift function does is allow you to get you sensor parallel and then shift the view upwards so you get less of the bottom and more of the top.

Can this be done in Photoshop? Kinda yes and no. If you tip your camera up to capture high detail you then have to fix that in Photoshop - and that means stretching out the top of the image - and that loses a LOT of information. Either that or use a very wide-angle lens and crop it severely, which also loses information. So it get the job done, but at a price. If the image are destined for monitor/internet display only then probably not a problem, but if you're after considerable sized prints then it's not something I would do.

All comes down to budget really; if you already have an UWA lens and a FF camera like the 5D why not just start with that and see how you go. I'm pretty sure I could make professional-quality images with that gear (not so enthused about the Sigma lens, but apart from that).

[William W]

Just to expand on Bill's reply ...

Thank you.

regards,

Bill

[Glenn NK]

To summarize what others have said when using a wide angle non-shift lens:

1) Stretch and shrink the image in PS with an attendant loss of resolution where the "pixels are stretched apart" reducing resolution (perhaps not technically correct but one way to think of it), OR

2) Stretch the image to get vertical lines, then live with the fact that something important had to be cropped to get a rectangular image, OR

3) To avoid the problem in 2), take multiple shots (all of which are distorted) and stitch them together (have fun).

Getting it right in the field is much easier and that's why shifted lenses are used.

From what I've seen posted countless times, interior architecture is mostly done with the 17 mm lens, not the 24 mm. I love my 24 for landscapes, but it's not wide enough inside.

Glenn

[acroreef]

Again folks, thanks so much for the enlightened responses. I greatly appreciate the help.

Dave

[Colin Southern]

To summarize what others have said when using a wide angle non-shift lens:

1) Stretch and shrink the image in PS with an attendant loss of resolution where the "pixels are stretched apart" reducing resolution (perhaps not technically correct but one way to think of it), OR

2) Stretch the image to get vertical lines, then live with the fact that something important had to be cropped to get a rectangular image, OR

3) To avoid the problem in 2), take multiple shots (all of which are distorted) and stitch them together (have fun).

Getting it right in the field is much easier and that's why shifted lenses are used.

From what I've seen posted countless times, interior architecture is mostly done with the 17 mm lens, not the 24 mm. I love my 24 for landscapes, but it's not wide enough inside.

Glenn

Umm ...

My suggestion would be to get the sensor exactly vertical - shoot with an UWA lens (eg 14mm) and then crop. No "stretching" required (you only get distortion when the sensor isn't parallel to the plane you're shooting).

[Glenn NK]

Umm ...

My suggestion would be to get the sensor exactly vertical - shoot with an UWA lens (eg 14mm) and then crop. No "stretching" required (you only get distortion when the sensor isn't parallel to the plane you're shooting).

That's what I do - keep the sensor vertical by shifting. Works quite well you know. No loss of pixels from cropping.

Just an idea.

Cheers,

[Colin Southern]

That's what I do - keep the sensor vertical by shifting. Works quite well you know. No loss of pixels from cropping.

Just an idea.

Cheers,

What do you mean "by shifting"?

[Glenn NK]

Should read "keep sensor vertical and shift". I've used shift on buildings by just eye-balling the camera level, but have found getting the camera level the other way (horizon level) is more important.

Incidentally I shot some family get-together images last weekend with a 17-55 on a APS-C and the kitchen cupboards in the BG were "wonky" (all handheld informal shots of family members). I used the Vertical adjustment in LR to get the lines of the cupboard doors parallel but it required a fair bit of cropping at the top and upper sides of the images to get rid of the white areas. Yah, you can align the sensor vertically and crop but with the attendant potential for losing quite a bit of real estate from the image. Personally if I was doing any amount of interior photography I'd get a 17 mm T/S.

[Colin Southern]

Should read "keep sensor vertical and shift". I've used shift on buildings by just eye-balling the camera level, but have found getting the camera level the other way (horizon level) is more important.

This is where I was getting confused by what you were saying;

- If you DO have a tilt and shift lens then - yes - keeping the sensor parallel to the plane you're shooting and then shifting the view is the way it's done. (Sorry, just wasn't sure why you mentioned it, as I'd just assumed that you knew that).

- If you don't have a T&S lens then you STILL keep the sensor parallel to the plane you're shooting, if possible. Obviously this 2nd scenario depends on the lenses you have available and how far away you can get from what you're shooting - however - assuming the building is tall and assuming that you're at ground level then "the good stuff" may only occupy the upper 1/2 ("ish") of the frame, so cropping of feet/tripod legs may be needed. For interior architecture however, often the "good stuff" extends much lower in the frame. Having just said that, I suspect an EF14mm F2.8L USM II would give a TS-E F3.5L 24mm USM II a serious run for it's money in terms of FoV when shot with a sensor aligned to a parallel plane (albeit the TS-E would have more meaningful data if that was an issue).

- If you don't have a lens with a FoV wide enough to capture all you need whilst keeping the sensor parallel to the plane you're shooting then your choices are limited to multiple overlapping shots + stitching, or taking the sensor away from parallel and taking the hit with the loss/degradation in PP.

[Glenn NK]

For interior architecture however, often the "good stuff" extends much lower in the frame. Having just said that, I suspect an EF14mm F2.8L USM II would give a TS-E F3.5L 24mm USM II a serious run for it's money in terms of FoV when shot with a sensor aligned to a parallel plane (albeit the TS-E would have more meaningful data if that was an issue).

From what I've seen posted countless times, interior architecture is mostly done with the 17 mm lens, not the 24 mm.

I love my 24 for landscapes, but it's not wide enough inside.
Glenn

[Colin Southern]

Yep - I agree.

Just comes down to the tools the OP has available; he doesn't have a 17mm T&S, but he does already have a 12mm UWA lens and a FF camera - so I'm just suggesting he tries what he already has first, as the 17mm T&S is expensive, and may turn out to be overkill (it was for me - I sent mine back).

[lukaswerth]

Well, I am a Nikon user, and if there is one lens I am envying Canon users for, it is the 17mm TS.

Lukas