XTI v.s. 5D for portraiture

[supercobra]

Hello there,

 

I wonder if there is any noticeable differences between the Rebel XTI and the 5D

in term of image quality for portraiture. Is there any pro photographers

shooting portraiture w/ an XTI?

[davebell]

I doubt you would find any pro photographers using the XTI at all, for any application. I have the 5D and the 350D, and my 350D very seldom sees any action these days. It's like owning a sports car versus an old banger - which one are you going to choose? That said my 350D is still a fine camera, but the 5D is really in a very different league.

[mark u]

Actually, I think there are quite a few XTis that get used by professional photographers - as backup/second cameras for a professional wedding shooter, and in some cases they may use a pair of XTis with nothing more exotic, or for use where weight and size is at a premium. Famed landscape photographer Galen Rowell often carried just a lightweight consumer SLR when extreme hiking was involved, and were he still alive today (he was killed along with his wife in an unfortunate air accident), I'm sure he'd have a lightweight DSLR in his armoury (albeit he was a Nikon shooter):

 

http://www.vividlight.com/Articles/403.htm

 

Good portrait photography is much more about good lighting and the choice of lens than the choice of body. Having said that, there is a wider choice of portrait lenses that are suitable for a full frame body than for a 1.6 crop, and a 5D does have other advantages. But you can certainly take stunning portraits as a professional photographer with an XTi.

[milton-chris]

Surely a question that one needs to ask is one beyond 'will you want to go FF at some point if you choose the XTi now?', because the answer to that will affect one's choice.

 

The question then becomes deeper, as seemingly 80% of all DSLR's to date are APSC or some variant, therefore it may be true that one's better choice would be between a higher-end non-FF and a FF DSLR, non?

 

Just a thought.

 

My input, based on so many of the comments here, would be to get the XTi and spend more on better lenses. But then, I don't understand the comment that there are more better lenses for FF, so maybe this is wrong.

[rainer_t]

If you're a friend of very shallow depth of field, you're better of with the 5D, due to the full frame sensor.

[alec_myers]

"If you're a friend of very shallow depth of field, you're better of with the 5D, due to the full frame sensor."

 

Nope. Time to start laying this one to bed. DOF depends on the physical aperture of the lens alone.

[DickArnold]

Come on. Go back in history. Good portraits are the result of of good lighting, good technique, creating good reactions from the sitter, and in some cases the use of diffusion. Any camera body capable of creating a minimum acceptabe image can produce a good portrait.

[rainer_t]

-- "DOF depends on the physical aperture of the lens alone."

 

Yes. And that's exactly why the 5D is better for shallow DOF ...

 

While you get a 85/1.2 for instance with 71mm aperture, you don't get a 50/0.7 which you would need to take the same picture.

[calebcondit]

"Any camera body capable of creating a minimum acceptabe image can produce a good portrait."

 

But to get a Great portrait, having better tools gives you an edge. You have to have creative vision, talent and technical knowhow to create great images, but I've noticed a bit of difference between my crop and full frame shooting. The tonal gradations are better, the lenses look better, things are sharper and I have the ability to crop. Plus if you want to submit to magazines, a 10mpix file is a bit small for a full page shot. Especially when a photo editor decides to crop in on your shot.

 

It's not that an xti can't be used to shoot professional work. It comes down to what TYPE of pro work you want to do and what your clients demand. If you want to do low end weddings, or need a backup, and xti would be fine. I think having a 5d requires at least one decent L lens (I don't think you need 10 L lenses to be pro) to start off. I always recomend getting the best you can afford when you start out so you're not constantly upgrading and losing money in the reselling of lower quality gear. Plus, all that learning time on a better tool can't do you harm.

 

In the past, it didn't matter as much which body you buy, because you could put a great lens on it and buy some great film. But with digital it can make all the difference which sensor you choose to purchase.

[joe_williams3]

The effect of different sensor sizes on DOF is discussed at:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Equivalent-Lenses.shtml.

[eos 10 fan]

I don't shoot portraits.

 

If I were looking for a portrait camera I would look for a body that handled lights well (Speedlites or studio strobes) and could be used tethered (wired or wireless) to a monitor.

[steve torelli]

"DOF depends on the physical aperture of the lens alone."

 

Focal length, distance from the subject, sensor size (in the case of a DSLR)) ?

[mark u]

...but you'd get narrower DOF with the 85mm f/1.2 on a crop body than with the 135mm f/2 on full frame, by the same token. However, I consider e.g. the quality of background bokeh is probably more important than extreme DoF. Few 50/60mm lenses are designed with classic portrait qualities in mind, and those that are seem to struggle to achieve those qualities.

[DickArnold]

For years I did portraits with a Bronica and a 150mm PE lens. I have also done a lot with Canon and I used the my 70-200 2.8L on any Canon body I might have around and I had quite a few of them. Today I still use the short end of that lens on my digital bodies for portraits. I get, and have always gotten really nice salable pictures although I don't own the business any more. I control the image with backgrounds and studio lighting. I use diffusion with some of my older subjects as well. When I was in business I sold a lot of portraits both from weddings and my studio. What made most of them was emotion brought about by good communication and interaction between me and the subject. IMHO all this hair splitting about equipment will never produce a stunning smile or that little peek into someone's soul that I tried for in every picture. I can, and have, produced a decent portrait with my Canon SD550 ELPH on rare occasions.

[marknagel]

If you are shooting in a medium to small studio, the 5D is the way to go. My studio is approx 24x16. When I was shooting with a 20D I found myself at the wider end of my lenses, which isn't typically the best place to be with distortion and sharpness. With my 5D, I sit more in the sweet spots, and can use my mid-long primes.

 

Mark

[gdanmitchell]

I have a 5D and I used to have an XT, and I can confirm that I stopped using the crop body

after I got full frame.

 

However... that doesn't mean that you cannot do excellent photography with the crop

sensor XTi. If you have good lenses, lighting, and technique you will be able to produce

excellent results with the XTi.

 

You didn't say so, but I suspect that your reason for considering the XTi is primarily cost.

If cost is a major consideration and you are working to build up your equipment, I'd go for

good lenses first even if that meant starting with a less expensive body. And for what you

are doing, I see little advantage in "upgrading" from the XTi to a 30D.

 

I can't deny that the 5D is capable of producing "better" images, but the difference may

not be all that significant to you at this point. Frankly, while a MF digital back camera can

produce "better" images that full frame DSLR, it is possible to get excellent results (duh!)

with a 1-series or a 5D. I think you can say the same about using an inexpensive crop

body like the XTi.

 

The point about your "professional appearance" is not completely without validity. If the

type of portraiture you are doing is more informal and not high-end (high cost)

professional sittings your small XTi body is not so likely to be an issues. On the other

hand, in some situations your clients might notice that you are not using a "really big and

expensive looking camera" and wonder. Truth be told, most clients probably can't tell the

difference. :-)

 

Dan

[rainer_t]

-- "but you'd get narrower DOF with the 85mm f/1.2 on a crop body than with the 135mm f/2"

 

indeed, the 85/1.2 on crop beats the 135/2 on ff by abt. 1/6 of an fstop.

 

on the other end of the portrait range, the 85/1.2 on ff beat the 50/1.2 on crop by abt. 1+1/3 fstop (or 8/6 fstop).

 

So I believe my statement still holds with the classic portraitrange in view.

[alec_myers]

"Yes. And that's exactly why the 5D is better for shallow DOF ...

 

While you get a 85/1.2 for instance with 71mm aperture, you don't get a 50/0.7 which you would need to take the same picture."

 

Agreed. But forgetting about taking "the same picture" for a second, the background blur with both cameras using 85/1.2 will be the same. The field of view will be different, but the inability to resolve objects of a certain size at infinity is identical.

[davebell]

Assuming exactly the same lens, exactly the same subject distance, the DOF is EXACTLY the same on a FF or crop body!It is only when you decrease the subject distance (using the FF) to obtain the same FOV as the crop body, does the DOF with the FF become less.

[casey mcallister]

How about a Rebel 300D 6MP? Does that count? I've printed razor sharp 13x19 portraits with it. The lens is more the issue, and with a fast 50, 85, or 135mm prime you'll not go wrong.

 

As noted the advantage of the 5D is working distance...

[mark u]

I think responses in this thread are placing too much emphasis on extreme narrow depth of field in portrait work. I suspect many more portraits are made at f/5.6 (or maybe f/4 on a crop camera) than at f/1.4 or wider in professional portrait studios. There are also some slightly misleading statements in relation to depth of field and degree of background blur (let us say because of unstated additional assumptions). In studio portrait work the background is only going to be a few feet behind the subject, not at infinity: in those circumstances you need a faster aperture and shorter focal length (roughly by dividing by the crop factor for both) to mimic depth of field and degree of background blur of a full frame image with a crop image printed at the same size.

 

My point is that I would always choose say the 100mm f/2 over the 100mm f/2.8 macro to make a portrait at any aperture the two lenses share in common, because the f/2 lens produces a more pleasing portrait (and I would not try to take a macro shot with tubes on the 100 f/2 in preference to using the 100 f/2.8). Some of the technicalities of why particular lenses are better suited to particular applications are nicely discussed here:

 

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

[alec_myers]

I think in summary (and agreeing with the previous poster) one can say that:

 

There's no difference imposed by the physics of a different size sensor that says you can't get *exactly* the same picture on a 1.6 crop vs. a ff, background blur, depth of field, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all and...

 

If you can't, for practical reasons, get the same picture it's because you can't find the possibly imaginary lens you'd need (like the hypothetical 50mm f/0.7 mentioned above)

 

And therefore which camera you prefer image-wise depends on which distance to your subject (perspective) you prefer and which lens, it being a personal preference for one combination on one camera vs. a different combination on the other.

 

Other differences include the different resolutions, different handling, etc, but there's nothing inherent in the optics of one size sensor over the other.

[mark u]

Well, of course, there is a 50mm f/0.7... the famous "Barry Lyndon" Zeiss lens originally made for NASA:

 

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

 

but it would not adapt to an SLR because its rear element is just 4mm from the film plane.

[William Michael]

>>> I wonder if there is any noticeable differences between the Rebel XTI and the 5D in term of image quality for portraiture. <<<

 

Yes, and more noticeable: when shooting in (available) low light; when clients require larger prints; (because of the lens choices rather than the body per se) large group portraits, requiring a wide lens with little barrel distortion and acute edge sharpness; to mention a few shooting scenarios where the differences would be noticeable.

 

 

>>> [Are] there any pro photographers shooting portraiture w/ an XTI? <<<

 

Yes. More noticed here as a second camera in Wedding work and candid Wedding style; first camera in street portraiture / Santa photos, school, class photos (i.e. set and forget type flash work) / tourist work etc., as opposed to studio portraiture.

 

WW

[dves]

XT with a 50mm f1.8II can give stunning portraits using nice lighting, my favourite style is to set the softbox angled towards the subject straight on but angled so you can shoot under its leading lip, this is a cover style of lighting and gives a nice falloff down the figure.

My next fav is to position the subject in front of a window using the window as a big light source and I am in front of the window (I am positioned between the window and the subject) this gives a cool window light effect in the subjects eyes.

My final fav is to use ringlite very interesting porttraits!