DPReview TV: The best portrait kits for every budget

You obviously have never used A7 II. Its autofocus is nowhere near D610/6D series.

How is a $200 30F1.2 eqv. lens slower or worse than say $600 Fuji XF35F1.4 (FF 50F2.1 eqv.)? The $1000 Fuji XF56F1.2 is no better than the $400 EF 85F1.8 USM, while the $800 FF Z 85F1.8S just wipes the floor with the Fuji.

"obsessed with sensor size and "full frame" marketing" - What are you talking about? Just look at the images. Don't waste your money on overpriced crop toys. Fancy F-stop numbers on crop optics won't give you the real F1.2 results. Don't be naive.

"RF 50 1.8 (really not a good lens)" - Which makes you completely incompetent. For $200 it's an excellent lens.

"there is no practical difference between APS-C images and "Full Frame""
- Your eyes must be failing.

"got perfectly sharp and clean photos at ISO4000 with my APS-C camera"
- Another blindman/troll.
"most of us don’t see it" - Most of you who needs glasses but refuse to put them on?

"I absolutely believe there is no much difference between modern cameras and systems in terms of Image Quality"
- Honestly, you believe in total BS.

"full frame will give better results. But we need to name those conditions: 1) fast big expensive FF lenses are used 2) very extremely bad light 3) very expensive camera with specialised sensor in specialised case"
- No. Any half-decent FF setup beats your crop fantasies. And you need to view them really small to not see the obvious FF advantages. If you can't produce a better picture using a better camera, then you are the problem, not the tool.

@Just Another Tog
What the hell are you talking about? :)) That 1.7mp snapshot? Yeah, that's small enough for a phone camera to be just as good. What a joke. I like the trees better :)

"Have you owned RF 50 1.8 or you just based your opinion over what is written in internet?" - Another foolish "I-own-it-therefore-I-know-better" argument. I don't have to own it to be able to see the images it produces. But you need a proper monitor and a good pair of eyes to see your pictures. Have you ever owned those?

I've processed thousands (possibly millions) 7D/5D and other crop and FF camera RAW images, while trying to get the most out of them. And if you are producing tiny little snapshot just like your buddy here, then you just don't know what you are talking about. I don't shoot staged fakery with tons of light, so that even a lousy crop or a phone could produce a decent picture. I enjoy ultra-high-def digital photography, window size imagery. I don't please clients with whatever cheapest fastest to produce snaps.

"how does 5845 x 3897 = 1.7mp?" - IDK, why did you upload a 1600x1067 snap? Isn't that the size where you can't see the consequences of the ISO 4000 on crop?

"you always reference wasting time when every time you pick up a camera that’s exactly what you’re doing."
- Look, kid, I'm not some pretentious artsy camera snob looking for a job. I shoot pictures for myself, not some clueless dudes who pay for it. I don't have to fool myself to be happy about the results. You can do whatever you have to do to get the job done. Me, I don't give a damn about the tiny boring little snapshots that are flooding the internet.

I better go and share a tree pic now or something :))

This is why we can't have nice things. D:

I can just see some hapless newbie (to whom the video is probably aimed at tbh) coming here to look for a portrait combo and reading thru this, sigh...

(not aimed at any one particular side of this argument btw)

"Why bother with such trivial small sizes"
- Because larger than FF is insanely expensive. While FF is even cheaper than fancy crops. Don't worry, when (if) Medium Format becomes cheaper than FF, I won't be shooting FF anymore. But for now, the FF seems to be the best option.

Well that’s certainly a way you can spend your money to get something inferior, but you falsely assume is better. So you do that and enjoy.

Here's your snapshot, dude.
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3827214348/download/4217309

"an attention seeker" - No. You are just stalking me.

Except for the part where you'd actually enjoy shooting the Nikon. And let's harken back to 6 years ago when Sony sold cameras based on the Smart Adapter and EF glass-and Sony never provided the 'open' mount specs to Caldwell Optical, either. The point being: Z mount is now where Sony E was six years ago, so give it a rest.

Every modern (not based on levers and screws) digital mount we shoot, except Canon EF, started out with just a smattering of lenses.

People like to bring up how many E mount lenses there are, and that's fair. But my point was simply this: give the other brand new mounts a couple of years and they'll catch up. And I would argue that Nikon and Canon both have far better sorted menus and ergos than Sony.

I mean, the video is entirely their personal preferences, so I'm not grabbing a pitchfork or a torch. But yeah generally I expect these videos to be tilted towards Fuji and away from Sony.

Hopefully anyone spending $5K on a portrait setup does their own research.

The X-T4 has eye detect, even my older X-H1 has face detect, more or less.

Haters gonna hate, but the film sims do result in less work during post production. At least the Fujis have real IBIS versus embedding the data into the movies and relying on the computer in post to stabilize their footage.

"At least the Fujis have real IBIS versus embedding the data into the movies and relying on the computer in post to stabilize their footage."

Uh, you can choose either (or use both). I don't know why you'd brag about a missing feature.

I know that the Fujis have eye-detect, but some of those lenses like the 56mm F1.2 can be slow to focus.

If you're trying to pick the best option at every price point why wouldn't you pick the best option, not the mostly serviceable, flawed option? Remember it's not just the slower AF but also the narrower aperture.

If you ignore the Fuji branding, there's no contest. But some people get REALLY invested in brands.

Yeah, some folks do get invested in a brand. Some invest in a brand that looks great, does the job, clients are thrilled with it. Even though fans of another brand, usually the game console vendor brand, are always calling it 'flawed.'

So if I buy a Panasonic S5 because it's full frame, will get a ration of schtick about its 'flawed' AF, too? Or will sensor size just magically overcome any and all other shortcomings? (Note: I have no issue with Panasonic full frame cameras-their AF, like Fuji's, works just fine the greatest majority of the time.).

And f1.2 is f1.2, regardless. The bokeh difference isn't that big of a deal at this point.

And equivalence is equivalence. That's not an F1.2 lens for purposes of output.

My RX100 had an F1.8 lens. Is that the same as a Fuji F1.8 and faster than those Fuji F2 primes?

Apparently so, it gathers light at f1.8 versus f2. But even my lowly m43 gear has a sensor size advantage over its 1" chip.

And to say "..or any AF, really" in regards to Fuji (or any modern camera platform) is simply untrue. I'm sorry for your feelings they didn't just say "Buy a Sony" but there are lots of different cameras out there.

…an EVF is 100% different to an OVF. Thst’s a swathe.