FIRST CAME THE KODAK V570, NOW????

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I missed the intro of that camera. I usually follow the announcements on dpreview and they announced that over the summer, I think when I was on vacation.

The LX5 is just the newer version of the LX3.  The FX700 is a fine camera.  You'll pay about a $100 more for the LX5 over the FX700.  I like the ability to add an external flash which the LX5 has.  The FX700 has a 14megapixel* sensor and the LX5 has a 10megapixel sensor.  This coupled with the fact that the LX5 sensor is also larger means individual pixels are around twice as large on the LX5 over the FX700.  This tends to translate into better low light performance.  Couple this with a faster lens and you are just talking about a better performing camera.  This isn't to say the FX700 is sub-par, but the FX5 is a better performer when compared.  With the LX5, you'll also have the ability to add a wide angle adapter (which I don't recommend) allowing you to shoot even wider.

The FX700 is smaller and lighter making it easier to carry.  If you leave the camera at home because it was too bulky to keep with you, then you miss the photo.  The best camera is the one you have with you.

*More pixels aren't necessarily better.  Above 6megapixels is overkill.

Chiming in, better late than never :o)

Pat: I suggest you get a camera like the Nikon D40 or D3000 with the 18-55mm lens that they sell as a package $600-650). I used my D40 for years and was very happy with the picture quality. Last year I upgraded to a wonderful (and expensive) lens, Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 and used it on my D40 camera body. The photos are fantastic, and honestly, I shoot on automatic most of the time. My point: I suggest you purchase the best camera you can afford and make it one you can add upgrades to (like a better lens) as you skills and pocketbook allow.

A good camera and lens will make you look like a better photographer than you are, because your photos will be better quality. And he better the photos, the more work you will get - guaranteed!

Hi Pat,

I've used my Kodak V705 for several years, and a year ago I added a Canon Rebel xsi Body and a Canon EFS 10-22mm lens --- expensive but worth every penny.  The challenging part of owning a camera like this, when you're an amateur, is learning what it can do.  I haven't done that yet!  However I use Auto Settings and my clients love my photos.  I agree with Michelle, it's definitely worth the investment in your staging business.  (I bought the Canon online through Adorama as linked above, based on recommendations from some of the AR Photography experts -- Adorama had good prices and excellent customer service.)

BTW Jackson West's tip for avoiding the bright sunlight washing out the photo -- shoot either early in the morning, or one hour before sunset.  Try that little tip and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Why is more than 6 megapixels overkill?  Most, if not all, of the photos you produce will be for internet.  800 by 600 pixels would be a fairly large photo.  800X600=480,000 or 0.48 megapixels.  If you want to print, 6 megapixles will give you an 8"X10" easily.  Unless you want to print larger, you won't NEED more pixels.

Better low light performance comes into play when you are taking photos without a tripod or of subjects which are moving.  In real estate photography you should be using a tripod, so low light performance isn't as important.  Now if you want to use the camera for other forms of photography it might be important.

The wide angle adapter will increase the angle of view making the 24mm of the LX5 an 18mm.  This part is good, but the cost is around $200.  Adding a wide angle adapter will increase the bulk, weight and cost of the compact camera to a point where you would have been better off getting the dSLR in the first place.

The LX5 is 271g with demensions of 4.3X2.6X1.7 in.

The FX700 is 176g with dimensions of 4.4X2.2X1 in.

I agree with what Michelle is saying, but if you don't plan on learning more about photography, a camera of this quality won't help.  In fact, if you don't plan to improve your photography skills, I would suggest going with a cheaper camera.  However, if you are inclined to go with the dSLR, I would recommend the Nikon D3100 or the Canon T2i.

Here's a photo I took with my 2003 model Nikon Coolpix 5400 compact digital camera.  My point is that inferior cameras can do a good job.  There probably isn't a camera produced today that wouldn't blow this compact camera away in specifications and image quality.

Oh, the Canon XSi is fine.  It's just that this model has been discontinued and replaced with the now T2i.  I also really like the Canon S95 and have seriously thought about getting one myself.  It's just not a camera I could recommend as your primary real estate camera.

Choosing a Entry Level Camera For Real Estate Photography

Real Estate Photography Basics: Focus, Exposure and White Balance

Adobe Photoshop Elements 9: Everything Real Estate Photographers Need

Patricia - I unfortunately cannot link you to it as it was a personal conversation between several of us on our FB emails.  It was in fact about cameras though and he said this, "Another camera that you should look at is this puppy. I test drove it 2 weeks ago in a property and it rocked my fricken world. My trusty old kodak is about to kick the can and this one was superior to my $2000.00 cannon. The wide angle rocked and it is super user friendly"  This the link he left in the post:  http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.bestbuy.com%252Fsite%252FPanasonic%252B-%252BLumix%252B12.1-Megapixel%252BDigital%252BCamera%252B-%252BBlack%252F9984124.p%253Fid%253D1218211781293%2526skuId%253D9984124&h=9dd9e&ref=nf 

Patricia - I unfortunately cannot link you to it as it was a personal conversation between several of us on our FB emails.  It was in fact about cameras though and he said this, "Another camera that you should look at is this puppy. I test drove it 2 weeks ago in a property and it rocked my fricken world. My trusty old kodak is about to kick the can and this one was superior to my $2000.00 cannon. The wide angle rocked and it is super user friendly"  This the link he left in the post:  http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.bestbuy.com%252Fsite%252FPanasonic%252B-%252BLumix%252B12.1-Megapixel%252BDigital%252BCamera%252B-%252BBlack%252F9984124.p%253Fid%253D1218211781293%2526skuId%253D9984124&h=9dd9e&ref=nf 

You have made a very good choice!  I'm very excited for you.  The kit lens will be good for general photography.  If you plan to purchase a wide angle lens, I have the Nikon 10-24mm and love it.  The only problem is that it's almost $800.  If you can't quite swing it, I've heard good things about the Tamron 10-24mm and I have linked to two recent blogs about this lens.  The first shows several photos one person has taken with this lens and the other is reminding us that there is a rebate on this lens until the end of the year.

Shots taken with the Tamron 10-24

Need a wide angle DSLR lens? Tamron has rebates through 12/31/2010. . . . 

Let us know if you need any help with the new camera and you have my permission to call me with any help you need.  I mean it.

Lee -- your advice here is so helpful -- THANK YOU for always jumping in to help those of us amateurs who are trying our best to learn more!!  You are a walking encyclopedia of excellent photograhy knowledge!!

That blog showing the Tamron 10-24mm examples is not mine.  You'll have to ask Mark.

Okay, this might sound a little confusing, but I'll do my best to explain.  In the olden days we shot 35mm film.  Today full frame (professional) cameras have sensors which are the same size as that piece if 35mm film.  The cameras you are considering have what is called an APS-C sensor.  This sensor is just a little bit smaller than that 35mm piece of film.  The lenses we use are the same for either camera so the focal length is expressed in those terms.  Compact cameras have a totally different set of numbers, but they convert back to that 35mm equivalent.  So the 23mm lens on your Kodak V705 will show an angle of view as would a 23mm lens on a full frame or film camera.  For those cameras with the APS-C sensor you have to do your own conversion.  Not to worry, the conversion isn't difficult.  For Canon multiply by 1.6 and for the Nikon multiply by 1.5.

Digital Camera Sensor Size: How it influences Photography

What this all means is that the 18-55mm kit lens will act like a 27-82mm lens.  It is not as wide as your Kodak 23mm lens.  For real estate interiors you will want from 16mm to 24mm.  The Tamron 10-24mm will act as a 15-36mm which will be perfect for your needs.  The Nikon 10-24mm is a better lens, but it's twice the price of the Tamron.

Patricia, here's a chart which will show you the angle of view you will get from each focal length on the D3000 (or any Nikon APS-C sensor camera).

Think about this for a moment.  If a camera was placed in the very corner of a room with a 90 degree horizontal (X) angle of view, theoretically you could get a photo showing all four walls.  Knowing that you can't really get all the way in the corner, a slightly wider field of view would be necessary to capture all four walls.  

So do you want to capture all four walls?  I would say not.  That type of view is really too wide and starts to look quite distorted near the edges.  The question is how wide do you want to go?  If you are photographing a particular accent piece or some furniture in a portion of the room, the kit lens at the wide end of 18mm should be just fine.  If you want to capture most of the room in one photo, you will need the ultra wide zoom of 10-24mm.  There are other lenses at 10-20mm and 10-22mm which would also be fine.  It's up to you if you really need such a wide shot.  You might just get the camera and kit lens to see if it works for you.  If you decide later you need the ultra wide lens, you can get it then.

I am confusing you more.  The chart is only for the D3000 (or other Nikon APS-C sensors).  The crop factor has not been applied.  Your 23mm Kodak is about 76 degrees in horizontal angle of view.  This would mean to get the same angle of view you would need a 15mm lens on your new Nikon.  The kit lens only goes down to 18mm which will give you a 66 degree view.

As discussed in my previous post, to get the whole room in one shot would take a 90 degree of view (actually a little greater).  That's why I have been suggesting the ultra wide lens which starts at 10mm.  The Nikon is the best, but it's expensive.  Tamron has a really great price right now and I've heard good things about the Sigma.

I was just suggesting that maybe you could live without getting the whole room in one shot.  For me when shooting to show off the listing, I do want to get most of the room on one shot.  There are times I will zoom in on one aspect to focus on details, but I will almost always include an overview shot.

I'm really thinking you might need to call me just to make sure you have it straight.