Jump to content
Mark Romero 2

Am I An Idiot??? (Going From D750 to a6500...)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

As for transcoding, I usually use resolve (the free version) and it seems to handle the XAVCs ok as long as I use optimized media. But then when I get into the coloring panel, I was told that I should use the actual footage when grading since how the actual footage looks when graded will be somewhat different than what the optimized footage preview looks like while graded. That's when things slow down a bit.

Would handbrake be good for encoding? Any suggestions on which codec to encode to (using Resolve with Win 10 64bit on an i7-6770 with 24GB RAM and a GTX 960 2GB graphics card)

This is stuff I struggle with myself;  my guess is someone will correct me if I'm wrong.  The problem with "stream" CODECs like H.264, HEVC, XAVC, etc., is most frames are calculated from an I-frame (essentially) and the more compression tricks they use, the smaller the size of the visual data for streaming forward.  However, that makes it harder for the computer to go backwards.  So every time you want to land on a frame that isn't an I-frame, the computer must go backwards a certain number of frames, and do a lot of backwards analysis to reconstruct it.  The more work, the greater the chance of crashing.  

Handbrake should be fine, or any software that uses FFMPEG as an engine.  With Prores or Cineform, you can do a quality where there are less tricks used to make a forward-read stream so it's easier for the computer to reconstruct a video at any frame.  At a certain quality, you should not lose any color information.  There are some comparisons out there of DNxHD and ProRes, etc., but my take-away is you'd really have to pixel peep to see any difference between them.  The weird problem with ProRes or Cineform or DNxHD is that if you choose very high quality the files get big and THEN YOUR hard drive can't keep up and you're back to square one with crashing your computer! 

FAIK,GoPro has just put Cineform in the public domain.  So I'm hopeful there will be some good/free encoding tools for it in the future, maybe the camera manufacturers may offer it as a CODEC! :) 

In any case, my main point is that I doubt there is a significant difference between Nikon and Sony video files.  You should do some tests because chances are you just happened to have an easy Nikon file/project and it was a coincidence that it seemed better.

1 hour ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

and this may sound derpy - I guess I am more worried about losing the D750 for video than for stills

Yes, very DERPY :) HA HA!

Think you should do some tests for that too.  I believe Sony video is much better than Nikon, or you can get the A6300 to look like the D750, but not the other way around.

I have an A6300.  I love that I can power it forever using USB.  I love that it has the 4K option.  And it has a mic jack.  It's small.  Maybe what you like more about the D750 is how the body feels (solid).  The larger/heavier body make it easier to get steady video.  Maybe you just need a rig to beef up the A6300?  Odd idea I know.

Sounds like you have all the basic equipment.  Based on this new information I think you should ditch the D750 and maybe get a Sony 1-inch camera, like an RX10, RX100 or even the RX0?  I truly love Nikons, but I can only keep one menu system in my head.  So I'm Sony all the way now.  Anyway, I had an X70 and RX10 II and I couldn't tell the difference in video quality.  The RX10s are quite underestimated, though if I remember correctly Andrew always falls in love with them every time he tries one again.

Yes, for real-estate video I can definitely see LOG being VERY useful!  No argument there!  For still, however, bracketing would be far superior.

link to my video about LOG 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
35 minutes ago, maxotics said:

This is stuff I struggle with myself;  my guess is someone will correct me if I'm wrong.  The problem with "stream" CODECs like H.264, HEVC, XAVC, etc., is most frames are calculated from an I-frame (essentially) and the more compression tricks they use, the smaller the size of the visual data for streaming forward.  However, that makes it harder for the computer to go backwards.  So every time you want to land on a frame that isn't an I-frame, the computer must go backwards a certain number of frames, and do a lot of backwards analysis to reconstruct it.  The more work, the greater the chance of crashing.  

Handbrake should be fine, or any software that uses FFMPEG as an engine.  With Prores or Cineform, you can do a quality where there are less tricks used to make a forward-read stream so it's easier for the computer to reconstruct a video at any frame.  At a certain quality, you should not lose any color information.  There are some comparisons out there of DNxHD and ProRes, etc., but my take-away is you'd really have to pixel peep to see any difference between them.  The weird problem with ProRes or Cineform or DNxHD is that if you choose very high quality the files get big and THEN YOUR hard drive can't keep up and you're back to square one with crashing your computer! 

FAIK,GoPro has just put Cineform in the public domain.  So I'm hopeful there will be some good/free encoding tools for it in the future, maybe the camera manufacturers may offer it as a CODEC! :) 

In any case, my main point is that I doubt there is a significant difference between Nikon and Sony video files.  You should do some tests because chances are you just happened to have an easy Nikon file/project and it was a coincidence that it seemed better.

Yes, very DERPY :) HA HA!

Think you should do some tests for that too.  I believe Sony video is much better than Nikon, or you can get the A6300 to look like the D750, but not the other way around.

I have an A6300.  I love that I can power it forever using USB.  I love that it has the 4K option.  And it has a mic jack.  It's small.  Maybe what you like more about the D750 is how the body feels (solid).  The larger/heavier body make it easier to get steady video.  Maybe you just need a rig to beef up the A6300?  Odd idea I know.

Sounds like you have all the basic equipment.  Based on this new information I think you should ditch the D750 and maybe get a Sony 1-inch camera, like an RX10, RX100 or even the RX0?  I truly love Nikons, but I can only keep one menu system in my head.  So I'm Sony all the way now.  Anyway, I had an X70 and RX10 II and I couldn't tell the difference in video quality.  The RX10s are quite underestimated, though if I remember correctly Andrew always falls in love with them every time he tries one again.

Yes, for real-estate video I can definitely see LOG being VERY useful!  No argument there!  For still, however, bracketing would be far superior.

link to my video about LOG 

Thanks for the clarification and for the link to your video.

A few follow up questions though:

Did you try shooting in SLOG but in different color gamuts to see if the large amount of colors were still being thrown away? 

Does using the various Cine Gammas throw away colors the way that SLOG does? 

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I like the a6500... to an extent.  As a stills camera, for shooting real estate like I do, it really is just about on par with the D750.  I use the LCD for shooting (since I am almost always shooting at waist level), and despite having a worse LCD monitor, the AF using the a6500 is so much better than the liveview AF of the D750 that it is hard to give that up. 

 


For real estate stills the FX sensor of the D750 should be very handy for tilt shift lenses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Hi there, Trek:

Yeah, if I used the 10-18 on an a7R II, it would be in crop mode (both for stills and video). 42 Megapixels is WAY too large for shooting real estate, which is more demanding of dynamic range than sheer resolution.

On full frame (in full frame mode) the 16-35 is indeed pretty much perfect for RE photography. I was using the 18-35 on my D750 and it is actaully an excellent lens, but that 2mm difference between 16m m and 18mm is actually kind of significant when shooting a bathroom.

In crop mode with the a7r2 or with the a6500 straight up, I'm assuming for RE you bracket and blend exposures in post, shooting at low ISOs. The 10-18 is more than capable for RE with the a6500. I still stick with my original statement if you're debating which to keep, sell the d750 (or the a6500) and put the cash towards something that will expand your capabilities like lights, lenses and so on. Running two systems on a budget means you have two incomplete systems, I'd always go for a more well rounded kit over carrying two different lens mounts.

Cheers

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Did you try shooting in SLOG but in different color gamuts to see if the large amount of colors were still being thrown away? 

Does using the various Cine Gammas throw away colors the way that SLOG does? 

If only most filmmakers asked these questions! :)  These are the questions I asked, and ask, myself too.  The following is what I've learned so far.

A color gamut is a theoretical/mathematical space constructed to represent all visible colors.  However, there are many colors in a gamut where one cannot prove that they can actually be seen by most humans, if any.  The main point to keep in mind is a gamut is a "mathematical" space.  There is no assumption that any color in that mathematical space, say color 100, can be displayed on any screen, printed by any printer, or viewed by any person.

Why are there different gamuts?  Mostly because we can't print or display pure colors! (nor capture them).  All colors are created through blending (because we don't have the technology to produce pure colors).  In displays it's pretty straight forward, generally a red, green or blue pixel.  In printing, however, many colors can be dithered together to create a color.  You can't always describe those colors in simple red, green and blue, hence some of the more complicated, wide gamuts.  Whenever I study that stuff in depth I reach for the advil ;)

So, there is NO CONNECTION between a LOG profile and a color gamut, unless you make it.  Whatever one shoots on their camera, standard profile, LOG, internal HDR, etc., there are no actual COLORS, there are only values.  In RAW, if Pixel 1 has a green filter on it, then it gets a value of 1 to 16,384 (in 14 bits).  If that value is 1245 then you need to give it a color, so yes, you need a gamut to connect it to display technology.  HOWEVER, that is an ARBITRARY choice.  No matter what gamut you choose, your value is 1245 and it is only a measurement of a voltage coming out of a piece of doped silicon.

AFAIK, all gamuts cover all the visible colors we can display/see in video.  So no way you could throw away colors.  In printing, gamuts can make a difference, though again, debatable the ability to notice.

Why all the confusion?  We all want to get the same results as David Fincher say, or whatever the latest RED cameras do, etc.  Like the Alchemists of old, who tried to produce gold from lead, various people try to produce a RED image through special color profiles/grades, etc.  They buy X $1,000 camera and make "special" adjustments to the pedestal, knee, LUT, etc., to get an image as good as that RED camera.  Maybe they will, for certain looks, but they will never get real "gold" sensor values.  What the camera recorded, it recorded.  They are just numbers.  Nothing changes those numbers.  Nothing creates the right number from nothing.  Either the camera got it, or it didn't.

Last night I watched Brandon of "Linus Tech Talk" where he discussed their $138,000 purchase of RED equipment.  They had a list of problems too long to show on the screen or discuss.  Think about that.  If the most expensive camera you can buy, developed by the sharpest minds in the industry, struggle to deliver an image, what hope the guy and his dog and his GH5? :)

Hey, alchemy is fun!  I get it.  I try it too.  However, when you have professional work you need to put that stuff aside!  So the bottom line for you is the only significant difference between the D750 and A6300 is the A6300 shoots 4K.  That's it, in my opinion.  Otherwise, video bit for video bit, they both record the same 8bit data.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

The average pay I will get for each job is only going to be about US $250 or so.

Wow, this caught my eye. That seems low for a video job; you're right you'll need to minimise time while keeping a certain level of quality. Mirrorless definitely has its advantages here.

Remember, at the end of the day, you have to do what's best for your business, I do suggest thinking as logically as possible and leave as much sentimental thoughts out of it (ie the Nikon is such a nice camera) and focus on whether you can provide the quality to your clients at the price you're charging.

Don't forget to evaluate your current lenses too, that'll play a part in deciding which system to keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard call. Loved the video on the D750 (use a A7rII now) but always go back and forth on buying a D750 for cheap. The 1080p isn't the same as 4K, but it has great DR, highlight rolloff, and the best Full Frame rolling shutter performance you can buy, making the motion cadence great. But my  A7r II has an image stabilizer,  4K, and most importantly, an EVF. 

I want to rent a D850, but I'm afraid I'll sell by Sony gear if I do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IronFilm said:


For real estate stills the FX sensor of the D750 should be very handy for tilt shift lenses. 

Yes, that is true. But while I like tilt shift lenses, I just can't afford to spend $3K on one. I mean, I already feel kind of miffed that I normally haul about $4K worth of equipment to a photo shoot where I am only going to make between $150 to $250. Hauling $7K worth of equipment would probably make my head explode.

I usually do a "faux tilt shift" where you keep the sensor plane parallel but just shoot really wide and crop away from the side that you don't want. With 24mp you can really crop away a lot because the LARGEST image I normally would need would just have to be 3K pixels wide in case they end up printing in a magazine.

3 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

In crop mode with the a7r2 or with the a6500 straight up, I'm assuming for RE you bracket and blend exposures in post, shooting at low ISOs. The 10-18 is more than capable for RE with the a6500. I still stick with my original statement if you're debating which to keep, sell the d750 (or the a6500) and put the cash towards something that will expand your capabilities like lights, lenses and so on. Running two systems on a budget means you have two incomplete systems, I'd always go for a more well rounded kit over carrying two different lens mounts.

Cheers

chris

Yes, for stills I generally bracket five ambient shots (no flash) straight up, and then I take a couple of flash frames and blend them later. I generally shoot at ISO 200 instead of 100 just so the flash guns don't have to work so hard and to get the recycle times down a little bit.

And yes, I agree with you about selling one system or the other to expand my video capabilities... IF I can figure out where else I can drum up business for my video services. I guess that is the big thing is I don't want to be all dressed up with no place to go. Any suggestions on what sorts of jobs I should aim for are greatly appreciated.

It's weird: my friend who is in more of a rural area gets a LOT of video business to go along with his still photography business. I get a lot of requests for drone photography and occasional drone video, but it is a hard sell for me to get real estate video jobs (and my prices are competitive).

2 hours ago, leeys said:

Wow, this caught my eye. That seems low for a video job; you're right you'll need to minimise time while keeping a certain level of quality. Mirrorless definitely has its advantages here.

Remember, at the end of the day, you have to do what's best for your business, I do suggest thinking as logically as possible and leave as much sentimental thoughts out of it (ie the Nikon is such a nice camera) and focus on whether you can provide the quality to your clients at the price you're charging.

Don't forget to evaluate your current lenses too, that'll play a part in deciding which system to keep.

Thanks for the note and for catching that part about the money I make from a job.

Part of that is I am new to doing video and the established people charge more. I know many people hate this, but I am undercutting them on price for now. I tell them it is a special introductory price. The established people would charge about $400 for what I am charging about $250. 

The lens evaluation tips it in favor of Mirrorless for me, especially since I am pretty much committed to using a gimbal as much as possible to save time (and the agents want a walkthrough as well). Hence, the Optical Stabilization of the a6500 and the OSS on the Sony 10-18 lenses is significant.

54 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

Hard call. Loved the video on the D750 (use a A7rII now) but always go back and forth on buying a D750 for cheap. The 1080p isn't the same as 4K, but it has great DR, highlight rolloff, and the best Full Frame rolling shutter performance you can buy, making the motion cadence great. But my  A7r II has an image stabilizer,  4K, and most importantly, an EVF. 

I want to rent a D850, but I'm afraid I'll sell by Sony gear if I do.

Yes, the 1080p of the D750 is... soft. It is softer than the 1080p on my a6000. But then again, the 1080p on the a6000 is better than the 1080p on the a6300 or the a6500, despite being a lot less expensive. The D750 is less noisy in 1080p at higher ISOs than the a6000 but I think what ever noise filtering the D750 uses really gets amped up because at  ISO 1600 to 3200 I found that there was a LOT less detail than the a6000.

The ability to recover highlights on the D750 is amazing to me (in my various tests, at least).  That is really a big thing to me. 

The thing about Sony is that it is (for me at least as of November 2017) more of a complete system, meaning if I need full frame for stills, I could buy a used a7 or a7 II and a used canon FD lens and cheapo adapter and have something that would work on both the FF a7 II and the a6500.

And I would be scared of renting a D850 as well. I feel like I have gone down enough rabbit holes already...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

For real estate stills the FX sensor of the D750 should be very handy for tilt shift lenses. 

 

37 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Yes, that is true. But while I like tilt shift lenses, I just can't afford to spend $3K on one. I mean, I already feel kind of miffed that I normally haul about $4K worth of equipment to a photo shoot where I am only going to make between $150 to $250. Hauling $7K worth of equipment would probably make my head explode.

 

The APSC sensor with an flexible mount such as the E mount allows almost any lens to become a tilt shift with the proper adapter.

You can use all of your nikon lenses as tilt-shift lenses on the A6500 with this adapter:

https://www.adorama.com/katsnkgnex.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don Kotlos said:

The APSC sensor with an flexible mount such as the E mount allows almost any lens to become a tilt shift with the proper adapter.

You can use all of your nikon lenses as tilt-shift lenses on the A6500 with this adapter:

https://www.adorama.com/katsnkgnex.html

 

Thanks for the link.

1 hour ago, TwoScoops said:

Out of the two, I'd keep the D750, for sure, if most of your work is stills.

I know that would seem to make more sense, right?

But I actually find that for the kinds of still photography I do, the a6300 / a6500 allows me to work faster. The difference is that for the settings I change the most, I can use one hand on the a6300 / a6500, while on the D750 I need two hands. The problem is that I am almost always holding a flash gun and some RC triggers and a release cable in my left hand, so using the D750 is a bit less user-friendly for me :(

Also, since I use the LCD 99% of the time for stills, the touch-focus on the a6500 is really nice. Using the live view focus of the D750 it takes a few seconds longer to move the focus point from one side of the screen to the other.

I guess at the end of the day, in terms of video (and stills, to an extent), I am enamored by the easy dynamic range and pretty easy grading of the D750. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Thanks for the link.

I know that would seem to make more sense, right?

But I actually find that for the kinds of still photography I do, the a6300 / a6500 allows me to work faster. The difference is that for the settings I change the most, I can use one hand on the a6300 / a6500, while on the D750 I need two hands. The problem is that I am almost always holding a flash gun and some RC triggers and a release cable in my left hand, so using the D750 is a bit less user-friendly for me :(

Also, since I use the LCD 99% of the time for stills, the touch-focus on the a6500 is really nice. Using the live view focus of the D750 it takes a few seconds longer to move the focus point from one side of the screen to the other.

I guess at the end of the day, in terms of video (and stills, to an extent), I am enamored by the easy dynamic range and pretty easy grading of the D750. 

It sounds like the a6500 is a better option for the way you work. Just find a video profile you like, the G-Film thread here has a nice look. As far as finding other gigs, you just have to keep hustling and find other potential clients. Outside of RE, maybe food stuff for restaurants, corporate headshots or corporate videos. Lots of local business have events, I've been fortunate enough to find work shooting for a local spa that throws monthly parties. They have a very wealthy clientele, and from that I've gotten a number of gigs shooting various functions and such.

Cheers

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

It sounds like the a6500 is a better option for the way you work. Just find a video profile you like, the G-Film thread here has a nice look. As far as finding other gigs, you just have to keep hustling and find other potential clients. Outside of RE, maybe food stuff for restaurants, corporate headshots or corporate videos. Lots of local business have events, I've been fortunate enough to find work shooting for a local spa that throws monthly parties. They have a very wealthy clientele, and from that I've gotten a number of gigs shooting various functions and such.

Cheers

chris

Thanks so much.

Yes, I really do think that letting go of the D750 is probably the right thing for me. Then I can free up some cash for other things.

Thanks again, and thanks for the tips on hustling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, leeys said:

Wow, this caught my eye. That seems low for a video job; you're right you'll need to minimise time while keeping a certain level of quality. Mirrorless definitely has its advantages here.

 

Unfortunately for real estate video this is not unusual, in fact in the market I'm in for the people I know, that would be higher than average!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Yes, that is true. But while I like tilt shift lenses, I just can't afford to spend $3K on one. I mean, I already feel kind of miffed that I normally haul about $4K worth of equipment to a photo shoot where I am only going to make between $150 to $250. Hauling $7K worth of equipment would probably make my head explode.


Considered the Rokinon TS? A fraction of the cost of the Canikon ones!

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/926394-REG/rokinon_tsl24m_n_24mm_f3_5_tilt_shift.html

Personally, if I was making a little money with real estate then I'd go with this on my current Nikon D5200:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1165600-REG/venus_optics_laowa_15mm_f_4_macro.html

But if I was to go all out and get a new body (which I'm not! As I don't earn money in the real estate world), then it would be either the Nikon D750 + Rokinon 24mm TS, or a secondhand Sony a7S mk1 (as 12 megapixels is plenty for low budget real estate shoots! And lighter file sizes will speed up workflow) +  Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D lens with their Laowa Magic Shift Converter (turning it into a 17mm F4 TS! :-o ). 

 

https://www.cinema5d.com/laowa-magic-shift-converter-wide-angle-lenses/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Thanks so much.

Yes, I really do think that letting go of the D750 is probably the right thing for me. Then I can free up some cash for other things.

Thanks again, and thanks for the tips on hustling.

There you go, that's the right decision then!

Once you become more established and have cash to spare you can always come back for a much nicer Nikon camera, like say, a D900.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, leeys said:

Once you become more established and have cash to spare you can always come back for a much nicer Nikon camera, like say, a D900.

Problem is greater than 24megapixels is kinda a pain for high volume real estate photography.  (I'd happily do it with the 12 megapixels of an a7Smk1 or D700)

Thus from that perspective, either the D5 (which is crazy overkill!! Bad idea) or the D750 is the perfect FX Nikon DSLR for him.

Personally if I was the OP I'd stick out with the D750 forever, until a suitable upgrade comes along. Then still keep the D750 as a B cam / back up camera (as a pro should always have at least one back up. Heck, I might even recommend buying a D5200 right *now* so as to at least have "something" as a back up!).
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Problem is greater than 24megapixels is kinda a pain for high volume real estate photography.  (I'd happily do it with the 12 megapixels of an a7Smk1 or D700)

Thus from that perspective, either the D5 (which is crazy overkill!! Bad idea) or the D750 is the perfect FX Nikon DSLR for him.

Personally if I was the OP I'd stick out with the D750 forever, until a suitable upgrade comes along. Then still keep the D750 as a B cam / back up camera (as a pro should always have at least one back up. Heck, I might even recommend buying a D5200 right *now* so as to at least have "something" as a back up!).
 

I'm sure he's not going to stick around doing that one job forever, and he's already said for what he does the Sony does a better job for him. A theoretical D900 is when his cashflow is in a better state to afford a luxury like that, and when he can plan on expanding his business to a more profitable segment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Problem is greater than 24megapixels is kinda a pain for high volume real estate photography.  (I'd happily do it with the 12 megapixels of an a7Smk1 or D700)

Thus from that perspective, either the D5 (which is crazy overkill!! Bad idea) or the D750 is the perfect FX Nikon DSLR for him.

Personally if I was the OP I'd stick out with the D750 forever, until a suitable upgrade comes along. Then still keep the D750 as a B cam / back up camera (as a pro should always have at least one back up. Heck, I might even recommend buying a D5200 right *now* so as to at least have "something" as a back up!).
 

Yeah, I know a few people doing real estate stills with a D300 (12MP crop sensor) and a Sigma 10-20 (hardly the sharpest lens out there) and they do quite well for themselves. 

I like the D750, but I DO need a backup, and it kind of makes sense of I am going to do video in addition to stills to have an a6500 and an a6000 as a backup (or an a6300 as a backup) instead of a D750 and D5500 (I would get the model that has the touch screen for faster focusing). 

The problem with D750 plus D5X00 is the lens focal length difference going from FF to crop.

I'm not going to lie: for pure IQ, the D750 + 18-35 is a little bit better than the a6500 and 10-18... but not as much as you might think. It's only when I really need to push an underexposed image by more than a stop or  recover highlights that I really notice the difference.

Otherwise, for real estate stills, the image quality difference just isn't relevant.

3 hours ago, leeys said:

I'm sure he's not going to stick around doing that one job forever, and he's already said for what he does the Sony does a better job for him. A theoretical D900 is when his cashflow is in a better state to afford a luxury like that, and when he can plan on expanding his business to a more profitable segment.

Well... I am not sure I am going to do this job forever, but I do LIKE real estate photography a lot. Lucky for me I am in a higher priced market and charge reasonable rates. I am on the more higher priced end of photographers, and there is no telling what the future brings in terms of low priced competitors. So I do like to be prepared for the future. 

RE photography CAN be quite profitable, but it does come down to being good and efficient. The ability to move fast and meet deadlines is incredibly important because a lot of real estate agents are often quite disorganized and as a photographer you often get pushed back until the last moment while the cleaners are doing the last vacuuming or the stager is putting the last pillows on the couch.

Anyway, that's my feeling this morning. Who knows if I will change my opinions again by the afternoon :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 11:13 AM, Mark Romero 2 said:

Yes, that is true. But while I like tilt shift lenses, I just can't afford to spend $3K on one. I mean, I already feel kind of miffed that I normally haul about $4K worth of equipment to a photo shoot where I am only going to make between $150 to $250. Hauling $7K worth of equipment would probably make my head explode.

I usually do a "faux tilt shift" where you keep the sensor plane parallel but just shoot really wide and crop away from the side that you don't want. With 24mp you can really crop away a lot because the LARGEST image I normally would need would just have to be 3K pixels wide in case they end up printing in a magazine.

Yes, for stills I generally bracket five ambient shots (no flash) straight up, and then I take a couple of flash frames and blend them later. I generally shoot at ISO 200 instead of 100 just so the flash guns don't have to work so hard and to get the recycle times down a little bit.

And yes, I agree with you about selling one system or the other to expand my video capabilities... IF I can figure out where else I can drum up business for my video services. I guess that is the big thing is I don't want to be all dressed up with no place to go. Any suggestions on what sorts of jobs I should aim for are greatly appreciated.

It's weird: my friend who is in more of a rural area gets a LOT of video business to go along with his still photography business. I get a lot of requests for drone photography and occasional drone video, but it is a hard sell for me to get real estate video jobs (and my prices are competitive).

Thanks for the note and for catching that part about the money I make from a job.

Part of that is I am new to doing video and the established people charge more. I know many people hate this, but I am undercutting them on price for now. I tell them it is a special introductory price. The established people would charge about $400 for what I am charging about $250. 

The lens evaluation tips it in favor of Mirrorless for me, especially since I am pretty much committed to using a gimbal as much as possible to save time (and the agents want a walkthrough as well). Hence, the Optical Stabilization of the a6500 and the OSS on the Sony 10-18 lenses is significant.

Yes, the 1080p of the D750 is... soft. It is softer than the 1080p on my a6000. But then again, the 1080p on the a6000 is better than the 1080p on the a6300 or the a6500, despite being a lot less expensive. The D750 is less noisy in 1080p at higher ISOs than the a6000 but I think what ever noise filtering the D750 uses really gets amped up because at  ISO 1600 to 3200 I found that there was a LOT less detail than the a6000.

The ability to recover highlights on the D750 is amazing to me (in my various tests, at least).  That is really a big thing to me. 

The thing about Sony is that it is (for me at least as of November 2017) more of a complete system, meaning if I need full frame for stills, I could buy a used a7 or a7 II and a used canon FD lens and cheapo adapter and have something that would work on both the FF a7 II and the a6500.

And I would be scared of renting a D850 as well. I feel like I have gone down enough rabbit holes already...

Unsure, why this was quoted. This site acts funny sometimes. Anyway, I don’t know if you wrote this somewhere but what lenses do you own for either system or both? 

I still think the D850 may be the smartest investment for you, or a 5D IV if you’re interested in the Canon ecosystem at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...