Choosing camera for portraits (mostly)

[essdrae]

Hi there, everyone. I’m new in the world of photography. The only camera I owned was a point-and-shoot camera but recently I found out the work of many great photographers and so I took interest in photography as a work of art. Ok, to put it simply, I’d really like to start being a bit more serious about it, so I wanted to buy a decent camera. Now, I really love the work of photographers such as Henri Cartier-Bresson, William Klein, Richard Avedon and others. What I can say is that I like taking portraits, so I’m not really into sport or wild photography; I want to take photos of people. I was thinking to buy a mirrorless but they are more expensive than DSLR (and let’s not talk about the lenses!), so I think I’ll stick with a DSLR, after all. Anyway, I was thinking to buy only the body and then buy a couple of really good lenses. About my budget, well, I think I’ve got 800 dollars or so. So, what model do you guys think I should buy? :blushing:

 

[astroNikon]

You are going to get alot of recomendations, but first a bit of reality.
"really good lenses" are not cheap. See here as an example of Nikon lenses and one of the first few are above your total budget and that excludes a camera body. But nowadays the kit lenses (the ones sold with a body in a package deal) are nice and sharp so its a great starting point.
Portrait Lens | Wide Angle Lens | Nikon

And you will learn quickly that just because you have a camera does not make you an artist that makes a living at it. You can get there, it just takes alot of learning.

you may want to search online for camera kits in your budget. You'll find Nikon D5200, nikon D3200 in that range. Also Canons and other makes. Of course this all excludes other gear .. tripod, bag, flash, etc.

 

[The_Traveler]

You have picked three photographers who are alike only in that they like to take pictures of people and their work is very sophisticated in technique and skill required, while the equipment and directions they go are totally different.

I suggest you try photography first with a lower investment and see how it suits you.

 

[KmH]

Does your $800 budget cover just a camera body, and you have a separate budget for 'really good lenses'?
This is an example of a 'really good' portrait lens - AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2G ED VR II from Nikon

In addition to the Nikon's - D3200 ($550 new, w/kit lens), D5200 ($800, new, w/kit lens) - and Canon offerings you might look at the Pentax line of DSLR's.
$740, body only - Pentax K-5 II 16.3 MP DSLR Body Only (Black)

Doing portraiture also requires a variety of lighting and lighting accessories.
Light It, Shoot It, Retouch It: Learn Step by Step How to Go from Empty Studio to Finished Image (Voices That Matter)
Minimalist Lighting: Professional Techniques for Location Photography
Direction & Quality of Light: Your Key to Better Portrait Photography Anywhere











DSLR cameras are also known a small format cameras. A lot of high quality portraiture and fashion work is done using medium and large format cameras.

 

[cgipson1]

At that budget... maybe a D5200... and a kit lens. A REALLY GOOD lens will cost double to three times your entire budget...

Start small... then decide what you want to do, after you obtain enough knowledge to KNOW what you want to do, and how to get there...

 

[tirediron]

I like Keith's Pentax recommendation; IMO, they are the must under-rated maker on the market, and the one who gives you the most value for the money. Portraiture is somewhat about the lens, rather less about the camera body, and VERY much about the lighting, posing, and composition. In short, pretty much any body and any kit lens with a focal length >50mm will work just fine; when stopped down to f8-11 (a common aperture for portrait work) they're all nicely sharp.

To do GOOD portrait work you must know how to pose the subject and then how to light that pose. Learning posing is something that can only really be done through practice, research and experience. Read up on it, watch YouTube videos, and while you're doing that, save for lighting gear. You can do nice work with only one off-camera speedlight, but like so many things more is always better (I think at last tally my lighting gear weighed in at around the $10K mark, give or take).

 

[Derrel]

HCB used a 50mm lens on his Leica for well over 99% of his photographs, over a multi-decade period. Seriosly. He used the same lens for almost ALL of his street pictures. Although I am not nearly as familiar with what Richard Avedon used, I think it's fairly safe to say that for the most part, Avedon used nothing that today would be considered exotic or extravagant, lens-wise. Certainly he used NOTHING exotic like the 200mm f/2 VR-Nikkor that KmH mentioned above. Most of Avedon's work that I have seen appears to have been made within the pretty normal ranges of the semi-wide-angle to the short telephoto lens ranges. In the days of HCB and Avedon, zoom lenses were either not invented yet, or were very few, and very poor, respectively.

If you want to learn to "shoot people" in the HCB style, all you need is a camera and a normal focal length lens and some practice. Some meaning "lots".You would greatly benefit from a John Hedgecoe book on photography, which will show and teach you HOW to approach situations, people, and lighting conditions, so as to actually understand the HOW-TO that underlies photography.

Basic idea: buy an APS-C Nikon camera like a D3200, and a 35mm f/1.8 G series lens, then a 50mm 1.8 G-series lens. Learn those TWO lenses and you can handle a lot of situations with decent lenses with fast focusing and fast apertures.

 

[gsgary]

William Klien used a Leica R, you will be dissapointed if you get a DSLR if you want shots like these 3 photographers they all used film

 

[Derrel]

William Klien used a Leica R, you will be dissapointed if you get a DSLR if you want shots like these 3 photographers they all used film

Utter nonsense gary. The film HCB used was rubbish by today's standards. "Film" does not necessarily make a picture good or bad. The pure technical quality of the majority of HCB's 1940's work is far,far below what even the cheapest Canon or Nikon d-slr can easily produce at FOUR TIMES the ISO level. If HCB had owned a Nikon D3200, the technical quality of the work he produced would have been better by far.

 

[gsgary]

William Klien used a Leica R, you will be dissapointed if you get a DSLR if you want shots like these 3 photographers they all used film

Utter nonsense gary. The film HCB used was rubbish by today's standards. "Film" does not necessarily make a picture good or bad. The pure technical quality of the majority of HCB's 1940's work is far,far below what even the cheapest Canon or Nikon d-slr can easily produce at FOUR TIMES the ISO level. If HCB had owned a Nikon D3200, the technical quality of the work he produced would have been better by far.

Then he would be like any average joe, his work is not about technical quality if thats what you think you have gone down in my estimations

 

[Derrel]

I've SEEN HCB's contact sheets. He shot a ton of crap. He didn't print his own work. Once you see the way he actually shot, you'll lose a lot of respect for his "decisive moment" blathering. Look at HCB's book of portraiture....it is eceptionally weak and vapid junk. He was not a god, just a guy who had the chance to shoot pics back when very,very few people could even afford to take a weekend off from work. Again...he was not a "god"...

 

[essdrae]

Everyone, thanks for your feedback! So, about the lens: to be honest I was told that Canon made really good lens; they also tend to be cheaper than Nikos. Is that true? Whether this is true or not, I was thinking to buy a Nikon D3200. I read some reviews about it and even looked for comparisons against its competitors, like Canon 600D, but it looks a much better camera in terms of image quality, resolution and dynamic range and other parameters. What makes me suspicious is that the D3200 is even cheaper than 600D. I mean, shouldn’t it be the other way around? Anyway, back to the lens. Wouldn’t it be a better idea to buy a cheap body and invest in some decent lens (I was thinking to things like Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II or Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D, maybe?), since I’m going to use them anyway no matter what the body, I wonder? And also, I had one other question about the format of the sensor. So there are crop and full frame sensors. My question is, how do sensors and the focal length of a lens affect each other? I mean, maybe, just maybe, since I’m not going to buy a camera with a full frame sensor since they are all so expensive, it would be better for me to buy lens with longer focal length? And one last question, about portraits, this time: to be honest I wasn’t thinking to take indoor portrait photos; shouldn’t natural light be enough when outdoor?

I’m sorry if I ask silly questions, but I really want to get off on the right foot so I want to be sure of what I’m doing. :blushing:

 

[Derrel]

Nikon cameras these days tend to have about 2.0 or more full Exposure Value (EV) dynamic range than Canon cameras, across the entire range. To me, the ability to handle a wider scene dynamic range is THE most-important advantage Nikon has over Canon. Prices are set my the manufacturers; Nikon is trying to sell more cameras these days in a market where camera sales are falling, and has set prices lower than Canon in many segments. The Nikon D800 is about $703 less money than the Canon 5D Mark III, for example, and has a notably better sensor than the Canon. So, price has no real bearing on quality; spending MORE money does NOT automatically ensure that the higher-priced, or lower priced camera offers higher-quality images when comparing Canon and Nikon camera bodies. PRICE is NOT the determining factor in technical image quality.

Canon's 50mm f/1.8 EF-II is built very poorly, and is an awful 50mm lens, one of the worst 50mm lenses I have ever owned (I gave mine away to my wife's nephew when he went off to college). It's sharp, yes, but it makes ugly images, with harsh, nervous bokeh, and when shot toward the sun, can easily create a huge, massive green flare over most of the image. But YES, it is a "sharp" 50mm lens, with noisy focusing, and inexcusably bad image characteristics...way,way below Canon's reputation ought to allow. I have no idea why it is so crappy. Nobody does, really. Oh--did I mention it's "sharp"? it is!

The Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-D will NOT autofocus on a D3200 or D5200 Nikon; for that, you need the 50/1.8 G-series I suggested above. YES, good lenses are a good investment; the Nikon 50/1.8 G is actually quite a good 50mm lens.

You want an APS-C body. That's why I suggested two primes; a 35, and a 50mm lens. Outdoor natural light + a large reflector and an assistant can do a lot. With your budget, you will have to buy an APS-C format camera. I would say BUY ONE, and get to work!

 

[snowbear]

Go to the store and pick up the Canon, Nikon, and whatever else is in your price range. Buy the one that feels best in your hands, and go with the kit lens.

Read the manual, shoot a bunch of images, and really learn how to use the camera. You might want to bet a decent flash and learn about this, too. Then start lens shopping.

 

[KmH]

And one last question, about portraits, this time: to be honest I wasn’t thinking to take indoor portrait photos; shouldn’t natural light be enough when outdoor?

Sometimes you can shoot outside without using supplemental lighting, but most of the time you need at least some diffusion panels and reflectors.
Diffusion panels soften harsh mid-day sunlight (you make your own open shade), and reflectors are used for fill light.

A factor of shooting outside is you can't change the position or intensity of the Sun.
No doubt you can move your subject around, but that may mean you can't use that really nice background you scouted out, and having your subject facing into the Sun causes them to squint and causes either harsh shadows or no shadows.
Shadows are what define and give character to a person's facial mask.