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.

In reading this thread I noticed the same old misconceptions cropping up. First is that a good camera will result in good photos. Sorry - there is very little truth in this. The person behind the camera is the most important item, then the flash, the lens and last the camera. So you want someone behind the camera that has experience. Not someone that takes photos once or twice a week, but someone that take photos of multiple homes every day of every week all year long.

The next misconceptions is that only high end properties need professional photos. A goop photographer can take that $60,000 shack, pull out the good points and minimize the bad. This is done by good lighting, proper framing and perspective. A decent photographer can take good photos of a million dollar home. A professional photographer can make a shack look presentable.

Professional photos may or may not help sell a house. This falls under the same category as an umbrella keeping you dry in the rain. True it is not guaranteed that an umbrella will keep you dry, but it does increasing your chances. The same is true with professional photos. Professional photos rarely sell the property on their own (they actual do sometimes). But they do increase the likelihood a potential client will contact you about a property. With well over 90% of property searches starting online, do you really want the first time a client sees a property be a fizzy, slanted, poorly framed photo?

Also, not all photographers expect payment upfront. Most do, but some will work with the agent to move payment to when the property sells.

In truth, $500 will get a a decent camera with a build in flash and a so-so lens. From it you will get average results that will blend in with the average results of others using similar cameras with a similar amount to experience. As an agent, you do not want average photos, you want photos that stand out from the crowd.

Yada, yada, ya...I just purchased a Canon Rebel T3 and also a 10-30mm lens. It sure does 'open' up the rooms.
Perky - give me some tips.

Most agents aren't using $500 cameras, so it is really easy to stand out from them.

VABroker - my best tip for now: get a tripod, and turn off the flash for interior shots. Tripods are cheap; you don't need a heavy duty one for interior shots...just get one sturdy enough for that camera!

Although turning off the flash could cause window "blowout," it will give a more natural look overall. The on-board flash will leave a vignette when you have the lens opened up at 15mm or wider...the on board flash is really insufficient for use with that lens.

If you feel like playing, take two shots using the tripod - one with flash (which will help keep the windows looking normal instead of like a nuclear bomb went off outside) and one without. Then using Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, you can layer the two images, flash on bottom and available light on top... and cut out the windows to reveal the better ones.

That is a hell of an awkward way to describe it...I know exactly what I'm doing with it but I can't explain it, lol. If you are familiar with working with layers, hopefully you'll understand what I mean.

Be sure to play around with the white balance; sometimes I get excellent results using the auto white balance setting; sometimes I have to fiddle around with it and try it at different settings.

I purchased an external flash - Speedlite 430EX, a sync cord, and mounting bracket (bracket was about $40, the flash was around $300, cord was about $70). This helps a great deal with interior shots, as I can control the flash output and it works nicely with the lens (no vignette).

Also you will need to sharpen the pics before uploading.

ENJOY!!!! If you want a good book on the T3i, I recommend either of these:

More in depth: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1435460286/ref=oh_o05_s00_i00_details

Less involved:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/032177664X/ref=oh_o05_s00_i01_details

These photographers remind me of realtors who go to FSBO sites and try to tell sellers why they are too inept to sell their property themselves, lol.

Both are annoying. I don't pester or hound FSBO's. I let them come to me if they want.

Perky - Love your tips so far. I went to one property I had already taken photos of so I could take them again to get a feel for what the camera does. I could get almost all of the wide foyer in; but, yes, the bedrooms (they looked awesome) but they did have the nuclear blast outside with the flash and you couldn't see the beautiful fall leaves. In some rooms, the camera did not have much of a difference in effect so I may co-mingle photos.

We have tons of tripods around here so that's taken care of. I think I do need an additional flash on the camera. When I used the wide lens (10-30mm) and the flash goes on, I kept getting the dark spot underneath since the lens was blocking the light.

I'm actually reading the manual and testing every little thing out while I'm at my computer - although some things I don't understand (that's where hubby comes in somewhat) and discovered, before I read your post, where to turn the flash off.

I had seen a listing in the MLS that had really nice photos - the rooms were 'opened' out and decided THAT'S what I want my photos to look like. Yes, I got this camera to STAND out in listing presentations. It's awesome!

The off camera flash like the one I mentioned will help a great deal with the dark spot - I had the same problem. I chose the 430EX because I like all of its features - the ability to adjust the intensity of the light output is the best, plus it has a little filter you pull down for wide angle shots, and the ability to bounce the flash off the ceiling really makes a difference in a lot of shots. Putting the flash OFF the camera on a bracket helped - the size of the lens just blocks part of the light, thus resulting in the vignette at the bottom.

I am not sure if you NEED the extra sync cord like I got; I have to play with it more. I just ordered it based on my experience when working for the photography studio - not taking into account that technology has changed in 20 years, lol. I think that the particular flash I have can be triggered by the camera without the cord but I am not sure if that will work when using it as the main flash (I know you don't need to cord to use it as a slave flash).

When I got this flash I went back and re-did some pictures I had taken before - with the same lens but not the flash. It made a noticeable difference, esp. in larger rooms. It was money well spent and I don't regret it in the least.

I love my camera so much - it's practically an appendage like my hand or my foot; I'm never without it. Every day I learn something new it seems!

Sometimes I just content myself with having the lens set at only 14 or 15mm. Then I don't have the vignette. Depends on how much playing around I want to do, and I have to decide if the picture is REALLY enhanced by being "wide open." Sometimes, it makes little difference or it also makes too much of a distortion and the room looks better at 15mm than 10mm.

If you play around with Photoshop you may wish to brush up on the distortion correction tool - that has helped me a lot. Even if you hold the camera perfectly level you may get some distortions.

Here are some blogs I found on ActiveRain that may be helpful. ActiveRain is a storehouse of great tips and ideas, you just need to hunt them down.

http://activerain.com/blogsview/1430475/...-them-straight-

http://activerain.com/blogsview/1452501/correcting-those-crooked-photos-a-tutorial

This one is simple, not the one I was looking for, but tells the same story with fewer words:

http://activerain.com/blogsview/851050/my-favorite-adobe-elements-feature

When I look through my viewfinder I keep the vertical lines vertical otherwise the rooms look distorted.

HERE is the one I was looking for:

http://activerain.com/blogsview/12149/someone-needs-to-tell-the-truth-photos-lie-

Shame on a photographer with 10's of thousand of real estate photos under their belt for offering advise on a post asking for photography advise.

For lens pincushion or barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, and perspective in normal and fisheye lenses pickup a program called PTlens. It will help. It has templates for different lens and cameras, and reads the shoot information incorporated in the photos. Also, the cheaper the lens the more vignetting, lens distortion and chromatic aberration. So it you are needing to do a great deal of correcting, look at getting better glass.

To remove the dark spot from the lens, move the flash up, forward and use a diffuser. You can also bounce the flash off a ceiling and/or high wall. Don't use the built in flash.

As for turning off the flash for inside photos. This can work if the room has good lighting from high windows. If you are taking photos in the morning or late afternoon, watch out for shadows. Most rooms will need a flash to even out the lighting and to keep it from appear dark.

I haven't experienced too much distortion (I should hope for the price (it wasn't cheap) that I wouldn't have too much - nothing appears hideous.

My flash appears to be fixed unfortunately. Darn!

I will check these things out that Perky and Neal M are speaking of and report back.

If you are saying that your lens is built in, then bouncing or moving the flash will not be possible. Instead work with the zoom on the lens. The wider the angle, the more the area below the lens will show. So reduce the width of the view until the shadow does not show. Either that or Photoshop it out.

If you are stating that your flash must be mounted to the shoe on the camera, the solution is a frame and hot shoe cable. You mount the camera and flash to the frame. The cable connects the hot shoe on the camera with the flash.

If you are stating that your flash is repaired and you don't have an excuse to replace it, then there are several options. I favor the ones involving kinetic energy and hard surfaces or high explosives.

The person was asking for advice on a camera to buy, not to be advised to "hire a pro."

I will say I've looked around but I am not familiar with all the terms, buttons, choices - they seem to abound and I'm more in line with Perky's hubby - want it simple but want it to do everything (sounds like a first-time home buyer, huh?).

Hubby decided to drag me to the camera shop (not Best Buy, etc.) and this is the one he seemed to think would do the job. When I looked through the wide angle lens (the shop was very wide (40 ft at least), there was no distortion in any of the four edges, so, I was happy with that.

And the regular lens (18-35mm?) will probably do the job in most situations.

I've tried the subject with background fuzzy (that was nice) and the closeup (really close up) - nice there too. Didn't see alot of different in some of the other 'choices' it has to offer; but, I really need to do it on a day when I'm not so tired also.

It's a matter of trial/error and practice, practice, practice.

NealM needs to understand in our line of work - we DO the work with usually no guarantees of getting paid whereas a professional photographer's there with their hand out as soon as the pics are available. No offense, but our payment system is very different.

But, I, and I'm sure others, welcome any suggestions, recommendations.

VABroker, I do understand. That is why we have set up our payment structure to match the cash flow of agents. We take the photos, let the agents use them as they need, advertise them on the areas leading real estate site and send the invoice after the property sells. If the property doesn't sell, we don't get paid either. That's our form of a money back guarantee if the photos and advertising doesn't help sell the property.

I know many of you have different experiences with professional real estate photographers. Some of those experiences may not have always been positive. But, I believe in using a pro to handle a job because of the experience they bring in. That goes for both real estate and photography.

I understand that some agents don't wish to heed my advise, so I am also willing to try and help them take the best photos possible without a pro.

Perky - Clearly you have had some bad experiences with some photographers that has left a bad taste in your mouth. I'm not going to personalize this by bad mouthing your photos, your listings or you. But I will dispute your statements.


If a FSBO seller posted that he needed help on choosing the correct paper sign to place in front of there house, I would see nothing wrong with an agent stating a paper sign would not be appropriate or that a agent could help them make better choice or sell the property. In addition, if there were other posts that stated misconceptions about the selling process, it would be appropriate for an agent to set the record straight.


Interesting comment given the reach of the photo that are placed in the MLS and on the internet. Given that a buyers first view of a property is very likely to be from photos placed in that [less] prestigious MLS or internet site, I am thinking the internet photos should be of greater importance.


Properties also sell daily with poor landscaping, ugly wallpaper, missing walls, poor locations, bad roofs.... so I guess the PUBLIC does not really care about any of those items. The true is that property will sell despite many flaws or awful photos. The question is how long will it take to sell and will the selling price have to compensate for those flaws.
This indicates that the photos ARE important and that buyers are influenced by them.

When you hold an open house or have a buyer tour a property, do you tell the owners to have the property clean and presentable or do you tell them to leave the carpets unvacuumed, the dirty cloths on the floor and dust on the furniture? Why - because how a property is displayed effects how a property sells, with the first impression being the most important. Given that most buyer first view of a property is through photos on the internet, shouldn't those photos present the property in the best light?

No - they literary move on to the next property. No buyer is going to call an agent and tell them that the photos are bad, they will simply move on to the listing with the nice photos. The agent won't get the call and the property will stay on the market longer.

Few real estate photographer would charge a couple hundred dollars for a $60,000 house. If they did, I would expect that you would find a different photographer. We do a great deal of work with properties under $60,000 because in our area we can offer our product at a price that makes it worth while to the agents. That may not be the case in all areas.

This is true for every small business. You, I, and the guy selling fruit on the corner have to deal with this. It is part of running a business.

I deleted my post because I realized I just did not want to get into an argument. The only bad experience I had with photographers was online. I love photographers, and at one point almost pursued it as a vocation, and sometimes I still wish I had.

That said, I just don't want to argue with you. I have my opinion, you have yours...peace, out.

I'm talking about listings I send to people to look at and consider. I tell you this: unless the house is priced right, pretty pictures are not going to sell it. If the house is overpriced, then it is an overpriced house with pretty pictures.

I'm not saying NICE pictures are not important. If I thought NICE PICTURES were unimportant, I would not have spent the tons of money that I have spent on my camera, lenses, flash, and other equipment. Pictures do not have to be PROFESSIONALLY TAKEN to be NICE.

I have gone on youtube and seen some of the videos (and they're created with photos) of HUD homes from one listing broker and they are the suckiest pics in the world, and, I've seen sucky ones on the MLS. The really sucky ones are by the agents who apparently are using their cell phones for photos.

I think I'm going to have to pull some of those photos out just to use for comparison at presentations. Sure as heck WON'T hurt my chances at all.

I, at least, try to get centers, angles, things looking decent.

Perky - we should really THANK the agents that take sucky pics!

Yes, we should, because it really helps us look fantastic, LOL. I have really made eyes pop when I showed others examples of a house listed by someone with sucky pics vs. when I got it and took pics of the same room.

did anyone hear about the real estate agent/prof. photographer who was recently found dead on his property? he died of exposure.

I hear he was over-exposure, and in the end he was shuttering from the cold.

yeah, it was so cold, he died in a flash.

Oh SHOOT!

*roll eyes*

LOL

Perky how do you like the camera? I've read numerous online reviews but would love to hear a review from someone in our business. I'm planning on picking up the same model this week. Thanks, Ed

I love it. I have not been able to use it to its full potential though, due to time contraints...lol. I would recommend getting one of the "Field Guide" books to go along with it - I like this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Buschs-Digital-Photography-Camera-Guides/dp/1435460286/ref=cm_aya_orig_subj

I've asked Santa for a new flash for my camera. That 'shadow' from the wide lens just really bugs me. Getting distortion now when I'm too wide focusing.

Don't have time to learn everything yet. But, just looking at my pics when they're 'off', you can tell it's not a point and shot camera.

You'll avoid the shadow if you keep the lens no wider than 14 or 15 mm. I had to experiment to find that "sweet spot."

Thanks Perky.

Wished I'd seen that 15mm or so post - yes, I experimented this weekend and I can get just under 15mm without the shadow although I get a little less of the room too - 'course, if there's a REAL dark floor underneath then my problem is solved. I'm going to start recommending dark flooring to everyone I meet.

Hubby had a crazy flash that he put on the camera but then he had to get into the ISOs and goodness knows what all else. Told him I couldn't remember all that stuff and I certainly didn't want to be at a property for the WHOLE day trying to take pics. Can't understand WHY Canon couldn't have just made the standard flash raise up and/or swivel left/right & upwards. It's such a SIMPLE concept! Hubby says it's because Canon wouldn't have an excuse to sell me a separate flash. Oh, I hate commercialism sometimes....

The 430 speedlite that I got however is worth it's weight...seriously. I love it! It has so much more control than the on-board flash and I like being able to adjust the head and density of the output. You know how some on-camera flashes are just too bright and everything close looks all washed out? No more of that with this flash. It's really wonderful.

The next time I take pics I'll do some with it, without, and with the on-camera flash and compare them.

Huh? Say what?

Perky - Yes post photos when you have the chance. I did an inspection today and took a few photos of rooms at 10mm and at 15mm - it looks like I lose several feet on the sides, but I still gain so much more than with my Coolpix.

I'm gonna hope Santa gets me the right flash - Santa has a mind of his own. 'course, after watching Mike & Molly last night, Mike's friend's girlfriend says you gotta look 'em right in the eye, tell 'em EXACTLY what you want them to do and have them REPEAT what you said.

I'm going to start trying that.

Email him a link. Or find it and print it out and tape it to his hand. Your Santa sounds kinda like mine. I remember asking him to get me a Peggy Lee CD and instead he got me Dinah Washington. Um, not even CLOSE darlin'. LOL

I have found, btw, better prices for some things on Adorama.com than on Amazon!

Re: Bill - I think he meant to post that on the YouTube thread

I have been using a Sony DSC R-1 with external flash for several years and after 10,000+ photos I finally got around to shooting photos off of the auto mode...guess it is never too late to teach an old dog new tricks
Sony DSC R-1

Santa brought the additional flash for my Canon Rebel T3. Also a load of other camera stuff that I haven't a clue what to do with - I'm a basic person - geesh!

Flash pointed at the ceiling seems to give the best picture (warm, clear and truer to life). Wished Canon would have done that to begin with. Now, another thing to lug around to HUD properties; but, hey, when I've got a regular listing, I'll look snazzy! And, so will my pics!

I love bouncing the flash off the ceilings!! LOL It does look very very nice and warm. Keep playing, play with the white balance settings too. I have found that SOMETIMES the "auto modes" are best but somethings setting your own mode is best.

When I'm taking outdoor pictures I often just use the "Scene Intelligence Mode" (The green A+ or whatever it is)

I have learned to set the setting to something else when I take a photo of the moon - drug myself out very early in the a.m. to take photos of the moon - it was soooo cool.

Please share if you can! I love taking pics of the moon!

I have yet to drag my lazy butt out of bed early enough for a sunrise. In the winter, while the timing isn't so bad, I just don't want to go out in the cold. In the summer when it's warmer, it's just tooo darn early, lol

It's probably a little fuzzy - have to work on the 'camera shake'. It doesn't help that I developed carpel tunnel syndrome about 3 mos. ago. Finally went to the doctor today - she thinks my right arm's tendons at the shoulder are sprained also. Hurts to hold camera too long (and then hurts worse longer than that afterwards) and then to struggle pushing the button (and...6 a.m. is TOO early in the dark to try to put up a tripod!). I'm learning, just the same! The 'light' is actually from a motion detector light. Any other time, the danged thing wouldn't turn on - it's Murphy's Law. You can see my shadow in the lower right corner on the the evergreen.
I'll try again for a better pic soon.

Cool! You will get it! A tripod will be good in this situation, with the self timer. Using the self timer eliminates that tiny bit of shake when you press the shutter.

Oddly I've gotten some good moon pictures hand held, which surprised me. I have a spot down the road from me where there is an open pasture, and as the moon is rising, it is HUGE - but only for a very short period of time; in a matter of minutes it's like a little disc in the sky again.

Has anyone seen these new amazing 3D cameras. I'm going to try and borrow one this week to shoot a home to see what it looks like on the MLS. The photos are strange to look at but seem to draw one into them.

I dunno...I might check them out. I hate 3D movies...maybe 3D pictures won't be so irritating lol

Hi,
Why don't you go for a video showing the active images. I am sure that it will attract more people.
Well, if you ask then, I used a Canon Rebel T3 and also a 10-30mm lens on Christmas. It will sure 'open' up the rooms.

I shoot a lot of video and have yet to see video do justice to the inside of a home that does not move. Most videos are just pans of rooms and do not make compelling video.

Video needs life like this one I shot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLVspRliUYU It has been liked over 54 times on facebook. I have never seen a video of a home that anyone would like except maybe the selling anent and or the seller.

3D on the other had has a way of drawing one into the photos. They are very cool and very warm. I think they might work well on static images like rooms. Have to test it out. Will not know until I try.

I don't think you linked to the right video - that one is about people around Salt Spring.

I think it's a matter of personal opinion. Potential buyers want to see the space and see if it works for them. I don't think we need to be Steven Speilburg. lol

my point was videos need life. I have never seen a video of a home or property that is any good. Most RE "videos" are just static shots linked together and hosted on youtube. They are not videos. IMHO video just does not work for a home. It is to boring one needs life people and a story in a video. Not endless pans of rooms.

Realtors should be using video in marketing themselves, I have over 600 on youtube channel but not one house videos.

It is not easy to shoot quality RE shots. This thread has great points about tri pods and all.

I did one that I'm somewhat proud of, using a combination of live video and stills. The home is under contract. Did the vid help? I dunno. I agree that most videos are dumb...but then again, most real estate listings are dumb too. LOL