flash photos with EOS 90D overexposed

[rdb60]

I recently purchased a new EOS 90D camera, and tried using it with the Canon Speedlite 430EX II that I've used for years with my older EOS 60D.  I was shooting indoor photos in an office building with typical lighting for an office.  Over the years, I've been in the habit of using the Speedlite with my 60D in these situations to make sure there was enough light in the photos, and also so that I can shoot photos when the light in the room may not be turned on.  As a commercial real estate appraiser, I often have to take photos inside vacant buildings where the electricity is turned off, so I'm just in the habit of always using the flash.  Using the flash also means I don't have to hunt for the light switch in rooms where the light is off--I just shoot and let the Speedlite provide the light needed for the photo.

  I typically aim the flash head up at a 45 degree angle to bounce the flash off the ceiling, rather than pointing it straight ahead.  This always worked well with the 60D set in full auto (green square on the mode dial), but when I tried this yesterday with my new EOS 90D, all my images were horribly overexposed.  Camera was set to Scene Intelligent Auto on the mode dial (the green square full auto mode), and the flash was set to ETTL mode.  Lens was the same EFS 18-135mm that I've used for years with the 60D, and shots were all taken with lens zoomed all the way out for widest angle to capture as much of the room as possible.  Why did this always work with my 60D, but doesn't seem to work with the 90D?  Is there a different setting that might make things work better?  Or is there something wrong with this 90D?

[ebiggs1]

"The quicker I can get what I need and get out, the happier the tenant."

We aldo what we have to do. Don't we, and yes all I ever did was listing photos. The level of homes my aunt and uncle sold demanded the best of images.

[rdb60]

The big difference is you were trying to sell something and thus needed to paint it in its absolute best light (no pun intended).  All I'm trying to do is document what's there.  All too often my photos are mainly to cover my own @$$ in case a problem with the property arises later, because most bankers probably never even read my appraisal reports.  They don't get past page 1 where the value is listed, and don't bother with reading the 60-70 page report that lays out all the data and details how I arrived at my number.  And it's the same whether it's a small office or retail building, or a multi-million dollar property.  The EOS 90D is gross overkill for my needs, but I like nice cameras, or at least as nice as I can afford.  My small collection built over many years includes a Canon A-1, EOS 10s, EOS 60D, and now the EOS 90D.  The only lesser camera in the collection is a Canon Powershot S70, and even that one was pretty good for a "point and shoot" camera in its day, and it was a big upgrade from the Kodak digital cameras I used in the early days of digital photography back in the mid to late 90s.

[zakslm]

rdb60,

Interesting!

For my “day job” I occasionally review commercial estate appraisals and I look at every photo.  The quality and quantity of the photos have increase quite a bit in the last 10 years in my opinion. I do have a quick question though - are you required to photograph the  lavatories?  Every appraisal I review has at least one photo of the “facilities”. 

Regards, 

LZ

[rdb60]

Yes, and no.  There are more very specific requirements for residential appraisals than there typically are for commercial appraisals, but a lot of us commercial appraisers (like me) got our start as residential appraisers, and old habits sometimes die hard.  I haven't been a residential appraiser in more than 30 years, and requirements change over time, but you used to be required at a minimum to take photos of the front, back, street, alley (if applicable), and photos of each major room (LR, kitchen, bedrooms, etc.).  Some lenders also required photos of bathrooms and garage, some didn't.  It's often hard to remember which lender requires what, so you often put in all the extra stuff because it's easier to do that than to handle a later request for a revision because you forgot something that particular lender wants.  And if you think about it, the quality of the bathrooms (or restrooms) often tells you a lot about the overall interior quality of a house or commercial building.  

As far as the quantity and quality of photos in appraisal reports goes, digital cameras have improved a lot since the early days of digital photography back in the mid to late 90s.  I first made the switch from film to digital for my appraisal work in '97.  Camera resolutions were much lower, and even if you did have a slightly higher resolution camera, printers often weren't up to the task of doing the higher resolution justice.  And an increase in quantity since the days of film is easy to understand.  Before digital, you had the cost of film, the cost of developing, the need to have a place to store negatives so you could re-print photos of comparable sales if you re-used them in another report, etc.  When we switched to digital, we discovered there were also savings that we never even thought about, like how much we used to spend on double-sided tape to attach those photos to the pages in the report.  With digital, the cost of putting more photos in a report is negligible, and a picture is worth a thousand words, so more photos helps the reader to better understand the property being appraised.  I've also invested in a good quality drone, studied to get the FAA Part 107 drone pilots' license,  and include aerial photos in nearly all of my appraisal reports now.