[nesgran]

A longer lens will give a more diffusely blurred background than a short lens with the same DOF. This is simply because of the magnification of the background, the longer the lens the less background will be smeared around the back. This is why the 200mm f2 will provide more blurred backgrounds than the 85mm f1.2 despite the 85mm giving a shorter DOF at the same framing. This is also another reason longer macro lenses are a good idea. In CC’s comparison shots with the painted faces you can also see the bokeh advantage of the full frame camera. It isn’t massive but it does equate to 1 1/3 stops. The bigger sensor will also collect 1 1/3 stops more light leading to better noise performance. If you look at comparisons between the Canon 1D MkIII and 40D who both share the same generation sensor, same chip and same megapixel count the larger sensored 1D comes out on top by more than a stop better noise performance. In this case probably helped slightly by the better electronics of the 1D but also but the 2/3 stop advantage in light gathering.

CC, I think your ruler experiments come out a little funny because the 150mm lens is acting a little shorter than the 100mm. If it had been nikons it would be fine but with the 1.6x crop of canons (not to mention the subtle differences in focal length between different lens models).

A full frame camera will always have the edge when it comes to performance, not by a massive amount but you simply can’t argue away the physics.

[nesgran]

You’re coming on in leaps and bounds! Well done, everything looks a lot better. I also love to see how the dog is growing and I’d suggest you make a triptych out of the three dog photos. On their own they are just a dog with pretty eyes but the three of them together is telling a story of it growing.

Your portrait composition is still a little off, in general don’t photograph adults from below unless you want them to look imposing and don’t shoot kids from above. I would suggest you google the great masters like vermeer or rembrandt for ideas for composition of portraits.

Again, well done! I hope we get a progress report by the summer again

[nesgran]

Charity shops, hit them up and buy yourself a good old fashioned manual SLR. Pentax MX, KX, K1000, Canon AE-1, anything nikon. Then load up with something nice, I like Kodak CN400BW. Go out and take some photos of your friends. Send the film off and get it processed. It is a liberating experience from the instant gratification of digital and the looking for errors in it straight away. If you blow it with film it is gone forever but so what?

If you haven’t, invest a little money in two flashes for off camera use and start playing. A pair of brollies and lightstands aren’t expensive

[nesgran]

Tax write off people!

Agreed it makes little financial sense to be using the very best equipment when lesser gear will make do. In the camera world it is obvious why most photographers don’t use digital medium format. However when you get to crop cameras from CaNikon it makes little sense. A full frame camera will produce sharper images, better noise profile and have a better selection of lenses available. The price difference between a rebel and a 6D isn’t huge but put them side by side and do a comparison in typical event tog conditions and it will be a world apart. The fujis are interesting and perform very well, they also have a whole eco system of good lenses available. Micro 3/4 just doesn’t make sense to me unless you are doing both video and still where suddenly they make complete sense. The question you should ask yourself as a customer is why choose a photographer that doesn’t have the best gear available within reason? I doubt I would unless they could explain why they chose that camera be it for discreteness or for video capabilities or some other reason. True cameras are getting better and better by the month but why not aim for better than mediocre gear. For example, at the olympics there are usually segments where they look back at previous olympics. Next time you see it make note of how the image quality of the footage is improving each consecutive game. It is also like saying the gear we are using now are far superior to what say Adams or HCB used. While this is true they were using the very best gear available to them at the time so why should we not be doing that now? I don’t see a place for a mid range crop camera with a working photographer other than as a third body or something like a 7DII now that the venerable 1DIVs are getting worn out for some sport use.

[nesgran]

Don has a point, if you are wondering about the very basics asking if a fairly quirky five year old camera would be a good choice you are starting off in the wrong end. By all means the 50D is a competent camera but hardly my first choice. I’m guessing from your suggested body your budget is pretty tight. If that is the case I’d look at either a canon 5D (the original 12mpix version), Canon 7D (original 18mpix version), canon 1Ds MkII, Canon 1D MkIII, Canon 70D or 6D. Out of that lot a used 6D would be my choice but most expensive. All the listed cameras will be competent enough if you know what you are doing and several a couple of generations old pro-bodies and they are listed roughly by ascending price on the used market. As for Nikon I don’t know to be honest as I don’t know them so well. The Nikon D300s is always a favourite as is the D7100. Nikons D600 will win on price/performance ratio as they have cannonballed in value after the scandals with dirty sensors and a replacement coming out.

Lens will get a lot more difficult as that will depend on the body but if you get a full frame camera a 24-70 f2.8 lens would be the obvious choice. Combine with canons excellent 85mm 1.8 or 135mm f2 and you have a solid package. After that you should think about spending twice as much as you did on body and lens to get a good light set up.

If you were looking for encouragement to start up a facebook photography business without any experience you have landed in the wrong forum I’m afraid.

[nesgran]

IHF, the A7r is also a full frame camera, as is the A7s 🙂

Full frame and bigger cameras will have the upper hand when it comes to image quality and iso performance compared to smaller sensored cameras. It boils down to simple physics. A full frame camera will have 1.3 stops better noise performance roughly compared to a 1.6x crop camera simply because of the bigger surface area to collect light (assuming exactly the same tech and same resolution). The lenses will also not need to be as sharp at the same resolutions to get the same useable resolution. However, digital cameras reached a good enough level a long time ago. Good enough for professional use and good enough that most clients won’t tell the difference. A full frame camera will by virtue of having the bigger sensor have the advantage in all areas apart from weight of lenses.

[nesgran]

To be slightly pedantic the Sony A7 is a full frame mirrorless

[nesgran]

The basic yongnuo yn-602s are good as well, cheaper than the 622s and will fire your studio strobes with the right cabling. They can also be used for remote shutter, again with the right cabling.

[nesgran]

I’d go with the same as CC. But to be fair in those situations even a phone would get acceptable results never mind a compact or bridge camera. Throw in some poor light and it will be more obvious.

[nesgran]

Having a big camera at the zoo does have its advantages though, people move out of the way to let the photographer through if you come with a big white lens and a 1D 🙂

Crop has certainly been catching up with their full frame brethren and they are closer in functionality now than they were a couple of years ago when the 5D II was the camera everyone had. That said a full frame is still built more for the working photographer, for example what compelling wide angle lens options do you have that are large apertured? There is no equivalent lens to the 16-35 f2.8 lenses for example. You can use a 70-200 2.8 on a crop but it leaves you with a slightly awkward focal range.

The fuji is great but it can’t quite create the same magic as a 85 1.2 can do on a canon camera. Ergonomics also suffer on the smaller boxy cameras compared to a bigger camera when you stick bigger lenses on it. That said the smaller cameras certainly have a place and I’d love to have a fuji with a 23 1.4 lens but it comes out really expensive, more so than I think it should be.

[nesgran]

IHF raises a good point about printing. I have had good experiences with peak imaging for prints in the UK. I know WCS uses someone else but can’t remember who

[nesgran]

Difficult to say as I don’t know if you are charging but also more importantly none of these photos strike me as having a great earning potential. They are nice enough photos but what are you trying to get out of it?

They are on the whole darker than I would think is reasonable, is your monitor really bright? Is your gamma adjusted correctly? The old stone building is a bit wonky in colour as well.

[nesgran]

This forum never stops to amaze with some of the stuff that comes up here. Yes the images look the same but so what? How many times have we seen the girl in a shawl since McCurry did it? He’s not out to sue anyone, take it as a compliment.

Your attitude does leave a lot to be desired though.

[nesgran]

Wow, that matthew guy was why this site was created. That was some utter rubbish in there. His pricing is silly as well, why does a 3½x5 cost the same as a 8×10? He has pricing options for both 13×19 and 19×13 but at least they are the same.

The winner for me is the shot where he is showing off the studio and you can see the back of the DSLR (which looks like an entry-mid level sony) and there is a big red A which I can only assume is auto.

Matthew, if you are reading this, step away from that photoshop. If you can’t even paste an image on a background and keep aspect ratios the same something must be going really wrong.

Stunning find

[nesgran]

Nice find! The Nikon F’s are fine cameras. Just be a bit careful when reconditioning the studio lights so you don’t blow the caps.

Problem with the light meter is that it is likely not very accurate anymore. The old selenium light meters have a limited shelf life which is counted in decades and over time their exposure readings stop being correct.

[Author]

Posts