Best Portrait Combo?

Started Aug 7, 2014 | Discussions thread
Moti Veteran Member • Posts: 8,194
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

ktownbill wrote:

Moti wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Chikoo wrote:

daggah wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Choose a sentence.

You're the one that claimed he is wrong, so the burden is on you to expound on that. Quit being evasive. It seems that you're not interested in dialog, but rather you're only interested in trolling.

There is too much to write, that is why I asked for one sentence that I can refute.

Start with the first one.

Full frame adds what you think it will add.

Theoretically, based on figures, all this is true. In practical real world photography, it doesn't always work like this because there are sometimes different considerations that can no be measured.

So this is how I see it.

Wrong. It adds better tonality when you can shoot at base ISO which is important for portraits;

The most important tonality issue for portraits is skin tones. Better tonality can be important for OOC, but in practice most of the serious portrait photographers would shoot raw and process, in which case, difference in tonality is not significant.

it adds better resolution.

it doesn't add better resolution; it may add more resolution, weather it is better or not depends on you large you point. Not everyone really needs it.

you shoot with longer FL and those lenses tend to be better -

They don't tend to be better, the tend to be different. As a matter of fact, contemporary portrait photographers would use any FL from WA to tele lenses and it is a matter of personal choice and taste more than anything else. Most existing lenses can very successfully be used for portraits, with most formats, if you know what you are doing.

better bokeh,

Bokeh is the quality of the blur and not the quantity, therefore it depends on the lens character and not on the sensor size.

better sharpness;

During over 50 years of photography experience, I havven't seen many lenses that do not have good sharpness for portrait photography. As a matter if fact, lens sharpness isn't one of the most important considerations for portrait photography.

you can do better background separation when needed

Well, not necessarily. There are plenty of ways to separate a subject from the background, using blur is only one of them and not always the best. So the statement of "better background separation" is only a matter of personal taste.

(135/2 on FF really shines);

Indeed. It was one of my preferred lens when I used Canon. But now with M4/3, my 75mm f1.8 comes very close to it but it needs a different technique to work with.

if you shoot Canon, for example, you get better colors;

that was not my experience. I shot Canon FF for many years and by my own comparison, I find the colors from my E-M1 to be better OOC, but as I shoot RAW, it is irrelevant.

more accurate AF, too.

Only for fast moving objects. Irrelevant for portrait photography. In most cases when I shoot portraits, if I'm not in a hurry, I'd prefer to focus manually.

This will happen regardless of whether you think about it or not.

This will not happens by itself, as a camera is just a tool with a certain potential and without a skilled and a talented photographer who knows what to do with this potential, all this is worth nothing.


-- hide signature --

Moti..... How are we supposed to take your advice seriously when you are using a MFT camera for portraiture that has a bokeh BG. You have lost credibility for sure.

I don't expect anyone here to take me seriously. My clients do and that is the only thing that matters for me.


-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow