Portrait photography

[anne_green]

Hi everyone

I've heard that Nikon cameras are not as good for portrait photography as canon, and I was wondering if this is true and if so, why?

People say that Nikon and canon are good for different types of photography, is this true as well, and if so, what types?

Thanks

[leslie_cheung]

<p>No, focus on the actual camera (and lens) model and not the company.</p>

[SCL]

<p>You heard wrong. There is virtually no difference for the type of work you cite. Reminds me of the joke "It's true....I heard it on the internet".</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Actually, lighting and people technique imo are more important than camera and lens for portraiture. </p>

[rick_m.]

<p>No difference. None whatsoever. Any minuscule mixing algorithm difference between the two is going to be rendered meaningless by the combination of lighting and post production. If someone does not intend to carefully light the photo and then work the portrait up in post production I would suggest that their portraits are not going to be good enough to display any difference at all. For those folks I recommend film. Preferably black and white.</p>

[stephen_doldric]

<p>Agreed with Leslie. Hands down lighting and people technique. You really can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. I ended up with Nikon because that was my first camera, now I'm entrenched. But really I could just as easily have be entrenched with Canon. Choose the camera that feels right to you, then concentrate on what matters. Lighting and your subjects.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Anne, the only question is, where did you hear that? Really, it would be helpful to know.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

Absolutely false. Your ability to work with the subjects and light well and refine expressions and body positions, that's

what matters.

[Spearhead]

<p>Portraits are not about equipment. They are about what you see, how you see, how you realize what you see and feel as a photo. The equipment is something you control, not vice versa.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>In the 40+ years I've been doing photography, I've never heard of such a thing. Does that mean that Olympus, Sony/Minolta, Pentax, Samsung, Panasonic, etc. each have their own type of photography they are good for? Do I have to buy one of each to be able to do all the different photography in which I am interested? Ann, I hope putting it this way might make it clear how unfounded that idea really is. </p>

<p>The reason each manufacturer has so many choices in their system is so they can fulfill the need of most photographers and what they are shooting. I've shot portraits, concerts, events, catalogue/ads, sports, nature, architecture, all with two Nikon bodies and six lenses from all the mainstream manufacturers. I know plenty of people that shoot the very same stuff with Canon.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Funny, I heard that Canons are no good for anything except photographing green estate cars with white-wall tyres. Maybe I've been reading the wrong blogs.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Don't believe everything you read on a blog on the web. In the right hands any camera will work for portraits - just like any camera can mess one up. Just depends on the user, knowledge of posing, knowledge of lighting and knowledge of the camera.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>For portraiture, it's a very level playing field. Lighting and composition make the picture.</p>

<p>For fast action sports, people have claimed that AF is better in the Nikon D??? model as opposed to the Canon ???D model but when the action heads straight towards the camera the Canon keeps up better than the Nikon......then a new model is released and the tables turn.</p>

<p>.........an the Supreme Winner is ...(Drum Role Please.......)</p>

<p>'the Better Photographer'..:-)</p>

[steve_torelli]

<p>"Portraits are not about equipment. They are about what you see, how you see, how you realize what you see and feel as a photo. The equipment is something you control, not vice versa."<br>

<br>

+1</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Well, if you are limited to on-camera flash only, Canon has yet to develop its flash technology up to the Nikon standards. Lens and camera wise there is no difference. Both excellent camera's and lenses.</p>

[pge]

<p>I mostly shoot portraits and I would say that in some ways portraits are not very demanding on a camera, at least in-studio portraits. High iso is not an issue, frames per second is also not an issue. I like how my old D200 renders skin tones although I use a D700 these days. I haven't tried it but I bet my p&s (P7700) would do very well in a studio. At any rate, whatever camera you buy will not be your limiting factor.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>To Anne the OP, may I suggest that you focus less on camera brands but instead on technique?</p>

<p>On your earlier thread about <em>switching from Canon to Nikon: <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00bINH">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00bINH</a></em>, unfortunately you received some highly partisan, in my opinion very misleading answers. That was why I made an attempt to stop that nonsense with my post yesterday, January 30 at 9:13am.</p>

<p>While you did not specify exactly which Canon camera body you have, it seems to be some consumer-grade one with Canon EF-S lenses. Nikon also makes some similar type cameras and lenses. You can get great pictures from either brand as well Sony, Pentax, etc. It is mainly about the photographer, technique, lighting, and for portrait photography, your people skills: how you make your subjects comfortable, how you pose them ....</p>

<p>Since you already have some Canon equipment, I suggest you stay with Canon unless you have an excellent reason to switch to Nikon. Switching brands will cost you some money and you'll end up with similar results until you improve as a photographer.</p>

<p>Should you decide to shoot film, Canon EOS film bodies are not necessarily expensive on the used market. The only issue is that you cannot use your EF-S lenses on Canon EOS film SLRs. You'll need some EF lenses which you can use on both your film and digital Canon EOS bodies. Of course you can stay with the Nikon F50 you already have for your film photography.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've shot with both Nikons (film) and Canons (digital and film). As nearly everyone has said, it's not the equipment that matters except in the most specialized of applications.<br>

That being said, the idea of Canon being "better" in some abstract and general way for portraiture is falsified right off the bat by the mere existence of one of the world's finest "portrait" lenses -- the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 (really pretty much all versions of it, for that matter).<br>

However, this lens works on the Canon mounts as well as on Nikon mounts with inexpensive adapters and a little patience. The glass is a major variable in any kind of shooting, and you wouldn't have to give up Canon to use manual-focus Nikon lenses, at least.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>One could argue that Nikon's have (or had) better flash metering control, which might affect portraits; low end Canons put the depth of field preview in an awkward place (Nikon do the same with their autofocus mode control) if that's a big thing for you. Canon has f/1.2 autofocus lenses which are missing from Nikon's range, which could be called portrait lenses. The two 135mm lenses could be taken either way (Canon's is sharper, Nikon's can do defocus control). Nikon have more autofocus points in mid-range bodies (it's a wash at the low and high end). I'm really reaching, though - I'd be just as incompetent shooting portraits with either system.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Not that it really matters, but there <em>is</em> a switchable "soft-focus" version of the Canon EF 135mm lens (<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_135mm_f_2_8_with_softfocus">link</a>).</p>

<p>I'm not sure just who had priority here, nor do I really care much.</p>

<p>Which is more or less "awkward" in each case depends more on which one you used first and were imprinted on.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>JDM - indeed; the SF lens doesn't do the same thing as the DC lenses, though the DC lenses can have a soft focus effect in addition to their effect on bokeh, and Sony have an STF lens which is arguably a better solution to the same thing (if you don't need as much light). On the other hand, the 135mm f/2 EF L lens is known for exceptional image quality, if in a conventional design. Take your pick - they're all pretty decent, and I've got half an eye on the forthcoming 135mm Zeiss.<br />

<br />

I'd like to clarify that the "awkwardness" that I referred to in placement of controls comes down to whether you're in a position to access controls on the left side of the body. If you're hand-holding any lens of reasonable size, I would argue that you aren't (because the left hand is holding the lens), no matter who makes the body - hence my ongoing complaints that both manufacturers put controls there. I started out with Canon - this isn't a familiarity thing. If you use a small lens and have your left hand back under the camera, it's probably not a problem; I challenge you to press the AF control on a Nikon or the DoF preview on a low-end Canon while hand-holding a 200 f/2. Arguably being unable to reach the DoF preview is a more immediate problem (at least you can put the camera down to change AF mode), especially for portraiture where the AF mode may not change. On the other hand, Canon have fixed it with their higher end bodies and put the DoF preview where it always was on the 1-series.<br />

<br />

It wouldn't make me choose either brand - I was just trying to find some difference that could lead to this kind of advice. I'd pick the system you like the feel of with the lens range you want, with an eye to sharing equipment with a friend or family member who already has camera kit.</p>

[JAPster]

<p>Anne, specific camera models may have improvements over previous models, and these improvements may improve picture taking possibilities for certain types of subjects. But a vague and generalistic claim, like the one someone fed you, is not true.</p>