Best Canon body for Portraits?

[Tulsa]

I am shooting a 50d right now, I am considering selling it and downgrading to maybe a 30d or 20d. The reason I got the 50d was the higher MP, because I was printing large landscapes. I will not be doing that anymore.
My thoughts are sell the 50d, and with the difference in money, pick up a nice prime lens.

I know a couple photographers locally are using older lower MP DSLR cameras for portraits.

 

[Village Idiot]

I am shooting a 50d right now, I am considering selling it and downgrading to maybe a 30d or 20d. The reason I got the 50d was the higher MP, because I was printing large landscapes. I will not be doing that anymore.
My thoughts are sell the 50d, and with the difference in money, pick up a nice prime lens.

I know a couple photographers locally are using older lower MP DSLR cameras for portraits.

The best body is a 5D, 5D MKII, 1Ds MKII, or 1Ds MKII, imo.

But you could get away using a rebel and some decent glass if it suits you. Lighting is more important than any of that when it comes to portraiture. At least that's my view on it. I used a 30D for the longest time with no ill effects. I've even blown up photos to poster size for clients off of the 8mp files.

 

[Tulsa]

I am shooting a 50d right now, I am considering selling it and downgrading to maybe a 30d or 20d. The reason I got the 50d was the higher MP, because I was printing large landscapes. I will not be doing that anymore.
My thoughts are sell the 50d, and with the difference in money, pick up a nice prime lens.

I know a couple photographers locally are using older lower MP DSLR cameras for portraits.

The best body is a 5D, 5D MKII, 1Ds MKII, or 1Ds MKII, imo.

But you could get away using a rebel and some decent glass if it suits you. Lighting is more important than any of that when it comes to portraiture. At least that's my view on it. I used a 30D for the longest time with no ill effects. I've even blown up photos to poster size for clients off of the 8mp files.

Thanks. I guess I should say, best body under $500. I do not want to go back to rebel. I am thinking a 20d or 30d. I am also considering going to a 1D mark II. be a bit more, but it is Full Frame right?

 

[Breaux]

I know a professional who got great results with a Nikon D100, which is only 6MP. I agree with Village Idiot that lighting and lens are the most important factors. Definitely get a good prime lens.

 

[Tulsa]

Thanks.

 

[Tulsa]

Now if I went to the 1d mark II, I would have to sell my beloved Sigma 10-20mm EX DC, as I believe it is only for croped frames. Which I would miss it, but I do not use it much anymore, and that would be even more I could put toward a prime lens.

I would love a 80-200 2.8L IS, but that would be out of budget. what would be a cheaper option. Would it not be wise to get Non IS for the 80-200 2.8 L?

 

[IgsEMT]

my 5 cents...
First, I'm not a prime fan so I'd rarely recommend one. Aside from that, I see no point in downgrading the body. If you want to improve your portrait product, I think you should learn lighting. Start with basics and them move on to mode advanced techniques Portrait Lighting

 

[Tulsa]

Why are you not a fan of prime lenses? Your saying an f4 lens can do the same as f2.8?

 

[DerekSalem]

Although primes are usually fantastic lenses you should have plenty of lighting doing portraitures meaning a quick lens really isn't needed. And go with the 70-200 f/4L IS. Best quality and sharpness ive ever seen in a lens.

 

[bigtwinky]

Why are you not a fan of prime lenses? Your saying an f4 lens can do the same as f2.8?

f4 vs f2.8 has nothing to do with prime vs zoom. An f4 lens is 1 stop smaller than an f2.8 lens, but a 70-200 f2.8 and a 50 1.4 can both shoot at f2.8 and f4.

Constant aperture is not the same as fixed focal lenght.

A 70-200 f2.8 and a 50 f1.4 can both shoot at f2.8 and f4. The difference is that the 70-200 can do it over all its focal range but the 50 only at 50mm. But the 50 costs $400 and the 70-200 costs $1500 and is WAY heavier.

 

[Tulsa]

I currently have the 50mm 1.8, thats what I use for most portraits.

 

[bigtwinky]

As for selling the 50D for a 20/30D, not sure that would give you that much. With the 7D out there and the 60D coming up, how much you going to get for that 50D?

I dont really see the point in taking a step back to older technology in the 20/30D to get what, $500? Sell the 50D for $800 and then buy the 30D for say $300. What are you going to do with that $500, buy a 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8? Meh...

I'd keep the 50D and just buy a prime lens if money is tight. Hell, look at the 50mm f/1.8 for now which is a nicely sharp lens, built like crap, but costs $100 new.

If you really want to get into portraits, you should seriously look at L lenses and a 5D Mk II.

 

[Big Mike]

I agree with those who say 'don't downgrade'.

The difference is more than just mega pixels, going from a 50D down to a 20D/30D. The camera's processor is two or three generations newer, which should help with image quality etc.

You usually take a bath when selling cameras/electronics anyway, so I think you might be giving up more value that you would be gaining.

And yes, the key to good portraits is more in the lighting than in the lens.

 

[IgsEMT]

Why are you not a fan of prime lenses? Your saying an f4 lens can do the same as f2.8?

I got into this industry in mid 90s, when wedding standard for weddings was medium format. All lenses I learned on were primes mf. So when I started shooting and then went digital, lovely zoomes were BLESSINGS.
90+% of the time I have at least one flash unit so that extra stop of light isn't an issue for me. I rarely shoot wider then 5.6 (since sharpest apertures are 2-3 stops down) so again, having a 1.4 vs 2.8 vs 4 glass, isn't an issue most of the time UNLESS I really need to blur out the background.
I've changed/modified my shooting style number of times over the years. At this point I'm happy with where I am and more importantly clients and studios happy, so I'm not changing any time soon

 

[Tulsa]

look at the 50mm f/1.8 for now which is a nicely sharp lens, built like crap, but costs $100 new.

Huh? Not sure what you are saying. This is the lens I have been shooting my portraits with.

If you really want to get into portraits, you should seriously look at L lenses and a 5D Mk II.

Ohh I have seriously looked into that sort of setup, If only I had the money.