Suggestions New Equipment for Architecture Photography

[acroreef]

Dear Folks,

I am moving into the realm of architecture photography. I intend to bracket my images and post process to create a HDR image. I really like the idea of the new lighter/smaller full frame interchangeable lens Sony A7r. I currently have a Cannon 5D (the original) and plan to sell it. I have the funds to upgrade so I was considering a Nikon D800 or Sony A7r.

My first question: Is the Sony A7r as good as the D800 for architecture photography?

If so, what equipment - lenses would be appropriate for the Sony, such as wide angle, tilt shift, etc.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Dave

[inkista]

You do realize the A7 is a brand new system, right? The only existing lenses for it are a $1000 55/1.8, an $800 35/2.8, and the $500 28-70/3.5-5.6 kit lens. A $1200 24-70/4 and $1500 70-200/4 are announced, but not yet released. There are no ultrawides or tilt-shifts yet in the mount, and AFAIK, Sony has never made a tilt-shift for either A-mount or E-mount.

How much did you want to deal with the PITA factor of adapted lenses?

Just saying, may not quite be time to jump the dSLR ship just yet. Nearly all the mirrorless systems are new enough that the glass offerings are relatively sparse--especially compared with 30+ year old dSLR systems that have had time to build up the exotics. Micro four-thirds might have the best lens selection, and even mft doesn't have native tilt-shift offerings.

[Polar01]

Welcome to CIC, lets do a couple of housekeeping items first, if you would go back into the setting, adding your name so that we know what to call you (you would hardly believe what I sometimes call people), I go by Polar01, however my real name is Allan. It also helps to know what part of the world you are in as it is easier to tell you where to go as in if you are wanting to purchase something.
Now to your questions, if you are wanting to get into architecture photography it is the glass that is important not the camera, not to say that a good camera is not worth it. However you have to match glass to camera, as good as the Sony A7r is there is no glass, in that you need wide angle, and/or, tilt/shift glass, so you are looking at Nikon or Canon. The D800 is a great camera however I think a bit of over kill, if you were to do a say a 3 shot bracket you are looking a huge file and it you were to do a seven shot not that uncommon in say a church think of the size of file. So I think say, the D610 would be a good camera instead of a D800, (I use D600, check out GrumpyDiver aka Manfred's, threads as he uses the D800 and shoots a lot of building). Do not forget a good tripod and cable or remote camera release will also be needed.
I am adding to shot that were taken with a D600 on a couple of weeks ago (second image) and on shot about 6 months ago.

The first image is a bracketed shot make up of seven images shot in a small local church.



The second is a crop from a 3 shot pan, one shot (no bracketing)



Now it appears a little dark here compared to my monitor.

[Colin Southern]

For architecture you really can't go past the Canon TS-E 17mm Tilt & Shift lens; I'd suggest looking seriously at A Canon 5D3.

[rdc]

it is the glass that is important not the camera, not to say that a good camera is not worth it. However you have to match glass to camera

I fully agree with this view. In particular I have a friend who has 2 Nikon PC lenses, they cost an arm and a leg each but the images he produces are just unbelievable - he is an architect and shoots architecture.

I also agree on the camera. When I beefed up my equipment I could either hold back on the optics and go for a D800 or invest in the optics and go for a D600. I chose the latter and am very impressed with the quality of the images. The camera has some shortcomings compared to the D800 but I mostly use it on a tripod, long exposures, manual focus, manual settings - basically all I need is the sensor, low noise and good optics, the rest are just accessories that I don't use that much. Having said that, I went last year to an air show and shot planes flying by at speeds in excess of 700 Km/h and the D600 focus tracking, speed and image quality were very good. The only bad thing was the weather, with a blue sky I would have shot truly cracking images.

My conclusion is: considering that cameras get old and lose value faster than lenses, look at what line of optics is most suited to your work, budget for that at attach to them the best possible camera you can afford.

I hope this helps.

Raul

[Manfred M]

I would suggest you seriously consider a 24mm shift-tilt lens. I personally find anything wider of limited use due to the wide angle distortion issues introducted. Both Canon and Nikon make one, and if you are looking to save a bit of money up front, the Samyang lens is running at around 1/3 of the price of either of Canon or Nikon lenses, and is available in a number of mounts. That being said, you can use the skew tool in Photoshop to correct for any distortion as well; which is the approach I use right now.

You should also look at lighting, as this is every bit as important as the camera and lens. I've done some work with a couple of Speedlights, but frankly figure I would need to add at least a couple more for serious work in larger houses, in addition to stands, brackets and umbrellas. You might also want to look at a remote trigger device like a CamRanger to speed up your workflow.

I shoot a D800, and would consider it the obvious choice to use.

[Colin Southern]

I would suggest you seriously consider a 24mm shift-tilt lens. I personally find anything wider of limited use due to the wide angle distortion issues introducted.

In all honesty, in my opinion, you really need both 17 & 24mm for architecture. Exterior architecture isn't so bad as one can often just back up a bit to get the field of view, but usually not possible inside.

Not sure what you're meaning by "distortions" - shouldn't be any of those, especially with a T&S lens - but UWA lenses will give a particular kind of perspective that takes getting used to (eg turning a closet into a bowling ally).

I've been shooting boat interiors all morning - mostly at 14 & 16mm; a 24mm just wouldn't have cut it.

[William W]

. . . moving into the realm of architecture photography. . . My first question: Is the Sony A7r as good as the D800 for architecture photography?

No.

***

As a general comment, Keep the 5D and (for interiors) buy a TS-E 17 and you might also need a TS-E 24 MkII instead of or as well as. If you are doing some outdoors stuff or the insides of a really big Cathedral-like structure, then you might need to add a TS-E 45. Any money left over buy a 5DMkIII.

Please see the dialogue between Manfred and Colin and also Kathy's comment, for the general rationale of my response.


WW

[Manfred M]

I guess I used the wrong term; perspective doesn't quite do it either. A distorted perspective is probably closer to the truth and this the result of using a UWA, shift-tilt or regular.

[acroreef]

A thank you to all of the kind folks who have responded. You've given me some homework and I appreciate the suggestions.

Dave

[loosecanon]

I do a lot of building recording.
The 5D III has the great advantage of low noise at high ISO, beats all others in this. The 22mp resolution is quite sufficient for A2 prints - or the usual edited cropped etc work.
If money no object then a PC lens is great, I have a 24mm Canon, which is useful for giving the extra depth of field the tilt can provide, and the shift which effectively moves the point of view in a way a corrected image does not. But at £2000 each for the 24 and 17 is it the best option, maybe the 14 and crop would be better as a first option for the money, with other primes to give a range if you are working slowly on a tripod with no time restraints. If like me you often have to record a building in a limited time then a good wide zoom is a godsend.
I would love a TS17, but cannot justify it, and can get much of what I want albeit at lower image quality with Sigma 12-24 and Canon 17-40. I use a tripod, stop down a few stops and the result is quite acceptable, and at least I have my record before the building disappears.
Incidentally I find Niks HDR software best for giving the most natural look, which is what I am usually after.

[Colin Southern]

I think it goes without saying too that a good tripod is essential.

[William W]

and Head.

[William W]

I mean to underscore that, sometimes little (not enough) thought and money goes into choosing the Head.

WW

[Colin Southern]

I mean to underscore that, sometimes little (not enough) thought and money goes into choosing the Head.

WW

Heads are easy - RRS BH-55. Sorted!

[William W]

haha

have a great day

[Glenn NK]

For architecture you really can't go past the Canon TS-E 17mm Tilt & Shift lens; I'd suggest looking seriously at A Canon 5D3.

This combination will Tilt and Shift at the same time (I have the TSE24 II version). I use tilt and shift together for landscapes. I believe that the Nikon TS lenses will not permit both movements together.

You might also try your 5D - it may be adequate for your purpose - get the lens first and add a newer body if required.

[acroreef]

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? Also do I really need extra lights if I shoot fusion/hdr? Any other absolutely essential equipment? (I have a good Monfrotto 190xprob tripod and a T 496rc2 ball head. Thanks again in advance to all who respond.

Dave

[Colin Southern]

In all honesty ... once you have the 17mm - as much as I respect the 24mm T&S - I'd probably be looking more at the versatility of something like an EF16-35/2.8L USM II - that's my go-to lens for most real estate work.

In terms of needing lighting ... It's kinda a how-long-is-a-piece-of-string type question. Do you NEED lighting? No. Will you get better photos with lighting? Yes. A flash or two is better than no flash - a studio head or two is better than a small flash. A 1/2 dozen studio heads and small flashes would be better still.

Case in point - I shot this with a couple of studio heads - HDR would have worked, but wouldn't have been as good.

[acroreef]

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?

Dave