EOS BODY FOR ARCHITECTURE

[KyleSTL]

If you need good IQ, you cannot beat D800. But for that, you have to get Nikon, as Canon is stuck with its 10 year old sensor tech. Since Canon sales are good, they have no incentive to use better sensors. Unless you are stuck to Canon due to financial/equipment commitments, Nikon is the better bet at this time.

Troll. Do you really feel like 36MP is necessary?  Unless your're printing in feet instead of inches, it is completely unnecessary. Also, if you're referring to Nikon's perceived high ISO image quality it is a moot point to an architecture photographer who shoots at native ISO (100) about 95% of the time.

How about Nikon's mediocre (compared to Canon) and outdated PC-E lenses?  What?  Nikon doesn't even manufacture a 17mm lens with shift?  That's a shame.

I'm not tryin to be a fanboy, but Canon is clearly the better choice for architectural purposes.

[bdunbar79]

Also, images from a high MP camera is going to take a lot of harddisk place. Unless you are intending to make large prints or some drastic cropping, running out of space on the hard drive will be the only difference you will probably feel between 5Dmk2 and a high MP cam... IMHO anyway...

Cheers!

mRAW, sRAW.  Problem solved.  You can always downscale resolution, but it's impossible to add resolution beyond the camera's capabilities.

I agree TS-E lenses are a necessity (especially 17mm and 24mm I or II).  Full frame is a definite.  I'd say a 5D or 5D Mark II will save you a ton of money so you'll be able to buy both FLs.  Good tripod and head is also necessary. 

Additionally, you could add a used T2i, T3i, T4i or 60D in order to acheive 28mm and 38mm TS lenses with the crop factor (at 18mp; cropping the a FF picture from 5D would be 5MP, 5D II would be 8.2MP).

Except high MP cams don't shoot mRAW or sRAW.  At least none that I know of.  I'm not counting the 5D3, 5D2, or 1Ds3.  The D800 definitely doesn't.

[kia]

 your kindness made me so happy , thanks alot for your advices . and my last question ( i promise ) if i want to take videos ( usually short one ) of architecture for somewhere that still images do not cover the scence , or do not transfer the feel of space .... what do you think i need ? ( i mean extra)

[kia]

 i forgot to ask . is ts-e 24 or 17 is ok for taking these videos ( they are of sill subjects , i mean buildings)

[scrappydog]

i forgot to ask . is ts-e 24 or 17 is ok for taking these videos ( they are of sill subjects , i mean buildings)

I don't see why you could not use a TS-E 17 or 24.

[Rat]

Video is a wholly different animal... I'd say that for all video for which you have to refocus, a dedicated videocamera with continuous autofocus (or perhaps the 650D could do that, not sure) is a better choice. Manually refocusing while moving the camera about is far from trivial, is what I know from my own meager experiments. Also, I don't think the perspective correction of TS-E lenses will hold up if you move the camera about, so you'd be using them as regular primes. Lastly, if I were you, for architecture video I'd research the use of a trolley or a moving tripod or something like that.

[KyleSTL]

Also, images from a high MP camera is going to take a lot of harddisk place. Unless you are intending to make large prints or some drastic cropping, running out of space on the hard drive will be the only difference you will probably feel between 5Dmk2 and a high MP cam... IMHO anyway...

Cheers!

mRAW, sRAW.  Problem solved.  You can always downscale resolution, but it's impossible to add resolution beyond the camera's capabilities.

I agree TS-E lenses are a necessity (especially 17mm and 24mm I or II).  Full frame is a definite.  I'd say a 5D or 5D Mark II will save you a ton of money so you'll be able to buy both FLs.  Good tripod and head is also necessary. 

Additionally, you could add a used T2i, T3i, T4i or 60D in order to acheive 28mm and 38mm TS lenses with the crop factor (at 18mp; cropping the a FF picture from 5D would be 5MP, 5D II would be 8.2MP).

Except high MP cams don't shoot mRAW or sRAW.  At least none that I know of.  I'm not counting the 5D3, 5D2, or 1Ds3.  The D800 definitely doesn't.

Oh, I get it.  The first time I read it I thought that the poster was saying that 5D II or 5D III were high megapixel and were unnecessary.  I see what was meant now.

your kindness made me so happy , thanks alot for your advices . and my last question ( i promise ) if i want to take videos ( usually short one ) of architecture for somewhere that still images do not cover the scence , or do not transfer the feel of space .... what do you think i need ? ( i mean extra)

If I read what you're asking, is that you probably want to do some slow, smooth panning shots to better 'feel' the space.  I have no direct experience with that, but I would think the 17 and 24 TS-E's would be good for it and require a good, smooth pan head (or geared head) on your tripod and with accurate measuring of the level of the mounting plate.  Now if you're talking about follow shots or dolly shots much more equipment will be needed (rails, etc).

[bdunbar79]

If you need good IQ, you cannot beat D800. But for that, you have to get Nikon, as Canon is stuck with its 10 year old sensor tech. Since Canon sales are good, they have no incentive to use better sensors. Unless you are stuck to Canon due to financial/equipment commitments, Nikon is the better bet at this time.

Troll. Do you really feel like 36MP is necessary?  Unless your're printing in feet instead of inches, it is completely unnecessary. Also, if you're referring to Nikon's perceived high ISO image quality it is a moot point to an architecture photographer who shoots at native ISO (100) about 95% of the time.

How about Nikon's mediocre (compared to Canon) and outdated PC-E lenses?  What?  Nikon doesn't even manufacture a 17mm lens with shift?  That's a shame.

I'm not tryin to be a fanboy, but Canon is clearly the better choice for architectural purposes.

+1

[jrista]

To the OP, just a word of warning on the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Mark I. The original version of that lens had some considerable uncorrected optical aberrations (namely CA) that affected that lens throughout all apertures (comparison can be seen at TDP: http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx). The TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L Mark II corrected that deficiency (and additionally provides superb flare control, extremely high resolution at wide apertures (possibly higher than the much-vaunted EF 24mm L II), in addition to all the tilt/shift controls), and is HIGHLY recommended over the Mark I. I would really go so far as to say avoid the TS-E 24 I at all costs, and put your money into the TS-E 24 II...its one of Canon's best lenses. To that end, a 5D II will save you a lot of dough to do just that.

[poias]

If you need good IQ, you cannot beat D800. But for that, you have to get Nikon, as Canon is stuck with its 10 year old sensor tech. Since Canon sales are good, they have no incentive to use better sensors. Unless you are stuck to Canon due to financial/equipment commitments, Nikon is the better bet at this time.

Troll. Do you really feel like 36MP is necessary?  Unless your're printing in feet instead of inches, it is completely unnecessary. Also, if you're referring to Nikon's perceived high ISO image quality it is a moot point to an architecture photographer who shoots at native ISO (100) about 95% of the time.

How about Nikon's mediocre (compared to Canon) and outdated PC-E lenses?  What?  Nikon doesn't even manufacture a 17mm lens with shift?  That's a shame.

I'm not tryin to be a fanboy, but Canon is clearly the better choice for architectural purposes.

Canon's latest sensors are simply outdated in terms of detail resolution. You cannot bring superior images out of mushy low ISO capabilities. And 36mp for landscape/architecture is NOT overkill. LF, which is the ultimate choice of pro landscape/architecture photogs, goes to hundreds of equivalent MPx. And MF backs can yield 60+ MPx.

Basically, 36mpx is not enough when detail is needed. Canon is simply either incapable of bringing something to the market at competitive pricepoints, or they are milking their fanboys for their worth. Either way, it does not look good to impartial customers.