Best Portrait Combo?

Started Aug 7, 2014 | Discussions
ktownbill Senior Member • Posts: 2,191
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

teseg wrote:

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.

Teseg,

Listen to "69 Chevy" and "Just a Canon Shooter"........  The argument in this thread that a crop sensor camera is equivalent to a FF camera is ridiculous. For studio portraiture YES, I agree, that there is no advantage of one format over the other. For non-studio where you desire bokeh the crop cannot hold a candle to the FF.  In the photos I'm posting here, I would have had to stand 60% farther from the subject to get the same framing. That would destroy the beautiful bokeh derived from being 60% closer to the subject the FF allows you.

A picture they say is worth 1000 words.  I suggest you take a full-length portrait like I did in these shots with a 135L using BOTH sensor formats. There won't be anything to argue about. Again, when you take the same shot with the crop sensor you will be 60% farther from the subject for equivalent framing.

Over the years this subject has been beaten to death in this forum. That is why 69Chevy and Just Another Canon Shooter left the debate I speculate.

Seriously.....rent the lens and camera and do the comparison.

-- hide signature --

Bill

teseg
OP teseg Senior Member • Posts: 2,208
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

Thanks Bill. That separation that is achieved at a distance is very impressive. This is definitely the look I would like to achieve so very good examples.

 teseg's gear list:teseg's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX10 III
Russian Consortium
Russian Consortium Senior Member • Posts: 1,414
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

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.

Wrong. It adds better tonality when you can shoot at base ISO, which is important for portraits; it adds better resolution; you shoot with longer FL and those lenses tend to be better - better bokeh, better sharpness; you can do better background separation when needed (135/2 on FF really shines); if you shoot Canon, for example, you get better colors; more accurate AF, too.

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

It might happen because you think about it, but if you really think about it you will find that all the brick wall shots and fancy charts you can find invented on the internet don't make a whole lot of difference in the real world.

What is really hilarious is when people hold up a camera like the D810 and call it the holy grail without realizing that it's pixel density is higher than that of a 16mp APS-C sensor. So much for the noise advantage, so much for the tonality advantage.

As for the better lens claim, I would dare say that this is just more tripe. Canon shooter's post is long on hyperbole and internet "facts", but very short on real world experience.

Russian Consortium
Russian Consortium Senior Member • Posts: 1,414
Re: Best Portrait Combo?
1

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Russian Consortium wrote:

Just another Canon shooter wrote:

Russian Consortium wrote:

Full frame adds what you think it will add. If you want it to be better, it will be better. We often see what we want to see to justify what we want to justify.

There isn't a whole lot of advantage to the 35mm format over an APS-C camera unless you are pushing the edges of the particular performance envelope where 35mm format has an advantage.

Bokeh is about the quality of the lens more than the format, and the depth of fild advantage is pretty much a non starter. At portrait distances, APS-C will give a few extra inches of depth of field. Unless you have a fetish for only having one eye in focus, you are going to be stopped down anyway. You'll just stop down a little less with APS-C.

This is basically wrong or misleading, every single sentence of it.

Yeah. I've only worked as a portrait photographer for the past 45 years. I don't really have any experience regarding the subject at hand.

Photography in a studio is not the same as shooting in various conditions.

Where did I say anything about studio? I'm pretty sure I just commented that i had 45 years of experience as a portrait photographer.

I'm waiting for you to come up with the truth here.

Do you feel the need to misrepresent people's posts often, or is this something you just do occasionally?

Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Senior Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Best Portrait Combo?
1

Russian Consortium 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.

Wrong. It adds better tonality when you can shoot at base ISO, which is important for portraits; it adds better resolution; you shoot with longer FL and those lenses tend to be better - better bokeh, better sharpness; you can do better background separation when needed (135/2 on FF really shines); if you shoot Canon, for example, you get better colors; more accurate AF, too.

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

It might happen because you think about it, but if you really think about it you will find that all the brick wall shots and fancy charts you can find invented on the internet don't make a whole lot of difference in the real world.

Where did you find anything about brick walls and charts in my post?

What is really hilarious is when people hold up a camera like the D810 and call it the holy grail without realizing that it's pixel density is higher than that of a 16mp APS-C sensor. So much for the noise advantage, so much for the tonality advantage.

What is really hilarious is how little you understand the effect of the sensor size and the (lack of) effect of the pixel count.

As for the better lens claim, I would dare say that this is just more tripe. Canon shooter's post is long on hyperbole and internet "facts", but very short on real world experience.

And you know this how?

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
ktownbill Senior Member • Posts: 2,191
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

teseg wrote:

Thanks Bill. That separation that is achieved at a distance is very impressive. This is definitely the look I would like to achieve so very good examples.

Which is exactly why I use FF for portraiture that has BG elements in it. Not just to render the BG oof but to carefully choose that oof BG to one that compliments the shot.

I have a 7D and a 5DM3......   I will shoot the comparison for you. There will be no equivalent shot to the FF even if you used an 85mm and got closer to the subject. I would simply use the 85mm and get even closer and have the same framing.

Once you start using f/2 with the FF you've run out of "aperture" to shoot an 'equivalent' with the cropper.  Make sense?

-- hide signature --

Bill

ktownbill Senior Member • Posts: 2,191
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

ktownbill wrote:

teseg wrote:

Thanks Bill. That separation that is achieved at a distance is very impressive. This is definitely the look I would like to achieve so very good examples.

Which is exactly why I use FF for portraiture that has BG elements in it. Not just to render the BG oof but to carefully choose that oof BG to one that compliments the shot.

I have a 7D and a 5DM3...... I will shoot the comparison for you. There will be no equivalent shot to the FF even if you used an 85mm and got closer to the subject. I would simply use the 85mm and get even closer and have the same framing.

Once you start using f/2 with the FF you've run out of "aperture" to shoot an 'equivalent' with the cropper. Make sense?

-- hide signature --

Bill

Adding to my comment above:  There is also the IQ aspect so aptly demonstrated in a previous where they showed the same lens at the same aperture FF Vs Crop.  There just isn't any valid argument or anything to refute.

-- hide signature --

Bill

teseg
OP teseg Senior Member • Posts: 2,208
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

I'm with you.  I think I'm leaning towards a 135mm FF setup vs. 85mm... Which I could always get later if needed.  Now the question of which brand body and lens!

 teseg's gear list:teseg's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX10 III
Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Senior Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

teseg wrote:

I'm with you. I think I'm leaning towards a 135mm FF setup vs. 85mm... Which I could always get later if needed. Now the question of which brand body and lens!

Canon, of course.

If it is good enough for Elvis, it will be good enough for you:

135/2

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
ktownbill Senior Member • Posts: 2,191
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

teseg wrote:

I'm with you. I think I'm leaning towards a 135mm FF setup vs. 85mm... Which I could always get later if needed. Now the question of which brand body and lens!

Good choice on the 135. I find 85mm too short for portraiture that will have bokeh in it. Perfect for the studio though.  One thing regarding shooting f/2 with a FF is you will need to shift your focus point in the vf and know that the 6D and 5Dm3 focus capabilities are night and day.

What do you have in mind for lighting? The shot samples I posted were flash filled btw. I was using on-camera flash then. Now I use multiple speedlites in HSS mode and umbrellas as well.

Guess my question should be another thread?

-- hide signature --

Bill

KLO82 Contributing Member • Posts: 954
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

If I had enough money, I would buy an FF camera with a 85mm f1.8 and a 135mm f2 lens for portraits. I personally think that on FF, f1.8/ f2 is the widest aperture that you need for portraits. Yes, you can get same DoF at ~f1.2 on 1.5/1.6x crop cameras, but you are more likely to get better technical image quality from lenses at f1.8/2 (f number which you are going to use on FF) than at f1.2 (f number which you are going to use on 1.5/1.6 crop cameras). Also, if you are using phase detection AF, you will see that it may be very hard to achieve correct focus consistently at smaller f numbers on 1.5x/1.6x cameras (it is very hard for me to achieve correct focus with my 550D, 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 even at f2.5). It has to do with lower inherent focusing accuracy of phase detection system of smaller sensor cameras (see this post http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54108783 ). But if you are using contrast detect AF, it is not an issue, eg: Fuji XT1 with 56mm f1.2.
As I already have a Canon 85mm f1.8 lens, I would like to buy a canon 6D to complement it.
Some of my portrait works:

 KLO82's gear list:KLO82's gear list
Canon EOS 550D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM
Moti Veteran Member • Posts: 7,934
Re: Best Portrait Combo?
1

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.

Cheers,
Moti

-- hide signature --
Just another Canon shooter
Just another Canon shooter Senior Member • Posts: 4,691
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

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.

I have shot with APS-C for years before FF. I know something about practical.

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.

Tones and tonality are different things.

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 is, if you are paying attention.

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.

Better or more, semantics. The only way to get close to 135/2 on FF with crop is to shoot at 85/1.2. Then you get LoCA, softness, etc. BTW, I have experience/own those lenses, the charts are for you.

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.

You missed the point. A 50mm lens at f/2.2 on FF is MUCH better than 35/1.4 on crop for several reasons. 85/2.0 on FF is MUCH better than 50/1.2 on crop, etc. Not only because you stop down but because lenses become better when they get longer, and you use a longer one on FF. Also, bokeh improves with FL.

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.

Longer lenses tend to have better bokeh. Something that you are missing: when you crop the image, you are using more of the transition area, blown, which is the worse for every lens. Lenses designed form crop bodies would change that a bit but there are very few such primes.

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.

Portrait photography outside of the studio is a different thing. Sharpness can and often is a factor. You are missing the point again - I am talking about lens/format combos, not just lenses. I would gladly use my 50L on FF wide open, and do it all the time, but on crop, that gives me too much blur.

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.

Everything else equal, you do get a better separation. Just because there might be other factors, does not negate this one.

(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.

You are kidding.

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.

A missed point, again. Canon FF has substantially better colors than Canon crop.

more accurate AF, too.

Only for fast moving objects. Irrelevant for portrait photography.

Wrong. For static objects, FF is far more accurate at eq. apertures. FoCal has some statistical data to support this but I am basing this on experiences with several bodies and ~20 lenses.

 Just another Canon shooter's gear list:Just another Canon shooter's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
teseg
OP teseg Senior Member • Posts: 2,208
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

KLO82 wrote:

If I had enough money, I would buy an FF camera with a 85mm f1.8 and a 135mm f2 lens for portraits. I personally think that on FF, f1.8/ f2 is the widest aperture that you need for portraits. Yes, you can get same DoF at ~f1.2 on 1.5/1.6x crop cameras, but you are more likely to get better technical image quality from lenses at f1.8/2 (f number which you are going to use on FF) than at f1.2 (f number which you are going to use on 1.5/1.6 crop cameras). Also, if you are using phase detection AF, you will see that it may be very hard to achieve correct focus consistently at smaller f numbers on 1.5x/1.6x cameras (it is very hard for me to achieve correct focus with my 550D, 50mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 even at f2.5). It has to do with lower inherent focusing accuracy of phase detection system of smaller sensor cameras (see this post http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54108783 ). But if you are using contrast detect AF, it is not an issue, eg: Fuji XT1 with 56mm f1.2.
As I already have a Canon 85mm f1.8 lens, I would like to buy a canon 6D to complement it.
Some of my portrait works:

Nice. Thanks.

 teseg's gear list:teseg's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX10 III
ktownbill Senior Member • Posts: 2,191
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

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.

Cheers,
Moti

-- 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.

-- hide signature --

Bill

Ido S
Ido S Senior Member • Posts: 4,923
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

ktownbill wrote:

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.

-- hide signature --

Bill

Hope it's sarcasm.

 Ido S's gear list:Ido S's gear list
Olympus 40-150mm F2.8 Pro Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +1 more
Moti Veteran Member • Posts: 7,934
Re: Best Portrait Combo?
4

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.

Cheers,
Moti

-- 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.

Moti

-- hide signature --
Chris Malcolm Senior Member • Posts: 1,890
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

MediaArchivist wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote:

A smaller lens is less intimidating & easier to hand hold and move around quickly with.

This is true, but there are many portrait situations where the exact opposite is desired: a big intimidating lens. Your subject may feel more comfortable if the photographer and camera are closer to their expectations of a "portrait session". If their impression (regardless of its truth) is that "pros have big lenses" or "wear a beret" or whatever, they may have doubts about the session.

Agreed. But you don't necessarily need to use the big lens to impress. Take it along, make a thing of choosing the right lens for the light quality or whatever, leave the big impressive lens on the table, check the client's skin with an unnecessary but impressive light meter, then go ahead with the little lens you prefer.

It's nice to have a variety of lenses!

BTW-- I have found focus peaking makes MF really easy, even with a razor thin DoF. Don't dismiss the STF for event shooting (but also don't depend on it the first few times you try it).

-- hide signature --

Chris Malcolm

 Chris Malcolm's gear list:Chris Malcolm's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A550 Sony SLT-A77 Sony 50mm F1.4 Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Sony 500mm F8 Reflex +7 more
MediaArchivist
MediaArchivist Senior Member • Posts: 3,905
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Agreed. But you don't necessarily need to use the big lens to impress.

You are probably right— waving a big lens around but then loudly announcing you have decided to use a "special" lens for the "right feel" might be very comforting for many.

-- hide signature --

Want a roXplosion!?

 MediaArchivist's gear list:MediaArchivist's gear list
Sony a99 II Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF Sony 24mm F2 SSM Carl Zeiss Distagon T* Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +20 more
cdleon New Member • Posts: 20
Re: Best Portrait Combo?

For me an old full frame and a 50mm works just fine for portraits...when I was in the pursuit of a camera+combo lens for portrait

I went for a canon 5d and a 50mm 1.4, can't afford the latest but I knew I wanted FF for portraits...no second thought on that. Even is a 2005 camera I'm really happy with the purchase for my family/friends portraits.

If money wasn't an issue for me, I will probably go for a 6D+85mm.

by the way Teseg...how do the sony rx1 worked for you at 75mm crop mode?

Carlos.

Some samples here:

 cdleon's gear list:cdleon's gear list
Samsung NX500
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads