PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

My guess is on the high end properties a DSLR was used with varied interchangeable lenses. When I did Real Estate photography a tripod was a must to make sure I was level and not tilting the image and getting distortion. I would start first with what you got on a tripod and see if you see a difference. Concentrate on straigness and proper height of the camera so you do not get distortion.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

If the photographers are shooting very high end houses like those shot in Architecture Today they are probably using 2 and a quarter film cameras.

The lens for what you are doing will have little or no effect on the quality of the print. I say this because the shot is being transferred to paper and the printing of the image is determined by the skill of the printer and the kind of paper s/he is using. Thus, I would say it is skill.

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

If all you do is real estate photos, I don't think you need interchangeable lenses. I've been doing RE photos for years. My current Canon EF-S 10-18mm F4.5 (35MM equivalent: 16-28.8mm) is the ONLY lens I use for RE. I have other lenses for other purposes - landscape, street, urban, etc.

Up 'til last year, I did all my RE shots hand-held with ambient lighting. From this forum and http://www.photographyforrealestate.net, and several YouTube tutorials, I learned how to use multiple off-camera flashes, HDR fusion, using a tripod -- all significantly improved the quality of my shots, AND reduced the post processing (PP) needed.

PP is key. I use Photomatix, Lightzone, PSP, Topaz plug-ins.

Here's a tutorial that almost exactly mirrors my workflow - http://youtu.be/zPiFbJxKAPI -- (I use PaintShop Pro VS Photoshop shown in this video).

To summarize, your lens is probably fine for RE photos. Lighting, tripod with lower ISO, and HDR blending will result in better final image quality.

Do check our our architectural photography section on this forum.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

Besides the camera, another very important piece of equipment to have is multiple slave strobes to really make interior shots snap.

Billynikon Loc: Atlanta

I, too, shoot real estate and I have always used a Nikon SLR. Began with a D200 with an 18-105 and now use a D810 with a 14-24 2.8 and a 28-70. Have a SB 600. And I have several companies that value my final pictures for the qualtity

dixiebeachboy

In recent years I have done real estate homes as an aside line when I first started shooting real estate I started with my Sony 858 with a 1670 2.8 lens and I was not pleased with what I was seeing picture quality was good composition was good just not wide enough I purchased a 12x24 wide angle lens and that's all my problem I was able to see in the finished work what my eyes seeing in the room! That lens made the difference of what I was seeing and what the realtor wanted to see to go into the multi listing. The big advantage with the Sony is the fact that you can focus the entire picture from close up to the distance all in the same shot.

texashill Loc: Texas Hill Country

I see, thanks. Sorry for the confusion. 4/3 is what I entered to find the camera on dpreview. 1.5 is not one of the search options.

Your reply is very helpful and confirms what I have been thinking before posing the question. I spent about $800 for this camera but it seems to have capability, for my use, of a camera costing much more. I already knew that the sensor size was comparable but what I didn't know was how comparable is the lens quality. It seems counter intuitive that my previous supposition would be true. Since these interchangeable lens cost so much, one would suppose that a great benefit would be derived. Also, it makes me wonder why no similar camera with a full frame is not available. It makes me wonder why sales and critical review of Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II is not better.

I market a lot of property that is of mid and low value. It is not feasible to hire a photographer and furthermore MY PHOTOS ARE BETTER :-) My photos are better than the vast majority of realtors who use a cell phone or some other inferior camera. Arguably, my photos are better than the pros who do the multimillion dollar property. The pros put a DSLR on a tripod, often times with a wider than 24 mm lens. They do a great job of exposing shadow. They do a great job of exposing a beautiful lake view through a window while simultaneously properly exposing the interior of the room. But its all from tripod level. The best photo, my opinion, of a nice granite kitchen counter top is from way over my head shooting down while framing with tilting LCD. The best view of a living room is not a 18 mm shot from a tripod that highlights a foreground piece of furniture or foreground flooring. Yes, it makes the room look larger but the distortion is so great that, my opinion, Buyers discount and are not fooled. Many of these presentations use the wide angle on exterior shots; highlighting foreground grass or foreground driveway leaving the house somewhat de emphasized.

About a year and a half ago, I received what I feel like was good advice on the forum from poster, Armadillo, on how to handle the common situation of the beautiful window view in the bright window in the less bright room.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-230015-3.html#3879811

But I still don't think that I have quite the capability shown in the multimillion presentations. Superior composition, yes; but not quite the image quality. Of course a few years ago, I wouldn't even try to match these presentations. When I was using the point and shoot Cannon S70 it wasn't even an issue. I'm just a realtor not a photographer, the MLS degraded the photos anyway, no one expected a DSLR, I was still superior.

But now, MLS systems have improved and if a realtor presents a good photo the online viewer gets to see it. And so I plan my next move. I am happy with my Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II and I am even happier with it after interacting with all of you wonderful folks on this forum. I don't want to give up my tilting/articulating view finder even if it means that I must give up some image quality horsepower. I believe that the Sony A7 is the just about the only option that offers both increased sensor size and proper view finder. But is the upgrade worth it? I thought that perhaps the ability to use interchangeable lenses would be part of the answer. So for, I think not. Perhaps in the next year other cameras will become available. The market seems to have rejected cameras such as Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II. I suppose that robertjerl provided the answer: I only do one type of photography so a 24-120mm works for me but most desire to use other lenses.

Thanks to everyone :-)

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

It sounds like you are mainly using the camera for your real estate business. I would strongly suggest that you find some information on architectural photography before you decide on a camera. You may find that knowledge will help you improve your pictures with your present equipment while helping lead you to the kind of equipment you should upgrade to. Go to youtube.com and search for "real estate photography". There is quite a bit of information there for you.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Best answer I can come up with is "it depends". How you value shot quality, how long it takes you to shoot a property is key and what satisfies you that earns you the sale. Real estate may or may not require fast glass depending on whether or not a tripod is used, Natural light, flash, continuous lighting, tripod or handheld. daytime, twilight, night time, or how much time you have to invest.
As a realtor, I think I would want the best property photos to be associated with my name and reputation regardless of doing them myself or hiring a company.
Being familiar more to Canon and to a lesser extent Sony, the companies that do RE photos for a business seem to like FF cameras attached to WA or UWA zooms for most residential work. Primes and tilt shift lenses are used more for architectural shoots from what I have seen. Canon 5D MkIII with 16-35 f/2.8 lenses seem to be the choice for those using Canon.
P&S and bridge cameras get better every year, but so do DSLR's, and MILC's. Lenses that are interchangeable can be worse, as good as, or much better than the former. So my final answer must remain - "it depends".

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

when I sold my house, I provided the pictures to the realtor.
His pics were bad mine, good. The secret may NOT be the lens but in the post processing.
I can make flowers brighter, and colors crisper. I can edit out the few leaves laying on the ground. I removed a car in front of the house. I shot the deck at dusk, and made the outside lights look like stars . You can straighten outside walls that may look off because of an angles. You can adjust interior wall colors , which may not show correctly without lots of special lighting. I think this is the first step in great RE photos.

I wont go into lenses as a lot of other people have already done so.

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

Holding the camera over your head and pointing down results in wildly converging verticals - a "no-no" in architectural photography. I agree that 18 MM is too wide and can result in distortion, UNLESS you crop for the center of the shot. Also agree on exterior shots. Most need cropping to exclude superfluous foreground (street, curbs, drives, too much grass, etc.).

Also note that your website link in your profile doesn't work properly. It needs the "http://" part added.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

This video is probably a different animal. For one thing, the scenes are changing too fast to actually show what's there. For a second, the video is overshadowed by the narration. For a third, this house is a mansion.
Bob

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

Thanks for fixing your website link...

Looking at the photos of the one listing on your site, I'm afraid that I cannot agree that your photos are better than the "pros".

IMHO, your selection of what features to photograph -- (holes in walls, hot water tanks), your perspective -- looking down from on high with distorted perspective (some look as though the camera is almost touching the ceiling), your bath photos looking down at the toilet -- all do not do justice to the property. Upgrading your equipment (other than a tripod and a couple off-camera flashes) will not help.

My number one suggestion: Even if you don't use a tripod, hold your camera at just above waist level -- midway between floor and ceiling and hold it level for correct vertical perspective (parallel verticals). You can fix slight convergence in PP.

If I have not completely offended you, I would be happy to provide even more suggestions.

I would also be happy to provide help with your website design.

:-)

lorenww Loc: St. Petersburg

what mallen1330 mentioned about hdr is good advice.
DON'T over do it.
You are dealing with lots of bright and dark areas.
Take a beachfront property and you want to show off the living area and the beach view.
With out hdr, you can get the living area but the view will be blown out.
To get the view exposed correctly, the living area will be under exposed.

Take 3 bracketed shots and merge them with a hdr program, I use photomatix.

Now everything will be balanced out.
People will be wondering how YOU got that shot.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It sold... And the video went for over $4000.