Camera setup for facade inspections?

[milkshakelake]

I need to do facade inspections for buildings that are 4-6 stories in height. I need to be able to zoom in to cracks and parapets. Anyone have a suggestion for what equipment to use? (I also posted this on a photography forum, but maybe someone here has faced this issue already.)

For reference, I currently use a Sony RX V (up to 70mm) on a tripod and it just isn't cutting it. It can't zoom far enough and the pictures come out blurry. I tried low ISO and narrow aperture - all the things that should give a clear image - but I think I'm hitting some hard limitations of the sensor and lens itself.

I'm currently thinking of getting a Sony A7 IV and telephoto lens. My only concern is the massive size and weight of the camera, lens, and tripod, along with other site visit equipment (measuring tools, drawings, paper/tablet, etc). Whoever uses it will have to lug it around all day, since they do multiple site visits in one shot. But then again, using a smaller kit will result in lower image quality, so I'm not sure about that either.

I'm not sure if this belongs on this forum; will move it if it doesn't.

 

[SWComposites]

use a drone?

 

[WesternJeb]

Drones are the future of inspection for sure. After a recent tornado, we had a contractor come in from out of state with drones to provide videos of structures and it was unmatched quality and obviously much more safe.

If you are going to break down and spend that much money, I would spend a little more and invest in a marketable product outside of your in-house uses that you can think of. You just have to go through some licensing and training calsses.

 

[milkshakelake]

Drones aren't allowed in my city

Edit: I mean technically they are, but they need an FAA license and permits for each job. I'd be priced out of the market compared to other engineers just using cameras. I think drones would be good for fancy high rise inspections, and I'm anything but fancy.

 

[WesternJeb]

I heard the Hubble Telescope has been ran out of its market too. Maybe you can team up and have them turn the Hubble around for your pictures?

 

[RenHen]

The area I live requires a hands-on inspection for 25% of the building facade and in the handful of inspections I've done, I've been able to avoid needing perfect photos of every detail by making sure that the nice closeups I'm getting of that 25% are representative of the types of deficiencies I'm noting with less great photos elsewhere. If you need them and can't get good photos without a telephoto lens, I'd recommend also investing in a little wheeled cart or bag for all the equipment to make the inspectors’ life easier.

 

[milkshakelake]

@WesternJeb I'll reach out to the telescope itself and cut out the middleman. Hopefully it has enough juice left to turn around.

@RenHen That's a good idea. I'm able to get close ups sometimes by going on fire escapes. For other jobs where I can't do close ups though, I'd need something a bit nicer. Doing some research, I think the camera I found is overspecced and I need to get something with a smaller sensor to be able to zoom farther.

 

[SWComposites]

maybe something like this extension pole to mount a remote camera on?

https://www.amazon.com/Telescopic-M...le-Lightweight-Telescoping/dp/B094NHSTJW?th=1

 

[EdStainless]

Sounds like you should read the FAA drone rules very carefully.
Those are the rules, there are no other ones that apply to drones.
Being licensed for commercial use isn't a big deal. I know a few people who are.
they sure open up a lot of options.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

 

[phamENG]

Ed - MSL is in NYC. They have their own rules...Link

MSL, let me know what you figure out. I haven't had to do one more than 3 tall stories (about 42' at the front facade), and my old Canon Rebel with a telephoto worked well enough, but only just. With luck I'll have more and bigger ones myself, and having a bit more range would be good. I might go ahead and do the drone thing, though. We don't have those crazy rules around here, and I already have my Private Pilot's License. Haven't used it in 12 years, but I've heard it's pretty easy to pass the drone tests if you've been through that.

 

[lexpatrie]

Are you trying to inspect a facade from the ground?

 

[milkshakelake]

@EdStainless Yeah, phamENG hit the nail on the head. We need permits from the Department of Transportation for using drones here. It needs part of the street blocked off as a designated landing area. It's a costly and long process. Although it might be worth doing if I ever get into 8+ story inspections. It's probably not likely for me. There's a handful of firms that are qualified to do those, and the qualification requirements are onerous. It's something like, you need to work under a qualified facade inspector for 5 years, which I'm not going to do. Even then, those firms end up mostly using hanging scaffolds and some even have climbing teams like they're going down Mount Everest.

@phamENG I'll let you know once I figure it out. I've been talking to professional photographers and people on a photography forum, and I think I'm finally getting somewhere. I spent like 8 hours researching this so far, comparing zoomed photos and ones others took and ones on review sites. I thought it would be trivial with today's insane camera technology, but it's not. Every generation of camera is getting marginally better. There's also a point where spending more money to get a higher end camera is actually a worse solution for building inspections (because of how sensors and focal lengths work), but I think I'm getting to the sweet spot.

@lexpatrie Unfortunately, yes. There are very few cases where I can go into a building across the street and take a photo from there. It's a litigious city and nobody wants a random engineer in their building, and no owner in my end of the market is going to pay a neighbor for that access. Although when I have access to a hanging scaffold or fire escape, I use it.

 

[Tomfh]

I use canon gear. I use 55-250 canon, and 16-300 Tamron quite a lot. They are APS lenses, giving a full frame equivalent of around 400-500mm. I generally use these on an old 70D which lives in my glovebox.

I have a 100-400 v2 and a 1.4x converter too, however I don’t find they’re necessary for facade inspections. It’s overkill at that point.


Have you considered Superzoom compact cameras. Something like this:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Canon-Pow...avisau09-22&ascsubtag=06a7iKtA7D3HwqbRdJBSwYI

There are smaller ones too:

https://www.jbhifi.com.au/products/...gZqosYa0st_b-t4gv0BkMABNcXTzp44xoCgnQQAvD_BwE

 

[milkshakelake]

Yeah currently I'm thinking of getting Canon EOS R7, which is also APS-C. I'm considering 600mm and 800mm prime lenses. That would be full frame equivalent of 840mm and 1120mm, almost like a telescope. I don't think it's overkill, because when looking up from the ground, you really need all that zoom to see little cracks in a parapet. I'll probably get a normal lens for the overall photos of the building.

I have another camera in the same era as yours (Fuji X-E1) which works fantastically for indoor stuff. We talked about it on a different thread. I'm glad I took the time to figure that out, because the increased clarity is extremely helpful for identifying little things like screws and anchors that I just couldn't with an iPhone (which was our old method). The iPhone does fantastic and impossible things with low light exposures, but when actually zooming in, it doesn't hold up. I was getting complaints from another engineer in my office about images that tangibly hindered her ability to do her job, so I decided to take the time to resolve all these issues once and for all. We have better equipment and basic photography training for employees now.

I have a semi-superzoom camera (Sony RX100 V) that we use for facade inspections, but I had two reports of different buildings rejected by the building department because the images were insufficient to justify crack repairs. I compared sample photos online (mostly using this tool) and I can see that it's a limitation of the sensor. Yes, you can zoom a lot, but you lose a lot of megapixel density because of how little light goes onto the small sensor. The camera can't resolve a lot of the pixels, so the 20 megapixels or whatever becomes a misnomer. Hence why I'm rethinking the facade inspection gear.

I considered a 1.4x and 2x converter, but looking at image samples online, the image loses a lot of quality and I'm just not sure how useful it would be. It wouldn't be able to fully resolve all the pixels, being limited by the optics themselves rather than the sensor.

 

[dik]

The earlier versions of the Powershot had hot shoes... essential for a camera in the dark. My earlier copy of the camera projected a light on the object and used this for focus in the dark... I've taken photos in 'burned' structures in the dark... and they have turned out perfectly. I had one of the earlier ones twenty or more years back and it was great. I've propped the camera on a stepladder and taken 'timed' shots to capture photos of machine 'data plates' at 20' when you couldn't access the equipment.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[Tomfh]

Yeah currently I'm thinking of getting Canon EOS R7,

I have an R7 too. It provides improvement over my 90D, which was the final APS DSLR. Same resolution, but the R7 has a newer sensor and focusses better, which gives more detail in practice.

A 1.4x extender provides more real world detail again when added to the R7 + 100-400 II. The detail keeps going. Keep in mind that final image resolution is a combined function of sensor resolution AND lens resolution. Increasing either lens resolution or sensor resolution will in most cases increase the final image resolution.


Those 600 and 800 f11 lenses will provide crazy reach on the R7, but they’d be so limited unless everything you shoot is far away. I guess you could have another lens.

This is why I often use the 16-300 Tamron. It’s a piece of junk, but the range is useful, and the quality is good enough for my reporting purposes. I guess in your case it depends on how badly you need the quality.


Consider the R7 plus the RF 100-400 too (the slow black one). Maybe add a converter if you need a bit more range.

 

[milkshakelake]

Thanks for the suggestions! Having used it in real life, would you recommend the R7 to me, or would you have gotten something else? I considered full frame cameras, but the lenses on them are massive to get the same reach, which would make them hard to lug around.

Based on your comment, I'd have two lenses. A regular one and the 800mm for extreme cases. Might try an extender down the line.

 

[Tomfh]

I’d happily recommend an R7 plus a super telephoto lens if image quality and magnification are the most important factors for you. I use the R7 for distant sports for this reason. It gets me closer than full frame, which I find better suited to closer subjects. Like you say you need massive lenses to get far reach on a full frame camera.

I’d try out various focal lengths before investing. I found 600mm on APS just too much and I went back to 100-400. It’s easy to want more more more, and then end up with too close, especially when you’re talking prime lenses. But that being said, if the 800 is right for you, great. The R7 comes with an 18-150 kit lens which is pretty good. 150 is 280mm equivalent, so already miles closer than an iPhone.

I can photograph some 6th floor cracks/screws taken at 200mm, 400mm, 560mm if that helps.

 

[Hakon K]

"I'm considering 600mm and 800mm prime lenses. That would be full frame equivalent of 840mm and 1120mm, almost like a telescope."

Consider also a stand, as telephoto at those zoomlevels is very bouncy, hard to hold still. Maybe a good one of them one-leg telescopic stands, they are quite much less than a tripod.

 

[Tomfh]

Monopods are for holding big white lenses. You don’t need one with a lightweight kit