which high-class analog compact is best for portraits

<p>hello,<br>

what are your opinions is the best choice for simple inside-portraits. These are my options: a Contax, a Nikon 35ti or a Minolta TC1?<br>

would be very lucky to hear from a little more qualified guys then myself. I have tried the contax t2 and I think its quite good, but if there is an even better choice, please let me know.<br>

best, philip</p>

 

<p>Most head and shoulders or closer portraits are made with lenses in the 85-105mm range. The cameras you mention have lenses with much shorter focal lengths. If you are shooting environmental portraits then a wide lens can work. Whether you are shooting inside or outside, you would want to be in the range of about 3-4.5 feet to get a good rendering of the subject's features. Your best bet would be a compact camera with a zoom lens which goes to about 100mm on the long end. </p>

<p>Inside portrait? Which means low light and film speed is no match for digital sensor. Using flash then you should pick one that can use external flashes. <br>

But then why using a compact?</p>

<p>Philip, as I wrote last year in reply to a similar question of yours:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Philip, so far all of your questions to the Beginner and other forums have been to ask how to make photos like other well known photographers - Wolfgang Tillmans, Richard Kern, Seiichi Furuya - or which camera they're using, etc.<br /> "Most of those types of photos can be taken with almost any kind of camera. In some cases when very large prints are desired a medium format or large format film camera or higher megapixel digital camera may be more appropriate.<br /> "Otherwise, it doesn't matter as much as just choosing a camera and taking photos. Study lighting, composition, posing of models. Take a workshop with a photographer who has experience in the type of photography you'd like to pursue.<br /> "But nothing matters more than just choosing one good camera that fits your budget and getting started."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I can only reiterate... choose a camera and get started. The camera and lens don't really matter that much. And, yes, a 28mm to 35mm lens on a compact 35mm film camera is perfectly well suited to those types of portraits -- assuming that is still "the look" you're pursuing.</p>

<p>Any of the cameras you listed can approximate the focal length used by those photographers for full length or nearly full length portraits. If the Contax wasn't responsive enough or there was some other technical shortcoming, sure, maybe the Nikon or Minolta might be a better choice. However these types of cameras - particularly the Minolta TC-1 - have relatively weak flash. If you prefer the look of direct on-camera flash, like Terry Richardson, I'd suggest whichever compact 35mm film camera of the 1990s era that had the best flash. Richardson mostly used a very affordable Yashica T4 back then - now he uses mostly Panasonic mirrorless Micro 4:3 cameras, with occasional uses of full frame dSLRs and still takes snapshots with a Ricoh GRD3.</p>

<p>But if the problem is getting "the look" of the photographers you admire, no camera will do that for you. That comes from mastery of composition, light, interaction with the models, and having a personal vision.</p>

<p>So, I'll reiterate - Choose a camera and get started. Heck, buy all of them. Take some workshops with photographers who understand what you want to accomplish, who will help guide you toward that vision. You're not going to find that vision on equipment-oriented forums where the stock answer to questions about portraits is "85mm f/1.4 and bokeh".</p>

<p>Incidentally, unless you're really determined to do this with 35mm film, you might consider some recent model compact digital cameras with lenses comparable to the classic 35mm film compacts of the 1990s which mostly had 28mm and 35mm lenses.<br>

All three of these feature the APS-C sensor and lenses that approximate those earlier film cameras:</p>

<ul>

<li>Ricoh GR</li>

<li>Nikon Coolpix A</li>

<li>Canon EOS M, paired with 22/2 lens</li>

</ul>

<p>Of the three, the Canon is the best value now because it was considered a market "flop". Which is great for actual photographers who take photographs, rather forum warriors who'd prefer to battle in web forums over technical specifications. But I'd probably prefer the Ricoh GR for the outstanding ergonomics, although the Nikon would be somewhat compatible with my existing SB-800 flash.</p>

<p>Anyway, just a thought. Those cameras are in the grand tradition of the 1990s golden age of great compact 35mm film cameras. And then you can pursue that vision without worrying about the cost of film.</p>

 

<p>Sigma made a pair of matching compacts back in the '90s. They weren't small but one had, I think, a 24-50mm, the other a 50-100mm or something like that. I cannot easily find a reference on-line, but the latter was called the 50AF Zoom, I think.</p>

<p>Anyway, here is something useful about portraiture that might make your choice easy: portraiture is one of the subjects in photography where the equipment almost doesn't matter, as long as the end result is pleasing. Nobody cares if you have to enlarge a portion of a negative as long as it looks nice. Of course severe cropping can look awful, especially from digital files, but from film it can be nice.</p>

<p>You can use a box brownie, a $5 compact from an op-shop, a classic RF with a fixed 45mm lens, the list is almost endless. Lighting, pose/expression and exposure are key.</p>

<p>It's a shame that certain kinds of film are no longer available. Kodak had an Ektachrome X emulsion in at least two speeds, which had a warmer tone than the standard version. I never used it but from what I saw in magazines, it looked great. See if you can get some Fujichrome 400X (not the same kind of thing as the old Ektachrome 400X) and play around.</p>

<p>Olympus Stylus Zoom 80.</p>

<p>There are a lot of great compact film cameras available. One of my favorites is the Contax TVS which has a very high-quality short zoom lens (28-56mm, I think...) and allows you to use either AF or manually focus the lens. It's made out of sturdy titanium and not only performs like a high-quality camera, but it feels like one as well. Olympus has a number of nice cameras such as the one Bill mentioned, but also the Olympus Stylus Wide 100 which has a 28-100mm lens. Lots of choices. If you do decide to take the digital route, as Les mentioned the EOS-M with the 22mm lens is a superb little outfit with excellent image quality and can be gotten for a steal, although prices are beginning to creep back up, but that camera is a discussion for another forum.</p>

An Olympus IS-30 or similar might work but is not as compact, but you get a 28-110 f4.5-5.6;zoom with SLR viewing.

If I were to go Contax then, rather than the T2, I'd be tempted to go G1 or 2, with a small flash plus 45 & 90 lenses. More

expensive but would cover a lot of bases.

How did Nikon justify the enormous price of the 35Ti?

I would use the Nikon 105mm. Mated to an N80, which goes for about $30 today, you would have a smallish and

lightship package.

I guess I don't understand the original question. Indoor portraiture is one area where the size and weight of the camera is

not a hindrance.

 

The question is kinda like "name the wold's largest midget."

<p>David - Pricey 'cuz ...</p>

<p>1. arguably the best lens ever in a compact, rivaling their standard slr lenses of that day<br>

2. very good AF functionality (833 step)<br>

3. six segment matrix 3D metering<br>

4. NIC coating<br>

5. many exposure control modes<br>

6. mystique of a titanium body, quartz date, cool analog display on top deck and custom functions ...</p>

<p>all made it a stand out and an eventual cult classic, of sorts.<br>

Jim</p>

The best lens I've ever seen on a compact camera is the Minotaur on Minox 35 cameras. The Minotaur has a focal length of 35mm, which is great for full-length portraits but not so great for head and shoulders. But its quality will blow you away.

The 'modern' compacts are really a poor choice for 'indoor portraiture'.

 

Their lenses are either a fixed semi-wide or a slow zoom (slow zoom is bad because indoors you need lots of light)

-the semi-wide is OK cause you are probably in close quarters, but the perspective up close can be unflattering.

The major drawback is the flash, since most have the flash set on by default, and almost none have any way of triggering an off-camera

flash.

 

A much better choice would be ANY of the late entry-level SLR's from any of the major manufacturers. These often go for 10$-20$, are

virually unused, and are fully featured. Nikon N80 or N75 come to mind. The kit lens on these is excellent. They are extremely lightweight.

 

If you just want to take better pics of your friends and family.. hear my words as gospel and GO DIGITAL. Hear is the real reason why: auto

color balance. Indoors, you are stuck with mixed lighting. You dont know if the light will be orange tungsten, green flourescent, or some

mix in between. Nothing ruins a pic more than orange or green skin tones.

 

If you really want to be a cool hipster and impress your friends, get a nice chrome classic like the Yashica Electro or go small with a

Olympus RC35.

<blockquote>

<p>On Nikon 35Ti below was said<br>

1. arguably the best lens ever in a compact, rivaling their standard slr lenses of that day<br />2. very good AF functionality (833 step)<br />3. six segment matrix 3D metering<br />4. NIC coating<br />5. many exposure control modes<br />6. mystique of a titanium body, quartz date, cool analog display on top deck and custom functions ...<br>

all made it a stand out and an eventual cult classic, of sorts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hardly any of above made it a stand out, unless you go through paid-for tests and input from those who overspent (just like Nikkors were never as much of a stand out as many would want others believe). I'd further say that Nikon 35Ti was the beginning of what we've seen for a decade now with most digital: spec, spec, spec, followed by price, price, price (ever higher for each added (and often useless) spec. So show me the evidence that it's "superior" specs translated into better photography. It should never sell for more than a third, but people go blind quick on hype alone.</p>

Also, most of these cameras, whether digital or film, are going to be slow at focusing and have significant

shutter lag. Of the newer digital cameras, the Terry Richardson favorites are fairly snappy if they have a

nice nice contrasty subject in good light that isn't moving a lot... like a Terry Richardson portrait.

<p>You might look for a used Contax G1 or G2. It resembles a compact (somewhat) rangefinder but has autofocusing with interchangeable lenses. Usually its found with a 45 mm f2 normal lens, but for portraits you can get a 90 mm lens. Viewfinder changes to show view of attached lens. </p>