Best Portrait Combo?

[teseg]

I have had a Sony RX1 for 1 1/2 years and absolutely love it for all manner of photography. So much so to the point that 95%+ of all my 10K+ photos since it was purchased have come from this lovely machine and several months ago I sold off all my cropped sensor equipment. When I would take crop sensor pictures the malleability and quality of the files were clearly inferior in many ways. The RX1 sensor + lens really makes an unbeatable combo. HOWEVER... I never have been into shooting portraits... until recently.

More recently my wife and son have started to appreciate my photographs and more and more have been asking I photography them or their friends at various functions. With a 35mm FL lens I have finally found the RX1's limitation.

What is the ideal camera body and lens for amazing portrait photography (make + model)? I'm interested in a FF body and ~90mm lens. Suggestions and samples appreciated.

 

[Jim Cassatt]

In my retirement I have taken up portrait photography to pay for my equipment. Until recently my favorite portrait combo was the Canon 5D in its various iterations and the excellent 85 mm f1.8. Shot at f2.8, images are sharp and the out of focus areas nice.

However, recently I have fallen in love with the Fujinon 56 mm (85 mm equivalent) on my Fuji X-E2. Makes me forget all about the full frame "advantage". The rave reviews of that lens are well justified. The only reason I keep the Canon combo is that the flash system available for the Fuji is still in its infancy, and there are times when I do need fill flash.

 

[teseg]

In my retirement I have taken up portrait photography to pay for my equipment. Until recently my favorite portrait combo was the Canon 5D in its various iterations and the excellent 85 mm f1.8. Shot at f2.8, images are sharp and the out of focus areas nice.

However, recently I have fallen in love with the Fujinon 56 mm (85 mm equivalent) on my Fuji X-E2. Makes me forget all about the full frame "advantage". The rave reviews of that lens are well justified. The only reason I keep the Canon combo is that the flash system available for the Fuji is still in its infancy, and there are times when I do need fill flash.

 

[Amamba]

I have had a Sony RX1 for 1 1/2 years and absolutely love it for all manner of photography. So much so to the point that 95%+ of all my 10K+ photos since it was purchased have come from this lovely machine and several months ago I sold off all my cropped sensor equipment. When I would take crop sensor pictures the malleability and quality of the files were clearly inferior in many ways. The RX1 sensor + lens really makes an unbeatable combo. HOWEVER... I never have been into shooting portraits... until recently.

More recently my wife and son have started to appreciate my photographs and more and more have been asking I photography them or their friends at various functions. With a 35mm FL lens I have finally found the RX1's limitation.

What is the ideal camera body and lens for amazing portrait photography (make + model)? I'm interested in a FF body and ~90mm lens. Suggestions and samples appreciated.

You don't need a FF body, the best portraits I've ever shot were with a Canon APS-C DSLR and an $350 Canon EF85/1.8 - an amazing lens for colors, sharpness and bokeh. If I was only shooting portraits and could use only one lens, a T4i + EF85/1.8 would be my preferred combo.

 

[teseg]

I have had a Sony RX1 for 1 1/2 years and absolutely love it for all manner of photography. So much so to the point that 95%+ of all my 10K+ photos since it was purchased have come from this lovely machine and several months ago I sold off all my cropped sensor equipment. When I would take crop sensor pictures the malleability and quality of the files were clearly inferior in many ways. The RX1 sensor + lens really makes an unbeatable combo. HOWEVER... I never have been into shooting portraits... until recently.

More recently my wife and son have started to appreciate my photographs and more and more have been asking I photography them or their friends at various functions. With a 35mm FL lens I have finally found the RX1's limitation.

What is the ideal camera body and lens for amazing portrait photography (make + model)? I'm interested in a FF body and ~90mm lens. Suggestions and samples appreciated.

You don't need a FF body, the best portraits I've ever shot were with a Canon APS-C DSLR and an $350 Canon EF85/1.8 - an amazing lens for colors, sharpness and bokeh. If I was only shooting portraits and could use only one lens, a T4i + EF85/1.8 would be my preferred combo.

Interesting observation that a FF camera does not add that extra something special for portraits. I suppose purely from bokeh/separation perspective there could be a FF advantage... but then with a f/1.2 to f/1.8 lens on a cropped camera it would not be much of an issue.

 

[Ido Scharf]

A fast telephoto lens for APS-C will yield some very shallow depth of field, too - you don't necessarily need 35mm full frame equipment for that purpose. Take the Fujifilm 56mm f/1.2 lens for example: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/albums/fujifilm-xf-56mm-f1-2-r-samples-gallery

The lens is effectively an 85mm f/1.8 lens for full frame.

If you choose to go for a full frame interchangeable-lens system, your options are Canon, Nikon and Sony. You should preferably stay with Sony, as you're probably already familiar with the menu and buttons layout.

Full frame options to consider:

Sony Alpha 7 / 7R / 7S. There's a 55mm f/1.8 lens available (which can be great for portraits), but currently no native fast telephoto primes. You can use a Sony adapter and hook up one of their excellent lenses for the A-mount, such as the 85mm f/1.4 or 135mm f/1.8.

Canon EOS 6D. Really, it should be enough - you probably won't need the 5D Mark III. And the 6D is better than any of the older Canon EOS full frame cameras, such as the 5D Mark II. As far as lenses are concerned, you should probably consider the EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. If you cheap out and get the 85mm f/1.8, or a 70-200mm f/4, you won't get any benefit over the Fuji 56mm f/1.2 and the upcoming 50-140mm f/2.8.

With Canon, I highly recommend buying manufacturer-refurbished, as they have good prices for both cameras and lenses, and a 1-year warranty.

Nikon D610, or refurbished D800, with an AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G and/or AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II. Much like with Canon, if you cheap out and get an 85mm f/1.8 or a 70-200mm f/4, you won't have any benefit over the Fuji combo.

 

[Jim Salvas]

Perspective is important in portrait photography and that is dependent on where you stand, not on the focal length. Choosing a different focal length allows you to take your shot with the proper framing and without cropping. It also matters a lot if by "portrait" you mean a tight headshot, a head and shoulders shot (probably what most people mean), a waist-length shot, full length or even group photos.

Take perspective and distance first. For me, most people look best in the camera's 2D representation from about 10-12 feet away. You can move in to about 8 feet without undue distortion of long noses and sharp chins, but standing back is better. Anyway, let's say you're standing between 8 and 12 feet from your subject.

For that head and shoulders shot, you want vertical coverage of a little less than 3 feet. With the camera in portrait orientation, this will give you some breathing room at the top of the frame.

At 8 feet, an 85mm lens will give a little more than 3 feet of coverage, which means you might want to crop a bit or be tempted to move in closer. Most people do the latter, which is why I'm not too fond of 85mm lenses for portraits. At 12 feet, to me an ideal distance for this shot, the 85mm covers 5 feet, well more than enough for a waist-length shot, but definitely overkill for a head and shoulders.

It never ceases to amaze me that 85 is considered a great portrait length on a full frame body. Yes, it's not bad on APS-C, but on full frame, it's just a "long normal" to me.

In comparison, a 135mm lens would be great for a head and shoulders at 12 feet, covering just over 3 feet. Moving in, that lens gives you a tighter head shot at 8 feet.

For what it's worth, I'm currently using a 75mm lens on a 2x crop body (150mm equivalent) for portraits. I would prefer a fast and sharp zoom lens covering the entire "portrait" range, from 80mm to about 300mm equivalent. Olympus is due to release one of these soon for my camera and I'm psyched to get it.

--

Jim Salvas
"You miss 100% of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky

 

[Jim Cassatt]

You can get an X-E1 for not a lot of money these days. Great camera. Right now for outdoor portraits I use the X-E2 with 56 mm f1.2 and a second body, the X-E1, with the 35 mm f1.4 for those cases when I need full length portraits and don't have enough room to back up.

Example from the X-E2 with 56 f1.2

--
Jim

Galleries by Jim Cassatt

www.pbase.com

 

[69chevy]

Canon 5dII, 5dIII or 6d. 135mm f2.

 

[teseg]

For what it's worth, I'm currently using a 75mm lens on a 2x crop body (150mm equivalent) for portraits. I would prefer a fast and sharp zoom lens covering the entire "portrait" range, from 80mm to about 300mm equivalent. Olympus is due to release one of these soon for my camera and I'm psyched to get it.

--

Jim Salvas
"You miss 100% of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky

This is an interesting idea... 80mm - 300mm "portrait lens". My first attempt at portraits with my wife and her girlfriend with a 35mm required me to crop a fair amount. I'm not sure I want some honking huge zoom lens, however.

I'm thinking a 24MP sensor allows for some cropping if necessary + 85mmEFL lens likely meets most of what I am looking for.

Right now I think I'm leaning towards a Nikon D610 + Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G Classic Portrait Lens

 

[cpkuntz]

D810 and Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar. That would make a killer combo. For the ultimate, go for a Nikon 200mm f/2G IF-ED AF-S VR II and a D810 and a Pano head. Stand about 10 feet from the subject and shoot a pano to get roughly a medium format or even 4x5 format FOV. That will blow some socks off.

 

[teseg]

D810 and Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar. That would make a killer combo. For the ultimate, go for a Nikon 200mm f/2G IF-ED AF-S VR II and a D810 and a Pano head. Stand about 10 feet from the subject and shoot a pano to get roughly a medium format or even 4x5 format FOV. That will blow some socks off.

2 concerns with the Zeiss proposal... no AF and maybe a bit long to be the single portrait lens in my stable (of 2 lenses on 2 bodies - I hate changing lenses). Your other proposal just sounds too complex for what I would want to deal with, but I'm sure the result would be outstanding if properly implemented.

Question. For a hobbyist who shoots ~5K pictures a year what does the D810 give me vs. the D610, because I think we're talking almost double the cost? If I recall, the sensors are extremely comparable in performance.

 

[PalmettoFellow]

I have had a Sony RX1 for 1 1/2 years and absolutely love it for all manner of photography. So much so to the point that 95%+ of all my 10K+ photos since it was purchased have come from this lovely machine and several months ago I sold off all my cropped sensor equipment. When I would take crop sensor pictures the malleability and quality of the files were clearly inferior in many ways. The RX1 sensor + lens really makes an unbeatable combo. HOWEVER... I never have been into shooting portraits... until recently.

More recently my wife and son have started to appreciate my photographs and more and more have been asking I photography them or their friends at various functions. With a 35mm FL lens I have finally found the RX1's limitation.

What is the ideal camera body and lens for amazing portrait photography (make + model)? I'm interested in a FF body and ~90mm lens. Suggestions and samples appreciated.

You don't need a FF body, the best portraits I've ever shot were with a Canon APS-C DSLR and an $350 Canon EF85/1.8 - an amazing lens for colors, sharpness and bokeh. If I was only shooting portraits and could use only one lens, a T4i + EF85/1.8 would be my preferred combo.

Interesting observation that a FF camera does not add that extra something special for portraits. I suppose purely from bokeh/separation perspective there could be a FF advantage... but then with a f/1.2 to f/1.8 lens on a cropped camera it would not be much of an issue.

The more wide open you shoot your portrait, the less chance you have of having the whole face being in focus. Crop cameras increase DoF already, so using f1.4 on a crop will give you better face focus than F1.4 on FF. Your background may look better with FF, but your subject may not look as good if you can't nail the focus at those wide apertures.

 

[dannybgoode]

Sigma DP3M - £350 here in the UK and with a 75mm-ish FL good for portraits. Plus you can crop a DPxM image as much as you want with barely any loss in detail.

Decent flash as well and all in you would be set for £450ish. Don't know US prices but it is a ridiculous camera for the money.

Small as well-no lugging around a hulking great dSLR...

 

[mgatov]

I echo your love of the RX-1.

As for the portrait combo... I'm using the D810 and the 85 f1.8. So far, it has exceeded my expectations. But, if I were to choose the best from my years of photography, it would have to be the Contax RTSIII with the 84mm f1.4 Zeiss lens. Nothing since then has replicated it's dreamy bokeh and microcontrast.

For a walk-around camera, I still love the RX-1. It is light, capable, and takes wonderful pictures. When I need more flexibility and am willing the bear the load, the D810 kit (28mm f1.8, 5mm f1.8, and 85mm f1.8) works great for me. The lenses are quite light and not a big issue to carry around. Since the main goal of the D810, for me, is to get the best possible images, I only want to use prime lenses. Those 3 primes weigh less than the 24-70mm 2.8 zoom.

 

[mgatov]

Question. For a hobbyist who shoots ~5K pictures a year what does the D810 give me vs. the D610, because I think we're talking almost double the cost? If I recall, the sensors are extremely comparable in performance.

I chose the D810 because of the better autofocus and the higher resolution. The added resolution lets me crop more. Not because I'm sloppy about my framing, but because it gives me greater reach with my lenses.

Also, I'm of the opinion that photographic equipment has hit a plateau in terms of image quality. Sensor size now is more about depth of field for me. I really can't see a need to upgrade for many years to come. Considering the image quality of the D810, what more should I expect? The limiting factor now is the ability of lenses to perform up to the sensor.

 

[PalmettoFellow]

Also, I'm of the opinion that photographic equipment has hit a plateau in terms of image quality. Sensor size now is more about depth of field for me. I really can't see a need to upgrade for many years to come. Considering the image quality of the D810, what more should I expect? The limiting factor now is the ability of lenses to perform up to the sensor.

They may release a new body in a year that you absolutely need to have

 

[mgatov]

They may release a new body in a year that you absolutely need to have

That is a distinct possibility! But I like to believe in the law of diminishing returns. I'll have to see a real difference before I turn my system choice upside down.

 

[69chevy]

The more wide open you shoot your portrait, the less chance you have of having the whole face being in focus. Crop cameras increase DoF already, so using f1.4 on a crop will give you better face focus than F1.4 on FF. Your background may look better with FF, but your subject may not look as good if you can't nail the focus at those wide apertures.

That's not a very good argument for using a crop sensor. Increasing DOF is as easy as stopping down. Decreasing it gets tricky when you are limited by the framing of a crop.

 

[teseg]

Question. For a hobbyist who shoots ~5K pictures a year what does the D810 give me vs. the D610, because I think we're talking almost double the cost? If I recall, the sensors are extremely comparable in performance.

I chose the D810 because of the better autofocus and the higher resolution. The added resolution lets me crop more. Not because I'm sloppy about my framing, but because it gives me greater reach with my lenses.

Also, I'm of the opinion that photographic equipment has hit a plateau in terms of image quality. Sensor size now is more about depth of field for me. I really can't see a need to upgrade for many years to come. Considering the image quality of the D810, what more should I expect? The limiting factor now is the ability of lenses to perform up to the sensor.

Yes... this is exactly what I found with the RX1 from 1 1/2 years ago... there is nothing out there in the 35mm - 50mm range whatsoever that tempts me. I suppose the D810 would then meet my need for all else for the rest of my life... until they boil that camera down to Sony A7 size but with identical performance, quality and lens selection ... and that would be some time. The D810 is what I would pull out of the trap door in my floor for decades to come when I've exhausted all other options... my secret weapon.