Small, light portrait camera

[porter]

<p>Looking for a small, light portrait camera/lens combo. I'm most comfortable with the working distance provided by lenses that are in between 75-135mm (full frame equiv). I'm okay with manual focus if need be, but the combo must be sharp and have very good detail reproduction. </p>

<p>This is for good light or strobe shots, so iso capabilities aren't important (I have a d700 anyways). </p>

<p>Any suggestions?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You probably need to be more specific. Half the size of your D700? A third the weight? When you say "portraits," are you including the need for very fast lenses (in the interests of controlling DoF)? What sort of actual output/medium are you looking for?</p>

[porter]

<p>Small camera shouldn't require further explanation. Nobody considers a D3 a small camera, nobody really considers a 50D a small camera for that matter, virtually everyone considers an ep1 to be a small camera. </p>

<p>Too much hair splitting in these forums. Disregard my question.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<blockquote>

<p>Disregard my question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Roger that, Pat. ( Is this the cranky season still.. and November 3 is yet a month away)</p>

[scott_meilicke]

<p>Pat,<br>

I think to get small and something good for portraits, you are into the mirrorless large sensor realm. The Sony A55 and A33 would also fit the bill (even though they have a pelical mirror). The only lens that comes to mind with AF is the panasonic 45 macro. That puts you into u4/3 territory. Pick a body that fits your needs. <br>

Actually, if you went with the A33/55, you could choose any of the Sony A lenses. The 50s would put you at 75 effective, the 85 at around 130 effective.<br>

If you wade into the manual focus arena, you can pick bodies and lenses separately, since just about any manual focus lens will fit on any of these bodies. The Sony A33/55 are exceptions to this, since they use the Sony A mount, which has a larger registration distance than the other mirrorless cameras. The sony nex series (and the A33/55) seem to have the best sensor at them moment. As far as glass is concerned, there are bazillions of choices.<br>

-Scott</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>The question seems not to belong in this sub-forum.</p>

[marc_batters]

<p>Patrick,<br /> Disregard your question? You bet!</p>

<p>Disregard your response? Not a chance!</p>

<p>This site and it's forums are accessed by individuals displaying, and offering, a wealth of information.<br /> Accomplished professionals, (active and retired), as well as amateurs of all skill levels, sharing and learning from each other.<br /> I don't always agree with every one's viewpoint on some issues, but I try to conduct my time here in a thoughtful, civil, and rational standard of decorum.</p>

<p>I have read many-a-thread on this site where Matt has offered invaluable information to others.<br /> If Matt chooses to respond to you, I'm sure he will, though, I would not fault him one bit if he chose not to.<br /> Why, should he waste anymore of his time on a childish, inconsiderate individual such as yourself.<br>

You have shown your true colors, "little man."<br /> <br /> Man-up, and apologize to Matt. <br /> If not, then I suggest you remove your photos from this site, and don't return until you are able to behave like an adult.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>The question seems not to be a serious one either.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>The Oly EPL1 is my convertable camera. Never know what it's going to look like day to day. For portraits it works well with a Voigtlander 40 1.4. Wide open it gives a DOF similar to a 85mm on full frame set to say 3.5 which for me works well. It's a wonderful combo.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>The question reminded me of my wife musinglly ordering via me some chinese take out food for the family. Oh,you know, something we all like, a little of this and a little of that. Asking a definitive question will get a helpful answer. Education in any skill is about asking a definitive question, but that is not the temptation in forums. The slap happy answer is to give a product recommendation right off, notice, it satisfies all tastes.<br>

And guess what. It will be something the respondent happens to like. Here is what I mean. I typically like to shoot portraits with a lens of close to 100mm. And when I travel I decided I can't lug in my bakpack the E-3 and the 50mm and a spare BLM-1. So I carried last week, on the plane, a Panasonic Lumix G-1 and it mounted the Pana 20mm 1.7. Light as a buttermilk pancake compared to the E-3 slugger. So my answer to Pat would be to go for the Lumix G series, the G-1 or the smaller micro version (this not being a Nikon forum you would not expect me to answer Nikon something.) Wait you say, Patrick sez he does not like shooting with a lens of equivalent 40mm, the kind we all considered the Leatherman FL for years... no problem. I also carried with me the ED Zuiko 50mm with a Panasonic adapter. But that means manual focus...no problem, Patrick has no bother with manual focus, and told us that.</p>

<p>An Oly EPL1 with a Voigtlander manual focus lens? Why not? See what I mean. It is like ordering from a Chinese Menu. Does someone like goo goo dum soo....</p>

<p>I read Pat's reply to Matt's shot at his attempt to close in on the choices from the menu... The response was ,hmm. a little, well just a little cranky, best word comes to mind, as Matt asked some useful and maybe save- the guy- money follow- on questions. Which were <em>not at all patronizing</em>. And not at all Beginner Forum stuff either.. When one spends money, it helps to <em>triangulate</em>. right or wrong? Light. Fits in a pocket light? Under 1000.00...got to ask.<br>

Another lousy analogy, so bear with us five secs. Go to a doctor with a headache." Doc, I want something to stop the pain." Hey, no problem, here is a prescription for a bottle of codeine..<em>.it will work.</em> Sorry add to the wound and bruise feelings or at minimus over state the case for how to be helpful and no good intention goes unpunished here land.... (As suggested, this is lately the cranky season even here in Paradise.) At least mpatient. "Splitting of hairs?" Hell, man. that is the lifeforce of forumtalk....another story for Refer someone to dpreview? Not in your bleeping life...<br>

After having stated above, there is but <em>one</em> indisputable choice for you, Patrick. <em>Mine</em> :-). The Panasonic Lumix G-2, latest model, reasonable weight and latest goodies and an articulated finder for the stealth portraits and stuff. With the Lumix kit zoom to start and the 50mm( portrait, macro, super quality, high speed) and the adapter. ...Go order that today. You will not be sorry. Unless, of course, you can live with the likes of a Canon G-12 which can also do portraits and is light, see what I mean... Aloha nui loa, gs</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>When travelling and do it light and not all that conspicuous, sometimes I choose to make my "portraits" go wider and give wiggle room and tell a little about the surroundings. The environment they call it. In which case, comfortable, for me anyway, is easily closer to the 40mm that the Lumix pancake 20mm delivers. Is it a portrait in a classic generic usage, beats me, another thread for another forum I have noticed.</p><div></div>

[porter]

<p>Thank you everyone who made an effort to respond to my initial post. I think the G2 is an excellent option and will look into that. Good point about the stealth portraits, certainly something to consider.</p>

<p>@Marc Batters: My reply to Matt Laur requires no apology. Beating around the bush is unnecessary since the question was framed in a manner which would elicit helpful responses (as has been demonstrated by other posters). I wasn't particularly rude, just blunt about my dissatisfaction for his all-too-common response to simple questions. You, however, have resorted to name calling. Well done you.</p>

<p>ps. Great shot of the flat land rider</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Your questions were pertinent, Matt. I am sorry to see that you will not get the apology you are owed. Do not let this stop you from trying to be helpful.</p>

[porter]

<p>Boohoo, somebody told your E-friend that his post wasn't helpful in a less than candy coated manner. Grow a pair and quite whining about it.</p>

[justin_stott]

<p>Just how much smaller than the Oly in your profile image are you looking for? M4/3 is surprisingly good...</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Watch out, Justin. The young man has already said that "small" does not need to be explained.</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>I will get heat here in my face from someone who knows not how to apologize; but so what?</p>

<p>For good portraits I take my Rolleiflex which is small enough and gives me excellent image quality with the ability to enlarge to sky size. Besides it has the benefit of from the hip shooting stealthily.</p>

<p>Anything smaller is a compromise not worth making if one wants excellent images.</p>

[porter]

<p>Purchased an EP2.</p>

<p>Justin: Images I shot in my profile were from an E520 and slightly later on, an E620. I gave the 520 to a good friend and sold the 620 a few months ago when my D700 arrived.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Frank, back in the 1960s and up to the early 1970s I used a Rolleicord for serious portrait work. Since then I've been using 35mm film cameras whose results may not be excellent by your definition but are of acceptable quality.</p>

[zweeko]

<p>olympus om-1 + 85mm f/2.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Leica IIIa and Canon Serenar 85/2. So what if the lens is a monster? The <em>camera is small</em>.</p>