I specialize in architectural photography and generally use a large format camera.

I have recently had the need to use digital dslr for three projects and the Nikon D3 suited me the best by far over the Canon.

A lot less noise.

The problem is your budget the camera cost about $5,000 US.

You need to use the PC or shift lens but they no longer make the PC lens they will be introducing three new tilt shift lenses that should make up for that but when is another story.

You won't have the flexibility with a dslr that you would with a 5x4 view camera.

It would be wise to use a full frame camera and a lens that offers image displacement.

Now when reading those books you purchased read them with a grain of salt, most professionals have a distinctive naive understanding of the subject. So you may read some things that conflict with what others say.

The answer t your question is the Nikon D3 but it cost $5,000

Holy sugar, am I that old? That's what we learned large format on in first year university way back when.

Not sure if it's a "beauty" - the rising front being stuck won't help much in architectural stuff at all...... ;-)

As Wade points out, a 5x4 film camera would be preferable both from a functionality point of view as well as being very cost effective - good samples are coming up all the time (Sinar, Cambo etc) at a fraction of the price of a D3 and a new 24mm PC lens. Downside is that film costs and processing will have to be factored in, and don't expect to use one proficiently in a few hours, either. It will take some heavy practice and wasted film to learn properly.

If you want to go digital instead, as far as I can see the Nikkor 24mm f/3.5D ED PC-E lens is available now (Adorama $1850), and it would work fine on a D300 if the D3 is beyond your budget.

You are correct the 24 mm is available. I will have to give it a test ride.

That's a graphic View 1 with tilts at the bottom. It also is missing the camera's own tripod mount. The one supplied looks grim.

It was my first 4x5 camera in 1964. It does good work.

I would pass, unless you are a collector.

I am perplexed at the insistence of a shift lens as corrections, especially for the real estate market which normally doesn't even bother, can be done in PS. I used to do it in the darkroom when I was limited to using the Hasselblad.

>I am perplexed at the insistence of a shift lens as corrections, especially for the real estate market which normally doesn't even bother, can be done in PS.

Good point. To date I have survived with the 10.5mm, 12-24mm, Nikon Capture and PS. I do lust after the 24mm T/S however, especially after I get a D3...

i So basically, a good start seems to be a Nikon ..I was looking at the D80., 18-135mm Nikor, 12-24mm Nikor, and a good tripod. Would a flash unit be necessary?

Exactly what I use, except I have the Tokina 12/24, and have no complaints. You will spend several hundred dollars less for it.

But start with the 18 to 135. It will get you through 90+% of the work. So far this year I haven't had to trot out the Tokina, but I haven't been doing any interiors yet.

Oh, I don't have a flash unit.

My only problem with altering the perspectives in Photoshop is that it means displacing and replacing pixels, which will drop the quality of the image. Of course the importance of that is dependent on the final size the image is to be reproduced at.

I'm fascinated by the 24mm PC, not so much for its architectural use but for a way to bring good ol' Mr Scheimpflug's principle back into my landscape photography... the cost of the lens vs the actual in-use benefit being the dissuading thing, though.

A trip down memory lane. <br /> <br />This is my first landscape shot with that view camera, 1964. It's pretty much the first one period, except for test shots in the back yard. I had just moved to Portland the previous fall. <br /> <br />There is a story behind this image. <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1p65kdj5bd6n6fqQtRwmS wUwjPex" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1p65kdj5bd6n6fqQtRwmSwUwjPex_thu mb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br />Hmmmm, darker here than in PS.

>Would a flash unit be necessary?

IMO yes, at least one SB-800 (do not waste time on lesser flash units, and use all 5 AA batteries, NiMH) adds a great deal to a DSLR. Wireless multi-flash TTL shooting is challenging and takes quite a bit of practice as well as owning multiple flash units. The D80 comes with a built-in flash unit but it really is only adequate for flash fill at fairly close distances.

Even though the optics can be a value, I recommend against buying third-party lenses because they may not work with Nikon's next version of wireless iTTL flash or whatever. For interiors IMO iTTL flash can be of great value.

It is possible to light residential interiors without strobes, just cheap incandescent flood lamps but it takes some time and is best done when outdoor lighting is not strong, because outdoor color temps are usually different and can easily be too strong at windows. Nikon flash units come with simple gels for various temps that work pretty well.

Wade-
>And allen would be interested in knowing that I might pack four or five or six SB type flashes eventually but will test them first. They won't light a large room but they can be helpful for dark areas in a large space.

Actually, although they will not light a concert hall, several SB-800s will light a large room. The light available from a group of SB-800s is pretty surprising, even moreso when coupled with the higher available ISOs of the D3. Anytime I have set up multiple SB-800s I have gotten pretty much instant recycle times and 5-battery sets lasting for many pix.

What Allen said about getting an SB-800 and the bit about using all 5 batteries is all good advice. Anything less is a waste of time.

Personally I side with Larry, though, and try for natural light wherever possible, supplementing only where necessary, and then as subtly as possible. I hate using flash. But then architecture and interiors are a seldom asked for thing in my normal working life these days.

That said, there have also been some masterfully lit interiors displayed here over the years by some who simply excel in that method.

You do have to adapt your technique. Even though you can't do mulitple exposures on digital, you can do perfectly pin registered separate exposures and quickly combine them in post. I find that doing that I often am not using any added lighting and when I do need additonal lighting, it's just a little fill here or a gridded spot there. What's really amazing is how good many rooms look with the light that exists naturally - window light especially. Once you tame the exposure contrast, the actual quality of the light is really very nice. I also love leaving existing tungsten lights on to provide added warmth when mixed with daylight.

I'm taking that as a compliment, I think...

FWIW I have had very mixed results with HDR. In fact, so mixed that there's only one image where I like the result. I wouldn't call what I do with multiple exposures HDR, but I suppose it has sort of that effect. The trick is to make it look as natural as possible.

Allen, erasing anything is destructive
use layer masks and blends
Lighten is most useful for multiple tripod shots
(and layer opacity tweaks)

>It is easy to just shoot a broad bracket of 5 exposures in less than a second, then in PS make each exposure a layer and erase/fade portions of layers as necessary to achieve what you want with things like windows. Not HDR, just layers

You miss the point entirely but since you are so convince that you are not missing the point it would probably be impossible to communicate the difference to you.

Wade-

Probably I do miss the point, please explain. It seems to me digital multiple exposures are similar to film multiple exposures only much easier.

Easier, I would say that depends.

I explained it before but I will try again.

You are in the field, your subject is at hand you are in the space or location.

You have your lights you turn them on and off change the power output. You may even relocate them during this multiple exposure process. So as you build this exposure up you
and work with your lighting you can judge as to what has to be changed or altered in order to accomplish what you want. You then test this adjustment. And now in the filed you see it
all built on one proof and of course if it is not correct you can now develop your lighting scheme even further. If you try this in the field with a digital capture you have a one shot day as you have the laptop there and probably have to start from scratch with each adjustment.

I know to you this does not sound right because you have never really use the technique that I am incorporating and you say you just don't see how that makes a difference.

And I believe that is true you don't see it because you have never made the effort it seems very difficult and often unattainable to anyone that has never tried it. But it is a superior way.

I can even do a number of variations of the same scheme with very little effort in the field once I have the lights set up.

The fact that you think this is hard shows me you really have no experience at this, I know for instance Lawrence does not have experience with this technique because has already mention such. He does not use a press shutter which would be necessary to do this.

Although one can simple hold a black colored object in front of the lens if using hot lights at night and a bulb exposure.

You have to try this in order to see how much advantage this simple technique offers. I wish I could give you better insight but you have to think about it carefully to see what I meant.

You're funny.

Now you know you know absolutely nothing about this, yet you are willing to shoot off your mouth.

Very interesting.

Let me ask you something have you ever worked with a press shutter?

Wade, you would do a lot better by not telling folks what they know and what they don't. You are so quick at making assumptions with no basis in fact. Is there a reason you have to try and make yourself feel so superior and self important? We were trying to share information and techniques and instead of sharing -y'know, stuff like how to adapt analog techniques to a digital world - something that some of us here have a fair amount of experience doing, but all you seem capable of is putting everyone else down. You using Copals or Prontors 'cause you won't need 'em with your new Nikon.

speculation....

Take your own advice.