dubi said:

---

Link

You get more real estate on your image.

---

My wife hates it when I say this.

I say it a lot with ultrawide monitors. LOOK AT ALL THE REAL ESTATE TO DO REAL ESTATE!

Wife: Stop.

EDIT: I am well aware that it is the correct term to use as I use various monitors for various tasks throughout the years. It's what its always been called. She did not.

Quote:

---

D600 - 800
14mm Rokinon 400
17-35 Tokina 400
24-70 Tamron 900

---

What if I want a lens that is wide angle zoom? Like...10-22mm or something in that range for a FF camera? That way I could have a little more control over an image and camera placement right? I mean, sometimes, I can only go into a corner of a tiny bathroom so far.

widest zoom for FF I can think of are Canon 11-24 F4, $2,800, Sigma 12-24mm F4, $1700, Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 $1100.

14mm on FF is very wide with a signicant amount of distortion...

again 10-22mm on 80D is 16mm equivalent.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

dubi said:

---

Link

You get more real estate on your image.

---

My wife hates it when I say this.

I say it a lot with ultrawide monitors. LOOK AT ALL THE REAL ESTATE TO DO REAL ESTATE!

Wife: Stop.

---

It was not intentional; I work in IT and that is the term

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Thanks GS! This gives me something to ponder. I'm surprised at the nikon suggestion. Not that I should be, but people swore up and down canon was better for low light and dynamic range. I of course have no clue.

Also...what is the benefit of the ff d600 or 800 over the crop sensor 80D? Wider angle? More capability?

---

Nikon has been significantly better on low light and dynamic range for the last decade plus.

Here's a real world test/ application

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

widest zoom for FF I can think of are Canon 11-24 F4, $2,800, Sigma 12-24mm F4, $1700, Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 $1100.

14mm on FF is very wide with a signicant amount of distortion...

again 10-22mm on 80D is 16mm equivalent.

---

Borrow our Canon 10-22 lens and see if you are happy.

Start with the simple solution.

Do I understand this correctly:

If I took two photos of the same composition....

17-35 Tokina on a FF camera would have the same angle of view (or close) as the 10-22mm lens on the 80D???

Those two photos would look the same as far as how much of a room was captured on the resulting image?

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Do I understand this correctly:

If I took two photos of the same composition....

17-35 Tokina on a FF camera would have the same angle of view (or close) as the 10-22mm lens on the 80D???

Those two photos would look the same as far as how much of a room was captured on the resulting image?

---

Correct

OK. Got it.

Now, what about max aperture? Do I need to worry about that? I mean, I was under this impression that I needed a f/2.8 lens. But....If I needed the 2.8 aperture to properly expose the image and let in 'as much light as possible', it would have a pretty crazy narrow depth of field, which sucks for that purpose. But, for shooting people in low light, that would be pretty great. But that kind of lens with that max aperture is crazy expensive too...right? So, there is no way to accomplish both tasks with one lens and not spend a ton on it, so far as I can see.

For real estate, you probably want to stop it down (f8 or bigger number) so that more of the room is in focus. That's why you use a tripod. Have the room level and use a really slow shutter speed (like two seconds)


For a Canon crop camera, multiply the focal length by 1.6 to get the view. For Nikon it is 1.5.

So a 10-22 lense will act like a 16-35mm lens on Canon. So that manual focus 14mm on full frame is wider than you get on the crop bodies.

Also remember this:

14mm to 17mm is just 3mm difference, but 197 to 200mm is virtually the same, while 14mm is almost 20% wider than 17mm.

Ok, but apertures also change too on FF right? So. On a FF shooting at f8, I would get more light to the sensor than I would shooting at f8 on a crop sensor right? So a proper exposure on that same ff would require a slightly faster shutter speed than on the crop, right? And....so an f4 max lens on a FF is not a big deal because it's going to operate like a 2.8 on a crop should I actually ever need to go to that aperture right?

I don't really like this guy, but this is a pretty good video on the subject.

once in a while he wears that ugly ass tu cap.

waiting for his review on Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8. Reviews coming out it doesn't work as well on Sony, yet. Hopefully Sigma will update the firmware.

I see him as not much more than a corporate shill at this point

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Ok, but apertures also change too on FF right? So. On a FF shooting at f8, I would get more light to the sensor than I would shooting at f8 on a crop sensor right? So a proper exposure on that same ff would require a slightly faster shutter speed than on the crop, right? And....so an f4 max lens on a FF is not a big deal because it's going to operate like a 2.8 on a crop should I actually ever need to go to that aperture right?

---

Heres a cool Depth of Field simulator. f2.8 on Canon crop is equivalent to about f4.5 on FF.

http://dofsimulator.net/en/

Thanks for the video. Im really enjoying the suggestions and expertise you guys have to offer.

If I go with the setup described here by GS and others then I can use my SB 600 speedlight that I already own. Not sure if it's suitable but if so, it's one less thing to buy. Really just need a decent diffuser and good tripod. Any suggestions on cost effective but good products for those two items?

Speed light diffusers tend to not really do much or have much impact. It can if you get into the soft boxes made for speed lights and get that pretty close to the subject but just a piece of Tupperware on top of it won't do a whole lot for your image. I do best learning how to bounce off walls and ceilings. Look up Neilvn.com and strobist.com.

Tripods are a pay for what you get thing. Quality isn't cheap and neither is lightness. Remember your ball head is really important, too. Over probably wasted a grand buying stupid tripods trying to save money. Wish I shelled out for gitzo to begin with

Also if you go Nikon your old lenses will still work on your new camera but your camera will go in crop mode if they are crop lenses. So a full frame camera would act like a crop camera with a crop lens in Nikon. Crop Canon lenses won't work on full-frame Canon bodies because there isn't enough mirror clearance for the full frame mirror. A couple of them will work if you do some shaving but in my mind it's not worth it

I don't care about weight for a tripod. Not hauling it a lot. Ease of use is important.

For used equipment....I'm just afraid of buying something that looks used in order to save money. Or not knowing how it was treated while in the hands of someone else. Is there a "level" I should focus on at keh to ensure I'm getting a solid camera without being beat up?

I've had no issues with any of their bargain stuff. I've never had a single issue with any piece of equipment I have bought used from them or Robert's Camera in Indianapolis.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Quote:

---

D600 - 800
14mm Rokinon 400
17-35 Tokina 400
24-70 Tamron 900

---

What if I want a lens that is wide angle zoom? Like...10-22mm or something in that range for a FF camera? That way I could have a little more control over an image and camera placement right? I mean, sometimes, I can only go into a corner of a tiny bathroom so far.

---

The trick to those tiny bathrooms isn't always to simply go wider, but instead to work on an effective composition that doesn't capture the entire room. Remember that the purpose of a bathroom shot is typically to show the style and quality of the fixtures, not necessarily to show the layout and size. You're not going to capture everything, and your images will usually be better when you don't try to. Going too wide will also introduce some distortion issues on any features towards the edges of the image, and you'd be creating a whole new set of problems.

Do you have any examples of your real estate work that you can post? It might be helpful to discuss your process and shooting style before jumping in to buying new gear (although you definitely need a tripod).

My current setup isn't just old, it has been giving me a bit of trouble occasionally by giving me an error. It'll corrupt an image and build a new folder. Not a huge deal if you catch it but I'm worried about its age and possibly crapping out my whole card and losing an entire shoot. The camera is worth 7 bucks on keh.

That's why I only own cameras with two memory card slots. Everytime I take a picture, it is written down twice.

It's a good idea. I'm honestly not sure what the issue is. I've gone through several cards and the one I'm on has been ok. But I havnt used it long. I'm pretty sure it's the camera and not the card but it doesn't matter really at this point. Lol.

Cards last a long time, but like hard drives, they don't last forever. There is a 100% failure rate, eventually. So better to be prepared, especially if you are shooting professionally.

Imagine shooting that multi-million dollar house that had a stylist and rented furniture and then you get home and the card is 100% corrupted. Who gets to pay for the furniture rentals and stylist on round two?

Yes...that would indeed be unfortunate.

I'm looking at the 24-70 lens...I see a Tokina Nikon-F version of that too. Prices are relatively close. Is the Tokina lacking?

I think most people suggest the Tamron over the Tokina. Tamron also has a 28-75mm that is a little older. I have no hands on experience with either, but I did have the Tamron 28-75 for Canon 10-12 years ago. I use the Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR - you can get it in the 500-700 range.

Any recommendations on a lower priced mirrorless?

I have a 5DII with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4. I am looking for something (much) lighter for travel/hiking that won't break the bank but also doesn't disappoint too much. Video is not important to me. Mostly landscape photography, some close-up outdoor shots. Looking to spend $1500 or less for body and a lens (I think one lens should suffice) but could go a little higher for something significantly better.

Random Ag said:

---

Any recommendations on a lower priced mirrorless?

I have a 5DII with 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4. I am looking for something (much) lighter for travel/hiking that won't break the bank but also doesn't disappoint too much. Video is not important to me. Mostly landscape photography, some close-up outdoor shots. Looking to spend $1500 or less for body and a lens (I think one lens should suffice) but could go a little higher for something significantly better.

---

I was in the same boat, wanting to test out mirrorless and try something small for travel.
Over the weekend I picked up a used Olympus E-M5 micro four thirds and a panasonic 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6
Total was ~$600

So far its been pretty good just taking pictures around the house and in the backyard

Not mirrorless, but this is my travel camera. Shoots raw and easy to use. All my friends borrow it for their vacations because it is pocket sized.

Canon S110

Thanks for the comments. I think behind image difference, the biggest difference will be battery life (and it will be significant). Right now I have my eye on a Fujifilm X-T20 with XF18-55 2.8-4 plus add a Rokinon 12mm 2.0. Total cost (minus extra batteries) would be $1600

I've enjoyed using my Lumix FZ1000 bridge camera when I do not want to lug around the DSLR or I'm at a sports event that does not allow "pro" cameras for spectators. It has an equivalent zoom range of 25-400mm.

https://juantrackmind.smugmug.com/Rosemary-Beach/Beach-Photos/
https://juantrackmind.smugmug.com/20162017-TF-Photos/Rice-Fred-Duckett-Twilight-2017/

Edit: ...and it has the ability to catch Guitarsoup (I think) in his natural environment

That is me in the grey hat.

Quote:

---

Any recommendations on a lower priced mirrorless?

---

You can get one of the older Panasonic GH bodies. They have great video but their stills are pro quality, though come up a little short compared to the 5DII. A GH2 will go for less than $300 and if you want to get the GH4, you can for less than a grand. I bought a GH1 about 2 years ago for less than $150. It isn't going to challenge the fast shooting Canon or Nikons on things like sports, but then, neither will your 5DII.

If I had a 5DII and lenses, I wouldn't get anything less than a GH4.