Best camera for portrait photography?
Rajeev Karunakaran
- I want to spend no more than $500. (With the rapid pace of innovation in
market it doesn't make sense to spend much more because your camera will
become hopelessly obsolete in a couple of years, and you'll want to buy a
new one.)
- The built-in lens should be suitable for portrait photography. i.e., must
have wide aperture so as to produce shallow depth-of-field.
- Fast "film speed". I want to take candid photos, so tripod is not an option.
Even if it was, subject motion may produce blurry pictures, so "film speed"
is important. Image quality must be good even at high speeds.
- High megapixels useful (so that I can crop and still have plenty of pixels
remaining) but not super essential.
- High zoom factor not essential. (Equivalent of 100mm in a film camera is
probably enough.)
- Good dynamic range is probably important.
- Did I miss any other features essential for portrait photography?
Rajeev G. Karunakaran
Austin, TX
--
All comments and views expressed are my own and in no way represent
those of Motorola Corporation.
Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee
Most digital cameras have loads of depth of field.
If that is not paramount, then a secondhand Fuji S602 would be very good.
I've used one extensively for portraiture.
Andy
"Rajeev Karunakaran" <rajeevka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81a2ad19.03110...@posting.google.com...
www.girlfiles.co.uk.
Christian
> Which is the best camera for me? Here are my requirements:
>
> - I want to spend no more than $500. (With the rapid pace of innovation in
> market it doesn't make sense to spend much more because your camera will
> become hopelessly obsolete in a couple of years, and you'll want to buy
> a new one.)
This requirement is fundamentally incompatible with your other requirements.
> - The built-in lens should be suitable for portrait photography. i.e.,
> must
> have wide aperture so as to produce shallow depth-of-field.
Small digicam sensors mean lots of DOF. You'll need a DSLR if you want a
shallow DOF but this conflicts with requirement one.
> - Fast "film speed". I want to take candid photos, so tripod is not an
> option.
> Even if it was, subject motion may produce blurry pictures, so "film
> speed" is important. Image quality must be good even at high speeds.
Most digicams exhibit noticeable noise at anything above their lowest speed.
Again, a DSLR won't.
> - High megapixels useful (so that I can crop and still have plenty of
> pixels
> remaining) but not super essential.
DSLR have "bigger" pixels meaning more expansion is possible.
> - High zoom factor not essential. (Equivalent of 100mm in a film camera is
> probably enough.)
> - Good dynamic range is probably important.
> - Did I miss any other features essential for portrait photography?
Hot shoe for external flash, perhaps?
If you can bring yourself to spend the money then the Canon EOS 300D will
satisfy all of your requirements except for the price limitation.
Otherwise you might be best to stick with film (or maybe consider a Canon
PowerShot G3/G5 at a pinch).
3ric
> Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
I got the 300D and the DOF can be very shallow. Took a picture of my
nephew with a telephoto after he popped his head up out of a pile of
leaves. His face is crystal clear and the leaves for the most part in
front of him and behind him are pretty blurry. Background is virtually
unregonizable.
Don Coon
"3ric" <behinden...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef79c378.03110...@posting.google.com...
> Christian <reje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bo4h4b$sp8$2...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>...
> > Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> I got the 300D and the DOF can be very shallow. Took a picture of my
> nephew with a telephoto after he popped his head up out of a pile of
> leaves. His face is crystal clear and the leaves for the most part in
> front of him and behind him are pretty blurry. Background is virtually
> unregonizable.
What were your settings? What f stop, focal length, distance to subject?
I can guarantee you could have gotten that shot correct with the 300D.
Too many people are taking shots wide open, with big zooms at close
distance. For example: DOF at 20 feet with a 200mm at f5.6 is only seven
inches! 135mm, f5.6 at 10' = 2 1/4 inches!
Don't blame the camera. Crank it down to f8 and 70mm and you've got 2 feet
DOF.
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/dof/hyperfocal2.html
CoC for 300D/10D/D30/D60 = .019
bj...@scn.org
> Which is the best camera for me? Here are my requirements:
>
> have wide aperture so as to produce shallow depth-of-field.
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#aperture
> - Fast "film speed". I want to take candid photos, so tripod is not an option.
> Even if it was, subject motion may produce blurry pictures, so "film speed"
> is important. Image quality must be good even at high speeds.
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#senshi
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr
> - High zoom factor not essential. (Equivalent of 100mm in a film camera is
> probably enough.)
Tele lens would help blur the background.
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#tele
> - Did I miss any other features essential for portrait photography?
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#flash
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#drive
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#af
Andy
"Rajeev Karunakaran" <rajeevka...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81a2ad19.03110...@posting.google.com...
decide which camera to buy.
Jeff Zawrotny
"Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote in message
news:m8zpb.74318$9E1.331279@attbi_s52...
>
> "3ric" <behinden...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ef79c378.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > Christian <reje...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<bo4h4b$sp8$2...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>...
> > > Rajeev Karunakaran wrote:
> > I got the 300D and the DOF can be very shallow. Took a picture of my
> > nephew with a telephoto after he popped his head up out of a pile of
> > leaves. His face is crystal clear and the leaves for the most part in
> > front of him and behind him are pretty blurry. Background is virtually
> > unregonizable.
>
> What were your settings? What f stop, focal length, distance to subject?
>
> I can guarantee you could have gotten that shot correct with the 300D.
>
Who says he didn't get the shot correct?