What's a good (& cheaper) camera for headshots?

[CaseyS783]

Hi,

I'm an amateur photographer with some basic photo I classes under my belt. I'm looking to get into headshot photography and have been looking at digital cameras that are great for 8X10 color shots and are not too advanced for me to use. Also, I need to be as frugal as possible. Any suggestions?
Thank you!!!!

[iseeu_3]

the best one for portrait photography would be a medium format digital camera from Hasselblad. They're renowned for great medium format film cameras and have heard that they make great digital cameras as well. They are pricey but are worth the money.


HTH,
<shad>

[Andy_T]

Very good suggestions so far, if you don't mind spending $ 25,000 on a digital system :wink:

Cheapest way to get quality digital headshots would be the Digital Rebel with the Canon 50/1.8 lens.
That's a very good setup that will give great & sharp portrait photos, although the lens is cheaply built.

The 50/1.4 is a bit better optically (and a lot better built), but also more expensive. Read more here: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
If you want a tighter crop, then the 85/1.8 would be the way to go.

Canon now has a rebate program where you can get double or triple rebates if you buy more than one lens with the DRebel.
Basically, if you buy 3 of the eligible lenses with it, you get $300 off the DRebel. That really can't be beat.
It might be a very worthwile investment, especially as the more expensive Canon primes (50/1.4, 85/1.8 ) keep their value well.

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI is a very good lens, if you want the flexibility of a zoom lens.

Hope that helps.
Best regards,
Andy

[Andy_T]

Bloo dog ... just a simple question:

With 35 MM FILM, which focal length to you use for portraits?

Do you consider 80 mm (50 mm on DRebel) or 135 mm (85 mm on DRebel) too short a focal length for portraits ON 35 MM FILM?

I might not completely understand the term 'headshot'. Maybe this means a very tightly cropped portrait (for these I suggested the 85/1.8 ).

Reason I'm asking is because 80 mm normally is considered good for portraits on 35 mm film.
The 50 mm on the DRebel will give you the exact same results as an 80 mm lens on a 35 mm film camera.

Best regards,
Andy

[RichardtheSane]

Reason I'm asking is because 80 mm normally is considered good for portraits on 35 mm film.
The 50 mm on the DRebel will give you the exact same results as an 80 mm lens on a 35 mm film camera.


That is not entirely accurate.

The preferred choice of focal lengh for portraits (about 85mm) has nothing to do with the crop/FOV a lens offers. It is the way the optics of the telephoto compress the persective somewhat - this is more flattering for the model and gives a better.

As had been said before a 50mm exaggerates the facial features more and is therefore not so flattering.

I'm sure there is someone out there who can explain this better :)

[jyrgen]

The preferred choice of focal lengh for portraits (about 85mm) has nothing to do with the crop/FOV a lens offers. It is the way the optics of the telephoto compress the persective somewhat - this is more flattering for the model and gives a better.

As had been said before a 50mm exaggerates the facial features more and is therefore not so flattering.

I'm sure there is someone out there who can explain this better :)

It's not the optics of the telephoto that influences the perspective, but your shooting distance. Since you shoot with 50mm lens on 1.6x cropped camera at exactly the same distance that you would with 80mm lens on normal camera, the perspective is exactly the same. It's of course only my personal opinion. 50mm lens is fine for portraits on 1.6x cropped camera. Or, as a matter of fact, so is 16mm lens on 5x cropped camera, etc.

[RichardtheSane]

So by your theory 17mm on the 1.6 crop camera gives exactly the same perspective as 28mm on a normal camera?

Of if I were to take a portrait with an 80mm and then take a portrait from the same distance with a 17mm and then crop the 17mm that it would alos look exactly the same?

Personally I don't think they would

[commando]

I want to comment on the film vs digital comment above. I'm new to SLR photography, jumping recently from a consumer point and shoot to the digital rebel. In 2 months i've taken probably a couple of thousand photos. A lot of them were deleted straight after taking them. Some were deleted once I saw them on my PC. The ones that were good or great I kept. If I was using a film SLR i'd be much less willing to experiment with different settings and lenses, and i've learned a LOT with my playing around.

If you really need the higher quality of film, i'd get a digital rebel to play with, then a film SLR to to the professional shots with. Of course you'll need to play with the film SLR, but probably a little less because you'd already gotten used to the digital.

Just my $0.02.

[jyrgen]

So by your theory 17mm on the 1.6 crop camera gives exactly the same perspective as 28mm on a normal camera?
By "my" theory the perspective does not depend neither on focal length nor on crop factor, but only subject distance. I don't even need lens or camera to perceive it. If I am few centimetres from your face, your nose looks "oversized" even to my bare eye. You are totally 3D. If I move my viewpoint few mm here or there, the picture I see within my field of view changes greatly. If you are few metres away, you look "normal", well-proportioned, but still enough three-dimensional to make me believe that you are actually a human being. If you are a hundred metres away, you look flat. Basically there could be a projected movie of you, or a poster, I could not make difference. Now, if I "crop" my field of view with hands, or a lens, or a binocular, I can "make you bigger" ("bring you closer"), but you will still be flat. Now, I admit that there are differences between two bare eyes vs one camera lens, because two eyes have huge advantage in 3D department, but for most practical purposes, the perception is similar.

Please be aware that by "you" I did not necessarily mean you personally, I am sure you look nice from every distance, I meant just a generic test subject, but my English lacks means to express everything properly, sorry for that.

Of if I were to take a portrait with an 80mm and then take a portrait from the same distance with a 17mm and then crop the 17mm that it would alos look exactly the same?
Yes. I suggest you try yourself, other people's tests have not so much convincing power.

[Andy_T]

It's not the optics of the telephoto that influences the perspective, but your shooting distance. Since you shoot with 50mm lens on 1.6x cropped camera at exactly the same distance that you would with 80mm lens on normal camera, the perspective is exactly the same. It's of course only my personal opinion. 50mm lens is fine for portraits on 1.6x cropped camera. Or, as a matter of fact, so is 16mm lens on 5x cropped camera, etc.

Jyrgens explanation is not just correct, but also very concise and clear to understand. I am sorry, Richard, but you are wrong on this subject.

I want to emphasize on the last part of his post.
I use a Canon G2 camera that has a 7-21 mm lens. However, the sensor is very small, so it has a 5x crop factor. (35-105 mm focal length on 35 mm equivalent)

I do notice distortions in portraits, if I use it at its full wide setting and walk up close to the person to fill the frame.
However, with the camera fully zoomed in and at the proper distance, I get perfect headshots that are not distorted at all.
Still, the lens is a 21 mm lens (so it should not be possible, right?)!
If anybody has heard that it is not possible to take portrait shots with the G2, please let me know :wink:

Also, nobody with a medium format camera would use an 80 mm lens for portraits ... because on the medium format, you'd need e.g. a 180 mm lens to get the same field-of-view as with 80 mm focal length on 35 mm format)

I have a very good example in a photography book by John Hedgecoe where he demonstrates this effect.
Unfortunately, it's on paper, so I can't post it. I think the English title would be 'New book of photography'.

He posts 2 pictures from an alley that are taken from the same spot:
- One is a crop from a 28 mm photo that is enlarged 4 times,
- the other is a full frame photo from a 100 mm lens.

Guess what ... The 2 resulting images (you can judge the perspective between the trees of the alley) are exactly identical.

As comparison, He also posts a picture that was taken closer to the subject with the 28 mm lens so he didn't have to enlarge this photo ... the perspective is totally different.

Hope that helps to clarify some misunderstandings. I might try to replicate the examples on the weekend, if I have some time.

Best regards,
Andy