[cosus]

Pictures are an integral part of my job and so far I have been doing point and shoot. To be honest the quality is very much lacking. If Ican. I'd much rather avoid hiring a half-hearted professional, that and I'd get a camera to keep myself and ideally I'd get better over time.

My question is, considering I'm inexperienced in taking digital photography other then at Canon A-1 I used in photography class for four years in high school, what camera should I choose? Right now I've been using point and shoot cameras and the quality is really lacking and I'm feeling that if I can get better quality pictures, people would be more inclined to appreciate a house more and see it. Seeing other then point and shoot being my digital experience, and digital is a must, what cameras should I pick?

Reading though everything here, the DP-1 seems very good for my purposes, but I really have no idea. I just need to take great pictures, with my minimal digital skill and quickly get the online so that I can either email them or upload them to a website.

As for price, as long as it's not ridiculously out there, my range is very accommodating.

What would your guys advice for me be?

[T-Man]

I have no digital photography training in any way at all, but I get what I'd call good digital pictures with a Samsung Digimax 700. It's 7.2 Megapixels, so pictures are big enough for (and bigger than) most computer screens, and then they could have more detail if they're made smaller (though compression could cancel that out...). If you're looking to print full-sizes onto posters or something, then you might get 'ok resolution'.

This camera a year and a half ago was $300 if I remember right. Any $300-$400 5+ Megapixel camera would definitely do it for web photography I think. If you're looking for large poster-size-fit photography, that DP-1 does look nice.

After rereading your post, I realised that 'point and shoot' cameras don't seem to be faring well for you, which my camera would be. In my opinion, mine would do fine for digital house photography, but I don't know what type of quality you're looking for. I also just realised your primary interest with your photos seems to be on a website or in an email. In that case, a 7.2MP camera would definitely be big enough, and if you got a tripod to keep the camera still indoors, I think you could get good shots without using flash (in my history, flash often ruins 1-7 foot-far photos).

The DP-1 looks like it can't fail, but maybe look into a more modern / greater resolution 'point and shoot' than you already have ? (Resolution isn't everything, but if the camera has good lighting and is kept still, then the resolution's magnification is nice.)

I'm sure there are others who have more 'professional unprofessional' answers though, so maybe wait on them.

[PKIDelirium]

If you could wait until fall, the new Canon Rebel XS looks like the win bin.

[BuonRotto]

To me, you would need a camera with a wide angle lens, down to 18mm or lower, with some good presets and good low light performance. Any dSLR will get you what you need, and some have better presets than others. Just look into a wide angle zoom lens (it will cost you a bit, but architectural photography simply needs this) with the body and maybe a good prime at a wide angle like 18 or even 14mm. dSLRs can be used on auto or program modes and are pretty much just excellent quality point-and-shoot cameras at that point.

[turtle]

I'll give a recommendation to Canon Consumer dSLR too. I'm using an XT for my work still and love it. You won't have to be an expert and you can still get great shots. For your indoor shots be sure to use an IS lens to you can keep you ISO slower and minimizing noise.

[torifile]

I third the recommendations for a dSLR. They're invaluable for getting good shots. Get a fast enough lens and you won't have to use a harsh flash. Get a nice, fast wide-angle lens and you're set.

[BuonRotto]

you might invest a bit into software for perspective or at least lens correction. Makes a huge difference, and there are some out there for very little money.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by torifile I third the recommendations for a dSLR. They're invaluable for getting good shots. Get a fast enough lens and you won't have to use a harsh flash. Get a nice, fast wide-angle lens and you're set.

A flash can make an interior shot look better provided he bounces it and uses a balanced setting. He can also use a tripod if needed. The main thing is he should go for a lens that goes as wide as 12mm on a 1.5x crop D-SLR.

Originally Posted by PKIDelirium If you could wait until fall, the new Canon Rebel XS looks like the win bin.

I think this is quite a good choice if you can wait.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by confidenceb I think this is quite a good choice if you can wait.

Both the XS and XSi are overpriced so there's no reason to wait. The XT is a perfectly good camera as well as the options from Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc.

[admactanium]

yeah, the dpi1, while wide angled for a point and shoot camera is not nearly wide enough for house photography. you'd really need something in the range of 10-17mm on a 1.6 sensor. i have a canon 30d with a 10-20 zoom and a 17-70 walkaround. the 17 was still too long for a lot of shots in my previous house (which i shot the listing photos for).

since most house photos don't end up being high rez you could probably pick up a used low-end canon or nikon slr and just buy a nice wide lens for it. spend your money on the lens and on the tripod rather than the body since you'll probably be resizing the images down for the web or at the largest as part of a takeaway sheet. any recent slr will take photos sufficient for that rez.

[Ryan]

Maybe a Canon Digital Rebel XT and the EF-S 10-22mm with a good tripod?

[admactanium]

sure. the tokina 11-16 might be a decent choice as well. it's a pretty fast lens.

[Dorian Gray]

In case it's not obvious, the reason you need a very wide lens is not just to get the whole room in the frame, but to make it look as spacious as possible.

You don't need a fast lens because a tripod is pretty essential to hold the camera still in indoor light while using a small aperture for extensive depth of field. A tripod also makes it easier to frame the shot, which requires a lot of care with wide-angle lenses.

The secret to making good photos of interiors is very careful control of lighting, balancing the daylight from/in the windows, the interior lighting fixtures, and modifying the result with reflectors and light-absorbing material. You're not going to learn that without sustained effort and interest. But by simply using a tripod, ultra-wide lens, and nailing the exposure, you'll get much better results than simply pointing and shooting.

Helen Bach on photo.net (and elsewhere) is a master of this stuff. Example.