Shooting a full body/half body/ headshot portraiture

[Avi G]

Hi,

I own the Sony Alpha A6000 with a 35mm fixed lens. I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day with the weather at 45 degrees in NYC. Any suggestions as to camera settings (aperture, iso, and shutter speed etc..) optimal locations. Basically, how can I get a great photo? Also, any other tips to keep in mind for general portrait photography?

 

[beatboxa]

Hi,

I own the Sony Alpha A6000 with a 35mm fixed lens. I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day with the weather at 45 degrees in NYC. Any suggestions as to camera settings (aperture, iso, and shutter speed etc..) optimal locations. Basically, how can I get a great photo? Also, any other tips to keep in mind for general portrait photography?

As a note, 35mm might be a bit too wide for the look youre probably going for.

I don't know how you shoot, but the 'easiest' thing to do would be portrait mode

If you want more control, research the optimum aperture for sharpness for your lens in the center, but don't go too small. And pick a shutter speed faster than 1/50. Try to keep the ISO below 400. If this doesn't work, use a tripod to attain a lower shutter speed or bump up the ISO. Focus sharply on the eyes. Don't get too close or their facial features will look distorted. Shoot from too far, and you won't get a lot of good background blur / subject separation. On a 35mm, you may want to stand back and prepare to crop. Make sure rhe subjects are lit well with no harsh shadows. If you have flash, use it.

If you're shooting JPEG's, make sure you've got the right white balance and color options. If RAW, make sure you can edit well.

Just another note, from the question, it seems like you may have limited experience or background in photography--we've all been there, so nothing to be embarassed about. But if I were in your shoes, I'd be doing a lot of reading and even more practicing.

Make sure you understand the effects of each of those settings you asked about--not just which numbers to use...because there is no one size fits all. Don't take this the wrong way, but from the question, I don't know that you do.

In any event, hope it helps. Good luck!

 

[tedolf]

Seriously.

The most important part of portrait shooting is not camera settings or even lenses, it is knowing how to pose the subject, knowing where to position the camera with respect to the subject, and how to use the existing lighting, modify it or use artificial light.

Rather than explain all that here, you would be better off doing some reading. There are also some you tube videos on using natural light, posing etc. but beware. None of that has been vetted by an editor.

tEdolph

 

[Sulfur]

Hi,

I own the Sony Alpha A6000 with a 35mm fixed lens. I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day with the weather at 45 degrees in NYC. Any suggestions as to camera settings (aperture, iso, and shutter speed etc..) optimal locations. Basically, how can I get a great photo? Also, any other tips to keep in mind for general portrait photography?

For portraits I would also suggest getting a 50 mm f1.8 I use mine for full length to headshots.

For settings:

1)use the lowest iso,

2) if you want bokeh use f2.0, else f3.5 works good.

3) shutter speed around 125-200.

once you really understand the basics of the exposure triangle and how to set your camera up adding an off camera speedlight will dramatically improve your work. I use one speed light with a plastic diffuser and a sheep radio trigger that I mount on my tripod. I bought my flash and everything in a set for (I think) under $150 USD.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Hi,

I own the Sony Alpha A6000 with a 35mm fixed lens. I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day with the weather at 45 degrees in NYC. Any suggestions as to camera settings (aperture, iso, and shutter speed etc..) optimal locations. Basically, how can I get a great photo? Also, any other tips to keep in mind for general portrait photography?

For portraits I would also suggest getting a 50 mm f1.8 I use mine for full length to headshots.

You can indeed use a 50mm for full-length to close head-shots, but you will be "zooming with your feet".

Ideally the suggested lens for full length would be 24mm (36-EFL) for full length, 55mm, (85-EFL) for waist-up, and 85mm, (105-135 EFL), for close head-shots.

For settings:

1)use the lowest iso,

YES ....

2) if you want bokeh use f2.0, else f3.5 works good.

YES ... IF YOU CAN DO IT ...

3) shutter speed around 125-200.

PROBLEM ... in sunlight you will need a shutter speed of about 1/4000 @ f/2.8 (@ ISO 125).

This cannot be done with the native flash-sync of focal-plane shutters w/out HSS, (which is very low-power and effective for a very limited range).

Native flash-sync shutter-speed of most focal plane shutters is about 1/200 - 250sec. This will require about f/11 in sunlight. (Thus the reason for the development of HSS, but unfortunately also results in MUCH lower power and thus even shorter effective range in daylight).

NOTE ... Cameras w/ a LEAF-SHUTTER, (Panasonic FZ-1000/2500 and Sony RX-10xx can (native) flash-sync at up to 1/4000sec and thus allow f/2.8 in daylight with a much longer effective fill-flash range. (I suggest the FZ because it has a faster DFD-AF and a FULLY-articulating LCD.)

once you really understand the basics of the exposure triangle and how to set your camera up adding an off camera speedlight will dramatically improve your work. I use one speed light with a plastic diffuser and a sheep radio trigger that I mount on my tripod. I bought my flash and everything in a set for (I think) under $150 USD.

Larger external (studio) strobes will require the camera to be set to their "native" flash-sync shutter-speed which is 1/200-250sec for dSLR's, (but possibly up to 1/4000sec for leaf-shutter cameras like Panny FZ and Sony RX).

 

[beatboxa]

....and there's the FZ1000 , which is (as always), completely irrelevant to the OP's question. Those links about the FZ1000 may be worth a click..

OP: As a heads up: the Panasonic FZ1000 (which is always touted by PhotoTeach2 , even when it's a horrible fit for what you're trying to do) wouldn't be able to give you the same background blur as your A6000. At it's 55mm equivalent, the FZ1000 has a max f-number close to F/3.5. F-numbers are relative, so this would look similar to 55mm equivalent and F/6 on your Sony A6000, since the FZ1000 uses a much smaller 1" sensor. Unless your subject is within arm's reach of you, you're not going to get much background blur at 55mm F/6 on an APS-C camera.

You also mentioned that you're using a 35mm lens, not a 55mm...which is not ideal, but it's fine. For full length, you won't get too much background blur; but for the headshots, you should get a good amount, provided you set a large enough aperture (low F/number) and get close enough. Just don't get so close that all of the facial features are distorted. If that happens, move back a bit and just crop the final image.

and OP: you mentioned that you're shooting on a cloudy day, so the flash sync speed & fill lighting will be much less relevant--clouds heavily diffuse light, so you shouldn't have very many harsh shadows to begin with.

But if you're truly concerned about fill lighting, there is a very simple & inexpensive alternative that in many ways can be superior to fill flash: use a reflector. Then, all of the fill flash sync speed 'limits' are completely irrelevant.

As far as background blur and potentially overexposing, if you shoot your lens (at say F/2.8, ISO 100, & 1/160), and you can't up your shutter speed because you're using flash (instead of a reflector) and this is still overexposing, I'd recommend getting a circular polarizer filter (or neutral density filter).

Circular polarizers can sometimes do wonders for portraits in direct sunlight. But in every case (including 'cloudy'), they do 'darken' the lens a bit, without affecting depth of field--similar to sunglasses. You should be able to cut 2 stops of light using most circular polarizers. That means that instead of using F/5.6, you can use F/2.8. Or, instead of using 1/1000 shutter speed, you can use 1/250. If (for some reason) you need to go darker, stack a neutral density filter on as well.

So I wouldn't be too concerned about the flash sync speed or letting in 'too much light'--there are plenty of inexpensive and simple remedies, so these things are largely irrelevant for your shots.

Hi,

I own the Sony Alpha A6000 with a 35mm fixed lens. I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day with the weather at 45 degrees in NYC. Any suggestions as to camera settings (aperture, iso, and shutter speed etc..) optimal locations. Basically, how can I get a great photo? Also, any other tips to keep in mind for general portrait photography?

For portraits I would also suggest getting a 50 mm f1.8 I use mine for full length to headshots.

You can indeed use a 50mm for full-length to close head-shots, but you will be "zooming with your feet".

Ideally the suggested lens for full length would be 24mm (36-EFL) for full length, 55mm, (85-EFL) for waist-up, and 85mm, (105-135 EFL), for close head-shots.

For settings:

1)use the lowest iso,

YES ....

2) if you want bokeh use f2.0, else f3.5 works good.

YES ... IF YOU CAN DO IT ...

3) shutter speed around 125-200.

PROBLEM ... in sunlight you will need a shutter speed of about 1/4000 @ f/2.8 (@ ISO 125).

This cannot be done with the native flash-sync of focal-plane shutters w/out HSS, (which is very low-power and effective for a very limited range).

Native flash-sync shutter-speed of most focal plane shutters is about 1/200 - 250sec. This will require about f/11 in sunlight. (Thus the reason for the development of HSS, but unfortunately also results in MUCH lower power and thus even shorter effective range in daylight).

NOTE ... Cameras w/ a LEAF-SHUTTER, (Panasonic FZ-1000/2500 and Sony RX-10xx can (native) flash-sync at up to 1/4000sec and thus allow f/2.8 in daylight with a much longer effective fill-flash range. (I suggest the FZ because it has a faster DFD-AF and a FULLY-articulating LCD.)

once you really understand the basics of the exposure triangle and how to set your camera up adding an off camera speedlight will dramatically improve your work. I use one speed light with a plastic diffuser and a sheep radio trigger that I mount on my tripod. I bought my flash and everything in a set for (I think) under $150 USD.

Larger external (studio) strobes will require the camera to be set to their "native" flash-sync shutter-speed which is 1/200-250sec for dSLR's, (but possibly up to 1/4000sec for leaf-shutter cameras like Panny FZ and Sony RX).

 

[PhotoTeach2]

....and there's the FZ1000 , which is (as always), completely irrelevant to the OP's question. Those links about the FZ1000 may be worth a click..

OP: As a heads up: the Panasonic FZ1000 (which is always touted by PhotoTeach2 , even when it's a horrible fit for what you're trying to do) wouldn't be able to give you the same background blur as your A6000. At it's 55mm equivalent, the FZ1000 has a max f-number close to F/3.5. F-numbers are relative, so this would look similar to 55mm equivalent and F/6 on your Sony A6000, since the FZ1000 uses a much smaller 1" sensor. Unless your subject is within arm's reach of you, you're not going to get much background blur at 55mm F/6 on an APS-C camera.

You also mentioned that you're using a 35mm lens, not a 55mm...which is not ideal, but it's fine. For full length, you won't get too much background blur; but for the headshots, you should get a good amount, provided you set a large enough aperture (low F/number) and get close enough. Just don't get so close that all of the facial features are distorted. If that happens, move back a bit and just crop the final image.

and OP: you mentioned that you're shooting on a cloudy day, so the flash sync speed & fill lighting will be much less relevant--clouds heavily diffuse light, so you shouldn't have very many harsh shadows to begin with.

But if you're truly concerned about fill lighting, there is a very simple & inexpensive alternative that in many ways can be superior to fill flash: use a reflector. Then, all of the fill flash sync speed 'limits' are completely irrelevant.

As far as background blur and potentially overexposing, if you shoot your lens (at say F/2.8, ISO 100, & 1/160), and you can't up your shutter speed because you're using flash (instead of a reflector) and this is still overexposing, I'd recommend getting a circular polarizer filter (or neutral density filter).

Circular polarizers can sometimes do wonders for portraits in direct sunlight. But in every case (including 'cloudy'), they do 'darken' the lens a bit, without affecting depth of field--similar to sunglasses. You should be able to cut 2 stops of light using most circular polarizers. That means that instead of using F/5.6, you can use F/2.8. Or, instead of using 1/1000 shutter speed, you can use 1/250. If (for some reason) you need to go darker, stack a neutral density filter on as well.

So I wouldn't be too concerned about the flash sync speed or letting in 'too much light'--there are plenty of inexpensive and simple remedies, so these things are largely irrelevant for your shots.

It is LATE and I did not "carefully" read everything you wrote above ... BUT ... it all appears to be accurate so I tend to AGREE with what you wrote above.

The FZ-1000/2500 will indeed produce a wider DOF than the OP possibly desires.

HOWEVER ... with the 1/4000sec flash-sync, you can do an alternative approach to "isolate" your subject from a background and that is use 1/4000 @ f/8, (or the Sony RX-10 @ f/16) and then the "background" will be "DARKER". It is sometimes a nice approach, albeit different from "bokeh" in the background.

This was shot in daylight ...

Hi,

I own the Sony Alpha A6000 with a 35mm fixed lens. I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day with the weather at 45 degrees in NYC. Any suggestions as to camera settings (aperture, iso, and shutter speed etc..) optimal locations. Basically, how can I get a great photo? Also, any other tips to keep in mind for general portrait photography?

For portraits I would also suggest getting a 50 mm f1.8 I use mine for full length to headshots.

You can indeed use a 50mm for full-length to close head-shots, but you will be "zooming with your feet".

Ideally the suggested lens for full length would be 24mm (36-EFL) for full length, 55mm, (85-EFL) for waist-up, and 85mm, (105-135 EFL), for close head-shots.

For settings:

1)use the lowest iso,

YES ....

2) if you want bokeh use f2.0, else f3.5 works good.

YES ... IF YOU CAN DO IT ...

3) shutter speed around 125-200.

PROBLEM ... in sunlight you will need a shutter speed of about 1/4000 @ f/2.8 (@ ISO 125).

This cannot be done with the native flash-sync of focal-plane shutters w/out HSS, (which is very low-power and effective for a very limited range).

Native flash-sync shutter-speed of most focal plane shutters is about 1/200 - 250sec. This will require about f/11 in sunlight. (Thus the reason for the development of HSS, but unfortunately also results in MUCH lower power and thus even shorter effective range in daylight).

NOTE ... Cameras w/ a LEAF-SHUTTER, (Panasonic FZ-1000/2500 and Sony RX-10xx can (native) flash-sync at up to 1/4000sec and thus allow f/2.8 in daylight with a much longer effective fill-flash range. (I suggest the FZ because it has a faster DFD-AF and a FULLY-articulating LCD.)

once you really understand the basics of the exposure triangle and how to set your camera up adding an off camera speedlight will dramatically improve your work. I use one speed light with a plastic diffuser and a sheep radio trigger that I mount on my tripod. I bought my flash and everything in a set for (I think) under $150 USD.

Larger external (studio) strobes will require the camera to be set to their "native" flash-sync shutter-speed which is 1/200-250sec for dSLR's, (but possibly up to 1/4000sec for leaf-shutter cameras like Panny FZ and Sony RX).

 

[PhotoTeach2]

And I had NOT noticed the he specified "cloudy" sky so you are also correct that 1/4000 would not be necessary, (and indeed the ND of a polarizer may be sufficient to get to 1/200 flash "sync" speed.

 

[beatboxa]

HOWEVER ... with the 1/4000sec flash-sync, you can do an alternative approach to "isolate" your subject from a background and that is use 1/4000 @ f/8, (or the Sony RX-10 @ f/16) and then the "background" will be "DARKER". It is sometimes a nice approach, albeit different from "bokeh" in the background.

This was shot in daylight ...

OP: I'm not sure that this look would be what you want for your portraits. Have you ever used the flash on your cellphone (or any point-and-shoot camera) to take pictures? You know that look where some stuff is in the foreground is really bright and has harsh flash, and the background is really dark?

Remind you of anything...?

Sidenote: that sky above looks very overcast or near sunrise/sunset, not necessarily what most people think of as 'daylight'. At 1/4000, F/8, ISO 80, you can still clearly see the blue sky contrasted with clouds, as you can see here, in this unedited picture, taken using a 'flat' profile.



In any event, I think the OP would want something more along the lines of this than the other picture. Here, you've got a sharper subject, blurred background, and generally diffuse lighting. This was taken with an APS-C camera with a 35mm F/1.8 lens, similar to what the OP is using.



If needed, you can always 'darken' the background, adjust colors, etc. Much harder to 'lighten' the background from the 'flash-sync' image...

OP: if it helps for your reference, this was taken 'wide open' from (if I recall correctly) a few feet away. That flower is probably about 5-6 inches in diameter--about the width of someone's face.

Hi,

I own the Sony Alpha A6000 with a 35mm fixed lens. I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day with the weather at 45 degrees in NYC. Any suggestions as to camera settings (aperture, iso, and shutter speed etc..) optimal locations. Basically, how can I get a great photo? Also, any other tips to keep in mind for general portrait photography?

For portraits I would also suggest getting a 50 mm f1.8 I use mine for full length to headshots.

You can indeed use a 50mm for full-length to close head-shots, but you will be "zooming with your feet".

Ideally the suggested lens for full length would be 24mm (36-EFL) for full length, 55mm, (85-EFL) for waist-up, and 85mm, (105-135 EFL), for close head-shots.

For settings:

1)use the lowest iso,

YES ....

2) if you want bokeh use f2.0, else f3.5 works good.

YES ... IF YOU CAN DO IT ...

3) shutter speed around 125-200.

PROBLEM ... in sunlight you will need a shutter speed of about 1/4000 @ f/2.8 (@ ISO 125).

This cannot be done with the native flash-sync of focal-plane shutters w/out HSS, (which is very low-power and effective for a very limited range).

Native flash-sync shutter-speed of most focal plane shutters is about 1/200 - 250sec. This will require about f/11 in sunlight. (Thus the reason for the development of HSS, but unfortunately also results in MUCH lower power and thus even shorter effective range in daylight).

NOTE ... Cameras w/ a LEAF-SHUTTER, (Panasonic FZ-1000/2500 and Sony RX-10xx can (native) flash-sync at up to 1/4000sec and thus allow f/2.8 in daylight with a much longer effective fill-flash range. (I suggest the FZ because it has a faster DFD-AF and a FULLY-articulating LCD.)

once you really understand the basics of the exposure triangle and how to set your camera up adding an off camera speedlight will dramatically improve your work. I use one speed light with a plastic diffuser and a sheep radio trigger that I mount on my tripod. I bought my flash and everything in a set for (I think) under $150 USD.

Larger external (studio) strobes will require the camera to be set to their "native" flash-sync shutter-speed which is 1/200-250sec for dSLR's, (but possibly up to 1/4000sec for leaf-shutter cameras like Panny FZ and Sony RX).

 

[tedolf]

....and there's the FZ1000 , which is (as always), completely irrelevant to the OP's question. Those links about the FZ1000 may be worth a click..

OP: As a heads up: the Panasonic FZ1000 (which is always touted by PhotoTeach2 , even when it's a horrible fit for what you're trying to do) wouldn't be able to give you the same background blur as your A6000. At it's 55mm equivalent, the FZ1000 has a max f-number close to F/3.5. F-numbers are relative, so this would look similar to 55mm equivalent and F/6 on your Sony A6000, since the FZ1000 uses a much smaller 1" sensor. Unless your subject is within arm's reach of you, you're not going to get much background blur at 55mm F/6 on an APS-C camera.

You also mentioned that you're using a 35mm lens, not a 55mm...which is not ideal, but it's fine. For full length, you won't get too much background blur; but for the headshots, you should get a good amount, provided you set a large enough aperture (low F/number) and get close enough. Just don't get so close that all of the facial features are distorted. If that happens, move back a bit and just crop the final image.

and OP: you mentioned that you're shooting on a cloudy day, so the flash sync speed & fill lighting will be much less relevant--clouds heavily diffuse light, so you shouldn't have very many harsh shadows to begin with.

But if you're truly concerned about fill lighting, there is a very simple & inexpensive alternative that in many ways can be superior to fill flash: use a reflector. Then, all of the fill flash sync speed 'limits' are completely irrelevant.

As far as background blur and potentially overexposing, if you shoot your lens (at say F/2.8, ISO 100, & 1/160), and you can't up your shutter speed because you're using flash (instead of a reflector) and this is still overexposing, I'd recommend getting a circular polarizer filter (or neutral density filter).

Circular polarizers can sometimes do wonders for portraits in direct sunlight. But in every case (including 'cloudy'), they do 'darken' the lens a bit, without affecting depth of field--similar to sunglasses. You should be able to cut 2 stops of light using most circular polarizers. That means that instead of using F/5.6, you can use F/2.8. Or, instead of using 1/1000 shutter speed, you can use 1/250. If (for some reason) you need to go darker, stack a neutral density filter on as well.

So I wouldn't be too concerned about the flash sync speed or letting in 'too much light'--there are plenty of inexpensive and simple remedies, so these things are largely irrelevant for your shots.

It is LATE and I did not "carefully" read everything you wrote above ... BUT ... it all appears to be accurate so I tend to AGREE with what you wrote above.

The FZ-1000/2500 will indeed produce a wider DOF than the OP possibly desires.

HOWEVER ... with the 1/4000sec flash-sync, you can do an alternative approach to "isolate" your subject from a background and that is use 1/4000 @ f/8, (or the Sony RX-10 @ f/16) and then the "background" will be "DARKER". It is sometimes a nice approach, albeit different from "bokeh" in the background.

This was shot in daylight ...

View attachment 1577968

Joe, it's time to stop.



Nobody wants to take a portrait that looks like that. And if they did, there are other ways to do it other than high flash sync. speed.



You know that most available light portraits use the background, whether blurred or environmental as part of the portrait.



If the OP is serious about photography, he/she should stay away from any fixed lens camera.



tEdolph

 

[PhotoTeach2]

If the OP is serious about photography, he/she should stay away from any fixed lens camera.

tEdolph

I see what you are saying and in some/many situations I do agree with you.

I especially agree if a buyer wants to QUICKLY add a "fast" prime, or micro, or UWA.

The definitive word here is "quickly".

The FACT is that most purchasers don't actually go past their initial purchase, (albeit some do indeed "intend" to eventually -- but most never do).

And I have said before that that "cameras", (and lenses also), are evolving so fast that ANY purchase today will very quickly, (MUCH quicker than years ago when you could effective use a camera/lens for 20 years), become obsolete with the new advances in (especially) MirrorLess. Lenses are evolving faster than years ago.

So IF a "fixed" lens can better satisfy the TEMPORARY needs possibly BETTER than a ILC I see nothing wrong with recommending them. Even ILC's will be obsolete sooner than years ago and there is now much more differences between brands so can be actually "bad" to be "tied" to an original brand purchase because you have an investment in "lenses" to protect.

A "fixed" lens camera can be sold much more quickly/easily than an (ENTIRE) "system" where a buyer may want the body only, (leaving you stuck with all your lenses), or vice-versa want only the lenses, (or may not want either if "obsolete").

So it is unfair, assumative, and CONFUSING to always knock my suggestion of (FZ or RX) when THERE ARE "ADVANTAGES" to those cameras.

1.) Closer focusing and complete FULL zoom range QUICKLY, (much more quickly than having to carry & change between up to 3 lenses to do what the "single" lens can do).

2.) In many cases FASTER lens since FZ / RX are f/2.8 - 2.4 vs usual f/3.5 (kit lens).

3.) In most cases lighter than carrying up to 3 lenses, (and with possibility of introducing DUST or DROPPING while "changing" lenses -- as has happened to many people).

I mean seriously, what (cost) would it take for an ILC to match the new RX10-III close-focusing, 24 to 600mm-EFL @ f/2.4 to /4 ??? (w/ "auto" interpolated digital-zoom to 4800mm-EFL)

What is WRONG with a "beginner" to have that "option" which can possibly INCREASE HIS "SATISFACTION" with photography, (what I have defined as "FUN" -- more "FUN" than I ever had in my 55+ prior years in photography w/ all my NEW options I never had).

And the DFD-AF and 5-axis IS is absolutely faster/better than any dSLR.

And whatever you say, the 1/4000 flash-sync does allow longer fill-flash options in SUN-light, or darken the background w/ closer subject IF YOU WANT TO, (maybe you don't agree but I like the look sometimes in some situations when I don't want the background or to simulate a "night" effect in sunlight).

And there are other options/features my suggested cameras have that are NOT on all other cameras, (albeit some may have one or another of them).

After seeing what I can do with it, I will NEVER have another camera w/out a FULLY-articulating LCD.

I will never have another camera w/out "zebras" for easy/fast ETTR optimizing exposure.

I find the HandHeld NIGHT-shot very handy for a low-noise shot in lower-light.

I repeat again that ALL cameras are COMPROMISES .... and ILC absolutely have their advantages, ("faster" prime or UWA -- but at HIGHER TOTAL COST).

Larger sensors have their advantages, (higher ISO capability and narrower DOF).

But smaller sensors also have advantages, (Super-ZOOM capability).

I simply find the 1"-type sensor (fixed-lens) a "compromise" that would often be better for a "beginner" who may or may-not spend more money to get a "greater" capability than he can get in a 1"-type "bridge" camera.

 

[beatboxa]

OP: Unfortunate that I have to do so, but I really should behalf for PhotoTeach2. He in no way represents photographers or what this forum is about. But you may learn a few tips & tricks here, so I'll respond just for your benefit...

As a note: the OP already has an interchangeable lens camera ("ILC"); so PhotoTeach2: you are doing nothing more than 'stirring the pot.'

If the OP is serious about photography, he/she should stay away from any fixed lens camera.

tEdolph

I see what you are saying and in some/many situations I do agree with you.

I especially agree if a buyer wants to QUICKLY add a "fast" prime, or micro, or UWA.

Interchangeable lenses have many more uses than "primes", "micro", and "ultra wide angle." This is why a vast majority of professional photographers use interchangeable lens cameras, whether they're DSLR's or interchangeable lens cameras. How many pro photographers do you suppose use the Panasonic FZ1000...? How many photo competitions were won by the FZ1000?

Would I shoot a paid portrait using a Panasonic FZ1000?

Absolutely not. For one, the depth of field will never be sufficient. If I wanted to shoot a well-lit portrait where everything (including the background) is in focus, I'd use my phone.

When I want quality, I shoot my ILC. There are a host of other reasons...read on...

The definitive word here is "quickly".

The FACT is that most purchasers don't actually go past their initial purchase, (albeit some do indeed "intend" to eventually -- but most never do).

PhotoTeach2: You claim this often. Do you have any facts to justify this claim? As a reminder, the OP already has an ILC, with a fast prime lens, as is often the case on these forums. This is the scope of the discussion here.

OP: Despite the fact that you invested in a 35mm F/1.8 lens, PhotoTeach2 thinks you are like 'most purchasers' who 'don't actually go past their initial purchase.' He thinks you are not serious about photography.

Also, even if this is the case (where we need solid proof), who cares what 'most purchasers' do? I don't base my pro photography on what 'most people' do. Most people use cellphones. Does that mean cellphones are always the best medium for photography?

The best selling car in the States in 2016 was the Toyota Camry. Do you think car enthusiasts would agree that this is the best car for them?

This is an enthusiast & pro site--not a site for people not interested in photography.

And I have said before that that "cameras", (and lenses also), are evolving so fast that ANY purchase today will very quickly, (MUCH quicker than years ago when you could effective use a camera/lens for 20 years), become obsolete with the new advances in (especially) MirrorLess. Lenses are evolving faster than years ago.

So IF a "fixed" lens can better satisfy the TEMPORARY needs possibly BETTER than a ILC I see nothing wrong with recommending them. Even ILC's will be obsolete sooner than years ago and there is now much more differences between brands so can be actually "bad" to be "tied" to an original brand purchase because you have an investment in "lenses" to protect.

These entire passages are bogus. This is a thread on portraits. Do you know what my fav portrait lens in my arsenal is so far? The Nikon 105mm F/2 DC. This lens was released in 1993, almost 14 years ago. The first update to this lens was this year (2016), 23 years later. Nikon still produces lenses like the 50mm F/1.2 AI-S...which has been produced identically since 1978, almost 40 years ago.

In addition, I recently (3 days ago) just ordered another copy of the Nikon 50mm F1.4 AI-S, which was first introduced in 1981, 35 years ago. This lens is in many ways superior to current 50mm lenses (eg. sharpness at wide apertures), including the 50mm F/1.4G that I also own. Yes, the 35-year-old Nikon 50mm F/1.4 AI-S significantly outperforms the recent 50mm F1/4G at most apertures, including at F/2. I have some lenses I've owned 25+ years. There's nothing temporary about this, and these lenses aren't obsolete by any means.

All of those lenses outperform the lens on the Panasonic FZ1000 in terms of image quality by huge margins. Sharpness/resolution, contrast, bokeh? All of these 'vintage' lenses are much better.

As a note (before you add scope as always): The 50mm F/1.4 AI-S that I ordered cost approx. $100.

A "fixed" lens camera can be sold much more quickly/easily than an (ENTIRE) "system" where a buyer may want the body only, (leaving you stuck with all your lenses), or vice-versa want only the lenses, (or may not want either if "obsolete").

Show me some facts to back this up. I can show you quite the opposite. For example: look at this link . On Amazon (the world's largest retailer), the Canon Rebel T6 & Nikon D3x00 series are top sellers.

Where is the Panasonic FZ1000 in that list...? The camera is #132...in "Point-and-Shoot" cameras...and #1,867 out of all "Camera & Photo." LOL.

Meanwhile, the OP's Sony A6000 is #1 out of all ILC's, and #65 in "Camera & Photo."

So according to the numbers, this statement by PhotoTeach2 is completely false.

But aside from this, what does the speed that a camera can be sold have anything to do with photography?? I bet entry-level Ford's sell faster than most Ferrari's...but Ferrari's are arguably more capable cars.

So it is unfair, assumative, and CONFUSING to always knock my suggestion of (FZ or RX) when THERE ARE "ADVANTAGES" to those cameras.

Among other things wrong, "assumative" is not a word. Also, it's not confusing. You are adding confusion by bringing the FZ1000 into the mix, where it doesn't belong, since the OP asked about the Sony A6000.

The OP asked a simple question: Given an A6000 & 35mm F/1.8 on an overcast day, what settings should he/she use? Please explain the where the Panasonic FZ1000 comes into the mix...and how adding it does not confuse the topic.

1.) Closer focusing and complete FULL zoom range QUICKLY, (much more quickly than having to carry & change between up to 3 lenses to do what the "single" lens can do).

Incorrect. PhotoTeach2 above actually said that ILC's are better at macro, which completely contradicts this statement. Which is it..?

Also, this is completely irrelevant to portrait photography.

Also, there are lenses that have more zoom and a wider range than the fixed lens on the FZ1000. For example, the Sigma 18-300mm Macro has a 27-450mm equivalent zoom range (while the FZ1000 has only a 24-200mm range).

So with an ILC, you can have a single lens with more zoom range "QUICKLY" (all caps, per PhotoTeach2) than the FZ1000.

2.) In many cases FASTER lens since FZ / RX are f/2.8 - 2.4 vs usual f/3.5 (kit lens).

Completely false & incorrect. Why are you comparing a kit lens when the OP has a 35mm F/1.8 lens?

The FZ1000 has an F/3.5 at this "focal length equivalence". This works out to about F/6 f-number equivalence on APS-C.

So the FZ1000 has a much slower lens. How much slower? The OP's lens is approximately 8x ("8 times") faster than the FZ1000.

3.) In most cases lighter than carrying up to 3 lenses, (and with possibility of introducing DUST or DROPPING while "changing" lenses -- as has happened to many people).

Again false & incorrect. The OP is shooting portraits with a single lens. Even if the OP was not, dust is a non-issue and can be easily cleaned on an ILC.

Most dust is typically introduced by lenses 'zooming in & out'--when air gets actively sucked in or pushed out as a lens extends or contracts.

PhotoTeach2: How do you clean your sensor when you zoom your lens in & out?? This is very easy to do on an ILC--and most have built-in, automatic sensor cleaning on power on/off.

In any event, dropping a lens has the same probability as dropping the camera. What's a bigger loss--replacing a prime lens or replacing an entire camera?

I mean seriously, what (cost) would it take for an ILC to match the new RX10-III close-focusing, 24 to 600mm-EFL @ f/2.4 to /4 ??? (w/ "auto" interpolated digital-zoom to 4800mm-EFL)

Now you've selectively changed for this one topic from the FZ1000 to the RX10-III, a camera that costs about $1,500. And as a note: the RX10-III does not have a 24-600 F/2.4-F/4. It has an (actual) 8.8-220mm F/2.4 to 4. This is an equivalent to 24-600 @ F/6.5 - F/10.8. PhotoTeach2: you must have conveniently forgotten to multiply the f-numbers by the crop factor....LOL. Yes you read that right: F/10.8 @ 600mm. Might as well have a pinhole camera.

"Auto-interpolated digital zoom" is a useless figure. This is digital zoom that any image can do. Upscale a 100x100 image to 281x281, and you've done the same thing. Note: all of my digital images (and all digital images in the world) have unlimited digital zoom.

What's the cost of an ILC?

Well, you can buy a far superior Sigma 18-300mm F/3.5-5.6 for under $500. This has a '35mm equivalent' of 24-450mm for less than half of the cost of the SONY RX10-III. If needed, you can supplement this with a less than $100 (usually closer to $25) Vivitar 400mm F/5.6 lens to get the 600mm equivalent.

The total cost of both of these lenses together is up to $600. That's less than half of the price of the Sony. You can buy very good ILC bodies for under $500, bringing the total cost to well under $1100, which is at least $400 cheaper than the Sony.

And note that these lenses are far faster than the Panasonic FZ1000 lenses (which have equivalents to F/6.5-F/10.8). The Panasonic is extremely slow relatively.

What is WRONG with a "beginner" to have that "option" which can possibly INCREASE HIS "SATISFACTION" with photography, (what I have defined as "FUN" -- more "FUN" than I ever had in my 55+ prior years in photography w/ all my NEW options I never had).

Who cares what fun you had? Fun is subjective.

What does that have to do with the OP's question? You must have had a sad and limited life if using an FZ1000 was more fun than you ever had in photography.

And the DFD-AF and 5-axis IS is absolutely faster/better than any dSLR.

Who cares? Lenses have image stabilization...as do gimbals. What does this have to do with portrait photography? Weren't you just talking about flash sync and having too much light?

Turning on IS reduces image sharpness. Not something you want with portraits when you usually aren't concerned with shutter speed limitations. A shutter speed longer than the effective focal length renders this argument useless. This will be the case for daytime outdoor portraits.

And whatever you say, the 1/4000 flash-sync does allow longer fill-flash options in SUN-light, or darken the background w/ closer subject IF YOU WANT TO, (maybe you don't agree but I like the look sometimes in some situations when I don't want the background or to simulate a "night" effect in sunlight).

As you previously acknowledged, so does adding a reflector. A reflector does a better job than flash sync. How do you exactly adjust white balance or get a live view of your shadow improvement using flash sync...? You can't.

And there are other options/features my suggested cameras have that are NOT on all other cameras, (albeit some may have one or another of them).

The OP already owns an A6000 and is asking how to shoot portraits with this specific camera. What's wrong with you where you don't understand this? Are you that dense or unintelligent?

Do you remember recently, when a poster wrote this about you? Or this ? Or even look earlier in this thread.

The FZ1000 is far inferior in many ways to the A6000 in respect to this thread for portraits. Why are you purposely trying to argue that the OP's choice was inferior to yours?

After seeing what I can do with it, I will NEVER have another camera w/out a FULLY-articulating LCD.

The OP's Sony A6000 has an articulating screen...

...so what's your point? This copy+paste job you've done touting the FZ1000 is irrelevant since the A6000 already has this.

I will never have another camera w/out "zebras" for easy/fast ETTR optimizing exposure.

To this and the above, who cares what you will or will not have? You obviously have limited requirements, ability to understand logic & scope & skill.

Most experienced photographers would agree that newer/beginner photographers would take better images by not following your advice.

What does your statement here have to do with portrait photography? You have to ETTR (OP: "expose to the right") because your sensor is so small and has such poor dynamic range that you cannot recover shadows as well as larger sensors, like the OP's A6000. You're ok to blow out highlights because you have no other choice if you want to capture useable shadows or expose mids properly.

The FZ1000 has such low dynamic range that in some scenes you have to make a choice between blowing highlights or losing shadows.

This is why the Panasonic FZ1000 has such dismally low scores on DxOMark when compared to the OP's Sony A6000--it's a far inferior camera in terms of image quality.

I find the HandHeld NIGHT-shot very handy for a low-noise shot in lower-light.

Again, what does this have to do with the OP's overcast, daytime portrait requirements...?

Also, the tiny sensor in the FZ1000 is horrible for exposure (and noise) performance when compared to larger sensors at decent resolutions. The FZ1000 has less than 1/3 the sensor area of an APS-C camera. This means that "night shot" will (at best) equalize the light gathering for an APS-C camera--and if one is using a stabilize lens, the FZ1000 will be far inferior at low light.

See the DxoMark scores above again....LOL

I repeat again that ALL cameras are COMPROMISES .... and ILC absolutely have their advantages, ("faster" prime or UWA -- but at HIGHER TOTAL COST).

Again, this is completely false. ILC's have better lenses, faster lenses, and cheaper lenses. What does this have to do with the OP's post about portraits on the Sony A6000...?

Larger sensors have their advantages, (higher ISO capability and narrower DOF).

Yes they do. And this narrower DoF is extremely important to portrait photography.

But smaller sensors also have advantages, (Super-ZOOM capability).

....so? What does this "Super-ZOOM capability" have to do with the OP's post about portraits on the A6000...?

And so I take it that you think the Nikon P900 is the best camera ever due it's far superior zoom capability? Much better than the Panasonic FZ1000.

I simply find the 1"-type sensor (fixed-lens) a "compromise" that would often be better for a "beginner" who may or may-not spend more money to get a "greater" capability than he can get in a 1"-type "bridge" camera.

So, who cares what you think about 1" sensors? Bridge cameras are by definition, not great at any one thing. They're 'ok' at many things. So are point-and-shoots.

The OP has an APS-C and wants to take portraits. His camera and lens are far superior to any current bridge camera for this. And for many other cases.

But you've proven time & time again that you struggle in:

• basic reading skills
• logic & reasoning
• ability to understand a user's requirements
• skills in photography
• General expertise & currency in available equipment & pricing
• ability to pick the right tool for the job
• ability to resonate

You apparently have 'fun' taking mediocre pictures with an 'all-in-one' camera that does many things, but no one thing well. That's good for you. Please enjoy a cookie on my behalf.

Most people on this site are passionate about taking good (not mediocre) pictures.

In other words, while you're driving your base-model Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla ranting and raving about it's daily driving abilities and how much fun you have driving to the grocery store after 55+ years, the members of this site are asking how to drive their Ferrari's & Pagani's. Instead of answering their questions, you're going on about your grocery getter. They're asking about torque and horsepower and differentials and traction control, and you're telling them about the gas mileage and cargo capacity.

You're telling the member of this site (which is a photography enthusiasts site) about how great a camera the FZ1000 is for the general public who aren't interested in photography. I am honestly struck by how you haven't yet gotten the hint.

 

[beatboxa]

And I had NOT noticed the he specified "cloudy" sky so you are also correct that 1/4000 would not be necessary, (and indeed the ND of a polarizer may be sufficient to get to 1/200 flash "sync" speed.

I know you hadn't noticed because (as always) you have trouble comprehending words or constraints that the OP describes.

 

[beatboxa]

It is LATE and I did not "carefully" read everything you wrote above ... BUT ... it all appears to be accurate so I tend to AGREE with what you wrote above.

What's your excuse for the other hundreds of time you arbitrarily recommend the FZ1000? You either never read "carefully" or are just incompetent at reading.

The OP was very clear in this. The entire post was only 5 sentences, and 3 out of those 5 were questions. There were only 2 non-question sentences that framed the context.

Sentence #1: "I own the Sony Alpha A6000 with a 35mm fixed lens."

Sentence #2: "I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day with the weather at 45 degrees in NYC."

The other 3 sentences were questions essentially asking "how should I shoot portraits?"

How carefully do you need to read in order to understand that?

 

[PhotoTeach2]

And I had NOT noticed the he specified "cloudy" sky so you are also correct that 1/4000 would not be necessary, (and indeed the ND of a polarizer may be sufficient to get to 1/200 flash "sync" speed.

I know you hadn't noticed because (as always) you have trouble comprehending words or constraints that the OP describes.

I apologized for "forgetting" the OP ... it had been a full day since his original post and I was responding to another reply after "forgetting"

But I did specify my information related to SUNlight and thus can be "good" information to others who may indeed want to do wide-aperture / narrow-DOF in sunlight with "fill" flash when their aperture will limited by a focal-plane flash-sync speed.

Note that "professionals" of a few years ago did not have those limitations because Hasselblad's, (and others), did indeed have "leaf-shutters" which are now only available via Sony/Panasonic "bridge" cameras.

Note that Nikon TRIED to allow unlimited flash-sync with their electronic shutters in D70 / DX1 series but have now abandoned those sensors.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

OP: Unfortunate that I have to do so, but I really should behalf for PhotoTeach2. He in no way represents photographers or what this forum is about. But you may learn a few tips & tricks here, so I'll respond just for your benefit...

As a note: the OP already has an interchangeable lens camera ("ILC"); so PhotoTeach2: you are doing nothing more than 'stirring the pot.'

OP ... I also apologize to you for seemingly "hijacking" the thread.

But this was a long post and some of it deserves further comment.

If the OP is serious about photography, he/she should stay away from any fixed lens camera.

tEdolph

I see what you are saying and in some/many situations I do agree with you.

I especially agree if a buyer wants to QUICKLY add a "fast" prime, or micro, or UWA.

Interchangeable lenses have many more uses than "primes", "micro", and "ultra wide angle."

And how may other uses do they have .... (note that will add the ability to attach to micro or telescopes for specialized "scientific" work).

This is why a vast majority of professional photographers use interchangeable lens cameras, whether they're DSLR's or interchangeable lens cameras.

The majority use (larger-sensor) ILC's because that is what was once necessary for acceptable IQ and most are now committed to a "system".

How many pro photographers do you suppose use the Panasonic FZ1000...?

If I was a "pro" I indeed may not have even tried a FZ-1000 ... I have stated many times that the ONLY reason I tried a (small-sensor) super-zoom was because I was going on an Alaskan cruise with a (new) lady that did not express interest in photography and I didn't want to risk losing a relationship. So I bought a Sony HX100 and found that I was "surprised" that the IQ was much better than I expected, and indeed "adequate" for most purposes with the added advantage of the wider/longer range zoom-tele.

How many photo competitions were won by the FZ1000?

Probably not many because as you mentioned, "pro's" and serious-amateurs who are talented enough to win competitions don't (yet) use "bridge" cameras.

But that does NOT mean they are not capable of "winning" competitions.

Would I shoot a paid portrait using a Panasonic FZ1000?

I would, and have, and even shot a wedding with (1/2.3") FZ-200.

Absolutely not. For one, the depth of field will never be sufficient. If I wanted to shoot a well-lit portrait where everything (including the background) is in focus, I'd use my phone.

Phone ??? .... (well OK ... Apple has billboards all over the country shot with IPhone-7)

When I want quality, I shoot my ILC. There are a host of other reasons...read on...

IQ is mostly based on sensor size and (new technology) design ... I suggest todays smaller sensors can equal larger sensors of years ago.

The definitive word here is "quickly".

The FACT is that most purchasers don't actually go past their initial purchase, (albeit some do indeed "intend" to eventually -- but most never do).

PhotoTeach2: You claim this often. Do you have any facts to justify this claim?

I was a manager of a retail photo store in 1966. I shot portraits for 10 years with customers that often asked me questions about their cameras they were having "trouble" with. I owned a 1-hour Photo-Lab/Studio and RETAIL STORE for 15 years.

So I "professionally" talked with retail customers EVERY DAY for many many years.

As a reminder, the OP already has an ILC, with a fast prime lens, as is often the case on these forums. This is the scope of the discussion here.

True ... but this is a "beginners" forum with many who are still considering a "first" purchase.

OP: Despite the fact that you invested in a 35mm F/1.8 lens, PhotoTeach2 thinks you are like 'most purchasers' who 'don't actually go past their initial purchase.' He thinks you are not serious about photography.

Also, even if this is the case (where we need solid proof), who cares what 'most purchasers' do? I don't base my pro photography on what 'most people' do. Most people use cellphones. Does that mean cellphones are always the best medium for photography? The best selling car in the States in 2016 was the Toyota Camry.

Do you think car enthusiasts would agree that this is the best car for them? This is an enthusiast & pro site--not a site for people not interested in photography.

Well Camry is obviously the "wrong" car ... everyone should buy a SUBARU.

And I have said before that that "cameras", (and lenses also), are evolving so fast that ANY purchase today will very quickly, (MUCH quicker than years ago when you could effective use a camera/lens for 20 years), become obsolete with the new advances in (especially) MirrorLess. Lenses are evolving faster than years ago.

So IF a "fixed" lens can better satisfy the TEMPORARY needs possibly BETTER than a ILC I see nothing wrong with recommending them. Even ILC's will be obsolete sooner than years ago and there is now much more differences between brands so can be actually "bad" to be "tied" to an original brand purchase because you have an investment in "lenses" to protect.

These entire passages are bogus. This is a thread on portraits. Do you know what my fav portrait lens in my arsenal is so far? The Nikon 105mm F/2 DC. This lens was released in 1993, almost 14 years ago. The first update to this lens was this year (2016), 13 years later. Nikon still produces lenses like the 50mm F/1.2 AI-S...which has been produced identically since 1978, almost 40 years ago.

In addition, I recently (3 days ago) just ordered another copy of the Nikon 50mm F1.4 AI-S, which was first introduced in 1981, 35 years ago. This lens is in many ways superior to current 50mm lenses (eg. sharpness at wide apertures), including the 50mm F/1.4G that I also own. Yes, the 35-year-old Nikon 50mm F/1.4 AI-S significantly outperforms the recent 50mm F1/4G at most apertures, including at F/2. I have some lenses I've owned 25+ years. There's nothing temporary about this, and these lenses aren't obsolete by any means.

You can't deny that there are many threads here related to various lenses and specific versions which may be better/worse than older.

All of those lenses outperform the lens on the Panasonic FZ1000 in terms of image quality by huge margins. Sharpness/resolution, contrast, bokeh? All of these 'vintage' lenses are much better.

As a note (before you add scope as always): The 50mm F/1.4 AI-S that I ordered cost approx. $100.

A "fixed" lens camera can be sold much more quickly/easily than an (ENTIRE) "system" where a buyer may want the body only, (leaving you stuck with all your lenses), or vice-versa want only the lenses, (or may not want either if "obsolete").

Show me some facts to back this up. I can show you quite the opposite. For example: look at this link . On Amazon (the world's largest retailer), the Canon Rebel T6 & Nikon D3x00 series are top sellers.

Where is the Panasonic FZ1000 in that list...? The camera is #132...in "Point-and-Shoot" cameras...and #1,867 out of all "Camera & Photo." LOL.

Meanwhile, the OP's Sony A6000 is #1 out of all ILC's, and #65 in "Camera & Photo."

So according to the numbers, this statement by PhotoTeach2 is completely false.

But aside from this, what does the speed that a camera can be sold have anything to do with photography?? I bet entry-level Ford's sell faster than most Ferrari's...but Ferrari's are arguably more capable cars.

Did I mention that EVERYONE should have SUBARU's ???

So it is unfair, assumative, and CONFUSING to always knock my suggestion of (FZ or RX) when THERE ARE "ADVANTAGES" to those cameras.

Among other things wrong, "assumative" is not a word. Also, it's not confusing. You are adding confusion by bringing the FZ1000 into the mix, where it doesn't belong, since the OP asked about the Sony A6000.

I mention BOTH the RX and FZ only in the context of their "leaf" shutters capable of 1/4000sec flash-sync.

The OP asked a simple question: Given an A6000 & 35mm F/1.8 on an overcast day, what settings should he/she use? Please explain the where the Panasonic FZ1000 comes into the mix...and how adding it does not confuse the topic.

Again ... I was discussing "leaf" shutters and they flash-sync capability, (that many new dSLR owners don't even know about).

1.) Closer focusing and complete FULL zoom range QUICKLY, (much more quickly than having to carry & change between up to 3 lenses to do what the "single" lens can do).

Incorrect. PhotoTeach2 above actually said that ILC's are better at macro, which completely contradicts this statement. Which is it..?

I said "closer-focusing" which is true ... but I agree is not a full replacement for true (1:1) micro.

Also, this is completely irrelevant to portrait photography.

Also, there are lenses that have more zoom and a wider range than the fixed lens on the FZ1000. For example, the Sigma 18-300mm Macro has a 27-450mm equivalent zoom range (while the FZ1000 has only a 24-200mm range).

The FZ-1000 is 25-400mm-EFL (f/2.8-4) ... the RX10-III has 24-600mm-EFL (f/2.4-4)

Note that I do indeed like the Sigma 18-300, but it is a relatively new lens that was not available when FZ-1000 was released. And I agree it very-closely now equals the FZ-1000 in range.

So with an ILC, you can have a single lens with more zoom range "QUICKLY" (all caps, per PhotoTeach2) than the FZ1000.

BUT ... now the competition is the Sony RX10-III w/ 24-600mm-EFL (@ f/2.4-4).

2.) In many cases FASTER lens since FZ / RX are f/2.8 - 2.4 vs usual f/3.5 (kit lens).

Completely false & incorrect. Why are you comparing a kit lens when the OP has a 35mm F/1.8 lens?

The FZ1000 has an F/3.5 at this "focal length equivalence". This works out to about F/6 f-number equivalence on APS-C.

So the FZ1000 has a much slower lens. How much slower? The OP's lens is approximately 8x ("8 times") faster than the FZ1000.

Equivalence relates to DOF only .... does not apply to exposure "settings".

.

3.) In most cases lighter than carrying up to 3 lenses, (and with possibility of introducing DUST or DROPPING while "changing" lenses -- as has happened to many people).

Again false & incorrect. The OP is shooting portraits with a single lens. Even if the OP was not, dust is a non-issue and can be easily cleaned on an ILC.

Most dust is typically introduced by lenses 'zooming in & out'--when air gets actively sucked in or pushed out as a lens extends or contracts.

PhotoTeach2: How do you clean your sensor when you zoom your lens in & out?? This is very easy to do on an ILC--and most have built-in, automatic sensor cleaning on power on/off.

In any event, dropping a lens has the same probability as dropping the camera. What's a bigger loss--replacing a prime lens or replacing an entire camera?

Cameras of course can be "dropped" ... but it is much more common to drop a lens while "changing" and trying to handle two-lenses at a time.

I mean seriously, what (cost) would it take for an ILC to match the new RX10-III close-focusing, 24 to 600mm-EFL @ f/2.4 to /4 ??? (w/ "auto" interpolated digital-zoom to 4800mm-EFL)

Now you've selectively changed for this one topic from the FZ1000 to the RX10-III, a camera that costs about $1,500. And as a note: the RX10-III does not have a 24-600 F/2.4-F/4. It has an 8.8-220mm F/2.4 to 4. This is an equivalent to 24-600 @ F/6.5 - F/10.8.

PhotoTeach2: you must have conveniently forgotten to multiply the f-numbers by the crop factor....LOL. Yes you read that right: F/10.8 @ 600mm. Might as well have a pinhole camera.

Once again ... equivalence is important to DOF.

"Auto-interpolated digital zoom" is a useless figure. This is digital zoom that any image can do. Convert a 100x100 image to 281x281, and you've done the same thing. Note:all of my cameras have unlimited digital zoom. I have interpolated digital zoom to at least 1,000,000mm, which is more than 4800mm.

But not "in-camera" and non time-consuming.

What's the cost of an ILC?

Well, you can buy a far superior Sigma 18-300mm F/3.5-5.6 for under $500. This has a '35mm equivalent' of 24-450mm for less than half of the cost of the SONY RX10-III. If needed, you can supplement this with a less than $100 (usually closer to $25) Vivitar 400mm F/5.6 lens to get the 500mm equivalent.

The total cost of both of these lenses is up to $600. That's less than half of the price of the Sony.

You are conveniently ignoring the cost to the "camera" to mount it on.

And note that these lenses are far faster than the Panasonic FZ1000 lenses (which have equivalents to F/6.5-F/10.8...the Panasonic is extremely slow relatively.)

Not for exposure "setting" purposes.

What is WRONG with a "beginner" to have that "option" which can possibly INCREASE HIS "SATISFACTION" with photography, (what I have defined as "FUN" -- more "FUN" than I ever had in my 55+ prior years in photography w/ all my NEW options I never had).

Who cares what fun you had? Fun is subjective.

Yes ... but you can't deny that more options/features can increase the potential of "FUN".

What does that have to do with the OP's question? You must have had a sad and limited life if using an FZ1000 was more fun than you ever had.

And the DFD-AF and 5-axis IS is absolutely faster/better than any dSLR.

Who cares? Lenses have image stabilization...as do gimbals. What does this have to do with portrait photography? Weren't you just talking about flash sync and having too much light?

A shutter speed longer than the effective focal length renders this argument useless. This will be the case for daytime outdoor portraits.

And whatever you say, the 1/4000 flash-sync does allow longer fill-flash options in SUN-light, or darken the background w/ closer subject IF YOU WANT TO, (maybe you don't agree but I like the look sometimes in some situations when I don't want the background or to simulate a "night" effect in sunlight).

As you previously acknowledged, so does adding a reflector. A reflector does a better job than flash sync. How do you adjust warmth or get a live view of your shadow improvement using flash sync...?

I like reflectors but that takes a second person and does not work with groups. I often shoot an entire wedding party & family on church "steps" from about 50' and use fill-flash.

And there are other options/features my suggested cameras have that are NOT on all other cameras, (albeit some may have one or another of them).

The OP already owns an A6000 and is asking how to shoot portraits with this specific camera. What's wrong with you where you don't understand this? Are you that dense or unintelligent?

Do you remember recently, when a poster wrote this about you? Or this ? Or even look earlier in this thread.

The FZ1000 is far inferior in many ways to the A6000 in respect to this thread.

After seeing what I can do with it, I will NEVER have another camera w/out a FULLY-articulating LCD.

The OP's Sony A6000 has an articulating screen...

Not "fully".

...so what's your point? This copy+paste job you've done touting the FZ1000 is irrelevant since the A6000 already has this.

I will never have another camera w/out "zebras" for easy/fast ETTR optimizing exposure.

To this and the above, who cares what you will or will not have? You obviously have limited requirements, ability to understand logic & scope & skill.

Most experienced photographers agree that newer photographers would take better images by not following your advice.

What does this have to do with portrait photography? You have to ETTR (OP: "expose to the right") because your sensor is so small and has such poor dynamic range that you cannot recover shadows as well as larger sensors, like the OP's A6000. You're ok to blow out highlights because you have no other choice.

The FZ1000 has such low dynamic range that in some scenes you have to make a choice between blowing highlights or losing shadows.

This is why the Panasonic FZ1000 has such dismally low scores on DxOMark when compared to the OP's Sony A6000--it's a far inferior camera in terms of image quality.

I find the HandHeld NIGHT-shot very handy for a low-noise shot in lower-light.

Again, what does this have to do with the OP's overcast, daytime portrait requirements...?

I already explained that this thread has indeed deviated from the OP ... when my INTENTION was only to mention "leaf" shutters.

Also, the tiny sensor in the FZ1000 is horrible for exposure (and noise) performance when compared to larger sensors at decent resolutions. The FZ1000 has less than 1/3 the sensor area of an APS-C camera. This means that "night shot" will (at best) equalize the light gathering for an APS-C camera--and if one is using a stabilize lens, the FZ1000 will be far inferior at low light.

See the DxoMark scores above again....LOL

I repeat again that ALL cameras are COMPROMISES .... and ILC absolutely have their advantages, ("faster" prime or UWA -- but at HIGHER TOTAL COST).

Again, this is completely false. ILC's have better lenses, faster lenses, and cheaper lenses. What does this have to do with the OP's post about portraits on the Sony A6000...?

Larger sensors have their advantages, (higher ISO capability and narrower DOF).

Yes they do. And this narrower DoF is extremely important to portrait photography.

But smaller sensors also have advantages, (Super-ZOOM capability).

....so? What does this have to do with the OP's post about portraits on the A6000...?

And so I take it that you think the Nikon P900 is the best camera ever due it's far superior zoom capability? Much better than the Panasonic FZ1000.

I have not used it ... but if "tele" was my priority, I might suggest it.

I simply find the 1"-type sensor (fixed-lens) a "compromise" that would often be better for a "beginner" who may or may-not spend more money to get a "greater" capability than he can get in a 1"-type "bridge" camera.

So, who cares what you think about 1" sensors? Bridge cameras are by definition, not great at anything. They're 'ok' at everything.

The OP has an APS-C and wants to take portraits. His camera and lens are far superior to any current bridge camera.

But you've proven time & time again that you struggle in:

• basic reading skills
• logic & reasoning
• ability to understand a user's requirements
• skills in photography
• General expertise & currency in available equipment & pricing
• ability to pick the right tool for the job
• ability to resonate

You apparently have 'fun' taking mediocre pictures with an 'all-in-one' camera that does many things, but no one thing well. That's good for you. Please enjoy a cookie on my behalf.

Most people on this site are passionate about taking good (not mediocre) pictures.

In other words, while you're driving your base-model Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla ranting and raving about it's daily driving abilities and how much fun you have driving to the grocery store after 55+ years, the members of this site are asking how to drive their Ferrari's & Pagani's. Instead of answering their questions, you're going on about your sub-par grocery getter. They're asking about torque and horsepower and differentials and traction control, and you're telling them about the gas mileage and cargo capacity.

You're telling the member of this site (which is a photography enthusiasts site) about how great a camera the FZ1000 is for people who aren't interested in photography. I am honestly struck by how you haven't yet gotten the hint.

 

[beatboxa]

Interchangeable lenses have many more uses than "primes", "micro", and "ultra wide angle."

And how may other uses do they have .... (note that will add the ability to attach to micro or telescopes for specialized "scientific" work).

"zooms" for one.

Pretty much every serious photographer uses an ILC because they are as good or better in terms of IQ than bridge cameras. Landscapes, portraits, street shooting, macro, low light, weddings, astrophotography, galaxies, scientific applications, you name it.

But this topic is irrelevant to the OP's portrait requirements.

This is why a vast majority of professional photographers use interchangeable lens cameras, whether they're DSLR's or interchangeable lens cameras.

The majority use (larger-sensor) ILC's because that is what was once necessary for acceptable IQ and most are now committed to a "system".

No. It's because of the real benefits these systems offer.

"Acceptable" is subjective, and a majority of serious photographers use ILC's because they provide "acceptable" IQ in more situations where 'bridge cameras' cannot.

When you are using a bridge camera, you are compromising image quality for some convenience. A majority of pro photographers choose not to make this compromise.

How many pro photographers do you suppose use the Panasonic FZ1000...?

If I was a "pro" I indeed may not have even tried a FZ-1000 ... I have stated many times that the ONLY reason I tried a (small-sensor) super-zoom was because I was going on an Alaskan cruise with a (new) lady that did not express interest in photography and I didn't want to risk losing a relationship. So I bought a Sony HX100 and found that I was "surprised" that the IQ was much better than I expected, and indeed "adequate" for most purposes with the added advantage of the wider/longer range zoom-tele.

I am a pro. I have used bridge cameras. They are inadequate in most (not all) cases for the look I am going for. They do not come close to the same league as my ILC's. They are much closer in IQ to compacts.

How many photo competitions were won by the FZ1000?

Probably not many because as you mentioned, "pro's" and serious-amateurs who are talented enough to win competitions don't (yet) use "bridge" cameras.

But that does NOT mean they are not capable of "winning" competitions.

Didn't say they were not capable of winning competitions. Phones can win competitions too. But the chances are much slimmer--usually due to their inferior flexibility, sharpness, sensor size, and lens speeds, which all have quite a bit to do with image quality.

Would I shoot a paid portrait using a Panasonic FZ1000?

I would, and have, and even shot a wedding with (1/2.3") FZ-200.

Was it a paid gig for several grand (or at least several hundred)? If so, I'd probably have asked for a refund due to the (likely) poor pictures. Shallow DoF & low lighting is often a key to great wedding photography, and you cannot expect to get good pictures here with an FZ-200.

Absolutely not. For one, the depth of field will never be sufficient. If I wanted to shoot a well-lit portrait where everything (including the background) is in focus, I'd use my phone.

Phone ??? .... (well OK ... Apple has billboards all over the country shot with IPhone-7)

Yes. I'd use a phone instead of bridge camera (which I wouldn't own). And I'd use an ILC instead of a phone.

A 1" sensor (like the one in the FZ1000) is closer in sensor area to a phone's sensor than it is to a full frame sensor. That's why it's often compared to compacts rather than ILC's.

An APS-C sensor is closer in area to a Full Frame sensor than it is to a 1" sensor.

When I want quality, I shoot my ILC. There are a host of other reasons...read on...

IQ is mostly based on sensor size and (new technology) design ... I suggest todays smaller sensors can equal larger sensors of years ago.

So? Today's larger sensors outperform today's smaller sensors and yesterday's larger sensors.

Where are the 1" and smaller sensors in the top 10 of that list? In fact, there is only a single 1" camera in the top 100: DxOMark's own at #38. The next best 1" sensor comes in at #138.

The FZ-1000 (from 2014) comes in at #195, right between the Nikon D200 (from 2005) and the Sony Alpha 300 (from 2008).

The definitive word here is "quickly".

The FACT is that most purchasers don't actually go past their initial purchase, (albeit some do indeed "intend" to eventually -- but most never do).

PhotoTeach2: You claim this often. Do you have any facts to justify this claim?

I was a manager of a retail photo store in 1966. I shot portraits for 10 years with customers that often asked me questions about their cameras they were having "trouble" with. I owned a 1-hour Photo-Lab/Studio and RETAIL STORE for 15 years.

So I "professionally" talked with retail customers EVERY DAY for many many years.

That's not a fact that justifies that most purchasers go past their initial purchase.

Do you think that the technology, market, and consumers of cameras have, perhaps, changed a bit since 1966, maybe? Note: 1966 was 3 years before we landed on the moon. It's also a few years before the first SLR lens with an aspherical element was invented.

As a reminder, the OP already has an ILC, with a fast prime lens, as is often the case on these forums. This is the scope of the discussion here.

True ... but this is a "beginners" forum with many who are still considering a "first" purchase.

That's not what this thread is about. Stop hijacking the OP's threads when they ask a simple, specific question to tout your FZ1000.

And I have said before that that "cameras", (and lenses also), are evolving so fast that ANY purchase today will very quickly, (MUCH quicker than years ago when you could effective use a camera/lens for 20 years), become obsolete with the new advances in (especially) MirrorLess. Lenses are evolving faster than years ago.

So IF a "fixed" lens can better satisfy the TEMPORARY needs possibly BETTER than a ILC I see nothing wrong with recommending them. Even ILC's will be obsolete sooner than years ago and there is now much more differences between brands so can be actually "bad" to be "tied" to an original brand purchase because you have an investment in "lenses" to protect.

These entire passages are bogus. This is a thread on portraits. Do you know what my fav portrait lens in my arsenal is so far? The Nikon 105mm F/2 DC. This lens was released in 1993, almost 14 years ago. The first update to this lens was this year (2016), 13 years later. Nikon still produces lenses like the 50mm F/1.2 AI-S...which has been produced identically since 1978, almost 40 years ago.

In addition, I recently (3 days ago) just ordered another copy of the Nikon 50mm F1.4 AI-S, which was first introduced in 1981, 35 years ago. This lens is in many ways superior to current 50mm lenses (eg. sharpness at wide apertures), including the 50mm F/1.4G that I also own. Yes, the 35-year-old Nikon 50mm F/1.4 AI-S significantly outperforms the recent 50mm F1/4G at most apertures, including at F/2. I have some lenses I've owned 25+ years. There's nothing temporary about this, and these lenses aren't obsolete by any means.

You can't deny that there are many threads here related to various lenses and specific versions which may be better/worse than older.

Are you changing your point? Because you just contradicted your original point.

Your point was that cameras & lenses become obsolete within years now. If this was true, these threads wouldn't exist. The older lenses and cameras are not obsolete if they are being debated. If they were obsolete, there would be no question that they were useless.

All of those lenses outperform the lens on the Panasonic FZ1000 in terms of image quality by huge margins. Sharpness/resolution, contrast, bokeh? All of these 'vintage' lenses are much better.

As a note (before you add scope as always): The 50mm F/1.4 AI-S that I ordered cost approx. $100.

A "fixed" lens camera can be sold much more quickly/easily than an (ENTIRE) "system" where a buyer may want the body only, (leaving you stuck with all your lenses), or vice-versa want only the lenses, (or may not want either if "obsolete").

Show me some facts to back this up. I can show you quite the opposite. For example: look at this link . On Amazon (the world's largest retailer), the Canon Rebel T6 & Nikon D3x00 series are top sellers.

Where is the Panasonic FZ1000 in that list...? The camera is #132...in "Point-and-Shoot" cameras...and #1,867 out of all "Camera & Photo." LOL.

Meanwhile, the OP's Sony A6000 is #1 out of all ILC's, and #65 in "Camera & Photo."

So according to the numbers, this statement by PhotoTeach2 is completely false.

But aside from this, what does the speed that a camera can be sold have anything to do with photography?? I bet entry-level Ford's sell faster than most Ferrari's...but Ferrari's are arguably more capable cars.

Did I mention that EVERYONE should have SUBARU's ???

Your entire point here was that most photographers should own a bridge camera. This is wrong.

So it is unfair, assumative, and CONFUSING to always knock my suggestion of (FZ or RX) when THERE ARE "ADVANTAGES" to those cameras.

Among other things wrong, "assumative" is not a word. Also, it's not confusing. You are adding confusion by bringing the FZ1000 into the mix, where it doesn't belong, since the OP asked about the Sony A6000.

I mention BOTH the RX and FZ only in the context of their "leaf" shutters capable of 1/4000sec flash-sync.

...which the OP doesn't have and didn't ask about. This has nothing to do with the OP's question. For fill lighting, the OP should use a reflector since his/her camera doesn't have a leaf shutter.

The OP asked a simple question: Given an A6000 & 35mm F/1.8 on an overcast day, what settings should he/she use? Please explain the where the Panasonic FZ1000 comes into the mix...and how adding it does not confuse the topic.

Again ... I was discussing "leaf" shutters and they flash-sync capability, (that many new dSLR owners don't even know about).

Again...it is still completely irrelevant, just like all of your posts.

1.) Closer focusing and complete FULL zoom range QUICKLY, (much more quickly than having to carry & change between up to 3 lenses to do what the "single" lens can do).

Incorrect. PhotoTeach2 above actually said that ILC's are better at macro, which completely contradicts this statement. Which is it..?

I said "closer-focusing" which is true ... but I agree is not a full replacement for true (1:1) micro.

What is the relevance of closer focusing and full range shooting in the OP's use case of portraits with a 35mm fixed prime? Are you recommending that the OP takes macro shots of their subjects pores?

Also, this is completely irrelevant to portrait photography.

Also, there are lenses that have more zoom and a wider range than the fixed lens on the FZ1000. For example, the Sigma 18-300mm Macro has a 27-450mm equivalent zoom range (while the FZ1000 has only a 24-200mm range).

The FZ-1000 is 25-400mm-EFL (f/2.8-4) ... the RX10-III has 24-600mm-EFL (f/2.4-4)

Note that I do indeed like the Sigma 18-300, but it is a relatively new lens that was not available when FZ-1000 was released. And I agree it very-closely now equals the FZ-1000 in range.

You are again ignoring the f-number equivalencies.

The FZ1000 is 25-400mm (F/7.6-10.8) equivalent and the RX10-III is 24-600mm (f/6.48-10.8) equivalent.

So with an ILC, you can have a single lens with more zoom range "QUICKLY" (all caps, per PhotoTeach2) than the FZ1000.

BUT ... now the competition is the Sony RX10-III w/ 24-600mm-EFL (@ f/2.4-4).

First ask yourself what this has to do with the OP's question.

Then re-read my response to this. Then ask someone to help you comprehend what you read.

You changed scope and are now suddenly ignoring cost, which you always argue is superior on bridge cameras.

2.) In many cases FASTER lens since FZ / RX are f/2.8 - 2.4 vs usual f/3.5 (kit lens).

Completely false & incorrect. Why are you comparing a kit lens when the OP has a 35mm F/1.8 lens?

The FZ1000 has an F/3.5 at this "focal length equivalence". This works out to about F/6 f-number equivalence on APS-C.

So the FZ1000 has a much slower lens. How much slower? The OP's lens is approximately 8x ("8 times") faster than the FZ1000.

Equivalence relates to DOF only .... does not apply to exposure "settings".

Yes it does. Are you aware that Apertures written as f-numbers are relative? F-numbers are written as fractions because "F" stands for "focal length" and the denominator is relative to that.

So a 50mm F/2.8 means "50 / 2.8", which means 17.86mm diameter.

A 100mm F/2.8 means "100 / 2.8", which means 35.71mm diameter.

F/2.8 on a 50mm is different than F/2.8 on a 100mm.

When you multiply the focal length by the crop factor, you must also multiply the F-number in order to maintain the ratio.

An FZ1000 does not have a 400mm F/4 lens or it's lens would be a minimum of 100mm (about 4 inches) in diameter. This is larger than the height of the camera and is a physical impossibility.

.

3.) In most cases lighter than carrying up to 3 lenses, (and with possibility of introducing DUST or DROPPING while "changing" lenses -- as has happened to many people).

Again false & incorrect. The OP is shooting portraits with a single lens. Even if the OP was not, dust is a non-issue and can be easily cleaned on an ILC.

Most dust is typically introduced by lenses 'zooming in & out'--when air gets actively sucked in or pushed out as a lens extends or contracts.

PhotoTeach2: How do you clean your sensor when you zoom your lens in & out?? This is very easy to do on an ILC--and most have built-in, automatic sensor cleaning on power on/off.

In any event, dropping a lens has the same probability as dropping the camera. What's a bigger loss--replacing a prime lens or replacing an entire camera?

Cameras of course can be "dropped" ... but it is much more common to drop a lens while "changing" and trying to handle two-lenses at a time.

This is just so pedantic. What is wrong with you?

I mean seriously, what (cost) would it take for an ILC to match the new RX10-III close-focusing, 24 to 600mm-EFL @ f/2.4 to /4 ??? (w/ "auto" interpolated digital-zoom to 4800mm-EFL)

Now you've selectively changed for this one topic from the FZ1000 to the RX10-III, a camera that costs about $1,500. And as a note: the RX10-III does not have a 24-600 F/2.4-F/4. It has an 8.8-220mm F/2.4 to 4. This is an equivalent to 24-600 @ F/6.5 - F/10.8.

PhotoTeach2: you must have conveniently forgotten to multiply the f-numbers by the crop factor....LOL. Yes you read that right: F/10.8 @ 600mm. Might as well have a pinhole camera.

Once again ... equivalence is important to DOF.

This is exactly what I said above. You just said it wasn't in your thread above.

You apparently don't know how this works, so here's a link with sample image comparisons.

A 1" sensor with a 600mm F/4 (equivalent focal length but not F-number) will not appear to have a similar DoF to a 600mm F4 on a full frame. It will appear to have a simiar DoF as a 600mm F/10.8.

"Auto-interpolated digital zoom" is a useless figure. This is digital zoom that any image can do. Convert a 100x100 image to 281x281, and you've done the same thing. Note:all of my cameras have unlimited digital zoom. I have interpolated digital zoom to at least 1,000,000mm, which is more than 4800mm.

But not "in-camera" and non time-consuming.

Not at all. Open one or more images, hit "size", and do 600%. That's it. Takes seconds.

What's the cost of an ILC?

Well, you can buy a far superior Sigma 18-300mm F/3.5-5.6 for under $500. This has a '35mm equivalent' of 24-450mm for less than half of the cost of the SONY RX10-III. If needed, you can supplement this with a less than $100 (usually closer to $25) Vivitar 400mm F/5.6 lens to get the 500mm equivalent.

The total cost of both of these lenses is up to $600. That's less than half of the price of the Sony.

You are conveniently ignoring the cost to the "camera" to mount it on.

No. I included it in the next few sentences. Re-read what I wrote.

And note that these lenses are far faster than the Panasonic FZ1000 lenses (which have equivalents to F/6.5-F/10.8...the Panasonic is extremely slow relatively.)

Not for exposure "setting" purposes.

For light gathering. Which is what this was about.

What is WRONG with a "beginner" to have that "option" which can possibly INCREASE HIS "SATISFACTION" with photography, (what I have defined as "FUN" -- more "FUN" than I ever had in my 55+ prior years in photography w/ all my NEW options I never had).

Who cares what fun you had? Fun is subjective.

Yes ... but you can't deny that more options/features can increase the potential of "FUN".

Yes I can. I deny it. That's why it's subjective.

Not every bridge camera has more options / features, and not everyone has fun taking mediocre pictures that you get with bridge cameras.

What does that have to do with the OP's question? You must have had a sad and limited life if using an FZ1000 was more fun than you ever had.

And the DFD-AF and 5-axis IS is absolutely faster/better than any dSLR.

Who cares? Lenses have image stabilization...as do gimbals. What does this have to do with portrait photography? Weren't you just talking about flash sync and having too much light?

A shutter speed longer than the effective focal length renders this argument useless. This will be the case for daytime outdoor portraits.

And whatever you say, the 1/4000 flash-sync does allow longer fill-flash options in SUN-light, or darken the background w/ closer subject IF YOU WANT TO, (maybe you don't agree but I like the look sometimes in some situations when I don't want the background or to simulate a "night" effect in sunlight).

As you previously acknowledged, so does adding a reflector. A reflector does a better job than flash sync. How do you adjust warmth or get a live view of your shadow improvement using flash sync...?

I like reflectors but that takes a second person and does not work with groups. I often shoot an entire wedding party & family on church "steps" from about 50' and use fill-flash.

No it doesn't. You can put reflectors on a stand, and diffuse reflectors work fine with groups.

Also, that's strange, since 50' is beyond the flash range of the FZ1000 (which has a max range of 44').

And there are other options/features my suggested cameras have that are NOT on all other cameras, (albeit some may have one or another of them).

The OP already owns an A6000 and is asking how to shoot portraits with this specific camera. What's wrong with you where you don't understand this? Are you that dense or unintelligent?

Do you remember recently, when a poster wrote this about you? Or this ? Or even look earlier in this thread.

The FZ1000 is far inferior in many ways to the A6000 in respect to this thread.

After seeing what I can do with it, I will NEVER have another camera w/out a FULLY-articulating LCD.

The OP's Sony A6000 has an articulating screen...

Not "fully".

So? Relevance to portrait photography?

...so what's your point? This copy+paste job you've done touting the FZ1000 is irrelevant since the A6000 already has this.

I will never have another camera w/out "zebras" for easy/fast ETTR optimizing exposure.

To this and the above, who cares what you will or will not have? You obviously have limited requirements, ability to understand logic & scope & skill.

Most experienced photographers agree that newer photographers would take better images by not following your advice.

What does this have to do with portrait photography? You have to ETTR (OP: "expose to the right") because your sensor is so small and has such poor dynamic range that you cannot recover shadows as well as larger sensors, like the OP's A6000. You're ok to blow out highlights because you have no other choice.

The FZ1000 has such low dynamic range that in some scenes you have to make a choice between blowing highlights or losing shadows.

This is why the Panasonic FZ1000 has such dismally low scores on DxOMark when compared to the OP's Sony A6000--it's a far inferior camera in terms of image quality.

I find the HandHeld NIGHT-shot very handy for a low-noise shot in lower-light.

Again, what does this have to do with the OP's overcast, daytime portrait requirements...?

I already explained that this thread has indeed deviated from the OP ... when my INTENTION was only to mention "leaf" shutters.

Look just one point above. Why did you then also bring in articulating screens?

 

[Sulfur]

Hi,

I own the Sony Alpha A6000 with a 35mm fixed lens. I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day with the weather at 45 degrees in NYC. Any suggestions as to camera settings (aperture, iso, and shutter speed etc..) optimal locations. Basically, how can I get a great photo? Also, any other tips to keep in mind for general portrait photography?

For portraits I would also suggest getting a 50 mm f1.8 I use mine for full length to headshots.

For settings:

1)use the lowest iso,

2) if you want bokeh use f2.0, else f3.5 works good.

3) shutter speed around 125-200.

once you really understand the basics of the exposure triangle and how to set your camera up adding an off camera speedlight will dramatically improve your work. I use one speed light with a plastic diffuser and a sheep radio trigger that I mount on my tripod. I bought my flash and everything in a set for (I think) under $150 USD.

Avi G,

Sorry this post has gone from a "help me with technique for shooting in shade" to "what is the best camera format". Their is still SOME really useful information contained in the posts (albeit not exactly what you were looking for) that would be useful to put away in the back of your mind until your skills improve.

In my prior post I did forget a few things that my be useful.

1) In my opinion photography is 1/3 camera setting and 1/3 composition and 2/3 lighting. I'm sure your thinking that math doesn't add up (and your right) but that shows you the importance of lighting, and the fact that all the important things can overlap!

2) Shade is your friend unless you have ND (neutral density) filters OR HSS (High Speed Sync) with access to more powerful Strobes. Think INDIRECT LIGHT! I like parks with lots of trees, alleyways, next to tall buildings that block the light, any place that is in shade. If its overcast (sun is behind the clouds) you can shoot just about anywhere.

3) Watch out for "Dappled" sunlight!!!! If you see a sun spot on your subject you will find it hard to brighten your photo in post production without blowing out (over exposing) that sunspot. This also applies to the ground around your subject! Nothing sucks more that having a nice pretty green grass surrounding your subject and seeing that ONE really bright spot on the ground.

4) Be mindful that if the background and foreground are two different exposures (subject standing under a shade tree and the rest of the back ground is REAL bright) this can be complicated and frustrating with out having better lighting equipment (ND filters, HSS, Strobes, ETC). But start by exposing for the real bright background and then use flash to bring up the light on your subject and the surrounding area (see the need for a off camera flash).

5) Remember to underexpose a little and make the adjustments in post processing, as it never looks the same on that little screen on the camera as it does on the computer. The other benefit to this is yo u keep more detail that can be edited later. Over exposed (white) areas unfortunately have lost any information for the software to edit.

6) Remember that bad math from before? When shooting in shade having even one OFF CAMERA SPEED LIGHT with a cheep slip on plastic diffuser (this is all I have had for over a year) OR having a reflector can really be beneficial for "brightening" up your subject!

6b) Your not trying too AND you will probably not be able to light the entire scene with one speed light but you subject will look so much better with a LITTLE bit of light that YOU can control.

6c) On camera flash can sometimes work, but more often than not it over exposes, causes red-eye, and is just not fun to work with.

6d) Look at 3rd party speed lights, I would recommend getting one that has TTL and if available HSS. You may not be able to use these off camera now but may be useful on camera (TTL has saved the day more than once while starting out). There are cheap speed lights under or around $100 that will work, so don't think you have to go with a manufactures speed light.

6e) I use a cheap remote trigger (cost about $20 and mount it on my tripod as I don't have light a stand) along with my speed light.

7) Reflectors ARE an option but strangers look at you funny when you ask them to hold one for you, now if you have an assistant (kids work too) that is another story. One thing to note about reflectors! They are really only good for lighting SOME of your subject like the face or maybe 1/2 body shot, after that a flash REALLY helps out a lot. Lets not forget they are not the best for full shade (hard to reflect shade), they work good for lighting someones face that is wearing a hat.

Sorry its so long (there is a LOT for you to learn), but more often than not you will find yourself getting frustrated that your subject doesn't have that look that you want, but the surrounding back/fore ground will look great, and you will need either a reflector or speed light to improve the subject.

I can't find any photos with the same camera setting but with and without a speed light to show how much of an improvement they make. Hopefully someone else can post some examples, if not I will try to get some in the next few days.

 

[Cherylynne1]

I highly recommend the book Picture Perfect Lighting by Roberto Valenzuela. He focuses a large portion of the book on utilizing the best lighting in any location, even if it's just an alleyway. He also discusses off-camera lighting and reflectors, which are additions you'll want to look into if you're serious about portrait photography.

If you're just looking for tips on one time, then pay close attention to the light. Watch how it hits your subject's face. Make sure that the eye sockets aren't dark. If the light on the skin is splotchy or glaring, move. Search for open shade. Look for places where the sunlight bounces off of white buildings or windows. Check for distracting objects in the background. Good luck!