The best camera for architectural renderings

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

photonius wrote:

So, how can you deal with this on the Canon: Turn on HTP, works even in RAW. Expands your highlight range.

No, it reduces the exposure to (hopefully) keep from overexposing highlights, but it doesn't otherwise affect the raw image. I did some careful checking on this when I got my camera. It works by changing the curve for the jpeg images. It can be quite useful, however. I use it a lot.

Yes, I've been reading about ir, and it seems it cannot perform under ISO 200, since it shoots at a lower ISO, and then the shadows are lifted.

Nevertheless, I still don't know what to do...

lightwriter wrote:

I bought the Canon 700D with the 18-55 IS STM kit lens, and the 10-18 IS STM lens. The price was 630 for the kit (includes 20% discount and a 3 year insurance), and the 10-18 lens cost 230 euros, also with 20% discount.

Great kit.  Everything you need in camera and lenses for what you want.

I shot some photos with the kit lens and, when trying to lift the shadow, I noticed noise, maybe more than desired. I then shot with exposure bracketing and merged the photos in photomatix. The results were good, but the moving objects (cars, people) were blurred, of course.

Sometimes the remove ghosts works with those.  In the screen where you tell the computer to merge the files into an HDR image, there is a box you can check to "remove ghosts".  Check that box and the option to designate ghosted areas.  Circle the areas that have moving objects.  control click or right click the area and select the option to designate it as a ghost area.  Sometimes it works amazingly well and sometimes it doesn't, and I can't figure out why or why not.  Sometimes it even works on leaves.

I can return the camera to the shop where I bought it, and trade for a Nikon D5300 with 18-55G VRII for 759,99 euros, not being able to use the 20% discount and not including the 3 year insurance. The only UWA lens affordable would be an used Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HS, for 280 euros, a Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG for 350 euros, or a Tokina 11-16mm, for 390 euros.

It's a matter of personal preference.   The noise problem is easily solved with software and multiple brackets.  Architectural scenes will be beyond the dynamic range of any camera, so a better DR is going to reduce not solve your problem.

Nikon definitely has an edge in DR.  A lot of people like the colors produced by the Canon better.  A lot of people prefer the Canon selection of lenses.  Canon has some that Nikon doesn't and Nikon has some that Canon doesn't.   Again an issue of personal preference.

Taking in account the fact that my photography will be professional (shooting backplates for 3d rendering and 3d HDRI spherical panoramas for lighting), is the higher price of the Nikon justifiable?

Get a good tripod and shoot at base ISO either way.    You will still need one for the Nikon.  Do that first, and it might be enough.

P.S.: I work with my father, and he would rather have new equipment, but I would like to hear your opinions!

That's my opinion and it's worth what you paid for it.

Thanks for your attention, and sorry for all the trouble.

Ed Rizk wrote:

lightwriter wrote:

I bought the Canon 700D with the 18-55 IS STM kit lens, and the 10-18 IS STM lens. The price was 630 for the kit (includes 20% discount and a 3 year insurance), and the 10-18 lens cost 230 euros, also with 20% discount.

Great kit. Everything you need in camera and lenses for what you want.

I shot some photos with the kit lens and, when trying to lift the shadow, I noticed noise, maybe more than desired. I then shot with exposure bracketing and merged the photos in photomatix. The results were good, but the moving objects (cars, people) were blurred, of course.

Sometimes the remove ghosts works with those. In the screen where you tell the computer to merge the files into an HDR image, there is a box you can check to "remove ghosts". Check that box and the option to designate ghosted areas. Circle the areas that have moving objects. control click or right click the area and select the option to designate it as a ghost area. Sometimes it works amazingly well and sometimes it doesn't, and I can't figure out why or why not. Sometimes it even works on leaves.

I can return the camera to the shop where I bought it, and trade for a Nikon D5300 with 18-55G VRII for 759,99 euros, not being able to use the 20% discount and not including the 3 year insurance. The only UWA lens affordable would be an used Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HS, for 280 euros, a Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG for 350 euros, or a Tokina 11-16mm, for 390 euros.

It's a matter of personal preference. The noise problem is easily solved with software and multiple brackets. Architectural scenes will be beyond the dynamic range of any camera, so a better DR is going to reduce not solve your problem.

Nikon definitely has an edge in DR. A lot of people like the colors produced by the Canon better. A lot of people prefer the Canon selection of lenses. Canon has some that Nikon doesn't and Nikon has some that Canon doesn't. Again an issue of personal preference.

Taking in account the fact that my photography will be professional (shooting backplates for 3d rendering and 3d HDRI spherical panoramas for lighting), is the higher price of the Nikon justifiable?

Get a good tripod and shoot at base ISO either way. You will still need one for the Nikon. Do that first, and it might be enough.

P.S.: I work with my father, and he would rather have new equipment, but I would like to hear your opinions!

That's my opinion and it's worth what you paid for it.

Thanks for your attention, and sorry for all the trouble.

Yes, I tried yesterday the "remove ghosts" option in photomatix, and I was pleasantly surprised, it worked its magic in all the bracketed images that I fed him. I shot on purpose several difficult shots, with moving cars and people passing near the lens, and, without exception, the results were flawless. Maybe I've been lucky, I don't know.

You're right, I start to think that it's indeed a matter of preference. Like you said, for architectural scenes I will have to bracket. I already have a manfrotto tripod, I will need it to shoot the spherical HDRI panoramas.

Thanks for your help!

lightwriter wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

photonius wrote:

So, how can you deal with this on the Canon: Turn on HTP, works even in RAW. Expands your highlight range.

No, it reduces the exposure to (hopefully) keep from overexposing highlights, but it doesn't otherwise affect the raw image. I did some careful checking on this when I got my camera. It works by changing the curve for the jpeg images. It can be quite useful, however. I use it a lot.

Yes, I've been reading about ir, and it seems it cannot perform under ISO 200, since it shoots at a lower ISO, and then the shadows are lifted.

Nevertheless, I still don't know what to do...

well, like the other reply, I meant to say that even with another camera, you may not be able to have the DR that you require for your architectural shots.

So, you have to deal with it. Try to get the best out of the camera, processing in the computer, etc.  My idea was, that perhaps you don't need the sky, if you focus exposure on the buildings which should have less dynamic range.  You can then merge in any sky you want.

Regarding HTP according dpreview (see reviews) does affect raw - that's why lowest ISO is 200, and then you have to process with a different tone curve. It does affect the dynamic range giving a bit more range in the highlights (see dpreview tests) .

lightwriter wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

lightwriter wrote:

I bought the Canon 700D with the 18-55 IS STM kit lens, and the 10-18 IS STM lens. The price was 630 for the kit (includes 20% discount and a 3 year insurance), and the 10-18 lens cost 230 euros, also with 20% discount.

Great kit. Everything you need in camera and lenses for what you want.

I shot some photos with the kit lens and, when trying to lift the shadow, I noticed noise, maybe more than desired. I then shot with exposure bracketing and merged the photos in photomatix. The results were good, but the moving objects (cars, people) were blurred, of course.

Sometimes the remove ghosts works with those. In the screen where you tell the computer to merge the files into an HDR image, there is a box you can check to "remove ghosts". Check that box and the option to designate ghosted areas. Circle the areas that have moving objects. control click or right click the area and select the option to designate it as a ghost area. Sometimes it works amazingly well and sometimes it doesn't, and I can't figure out why or why not. Sometimes it even works on leaves.

I can return the camera to the shop where I bought it, and trade for a Nikon D5300 with 18-55G VRII for 759,99 euros, not being able to use the 20% discount and not including the 3 year insurance. The only UWA lens affordable would be an used Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HS, for 280 euros, a Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG for 350 euros, or a Tokina 11-16mm, for 390 euros.

It's a matter of personal preference. The noise problem is easily solved with software and multiple brackets. Architectural scenes will be beyond the dynamic range of any camera, so a better DR is going to reduce not solve your problem.

Nikon definitely has an edge in DR. A lot of people like the colors produced by the Canon better. A lot of people prefer the Canon selection of lenses. Canon has some that Nikon doesn't and Nikon has some that Canon doesn't. Again an issue of personal preference.

Taking in account the fact that my photography will be professional (shooting backplates for 3d rendering and 3d HDRI spherical panoramas for lighting), is the higher price of the Nikon justifiable?

Get a good tripod and shoot at base ISO either way. You will still need one for the Nikon. Do that first, and it might be enough.

P.S.: I work with my father, and he would rather have new equipment, but I would like to hear your opinions!

That's my opinion and it's worth what you paid for it.

Thanks for your attention, and sorry for all the trouble.

Yes, I tried yesterday the "remove ghosts" option in photomatix, and I was pleasantly surprised, it worked its magic in all the bracketed images that I fed him. I shot on purpose several difficult shots, with moving cars and people passing near the lens, and, without exception, the results were flawless. Maybe I've been lucky, I don't know.

You're right, I start to think that it's indeed a matter of preference. Like you said, for architectural scenes I will have to bracket. I already have a manfrotto tripod, I will need it to shoot the spherical HDRI panoramas.

Thanks for your help!

You are very welcome.  Sorry I haven't been here in there weeks to say that.

photonius wrote:

Regarding HTP according dpreview (see reviews) does affect raw - that's why lowest ISO is 200, and then you have to process with a different tone curve. It does affect the dynamic range giving a bit more range in the highlights (see dpreview tests) .

No, sorry, you misunderstood what they said, and they didn't write it very clearly. It affects the ISO setting and the exposure, but otherwise it doesn't affect the raw file. It doesn't do any processing to the raw file. If you save only to raw, not jpeg, you can get exactly the same effect by doubling the ISO setting and reducing the exposure by one stop.  I've done careful testing on this, and can verify it.  But I'm not going to discuss it further.

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

photonius wrote:

Regarding HTP according dpreview (see reviews) does affect raw - that's why lowest ISO is 200, and then you have to process with a different tone curve. It does affect the dynamic range giving a bit more range in the highlights (see dpreview tests) .

No, sorry, you misunderstood what they said, and they didn't write it very clearly. It affects the ISO setting and the exposure, but otherwise it doesn't affect the raw file. It doesn't do any processing to the raw file. If you save only to raw, not jpeg, you can get exactly the same effect by doubling the ISO setting and reducing the exposure by one stop. I've done careful testing on this, and can verify it. But I'm not going to discuss it further.

yes, I understand that part, that's my understanding as well. But the key is that the 1 stop underexposure is "burnt" into the RAW (unlike cameras settings, which don't report 1 stop underexposure), together with (totally guesswork here) some flag that later instructs that a different tone curve is applied during processing. Of course you can develop RAW as you like.

photonius wrote:

Yes, I understand that part, that's my understanding as well. But the key is that the 1 stop underexposure is "burnt" into the RAW (unlike cameras settings, which don't report 1 stop underexposure), together with (totally guesswork here) some flag that later instructs that a different tone curve is applied during processing. Of course you can develop RAW as you like.

Normally, HTP applies only to the jpeg file.  I don't know, it could be that there is a flag in the raw file that directs Canon DPP to develop the raw file differently by default.  But it should still be basically the same raw file.

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

photonius wrote:

Yes, I understand that part, that's my understanding as well. But the key is that the 1 stop underexposure is "burnt" into the RAW (unlike cameras settings, which don't report 1 stop underexposure), together with (totally guesswork here) some flag that later instructs that a different tone curve is applied during processing. Of course you can develop RAW as you like.

Normally, HTP applies only to the jpeg file. I don't know, it could be that there is a flag in the raw file that directs Canon DPP to develop the raw file differently by default. But it should still be basically the same raw file.

yes, the HTP is of course directly visible in jpg. But the raw file must have different exposure settings than a raw file with HTP off. It can't be just a different tone curve for RAW development. The differently exposed raw file, combined with an HTP raw developer curve give the HTP effect when done from raw.  That's why I think there must be a flag somewhere. Perhaps it's even embedded in the same flag(s) as the "picture style" flag curves

photonius wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

photonius wrote:

Yes, I understand that part, that's my understanding as well. But the key is that the 1 stop underexposure is "burnt" into the RAW (unlike cameras settings, which don't report 1 stop underexposure), together with (totally guesswork here) some flag that later instructs that a different tone curve is applied during processing. Of course you can develop RAW as you like.

Normally, HTP applies only to the jpeg file. I don't know, it could be that there is a flag in the raw file that directs Canon DPP to develop the raw file differently by default. But it should still be basically the same raw file.

yes, the HTP is of course directly visible in jpg. But the raw file must have different exposure settings than a raw file with HTP off.

Yes, if it shows ISO 200 for example, it actually sets the ISO setting internally to 100, and gives you 1 stop less exposure.

The differently exposed raw file, combined with an HTP raw developer curve give the HTP effect when done from raw. That's why I think there must be a flag somewhere. Perhaps it's even embedded in the same flag(s) as the "picture style" flag curves

I don't want to keep repeating this, and it's quite beyond the scope of the original question--unless the OP still has questions.

Except for reducing the exposure, the HTP setting should have NO effect on the raw data. If there is a "raw developer curve", it must consist of a direction for default development of the raw image, since you can develop the raw photo any way you want: with or without HTP.

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

photonius wrote:

ThrillaMozilla wrote:

photonius wrote:

Yes, I understand that part, that's my understanding as well. But the key is that the 1 stop underexposure is "burnt" into the RAW (unlike cameras settings, which don't report 1 stop underexposure), together with (totally guesswork here) some flag that later instructs that a different tone curve is applied during processing. Of course you can develop RAW as you like.

Normally, HTP applies only to the jpeg file. I don't know, it could be that there is a flag in the raw file that directs Canon DPP to develop the raw file differently by default. But it should still be basically the same raw file.

yes, the HTP is of course directly visible in jpg. But the raw file must have different exposure settings than a raw file with HTP off.

Yes, if it shows ISO 200 for example, it actually sets the ISO setting internally to 100, and gives you 1 stop less exposure.

The differently exposed raw file, combined with an HTP raw developer curve give the HTP effect when done from raw. That's why I think there must be a flag somewhere. Perhaps it's even embedded in the same flag(s) as the "picture style" flag curves

I don't want to keep repeating this, and it's quite beyond the scope of the original question--unless the OP still has questions.

I bought the Canon 700D with the kit lens 18-55 IS STM and the 10-18 IS STM, and I'm quite happy. Now I'm searching for a normal fast lens for vacations, and I'm leaning to the 35mm 2.0 (the original one)...

Regarding the DR questions, unfortunately I can't help with that...

Except for reducing the exposure, the HTP setting should have NO effect on the raw data. If there is a "raw developer curve", it must consist of a direction for default development of the raw image, since you can develop the raw photo any way you want: with or without HTP.

lightwriter wrote:

I bought the Canon 700D with the kit lens 18-55 IS STM and the 10-18 IS STM, and I'm quite happy. Now I'm searching for a normal fast lens for vacations, and I'm leaning to the 35mm 2.0 (the original one)...

I have that lens.   It's a great lens for the money.  The new one with IS was not available at the time I bought mine.  I might have sprung for it, but I'm too happy with mine to upgrade.

I love taking party pics with no flash.   People don't start to hate you after a few dozen shots.  That's one reason I would like to go to the 6D.  The biggest reason to go to the 6D is to use the 17mmTSE and the 11-24.  Too much $ for me right now.