Choosing lens (and other equipment) for indoor and outdoor model photography

[josh_e]

<p>I want to pick up model photography as a hobby. Mostly indoors but occasionally in nature. (My previous experience is with urban photography but only with 1" sensors so I'm a noob.)<br>

My main question is about what type of lens to choose but also wanted to ask about the following:<br>

-Is there any (inexpensive) DSLR (or mirrorless) models which are specifically suitable for this genre? On Adorama website <a href="http://www.adorama.com/INKD3300K.html">Nikon D3300</a> with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II Lens has very high reviews and is inexpensive but I don't know if it's suitable for my purposes. <br>

-Will a tripod in $100-$200 be good enough? I've had my eyes on SLIK PRO 700DX. What do you think of it? Or do you have any other suggestions?</p>

<p>-Finally indoor lighting is something that I hardly know anything about. I'm thinking about continuous lighting that delivers soft shadows and gives a good white balance, similar to natural light. Is this possible without breaking the bank?</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Sometimes the advice has to be tailored to specific requirements, such as what sort of look you're after. The kit lens will do for some, but others might want a prime lens around the 90mm focal length. The good news is that good lenses can be had very, very cheaply, especially manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>Personally I don't see the point of DSLRs anymore, now that we have mirrorless systems. But shop around. There are cheap mirrorless cameras as well as cheap DSLRs.</p>

<p>Just an example: a mid-range Sony camera (what they used to brand as NEX) plus a cheap manual focus 50mm lens (plus adapter) would be fantastic for portraiture. Of course that's just one option.</p>

<p>A good adapter to buy, should you buy a mirrorless camera, would be one that accepts either Pentax screw (M42) or Pentax bayonet (K) lenses. Many Pentax and compatible lenses are terrific and very inexpensive. But, like everything, it's all down to preference.</p>

<p>The tripod you suggest sounds fine to me. I get by with one not quite so good! I will eventually buy one that allows the centre shaft to be mounted horizontally. Very handy for close-ups, especially if you have to face the camera towards the ground. The Slik achieves a good compromise for most situations, but sometimes you have to have the camera overhanging the tripod's legs.</p>

<p>Indoor lighting: a cheap pair of lights with soft covers should do the trick. Like this:</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/like/261460575280?limghlpsr=true&hlpv=2&ops=true&viphx=1&hlpht=true&lpid=107&chn=ps</p>

<p>What makes or breaks a photo, quite often, is exposure. You can learn by playing around in your RAW convertor. Once you get the hang of it, it's not too difficult.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>I think if you have space (you need some for full body shots) a 50mm f1.8 is a good lens to start with on any APSC sensor, like Nikon's DX. To shoot it wide open I'd love to have decent AF which the Nikon should provide. - Kharim's suggestion of a mirrorless camera is valid but also sometimes a bit sluggish. - Viewfinder lag and manual focusing plus fiddling with the magnifier on and off to get that done makes it hard to capture a perfect facial expression. - Modern mirrorless might be better than my elderly / current bottom line Fujis but still I would try to give decent DSLRs a go. The biggest Nikon drawback I am aware off is that they are the worst choice to adapt lenses from any other brand and the 3000 series won't play with nikon's own heritage lenses without AF motor and will also demand a handheld meter to be used with manual focus ones. - Other SLR brands aren't much better. - the elderly pentax bodies I own do no way cvompare to film cameras for manual focusing don't support the old manual film lens mount entirely and worst: their AF performance is behind Nikons'. - Start somewhere, diversify later. a used Nex can be had around 150 Euro. Add 12 for an odd adapter and the lens' price. <-I don't claim Sonys to be cheaper than the Nikon you named. - I guess everybody wants and needs a kit zoom for general photography and there I would go for Nikon these days.<br>

IDK if continous lighting will cut your cake in the long run. - If I understood you right and you are planning to shoot humans modeling for you; I'd suggest switching to flash. - look up the "Strobist" blog for inspiration or get the awesome Nikon controlled wireless systems. - The Chinese version isn't too expensive. Personally I'd even skip the tripod for flashes for convenience.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I think ergonomics also play a role when selecting a camera. While I agree with the idea of going mirrorless, but I don`t find them so comfortable while handholding the camera with a big lens on it, vertical to horizontal, etc. Also, the lack of direct viewfinder, full meter and AF compatibility -I wonder how fast and reliable focus is with a non-sytem lens on this cameras-, etc. I assume that yo<br>

There are many tripods around here, secondhand but new looking, like those entry level Manfrottos (055 tripod and 141 head). They are fairly cheap.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p><em>only with 1" sensors so I'm a noob - </em>Sensor size has got nothing to do with experience ;-) There are extremely gifted and experienced photographers using smaller sensors (smartphones and such) and getting terrific photos.<br>

In my view, the least of your worries here are camera and tripod. Lighting is everything; good portraits, model photos etc. require good lighting and understanding how to set that up. Start there. The best first investment I can think of is the book "Light: Science and Magic" - not the easiest read ever, but it'll teach you fundamentals that will really make the difference.<br>

As for the choice of camera - ergonomics indeed. All cameras are capable of getting the right shots, and nearly all systems have all the lenses you might need, so it's really about what you find comfortable using. Tripod, I'd second the Manfrotto 055 series - not light, but solid. At low cost, avoid ballheads (cheap ballheads are seldom good), the 141 head Jose mentioned is a good place to start and doesn't cost too much.</p>

<p>But light first and foremost. <br>

Without breaking the bank, something that could be worth considering is the Yongnuo flashes (I've got the YN622 radio transceiver with YN622TX trigger and two YN568EX flashes - in my view excellent value for money, but so are the Nissin flashes - they're a lot cheaper than the original brand models). Reflector for outdoor work too, a set of umbrellas and tripods for those... It doesn't need to cost a lot. For continuous light, I have too little experience to comment, but if you'll have a studio space, I'd look into those indeed.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>My problem with continuous light sources is that they aren`t strong enough to work comfortably at right apertures... you need a lot of bulbs to reach decent levels. I cannot imagine a well sized soft box with continuous light inside unless with a load of bulbs. Smallish ones doesn`t need that huge amount of light, but they aren`t really useful to my taste. Maybe I`m missing the good one... :)</p>

<p>I agree that the cheapest and most effective way to illuminate indoors could be using hot-shoe flashes, first with bouncing methods, then with umbrellas. I think a soft box needs a certain size to be really useful, and these use to need a powerful strobe to provide good illumination (=$$$).</p>

<p>I`m sorry I had to go while writing my previous post... I wanted to mean that I assume you will also shoot other scenarios... not only studio portraits. So I think some versatility in the choice of a camera could be interesting.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Hi Josh, welcome to Photo.net,</p>

<p>This is sound advice:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my view, the least of your worries here are camera and tripod. <strong>Lighting is everything</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn’t buy a Tripod at this time if I were you. I don’t understand why you would you need one? Wouldn’t it slow you down achieving the nuance of best angle and viewpoint as the model moved to each new pose?</p>

<p>I wouldn’t buy continuous lighting, either. <br /> Firstly, mostly all of the continuous lighting that you could consider on a tight budget will not allow you to work at reasonable ISO and medium to large Apertures and still provide an adequate Shutter Speed for Studio Portraiture (Model) work.<br /> Secondly, much of the more expensive continuous lighting won’t, either.<br /> Thirdly, mostly all continuous lighting will not be powerful enough to use effectively outdoors. You mentioned that you know little about indoor lighting – you should consider the lighting that you will need outdoors, also.</p>

<p>I also suggest hot-shoe mount Flash Units for your lighting. The Flash units should be totally TTL compatible with the camera that you buy and if they are capable of High Speed Sync then that would be handy. You should investigate Lighting Modifiers. For studio work Umbrellas would be a good (relatively inexpensive) first investment, both shoot-through umbrellas and refection (bounce) umbrellas.</p>

<p>Forget the tripod. BTW - If and when you do buy a Tripod, you need an HEAD for it. (That's an additional purchase.) The TYPE and QUALITY of HEAD that you buy is a more important selection than the tripod. Also for mostly all Studio Portraiture, especially Model Photography, if you were using a Tripod and a Ball Head, then you would need a quick release system, which is another additional cost.</p>

<p>For a camera on a tight budget – I don't see any great advantage in mirror-less or manual focus lenses when a late model entry level DSLR APS-C format, body only especially if you consider second hand, is in the order of only a few hundred dollars and would have Auto Focus (surely that has to be easier and quicker than using Manual Focus Lenses, especially for a novice learning to Photograph Models) and mainstream DSLR's have a range of Lenses for purchase and, maybe, importantly also rent, both for a special job and also to experiment as you build you kit.</p>

<p>For a lens on a budget - a third party Non-Varying F/2.8 Max Aperture Zoom, in the range of a 17mm to 50mm, consider a Tamron, (not the VC version); consider buying second hand.</p>

<p>If you have money left over, then a fast 85 Prime would be suitable to extend your repertoire.</p>

<p>Canon and Nikon, each have camera bodies and also a fast 85 lens at reasonable prices.</p>

<p>Also more important than a tripod would be your studio: its size; its ambient lighting; its wall ceiling and floor colour and finish; it props and backdrops; and its facilities. For one example simple example – if (on APS-C) you want to use 50mm FL for a Full Length Shot of a Standing Model and you are using a backdrop and a soft hair-light above and behind – you’ll need a studio about 26ft (8m) long and with ceilings about 13ft (4m) high.</p>

<p>Allow some of your budget to hire an <strong><em>experienced</em></strong> Model to work with for a few sessions who will be willing to assist you get a portfolio together and provide you with some technical tips during the photographic session. Also I suggest you allocate some funds to get some basic instruction on Studio Flash Lighting - a workshop or short course.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>However, all that stated - you can get up and running with just the camera the zoom lens and one flash unit and a big Bounce Card (you could make one), add to that an Off Camera Cord and a make your own flash stand. You would learn a lot, just using that gear.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>As a beginner, just about any DSLR would do fine, including the D3300 with kit lens you mentioned. If you want to do head and shoulder shots with good "bokeh" (where the background drops out of focus in order to place more emphasis on the subject) you need a longer, faster lens, preferably a 70-200 2.8. But that's an expensive lens, so I would start with something along the lines of what you are looking at. Don't rush out to buy extra gear until you've figured out what you can't do with what you already have.<br /><br />As for lighting, you do not want continuous light. Affordable fluorescent and LED lights simply don't put out enough light to be of much use. Hot lights put out much more light but they are, of course, hot. Most still photographers use flash. Don't buy a big kit -- start with a single flash in an umbrella on a stand. Go to <a href="http://www.strobist.com">www.strobist.com</a> to read up and find links on what to buy at affordable prices.<br /><br />A tripod can be useful but you don't particularly need one for this. </p>

[josh_e]

<p>Thanks a lot for all your input. The reason I was looking for continuous lighting was that you could see the effect of lighting before taking a shot. I quickly went through Strobist's 101. Because flash is instantaneous you have to take a shot to see the effect of the light positioning and adjust it if necessary. And you have to analyze the shot on the small camera LCD. You may have to adjust the exposure or flash intensity as well. I don't know, maybe one gets a handle on it with practice? </p>

<p>The reason I was looking for a tripod was that I'd like my photos to be as sharp as possible. A tripod would also be useful for shooting with low or natural light. But yeah, adjusting the tripod for each shot can be cumbersome. I think I'll leave it for low light photos.<br /> The size of the studio is also something I hadn't thought about. So for example for "boudoir" photography does one need something larger than a normal sized room?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Most strobes have modeling lights that let you see the lighting in advance. Even some speedlights have modeling lights.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thanks for the additional information describing why you were choosing this route.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The reason I was looking for continuous lighting was that you could <strong><em>see the effect of lighting before taking a shot.</em></strong> <em>[With Flash]</em> You may have to adjust the exposure or flash intensity as well. I don't know<strong><em>, maybe one gets a handle on it with practice</em></strong>?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> It occurred to me that one of the overriding criterions of your Opening Post was a tight budget - Hot-shoe Flash Units, aka ‘speedlites’, can be used in the studio and also outside on location and they ae relatively inexpensive especially if you consider third party options.</p>

<p>“gets a handle on it with practice” is one major point – whatever you choose as lighting, you will need to master it.<br /> <br /> If you opted to buy Studio Flash Units, aka ‘Strobes’ then, most of these units will have ”Modelling Lights” the purpose of which I to see the effects of the Flash Lighting. Jeff has mentioned this – also some of the high-end ‘speedlites’ have this facility.</p>

<p>But also, in the Studio and whether using Modelling Lights or not, one might use several test shots anyway; that is also a common procedure to get the lighting is correct, before the actual shoot begins. Often Photographers doing Studio Portraiture will “Shoot Tethered” which mean connecting the Camera to a Monitor (that may be a Computer or a Studio Monitor) to see the results in better detail and to make fine adjustments. One can also “Shoot Tethered” using Continuous Lighting, and in this case the reason is usually to use ”Live View”, but on a bigger and better screen than the camera’s LCD</p>

<p>***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The reason I was looking for a tripod was that I'd like my photos to be as sharp as possible. A tripod would also be useful for shooting with low or natural light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Understood. But I think that you were only taking into account the SHARPNESS of the image with respect to CAMRA MOVEMENT and not taking into account the LACK OF SHARPESS which may result from SUBJECT MOVEMENT. Note that SUBJECT MOVEMNET BLUR, when shooting in CONTINUOUS LIGHT can only be arrested by an adequately fast SHUTTER SPEED.<br /> <br /> ***</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The size of the studio is also something I hadn't thought about. So for example for "boudoir" photography does one need something larger than a normal sized room?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Not necessarily. Boudoir can be shot on location, arguably better if it is, because props and etc. are there already. My example was for a Studio Shoot and a Full Length Shot with the lens and Camera that I mentioned.</p>

<p>“indoors” can mean in a ‘Studio’ or ‘On Location Indoors’ – the two are similar but also have differences – the Studio has to be adapted, if props are required, on the other hand the indoor location is usually selected (as one reason), for the Props that are already there. But in either case, I think that Flash would be easier than Continuous Lighting.</p>

<p>Obviously an Indoor Location Shoot could also be selected for the Available (natural) Light that exists in that location – but then one still has to consider if the light is strong enough to allow an adequately fast SHUTTER SPEED to arrest any SUBJECT MOVEMENT. <br /> <br /> ***<br /> <br /> So you are clear about my meaning and why I have been mentioning SHUTTER SPEED so often when discussing Continuous Lights - and also as an indicative for you: you need enough power from the continuous light to shoot at about a Shutter Speed of 1/125s OR FASTER to be safe and secure that you will have little or no blur (in a good percentage of shots) due to SUBJECT MOVEMENT if you are using an <em><strong>experienced</strong></em> Model who can ‘hold the pose’ when directed. For an <em><strong>inexperienced</strong></em> Adult Model, I like to be at 1/320s or, preferably, faster.</p>

<p>Now, that does not mean that you might not get keepers shooting, with continuous lights, at slower shutter speeds - but the point is using FLASH as the lighting source – the <em><strong>very short duration of the flash</strong></em> “freezes” any SUBJECT MOTION.<br /> <br /> WW</p>

[josh_e]

<p>Thanks a lot for your detailed response. A strobe with modelling light would be great. What I meant by home studio was to use the place I'm living in as a location (sorry for confusing language). It's a descent 2-bedroom, single story detached house and it has windows all around it (most of them either face east or west).</p>

<p>Now a question about buying gear on Ebay: I finally decided to get either a Nikon D5200 for D5300. A new D5300 is $579.00 on ebay:<br /> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-D5300-Digital-SLR-Camera-w-18-55mm-VR-II-AF-S-Nikkor-Lens-/380942534211?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item58b1f1c643<br /> but on Amazon it's for $746.95:<br /> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I1CPA0O/ref=twister_B00PHRVNKM?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1<br /> and the ebay store has 99.5% positive reviews. How is that even possible??</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>"How is that even possible??" re-read the ebay offer.</p>

<ul>

<li>grey import</li>

<li>"Crooklyn"</li>

<li>$120 3 year warranty offered...</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm not American but after a while on photo.net I'd guess those are enough red flags? </p>

 

[josh_e]

<p>OK, I see. Adorama has it refurbished for $510. Now back to the lens, based on what you guys mentioned and what I read around the internet, I thought a higher aperture lens can be useful to have. Searching Amazon I found Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4 DG Aspherical Large Aperture Zoom Lens:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-28-70mm-Aspherical-Aperture-Cameras/dp/B000AYW00Y <br>

<br>

Do you think it can give me an edge over the kit lens? It can be useful for photographing outdoors (with or without model) as well. Has no stabilization though. <br /></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>28mm isn't very wide on a DX/APS sensor dSLR like that Nikon. Look at the Sigma OS 17-50/2.8 or 17-70/2.8-4 instead. Both get very good reviews. If I was in the market for another DX lens for my Nikon I'd choose one of those Sigmas. The 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX Nikkor I've used for 10 years is good, but I need the stabilization for handheld photography in dim lighting.</p>

[josh_e]

<p>Yes, but the kit lens provides as low as 18 mm.</p>