Best Camera for Natural Light Portraiture?

elementgs · Jun 25, 2014

Greetings,

I'm looking to specialize in natural light portraiture and will soon be making the plunge into full frame.

I've been eyeing the D800E for a while now and am anxiously awaiting the news/stats for tomorrow's announcement for its replacement.

With that said, I started to wonder, is the D800x the best route for me to go if I wish to focus on portraiture utilizing natural light?

I'm looking to invest about 10-15k between the body, lenses and misc equipment and was eying the D800E trinity up until recently.

Thank you all for your guidance, as always it's much appreciated.

- John

Designer · Jun 25, 2014

Way back in the early days of photography we called it "available light", meaning; whatever light you have available.

Is "natural light" better for portraiture?

And why would you have to have a special type of camera for it?

elementgs · Jun 25, 2014

I believe natural light is the coined term for it because it's not necessarily available light, it's just portraiture utilizing natural light. While typically this can be defined as available, ambient or otherwise natural means of obtaining light, it has also been utilized within the studio in defining light which is specifically tuned for a natural feeling.

Or so I've read.

As for the camera, I wouldn't necessarily believe you need any specific or special type of camera, however, in reading Nikon's own descriptions of their cameras, some are better for landscape photography and others are better for studio work.

With that said, my focus will be available light, outdoors and natural means. I'm wondering if I should be looking for more of a landscape camera, or something which specifically caters towards portraiture.

I've never even held a full frame camera before so this is going to be quite the jump for me. The money I've earned over the past year and a half selling my photos is going to go straight into this purchase and I don't want to make a mistake and regret it 6 months down the line with a bunch of people laughing at me for getting the wrong camera.

Scatterbrained · Jun 25, 2014

You could pick up a nice, used medium format digital back and body for that. A manual focus lens or two and you'd have an awesome portrait set up.

pgriz · Jun 25, 2014

I'm scratching my head about this idea that "natural light" photography is best done by a specific type of camera. If that is true, then perhaps we should also think about "natural light" tripods? "Natural light" lenses?

On the other hand, if you have in mind seeking out locations and places that have good "natural light" at certain times of the day, then perhaps the real need is for a camera that is light enough to carry around, and versatile enough to shoot in both good light and dim light.

Perhaps you could help us (or just me) understand what you mean by "natural light" and how you would distinguish it from any other kind. Also, do you have examples of "natural light" portraiture that you would like to do or have done?

TheFantasticG · Jun 25, 2014

"I want to shoot natural light" always turns out to be "I don't know how or don't want to be bothered with learning to use flash to make it look like non-man made photons." Like 99.99% of the time... Cause it is a real PITA to do it. I'm still looking for the right flash diffusion setup for my macro while using manual or iTTL.

elementgs · Jun 25, 2014

I kinda feel like I'm being mocked here.

I truly appreciate the responses but it seems like either I'm using the wrong terms here or you guys just haven't heard of this type of photography yet.

Either way, here is an example (compressed) of a photo I took and then below some examples of some professional stuff that's out there right now.

pgriz · Jun 25, 2014

As mentioned by FantasticG and Designer, "natural light photographer" usually means someone who hasn't learned (never mind mastered) the ability to read the light, or modify the light to suit his or her photographic objectives. In essence, claiming virtue out of a weakness. The images you linked to show strong backlight with very good detail in the shadow areas, achieved either by a discreet reflector, or by judicious posing in areas of appropriate light.

The images by Lisa Holloway all feature very narrow depth-of-field and careful focus placement. She's using a 200mm telephoto, wide open (either f/2 or f/2.8) most probably with a full lens hood that prevents internal flare and reflections. She's also apparently using a wide expanse of clear sky to get the very soft light on the camera side of the subjects.

The image by Luis Valadares is also taken with a 200mm lens, almost wide open at f/2.8, and from the light on the subject's body and on the tree trunk, there appears to be a large expanse of bright foilage behind the photographer, acting as a gold reflector.

The image by Dominik Marciszewski is taken with a 50mm lens, wide-open, or close to it at f/1.8. The fact that he's shooting into the sun, and yet had pretty decent light on the shadow side means that he's getting a lot of reflection of light onto the model.

What these images show is that it's the "reading" of the light (what is the primary source, what is the secondary? What are the other contributors?), inspired subject placement relative to the light sources, and appropriate selection of focal length and aperture to get the best presentation. Sure, the camera helps - but it's understanding light and how it can be used to shape an image, that distinguishes these images from most "natural light" photographers.

Edit: if the lens that Lisa Holloway is using is the 200mm f/2 lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542292-REG/Canon_2297B002_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2L.html), then she's definitely using some very nice high-end glass, which isn't hurting her image quality. Together with a good camera (5D-III), she's getting a great dynamic range as well, and that contributes to the smoothness of the image.

elementgs · Jun 25, 2014

pgriz said:
Sure, the camera helps - but

Thanks, that's pretty much what I was feeling as well. So are the different camera models on the Nikon website just various echelons of greatness?

I'm not sure I understand what the difference is between the D800 and the D4 is though. I was reading reviews on them and the reviewer was breaking down the differences in terms of its ability to capture particular scenes how some work better for portraits and others not.

I'm sure I would be extraordinarily happy with any of the FF cameras so I don't know why I'm really questioning it... it's just a lot of cash and I don't want to make a tremendous mistake early on in my career.

tirediron · Jun 25, 2014

The only real qualifier for available light work is a camera with wide dynamic range... an MF body and Phase One back would be your best bet. A D4s your second best. HOWEVER... limiting yourself to only available light work is a very.... unusual concept IMO.

pgriz · Jun 25, 2014

I doubt that you'll be making a "tremendous" mistake. More important will be the quality of the lens you're going to be using (especially with respect to flare in backlit situations), and your ability to pose the subject in an appropriate light.

You may want to have a look at imagemaker46 (Scott Grant) and his sports photography - he shoots mostly available light (due to the nature of his subjects), and he shoots with both high-end cameras and consumer-level (T2i if I remember right), and you'd have a hard time knowing which image was with which camera. His work proves to me that while the gear is important, the person holding the camera provides most of the image quality.

greybeard · Jun 25, 2014

Nikon DF with a 105mm f/2.0 portrait lens. The DF body has exceptional low light performance and the 105 f/2.0 is specially designed for portrait work. Hope this helps.

Tee · Jun 26, 2014

If you're looking at natural light, you'll want a camera that rates well in the low light/ high ISO category to protect you in various shooting environments. Based on low light/ high ISO alone,. the Nikon DF comes out tops according to DXO Mark with the D3s second but over all best is the D800e. There's also the D610 nestled in there with good scores for color depth. Keep in mind if you choose the D800e you'll want a computer that can handle such high megapixels.

It's a lot of money to drop. I suggest you go with the essentials first and then use your remaining money after you determine what your needs are.

For example:

D800e - $3,200 (can buy used for less)
85mm 1.8 -$500
24mm 1.4 - $1,900
70-200mm - $2,400
5-n-1 Reflector - $50
Batteries, grip, memory cards - $1,000

Total: $9,050

Or you could substitute the D800e for the DF which will save you hundreds of dollars on computer upgrades and storage drives.

Derrel · Jun 26, 2014

I've been taking pictures with varying degrees of devotion and studiousness off and on for right around 40 years. Since 2001, I've become more interested in it as a hobby/semi-professional casual portrait shooter/hobbyist/camera nut//freelance sports photographer for two years doing 2 to 3 assignments a week, then later shooting whatever paying gigs I have time for, and in general, really enjoying the "craft" of photography. And yeah, I DO think there are some clearly "better" cameras for portraiture. I've shot with 35mm SLR's (Canon AE-1, Minolta SRT-102, Yashica FX-3, motorized Nikons FM,FE,FE-2, and F3HP; Mamiya RB67 in-studio; motorized fully electric long-roll 35mm camera in-studio for 2 years 5 days week x 8 hrs. day/ 49 weeks a year in-studio; motorized Bronica SQ-AM; Mamiya C220 and C330, Yashica-Mat 124G; and have owned and shot multiple d-slrs for about 2 years each, at minimum: first, Nikon D1, then Fuji S1 Pro, Nikon D1h, Fuji S2 Pro, Canon 20D, Nikon D2x, Canon 5D,Nikon D3x. With a lotta' different lenses. At one time I had two Canon bodies and 10 lenses, including the 24-105 L and 70-200/2.8 L IS USM and 135/2 L, 135 2.8 Soft Focus, 85/1.8 EF, 50/1.4 EF, and a couple Sigmas, an 18-125 for APS-C, Canon 580 EX-II flash. I used the D2x from 2005 until 2012. I also shot the 5D "classic" from 2006 until early 2012. I bought the D3x in spring of 2012. I've also shot a few camera for six months to a year and decided I did not like them much. Nikon F meterless, Nikon F FTN, Nikon F2 of three varieties....ehhhh....

So--are "any" of those cameras better than one another for portraiture? In a word, YES. Are ALL of them equally good for portraiture? NO, no they are most certainly not. Was I able to make nice portraits with all of those cameras? YES, yes I was able to do that. But there actually are certain cameras that work better, easier, and with fewer hassles than others. You can learn to work around almost any limitations in any camera. I've used some very slooow, clunky beasts: Argoflex TLR ca. 1938. Zeiss Contaflex Super ca. 1955. Russian Zenit ca. 1976. Mamiyaflex TLR, 1958. Kodak Pony 135-B ca. 1954. I made one of my FAVORITE pictures with the Mamiyaflex TLR in 1976 of my dad,brother, and grandfather, in natural, summer sunlight, in a boat on the Columbia River. But overall, that camera was tough to use.

NEW, modern, full-frame, professionally oriented d-slr bodies handle FAST, have big batteries and huge memory cards, and accept some of the finest lenses made today. Medium format, like 6x6 square or 6x4.5cm rollfilm is 12-shot on 120 square, and 15 frames on 645, and double that on 220 film. Medium format has slow handling, big lenses, with slow aperture, not many zooms, and shallow depth of field at each picture angle, compared to 135 or "full frame". Medium format digital is not even medium format really....it's more like 127 SuperSlide...meaning the lenses all have crop-factor, AF is slow or absent, and the cameras and lenses are big, and limited in scope/variety.

The thing is, the quality of the light, and the direction the light hits the subject, and where you PUT the subject and the camera, in relation to the light, are keys to photographing in ambient, naturally-sourced light. You do NOT need extraordinary High-ISO performance like the Nikon D4 boasts about; that's for news and sports, where the light is utter rubbish, but you NEED to make pictures. If the light is so bad that you ned much more than ISO 2,000, chances are very high that you'll want supplementary lighting: strobe, LED, speedlight, hot lights, something that you plug in and that runs off of batteries or wall current or an inverter/battery combo. You want a camera that you can SEE WELL through, which is where the high-end full frame bodies shine. You want a camera with a good LCD screen for reviewing. A camera that can handle wide scene dynamic range is super-helpful. You want a camera that handles fast, and is not a total slowpoke.

Best camera for natural light portraiture? It depends a bit, but in terms of preference, here's a rough list that summarizes my feelings, in more or less order from most-ideal for ME, to least-ideal to "ME":

I would say Nikon D3x;Nikon D800 or D800e; Canon 5D-III;Nikon D4 or D4s; Canon 1Ds-Mk IV;Sony A99; Canon 1Ds-Mk III; Nikon D3s; Canon 6D, Nikon D600 or D610; Nikon D3s; Nikon D3;Nikon D700; Canon 5D-II; Canon 5D Classic. I could work with any of those, with my favorite being the D3x for ergonomics and file size and MP count and build, battery, and controls over the D800 or D4. The 5D Classic I used for a long time, but it's the weakest 'body' and weakest "AF" of any of those, and the 5D-II also has rather weak AF under tough conditions.

The fact is that "some gear" just works really,really,really well and is almost transparent in use. Other stuff you need to "ride herd on", or "work around certain issues". As the British say, some cameras are just, "perfectly sorted." Others...have "issues", or "quirks" and whatnot. You gotta buy something you will like, and get some good lenses and accessories. And buy some flash gear too.

elementgs · Jun 26, 2014

Thanks for the responses guys, lots to chew on for sure. I had not even considered the DF but was just completely shocked looking at the specs on it. Little funky looking but wow, those stats.

Tee, I'm ahead of the game in the computer department. I just picked up the new MacBook Pro with the Nvidia card and its been working really well as a tethering machine and remote development is actually flawless in Lightroom so far. It's a screaming computer. My desktops are also all very high end and I have a storage solution in house with 20TB of space though I plan on doubling that when I start doing more portraiture. Thankfully storage is cheap these days.

I recognize the cost is a tremendous investment but I'm more worried about my bang for the buck. The D800e has been my leading contender for a while.

This one was just announced (or I would have posted earlier about it) and amusingly enough, the article has tomorrow's date on it which means this is breaking news.

Meet the D810. New Gear: Nikon D810 Full Frame DSLR | Popular Photography

Looks like it has comparable stats to the DF - new range of ISO 64-12,800 and a whole other host of ass kickery.

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/06/26/nikon-d810-official-announcement.aspx/