it was a loooong time ago that i took photography in school.

For probably 3k get a decent ff camera and a good wide angle lens for your system. With the extra money you can get some lenses to enjoy yourself with or some good accessories that you will probably need (speedlights & a tripod)

>>3078970
yeah. that's what i'm thinking too. but i need some specific models to check out.

>>3079166
A Nikon D750 will suit your needs, well, forever.

Throw in something like the 20mm D, and you're golden.

>>3079166
>>3079185
This anon is right, either that or a nikon d810 for muh megapixels. Get some nice glass though with the money, that will last you many cameras

>>3079185
>getting a dslr for primarily wide angle work

Lol, silly anon.

A sony a7ii or a7r would be a much better choice as wide angle lens design won't be so gimped.

>>3078964
Canon 50d with 24 and 35mm primes, Canon 10-18 ultrawide angle zoom lens, 70-200 f2 lens, some kind of macro zoom lens probably, maybe an 85mm portrait lens or a 50mm if you're cramped for space because of the crop factor. Then you gotta buy grip, studio lighting, a couple flash units, a couple tripods, remote trigger system
This will give you plenty of fun and most lenses are cheap. The 70-200 is a good investment with image stabilization

>>3078964
Pentax K-70 and apart from the kit lens get the DA 50/1.8 for cheap portrait lens.
That or a DA 40/2.8 Limited.

File: Bildschirmfoto-2017-05-18-um-07.29.04.png (264KB, 700x454px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 700x454px

>>3079298

Seconding this.

a7r can be had cheao, and there are lots of cheao wide angle lenses for it (see: rokinon).

Lets not forget their newlt announced wide angle zooms.

Sony's 12-24 on an a7rii (which is a good bit heavier than a7r) weighs about as much as the Sigma equivalent alone.

>>3079335
The corners and bokeh of the sony absolutely destroy the sigma.

>>3079339

Yes, it is a much better lens and only costs $100 more.

>>3078964
sony a7 + 12-24mm f4

>>3079350
>>3079298
>>3079335
>>3079355

Like a fucking parrot. Can someone shove some cuttlefish up his arse, sideways preferably.

>>3079360
I hope that guy gets paid. I can't imagine someone spending so much time shilling something for free.

>>3079360
what do you suggest?
a canon 5d2?
hahahahaha

OP here. thanks for everyone who replied (except the Sony shill)

for everyday use, what body you you all use?
what lens do you walk around with on it?
what 2 lenses do you keep in your bag?

>>3079385
I'm not the guy that responded before, but getting anything other than Sony when 90% of your work is wide angle/uwa is just a bad decision, the shorter flange distance does make wide angle lens exponentially better.

I do a fair bit of architechtural stuff, my main lenses are my sigma 12-24 (soon to be replaced because it's shit and I only use it in a pinch) and canon 16-35 f4 L is. Occasionally I'll get out the tilt/shift 24 and 35, but it's pretty rare.

I'm shooting on Sony, would never go back to canikon.

>>3079388
>I'm not the guy that responded before,
right. that's why the poster count remains at 11.
i can't believe that people would get on the internet anonymously and just lie.

>>3079390
this >>3079339 was me.

keep your projection in check friendo :)

>>3079385
This might sound biased but I don't like walking around with a fuckhuge camera and all the weight that comes with a full size DSLR so I just roll with a Fuji X-A2 and a pancake prime. Maybe throw the kit 16-50mm and a Samyang 85mm in the bag as well if I'm sure I'll use them and there's enough space in my backpack.

>>3079398
Caught out in an internet squabble? Accuse your adversary of projecting.jpg

looking for input from the weekend warriors too

File: t_ts-e17.jpg (140KB, 600x439px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 600x439px

>>3078964

Do it op

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4713
Image Height	3546
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:01:27 17:35:17
Exposure Time	1/2 sec
F-Number	f/18.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/18.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	439
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3079668
what f***ing lens is THAT?!

>>3079669
Canon lens. You can tell from the red ring.

File: D3S_6151-768.jpg (135KB, 768x1064px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 768x1064px

>>3078964
>photos of houses

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3079668
Except don't fuck around with the Sony and the frankendapters just get a native body. The 5D3 would suit your needs.

>inb4 old sensor
it is still an excellent sensor
>inb4 but muh dynamic range
dynamic range is a meme, you don't even know where the extra nth the your camera allegedly has is kept or how you might even use it

>>3079673
It's a manual lens. You don't gain anything but inferior images by insisting on dslr fanboyism.

>>3079676
>It's a manual lens
I know, I have one. And you don't get better images by using a toy camera with it either.

If you put a Sony and a Canon picture side by side and delete the exif you wouldn't know which was which.

Although I'm pretty sure you are soon going to lie about it.

>>3079684
The Sony sensor is better by every objective metric. So you're telling someone to settle for less, out of some sort of loyalty.

File: Zeiss-Loxia-21mm-F2.8-lens.jpg (94KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 750x750px

>>3079662
I see some of the other Anons linking you to tilt-shift lenses. It's an interesting subject to read more about, for example:
http://www.frontallobbings.com/2011/02/tilt-shift-vs-software-geometry.html
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/using-a-shift-lens-why-not-just-fix-verticals-in-software/
One favours software correction, the other favours T-S lens. Both are valid opinions with each of their advantages.


In my opinion, I'm on the side of software correction, since a T-S lens is technically very huge lenses made for medium format which is larger than Full Frame. The huge lens is needed to cover area bigger than the sensor needs, because the lens need to tilt and shift itself.

And I'm not a big fan of such huge equipment.
That's why I prefer something like the Loxia 21mm, which is smaller, lighter, higher image quality and faster lens for general photography, and then just software correct so the houses align as I like. I've found this to be the easiest workflow as well.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2015:12:16 09:39:17

File: Screen-Shot-2017-02-22-at-10.59.13-AM-e1487779589666.png (559KB, 848x425px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 848x425px

>>3079684

>If you put a Sony and a Canon picture side by side and delete the exif you wouldn't know which was which.

Neat theory you have there, it'd be a shame if someone were to test it.

>>3079699
>it'd be a shame if someone were to test it
especially someone who is obsessively desperate to try and prove a point

File: muhsize.png (471KB, 1007x729px) Image search: [Google]

471KB, 1007x729px

I love how hard people keep trying to push this size bullshit with mirrorless.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#488.662,567.109,ha,t

>>3079705
That lens on the right is a crop lens. It won't even use all of the all frame sensor.

You would need a much larger and heavier, and worse IQ lens to get a comparable lens to mirrorless.

>>3079668
Sony will absolutely fuck you in the ass with a wire brush should you happen to need any after sales service. And you probably will, their cameras are not very robust.

>>3079705
>Comparing FF lens to DX lens
o am i laffin

OP, just get a mid grade point and shoot like the coolpix

File: laff.png (484KB, 884x654px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 884x654px

>>3079727
>o am i laffin

yeah, I'm a laffin too. Look how lopsided and unbalanced the Snoddy is

>>3079736
and when thew mount breaks it will be;

>"I'm sorry sir but you voided the warranty by using it. You're supposed to just masturbate over the box without actually taking the camera out"

Don't worry though

>"But perhaps you'd like to consider out newest model It's the same as the last with but with extended hype. But you must buy before teatime when we'll be announcing the next model"

>>3079736
>>3079740
So do you admit you were wrong?

>>3079741
wrong about what?

File: 1.png (447KB, 862x606px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 862x606px

>>3079736
Those wide angle though.

>>3079745
See>>3079705

>>3079746
can't speak for Nikon, I never use them and I'm not him.

File: 85mm.png (425KB, 889x497px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 889x497px

>>3079751
Canon is about just as large as Nikon.

There is also still a visible size difference at 85mm. But it's not as exaggerated as wide angle.

>>3079755
>>3079746
>>3079736
>>3079705

Once you get past 85 or so, or strap on a zoom, most size benefits are lost. Same thing happens with almost all mirrorless really. The biggest gain is weight. Check out the typing error filled: >>3079335

The body and lens weigh just as much as a lens.

File: Screenshot_2017-05-21-08-53-29.png (657KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 1080x1920px

>>3079699
You can tell which one is from canon as it looks like someone spilt a bottle of red wine over their skin.

>>3079705
>comparing a 12-24 full frame lens to a crop 18-36 equivalent.
Pic related is a more apples to apples comparison, not only is the nikon get up over twice the volume, it's also twice the weight and with worse image quality, less features and more expensive.

>>3079824
So what if it's a bit bigger and heavier, no one gives a fuck you stupud cunt

>>3079833
>no one gives a fuck
Poopchute does, this stuff is really important to him. His photographs, when he actually takes some, are complete shit so splitting hairs about gear and bickering about it on the internet is all he has in life to cling to. That and his favourite photographer Jason Lanier.

>>3079835
fuck off isi, moopco is a far better photographer than you. he just doesn't show his professional work on the internet because its bad for business.

>>3079836
Fuck off moopie, go out and take some pics instead of shitposting on the internet all day long.

Didn't read all the posts

I shoot real estate full time and use an XT1 and a Fuji 10-24mm f/4

You don't need FF (I used to use a D4).

Make sure you invest in a great tripod, some speedlights and GOOD wireless triggers.

I could get the same result with my first Canon 500D and kit lens as long as I had all of my extra equipment that I just mentioned.

One extra piece of advice is, don't shoot autistically wife just because you can. I shoot with the 10-24mm at 16mm (24mm FF equiv) 90% of the time, 24mm is basically the perfect focal length for architecture. That said, don't forget real estate =/= architecture and some agents will want everything as wide as fucking possible.

Fujis are great but I won't even recommend them or push them on you. Avoid Sony as they are made like shit with lens mounts that snap off the lens under their own weight and the worst customer service and support out of all the options.

The only specific brand recommendation I'd make is Canon for their tilt shifts, and those are only necessary if you are shooting higher end architecture (not just for realtors).

File: 100mm vs 105mm vs 100mm.png (906KB, 1372x625px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 1372x625px

>>3079767
>Once you get past 85 or so, most size benefits are lost.
Not quite. There are still some size advantages around 100mm.

Those huge zooms that have been posted must have been because sony deliberately wanted bigger lens with bigger glass, even though they in theory could make them smaller.

fav lens?