More important: Lenses vs. Mp???

[Dao]

1. What would you guys personally get if you had to choose between the Nikon D90 and the Cannon 50d? Remember I'm looking to do portraits, headshots, and modeling portfolios....

From what I read and learned so far, Low Noise in High ISO factor may not be a major factor for you since you mainly do portraits, headshots and modeling portfolios. This type of photography generally need good lightning. In other words, you seldom need to crank up the ISO. Most of the time, you ISO setting will be 100 or 200.

As far as what camera or lens(es) to start with, it is highly related to your budget. For Nikon, I will for sure start with at least D80/D90 because of the focus motor issue with D40/D40x/D60. As for D90 vs 50D ... it is really a personal preference. Both are great camera.

I do found that some portrait photographers here prefer using a Full Frame camera.

 

[Village Idiot]

Wow. These are all a bunch of crappy reccomendations.

If the OP wants to do portraiture, lighting is going to be the most essential thing.

A used 20D and 50mm f/1.8 would be under $500 and would work just at well as a 30d, 40d, 50d, d40, d60, d90, k20d, etc...

Then spend the rest of your budget on lighting and learning how to light.

www.strobist.com
www.lighting-essentials.com
and anything else you can look up.

I'm looking to learn to do magazine quality type photos

 

[ANDS!]

I agree with Village - except for the recommendation to get a 20D and the 50MM. If the MAJORITY of the work you are going to be doing is in CONTROLLED environments (studio, outside location with minimal variables), realistically ANY camera is going to do what you need it to do. I would actually recommend grabbing a used D200 to take advantage (in the future) of Nikons CLS system of lighting, and spend the rest in grabbing either an older 50MM F/1.4 or perhaps the newer F/1.4. You might also need a more versatile tele lens so you can grab a 18-55 (or is it 50) Sigma F/2.8 or if you want to drop serious bones, go all out for the 24-70 F/2.8 Nikkor (which is some mad cash). Having only the 50MM is going to limit you slightly in how creative you can get with shots that are NOT headshots or in a studio; the 24-70 addresses this.

After that, prepare to spend some cash on some flashes, and an umbrella or two (to START) so you can get familiar/aquainted with light set ups.

 

[Katier]

Just to clear up for the OP.. there are TWO '20D's' right.. a Pentax K20D and a ?Nikon?

Your prejumably referring to the latter?

 

[Village Idiot]

I agree with Village - except for the recommendation to get a 20D and the 50MM. If the MAJORITY of the work you are going to be doing is in CONTROLLED environments (studio, outside location with minimal variables), realistically ANY camera is going to do what you need it to do. I would actually recommend grabbing a used D200 to take advantage (in the future) of Nikons CLS system of lighting, and spend the rest in grabbing either an older 50MM F/1.4 or perhaps the newer F/1.4. You might also need a more versatile tele lens so you can grab a 18-55 (or is it 50) Sigma F/2.8 or if you want to drop serious bones, go all out for the 24-70 F/2.8 Nikkor (which is some mad cash). Having only the 50MM is going to limit you slightly in how creative you can get with shots that are NOT headshots or in a studio; the 24-70 addresses this.

After that, prepare to spend some cash on some flashes, and an umbrella or two (to START) so you can get familiar/aquainted with light set ups.

I was just stating it based on price. A $250 8mp(?) Canon 300D would work just as well as a Nikon D50 as far as price goes.

Just to clear up for the OP.. there are TWO '20D's' right.. a Pentax K20D and a ?Nikon?

Your prejumably referring to the latter?

Canon. Nikon's D's go infront.

 

[sultan]

Any camera will do. Lights/flashes are what you really need.

Now, because you are trying to pick a camera, I'll help you anyway.

The 50D has too many megapixels that will be put to waste because no lens that costs less than the camera will be sharp enough to get the full detail out of its sensor. Thus its output will appear overly soft when viewed at 100%. Simply put, I don't recommend it. If you want a canon, the 40D or 5D would be better choices. The 40D is a less expensive 50D with less MP, and the 5D is slow and awkward, but has better image quality than the 50D (despite having less MP).

On the Nikon side, the D90 is a great, affordable camera, but is not officially a "professional" model because of its lack of weather sealing and metal body. Still, for portraits its a good choice. If you'll be shooting in the rain, get the D300. The D300 has the same image quality as the D90 but it's faster and tougher built.

I'm a Pentax guy, and yup, I agree that the K20D is a great choice too. The advantage of the K20D is that it is compact, but has a touch, weather-sealed body, and is very affordable too. The image quality as good as the others mentioned.

Last but not least, consider an old film body, maybe a MF one. I strongly suggest that you stay away from the old FD Canons because they became obsolete 20 years ago and are incompatible (lens-wise) with modern Canons. Good old MF cams include the Nikon FA and FM, and the Pentax K1000, ME Super, KX, MX, LX, and some others I can't recall.

 

[Early]

The biggest issue with me is the noise. MP can be put on hold. Extra lenses, too!

 

[Village Idiot]

The worst part about Olympus & Pentax are the upgrade options. There was a person that used one system or the other on here that ditched it to go with Canon because of FF options.

The biggest issue with me is the noise. MP can be put on hold. Extra lenses, too!

Buy a ff camera or expose correctly or make your own light with lighting equipment.

 

[Dao]

The 50D has too many megapixels that will be put to waste because no lens that costs less than the camera will be sharp enough to get the full detail out of its sensor. Thus its output will appear overly soft when viewed at 100%. Simply put, I don't recommend it. If you want a canon, the 40D or 5D would be better choices. The 40D is a less expensive 50D with less MP, and the 5D is slow and awkward, but has better image quality than the 50D (despite having less MP).

Just wondering, do you think a Canon 50D paired with the EF 85mm F/1.8 or EF 100mm F/2.8 macro should give a pretty sharp photos? (especially for Portrait photos)

I do not own any of those yet, but I think it will. But then again, I could be wrong.

 

[bevin]

Wow, this thread is confusing! You'd be grand with a 50D or a D90, whichever brand you want to go with. Realistically Canon or Nikon are the way to go because it'll give you more options and frankly it's easier to find knowledge and advice realting to these brands.

I just got a 50D and it's spectacular. I have friends with lower down the scale DSLRs who regularly have their work in magazines. Granted a lot of it is snowboard photography but there is some portraits involved in it too.

As someone before me mentioned, you'll probably need to spend a little cash on lenses, reflectors and general set up as well as your camera and lenses so put some money aside for that.

Oh and lenses that fit a 50D will fit a 5D and a 1D but you need to take into account the crop factor... Crop Factor Explained

 

[Village Idiot]

Wow, this thread is confusing! You'd be grand with a 50D or a D90, whichever brand you want to go with. Realistically Canon or Nikon are the way to go because it'll give you more options and frankly it's easier to find knowledge and advice realting to these brands.

I just got a 50D and it's spectacular. I have friends with lower down the scale DSLRs who regularly have their work in magazines. Granted a lot of it is snowboard photography but there is some portraits involved in it too.

As someone before me mentioned, you'll probably need to spend a little cash on lenses, reflectors and general set up as well as your camera and lenses so put some money aside for that.

Oh and lenses that fit a 50D will fit a 5D and a 1D but you need to take into account the crop factor... Crop Factor Explained

Except portraiture is all about lighting and not so much about camera. That's why there's suggestions on buying cheap for the camera and spending money on lighting and learning about light.

Unless the OP shows us what kind of magazines they're talking about, we don't know what they're talking about, but assuming that most portraiture found in magazines is not done with natural lighting and that the OP says they're an actress/model, then it really sounds like they're not going to get the desired results by spending money on just a camera.

 

[sultan]

Just wondering, do you think a Canon 50D paired with the EF 85mm F/1.8 or EF 100mm F/2.8 macro should give a pretty sharp photos? (especially for Portrait photos)

I do not own any of those yet, but I think it will. But then again, I could be wrong.

The 50D can resolve about 2300 LPH, but I don't know of ANY lens that can do that in crop format. Take a look at dpreview's lens reviews for a feel for numbers. They all are limited to 1200 to 1600 LPH on APS-C size. Even the fanciest lenses will probably only go to under 2000 LPH in crop-format.

But then again don't take my word for it, because I may be wrong.

 

[Dao]

The 50D can resolve about 2300 LPH, but I don't know of ANY lens that can do that in crop format. Take a look at dpreview's lens reviews for a feel for numbers. They all are limited to 1200 to 1600 LPH on APS-C size. Even the fanciest lenses will probably only go to under 2000 LPH in crop-format.

But then again don't take my word for it, because I may be wrong.

Thanks, let me take a look. (Again, please don't get me wrong, I am not questioning your knowledge, I just want to know more.)

 

[Katier]

Wow, this thread is confusing! You'd be grand with a 50D or a D90, whichever brand you want to go with. Realistically Canon or Nikon are the way to go because it'll give you more options and frankly it's easier to find knowledge and advice realting to these brands.

WOAH!!! Especially with Canon this isn't the case. As stated earlier in the thread Nikons and Pentax's both allow a MUCH wider range of lenses due to their consistancy with respect to mountings.

Lighting wise - I'm guessing the lighting would be done in manual mode so again - it's the same for all cameras.

I know I tend to go a bit OTT with respect to Pentax but they seem to be a VERY overlooked brand. Sony and Olympus don't get much of a look in either but Pentax have a range of 3 cameras which easily match or out perform cameras costing the same from Canon or Nikon.

At the end of the day the OP will do well with ANY of the 3 brands and really the difference should come down to features as much as anything. For example if the OP is doing a LOT of tripod work they might see Live View as a benefit. But if they're doing a lot of work outside then the weathersealed K20D is beneficial - etc.

 

[Katier]

The worst part about Olympus & Pentax are the upgrade options. There was a person that used one system or the other on here that ditched it to go with Canon because of FF options.

Canon has a lot LESS choice with respect to upgrades than pentax due to it's change of lens mount. If a pentax user finds a fantastic K-Mount super fast lens made in 1974 it'll work fine on a K20D.. but same isn't true on canon.