Professional Portrait Camera

C

cloudhunter

Messages
328
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I subscribe to 4 camera magazines. Sad i know but i like to read about all the latest and greatest things. Also i like to read up on the tips and tutorials.

The one i have read today was on about portrait photography. It had a chap being taught by a pro on how to use the lighting etc etc

Would there be any benefit at all of a full frame camera in a studio that will be on iso100/200 anyway, have lighting you can control and the range you would need can be catered for by aps-c

If not , what do you use on here (if you own your own studio) and if its full frame , why?:shrug:
 
I'd say 5D... megapixels are handy... or Hassleblad they are a popular studio choice :)
 
So more megapixels would be best as your always going to be able to use the resolution to your advantage as you have no noise issues due to shooting in iso100/200?

If so wouldnt an aps-c camera with 15mp be enough (canon 50d, pentax k20d, sony a350 etc)

What advantage would a full frame offer?
 
Well if you've got good glass I always thought you're getting the most of it using FF whereas with a crop sensor you're cropping the image... just my 2p
 
Hi,

Your probably right , imjust wondering if the outlay of full frame with the more costly glass that FF demands would be worth it in a studio , which is mostly a controlled environment where you can control the light almost perfectly?
 
Yep - a D3x or D300 or the Canoon equivalent...
TBH you could get away with a lesser camera if you're only printing up to A3...
 
Aaagh see the benefit now.

In the article he was using a Canon 5d with 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8

I wouldnt have thought you would be far enough away to use the 70-200?

Also wouldnt a prime of say 50-85mm be better and just move closer or further away?
 
cloudhunter said:
Aaagh see the benefit now.

In the article he was using a Canon 5d with 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8

I wouldnt have thought you would be far enough away to use the 70-200?

Also wouldnt a prime of say 50-85mm be better and just move sloer or further away?
Click to expand...

Traditional Portrait focal length is around 100mm, so the 70-200 is fine.

We are talking about FF here.
 
Yes i forgot that it isnt 1.5/1.6x the length.

Would a prime not give a better quality pic though?
 
Well im not anal about em but just thought they would be better.

I take it the more mp are better in a studio as its such good light. The Sony A900 would seem a bargain then as its over 24mp and only same sort of price as a d700?

Would that be a better buy than a canon 5d?
 
i'd go for FF over megapixels... although im actually in love with my 5D
 
If you're shooting under controlled conditions in a studio then you could strongly argue that MF film would be an even better choice. But if you prefer digital (and yes, I do too) then I suppose that FF would be good. Personally I'd tend to go for sensor size over megapixels.

Of course if you're absolutely loaded.. go for MF and a digital back :)

cheers
 
...however if you're not absolutely loaded any body (and i pretty much mean any) with a good sharp lens will still give great results under studio lighting.

but yeah if you can id go for ff and primes. focal length dependent on what sort of shots to do, but traditionally anywhere between 80-150mm would be great. 85mm, 135mm are both excellent lengths to work at for portraiture.
 
hi,

So would a Sony a900(24mp) give a much better pic than a d700 or 5d (12mp) in a controlled environment like a studio? Or would i hit other problems by having too much resolution?
 
davidbridges said:
... When i refer to the 5D I should probally put 5DII refering to a Mark 2, which is 21mp
Click to expand...

Well they are over £2k so thats a little out of my budget as i would need to get decent lenses also.

I have about 3k , and the lenses are going to come to about £1300 so that leaves £1700 , which means either a Nikon D700, Canon 5dMkI, Sony A900 or Canon 1dsMkII
 
cloudhunter said:
Well they are over £2k so thats a little out of my budget as i would need to get decent lenses also.

I have about 3k , and the lenses are going to come to about £1300 so that leaves £1700 , which means either a Nikon D700, Canon 5dMkI, Sony A900 or Canon 1dsMkII
Click to expand...

If you shop about i think you can find a 5dmk2 for £1700 or very newar abouts ;) You can definatly get them for £1700 if you got for grey imports.
 
billandben said:
If you shop about i think you can find a 5dmk2 for £1700 or very newar abouts ;) You can definatly get them for £1700 if you got for grey imports.
Click to expand...

Hi,

The cheapest ive seen on camerapricebuster is £1949!

Where do you know of that sell them for £1700?:shrug:
 
cloudhunter said:
Well they are over £2k so thats a little out of my budget as i would need to get decent lenses also.

I have about 3k , and the lenses are going to come to about £1300 so that leaves £1700 , which means either a Nikon D700, Canon 5dMkI, Sony A900 or Canon 1dsMkII
Click to expand...

Out of that I'd pick the d700 and I own a 5d ii
 
i use a d700 in and out of the studio.

i personally found that skin tones appear better if the lighting is correct on a full frame camera, 12mp is plenty for large prints as long as your using good glass.

i blow most of my shots up to at least a3 and they all look great, glass is more important then MPx in my opinion.

hower....i do want a d3x/blad :) (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top