Is it a good idea to buy a Lumix DMC-LX100 for portraits ?

Mnemon · Oct 12, 2020

You absolutely can take great portraits with the LX100.

The most important aspect of portrait photography is psychological - get the person you take photos of to relax, to let out their personality and who they are. Maybe 15% of the rest is technique, with mastering lighting and focus much more important than Depth of Field. You can work around limited DOF by how you frame. You can't work around all the other aspects - and definitely not around that most important part mentioned: Making someone look good - or genuine - or just simply interesting.

And yes I know - not the answer folks look for on a gear head forum, but portraiture is so much less about technical perfection or abstract rules, then about connection between person being portrayed and viewer of the photo.

grsnovi · Oct 12, 2020

Vouty said:
...and I still have to learn to be comfortable with all the technical calculations on DOF and equivalent focal length...

I'm certainly not a pro and although I have used film and digital cameras for 50 years, I don't >worry< about calculated DOF. If I want to draw attention to a subject I will use a fast lens that allows me to shoot wide open with only my subject (or a portion of my subject) in focus. If I need a lot of a close subject in focus I'll use a smaller aperture (larger number). If I'm shooting a portrait, I'll try to use multiple off-camera strobes and a neutral background and (as has been mentioned) the most important part of portraits (other than getting focus and lighting correct) is getting the subject comfortable and knowing when to press the shutter.

Klaus dk · Oct 12, 2020

Vouty said:
[…]

_ a 70-200 mm zoom (full-frame equivalent) : any suggestion for a camera + lens to know the budget ?

No, not really. I used the Canon 7D DSLR with a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS lens for portraiture until I got the EOS R. If you use "focus and recompose" or select a focus point that gives you a reasonable composition, you can get good results. The AF is fast, the burst buffer is deep and you can get 7 fps.

I don't think that combo can be had for USD 300, but the body alone isn't that expensive and there's a large selection of good lenses with EF and EF-S mounts. Unfortunately, bright zooms are not budget friendly. Before I got the 50-150, I had a 50 f/1.8, 60 f/2.8 macro, 85 f/1.8 and 70-300 f/4-5.6.

Good luck and good light.

FingerPainter · Oct 12, 2020

Vouty said:
Hi Figure Painter !

I did my homework and I care about your remarks

your numbers are :

24mm/1.7 @3m (10'). about 5.7m (19') (0.7m)

75mm/16 ?? @3m, about 0.62m (2') (not sure about settings)

The second would be 75mm FFE, 34mm actual focal length, f/1.8 @3m distance

I'm sorry, I should have made it clearer that you must use the actual focal lenfth in the calculator, not the 35mm equivalent focal length, So you 10.9 for the shortest focal length and 34mm for the longest focal lenght.

Vouty said:
Depth of Field Calculator
CoC:0.013 / 24mm / 1.7 / 3m => 0.7 m (2')
CoC:0.013 / 24mm / 5.6 / 3m => 2.66 m (9')
CoC:0.013 / 24mm / 16 / 3m => infinite

CoC:0.014 / 65mm / 1.7 / 4.5m => 0.21 m (8")
CoC:0.014 / 65mm / 2.8 / 4.5m => 0.35 m (1'2")
CoC:0.014 / 65mm / 5.6 / 4.5m => 0.70 m (2')
CoC:0.014 / 65mm / 16 / 4.5m => 2.06 m (7')

CoC:0.014 / 75mm / 1.7 / 3m => 0.07 m (3")
CoC:0.014 / 75mm / 2.8 / 3m => 0.11 m (5")
CoC:0.014 / 75mm / 5.6 / 3m => 0.23 m (9")
CoC:0.014 / 75mm / 16 / 3m => 0.66 m (2')

CoC:0.014 / 75mm / 1.7 / 4m => 0.12 m (5")
CoC:0.014 / 75mm / 5.6 / 4m => 0.41 m (16")
CoC:0.014 / 75mm / 16 / 4m => 1.19 m (4')

So, can we say :

This kind of picture (DOF) would be possible

https://images.pexels.com/photos/11...g?auto=compress&cs=tinysrgb&dpr=2&h=650&w=940

not this one ?

https://images.pexels.com/photos/28...7.jpeg?auto=compress&cs=tinysrgb&h=750&w=1260

Thank you

tony field · Oct 12, 2020

Vouty said:
Examples of pictures I would like to be able to take :

Example 1: (blur on medal)

https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-woman-wearing-white-top-2811087/
example 2 :
to isolate a person in a group : at 10 feet (or less) , I would appreciate to be able to manage a depth of field of 5 to 10 inches.
https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-wearing-white-and-pink-hijab-1122679/

Light and blur (background)
https://www.pexels.com/photo/female-barista-in-beanie-and-apron-resting-chin-on-had-4350057/
lot of this :
https://www.pexels.com/photo/cheerf...t-daughter-using-smartphone-together-3791664/

I would try this kind of things ... on the fly if I like the light
https://www.pexels.com/photo/selective-focus-photography-of-sphinx-cat-lying-on-bedspread-991831/

https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-wearing-blue-and-yellow-shorts-playing-basketball-1080884/

also help of flash (may be) :
https://www.pexels.com/photo/family-sitting-on-bed-3730990/

Thank you for your help

Gilles

Essentially any decent camera will allow you to take similar images if you have sufficient skill as a photographer, both Technical and artistic. If you really like certain image attributes such as the selective focus you would be better off choosing a full frame camera and possibly even an aps-c camera.

Since such new cameras are beyond your budget, I would strongly recommend second hand cameras such as a full frame Canon 5D or the 5D Mark II which are more in your price range. Nikon and Fuji also made some aps-c cameras that would be pretty good. Two of my favourite cameras were the Nikon d2x and the Fuji s2.

FrancoD · Oct 12, 2020

Just in case you want to have another look at it..

This is one of several DOF calculators :

Loading…

www.cambridgeincolour.com

enter the details of the camera you have in mind and you will get the DOF you can expect with them.

Acrill · Oct 12, 2020

Vouty said:
By the way: do you have any suggestions for what kind of used camera might be right for the job?

Used camera?

If you're set on m4/4 then just find the cheapest used body that still works well, plus a lens like the Olympus 45mm 1.8.

Otherwise, just find an inexpensive Canon or Nikon dslr, throw on a cheap 50mm 1.8 and thats plenty of camera to get started with.

I was a fan of Sony A-series aps-c DSLRS, but they are mostly extinct now. They had an inexpensive little 85mm 2.8 that worked really well as a portrait lens.

bclaff · Oct 12, 2020

You might find this "interesting":

Optics Primer - Bokeh Ball Diameter

Ed B · Oct 12, 2020

Vouty said:
Hi !

On the paper, I love that old camera even if only 13 MB. It has a lot of features, light, ...

My question is :

Is it a good idea to buy a Lumix DMC-LX100 for portraits?

I want to buy a camera to take portraits and a camera able to manage low light (no flash) and depth of field. If the camera and I become friends, I want to keep it for years.

What do you think ?

Still possible to take good portraits with that old camera?

Printing would be no more than 8x12"

Any remark or suggestion would be welcome ... even if I do not know a lot about photography. I will do my homework to understand.

Thank you very much

nota: my budget is 300US$ (and I found a second-hand LX-100 at that price)

I had the Leica version of the LX100 and thought it was a very good general-purpose camera.

I used it for quite a few casual portraits and was more than happy with the camera.

I regret selling it.

DeathArrow · Oct 13, 2020

While I'm sure LX100 can be a good camera for shooting all sorts of photos, two things it won't do:

-have good IQ in low light unless you use it on a tripod with long shutter speed

-have a small DOF

Here are two shots taken on FF, see how small the DOF is. You can't get that with LX100.

This one is shot with Sigma 85mm f/1.4

This one is shot with Tamron 70-200, so the DOF is not that thin as of Sigma, but still much thinner than LX100 will get.

Also, you won't get noiseless photos while shooting in very low light with a fast shutter speed to freeze motion:

This one was taken with Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D

I would get an LX100 if:

-I shoot in plenty of light

-I don't care very much about IQ

-I don't need a very good AF system

-I don't need to shoot at fast shutter speed

-I shoot in low light only on tripod

If your interest is solely in portraits and a small DOF, you can get either Canon 5D + 85mm or Nikon D700 + 85mm for about the same price you'll get LX100 new, maybe a bit more, but it would be a much better portrait tool.

007peter · Oct 13, 2020

Vouty said:
Vouty wrote: Is it a good idea to buy a Lumix DMC-LX100 for portraits?

I want to buy a camera to take portraits and a camera able to manage low light (NO FLAH) and depth of field. If the camera and I become friends, I want to keep it for years.

What do you think ?

M43 camera are great for low light when assisted with a FLASH. BUT NOT SO GOOD without flash. Are you sure you want to risk ruining your portrait with mosquitoes noise on the face without FLASH?

In term of DOF, LX100 can't compete against a $80 Canon 50/1.8 prime either.

I think LX100 is a great Compact Compact camera with M43 sensor (but)

if you're goal is Low-light PORTRAITS without FLASH, then I would choose a Canon 50/1.8 prime with any used Canon DSLR over a LX100.

https://www.lelong.com.my/canon-50mm-stm-f1-8-portrait-lens-hidamari-205619563-2019-07-Sale-P.htm

canon-50mm-stm-f1-8-portrait-lens-hidamari-1807-04-HIDAMARI@3.jpg

canon-50mm-stm-f1-8-portrait-lens-hidamari-1807-04-HIDAMARI@4.jpg

Ed B · Oct 13, 2020

DeathArrow said:
While I'm sure LX100 can be a good camera for shooting all sorts of photos, two things it won't do:

-have good IQ in low light unless you use it on a tripod with long shutter speed

-have a small DOF

Here are two shots taken on FF, see how small the DOF is. You can't get that with LX100.

This one is shot with Sigma 85mm f/1.4

This one is shot with Tamron 70-200, so the DOF is not that thin as of Sigma, but still much thinner than LX100 will get.

Also, you won't get noiseless photos while shooting in very low light with a fast shutter speed to freeze motion:

This one was taken with Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D

I would get an LX100 if:

-I shoot in plenty of light

-I don't care very much about IQ

-I don't need a very good AF system

-I don't need to shoot at fast shutter speed

-I shoot in low light only on tripod

If your interest is solely in portraits and a small DOF, you can get either Canon 5D + 85mm or Nikon D700 + 85mm for about the same price you'll get LX100 new, maybe a bit more, but it would be a much better portrait tool.

I agree 100% that a camera like the LX100 just can't do as good a job in "low light" as a full-frame camera or even most cameras with an APS size sensor. and I don't think anyone who knows anything about photography would disagree with this.

Just the same there always a question about what is considered low light and how often a person actually needs a camera that's "good" in low light.

Photography is all about light so, for an experienced photographer, truly low light photography should almost be an emergency exception rather than the norm.

Even the images you posted are not low light images and could have been easily taken with an LX100 camera. Some people might consider the band picture low light photography but it's not. There's lots of light there.

When it comes to natural, indoor light or normal indoor lighting provided by regular incandescent bulbs, the LX100 does a pretty good job and would make most people very happy.

Leica version of the LX100

Leica version but the same camera internally as the LX100

I'm not saying there aren't better-featured cameras or that anyone should run out and buy an LX100 but I do think it's a better small fixed zoom lens camera than many people credit it for being.

Sorry for posting everyday type snapshots but that's all I ever used the camera for.

barbara j · Oct 13, 2020

You can use that camera for the types of images you posted but you will need to master an image editor to attain the same results. As you become more familiar with the camera there are menu driven styles you can apply during the shoot, but a photo editor is still part of the process for best results

FingerPainter · Oct 13, 2020

barbara j said:
You can use that camera for the types of images you posted but you will need to master an image editor to attain the same results. As you become more familiar with the camera there are menu driven styles you can apply during the shoot, but a photo editor is still part of the process for best results

Please explain how you will provide in software a DOF as shallow, or blur circles as large, as shown in the samples taken with FF cameras.

DeathArrow · Oct 14, 2020

FingerPainter said:
barbara j said:

You can use that camera for the types of images you posted but you will need to master an image editor to attain the same results. As you become more familiar with the camera there are menu driven styles you can apply during the shoot, but a photo editor is still part of the process for best results

Click to expand...

Please explain how you will provide in software a DOF as shallow, or blur circles as large, as shown in the samples taken with FF cameras.

Or how you remove noise without removing detail, or how you can achieve the same sharpness?

If that would be true, we all would be shooting compacts and use Photoshop to get FF quality.

tbcass · Oct 14, 2020

Do you plan on doing studio portraits with an artificial background or outdoors with natural more distant backgrounds. In a studio DOF control doesn't seem to matter much.

DeathArrow · Oct 14, 2020

tbcass said:
Do you plan on doing studio portraits with an artificial background or outdoors with natural more distant backgrounds. In a studio DOF control doesn't seem to matter much.

I wonder which flash transceiver works with LX100, apart from using the flash in manual mode.

SonyOB · Oct 14, 2020

So you want to take heavily photoshopped portraits in ambient light using a Lumix LX camera?

Why don't you use your cell phone instead?

barbara j · Oct 24, 2020

FingerPainter said:
barbara j said:

You can use that camera for the types of images you posted but you will need to master an image editor to attain the same results. As you become more familiar with the camera there are menu driven styles you can apply during the shoot, but a photo editor is still part of the process for best results

Click to expand...

Please explain how you will provide in software a DOF as shallow, or blur circles as large, as shown in the samples taken with FF cameras.

What? Most of those images are heavily shopped. Not the depth of field, the color grading. FF, by the way, doesn't give you better boca.

forest dream · Oct 25, 2020

Ed B said:
DeathArrow said:

While I'm sure LX100 can be a good camera for shooting all sorts of photos, two things it won't do:

-have good IQ in low light unless you use it on a tripod with long shutter speed

-have a small DOF

Here are two shots taken on FF, see how small the DOF is. You can't get that with LX100.

This one is shot with Sigma 85mm f/1.4

This one is shot with Tamron 70-200, so the DOF is not that thin as of Sigma, but still much thinner than LX100 will get.

Also, you won't get noiseless photos while shooting in very low light with a fast shutter speed to freeze motion:

This one was taken with Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-D

I would get an LX100 if:

-I shoot in plenty of light

-I don't care very much about IQ

-I don't need a very good AF system

-I don't need to shoot at fast shutter speed

-I shoot in low light only on tripod

If your interest is solely in portraits and a small DOF, you can get either Canon 5D + 85mm or Nikon D700 + 85mm for about the same price you'll get LX100 new, maybe a bit more, but it would be a much better portrait tool.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% that a camera like the LX100 just can't do as good a job in "low light" as a full-frame camera or even most cameras with an APS size sensor. and I don't think anyone who knows anything about photography would disagree with this.

Just the same there always a question about what is considered low light and how often a person actually needs a camera that's "good" in low light.

Photography is all about light so, for an experienced photographer, truly low light photography should almost be an emergency exception rather than the norm.

Even the images you posted are not low light images and could have been easily taken with an LX100 camera. Some people might consider the band picture low light photography but it's not. There's lots of light there.

When it comes to natural, indoor light or normal indoor lighting provided by regular incandescent bulbs, the LX100 does a pretty good job and would make most people very happy.

Leica version of the LX100

Leica version but the same camera internally as the LX100

I'm not saying there aren't better-featured cameras or that anyone should run out and buy an LX100 but I do think it's a better small fixed zoom lens camera than many people credit it for being.

Sorry for posting everyday type snapshots but that's all I ever used the camera for.

If only shoot in :

a) Plenty of light

b) No care of IQ

c) No need bokeh

Why different between LX100 with mid-range smartphone (e.g. Huawei P40 / iPhone SE 2020 which only cost USD 399)? Smartphone more cheap. IMO camera should do something smartphone can't.

If want cheap, may be get Fujiflm X-E3 / X-T200 + XC 23mm F2.

Is it a good idea to buy a Lumix DMC-LX100 for portraits ?

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

SonyOB

Guest

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts