(no prefix)
- Thread starter Nifkin
- Start date
- Status
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Of course you can!!
Why wouldnt you be able to on a crop? I've not seen one argument that proves FF is better for portraits (specifically). Get a 35mm f2 and your laughing. That said, I think the 50mm f1.8 is very good for portraits, though the 35mm is more suited due to the crop factor.
I should imagine your 17-55 is pretty good for portraits too. Really, I cant see you getting more satisfaction from a FF than from your current kit.
Why wouldnt you be able to on a crop? I've not seen one argument that proves FF is better for portraits (specifically). Get a 35mm f2 and your laughing. That said, I think the 50mm f1.8 is very good for portraits, though the 35mm is more suited due to the crop factor.
I should imagine your 17-55 is pretty good for portraits too. Really, I cant see you getting more satisfaction from a FF than from your current kit.
- Messages
- 3,749
- Edit My Images
- Yes
stuck in the same boat myself!
Love all photography but can't decided between D700 and D300s. D700 for ISO handling but really want to use the video on the D300s
Love all photography but can't decided between D700 and D300s. D700 for ISO handling but really want to use the video on the D300s
- Messages
- 3,656
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
I know exactly where you're coming from and believe that to make the step up I need to go FF. The results I get from a crop with the same Sigma 30 that you own are great, but as soon as I stuck my 50 1.4 on a D700, my obsession with FF started. The only issue I have is that the cost of the D700 itself is fine, the cost of the 70-200, 24-70 and 12-24 are not fine!
odd jim
Flimsiest Lambresta
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
...but what you describe are the general benefits of FF. Obviously FF is better all round, but specifically to portraits I cant see one obvious advantage? Maybe its more of a general progression thing?
EDIT - try a 35mm f2! You can get them for about £150 second hand, I promise you'll love it for portraits!
- Messages
- 4,613
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Oh, just coz it seems to be the opinion of many that, very generally speaking, you use FF for portraits and landscapes, and crop for sports and wildlife (I won't go into the reasons why here, coz I think we're all familiar with them). Not having used FF before, I'm just wondering how much better the results can possibly be with FF, and what the limitations of doing portraiture with a crop sensor are, in practice, not in theory?
The IQ differance between a 5D MKII and a 50D is night & day -
Les McLean
In Memoriam
- Messages
- 6,793
- Name
- Les
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes you can get excellent results from crop bodies, I've used my 7D (with a 50mm F1.4 & 85mm F1.2) to take portraits, and they are great, the main reason on using 7D (rather than 1Ds body) was the integrated flash transmitter.
If you do feel the need for a FF body, you can get a s/h 1DS MKII for less than a grand, and as you generally won't be shooting at high ISO, the results are still outstanding from it's 16mp sensor.
If you do feel the need for a FF body, you can get a s/h 1DS MKII for less than a grand, and as you generally won't be shooting at high ISO, the results are still outstanding from it's 16mp sensor.
- Messages
- 2,803
- Name
- Simon (Prefer 'Si')
- Edit My Images
- No
I have no problems taking portraits (or shooting weddings) with a crop sensor in the camera and yes, I've owned a 5D too! I think my own stuff's not too shabby so click on my Flickr link and see for yourself whether or not you agree.
The jump to full frame is a good thing but you're the only one who can decide if that's the route you need to go down.
Cheers,
Si
The jump to full frame is a good thing but you're the only one who can decide if that's the route you need to go down.
Cheers,
Si
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
A 50mm might be more suitable. Although certain people would rather 80.
I use an APS-C camera for everything. Not many people [read: none] have looked at my photos and gone 'god, they're crap, I mean you haven't used full frame and an L!'. In practise it's just not going to matter that much. There's a local guy here who took a group photograph of some people I know, and I've seen the photo - it's tack sharp, just stunning. He uses a 50D and no L lenses. In fact his main is a Sigma 17-70
- Messages
- 4,613
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hmmm. But besides sounding like Canonikon marketing speak (), what does that actually mean? :shrug:
I went from a 50D to a 5DMK2 ......The images from the 5D are just stunning, they have a 3d type effect with a colour depth and warmth i have never seen on a crop sensor - its almost a crime to resize them for web viewing -
- Messages
- 6,729
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
All images on my site are with crop cameras (20D/40D) but I have to admit that when shooting weddings sometimes the 24-105 just isn't wide enough. I'd like to get it too for the shallower dof you get with a FF. I've used a 5D and it's a big difference in terms of how you shoot but I wouldn't say it was night and day from even my 20D like some used to say!
Most modern cameras work very well for all types of shooting but if you specialise in portraits and weddings, FF does have a few advantages.
Most modern cameras work very well for all types of shooting but if you specialise in portraits and weddings, FF does have a few advantages.
On the Huh
Little Ball of Fur
- Messages
- 4,405
- Name
- Zulfi
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a 20D and a 5D2. The 20D is a bit of a dinosaur, but can still deliver. The 5D2 is just sooooo much nicer though. So they could be compared as night and day. If you compared a 5D2 with a 7D, or perhaps a 50D than it might be more compared to late morning/early evening or something not quite as drastic as night and day ;-)
- Messages
- 10,870
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
superior IQ and less depth of field
also what do you mean by developing yourself as a portrait photographer? Going pro means pro spec kit which is ff or aps-H (not counting the 7d, but its not the body I'd choose for primarily portrait work)
also what do you mean by developing yourself as a portrait photographer? Going pro means pro spec kit which is ff or aps-H (not counting the 7d, but its not the body I'd choose for primarily portrait work)
- Messages
- 5,000
- Edit My Images
- Yes
To be quite honest it really depends on how big your biggest print will be.
Can I suggest you ask the pro photogs on here who do portrait and studio photography what is the average print size they get asked for and the largest.
Then you can make a more informed decision.
I have a 450D and that will easily give good quality 20x16 inch prints if needed.
Since studio work and portraiture means the pictures are under your control you can easily fill the frame to get the best quality.
And you don't even need highly expensive lenses - the "Nifty Fifty" gives excellent sharpness and is a great portrait lens.
So your present camera should be more than adequate to produce high quality portraits.
Can I suggest you ask the pro photogs on here who do portrait and studio photography what is the average print size they get asked for and the largest.
Then you can make a more informed decision.
I have a 450D and that will easily give good quality 20x16 inch prints if needed.
Since studio work and portraiture means the pictures are under your control you can easily fill the frame to get the best quality.
And you don't even need highly expensive lenses - the "Nifty Fifty" gives excellent sharpness and is a great portrait lens.
So your present camera should be more than adequate to produce high quality portraits.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Crop is absolutely fine for portraits. I used a 40D and 17-55 2.8 for just about everything. Great combo for portraits. If you want shallow DoF, get a 50 1.8/1.4 or maybe an 85 1.8.
Having said that, I've just gone full frame and one of the reasons is portraits! But my reasons are a little unconventional and I'm not at all sure this is recommended practise, but the reason is cropping.
I often found that during a session there would be one or two frames that looked really good when cropped tight - I mean really tight, like half a head, you know the style, and when I'd pulled that out of the middle it lost too much quality to make a really nice big print.
Sure, if that's what you want from the start then stick on your 70-200 and that will do it superbly but that's just not how I work, and generally not the shot I'm after. It's just a bonus afterthought, though often makes a nice one.
I sometimes also shoot a couple of kids at once and quite often there will be a few frames where one of them has a great expression, that would make a good solo print, but again the final degree of enlargement is too much to ask from a cropped sensor on anything but a smallish print.
5D2 does both. If you look at it that way, it's the equivalent of an 8mp crop format camera too.
Having said that, I've just gone full frame and one of the reasons is portraits! But my reasons are a little unconventional and I'm not at all sure this is recommended practise, but the reason is cropping.
I often found that during a session there would be one or two frames that looked really good when cropped tight - I mean really tight, like half a head, you know the style, and when I'd pulled that out of the middle it lost too much quality to make a really nice big print.
Sure, if that's what you want from the start then stick on your 70-200 and that will do it superbly but that's just not how I work, and generally not the shot I'm after. It's just a bonus afterthought, though often makes a nice one.
I sometimes also shoot a couple of kids at once and quite often there will be a few frames where one of them has a great expression, that would make a good solo print, but again the final degree of enlargement is too much to ask from a cropped sensor on anything but a smallish print.
5D2 does both. If you look at it that way, it's the equivalent of an 8mp crop format camera too.
- Messages
- 10,095
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not really a portrait photographer but, on the Canon side, I suppose if you're looking for a reason there is the issue of lens selection at the top end to consider.
Conventional wisdom has it that the 'classic' portrait length is between 85mm and 135mm. Canon happen to make a couple of very nice 'L' primes in exactly both of those lengths.
The 85 in particular seems to be prized by portraitists for its special optical qualities.
You could pop an 85L on a crop body and end up with 136mm equivalent, but then you're messing with some of the magic.
There's the 50mm f/1.2L which would render an 80mm equivalent. It's a fine lens, but it doesn't garner quite the same consistent praise as the 85L or 135L.
I suspect neither option is going to be an exact equivalent for those lenses on FF.
The 85L, however, will set you back as much as a 5D MkII body.
Conventional wisdom has it that the 'classic' portrait length is between 85mm and 135mm. Canon happen to make a couple of very nice 'L' primes in exactly both of those lengths.
The 85 in particular seems to be prized by portraitists for its special optical qualities.
You could pop an 85L on a crop body and end up with 136mm equivalent, but then you're messing with some of the magic.
There's the 50mm f/1.2L which would render an 80mm equivalent. It's a fine lens, but it doesn't garner quite the same consistent praise as the 85L or 135L.
I suspect neither option is going to be an exact equivalent for those lenses on FF.
The 85L, however, will set you back as much as a 5D MkII body.
- Messages
- 5,000
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well this was a quick pic taken using ambient light:
Taken on a Canon 450D with the "Nifty Fifty" at 400 ISO.
This could easily be printed at 20x16 inches.
Cropped just to show the head from a "landscape" orientation.
Shot approx 3 feet away.
In a proper studio with proper lighting such shots would be very acceptable to almost anyone.
Taken on a Canon 450D with the "Nifty Fifty" at 400 ISO.
This could easily be printed at 20x16 inches.
Cropped just to show the head from a "landscape" orientation.
Shot approx 3 feet away.
In a proper studio with proper lighting such shots would be very acceptable to almost anyone.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
One person's night and day can be very different to another's. You are comparing degrees of excellence here, and I think they only way to get an answer that suits you is to try it.
Pop in to Jessops with your memory card and shoot a couple of comparison pictures, and output them to your standard (which might not be an A2 print) and see what you think.
- Messages
- 2,803
- Name
- Simon (Prefer 'Si')
- Edit My Images
- No
That's precisely what I did when I went looking for an upgrade to the 40D... I took a bunch of shots at different settings (unfortunately, they were all while I was stood in Jessops) and then had a proper look when I got home. Most of my lenses at the time were also designed for the crop sensor (EF-S and Sigma DC) so I was already leaning towards the 7D.
A few friends argued with me about whether I was making the right choice given that the majority of my work is landscape and portrait based. Since I bought the 7D, I've also invested in better glass to make the most of it and ironically, most of my lenses bar one are now for full frame!
Simon, the best thing you can do is to try before you buy. If you're anything like me, you may find that full-frame isn't a necessary requirement. Let's face it, your 50D is capable of delivering excellent images as long as you do your bit.
Si
- Messages
- 6,953
- Name
- Tel
- Edit My Images
- No
Dave a couple of the lenses you have already would be great on a D700, the 50mm 1.4 (which you already mentioned) the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 is also great on the D700, in fact image quality wise i don't see any difference in the Tamron and Nikon's 24-70mm 2.8, (and i've used both) granted though the Nikon is much better built and has faster AF, if you also went for a Nikon 85mm 1.8 which can be had for around £200ish second hand, you would have a very decent portrait set up
- Messages
- 3,749
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Am I correct in thinking that the above lenses work on both FF and crop bodies?
If so I may just sell one of my cars come upgrade time and get both the D300s and the D700
Best of both worlds 
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Am I correct in thinking that the above lenses work on both FF and crop bodies?
If so I may just sell one of my cars come upgrade time and get both the D300s and the D700
all except the 12-24 work well on both FX and DX. The 14-24 is also magical on both
Best sell the car
H
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
That's precisely what I did when I went looking for an upgrade to the 40D... I took a bunch of shots at different settings (unfortunately, they were all while I was stood in Jessops) and then had a proper look when I got home. Most of my lenses at the time were also designed for the crop sensor (EF-S and Sigma DC) so I was already leaning towards the 7D.
A few friends argued with me about whether I was making the right choice given that the majority of my work is landscape and portrait based. Since I bought the 7D, I've also invested in better glass to make the most of it and ironically, most of my lenses bar one are now for full frame!
Simon, the best thing you can do is to try before you buy. If you're anything like me, you may find that full-frame isn't a necessary requirement. Let's face it, your 50D is capable of delivering excellent images as long as you do your bit.
Si
Me too - went in to Jessops to try a 7D against my 40D. Which was better, but not night and day in my terms.
Tried a 5D2 as a bit of an afterthought. That was night and day. Turned into quite an expensive visit.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Yet you still think a crop is absolutely fine for portraits? Aaargh! That 'night and day' thing again!
Yes, but I qualified that very carefully in post #19! And in that sense, you could say that I was still using crop for portraits!
You have to try it for yourself. But be careful, it's a dangerous game
W
whiteflyer
Guest
Just wait till Canon release a medium format camera, we'll be have the same discussion FF or MF.
Of course a crop will be suitable for portraits, just make sure you put the right focal length lens of acceptable quality on and not just hope the kit lens will do.
Of course a crop will be suitable for portraits, just make sure you put the right focal length lens of acceptable quality on and not just hope the kit lens will do.
- Messages
- 4,613
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yet you still think a crop is absolutely fine for portraits? Aaargh! That 'night and day' thing again!
Its not really a question of if its fine for one thing or another its just the image produced by a FF camera has something you dont get with a crop sensor :shrug: - You do need to try one for yourself - i had a 50D which i wasn't very impressed with - IQ at low ISO's or its ability to meter, and i tried a 5DMKII as a last resort (i was going to move back to a Nikon D300) and i was genuinely surprised at the difference in IQ. You cant tell from a 800px shot posted here, you need to see it on a nice big 24" monitor .
W
whiteflyer
Guest
Now that's one of the most sensible things I've read on this thread so far.
I know I've posted shots on the web with great feed back, but at full size where soft and rather poor really.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
its only sensible if the main thing they are going to be viewed on is a 24 inch screen. If people are viewing them at standard 5x7 size and you can't see the difference then there is no point in them being better on a 24 inch screen.
The size of the resulting image has to come into account when making this decision
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hence
Not that I was looking at 800px shots posted elsewhere in the forum anyway :shrug: But I do have a 24" monitor at home which I look at my pictures with
Anyway, I think I've concluded for myself that there's no immediate need to move to full-frame; if there are pros/semi-pros using APS-C cameras for portrait work, then that's good enough for me
have you got gear lust mate?
ha ha
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 4,613
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thats interesting - post a link to some full size images so i can have a peek / print - what glass are you using ?
- Status