I have seen this topic debated here for some time. Our "cheap" digital camera is in need of a funeral, so I am inquiring as to suggestions on a good (not most expensive) general camera for good real estate photos.

I need to stay under $500, including lens. We may eventually upgrade again as we learn this art, but unlike the federal government, our resources are limited!

Any advice is appreciated!

I have a Nikon D300 and it is a real good camera. I have owned other Nikons and have had good luck with them . The D300 is pretty high priced but that have other models that will fit your budget that do a good job.I would look on Craig s List and find someone that has one that is wanting to move up. Good luck

Here ya go, Droll.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-XS-Digital-1...1607&sr=8-4

The 18mm isn't wide enough for my tastes but it's wider than typical cameras. You can upgrade later to the ultra wide (10mm) lens when you have more resources.

Getting a camera with interchangeable lenses and with manual controls is ideal for anyone even REMOTELY interested in photography.

My hubby is a total amateur. I got him the Nikon Coolpix something or other for about the same $ as the one I just linked to...and while it's good and has some awesome features, there are some things that really frustrate him. He wants to get artsy with some things and because the lens does not have a manual focus setting, he is limited by what he can do.

This can get you started. I love my canon and I will say the 18-55mm lens has great quality.

Thanks Perky. I'll give it a look!

I'm new to this site, so let me first of all say, 'hi."
I'm a photographer who does real estate. I hear your question quite a bit and there's no easy answer because there's no one best camera and lens.

Answer these questions before spending money on upgraded kit:
Are the photographs your currently taking well lit? Have they straight vertical and horizontal lines? Are your shots setup so there's no clutter? Can you avoid flash hotspots? Is the color balance correct on you're images? Can you use - do you know how to use - manual mode on your camera? Do you have post-processing software (such as Photoshop) and know how to use it?

Anyone answering 'yes' to these questions will know what equipment they need to improve their images. If you're answering 'no' then I suggest you improve your skills before making an investment.

Here's a bigger question: you're operating a business, right? So why not hire a pro to do the photography for you? How many homes could you get done professionally for $500?

You'd get better quality photos, save time and effort, impress your client, and hopefully, sell faster for more dollars.

I agree that using a pro can be worth it. However, in my area, the photogs won't bother themselves with such a small job.

Must be nice to be in a position to turn down work.

Because unlike real estate agents, pros want to be paid up front whether or not the property sells. Many agents are living commission check to commission check especially when they get started. Spending $500 is almost equal to a month's worth of gas, most of a mortgage payment, a car payment, or 3 weeks of groceries...wonder which one would be the best one to omit so that professional services can be paid for that may or may not help sell the house...?

Most people don't realize that agents have a lot of operating costs that can't wait until commission time. They throw around these numbers "It's only this much" or "It's only that much" as if we all have these magical wads of money sitting around waiting to be spent.

I would prefer to hire a pro, most of the time, but considering I list a lot of rural properties, the price would be high, considering the distance.

And what about the changes in the property that may require new photos occasionally? I certainly don't want to pay for photos twice.

With a slightly "perfectionist" personality, I believe I can develop the photography skill to shoot my own real estate photos that would be hard to distinguish from a pro photographer. Time will tell!

I would hire a pro if I had a high end (million dollar) property that I knew would sell.

If you're going to do it yourself, I highly recommend the Nikon D3000. I love mine because it gives you the option of going easy or complicated, depending on your comfort level. Also, invest in quality photo editing software like Photoshop to get your pics just right.

Perky Realtor, I understand your come back on the costs involved. I know how you feel, was a Realtor a few years ago myself and I felt the same way. Then I found out that investing in the right marketing areas had significant payoffs - photography being one of those areas.

Believe me, there's a lot of photographers out there doing real estate gigs for under $200. I wish I could get $500 per listing.

As I said earlier, Realtors are running a business and should start thinking like business people. If it's agreed that pro photgraphy is better than DIY, then they need to figure out how to make it happen.

Negotiate with local photographers: think of ways the photographer can benefit for the relationship and make a pitch. They give lower, or deferred rates and they get new contacts for their business for example.

In Europe and Australia client paid photography is very common. These clients have been convinced of the value of top notch photography and are willing to pay to get a faster sale at higher sales prices. Why can European and Australian agents do this and we can't in the USA? I think it's because over there they are salespeople! The majority - not all - of US agents are not good at sales, not good at marketing, and certainly don't know how to run a small business.

What do they tell listing prospects? "List with me, I'll give you less than the best marketing photography because I can't afford to pay for it - is that OK? Sign here."

I don't mean to be harsh, just honest. If I've offended anyone, please accept my apologies.

Is it Time we saw the light?

I believe that the consumer has to learn that there is a cost to everything and that they cannot expect to get everything for free .... as some agents, like to promise and promise.

It’s time agents as professionals, made the consumer realize this.

Re-Photog below is a link for a firm in Arizona that for a hundred bucks does pretty nice package.

http://www.arizonaimaging.com

I can't give any advice regarding particular cameras as I don't take my own pictures (I have a pro that I use regularly), but I thought I'd chime in nonetheless. Although obviously not every listing will sell and there are costs associated with marketing it (i.e. brochures, photographs, featuring), those are costs that must be calculated across multiple transactions and averaged out. Either way, I see the benefit of having a professional handling the photographs and it becomes something that sellers of multi-million dollar properties come to expect. It's actually shameful that some agents post clearly amateur pictures of high-end properties, which don't represent it well (with buyers being visual creatures, capturing their interest online becomes critical).

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I personally use a Sony Cybershot for RE, inside and outside. It only cost me $100 and I've had it for over a year. It never ceases to amaze me. The images usually come out very high resolution (as well as in a large file) but the quality is incredible for such a small device. I use Photoshop to compress the images before uploading them to a website, or emailing them to someone. Click [url=http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Cyber-Shot-DSC-W530-Vario-Tessar-Wide-Angle/dp/B004H8FNNA]here[/url] to see my camera preference on Amazon.

Also, you can probably take a photography class or two for under $75 and you'll be set for life. No need to spend $200+ each time you have an open house.