Reasonable camera for portraits

[Michael C.]

I am an decent amateur with a couple good bridge cameras (Sony RX10IV, Nikon P1000, etc.). They serve me well for the stuff I like to do. BUT, a friend recently asked me if I would take some portrait shots of her and her dogs. I really don’t do portrait photography, and don’t have much of an interest in it, and none of my cameras are very good at getting really creamy bokeh effects unless you’re doing macro. Bridge cameras just don’t have large enough sensors or the right lenses for that.

However…I’d like something that would be good for the occasional portrait that won’t  completely bankrupt me. Can I get anything, used would be fine, that would be around $300-500 bucks? I read an old post (2011) that suggested something like a Canon 1000D body and a Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 lens.” I  see you can get a 1000D dirt cheap on eBay, and probably a used lens too, but I want to ask people here what might be a better idea considering that the Canon 1000D is a pretty old camera. Any suggestions would be really appreciated! I don’t care if you suggest a camera that is a total one-trick pony, as long as that trick is what I’m looking for. It would be nice to have something that would do decent portraits, with the ever popular bokeh effect that everyone is crazy about, that would not break the bank.

Thanks!

Michael

[rodeo_joe1]

8 hours ago, Michael C. said:

and none of my cameras are very good at getting really creamy bokeh effects unless you’re doing macro. Bridge cameras just don’t have large enough sensors or the right lenses for that.

You've probably been reading too many geeky photo forums, and been influenced into believing that 'bokeh' is the be-all and end-all of portrait photography. It's not. 

Choose a non distracting background - maybe shooting from a high viewpoint onto an autumn leaf-covered lawn, for example - and the need for background blur largely goes away. 

Also, shooting at the telephoto end of the Zoom range will throw the background out of focus sufficiently. 

The camera is only part of getting a 'creamy' out-of-focus background in any case. You'd also have to budget for a wide aperture lens of moderately long focal length. The small aperture kit zoom supplied with a cheap DSLR ain't going to cut it.

Plus, working with a very narrow depth-of-field is a skill in itself. The lens doesn't do all the work for you. 

What I'm basically saying is that if you change your idea of what makes for a good portrait - expression, rapport with the subject, nice light, environmental involvement, etc. - then you'll find that your bridge cameras are probably all you need. 

And if you want a soft background it can easily be blurred out using a fairly basic image editor.

Edited October 27, 2022 by rodeo_joe1

[Michael C.]

Thank you for your reply!

[Dustin McAmera]

I don't do portraits either, but one of the very few things I know is that people often choose a longer-than-standard lens. It allows you to fill the frame without having to put the camera close up to the sitter's face, which may prevent them from relaxing. I can imagine this being particularly so with a dog.
I have the EF 50/1.8 which I use on an APS-C mirrorless camera. On the APS-C format, it is a reasonable 'portrait-length' lens, giving an equivalent view to an 80 mm on full-frame. It's convenient that it's one of the cheapest EF lenses. It's worth putting a hood on it.

Regarding background, I don't think your friend is going to be interested in the texture of out-of-focus areas. I'd look for a background that's relevant to the sitters: the garden where your friend often sits with the dogs, or some place where they walk; and fit your depth of field to keep that background recognisable, though out of focus. In a family photo, the background may add to the value of the photo in later years, when they've maybe moved on from that house.

Good luck!

 

 

[Tony Parsons]

Occasionally while out I meet dogs and their people - they are always happy to be photographed, and usually the humans don't object either. The problem I find is preventing the animal's natural curiosity making them try to climb into the camera via the lens - it can take up to 20 minutes for the pooch to calm down, and meanwhile the human (very short attention span, most of them) gets bored and starts fidgeting. When successful, I offer to e-mail the images to them (free), but so many refuse, even if I give them my card. 

[LensofNature]

On 10/26/2022 at 8:29 PM, Michael C. said:

none of my cameras are very good at getting really creamy bokeh effects unless you’re doing macro. Bridge cameras just don’t have large enough sensors or the right lenses for that

I don't feel confident in my skills at portrait photography, and have not had many opportunities to practice.  My Canon Rebel T6 has it's limitations also; however, due to a lack of understanding of lenses, I bought an 85 mm for another purpose, and found it was especially designed for portraiture.  It takes lovely close up shots with nice blurred backgrounds.  I would suggest also placing equal priority to focusing on the subjects eyes and being mindful of backlighting that could put your model in shadow and maybe cause blown highlights from the sky/trees.   

[glen_h]

There are plenty of not so old, but good enough, DSLRs out there.

And available for very reasonable prices.

Zoom lens prices seem to go down faster than fixed focal length, but for many it isn't so bad.

 

I suspect more important than equipment is practice and such.

Even more is the artistic side, which is mostly independent of equipment.

[mikemorrellNL]

Not sure about this. One the one hand there are some good used DSLR's around. On Adorama, used Canon EOS 5D mk ii (full-frame) DSLR's are retailing at $200. I still use the older 5D btw.  2nd hand lenses (Canon, Tamron, Sigma) in the typical 'portrait' range (70mm - 200mm) look to be about $150-$250. So both within your budget. You can probably add a 50mm or short zoom lens quite cheaply too.

On the other hand, the cameras you already have might be good enough (with the right location and some creative thinking) to get 'good enough' outdoor portraits.  This video might help in deciding.

 

[SCL]

With proper lighting, posing, and background your present camera/s can do a reasonably good job. I'd just add that a tripod, if you don't already have one, could be a good addition, and make certain photographs better especially if using slower shutter speeds. Depending on what your client expects with her dogs, you really probably have lots of latitude. Years ago I was prepping for a portrait shot of a client's daughter and her dog, and took a couple of "toss away"  shots in advance of the setup to put the daughter at ease. The client loved this "toss away" shot despite distracting background and other faults, and preferred it over ones in the formal setup. So get an idea of client expectations....they may be different than yours.