Best film camera for portraits?

Hey there, I'm new to shooting film (about 6 months) and am looking to upgrade my camera. I'm a makeup artist and mostly shoot portraits. I was deciding between Minolta x-700 , Canon AE-1 or Nikon F3 (not set on anything). And looking for recommendations for lenses as well! Something that is able to show a bit of detail on the face?

F3, because I don't know the other 2 cameras.

The old standard portrait lens was the Nikon 105 f/2.5, as a head and shoulder portrait lens.

But this depended on having enough room to be at the proper distance for a h&s with that lens.

 

I would think that Canon has a similar lens.

Something that is able to show a bit of detail on the face?

 

- If you want detail on film, then 35mm isn't a good choice. Maybe a Pentax 645 would do the job adequately. Or a Yashica TLR on a budget.

 

The camera body you choose is totally irrelevant. It's just a (hopefully) light-tight box to hold film and a lens. The lens is what's important, and nearly every major camera maker - Pentax, Mamiya, Rollei, Bronica, Hasselblad, Yashica, etc. - supplied lenses of good quality. You'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between results from any them.

 

It's your technique that will be the major factor in how detailed your pictures are. Harsh, but true.

Edited January 15, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

I'm somewhat agreeing with [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] above.

It's your technique that will be the major factor in how detailed your pictures are. Harsh, but true.

Is absolutely(!) true. I just can't recommend a fixed standard lens TLR, like the Yashica. - What is it good for? To shoot 35mm film with a special insert? Even then the 75 or 80mm lens would be a bit limiting short and working in landscape orientation a major pain in the behind.

 

That ("shooting 35mm film doesn't make much sense quality wise, these days") being said, I'd recommend grabbing a 135/2.8 and maybe a 85/90mm too. Look for a reasonably priced offer. Which camera body / system to pick hardly* matters. Exceptions below:

• You could pick a more recent Nikon or Canon EOS, able to handle the (really nice to have!) IS / VR in either a Tamron 85/1.8, a proprietary 100 or 105/2,8 macro or even a 70-200 zoom.
  
• If you are going to use flash / studio strobes even outdoors, you'll fancy getting your hands on a reasonably high sync speed. (varies from 1/20 to 1/250 sec in the FP shuttered SLRs I have.
  
• Some systems are just ill suited for your job. - FED / Zorki come to my mind.
  

I don't dare to talk you into medium format. Assuming you want a lab to handle your color negatives and prints made from them without spending arms & legs, 35mm is the way to go. I only expect it to be just a phase so I recommend keeping investments either reasonable or digitally reusable.

 

I handled the AE-1 once and am no big fan of it. - Shutter priority is nice to have for casual, hand held shooting but the manual mode in it sucks: "Set & remember your f-stop and read a hand in the VF". - I'd probably prefer a Nikon (I shot an F2 once. - AFAIK the F3 has rather low sync speed so maybe get an FE/M 2 instead? - If you wear glasses the F3 might be a better choice.. - Minoltas used to be the cheapest on the market so they are a reasonable choice. - I put my ex-GF on a X300; she loved it.

No comment on lenses on film from me. A slightly stopped down crummy bargain bin 3rd party 135mm can deliver sufficiently pleasing results. A fancy overpriced well regarded portrait lens is very likely to deliver "lomographic" trash, when you shoot headshots wide open. - I have no clue what it takes to spot a difference between most expensive and affordable glass at f8-11 in a portrait and sorry I am too cheap to shoot roll after roll of low ISO frames of a brick wall to measurbate through my lens collection.

While 35mm film isn't great I must confess I was sufficiently pleased by the visible resolution in an optical A3 print from a ISO 200 slide shot with flash at about f11 with even a cheap Soligor zoom.

Beware of the photographic pitfalls!

• Camera shake - I suppose with a 135mm you should either have IS / VR or stick to 1/500 sec or flash.
  
• Out of focus. - My rule of thumb: Stop down at least 2 stops to get what you considered sharp in your VF into DOF in the print. Search for an online DOF calculator and run a 135mm at portrait distance through it. Look at an image of a focusing ring and figure out how easy it might not be to focus for exactly the result. (My eye vision is not permanently stellar. - I am much happier with either rangefinders for manual focus or modern SLRs with autofocus than shooting my old manual SLRs wide open. - YMMV, but I think it is "hard" &/ "luck" for everybody?)
  

For good results with portraits the lighting is more important than the choice of camera, or even the choice of lens. If you come back, try and explain how you intend to light the pictures, whether by available light, continuous lighting, flashguns or (best) studio flash equipment. This will help the portrait oriented forum members (not me) to point you in the right direction.

What do you have now? As RJ says, it's the lens that counts. For 35mm, something in the 85 to 135 range works well. Me, a 100/105 is perfect. As for format, medium format is better, but a 645, or a 6x6, or a 6x7 with an equivalent portrait lens might be beyond your budget. A Hasselblad with a 150 would be great, but it won't be cheap. A Mamiya C330 might be a good choice as it has interchangeable lenses at a more reasonable price (no personal experience)

 

I'll differ a bit from RJ about the quality of a portrait using 35mm. Working in a studio with a fellow photographer who specialized in portfolios, the quality of his 8x10 head shots, using a Nikon F2 with a 105 was amazing. And yes, he did have a Blad, too.

 

Also, back when Playboy did all their work on film, other than the Gatefold, most of their work - especially later - was done with 35mm. I never had any complaints (I was only interested in the technical aspects of the photos :)).

I have Mamiya C33(0)s. - Yes! They take portrait pictures. - Issues: Paralax compensation? You'll see a little hand in the VF indicating where the upper corner of the taken picture will be. - An SLR is easier to handle or to shoot really tight. Also: I love mine because i am a freaking tall guy. - I assume you are on your paintings erm subjects' eye level, so why shouldn't your camera be there too? - Yes there is a pentaprism VF for the Mamiya, but I don't sell muscles beyond unisex and consider it "a tad too heavy to hold it happily" or however you might fancy to call less appealing ergonomics; i.e. I'd recommend rigging Mamiya C with a left hand grip with trigger mechanism too for prism or porroflex finder use.

If a light camera is wanted I'd stick to something else. - for low light MF portraiture without flash I use a Pentacon 6. - It is known to develop film spacing issues some day. - Mine didn't yet, but I don't dare to recommend it for that reason.

The Nikon F3 and 105mm lens will work fine. That lens is one of the best Nikon made. It will show all the detail you will need. Use a good tripod if you can.

It looks like this charming young lady is a pure beginner. So better not bother her with different lightning methods...

 

As mentioned before, the camera is not important at all. The lens is. A cheap lens is like dirty glasses, one cannot see properly! Traditional portrait lenses are 50 mm and 85 mm lenses but you may also a 35 mm lenses to include the environment or a close up with 135 mm lenses.

 

I think you better start with choosing what type of portrait you would like to see on your photos. Then buy the lens whatever the brand to match your camera.

 

As a beginner, go for any camera but get a proper lens of the same brand if possible. After a few years, not weeks, you will start understanding portraiture and then you go for professional material because YOU will see and enjoy the difference .

The Nikon F3 and 105mm lens will work fine. That lens is one of the best Nikon made. It will show all the detail you will need....

 

+1

 

I wouldn't bother with medium format cameras. They're big and bulky so you'll definitely need a tripod, thus severely limiting any spontaneity. With an F3 and 105 f/2.5 AI or AIS lens, you can move around and shoot at different angles.

As mentioned before, the camera is not important at all. The lens is. A cheap lens is like dirty glasses, one cannot see properly! Traditional portrait lenses are 50 mm and 85 mm lenses but you may also a 35 mm lenses to include the environment or a close up with 135 mm lenses.

 

I think you better start with choosing what type of portrait you would like to see on your photos. Then buy the lens whatever the brand to match your camera.

 

Lens also depends on how much space you have between the camera and the subject.

But you don't want to be too close and "in the model's face."

 

quote: I'm a makeup artist and mostly shoot portraits. . . . Something that is able to show a bit of detail on the face?

By this quote, I presume you are planing to take "head and shoulder" portraits, or tighter.

I've used a variety of cameras over the years for head & shoulders portraits and agree that the lens should be the guiding factor. So you need to determine the appropriate focal length and the "look" you want to convey....a dreamy soft look to an "in your face" harsh image. Different lenses render, or have the capability to render, differently. Likewise lighting can dramatically alter an image. Short focal length lenses can be used to intensify close objects, but also tend to distort them if not used carefully. Longer focal length lenses tend to give greater working space and flatten the images somewhat. You may also need to think about the issue of using the "film" lenses on a digital body at some point, their interchangeability and whether they will create a cropped image based on your body choice. For that reason I'd tend to recommending sticking with the Canon/Nikon lines - based on versatility, variety, and upgradeability. I recently did a series of model shots of a young female violinist where I was constrained by a lack of space and had to resort to using a wider angle lens than I normally would, but with careful positioning and lighting, produced exhibition sized prints which caused her mother to break into tears of joy. So, go for the "kit" which offers you the best opportunity to get the type of shots you want to achieve.

If Holly is still around, I'd like to ask her how she intends to use her photos. I'll assume that she wants to use them to showcase her makeup artistry, and not for a model's portfolio. While my first choice would still be a good 35mm with a 100/105 lens because of the ease of handling and the ability to take lots of shots in quick sequence, something like a twin lens reflex (on a tripod) wouldn't be out of the question as she's likely more interested in the makeup job than in the model herself. In other words, working more slowly to get what she has done, and not being quite so concerned with catching the model's perfect expression.

 

Lighting? Your photo - if that is indeed you - is a good start.

It looks like this charming young lady is a pure beginner. So better not bother her with different lightning methods...

 

As mentioned before, the camera is not important at all. The lens is. A cheap lens is like dirty glasses, one cannot see properly! Traditional portrait lenses are 50 mm and 85 mm lenses but you may also a 35 mm lenses to include the environment or a close up with 135 mm lenses.

 

I think you better start with choosing what type of portrait you would like to see on your photos. Then buy the lens whatever the brand to match your camera.

 

As a beginner, go for any camera but get a proper lens of the same brand if possible. After a few years, not weeks, you will start understanding portraiture and then you go for professional material because YOU will see and enjoy the difference .

 

Charming young lady beginners are often smart enough to learn about lighting methods.

The Nikon F3 and 105mm lens will work fine. That lens is one of the best Nikon made. It will show all the detail you will need. Use a good tripod if you can.

 

Absolutely, but use the regular Nikkor P 105mm f/2.5, not the micro (Nikon's way of saying "macro"). Buy one used; they're astonishingly inexpensive and will work manually on the F3, I think.

Edited February 21, 2019 by JDMvW

If you want to do portraits, I suggest, get and use a sturdy tripod to begin with. Perfectly good ones can be found at garage sales and flea markets for practically nothing. Then later you can get another one that suits you.

 

I agree with others about the lenses. I shot individual portraits using 35mm cameras with a 105mm lens.

While the Pentax 67 with a 165/4LS would offer you an image quality that no 35mm camera can match in a (relatively speaking) handholdable package, I would advice against it. I have had it myself and loved it, but 10 frames from a film and its weight does not really make it that user friendly. It is a specialist tool to handle, even though it is kind of like a overgrown 35mm camera.

 

If you do wear glasses, the Nikon F3 HP viewfinder will make you happy. If not, the Nikon FM2 will probably make you just as happy for less. If you require a higher flash sync speed (daylight balanced fill flash), the FM2 is the better choice, but then the F3 does offer TTL flash (automatic flash control), which is also convenient.

I used to use a Pentax 6x7 in my work. You could hear the shutter go off in the next room)). It might frighten any potentially nervous portrait sitter. A very well built camera though and as has been said before extremely weighty. Probably only ok for studio work.

 

If the OP moves on and towards medium format film. I think you could not do better than the old Rolleiflex twin lens. It was the standard portrait photography camera of its day. Of course now it is probably vintage although I have seen one or two good specimens on second hand sites at big money. Beautiful unsurpassed lens.

If it were me, I'd go for a Mamiya RB67, and depending on the desired look either a 127mm lens(long "standard") or possibly the 150mm SF...

For portrait I would agree that a medium format is better. But among the 3 35mm choice I would pick the F3 but the other 2 are just as good because for portrait it's not demanding on motor drive, exposure controls, etc.. You may want to use a handheld meter for portrait. If you use flash a flash meter is also recommended.

I have to agree with Ben, in fact that’s just what I did. I got an RB67 and 127, 180 and the 150 soft focus lenses at very low cost from KEH. The 180 is amazingly sharp portrait lens and the 150 a unique piece to me. The 127 is a good ‘normal’ lens in the 6x7 format.

 

Rick H.

I don't get it, when people post a question, then disappear.

The OP was last seen on Feb 4.

“I don't get it, when people post a question, then disappear.

The OP was last seen on Feb 4.”

 

 

 

Well Gary, I understand your opinion. I do that, & I hate it, but @ 77yrs my short term memory sucks & has for years. I know there's a way to find my posts, but I often forget to do that too. My apologies.

 

BTW. which city(s) in the Bay Area do you live / work in?

 

I lived off & on in the Bay Area from 1966 to 2016. The last 11 yrs in Santa Rosa. I loved it from the 1st day in Feb. '66 to the last day. (If you don't want to divulge this information, I certainly understand.)

San Mateo, and worked from SF down to SJ.

Thanks. For once I made it back to respond.