Architectural Photography Equipment

[simonm]

Hi all

 

As a hobby, Im wanting to get into architectural photography. I feel this will help me trememdously with my 3D work. I currenltly have a entry level DSLR Canon 550D and am wanting to upgrade to a better body and lens (i used the standard lens it came with).

All the pics I take with it seem a little blurred and too contrasty... maybe its just the lens?

Anyway, Im wanting to use it for exterior and interior shots and was wondering if anyone had an insight of what I should be looking at? Whether it be another body and lens or just lens.... thoughts?

[RyderSK]

It's not bad camera at all, it's not full-frame but it's not like you can't live without one :- ). Which lens did you get with it ? There are multiple stock options (18-55/18-135/..), but of course those are very basic and not very good for architecture. With zoom lens you have to go extremely high-end for architecture to get rid of all the issues (distortion,etc..) that don't matter for other type of photography.

So first thing is buying something better in this regard, but don't overspend, bear in mind the position of your camera. And there are choices..and choices,..so going straight into photography forum is good idea :- ).

 

With the contrast issue: Are you saving to full Raw, and using your camera (and lens) profile inside CameraRaw/other before taking your shots into Photoshop/Lightroom/other ?

 

I use Nikon D800 + 14-24 2.8 mostly, but it's so damn heavy and big I never take it anywhere mostly...I hate it. Only reason I bought it instead of Sony A7a was the lens option.. but I think I regret that pursuit after top technical quality when it mostly lie on shelf because of it.

[simonm]

Hey Juraj, thanks for your reply.

 

I have the stock canon 55-250 and a 18-55mm.

 

 

In regards to the contrast question - yes Im saving to FULL RAW + JPEG and yes when i import it in photoshop i select the correct profile. Its just the lenses i believe, they are really crap and noisy.

 

So do you have any suggestions? Happy to spend up to $1000 for a lens

It's not bad camera at all, it's not full-frame but it's not like you can't live without one :- ). Which lens did you get with it ? There are multiple stock options (18-55/18-135/..), but of course those are very basic and not very good for architecture. With zoom lens you have to go extremely high-end for architecture to get rid of all the issues (distortion,etc..) that don't matter for other type of photography.

So first thing is buying something better in this regard, but don't overspend, bear in mind the position of your camera. And there are choices..and choices,..so going straight into photography forum is good idea :- ).

 

With the contrast issue: Are you saving to full Raw, and using your camera (and lens) profile inside CameraRaw/other before taking your shots into Photoshop/Lightroom/other ?

 

I use Nikon D800 + 14-24 2.8 mostly, but it's so damn heavy and big I never take it anywhere mostly...I hate it. Only reason I bought it instead of Sony A7a was the lens option.. but I think I regret that pursuit after top technical quality when it mostly lie on shelf because of it.

[RyderSK]

No, nothing, the amount of choices is up for headache. I always consult a friend, who is commercial architectural photographer, the best in Slovakia. But otherwise, I would go to dedicated photography forum. It changes every few months with new options :- )

[Francisco Penaloza]

I do some photography myself, and lately I have the opportunity to work with some veteran Architectural photographers and one of the thing that it really called my attention is, composition. Yes they have fancy equipment, but it is just equipment, I have been in the same place, same room with almost similar cameras, and this guys just nailed cameras views that I never saw. it really make me depress lol

but at the same time ir teach me that equipment is just that, you can buy it, but what you can't buy and what is lear the hard way, reading, practising, composition, techniques, and learn to use everything from your camera.

As Juraj mentioned, you need to learn to use RAW files, learn to do different exposures and comp then together, not to do fancy HDR photography but to help to display your building better, how to shoot a building in the right time of the day, when to use special lens and filter, and how adjust your environment to later on do your photoshop magic.

 

Before get new gear, I would recommend get some Photography books, and go to photography websites, try to absorb as much as you can, and how to apply all that to the equipment that you have now, then when you camera can't give you more, then is time to upgrade, photography equipment can get very expensive, specially for Architecture, those tilt shift lens cost some serious $$$.

 

 

For instance, your camera is pretty good already, if you want to buy something worth you'll have to jump to the full frame league and that's over 2K then an L series lens will be over 1K and then filters, shaders, reflectors, lighting bla bla bla. Save yourself some bucks firs, and and have fun

[RyderSK]

Well, I wouldn't be so general regarding technics. While Magnum photographers can take among them iPhone guy (and they did last year) for journalist photography, you can't take nice shoot of architecture with shitty lens. You will simply get nicely composed blurry distorted vignetted mess :- )

 

Landscape and architecture photography was always obsessed with technical stuff more than others. For many justified reasons.

 

That doesn't mean 4k Shift lenses at all. But neither is

 

But you surely can do without reflectors, artificial lights (mostly americans use them for those photos of McHouses, it's puke inducing, both photos and houses) and filters (you can't even fit filters anymore on current high-end lenses)

 

Not that anything else isn't important just as much, it just doesn't take away from need of right gear.

Edited October 27, 2014 by RyderSK

[Francisco Penaloza]

In regards to the contrast question - yes Im saving to FULL RAW + JPEG and yes when i import it in photoshop i select the correct profile. Its just the lenses i believe, they are really crap and noisy.

 

So do you have any suggestions? Happy to spend up to $1000 for a lens

 

Regarding the noise, it may be because all the rebel series have a crop sensor, so the high ISO you use the noisy they get.

 

If you really want to change your lens you need to consider the crop sensor that you have, so unless you want to buy 2 lens, one wide angle and other regular/telephoto.

for the whide angle side I would recomend, this one ( http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/ultra-wide-zoom-lenses/ef-s-10-22mm-f-35-45-usm) being 10 mm, it will give you a nice wide angle view without much distortion, really useful in interiors.

 

medium range is this one stay very sharp and also has a nice 2.8stop that' give you a nice Boke.

on the higer side you could get something like this nice and sharp, pretty versatile lens, but being 24 mm in your crop sensor will feel kind of tight in small places.

 

What you can do is find a photo rental place, and rent some gear and try it out, that'll give you an idea what can work better before invest

[Francisco Penaloza]

Well, I wouldn't be so general regarding technics. While Magnum photographers can take among them iPhone guy (and they did last year) for journalist photography, you can't take nice shoot of architecture with shitty lens. You will simply get nicely composed blurry distorted vignetted mess :- )

 

Landscape and architecture photography was always obsessed with technical stuff more than others. For many justified reasons.

 

That doesn't mean 4k Shift lenses at all. But neither is

 

But you surely can do without reflectors, artificial lights (mostly americans use them for those photos of McHouses, it's puke inducing, both photos and houses) and filters (you can't even fit filters anymore on current high-end lenses)

 

Not that anything else isn't important just as much, it just doesn't take away from need of right gear.

 

Just for the heck of typing

Yes I agree with you, but my point was more inclined to try to tell our friend Simon(Pixel Man) to not get obsessed with gear, this is all of us our first mistake, and gilt, I done it, and still do sometimes, and now since started to do video too, oh boy so much cool gear, so little money

 

but you know it is easy to get obsessed in that route, and sometimes blame your equipment because your shot didn't come as you expected.

just go hand in hand with technique and gear, that's all.

[RyderSK]

I see :- ).

 

Sometimes I maybe presume the person being suggested knows what he wants/is after so I fundamentally answer exactly what he asks. It might be true, that I often have naive opinion of their intentions and general advice could avoid problems they could get into from broader perspective.

[simonm]

Thanks for the response guys.

 

Yes, I do realise that its 'not the tools but the operator' that makes all the difference - however i also believe in the saying "sh*t in sh*t out" meaning that if the picture quality is bad to begin with, then its an uphill battle from there. I'd rather have a decent base and use my PS skills to enhance the image accordingly.

 

Francisco thanks - ill go to my local store and check these out.... i would probabl;y start with an interior lens and then go for an exterior one...

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/ultra-wide-zoom-lenses/ef-s-10-22mm-f-35-45-usm

[simonm]

by the way - which photography forums do you recommend?

[Fooch]

If you plan to upgrade to a full frame camera in the future, perhaps dont get EF-S lenses...

[Scott Dombrowski]

I've been taking photos for our firm when I have the time (ha ha). We have a Canon 70D and the 10-22mm lens others have mentioned. I've found it to get very acceptable shots that we use for marketing. I don't know what options are available in your region, but one thing you might try is renting some lenses to see what works for you. In the US, I've been very happy with LensRentals.com and have used them a lot.

[Noise]

I have a 550D and its great but if I was going to upgrade it would be to one of the newer full frame sensor Canons. Everything after that is down to how much money you want to spend and the specific purpose you are using the camera for.

 

In the past I have posted on the DP Review forum and found it quite good on steering me in the right direction. If you could get a face to face with a local pro photographer, that would be helpful aswell.

[Chris MacDonald]

I've been using a 24mp Sony a65 with either a Sigma 10-20mm lens, or a 50mm 1.4 for silky DoF details.

 

Only problem I would say I have is that noise on higher ISO isn't great compared with other cameras, but generally speaking with architectural photography I never need to shoot high ISO because I like having cars/people blurred in low light scenarios. That combined with the higher resolution than others in its price range means that noise is a non issue.

 

I think next time I upgrade my camera I'll go with a full frame sensor; but this one should last me quite a few years I think. Would definitely recommend for architectural photography.

 

One thing I would say is that the lens makes all the difference. Kit lenses suck so hard; I had no idea until I purchased the 50mm f1.4 just how much of a difference it would make. Also invest in a decent tripod - mine sucks and needs replacing as soon as I can afford to.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Macker

[Scott Dombrowski]

Also invest in a decent tripod - mine sucks and needs replacing as soon as I can afford to.

 

QFA. A solid, tall tripod is key. I use a Manfrotto 055XPROB with a ball head and am very happy with it. You wouldn't want to take it backpacking, but it's very sturdy and can hold the camera a few inches off the ground up to 70 inches. I was always hunching over my old tripod which was very tiring.

[heni30]

I've been using a 24mp Sony a65 with either a Sigma 10-20mm lens, or a 50mm 1.4 for silky DoF details.

 

How do you think Sigma or other 3rd party lenses compare to the name brand models? I have a Nikon D3200 and it's very tempting to save some $$$ but I don't want to sacrifice quality if the difference is noticeable.

 

I second the vote for Manfrotto. I had to get something good quality to photograph my wife's art work so I wanted something very stable. The quality and sturdiness is well worth the $. I got the ball head so that my daughter could use it easily for her photography class but the Tilt Pan would have been just fine - Just takes a couple of more minutes to adjust.

Edited October 28, 2014 by heni30

[Scott Dombrowski]

How do you think Sigma or other 3rd party lenses compare to the name brand models?

 

My personal camera is a Canon 650D and I have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 lens. It's not L quality glass, but it is quite good and several hundred dollars cheaper than the Canon 17-55 f2.8. It's excellent for candid interior photos when I don't want to use flash. I think 3rd party lenses can be on par with or better than the name brands in a few cases, but that's something to evaluate on a per lens basis rather than an overall blanket statement.

[Chris MacDonald]

My personal camera is a Canon 650D and I have a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 lens. It's not L quality glass, but it is quite good and several hundred dollars cheaper than the Canon 17-55 f2.8. It's excellent for candid interior photos when I don't want to use flash. I think 3rd party lenses can be on par with or better than the name brands in a few cases, but that's something to evaluate on a per lens basis rather than an overall blanket statement.

 

I'd agree with that. Sigma lenses I've found to be particularly good as I've also got a 50mm 2.8 Sigma macro lens, which I use considerably less but it is still fantastic at what it does. The cost savings are worth it, because unless you're a bit of a nerd that likes to compare which lens has more vignetting, or x amount more chromatic abberation the difference can be fairly easily and believably ironed out in photoshop using the lens correction tools.

 

That said, I'd still err on the side of caution if buying a sub £300 ($450-500) lens. Perhaps look into reviews first.

[RyderSK]

QFA. A solid, tall tripod is key. I use a Manfrotto 055XPROB with a ball head and am very happy with it. You wouldn't want to take it backpacking, but it's very sturdy and can hold the camera a few inches off the ground up to 70 inches. I was always hunching over my old tripod which was very tiring.

 

Yep, Manfrotto is the best for the price. I suggest newer 190PRO4 (pictured with mine 498RC2 head) because it's shorter when in compact state, it makes for easier travelling..price difference isn't big.

 

Here's mine :- ) I love it much more than the camera, I love heavy mechanical black things.

 

[Tommy L]

As mentioned, a good tripod will go a long way. Also consider buying a couple of fast prime lenses to add amazing glass for low cost. You may have to use your legs instead of your wrist to frame a shot, but something like a 35mm 1.8 will be around $100 and be SUPER sharp and be great in low light. That kind of speed in a fixed aperture zoom will cost you plenty.

[Playdo]

I'd suggest a decent tripod, using the timer/remote trigger, shooting raw, and learning proper sharpening techniques in post. A wide angle lens is a good start for architecture, and unless you need razor thin DOF, I wouldn't worry about going full frame or using super fast lenses.

 

George: Sigma has some great lenses. They aim for the low cost, high quality approach.

 

Here are some good resources I use:

 

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

[heni30]

George: Sigma has some great lenses. They aim for the low cost, high quality approach.

 

Great! Are they the main player in the 3rd party vendors? Like I've heard about Vivitar. You just know that you're paying a big chunk just for the name when you buy Nikkor.

 

Right now my daughter needs a mid-range telephoto; maybe up to 200mm.

 

I went to a photography art school and for the 1st 2 months the teacher made us go to Chinatown (SF) and buy a $5 plastic camera that came with a free roll of film so that we would just forget about equipment and focus on seeing.

Edited October 29, 2014 by heni30

[TomD_Arch]

Another thing to consider if you have not already is a UV protector lens for your lens. They are maybe like $5-8 ea. buy for each lens you own. save yourself some heartbreak. I got them along with two sets of filters and I think for the small amount of money they were some of the best investments for my cam next to the tripod. And in case you have not heard it enough yet...ALWAYS SHOT IN RAW!

[RyderSK]

You just know that you're paying a big chunk just for the name when you buy Nikkor.

 

...no, that's not how it works, let's not fall into generalizations ;- ) Sigma scales into same quad digits as quality or uniqueness (like extreme telephoto lens) go up.

Choose by type you need, not brand.