texashill wrote:
I really appreciate this forum; teaches me about things that I didn't know I didn't know. I have come to understand that sensor size correlates to image quality; full frame is superior to smaller sizes. But I don't know much about lenses. As a realtor, I have always used high end point and shoots and my current model has a four thirds size sensor . For compositions purposes, I value the tilting/articulating view finder. I am surely not a professional photographer but I am a professional home shower and I believe that my knowledge of Buyers has led me to appreciate proper view finders that enable me to shoot down on kitchen counters and shoot under tree limbs in a way not possible with a tripod. But I am starting to realize that interchangeable lens cameras also have tilting/articulating views and image stabilization. So my question is: What is gained from using interchangeable lens in terms of image quality? I can see the improvement in my last upgrade; from 1/1.7 to four thirds sensor size. The images are better and I have much better fill light capability in post processing.
In the last year or two, I have noticed some high quality images in the MLS listings. These are high value properties and I believe that they are professionally done. The compositions and the angle selections are poor, in my opinion, but the image quality is better than my camera can produce. I wonder: How much of the difference is because the professional uses a better quality lens, or because they use a larger sensor, or perhaps skill?
I really appreciate this forum; teaches me about t... (
show quote)
An interchangeble lens camera can offer a lot more flexibility matching the lens to the job. For example, shooting architecture often can be better done with a tilt/shift or PC (perspective correction) lens that insures vertical lines stay vertical and prevents "keystoning" effect. There are no point-n-shoots what-so-ever with tilt/shift/PC capabilities. Canon offers four different Tilt/Shift lenses (17mm, 24mm, 45mm and 90mm). Nikon offers several, too. Schneider makes several to fit Canon, Nikon and maybe some other brands. Medium and large format have similar options, and possibly even more correction capabilities (but are far, far more expensive).
Most P&S cameras have pretty limited wide angle capabilities, too. Almost none go much wider than equivalent of 24mm on a full frame camera, many not even that wide. This can be a problem trying to shoot in small spaces such as bathrooms. In contrast, a full frame DSLRs can be fitted with 16mm wide, 14mm, or even 12 or 11mm wide lenses (there are lenses that give comparably wide angle of view on APS-C DSLRs, too). With wide angles, a one or two millimeter difference can be pretty apparent, four or five millimeters may be quite dramatic (if we were comparing telephotos instead, these small changes are much less significant).
There's also lens correction... Which is typically much better done with high-end lenses for APS-C and full frame, than it is with the multi-purpose zooms on P&S cameras. For example, wide angle lenses that aren't well corrected can have some "fisheye" effect, bending lines that should be straight. Zoom lenses might have "barrel" distortion at one extreme and "pincushion" at the other. Some less-well corrected lenses have more complex "mustache" distortion in the middle of the image. Vignetting can occur (darkening the corners of the image), not to mention chromatic aberrations and various types of flare. The more "miniature" the camera and lens, the harder a lot of these are to correct particularly well.
General image quality is the other big factor.... A four/thirds sensor is actually a lot bigger than most point-n-shoot camera sensors... but at about 13x17mm it's a lot smaller than APS-C (15x22mm or 16x23mm depending upon brand) or so-called full frame (24x36mm). The smaller the sensor, the more crowded the pixel sites and the smaller each of those sites must be. More sensor "real estate" and less crowding makes for cooler sensor operation and less cross-talk errors between the individual photo sites, both of which make for less image noise and more usable high ISOs. Larger pixel sites are better at gathering light, so capture more fine detail.
Many interchangeable lens cameras have articulated screens too, that can be used in much the same way as your point-n-shoot's. But most also have an optical viewfinder, which can be advantageous for some things. Out in bright sunlight, for example, a screen such as your camera uses can be very difficult to see and an optical viewfinder is much better. A few DSLRs now have an electronic viewfinder, where rather than directly viewing things optically, you're essentially seeing a playback of the camera's viewpoint on a small screen inside the pentaprism. This can offer a brighter view in very low light conditions.
Besides the lenses themselves, there often also may be many other useful accessories available for DSLRs, that might be helpful and just aren't offered for point-n-shoots.
But, hey, for your purposes (MLS images are pretty small), a point-n-shoot might make more sense and be all you ever need. Using a higher end P&S model with a larger four-thirds sensor you're already well ahead of what's found in many of those types of cameras.
But if you are doing virtual tours on websites and printing brochures for high end properties or running ads for them in magazines, better quality images that are possible with APS-C DSLRs, full frame or even larger might be needed. However, if you only need these occasionally, it probably doesn't make sense to invest a lot in gear for the purposes, you might just hire a pro to shoot it for you.
ole sarg wrote:
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....
Actually, that's not true any more. A friend of mine is one of the foremost architectural photographers in the U.S. He's hired to photograph extremely high end homes and commercial properties all over the country.
In the past he worked pretty exclusively with large format sheet film cameras, which offer a whole lot more in the way of perspective controls than either medium format or 35mm roll film cameras do.
But he's been shooting digital pretty exclusively now for around 7 or 8 years. He was reluctant to do so at first, but after learning some post-processing techniques that made his life a
whole lot easier, pretty much retired the film cameras. Interior lighting is so much easier now thanks to custom white balances... Interior shots that need to incorporate windows and scenery outside are easily handled with a couple digital captures that are later combined... It's no longer necessary to wait out boring plain or ugly skies, since it's easy to Photoshop in something more attractive, from one's own archive of "stock" skies... And more!
His biggest problem is that, like so many other specializations, architectural photography has been beaten to death by rank amateurs who offer their services at starvation prices. It's hard to be a $1500 to $10,000 a job pro when some pimply faced kid with a Rebel, kit lens, no education and little experience can be hired to take almost as good shots for $125!