What is the best camera for Portrait Photography?

[Diana1979]

Hello. I have been checking out Canon SLR digital cameras on dpreview.com. I've done a lot of researching on the features and also the opinions of people who own these cameras. I've narrowed it down to the 30D, 1D Mark II, and 5D. I expertise in Portrait Photography, so I need a camera that will take excellent pictures in low lighting, without being blurred from movement with no flash. I also will need one that blurs the background so that the picture is not too busy. Does anyone here own these cameras or know of a camera that would be good for portraits? Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Diana

[AZ4Runner]

Diana,

All of those cameras will have the ability to take excellent pictures. You will need to do some research on which lenses you want to use with said camera to get the results you're looking for. In order to take high quality images in a low-light environment (without flash) you're going to need to either get a fast lens (f/2.8 or better) or leave the shutter open longer (which may create blur depending on movement within your shot). In order to blur the background you'll have to use a fast aperture (think f/2.8 again), close distance to target, and smaller field of view (all three of those combine to make the shallowest depth of field).

[Saralonde]

Jim's right, it's not so much the camera body that does the things you want, it's the lens that you choose. I don't know how much money you want to spend, so make sure you have enough after buying the body to get 1 or 2 good lenses that fit your needs.

[Diana1979]

Ok, so what lenses do you recommend?

[Saralonde]

It depends on how much you want to spend. Since you were interested in Canon cameras, I'm suggesting Canon lenses. A really good one to start with is the 50mm f1.8 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx. Excellent lens for the price (about $70 US). The 50mm f/1.4 is a bit better, a little higher in price ($300US). The 85mm f/1.8 is another one recommentded for portraits. All of these lenses have a small f # which lets in more light and contributes to background blur, helpful in portrait photography such as the shot you posted in another thread.
Of course, you can also do portrait photography with a zoom lens by adjusting the aperture and focal length to suit your subject.

[sdjl]

I used to take photos at a local band night. They always had the lights off and used stage lighting to obviously light bands, but also use it as spill light into the audience.
I didn't just take photos of the bands, I used to try and get shots of hte audience too. I found the best way to shoot in low light was to raise the ISO quite high and then use a small aperture.

I would often shoot with the ISO set to 1600, although I preferred to have it lower as this made the shots clearer. Having it high means your shots will be suseptible to noise and won't look too great zoomed in or printed large.

I found the aperture to be the most important. I got a Sigma 17 - 70mm for my Canon 300D. The aperture could be set to f/2.8, which is a good setting when taking low light photography of people.

As mentioned above, it's not really the camera body you need to think about when taking different types of photos. It's the lenses. A high quality lense will make all the difference to your photo. :)

David

[inkista]

Money no object? I'd say look into a Leica M8 and a Noctilux (50mm f/1.0). :D Of course, that assumes that you'd like a rangefinder, instead of an SLR. I only mention this, because the willingness to go for a 5D or a 1Ds shows that you're not limited by budget.

Since you want good low-light performance, a full-frame body, like the 5D or the 1Ds, might actually work better for you, theoretically giving you higher iso performance than a 30D. But as everyone's mentioned, it'll be down to the lens's maximum aperture to give you low-light performance, shallow DOF, and good-quality bokeh.

Your best bet will be "fast primes." Primes are lenses without zoom capability, but because they don't zoom, they are mechanically simpler and have fewer optical compromises. Typically, zooms max out at f/2.8. Primes goes much wider: all the way to f/1.2. You'll have to zoom with your feet, but typically portraiture gives you the space and time to do that.

Basically, all you have to figure out is what focal lengths you want to work with. This will be determined by your distance from the subject and whether you go full-frame or crop body. Typically, for studio work, a 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm. For stage/outdoor work, an 85mm or 135mm. Canon often offers two versions of each focal length: a "consumer" version of the lens (USM), and an L version. The Ls are optically superior, but not in a straight ratio to the price :), so the USM versions are generally going to be better bang for the buck (e.g., the 85mm f/1.8 is ~$300, the 85mm f/1.2 is about $1200, but it's certainly not four times the quality. And its autofocus is slower). Figure out if the hefty price tag and added size/weight for the narrowish margin of improvement will be worth it to you, personally.

The typical recommendations I've seen in the Canon EF lineup would include the 35mm f/1.4L, the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2L, the 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.2L, the 135mm f/2L, and the 200mm f/2.8L. The 50mm f/1.8 probably won't deliver the bokeh quality you're after, given its five-bladed design, but it's great for getting your toes wet if you're not sure you actually want to go the fast prime route.

You'll also want to learn about MTF charts (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml) and how they describe the quality of a lens's bokeh.

[Diana1979]

I'm actually considering getting the Rebel XTi now, since it's more affordable, and then later getting the 30D or 5D when I have more money. So are the lenses on the XTi compatible with the 30D and 5D? How do you find out?

[Nicole]

If you're ever planning to upgrade to a full-frame sensor (like the 5D), make sure that you don't get the EF-S lenses that are made with the crop factor for other cameras in mind. The EF lenses will work on the XTi and 30D, but the EF-S lenses won't work on the 5D. So, that would be your main consideration when buying lenses is if you ever want to go full-frame.

Note: I hope I got those lens designations right since I use Nikon :p

[sdjl]

Nicole, you are correct. EF-S lense will not work with full frame sensor cameras like the 5D.

Diana, the lenses between any Canon camera will work with another Canon camera, apart from the EF-S range highlighted above by Nicole.
You may also find that some lenses won't give you a full frame view on a 5D, yet they do on the Rebel XTi or 30D.
I found this to be the case with a Sigma 17 - 70mm f/2.8 I got for my APS-C sized sensor camera.

[Saralonde]

You got it right, Nicole :) .

[The Mighty2006]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx.

Great site. That's where I did most of my research along with www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com)

[Diana1979]

A really good one to start with is the 50mm f1.8 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx. The 85mm f/1.8 is another one recommentded for portraits.

I just watched the Depth of Field Video, and Shelton said that a very long (200) lens with a very wide aperture will acheive the blurred background. I was just curious why you picked a small kens (50mm, 85mm).

[sdjl]

A 50mm or 85mm lense at an aperture of f/2.8 or less will most likely do a similar job of blurring the background when compared to the 200mm.

Here's a couple of examples for you.
This is a shot I took at 400mm with f/5.6

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/152/417772046_33bac696dc.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdjl/417772046/)
Then there's this shot that I took at 40mm on f/4.0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/408060358_72b6fa3275.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdjl/408060358/)

As you can see, they're vaguely similar. The 400mm is obviously more blurred, but this doesn't mean to say that a wider angled lense isn't going to be able to blur. It's all about how you configure your aperture and shutter speed to work :)

David

[inkista]

..and your subject distance. :)

Shorter lenses are a lot easier to handhold than telephotos. They're (often) cheaper, and always smaller, lighter, and less conspicuous. Also telephotos have an additional restriction: to avoid camera-shake blur, you have to shoot at a shutter speed of at least 1/focal-length. So, with a 50mm lens, you only have to be at 1/50s. With a 200mm, you have to be at 1/200s or faster--shooting indoors and handheld with telephotos becomes problematic. There's also a matter of working distance. Even with just my 85mm, I've often had to run backwards to get a group or full-body shot.

Here's my 400mm f/5.6's bokeh. Note the bright bright sunshine required to get the shutter speed over 1/400s, (iso400, f/6.3, 1/500s):
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/163905530_d8a7102604.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkista/163905530/)

OTOH, here's my 85mm f/1.8 doing beautifully indoors with available light (iso400 f/1.8, 1/100s): http://farm1.static.flickr.com/78/228717735_67b51be89d.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkista/228717735/)

And then, there are other ways of getting a razor thin DOF:
(Hartblei 80mm f/2.8 Super-Rotator. iso 100, f/2.8, 1/100s, 8° swing to the left, 12mm rise):
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/404000628_41c287697e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkista/404000628/)

[Diana1979]

You guys have all helped me out a lot. As you can probably tell, I'm just starting out learning photography. I know how to take pictures, I just don't know all the little details that make a picture say "wow". I'll be working mostly from 5-10 feet away from the person. So what lens would be best for that? The bokeh I want to achieve is similar to this picture:

http://digineff.cz/obrdg2005/pojmy/050614bokeh/050614bokeh1.jpg

[Saralonde]

I think the 50mm would work for you at that distance. With the 85, you'd have to back away more.

[inkista]

Yeah, I agree that a 50mm will get you head-and-shoulders composition at those distances (an 85 will get you head-shot only), but remember that bokeh is also a function of subject distance from the lens--you may not get identical bokeh, given how far away the grass is behind the subject.

Here are two more examples of the same 400mm lens I used to take the water lily shot:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/99/295212508_d812fdc9e3.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkista/295212508)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/122/296201843_fa1b3f209c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkista/296201843)

Notice how there's a lot more out-of-focus blurring on the second image than on the first one? That's because the hawk was a lot closer to the hillside in the first shot than in the second. Same lens, same aperture, same light, but the background's different distance from the lens results in different amounts of blur.

But yeah, any of the Canon 50mm lenses will probably do what you want.

[Diana1979]

Yeah, I agree that a 50mm will get you head-and-shoulders composition at those distances (an 85 will get you head-shot only),

How would the 50mm do with a full-body shot?

[Saralonde]

Here are some quick shots taken with the 50 f/1.8. I took them very quickly without a tripod (which I always need:o ) and my daughter as a model. I apologise for the lighting.

Full body shot approx. 15 ft. from model:
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w191/Saralonde_2007/IMG_0039.jpg

Approx. 6 ft. away:
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w191/Saralonde_2007/IMG_0040.jpg

[smc1377]

How would the 50mm do with a full-body shot?

To answer your greater question, I just happen to somehow come upon this page below yesterday. If you scroll down a little on the page, there's a Required Focal Length Calculator that'll tell you what mm you'll need to get the whole subject into the picture.

For example, I have a six foot tall model and I only have 8 feet between me and her. Also, being that I have a 1.6x Crop Factor on my camera, the calculator tells me that I need a 29.9mm lens at the very least in order to capture my subject into the frame.

It doesn't exactly get to the answer you want, but you can get there in a roundabout way. Like say your subject is 5 foot 6 inches tall and you have a 50mm lens. By fudging the numbers for a bit, you'll find that you have to be about 12.5 feet away from the subject to get all of your subject into your frame (provided that you have a Canon camera with a 1.6x crop factor).

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm

Hope that helps.

[Diana1979]

Thanks for all your help. I finally broke down and bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT (350), 50mm lens, and Auto Focus TTL Flash. This camera is AWESOME! I played around with it a little bit, taking pics of my daughters and like what I see. But when I tried out the Flash, I couldn't tell much of a difference. I bought the flash basically to bounce off the ceiling for a subtle lighting on the subject. The flash is huge and heavy, so I'm thinking of sending it back. Do you have any hints on taking pics with the flash? What would this type of flash unit be best for?