Uuhhmmm...would that be the Manual Focus crowd Eric..? Dick must be busy I guess.
I pity the homeowners reading the statement on how to sell a house. Having not bothered to look at the link I am quite sure some company is conveniently advertising those "higher-end slr cameras" too, purely by chance of course.
Hi, I just got back.
I have, in fact, just sold a house, and I took the pictures of it for the Estate Agent with my Leica D-Lux 3, before I had the digital Hasselblad... there were bushes in the foreground, so I used the delayed timer and put the camera on a 4m garden tool pole, giving a height of 6m+. I pan-and-stitched two images. The height also meant that the Cotswold Hills in the distance were visible.
I appreciate that the res of high-end MF would be wasted on normal houses, but might be of some benefit for posters and full-page adverts in magazines for the £1m+ market...
The previous owner of my Manfrotto Agnoscope used it for house photography for Estate Agents, and it came with a CCTV system for seeing the screen of a film Hasselblad... but I will be using it with live view.
The small cameras that are good for this type of application usually have plenty of DOF... you can correct verticals in PS, but a T/S lens would help... but I think very few Estate Agents use them.
Tethered cameras with live view and movements on 70ft masts are ideal for pictures to sell houses, but only the top Estate Agents selling very valuable property would spend the money, and it might be a waste of time for me to look for that type of work.
...but I know a town planner who tells me he has difficulty finding photographers to produce photographs good enough for the "montage" "artist view" pictures they need for planning applications.
The article recommends getting the Estate Agent to use a professional photographer, but...
Would they spend the money?
Would the average Pro produce a better picture?