D2X versus 1Ds2 for pro portrait work

[Jim_Tardio]

There's no trouble getting a shallow DOF with the Nikon sensors. No doubt the Canon 1DsII has a bit more, but I feel the Nikon is more than adequate for portraits, and for anything else you might want to photograph.

<p>

Here's a shot with the D70, using a 105/2 lens.<div></div>

[Carl Stone]

Great image Jim! That's the first example that I've seen from the 2.0, and it looks to be a

stunning lens.

[rob_malkin]

It would look a lot better on film :-)

 

I remember when i put a 50mm f1.4 on a D2h and did some portraits of a friend. When i got home and had a look at them and was surprised at how much less Dof there was then when I mounted the lens on a F100. In my opinion the whole point of getting a f1.4, or f2 lens (aka 50mm f1.4 85mmf1.4, 105mm f2, 135mm f2, 200 f2) is to shoot wide open.

 

I have found that when I get my D70 prints and my film print that a greater percentage of the ones that go on the wall are from the film.

I am talking baout portraits here. I just think that having 1.5x less dof is a shame. Its the one thing Canon really has that Nikon does not.

 

r

[jbq]

Rob: how about comparing with a lens that has a similar angle of view, in the case of your test probably a 85/1.4 on film?

 

BTW, there are other reasons to get a fast lens on an SLR, namely for a brighter viewfinder or (in some cases) a more accurate autofocus.

[Jim_Tardio]

<i>It would look a lot better on film :-)</i>

<p>

Well, that's more a matter of personal taste. Here's a shot taken with the 105/2 using Fuji Reala 100. This isn't the greatest shot in the world, but it shoes the effect.<div></div>

[Carl Stone]

Thr D70 photo has more punch, but the background on the Reala shot is pure cream! So,

there you have it, as Jim says, it's a matter of personal taste, and i don't see anything from

these pics to say that one shouldn't shoot portraits with digital. what we don't know is the

amobnt of defocus control that jim dialed in on the 2.0, if any, or if there is any comparison

of that effect between the two images. Did he not touch the defocus, and just let the aperture

work? Does it really matter? Isn't it the final image that's important, not what you shot it with?

 

Is that poor woman gonna feel burned tomorrow? YIKES! :o)

[Jim_Tardio]

No, I didn't use any defocus control for either shot...just the straight aperture.

<p>

And, yes, she was burned...and had a killer hangover.

[peter_phan]

<i>Here's a shot with the D70, using a 105/2 lens.</i>

<p>

The problem is that the working distance of a 105mm lens on a 1.5x body to get that shot is very long, not to mention harder to handhold steady. It's impractical for indoor shooting where you have less room to work, not to mention less light to work with. In the film days, you used to be able to get that shot with a 50/1.4 using a much shorter working distance between you and your subject. And it was easier to handhold steady. And you could get away with a slower shutter speed because the focal length was shorter. Much more practical for indoor use. These days, with APS DSLRs, to get that kind of out-of-focus background, you have to resort to...well, a 105/2 shot outdoors in good light with a fair amount of distance between you, the subject, and the background, just like your shot.

[Jim_Tardio]

<i>The problem is that the working distance of a 105mm lens on a 1.5x body to get that shot is very long</i>

<p>

Not really. I was about 6 to 10 feet away on the first shot, and a bit longer on the second shot. I could post many examples shot with a 50/1.8 that also show a nice, shallow DOF.

<p>

I think the point here is that you don't need a full-frame DSLR to achieve a pleasant DOF for portraits, or anything else. Heck, here's a shot taken with my 35/2 lens, wide open.<div></div>

[Carl Stone]

Perhaps the problem is that lenses perform differently on a 35mm film camera than they do

on DSLR , and a learning curve is required between the two formats.