| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2003 04:30:51 PM · #1 |
I want to take portraits. How do I go about finding the best camera for taking portraits? I am looking for a camera with a high and low f-stop. What else should I be looking for? Any ideas? I really like the Sony cameras but will try something else if it is better for under a $1000.00.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2003 04:36:07 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I want to take portraits. How do I go about finding the best camera for taking portraits? I am looking for a camera with a high and low f-stop. What else should I be looking for? Any ideas? I really like the Sony cameras but will try something else if it is better for under a $1000.00. |
The lens is super important :)
A fixed 85mm or 85-100mm in Digital equivalents is best so as not to get facial distortion. Boy, if you could spend $500 more, the Canon EOS 10D is awesome. It is a digital SLR, so you can interchange lenses.
Message edited by author 2003-04-10 16:37:48. |
|
|
|
04/10/2003 05:11:27 PM · #3 |
Sony 717 (which has recently dropped in price) is quite good for portraits. Even my old Olympus C720Z also gave reasonable results with a bit of photoshopping. I think the key is your light set up. After that any camera with extensive range of manual controls will do. Of course DSLR is tops, but you can learn a lot from a good quality prosumer model (Sony F717, Minolta Dimage 7HI, Nicon Coolpix 5700, Fugi 620Z, etc.) They are all under or just around $1000.
I shot these and these portraits with Olympus.
The more recent ones from Sony are here . I am much happier with Sony's ability to render skin tones and even tiny details, and the fact that prints look good even in A3 format.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2003 05:14:06 PM · #4 |
also, fixed lenses tend to be sharper then zooms.
You do very well with the camera you have, Sonia, what is it specifically that you don't like about the camera you have? |
|
|
|
04/10/2003 05:18:28 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Paige:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I want to take portraits. How do I go about finding the best camera for taking portraits? I am looking for a camera with a high and low f-stop. What else should I be looking for? Any ideas? I really like the Sony cameras but will try something else if it is better for under a $1000.00. |
The lens is super important :)
A fixed 85mm or 85-100mm in Digital equivalents is best so as not to get facial distortion. Boy, if you could spend $500 more, the Canon EOS 10D is awesome. It is a digital SLR, so you can interchange lenses. |
You'd then need to find another $500 or so to get a good 100mm lens, plus new CF cards, bigger hard disks and everything else that a nice big sensor SLR eats up. You might well be able to pick up a second hand D30 for well under $1000 now though that would be, combined with the right lens far better.
For the 10D, $1500 just gets you the camera body and a battery. Lenses aren't included.
Message edited by author 2003-04-10 17:19:17. |
|
|
|
04/10/2003 05:21:09 PM · #6 |
| bummer :(, wishfull thinking on my part , at least that's the price I tell my husband ;) |
|
|
|
04/10/2003 05:38:48 PM · #7 |
I've been using the Olympus e-10 for the past year. All the portraits I've done here on DPC and in my gallery below (webzytes link - warning:) used it.
this camera was basically born to be a studio camera - it excels at portraits and still lives -- but you have to give it a lot of light. Professional studio camera assumes the person buying it has the kind of lighting one would have in a studio. To get the best results from it, you need bright lights. I say this because a lot of people end up getting disappointed at the performance under regular ambient household lighting. Because the best iso is 80, it spells slow shutter speeds in most 'dimmish' situations. On the other hand, under bright light, flash, window light, or outdoors, it blossoms.
e-10's also have a very high quality lens and a lot of controls, for every conceivable parameter (btw, the e-20 is the same camera just more pixels). the only downside of them are, for portraits, as for any non-35mm SLR digital, it's a lot harder to blur out the background because of the extra DoF it gives you. Works best if you can back far enough up to zoom in a long way to frame your shot. You can also get a couple tele-extenders that help with this. But any camera that doesnt take interchangeable lenses is going to have this situation.
I know they're way under a grand by now....
I also agree that the Sony F707 seems like it would be a great all-around camera, judging from what I have seen people do with it on this site and elsewhere :).
this is a good time to be in the market for a camera :)...
|
|
|
|
04/10/2003 05:39:05 PM · #8 |
To learn the technique, posing, lighting, backgrounds etc. you don't need expensive gear. It will come later, by all means, when you know you can recoupe your DSLR expenses by taking portraits for money. Just enjoy the experience of learning, practicing, succeeding and failing, and with the money saved do smth. with your husband together.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2003 05:43:08 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Galina:
To learn the technique, posing, lighting, backgrounds etc. you don't need expensive gear. It will come later, by all means, when you know you can recoupe your DSLR expenses by taking portraits for money. Just enjoy the experience of learning, practicing, succeeding and failing, and with the money saved do smth. with your husband together. |
But Galina, she has learned and mastered all this! I think Sonia is ready for the next step. Have you looked at her portfolio? |
|
|
|
04/10/2003 05:45:57 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
04/10/2003 06:53:11 PM · #11 |
REcently, the Sony F717's have listed cheaper than the 707's. See //www.bilibi.com/shop/product.asp?sku=DSCF717 as they have them for less than $600 there, if you are considering one.
I understand from the Sony forum on dpreview, that Sears will even match that price so that you don't have to mail order one.
Good luck with whatever you decide on. I absolutely love my Sony f707 and paid $680 for an open box model on ebay.
KJ
|
|
|
|
04/10/2003 06:58:49 PM · #12 |
Thanks all for your help and advice.
I am looking for a camera that will take a picture close up and have the background blurred. As you can see I took this Pretty in Green picture about 3 feet away and it everything was in focus. I had to use neat image to get the background blurred. Can I do that with my camera and I am just not sure how or do I need to get another?
I don't have optical zoom so when I use the digital zoom it has a lot of artifacts. Not sure what I am doing wrong.
Message edited by author 2003-04-10 18:59:17.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2003 07:21:29 PM · #13 |
Ok Mag. that means I need another camera. My camera only takes a wide angle lens. My digital zoom is terrible. So that leaves me with saving up for a Sony f717. Or a slr. I am still deciding.
Thanks!!
|
|
|
|
04/10/2003 07:24:47 PM · #14 |
Sonifo,
I've got a similar camera to yours. You do have an optical, 3x zoom on that camera. Go to the camera settings in the menu and turn off digital zoom so you don't accidentally skip into it. In essence it's just cropping from the middle of your 3x zoom (though with the raw image from the sensor) and not helping you out too much.
The shortest depth of focus with your current camera will be at full telephoto (zoomed as far as you can go) at the widest aperture (lowest F#) and at the minimum focal distance (as close as your subject can be to the camera while still in focus). I find that the camera hunts for focus a lot when I set up like this, so it might be a good idea to use the closest manual focus preset distance that it will handle...the number will blink if it's too close.
You're going to have to get a better camera if you really want quality portraits (the portrait cameras are the most expensive! darn) and as others have said, you'll really have to spend some cash for a DSLR and a good lens or two. The F717/E10 will give you better background blur than the S70 because they've got longer zooms, bigger lenses, wider apertures available, and larger sensors. They still don't produce a professional-quality depth of focus, though.
The wide-aperture, full-telephoto and close subject approach is still always the best way to go for portraits.
James. |
|
|
|
04/10/2003 07:31:43 PM · #15 |
| I would have to agree the sony 717 is the best camera in its price range. |
|
|
|
04/10/2003 07:45:54 PM · #16 |
The trick to portraits is not to reveal too much on the face, especially for women :) because they tend care a lot on what it shows. Isn't F707 one of those cameras that sharpens everything to death? If so, it's probably not a good thing.
If you're getting a Canon 10D, buy a 50 mm lens (F1.8) for $70, that's equivalent to 80 mm, and with 1.8 aperature, that's pretty decent for a portrait lens. Focused on the eyes, and the nose WILL be blurred slightly, giving the face a very nice and glowing effect.
You can probably get a Canon 10D for about $1350 if you wait for Dell which has a 10% sale every now and then. But the wait is pretty long.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2003 07:50:20 PM · #17 |
That is one thing I can do is wait. I have been waiting for the right time to buy a camera. I keep thinking they are going to make better and if I buy one then a better one will come out 2 weeks later and I will be bummed that I didnt wait. hehehe. I hope I am not the only one who feels this way. I think I will probably have this camera forever if I keep this attitude up. lol
|
|
|
|
04/10/2003 07:51:08 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Sonifo,
I've got a similar camera to yours. You do have an optical, 3x zoom on that camera. Go to the camera settings in the menu and turn off digital zoom so you don't accidentally skip into it. In essence it's just cropping from the middle of your 3x zoom (though with the raw image from the sensor) and not helping you out too much.
The shortest depth of focus with your current camera will be at full telephoto (zoomed as far as you can go) at the widest aperture (lowest F#) and at the minimum focal distance (as close as your subject can be to the camera while still in focus). I find that the camera hunts for focus a lot when I set up like this, so it might be a good idea to use the closest manual focus preset distance that it will handle...the number will blink if it's too close.
You're going to have to get a better camera if you really want quality portraits (the portrait cameras are the most expensive! darn) and as others have said, you'll really have to spend some cash for a DSLR and a good lens or two. The F717/E10 will give you better background blur than the S70 because they've got longer zooms, bigger lenses, wider apertures available, and larger sensors. They still don't produce a professional-quality depth of focus, though.
The wide-aperture, full-telephoto and close subject approach is still always the best way to go for portraits.
James. |
Thanks James! This helps a lot.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2003 08:47:15 PM · #19 |
| I agree with magnetic9999..... The Olympus E10, E20 is currently one of the best suited for studio portraits in the sub $1000 category. However, I would seriously consider buying strobes first, (one to three heads w/ reflectors and umbrellas). Strobe lighting is an essential tool for studio portraiture. You will get great longevity from them..... they will out last several digital cameras. |
|
|
|
04/11/2003 08:27:51 AM · #20 |
I have the olympus e-20. The key to portraits is to stay above 80 mm focal length. The olympus has a history of good lens quality.
check out some of my portraits by clicking the portfolio link in my signature.
Message edited by author 2003-04-11 08:28:31.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2003 10:15:24 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by paganini:
The trick to portraits is not to reveal too much on the face, especially for women :) because they tend care a lot on what it shows. Isn't F707 one of those cameras that sharpens everything to death? If so, it's probably not a good thing.
If you're getting a Canon 10D, buy a 50 mm lens (F1.8) for $70, that's equivalent to 80 mm, and with 1.8 aperature, that's pretty decent for a portrait lens. Focused on the eyes, and the nose WILL be blurred slightly, giving the face a very nice and glowing effect.
You can probably get a Canon 10D for about $1350 if you wait for Dell which has a 10% sale every now and then. But the wait is pretty long. |
The 50mm is good and the f/1.8 gives great blurred background, but I found it was a bit too short in terms of reach to be really good for portraits. Works well for couples and is certainly gives much better results than any of the zooms in that range under $1000 but I'm hoping the 100mm f2.8 macro is going to be a great portrait lens that'll allow me to step back a bit and be less in the face.
Certainly if you are looking to get good background blurs for your pictures, very few (if any) of the current crop of non-SLR cameras will
give you results that you are happy with. I haven't seen a good shot like that from a Sony 717 for example - although maybe/hopefully someone can prove me wrong.
Some samples. Click the pictures for larger versions.
Canon D60, 70mm-200mm f4L @ 200m, f5.6 subject at 2.55m, background at about 3.5m, or closer.
Canon D60, 50mm f1.8 @ f5.6, subject about 1m (lens doesn't record), background at about 1.4m
Message edited by author 2003-04-11 12:24:20. |
|
|
|
04/11/2003 12:11:24 PM · #22 |
Yes the 100 mm macro or the 135 mm lens or 85 mm would also be good combination, but for cheap lenses, you just can't beat 50 mm. The 70-200mm L F4 is nice, but unless you use it at 200 mm, the DOF is probably not as good as some of the primes you have mentioned. Guess there is a reason for that $1600 lens version (F2.8 IS) :-)
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by paganini:
The trick to portraits is not to reveal too much on the face, especially for women :) because they tend care a lot on what it shows. Isn't F707 one of those cameras that sharpens everything to death? If so, it's probably not a good thing.
If you're getting a Canon 10D, buy a 50 mm lens (F1.8) for $70, that's equivalent to 80 mm, and with 1.8 aperature, that's pretty decent for a portrait lens. Focused on the eyes, and the nose WILL be blurred slightly, giving the face a very nice and glowing effect.
You can probably get a Canon 10D for about $1350 if you wait for Dell which has a 10% sale every now and then. But the wait is pretty long. |
The 50mm is good and the f/1.8 gives great blurred background, but I found it was a bit too short in terms of reach to be really good for portraits. Works well for couples and is certainly gives much better results than any of the zooms in that range under $1000 but I'm hoping the 100mm f2.8 macro is going to be a great portrait lens that'll allow me to step back a bit and be less in the face.
Certainly if you are looking to get good background blurs for your pictures, very few (if any) of the current crop of non-SLR cameras will
give you results that you are happy with. I haven't seen a good shot like that from a Sony 717 for example - although maybe/hopefully someone can prove me wrong.
Some samples. Click the pictures for larger versions.
Canon D60, 70mm-200mm f4l @ f5.6 subject at 2.55m, background at about 3.5m, or closer.
Canon D60, 50mm f1.8 @ f5.6, subject about 1m (lens doesn't record), background at about 1.4m |
|
|
|
|
04/11/2003 12:20:37 PM · #23 |
50mm lenses make nice portraits, but you often have to get quite close to your subject with that lens. When people are posing for portraits, they may be more comfortable if the camera is some distance away.
Personally, I would prefer to use a longer lens for this type of work, but I don't do that many portraits...
|
|
|
|
04/11/2003 12:32:50 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Certainly if you are looking to get good background blurs for your pictures, very few (if any) of the current crop of non-SLR cameras will give you results that you are happy with. I haven't seen a good shot like that from a Sony 717 for example - although maybe/hopefully someone can prove me wrong. |
The DPReview F717 sample shots show an alright ability to get good background blur at telephoto...this one was at 1/125th, 190mm at F4. It's not the creamy bokeh of a DSLR, but it's OK.
and not a portrait, but a shot at 1/160th, 190mm at F2.4...
 |
|
|
|
04/11/2003 12:36:32 PM · #25 |
I wouldn't be surprised if either Canon or Nikon come out with a DSLR in a year or two that will cost under $1000. It's not impossible. In fact, the Canon 10D which retails for $1500 works better and improved over the Canon D60 which retailed for $2200. It's not surpring that they will in the Canon line:
Canon 1D - body comparable to Canon 1v as well as speed (good for action) (~$3500)
Canon 1Ds - body comparable to Canon 1v, full frame DSLR, but not as much frames per second (perfect for weddings + portraits) (~$7000)
Canon 10D - body is comparable to Canon 1v (magnesium) but without all the niceties such as the super fast autofocus, etc. The electronics is more comparable with a Canon Elan 7. ( < $1500)
And perhaps in 2 years:
Canon 10Ds - full frame version of 10D for probably $2500-3000.
Canon 2000D - the Rebel version of the DSLR for under $1000 in the future.
(Canon tends to lower the number the worse the camera is)
It's like computers. You can spend a lot for the current technology or wait for the new technology which will be better and cheaper. Eventually you'll have to decide if the price and the wait is worth it.
The only thing (price wise) that doesn't seem to change much is the LENSES for these interchangeable SLRs. So lenses you keep..... And that'st he biggest advantage of SLRs with interchangeable lenses.
Originally posted by Sonifo:
That is one thing I can do is wait. I have been waiting for the right time to buy a camera. I keep thinking they are going to make better and if I buy one then a better one will come out 2 weeks later and I will be bummed that I didnt wait. hehehe. I hope I am not the only one who feels this way. I think I will probably have this camera forever if I keep this attitude up. lol |
Message edited by author 2003-04-11 14:39:48. |
|
