Newbie getting into portrait photography - needs help on gear

[AaronLLockhart]

That's exactly the result I expected to see. It may not look like much on the camera, but that's about 10 inches above your head extra and another 8 to 10 inches below your feet. He could have easily moved up about 2 more feet, and still had you head to toe in the frame. With a 35mm, he could have moved in 2 more feet... which would have put him at 3 to 4 feet

Not to mention, your dollhouse image has to do more with perspective than it does the size of the dollhouse. Instead of placing the camera on the ground, have him stand up and shoot the dollhouse again, and I promise he could have gotten MUCH more than just the dollhouse in the image.

Still don't see how it's possible - this was about 6' away and my toes are clipped.

I just measured 4ft away and tried to take a full picture of a cabinet I have that is the same height as me. It's not possible. I could get maybe 1/2 of the cabinet. Moving back another 3' and I can get the whole cabinet in the frame.

6 foot could be rational. Like I said, I still didn't have a measuring tape. However, 6 foot is about a comfortable distance when photographic. By nature, we get anxious when people get within our "personal space." The average person's personal space lay right about arm span diameter all around you. In other words, I don't want someone 4 feet away from me with a camera in my face... not even if I paid them. Most people feel this way.

 

[SCraig]

For low/indoor light, particularly in conditions where I don't want to use a flash.

There are relatively fast zooms as well. I'd personally never give up the flexibility of a zoom lens in favor of a prime. But, to each their own.

 

[curveshooter]

I'm sure your clients are going to love you being 2 to 3 feet in front of their face with your camera to get a mid torso shot, instead of 5 to 7 feet or so with a 50mm.

What clients?

With the 35mm, I'd mostly be taking pics of friends and women that I have been intimate with.

And again, for shots taken in my bedroom, I simply don't have the space to shoot from 7ft away.

 

[curveshooter]

For low/indoor light, particularly in conditions where I don't want to use a flash.

There are relatively fast zooms as well. I'd personally never give up the flexibility of a zoom lens in favor of a prime. But, to each their own.

Fast zoom lens for $200?

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I'm sure your clients are going to love you being 2 to 3 feet in front of their face with your camera to get a mid torso shot, instead of 5 to 7 feet or so with a 50mm.

What clients?

With the 35mm, I'd mostly be taking pics of friends and women that I have been intimate with.

And again, for shots taken in my bedroom, I simply don't have the space to shoot from 7ft away.

Oh, hell, well then the 18-55mm AF-S VR Kit lens will work just fine.

 

[MTVision]

6 foot could be rational. Like I said, I still didn't have a measuring tape. However, 6 foot is about a comfortable distance when photographic. By nature, we get anxious when people get within our "personal space." The average person's personal space lay right about arm span diameter all around you. In other words, I don't want someone 4 feet away from me with a camera in my face... not even if I paid them. Most people feel this way.

6ft is a comfortable distance but your still going to want to be a little further back if you plan on printing the picture.

My whole point was that using a 35mm lens isn't going to necessarily cause you to invade someone's personal space. Maybe if your trying to fill the frame with someone's face - then yeah you'll be up close and personal. Also, depending on the size of the room the OP plans on shooting in - a 50mm may be too long. It all depends though.

 

[curveshooter]

Oh, hell, well then the 18-55mm AF-S VR Kit lens will work just fine.

Yeah, I figure I'll start with this and see how it goes, but I'm guessing that I'll want a faster lens so that I don't always need to use a flash for low (indoor) light shooting.

 

[Andretoo]

Canon 5Dmk1 and 50F1.4​

 

[Derrel]

That's exactly the result I expected to see. It may not look like much on the camera, but that's about 10 inches above your head extra and another 8 to 10 inches below your feet. He could have easily moved up about 2 more feet, and still had you head to toe in the frame. With a 35mm, he could have moved in 2 more feet... which would have put him at 3 to 4 feet

Not to mention, your dollhouse image has to do more with perspective than it does the size of the dollhouse. Instead of placing the camera on the ground, have him stand up and shoot the dollhouse again, and I promise he could have gotten MUCH more than just the dollhouse in the image.

Still don't see how it's possible - this was about 6' away and my toes are clipped.

I just measured 4ft away and tried to take a full picture of a cabinet I have that is the same height as me. It's not possible. I could get maybe 1/2 of the cabinet. Moving back another 3' and I can get the whole cabinet in the frame.

Go to this web page, http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html

and use the field of view calculator function....it's EASY to plug in a focal length, and a capture format size, and then get the field of view at different distances!!! For this example, I entered a 50mm focal length, at 4 feet, for a crop-camera like a Nikon, with a 1.5x FOV multiplier...the proof is right there as to how "much" a 50mm lens shows at 4 feet...

 

[MTVision]

Go to this web page, http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html

and use the field of view calculator function....it's EASY to plug in a focal length, and a capture format size, and then get the field of view at different distances!!!<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=14028"/> For this example, I entered a 50mm focal length, at 4 feet, for a crop-camera like a Nikon, with a 1.5x FOV multiplier...the proof is right there as to how "much" a 50mm lens shows at 4 feet...

Thanks Derrel! That tool is pretty nifty.

 

[Solarflare]

[...] I'd personally never give up the flexibility of a zoom lens in favor of a prime. But, to each their own.

Haha, while I would kind of prefer to only work with primes.

 

[HughTFall]

If your main intention is to get a various quality picture of your undress girlfriend, then upgrade your camera lens. The flash is not a factor here, so refrain from using it on this stage.

 

[sovietdoc]

[...] I'd personally never give up the flexibility of a zoom lens in favor of a prime. But, to each their own.

Haha, while I would kind of prefer to only work with primes.

Id prefer to work with 1 lens if I could. It'd be nice to have a 6-1200mm f/0.95 zoom that was super small and didn't weigh anything at all, instead of carrying 15 primes with a huge backpack. So the problem is, that lens doesn't exist.

So one has to ask himself a question: Do I need more focal range and flexibility or do I need lower DoF?

There is no advantage of a prime lens over a zoom except for DoF because of larger aperture. When comparing zooms like 70-200 f/2.8 II or Nikon's VR II to primes, the quality is the same or better. So the whole "primes have better IQ" is not a valid argument anymore. So that leaves DoF to be the only thing prime can do better than a zoom if you really need as shallow as possible.

To completely cover the zoom range from 12 to 200 mm for nikon count how many primes you'll need and you still will have plenty of gaps. Zooms? Well, you do the maths


With computer tools progressing as well, like the recent Photoshop CS6, every noob out on the street can do "bokeh" that looks like f/1.4 on his crappy zoom that does f/5.6

So again, primes? Not really.

Of course there are some nice primes out there like the nifty fifty but then again, a lot of people get it for 2 reasons:

1) It's better for low light than stock zooms
2) It's dirt cheap

Give them a dirt cheap zoom that can at least do f/2.8 and most people won't even care about primes.

 

[cgipson1]

[...] I'd personally never give up the flexibility of a zoom lens in favor of a prime. But, to each their own.

Haha, while I would kind of prefer to only work with primes.

That just tells me you have probably never used any of Nikon's top end PRO zoom lenses!

 

[o hey tyler]

Give them a dirt cheap zoom that can at least do f/2.8 and most people won't even care about primes.

I would care about primes. Zooms are boring to me.