UWA for 3d renderings in architecture

[lightwriter]

Hi there!

I posted the same dilemma in the Nikon SLR Lens Talk; I'm too much undecided...

I bought the Canon 700D with the kit lens and the 10-18mm (this lens bought online), but I'm not happy when pushing shadows.

I can return the camera and trade it for a nikon D5300 with kit lens, but I also need a UWA - I'm an architect specialized in 3D who will be photographing buildings in narrow streets, some interiors and spherical HDRI panoramas.

I can buy the Sigma 12-24mm F/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM for 350 euros used (maybe less). I know it's an old lens, made in 2003, but its distortion is quite low. Does it stand up with high resolution sensors?

I can also buy the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X for 390 euros, used, but I heard the flare is quite bad...

Another lens is the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM, for 280 euros, used, but the review here in dpreview says the distortion is complex.

My last shot is the Tokina lens 11-20mm f2.8, used, for 450 euros. The catch is that it was bought in the United States last October, and I don't know if the warranty has validity here in Portugal.

I'm sorry for the long post... With the Canon I can always stack photos to increase dynamic range, I know it is not ideal. However, the 10-18mm lens seems to be a good bargain.

I'm in a hurry to decide...what's your opinion?

 

[AdriaanMeijer]

Hi there!

(...)

I bought the Canon 700D with the kit lens and the 10-18mm (this lens bought online), but I'm not happy when pushing shadows.

(...)

What is going on in these shadows? Can you post an example or a few?

 

[lightwriter]

Hi there!

(...)

I bought the Canon 700D with the kit lens and the 10-18mm (this lens bought online), but I'm not happy when pushing shadows.

(...)

What is going on in these shadows? Can you post an example or a few?

--
All in my humble opinion of course!
If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English

Yes, of course. Here is an example (maybe a little extreme):





I exposed to the middle tones, and while it is possible to recover part of the sky, if I lift the shadows the noise appears. Granted, it is not as bad as it could be.

In this one the noise shows up inside the building, if I lift the shadows:





I can always merge 3 photos to increase the dynamic range (I will use this camera for work, merging 3d buildings in photographs). There is the ever present problem of movement in the merged image, but that can be solved with photoshop...I know it is not ideal.

 

[lightwriter]

Hi there!

(...)

I bought the Canon 700D with the kit lens and the 10-18mm (this lens bought online), but I'm not happy when pushing shadows.

(...)

What is going on in these shadows? Can you post an example or a few?

--
All in my humble opinion of course!
If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English

Yes, of course. Here is one exemple (maybe a little extreme):

 

[AdriaanMeijer]

Hi there!

(...)

I bought the Canon 700D with the kit lens and the 10-18mm (this lens bought online), but I'm not happy when pushing shadows.

(...)

What is going on in these shadows? Can you post an example or a few?

--
All in my humble opinion of course!
If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English

Yes, of course. Here is an example (maybe a little extreme):



I exposed to the middle tones, and while it is possible to recover part of the sky, if I lift the shadows the noise appears. Granted, it is not as bad as it could be.

In this one the noise shows up inside the building, if I lift the shadows:



I can always merge 3 photos to increase the dynamic range (I will use this camera for work, merging 3d buildings in photographs). There is the ever present problem of movement in the merged image, but that can be solved with photoshop...I know it is not ideal.

This is what I was thinking. The problem -noise in the shadows- is (as far as I know of course) not a problem that has to do with the lens.

There are several problems that can be a lens problem, like vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortion. For architecture the latter can be a real ... ehr ... problem.

But noise is another type of problem. This originates in the sensor and camera-software. As you already have discovered it comes if one wants to lift the shadows. Noise comes in practice from underexposure combined with trying to compensate for that.

A number of options, other than buying anther lens, may help to solve this problem:

• expose for the shadows (and leave the skies overexposed if necessary)
• Fight noise. I am not very good at this, but knowing how to handle the noise and detail settings in Lightroom or Photoshops ACR or other software can improve your images at no extra costs.
  A step beyond might be considering special anti noise software. Like Nik dfine (Googles Nik collection is free downloadable at this link and can work as plug in for Photoshop or as separate programs) or Topaz DeNoise.
  They don't work miracles, but they might come close.
• Shoot RAW (if you did not already do that). A RAW image has more DR than a jpg. And if you shoot RAW 'expose to the right' can be a good strategy. This is briefly explained by DutchNewchuch in this thread (the whole thread is about jpg, raw and noise).
• buy a camera with higher DR (Dynamic range) capacities. Newer cameras will do (say 750), a level up will be better (say 80D), full frame will do (say 5D mkIV), perhaps switching to Nikon will help a tad. (this is an expensive route, while I expect the gain not as much as one might hope for - correct me if I'm wrong)
• go for HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography, that is as you point out: shoot 3 photos with different exposure (AEB setting on camera) and combine them at home, for instance with Photoshop. I'd have the AEB-steps to at least 2 stops apart. A tripod helps against the movement you mention.

Good luck.

--
All in my humble opinion of course!
If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Hi there!

(...)

I bought the Canon 700D with the kit lens and the 10-18mm (this lens bought online), but I'm not happy when pushing shadows.

(...)

What is going on in these shadows? Can you post an example or a few?

--
All in my humble opinion of course!
If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English

Yes, of course. Here is an example (maybe a little extreme):



I exposed to the middle tones, and while it is possible to recover part of the sky, if I lift the shadows the noise appears. Granted, it is not as bad as it could be.

[snip]

I can always merge 3 photos to increase the dynamic range (I will use this camera for work, merging 3d buildings in photographs). There is the ever present problem of movement in the merged image, but that can be solved with photoshop...I know it is not ideal.

The first thing to say is that this has absolutely nothing to do with the lens, and actually that's a pretty good image under the circumstances. A change of sensor to one with higher dynamic range would improve things a certain amount, but the fact will remain that you are taking very high dynamic range shots and no camera can do that well in a single exposure.

I get the impression that you are doing this on a limited budget, but if you can switch to an 80D that would help; a switch to full frame would help even more, but then you would need a new lens as well. But even with a full frame sensor (and/or a switch to Nikon/Sony) you still won't achieve what you want, so you might as well use what you have and learn how to get the best from it.

One point which really ought to be made is that one of the best solutions to this problem is to take the shot when the light is better!

--

Steve Balcombe

Explore Steve Balcombe’s 4,307 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[lightwriter]

Hi there!

(...)

I bought the Canon 700D with the kit lens and the 10-18mm (this lens bought online), but I'm not happy when pushing shadows.

(...)

What is going on in these shadows? Can you post an example or a few?

--
All in my humble opinion of course!
If I seem to talk nonsense or you can't understand me, it's probably my English

Yes, of course. Here is an example (maybe a little extreme):



I exposed to the middle tones, and while it is possible to recover part of the sky, if I lift the shadows the noise appears. Granted, it is not as bad as it could be.

[snip]

I can always merge 3 photos to increase the dynamic range (I will use this camera for work, merging 3d buildings in photographs). There is the ever present problem of movement in the merged image, but that can be solved with photoshop...I know it is not ideal.

The first thing to say is that this has absolutely nothing to do with the lens, and actually that's a pretty good image under the circumstances. A change of sensor to one with higher dynamic range would improve things a certain amount, but the fact will remain that you are taking very high dynamic range shots and no camera can do that well in a single exposure.

I get the impression that you are doing this on a limited budget, but if you can switch to an 80D that would help; a switch to full frame would help even more, but then you would need a new lens as well. But even with a full frame sensor (and/or a switch to Nikon/Sony) you still won't achieve what you want, so you might as well use what you have and learn how to get the best from it.

One point which really ought to be made is that one of the best solutions to this problem is to take the shot when the light is better!

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/

Yes, I knew that the problem wasn't the lens, but resided in the sensor instead. As I had never used a Nikon or a Sony, I didn't knew if it was possible to lift shadows and recover highlight information at the same time from a photo like this.

I work with my father, and he says that if I need to buy a more expensive camera and lens, that's not a problem. However, a Nikon D5300 and an equivalente wide angle lens will cost me an additional 500 euros, and I don't think I am prepared to pay the difference.

Furthermore, I talked today to a friend of mine, wedding photographer (he uses nikon and sony), and he says that canon and nikon are like mercedes and bmw, i.e., they're similar. The nikon has indeed the advantage in the shadow department, but he told me it's not worth it to pay more 500 euros; the best route would be to use the camera that I have, and if I'd like I could change the body at a future time (the technology is always evolving) and keep the lenses.

I assume you share the same opinion, yes?

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Furthermore, I talked today to a friend of mine, wedding photographer (he uses nikon and sony), and he says that canon and nikon are like mercedes and bmw, i.e., they're similar. The nikon has indeed the advantage in the shadow department, but he told me it's not worth it to pay more 500 euros; the best route would be to use the camera that I have, and if I'd like I could change the body at a future time (the technology is always evolving) and keep the lenses.

I assume you share the same opinion, yes?

Yes. The 80D would be a worthwhile upgrade, but I don't think it's worth spending any more than that.

 

[lightwriter]

Furthermore, I talked today to a friend of mine, wedding photographer (he uses nikon and sony), and he says that canon and nikon are like mercedes and bmw, i.e., they're similar. The nikon has indeed the advantage in the shadow department, but he told me it's not worth it to pay more 500 euros; the best route would be to use the camera that I have, and if I'd like I could change the body at a future time (the technology is always evolving) and keep the lenses.

I assume you share the same opinion, yes?

Yes. The 80D would be a worthwhile upgrade, but I don't think it's worth spending any more than that.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Furthermore, I talked today to a friend of mine, wedding photographer (he uses nikon and sony), and he says that canon and nikon are like mercedes and bmw, i.e., they're similar. The nikon has indeed the advantage in the shadow department, but he told me it's not worth it to pay more 500 euros; the best route would be to use the camera that I have, and if I'd like I could change the body at a future time (the technology is always evolving) and keep the lenses.

I assume you share the same opinion, yes?

Yes. The 80D would be a worthwhile upgrade, but I don't think it's worth spending any more than that.

 

[lightwriter]

Furthermore, I talked today to a friend of mine, wedding photographer (he uses nikon and sony), and he says that canon and nikon are like mercedes and bmw, i.e., they're similar. The nikon has indeed the advantage in the shadow department, but he told me it's not worth it to pay more 500 euros; the best route would be to use the camera that I have, and if I'd like I could change the body at a future time (the technology is always evolving) and keep the lenses.

I assume you share the same opinion, yes?

Yes. The 80D would be a worthwhile upgrade, but I don't think it's worth spending any more than that.