CANON EOS 7D

<p>Some background info:<br>

I would like to start a career in interior real estate photography. Once my experience increases and my<br />creativity improves, I would like to venture into magazine work.<br>

I would also like to learn the techniques and acquire the appropriate equipment for macro photography. Flowers, raindrops and animals are amazing.<br>

Still life photography also interests me. Images/scenarios that I can set up at home would be ideal.<br>

I have a young family, and getting family photos and movies would be great.<br>

I am thinking about purchasing <strong>Canon EOS 7D</strong>, with the <strong>EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens.</strong><br>

I want two other lenses (wide and macro), but need help to determine which ones would be better suited. <br>

1) wide: <br>

<strong>Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM </strong><br>

<strong>Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM </strong><br>

2) macro:<br>

<strong>Canon Macro Lens EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM </strong><br>

<strong>Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM </strong><br>

<strong>Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x <br /></strong><br>

As the 7D doesn't have a full sized sesnor, I'm a little confused as to how this will affect macro lenses.<br>

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Carmen, while the 7D is a great camera and is fairly versatile-I don't think it's the best choice for the types of photography you've mentioned. If you're going to do interior and architectural work as your mainstay and potential source of income, then I'd recommend something full frame. The cropped sensor of the 7D will severely handicap your work with regard to wide angle and T/S lenses. You'll pretty much need a full frame camera to do that genre properly. Seeing as how you're just starting out, I'd consider refurbished (from Canon) to save some start-up money, and invest in a decent wide angle lens. All of the other categories can be handled with a FF body, including video if you go with a 5DmkII.</p>

<p>Randall</p>

<p>For interior and architectural work like Randall said you might be better off with a Full frame. This will allow you to use faster and shorter focal length lens which Canon does not currently offer for their cropped cameras. For example, with a FF you can use a the 16-35mm f 2.8 zoom, or the fixed 20/24mm f2.8 lens which would allow you to use lower ISO values without the use of flash. OTOH, I occasionally used the 10-22mm f3.5/4.5 with my 7D for interior work, with the use of a tripod and things worked out pretty well.<br />For Macro work, there is nothing like a full frame camera to pick up those fine little details. However, on a 1.6X camera the 100mm Macro will be the equivalent of a 160mm lens. This is fine if you are shooting critters in the field, but for some type of close up and copy work it is overkill. Canon does offer a 60mm macro lens for those situations. <br />The MP-E 65mm is a great lens for macro, I don't own one, but my guess is that it was made for Full Frame cameras.</p>

<p>While I agree with the two replies about the advantages of FF, that's quite an investment. If this is your first dSLR, the 7d and kit lens might be a way to start. It is a good combo for family pictures, and will be fine to develop your skills and knowledge of photography. Your subject interests are very broad, and would require a good bit of equipment for top quality results.<br>

But if you have a big budget, go for the full frame.</p>

<p>Real estate grade interior work is pretty easy. The 7D and 10-22 will cover most situations easily. You need a good tripod, an exposure blending program, Enfuse, is the current real estate shooters tool of choice, a flash and a flash stand, and a way to remote fire your camera and flash.</p>

<p>The ultimate goal for high end interior real estate and magazine work tends to be a 5D MkII and 17 and 24 TS-E lenses.</p>

<p>Macro, the 100 L is a very good starting point, to begin with the 65 MPE is just too specialised to be useful enough. Again for top notch results, tripods and flash are the way to go. But, if you can't afford all the extras the non IS 100 macro is still a great buy with indistinguishable image quality to the L.</p>

<p>The real point is it is not the basic equipment that you need, for your specific requirements you need some peripherals too. Get a good tripod, a Manfrotto 055 XPROB is a good starter, get a good head with a quick release plate system, the Arca system is the one you should aim for as it is an industry standard, I use an AcraTech but there are many out there, get an L plate for your camera body. Yongnuo RF-602 wireless trigger system is a great wireless set available off eBay, get a camera trigger cord with your order. Flashes, you need a bit of power, at least one 580 MkI as a minimum, but preferably a 580 and a couple of 430's.</p>

<p>For pro work in your areas it is all about the peripherals. They add up but forgo a lens or two to get them, they will make your results so much better.</p>

<p>With regards the 7D and macro, the sensor on crop cameras is just smaller, that is all, the subject magnification is identical on crop and ff sensors, but the 7D just records a smaller picture at the same magnification. It is a cropped FF image.</p>

<p>Hope this all helps, Scott.</p>

<p>I don't recommend the 7D either, but let's get this scenario out of the way first. Forget the all-in-one lenses like the 18-135 (What is the point of putting a low resolution lens on the highest resolution body that you can buy?). Interior architectural photography for real estate should be done on a tripod so you don't need IS. If you just have to have an IS lens then get a $100 18-55 IS to get you out of trouble when there is no alternative. I would usually recommend the 17-40, but it won't cut it for architectural on a crop body, so it has to be the 10-22. I don't think you are doing copy work so for macro I would get the original 100/2.8, although this is the first I have heard of the MP-E 65 and this lens is my cup of tea for macro, no autofocus, no IS, and it is made for 35mm! I would want to find out more about the image quality. I would add a 50/1.8 for portraits. Add another lens once you figure out what you are missing.</p>

<p>Now to what I would do. So, a budget of $2100 USD + 2 lenses. If you are serious you have to forget the video. A used 5D I, a used Canon 17-40/4 L, a used 50/1.8, and a used 70-200/4 L (you will quickly want this range) will fill out the $2100 budget, plus a bit, and add that new fangled MP-E 65. </p>

<p>Now I have eliminated the budget for another lens, so now I would chose a used original 100/2.8 Macro instead of the MP-E, and take all these savings and get a used 5D II (with video!) instead of the 5D I. So my final answer, all used, is the 5D II, 17-40, 50/1.8, 100/2.8 and 70-200/4 L. Under $4000 USD, which should be in line with your original idea.</p>

<p>I like John's suggested lineup, particularly the 5D2 combined with the 17-40mm. That'll cover tremendous ground for indoor and outdoor real estate photography. Get a really good tripod so that you can shoot at small aperture and low shutter speed to get deep DOF.</p>

<p>As for a TS-E lens. This an expensive, but very useful lens for what you propose. Just realize that while you're saving you money to buy, your RAW conversion software, like LightRoom or DxO's Optics Pro, can correct for geometric distortion at the wide end of you zoom, or any time that you can't keep the sensor parrallel with the subject. Investing in a lens that will avoid that is the ultimate solution for a professional photographer, but you can do well without one, so long as you have software to correct the distortions.</p>

<p>It's not like architectural subjects are moving so fast so that you don't have time to change lenses. Lenses with super high ranges, mean super high compromises to achieve that. Of all areas, probably architectural photography will demand sharp and "undistorted" views, not lenses made for 'walk-around'.<br>

Normally, I'm one who pushes the idea that APS-C cameras like the 7D are simply a different format with its own utility, but in this case, the larger format (35mm, "full frame") does make things much, much easier.<br>

The only real "architectural" lens for the APS-C cameras is the TS-E 17mm, and even it will be more useful on something like an older 5D, if you can't stretch to a new "full frame" body.</p>

<p>I am puzzled as to why you list a macro lens among your desired kit, since real "macro" is perhaps the least used function for the tasks you're trying to do. Almost any lens will focus more than close enough for usual architectural details.</p>

<p>Honestly, the demands of real-estate listings are modest -- modest enough that most realtors just do their own with a point-and-shoot (although sometimes, I admit, with incredibly amusing results, often featured on humor sites).<br>

Magazine work, on the other hand, requires specialized tools -- in the long run, perhaps both the TS-E 17mm and the TS-E 24mm, but at least one of them.</p>

<p>Frankly, it's hard to beat a large-format view camera for real architectural work, but this is not something to be undertaken casually - practically it means for most professional architectural workers, the ability to work in large format film and then convert that to digital. Or alternatively, some large-sensor cameras that cost as much as houses do in my depressed area. :(</p>

<p>All this costs money. If there is a market for real-estate photos in your area, you could start with a decent short-range zooms at both wide angle and normal to short telephoto ranges. Buy the best you can fit in your budget. Get a good tripod. Get hold of real-estate listings in upscale markets and see what they want/use. For the future, study pictures in the high-tone magazines on architecture (for the super wealthy, particularly).</p>

<p>You didn't say what your experience is. If this is your first DSLR, I would recommend starting with a Rebel series and the kit lens. It is more than enough for real estate. If you get to the point where you are ready for magazines (a tough market I hear), you can decide if you need a pro level camera. Same with the other specialty lenses, wait until you have some experience, then you can better choose what is best for your needs.</p>

<p>Practice shooting your own house. Use a tripod. Balancing interior light with light from windows is a big challenge. It can be done with multiple exposures and software.</p>

<p>Using flash inside and having it look natural takes a lot of skill, so avoid it for now. A pro would use multiple off-camera flashes strategically placed.</p>

<p>There is absolutely no reason to think of a 5D MkI or II for these situations, zero. The 7D and the 10-22 are VERY capable real estate shooting tools. The vast majority of Real Estate work is not high resolution, indeed small web images are where most of it goes, and the average pay is not worth getting in debt for. As a startup the TS-E lenses are complete overkill too. If you start pulling in the good paying jobs, resorts, big condos, 2 million plus properties etc, then start to think about investing in higher quality output.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Having just visited a large real estate sales office, I looked at a lot of recent pictures of homes averaging $700,000-800,000 (low budget homes for Honolulu). All were taken with a P&S by the sales agent and were really poor quality. The only jobs they hired pros for were the 10 million and up estates. So while a 5D2, tripod, fleet of remote strobes and set of TS lenses would be the ultimate for this type of work, the reality is you'd never recoup your investment--let alone make money--unless you're an established working pro.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to start a career in interior real estate photography ... I would like to venture into magazine work ... Flowers, raindrops and animals are amazing ... Still life photography also interests me ... I have a young family, and getting family photos and movies would be great.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, <em>slow down</em>! Second, decide whether this is going to be a career direction (a business) or a hobby.</p>

<p>Start with the DSLR you already have. If you haven't any, buy a current generation Canon Rebel series with the kit zoom. This is sufficient camera and lens to do 99.9% of real estate photography. The only two additional pieces of kit you'll need is a $30 tripod from Walmart and Canon's IR remote release for another $30.</p>

<p>What really separates the weekend interior snapshot from an Architectural Digest layout is you. Learn the basics - the camera, exposure, focus, dynamic range, ISO settings, lighting. Learn how to do post - color calibration, color correction, exposure blending, stitching, perspective correction, pre-press, etc. Learn to see - composition and lighting (again.)</p>

<p>Most importantly, learn the business.</p>

<p>Most pro photographers didn't start out doing their preferred genre right out of the box, unless wedding photography was the goal. You might want to start out being a second shooter for a wedding photographer and then graduate to doing more archetectural as your cash flow grows. Education is something to consider. Get serious and learn what you don't know. See great work by others and start moving toward what's in your head.</p>

<p>For someone starting out, the 7D offers quite a lot. If you want to go that route, make sure you only get FF lenses, as you don't want to put money into EF-S glass you can't use on a FF body later.</p>

<p>A refurbished 7D is about 1k, a refurb 5Dii is a bit more.</p>

<p>For lenses, look seriously at the 3rd party glass available. For someone starting out learning how to shoot they are great value. On the macro side, the Tamron 60mm. 90mm and 120mm macro lenses are very good. For Wide Angle, the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is great, as is the 12-24mm f/4.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>As others have mentioned a FF camera will give you the most wide lens options and for interior work, you'll <em>need </em>the wide options in my opinion. A used 5D original might be a wise choice.</p>

<p>* FF gives an advantage here *** IF *** you can afford to buy TS lenses. Otherwise...no.</p>

<p>* The advice to get a used 5D + 17-40L over a 7D is not very good. A 7D + Tokina 11-16 is without question the superior combination, and a 7D + Canon 10-22 should be just as good. (That's not to say that the 5D combo wouldn't be good at the right price, but it would have to be cheaper to justify the used condition and older technology. And while the 17-40L is quite good, it's not a Tokina 11-16.)</p>

<p>* Consider saving some money by going with the 60D. Same sensor, and it doesn't sound like you have to have the 7D's AF, frame rate, or weather sealing.</p>

<p>* Puppy Face has a really good point. Most real estate photography is done with P&S cameras. I actually know some people who are willing to pay for higher end architectural photography, but it's not a very large or booming market.</p>

<p>I second Robert's view whole-heartedly. You "would like to" quite an ambitious lot, but give no indication whatsoever what you CAN do now, where you come from. Maybe you'd like to add a few words on that.<br>

Judging on the flippant nonchalance with which you mention venturing (!) into magazine work, I feel maybe you should research the market(s), your chances in them and the amount of very hard work required to succeed a bit more. And then a current Rebel will do nicely, nothing the 7D can do better that you'll need. The lens you're set on is just a sort of compromise, but not particularly good at any of the fields you mention. Get the kit-zoom with the Rebel for the time being, any of the wide lenses mentioned (the 17-40 is not wide on a crop body), a flash. Only buy more stuff if and when your capabilities have outgrown what you have.</p>

<p>Remember, DLT always recommends the 7D, no matter the usage. If you get serious about archetecture, then a FF will give higher potential.</p>

<p>I love my 7D, but it's not great at everything. The high-ISO performance of the 5D2 is very useful indoors and you have more exposure latitude vs. the 7D. Save the 7D for wildlife, sports and other detail work. Use the 5D2 for archetecture, scenics and other frame filling subjects. Either is good for macros.</p>

<p>My opinion is that you'll get fine results w/ a 7D, but better results w/ a 5D (mk1), and the best (given the current context out of a 5D2). The bottom line comes down to physics, it is easier to bend light less to get it to fit on the sensor if the sensor is bigger, in a nutshell, less bending typically gives better results. The minute you see the image you obtain from a 10-22 @ 10mm (eff. 16mm) on the 7D vs. 16/17mm (from a 16-35mm/17-40) on a 5D which both encompass nearly the same FOV, You'll see exactly what I'm saying. Distortion is your enemy, and the 10-22 has that in spades. </p>

<p>A 5D1 w/ a 17-40 or (better) a 16-35 sounds doable on your budget, add some more inexpensive glass (say a 28-135, and a couple inexp. primes) for detail oriented shots, and some accessories and you're done. </p>

<p>But don't forget post. You'll need to be able to work fast, and effectively to make this pay. You'll need to manipulate the color, and tonal output to emphasize the traits of any given interior/ house. If you have a realtor friend who will let you set up and learn how to put out amazing results, that will be very important while you are learning how to do it. IMO, the fact that most realtors use P&S, done badly, means they haven't recognized the value of good photography. If you can convince a realtor that it makes a difference, you can convince them to sell the idea to a seller. That's the ticket. No realtor is going to pay a couple hundred out of their commission for pics, the benefit is marginal to them at best (even a bump in selling price of 20,000+ is only worth an extra couple hundred to them). They get a much greater benefit from 'turning and burning', rather than maximizing the value of each and every house. A seller OTOH is <em>much</em> more highly motivated, as to them, your pictures <em>could</em> easily be 10s of thousands of dollars in selling price. In essence, marketing to the seller is the only way it becomes realistic. In my experience, one image sells every wedding I book. Sure, they look at them all, but they often fall in love w/ just one. I suspect a similar effect could be had from a handful of images for a house... I know that's how I feel when I look at a fine homebuilding. Maybe 10 pics, but I love it or hate it. I have to bring myself back to the floorplan to ground myself in the reality. I think that's exactly the effect you want.</p>

<p>So maybe you see, maybe you don't, but the camera is not even half of the important part.</p>

<p><strong>Read what Puppy Face wrote! </strong> That has been my experience...go to any real estate site and look at the photos for properties for sale. Point and shoot or iphones, some may have used tripods. I found the most expensive home at 7mil for sale in my zip code, has 30 "large" photos that pop up at 720x540, and I'm venturing to guess they were taken by agent or brother in law..</p>

<p>I'm curious how old you are and what else you've done with your life to this point, your post seems a bit naive.</p>

 

<p><em>Remember, DLT always recommends the 7D, no matter the usage. </em></p>

<p>Didn't I just recommend FF with TS lenses or the 60D?</p>

<p>David, if your reading comprehension is so incredibly poor that you can make that statement not one post after I recommended two cameras OTHER than the 7D, then maybe you need to spend less time in this forum and more time in an English class at your local JC.</p>

<p><em>If you get serious about archetecture, then a FF will give higher potential.</em></p>

<p>If you invest, or will invest, in TS lenses this is true. If not, then no. The other major FF advantage is high ISO shooting and serious real estate and architecture shots will be done from a tripod at low ISO, so the ISO issue is irrelevant.</p>

<p><em>The high-ISO performance of the 5D2 is very useful indoors and you have more exposure latitude vs. the 7D.</em></p>

<p>Have you ever done any serious real estate or architecture shots for a paying client? You use a tripod because composition is critical, particularly when it comes to leveling things out and controlling distortion at wide angles. That affords low ISO, which you want any way for any serious print or portfolio work. You also use multiple remote flashes and/or HDR techniques to cover the full luminance range, which means the 1 stop difference in DR you refer to is irrelevant. The really impressive shots mix indoor and outdoor detail, and you need to both control your indoor lighting and utilize HDR to make that happen. And with digital you double check every shot to verify it's right, including exposure, while you're on the scene. Nothing is moving and you can take your time to get it right, but you might not be able to come back. (Did I forget to mention that yes, I have actually done this for a paying client? And that I've known two people who did it for a living?)</p>

<p>If your architecture work is not serious but at the level of a typical real estate photo then you can save a lot of money and time by just buying a P&S, putting it in full auto, and pressing the little shutter button randomly as you walk through the house.</p>

<p>With an unlimited budget I would say grab a 5D mkII and the wide TS lenses. But on a limited budget a 60D and good crop WA glass is perfectly usable. I don't know where Carmen's budget falls.</p>

<p>Whichever route Carmen goes solid support and a set of remotely triggered flashes with some stands and light modifiers will be critical. I should have included that point, but Scott had already covered it and his post was on the money. The only thing I might add is that if Carmen does go with a 60D or 7D and Canon flashes there will be no need for radio flash triggers off eBay. Indoor shooting is ideal for the built in remote flash capability of those bodies.</p>

 

<p><em>The minute you see the image you obtain from a 10-22 @ 10mm (eff. 16mm) on the 7D vs. 16/17mm (from a 16-35mm/17-40) on a 5D which both encompass nearly the same FOV, You'll see exactly what I'm saying. Distortion is your enemy, and the 10-22 has that in spades.</em></p>

<p>Barrel distortion at the wide end ordered from best to worst:<br>

Canon 10-22: 1.21%<br>

Tokina 11-16: 2.1%<br>

Canon 16-35 II: 3.26%<br>

Canon 17-40: 3.6%</p>

<p>Source: http://www.photozone.de/</p>

<p>Did you even bother to look at tests of these lenses, much less test them personally, before posting?</p>

<p>And before someone makes another common mistake: perspective distortion is determined by your distance to the subject, not the lens focal length. You're going to be the same distance from the subject for the same composition with a 7D @ 10mm or a 5D @ 16mm.</p>

<p>(In case anyone is wondering, I tend to recommend the Tokina 11-16 over the Canon 10-22 for the increased sharpness and resolution, particularly at the edges and corners. Barrel distortions can be resolved in post. That said the 10-22 is very good and in architecture work will be shot stopped down. No problems with that recommendation.)</p>

<p><em><strong>Read what Puppy Face wrote! </strong> That has been my experience...go to any real estate site and look at the photos for properties for sale. Point and shoot or iphones, some may have used tripods.</em></p>

<p>My paying client was a home builder who needed professional shots for web and print marketing materials. The two people I know who did this for a living got most of their work from architects, corporations, interior designers, resorts, etc. Almost never from real estate.</p>

<p>It's not a market I would want to plan a career for. And most of the work comes from sources other than real estate.</p>

<p>The reason I suggested the wireless triggers is when you tuck the flashes out of the way, behind breakfast units and beds, in hallways etc the Canon light based system is too unreliable. I have six 550EX's for this kind of thing and don't even bother trying to use the Canon system. The other huge advantage is wireless remote shutter triggering, to get accent highlights you can hold the flash where you want and trigger the camera from a distance, then in post in layers you just eliminate yourself.</p>

<p>However there are several ways of doing all this. I work with a world leading pro (in his very narrow but closely related field) who uses three flashlights. I am nowhere near as adept as him at light painting though, watching him (assisting! ) is amazing.</p>

<p>ALL wide-angle lenses have geometric distortion, but most are easily and automatically removed in RAW conversion. No one should get hung up on the unprocessed distortion of wide-angle lenses. Look at the results after correction.</p>