Crop Dslr portraits thread

jaomul wrote in post #15727030
WOW- To davidc502 and JeffreyG, no measuring going on here. I have posted portraits in the 1ds thread and know the difference between the two formats. I thought it might be good idea for a post so we could see the type of look that a certain camera gives for certain subject. If you don't like it that is great, there are thousands of other threads to look at. You can of course add to the thread or indeed if you prefer make condescending comments. All is allowed

OK, fair enough. And I was a little grumpy so I clarified my previous.

But on topic - there isn't really a different 'look' between 1.6X and FF in the overwhelming majority of shots. Almost every single shot that can be made with a 1.6X format camera can be duplicated by a FF camera using a lens that is ~ 60% longer in focal length and an aperture that is 1 and 1/3 stops smaller.

There are two things that a FF camera can do that a 1.6X cannot:
1) Achieve just a bit thinner DOF when we get to the very fastest of lenses. So if f/1.2 isn't thin enough DOF for you on 1.6X then there is FF. But in my opinion the fast primes on 1.6X are often going to be fast enough.
2) Shoot very wide and very fast at the same time (as in the example photo below using a 24L on a FF body). Simply put there is nothing akin to the 24mm f/1.4 available for the 1.6X format.

And that (to me) is about it when it comes to the main difference between these two formats - lens selection. A 70-200 is a different kind of lens on a 1.6X than it is on a FF as far as functionality. There is nothing quite like the 24/1.4 available for 1.6X. Things like this.

But put a 50L on a 1.6X and an 85L on a FF and the resulting images will look pretty much the same, especially if we are not shooting both wide open.

while I prefer full frame for portraits, a crop camera can produce awesome images as well...a lot of it is about the photographer, I see awesome images from the old 350D

Here are a few of mine from some of the cameras Ive owned

canon 300D

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

JeffreyG wrote in post #15727220
OK, fair enough. And I was a little grumpy so I clarified my previous.

But on topic - there isn't really a different 'look' between 1.6X and FF in the overwhelming majority of shots. Almost every single shot that can be made with a 1.6X format camera can be duplicated by a FF camera using a lens that is ~ 60% longer in focal length and an aperture that is 1 and 1/3 stops smaller.

There are two things that a FF camera can do that a 1.6X cannot:
1) Achieve just a bit thinner DOF when we get to the very fastest of lenses. So if f/1.2 isn't thin enough DOF for you on 1.6X then there is FF. But in my opinion the fast primes on 1.6X are often going to be fast enough.
2) Shoot very wide and very fast at the same time (as in the example photo below using a 24L on a FF body). Simply put there is nothing akin to the 24mm f/1.4 available for the 1.6X format.

And that (to me) is about it when it comes to the main difference between these two formats - lens selection. A 70-200 is a different kind of lens on a 1.6X than it is on a FF as far as functionality. There is nothing quite like the 24/1.4 available for 1.6X. Things like this.

But put a 50L on a 1.6X and an 85L on a FF and the resulting images will look pretty much the same, especially if we are not shooting both wide open.

Nice shot. From the feedback here it seems a few thought it was a bad idea for a thread so I suppose we see if it dies or keeps going. On the topic of f1.2 lenses, it will be a while before one of them comes my way. A definite down side is as you said getting a wide and fast lens for the crops. Have a good day

My 50D is up for the task.

I never thought crops were lacking in the portrait department, full frames are probably better though (I'd use my 6D for critical shoots over my 7D). But in the end composition, lighting, lens etc. will be more important than whether the body is a full frame or a crop.

Here is one shot of my fiancée I took with my old 60D and the nifty fifty:

JeffreyG wrote in post #15727220
OK, fair enough. And I was a little grumpy so I clarified my previous.

But on topic - there isn't really a different 'look' between 1.6X and FF in the overwhelming majority of shots. Almost every single shot that can be made with a 1.6X format camera can be duplicated by a FF camera using a lens that is ~ 60% longer in focal length and an aperture that is 1 and 1/3 stops smaller.

There are two things that a FF camera can do that a 1.6X cannot:
1) Achieve just a bit thinner DOF when we get to the very fastest of lenses. So if f/1.2 isn't thin enough DOF for you on 1.6X then there is FF. But in my opinion the fast primes on 1.6X are often going to be fast enough.
2) Shoot very wide and very fast at the same time (as in the example photo below using a 24L on a FF body). Simply put there is nothing akin to the 24mm f/1.4 available for the 1.6X format.

And that (to me) is about it when it comes to the main difference between these two formats - lens selection. A 70-200 is a different kind of lens on a 1.6X than it is on a FF as far as functionality. There is nothing quite like the 24/1.4 available for 1.6X. Things like this.

But put a 50L on a 1.6X and an 85L on a FF and the resulting images will look pretty much the same, especially if we are not shooting both wide open.

^^^^^ What Jeffrey said ^^^^ Just to confirm what he's saying, not that he needs confirming because the guy knows what he's talking about. Everything he said can be found here in this article.

http://www.cambridgein​colour.com …al-camera-sensor-size.htm

Thorrulz wrote in post #15725995
The 1.6x bodies don't "suck" for portraits, they're just not as well suited as the full frame cameras for that type of photography.

Very good description of my own experience. 70-200 is perfect quick portrait lens on FF.
No to mention fast primes. My 50 1.8 was dull on large apertures and too narrow on my Rebel.
Once I put it on 5Dc, it was just another lens. Wide enough and sharp wide open.

But 1.6x are just fine for quick and casual portraits also.
500D with 28mm MF OM. Zuiko prime on it:

ok i'll play... oops forgot to add details, both shot with a 7D + 100-400L (@400mm)

crop, FF, compact... who cares as long as the result is what you were after!

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I'll play.. 40D and 17-55 @ 55mm iso 200 1/125 f3.5

looks soft here? but the image is sharp

Great shots, gives me inspiration to try to get more out of my current camera instead of trying to continually upgrade.

jlf_200290717 wrote in post #15733564
Great shots, gives me inspiration to try to get more out of my current camera instead of trying to continually upgrade.

Word up.

It's really easy to get G.A.S. in this place! But then I take a look at threads with what would be deemed modest equipment and realize a really expensive gear won't make me better when people with a Rebel XS and a 50 1.8 are putting out images that make my jaw drop