Should I upgrade from my 7D for Real Estate?

[l_shap]

<p>Hi everyone. I would love your opinion on whether or not I should upgrade my 7D to a full frame camera. No doubt this topic has been covered at length, but I have a specific situation.<br>

I'm a real estate agent. I like to shoot my listings in HDR. I have a 7D with an EFS 10-22mm lens. I also have an amazing solid Mafrotto tripod. I've also installed magic lantern on it, so I have a 2 second delay and 5 photo bracket instead of 3, which has made all the difference. I pretty much only use the camera at this capacity. My skill level in shooting and post in Photomatix, LR and PS are greatly improving.<br>

<br />I happen to also own a 17-40L lens which is great for FF sensors but not wide enough for a crop for real estate in my opinion. I know the latest FF cameras have better resolution and dynamic range. I typically shoot in ISO 100 so new cameras that perform better in low light high ISO conditions is not an issue. Also, with 5 RAW files taken at different exposures, is drynamic range really even an issue for me? Real estate is typically stagnant so faster shutter speeds are not an issue, especially on my tripod. I can afford a new camera, and have a great piece of UWA L glass, but is it worth me selling the 7D, grip, and 10-22mm EFS for a 6d, or 5D mk III. <br>

I don't shoot for paid gigs. My clients love that I have an appreciation for photography. I usually hire a photographer anyway, but I can come back and shoot twilight shots, better sunsets, timelapses and reshoots, not to mention spend way more time perfecting an image in post than a $150 photographer would. My listings are typically a mix of photographer shots and my own. <br>

Thanks a lot in advance, as I have been scratching my head for the last few weeks about this one!</p>

[paddler4]

<p>i don't shoot real estate, but I do shoot both a 7D and a 5DIII, so for what it is worth, i doubt it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I happen to also own a 17-40L lens which is great for FF sensors but not wide enough for a crop for real estate in my opinion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, but you own a 10-22, so why does this matter?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I typically shoot in ISO 100 so new cameras that perform better in low light high ISO conditions is not an issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That removes one advantage of FF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, with 5 RAW files taken at different exposures, is dynamic range really even an issue for me?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know the latest FF cameras have better resolution</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aren't real estate photos shown almost entirely online or in small prints? If so, you won't notice the better resolution.</p>

<p>So, just IMHO, it wouldn't be worth it.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>From the point of view of tools suitable for the job and the intended output - my view is +1 to what Dan wrote and for the reasons he has given. Additionally, the 10 to 22 on your 7D has a wider FoV than a 17 to 40 on a 6D or 5DMkIII - though maybe a lot of the time that point would be a minor consideration, that is still <strong>not</strong> a disadvantage for Real Estate Photography.</p>

<p>On the other hand if it is the Real Estate Business owns the existing gear and that entity will be making the new purchase and the 7D, grip and EF-S 10 to 22 has been depreciated adequately: then then a 5DMkIII and your existing 17 to 40 lens would hardly make worse pictures. Depending upon how the 7D, grip and the EF-S Lens were disposed, the situation could be a cost-less or cost-neutral method of obtaining a new toy, which you could play.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[doug_nelson5]

<p>Keep your 7D. For real estate, you need wide-angle capability. Your EF-S 10-22 should be fine, but, if you shoot and use RAW, invest the in time and modest cost of Lightroom, because barrel distortion at the wider focal lengths might be noticeable and so needs to be corrected. If you do jpg's, the distortion might be corrected in the camera. If you notice a lot of this, frame a little big to allow for the image area lost in distortion correction. For this use, I agree with others here that resolution might not be the prime consideration. </p>

[doug_nelson5]

<p>I just read a review (photozone.de) and I am astounded at the specs on your EF-S 10-22. You wouldn't even see barrel distortion except at the 10mm (15mm equiv) setting. I don't see why you're even considering a different camera or lens. Dan's comments are dead-on.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Aren't real estate photos shown almost entirely online or in small prints?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

In my market, any listing over $1M (probably 70% of the total) will have a printed sell sheet that is distributed at open houses and sometimes through a box outside. Most listings over $2M will have a multi-page brochure. The sell sheets generally have somewhat smaller (half page on 8.5x11) photos but the brochures will usually have full page photos with magazine quality printing. </p>

[l_shap]

<p>Thank you all for your responses. That was my thinking. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything. 7D's are so inexpensive now, that it had me questioning if it could possibly perform (almost) as well as a 5DmkIII for my situation. I could probably have sold the 7D setup for (max) $1,000 for the body, 10-22 Lens, grip and some other accessories. A used 5DmkIII would probably run me $1600. So a net $600-700 upgrade would be fine with me if there were a legitimate reason for it. Thanks to your guys' input, it seems that my situation doesn't warrant the effort, cash and trouble of doing this.<br>

<br /> The APS-C crop sensor on my 7D is the equivalent to 1.6x so at 10mm it's the FF equivalent of 16mm. The 17-40mm L is pretty much the same at it's widest (1mm less wide). I guess one of the variables I was thinking about was how much better a piece of L glass would perform over the EFS 10-22. Again, it appears that any difference probably wouldn't be enough of a factor to be worth the trouble.<br>

Here's a photo I just finished editing from a property I just listed. One thing I just realized is that I should have closed the aperture to f11-f15 range to get better detail in the distance. I think I shot this as f7. The biggest thing I need to accomplish is capturing great outside views from interior shots. Blown out windows are the culprit. I'm going to explore digital layering as an alternative to HDR to achieve some more realistic and less noisy photos. Still and all, came out way better than shots I've taken in the past.<br>

Thanks again for the feedback!</p>

<p>Lee</p><div></div>

[james_elwing]

<p>I am sure f8 is as small an aperture as you ever really need to go with an APS C for DOF for such a wide lens unless you are focusing very close. Maybe I'm wrong.</p>

[ruben leal]

As James says, you shouldn't close your aperture to anything smaller (greater number) than f/8 in your 7D. While

theoretically you may expand the depth of field, you will reduce the sharpness because of diffraction; in other words, you

would be trading possible sharpness in far objects, but certainly reducing sharpness in the whole photograph at the same

time.

 

That actually is one benefit of full frame cameras, as diffraction in those may appear up to a couple of stops later,

something that, besides sensor size, also depends on resolution. Anyway, at this point, and for real state photography, I

wouldn't upgrade to full frame just because of theoretically possible diffraction.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p> you shouldn't close your aperture to anything smaller (greater number) than f/8 in your 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />According to Bob Atkins, who is something of an authority on this, f11 is fine with APS-C. Here's a <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html">link</a>, it's old but the principles don't change. Also, if the images are not being printed glossy full page, diffraction is irrelevant. There's a good tutorial <a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm">here</a>.</p>

<p> </p>

[l_shap]

<p>Thank you James and Ruben. I'll read up on diffraction and stay around f8 for my wide shots.</p>

[Ken Katz]

As an owner of the 17-40L, at 17mm the extreme corners are not great, even at F11+. This is consistent with

the reviews of the lens at "Photozone". In addition, the difference between FF FOV of 17mm and a FF FOV of

16mm is not that insignificant. I would expect that the 10-22mm may be better for what you do than the 17-

40L on an FF camera. With respect to diffraction, my general rule (which is occasionally broken) is no smaller

than F8 on M43, F11 on APS-C, and F16 on FF.

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"the difference between FF FOV of 17mm and a FF FOV of 16mm is not that insignificant"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for re-iterating that point. <br>

At an SD of 15ft and comparing 10mm FL Lens on a <strong>Canon</strong> APS-C Camera to a 17mm FL Lens on a 135 Format Camera, there is about 2'6" wider Field of View (Horizontal) and 1'6" wider FoV (Vertical), when using the 10mm lens and APS-C Camera.<br>

Which, as I mentioned is: "<em><strong>not</strong> a disadvantage for Real Estate Photography</em>".</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[james_elwing]

<p>I just realised there are no DOF scales marked on my EOS 10-18mm; that I had never noticed because at wide angle it's hardly ever an issue, and I don't hunt for out of focus backgrounds.<br>

Anyhow, he says lamely, DOF at 10mm setting is real deep at moderate apertures like f8.<br>

Looked for DOF scales on Google, can't find any.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Looked for DOF scales on Google, can't find any."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think that most photographers don''t use DoF Scales on the lens turret - because they don't usually exist on modern lenses and not many use a DoF table (on paper) anymore either - but some use a DoF Calculator.<br>

<a href="http://fcalc.net/">Maybe try something like F/calc</a> and <a href="http://www.softpedia.com/get/Others/Home-Education/f-Calc.shtml%20">here also</a><br>

There are other devices too.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[james_elwing]

<p>Thanks, William</p>

 

[neill_farmer2]

<p>I often use smaller apertures than f8 on my 7D and don't notice any loss of sharpness. Do a bit of experimenting for yourself and see if this is problem for you.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>Here's my take. Shooting real estate often means taking pics in tight spaces. The problem is that a cropped sensor creates a tele effect with your lens. A 1.6 crop sensor means that a 24mm lens becomes a 38mm lens. This has an effect on what you can capture.</p>

<p>I shoot a Canon 5DS R, shoot a lot of urban exploration pics in abandoned office buildings, schools, etc. The difference between what you can capture with a cropped vs. full frame sensor is dramatic.</p>

<p>I would recommend the full frame sensor for that alone.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>The problem is that a cropped sensor creates a tele effect with your lens.</em></strong> A 1.6 crop sensor means that a 24mm lens becomes a 38mm lens. This has an effect on what you can capture . . . <strong><em>I would recommend the full frame sensor for that alone.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don’t understand how that is relevant to the specific question the OP asked and the situation that the OP is in: it’s been established that the OP has an APS-C camera and a 10 to 22 lens for it; also the OP has a 17 to 40 lens which is the lens that would be used if s/he were to buy a 6D or 5DMkIII.</p>

<p>The point is the 10 to 22 lens (on the 7D) has a wider FoV than the 17 to 40 lens (on a 6D/5DMkIII), and that’s been mentioned several times.</p>

<p>Certainly there are a few lenses with a wider FoV than the OP’s existing 10mm lens which s/he could use on a 6D or a5DMkIII, but I think that most (all?) would involve quite an amount of capital outlay for quality a rectilinear lens – e.g. the EF14F/2.8.</p>

<p>Alternatively s/he could buy a fisheye lens suitable for the 6D or 5DMkIII and use a post production de-fishing program: but on the other hand, a de-fishing program could be used on a dedicated APS-C fisheye lens if the OP wanted to go that route.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[MickSimpson]

<p>1) I have owned the EF-S 10-22 for quite a while and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT! I currently use it on a 40D which will be replaced shortly by the 7DII. the 10-22 has been fantastic for indoor shots and I will be starting real estate work with it. I also own a 5DIII but my widest lens is the 24-70 f2.8 - love this lens too.<br>

2) I really like your picture you linked. Very good.<br>

Mick </p>