EOS BODY FOR ARCHITECTURE

[Rat]

My understanding is that with a TS-E you can not just correct the shot angle, you can also make sure that e.g a building front you're shooting under an angle with a wide aperture, is completely in focus - because you can simultaneously adjust perspective and focus plane. Is that correct?

Also, I don't quite get why FF is a necessity. Having wide angles is great and I love my 5D3 with anything 17-24'ish on it, but I'd assume a 7D with a TS-E17mm would be about as good for this purpose, especially since you get bigger DOF at similar apertures - which, for architecture, I'd think is good. Only reason I can think of is if you go for prints measured in feet rather than in inches. How am I wrong here?

 

[iaind]

I managed to get a used 24TSE for approx 30% the price of the new 24TSEII. It's a great lens with 5DII.

You can always get the 17TSE later if you prefer.

Good hunting

 

[kia]

hi
thanks very much for your advices .
so i must go FF , with tse -17 and 24 .... . sorry but one more question : do you think having 16-35 mk2 or24-70 is at all nessecery along my 2 tse lenses , or a waste of money ? and one more thing .... my power shot is veryweak on iso performance ( max 400) so most of the time i need a stable surface as a tripod ( because i dont have one ) specially for interiors . so after all this ... do you recommed 5d2( my iso problem) ?
i am looking forward to your precious replies ....

 

[dryanparker]

hi
thanks very much for your advices .
so i must go FF , with tse -17 and 24 .... . sorry but one more question : do you think having 16-35 mk2 or24-70 is at all nessecery along my 2 tse lenses , or a waste of money ? and one more thing .... my power shot is veryweak on iso performance ( max 400) so most of the time i need a stable surface as a tripod ( because i dont have one ) specially for interiors . so after all this ... do you recommed 5d2( my iso problem) ?
i am looking forward to your precious replies ....

Hey Kia, I've sent you a Direct Message. I can help you with most of this if you're interested...

 

[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.

 

[kennephoto]

I've used the following setup with truly outstanding results: 5D2 + TS-E 24/3.5L II + Manfrotto 410 Geared head + LEE Filters + Cable Release

The Geared Head was the big surprise for me. It's a phenomenal piece of equipment for fine-tuning the shifts when shooting architecture. Without a tripod collar for the TS-E, you're mounted to the tripod via the camera body. When shifting, it's really a delicate balance between the attitude of the camera sensor and the amount of shifting to maintain your horizon. Having the Geared Head with knobs for each of the 3 axes is critical.

(As luck would have it, this entire setup is listed for sale, as I'm switching focus. DM me if interested!)

Does the geared head help align panoramas?

Hey what's the green cube on the top of the camera? And what do you use for the what I assume is a neutral density filter, I've been dyin tryin to figure out the best approach for ND filters! Btw cool photo!

 

[art_d]

hi
thanks very much for your advices .
so i must go FF , with tse -17 and 24 .... . sorry but one more question : do you think having 16-35 mk2 or24-70 is at all nessecery along my 2 tse lenses , or a waste of money ? and one more thing .... my power shot is veryweak on iso performance ( max 400) so most of the time i need a stable surface as a tripod ( because i dont have one ) specially for interiors . so after all this ... do you recommed 5d2( my iso problem) ?
i am looking forward to your precious replies ....

I would say FF is a must, TSE 24 is a must, and TSE17 is not that important but nice if you can afford it.

I do not think having a zoom lens is necessary for architecture. I would recommend a 45TSE instead if you need something to get tighter for details.

You absolutely should have a tripod. So ISO performance is irrelevant, since you should almost never have a need to go to higher ISO. (Unless you need to be capturing people moving in the spaces with fast shutter speeds, in which case things get more complicated.)

 

[art_d]

My understanding is that with a TS-E you can not just correct the shot angle, you can also make sure that e.g a building front you're shooting under an angle with a wide aperture, is completely in focus - because you can simultaneously adjust perspective and focus plane. Is that correct?

In theory yes you can adjust the focus plane with tilt. However in architecture shooting it should rarely be necessary because, if shooting on a tripod, you don't really need to shoot at wide aperture. Tilt may be more useful if you have something in the very close foreground you need to be in sharp focus as well as the background. But in reality, stopping down to f/11-f/13 with one of the wide angle TSEs will usually give you very good results with sufficient depth of field.

Also, I don't quite get why FF is a necessity. Having wide angles is great and I love my 5D3 with anything 17-24'ish on it, but I'd assume a 7D with a TS-E17mm would be about as good for this purpose, especially since you get bigger DOF at similar apertures - which, for architecture, I'd think is good. Only reason I can think of is if you go for prints measured in feet rather than in inches. How am I wrong here?

Theoretically yes, you can shoot the 17 on a crop sensor and get close to a FF with the 24, but, with a 1.6 crop factor the 17 is more like a 27mm. Also, the the 24mm is bit better of a performer. And if getting the ultimate in performance isn't an issue, why bother with the TSEs at all?

 

[dryanparker]

Hey what's the green cube on the top of the camera? And what do you use for the what I assume is a neutral density filter, I've been dyin tryin to figure out the best approach for ND filters! Btw cool photo!

Just a $10 three-axis hot shoe level...also worth its weight in gold for architecture shooting. (Yes, many tripods/heads have spirit levels, but not often in a vertical orientation.)

I use LEE Filters...the 4x6 ones. For the shot I attached, I used a LEE Big Stopper (10-stop ND). Thanks for the shout out!

 

[dendowling]

so i must go FF , with tse -17 and 24 .... . sorry but one more question : do you think having 16-35 mk2 or24-70 is at all nessecery along my 2 tse lenses , or a waste of money ? and one more thing .... my power shot is veryweak on iso performance ( max 400) so most of the time i need a stable surface as a tripod ( because i dont have one ) specially for interiors . so after all this ... do you recommed 5d2( my iso problem) ?

For architecture it's not necessary to have a 16-35 zoom if you have 17 & 24 TSEs. But, you may want to have the short zoom for other reasons - maybe for sports, kids, hiking. So, if you don't want to spend so much money on lenses you might choose to get a 16-35 or a 17-40 instead of a 17TSE if you have other uses for the zoom. Then occasionally when the 24TSE isn't wide enough you can use the wide end zoom for architecture and just be careful to not tilt the camera too much or do minimal perspective correction in post process.

The EOS 5Ds are good for architecture. The other (more expensive) EOS full frame bodies are geared more for high volume, speed/action shooting - so if you don't need the speed for other reasons there's no need to spend the extra money on other EOS full frames. For architecture, I don't think the 5Dmk3 is necessary, 5Dmk2 is fine.

But, here are some benefits of 5Dmk3 over mk2:
mk3 has up to 7 frame Auto Bracketing, mk2 has only 3
mk3 does +-5 EV Auto Bracketing, mk2 only +-2
mk3 can use CF or SD/SDHC/SDXC cards, mk2 only uses CF cards
mk3 has 61 AF point sensors, mk2 has 9 points
mk3 shoots continuous 6 fps, mk2 shoots 3.9 fps

The extra auto bracketing on mk3 is cool if you do a ton of HDR. But, it's not too hard to just bracket manually - shoot, dial 3 clicks, shoot, dial 3 clicks, shoot, dial 3 clicks, etc. The extra AF points and fast fps are not necessary for architecture.

If you're going to shoot architecture with a shift lens you have to use a tripod. The shift setting is not going to be accurate while hand-holding. And, often in architecture you want a lot of depth of field so, you use a tight aperture and slow shutter. Also, nice to shoot long shutters to keep the building sharp while letting trees, water, people blur out.

Yeah, the newer DSLRs will have way better ISO, less noise than the small point&shoot cameras. But again, you'll probably want to shoot architecture in mid 100-400 ISO and need a tripod anyway.

 

[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)

 

[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.