craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

Just a little reminder to you avengine - your camera does not have a focus motor to drive lenses without such motor. So if you want autofocus with any lens, regardless of manufacturer, make sure you are looking at FX lenses which have their own built-in focus motor.

dickwilber Loc: Indiana (currently)

Wow, how esoteric! And how unrelated to portrait photography. 1) I'm using Nikon lenses with great fat "sweet spots"; 2) I may need to defocus or use a diffusion filter to obtain the most attractive portrait of my subject (obscure the pores and blemishes). Your argument is strong, and persuasive, for document copy, and similar uses where exacting precision is important, but not for portraiture. My statement stands: "It ain't the format, it's the photographer!"

I have great respect for Hasselblad, their technology is second to none. I have sat through presentations by Hasselblad Reps and don't remember discussion of the circle of acceptable focus being a primary issue. They did emphasize their square format for viewing and for versatility, cropping easily to either horizontal or vertical.

I'd love to follow up on your argument, that the APS-c format provides some image quality advantage, but I don't believe this thread is the place. The question that started this was which format would give kwbybee the best portraits. And I stand firm: the format kwbybee has! Worry about lighting, posing, etc., etc., not format!

Doyle Thomas Loc: Vancouver Washington ~ USA

it relates to all Photography and I am not talking about depth of field I am talking about curve of field. I agree that its not the format but rather the Photographer. this is an issue we can all agree on and the basics are always worth repeating.

all the books refer to the "image circle" as two dimensional but optically the "image sphere" is three. this is why wide angle close up Portraits distort and are in general unflattering. for that reason I don't think I was that far off topic (hate when that happens!)

dickwilber Loc: Indiana (currently)

Yes, the "image plane" is curved, though not exactly a spherical segment with modern lenses using aspherical elements, et al. (And I misspoke when I wrote of the "circle of acceptable focus". Sorry, I shouldn't try to think that deep into the night.) There is loss of acuity, as well as light fall off, the further you get from the center of the image with all lenses. Even Blads. This however, is not the reason for the apparent distortion using wide angle lenses for portraiture. It is geometry, the nearer parts of the subject are proportionately much nearer than those further away, disproportionately enlarging those nearer elements. This is demonstrated by comparing two photos each with two people at differing distances from the camera shot at different focal lengths - photographing them close to the nearer one so that he appears fairly large with a wide angle lens will magnify the distance between them, and if you use a telephoto, moving so the nearer subject appears the same size as in the other photo, the apparent distance between them will be compressed.

But this begs the question whether using just the center portion of an FX lens in a DX camera, will give you a discernibly better image than using the same lens on an FX camera with the same pixel count (i.e, a D7100 vs a D600). I don't know. I'd love to explore that further, but I think it should be in a dedicated thread. I've enjoyed this exchange of thoughts, Doyle Thomas

amehta Loc: Boston

Looking at the DxOMark for the

* Nikon 85mm f/1.8: D7100/30, D610/38
* Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII: D7100/23, D610/28

The full frame is clearly better. While they have the same number of pixels, the D600 has larger pixels, by a factor of 2.25. This means more light per pixel, and therefore better images. Basically, pixel size trumps image circle/sphere issues.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Based on my limited experience in both fields of portraits and weddings, I think it fair to say most portrait and wedding photographers prefer FF for the majority of their shots, especially in a staged setting. Conversely, have seen crop sensors used for a more candid style, but I personally have seen the cropped sensor more by the second or third shooter. I also think either works, but have to give the edge to FF on this particular topic.

amehta Loc: Boston

If the second or third shooter is using a cropped sensor, I wonder if that main reason is anything other than cost?

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

IMO, for good portraits, more important than camera/format/lens choice is your skill with people. FX/DX/Medium Format/8x10 View Camera are all fully competent as the camera. But all will produce crap if you cannot connect with your subject and elicit a good expression with a reasonably flattering pose/positioning.

The #1 determining factor on your subject's satisfaction is their expression. A good pose and positioning is second. A great pose with a lousy expression will lose to a great expression in a so-so pose. Poor lens choice (too wide, too close) can ruin the best expression by distortion.

All this tech talk about FX and DX and spherical stuff has little to NO bearing on getting a good portrait. Following all the advice above can get you a technically perfect - but unusable - image if you do not pay attention to the personal side.

amehta Loc: Boston

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Never asked.

dickwilber Loc: Indiana (currently)

The answer is yes. Of course, in the Nikon line, full frame digiyal is a relatively recent offering (unless you count the Kodak/Nikons at the start of the digital era).

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I do not think it is "more important", but I will agree that skill with people is "as important" and as critical as the choice of camera, lens, lighting etc. I do not think a particular format is critical in many cases. I respect your views, but remain unsold as is my choice. I do not think all formats are competent for all intended uses for the average photographer or for most professionals for that matter. I think the whole point is whether to embrace technology and make it easier and faster with less negative impact to the photographer and subject(s). Yes, you can probably do it all with a pinhole camera, but the question for me is why should I have to when so many better options are available? I include not only cameras, but lenses, lights, backdrops if used, as well as expressions and position. I do agree on the importance of expression. Good post.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Wel, I did not mean to imply ANY format - pinhole? :-) - but the standard stuff - APS, FX, DX, 4/3, 5x7, 8x10, medium format. Within those, as long as you choose an appropriate lens for the effect you are going for, I still think expression beats the body/lens choice since any of those can deliver an image with decent color, WB, and focus. Of course we have to assume the operator knows how to actually USE the equipment. :-)

You are 100% correct about background. I have seen lots of decent images ruined by the inattention to background. Mostly by the new "natural light, lifestyle" photographers in which the subject is underexposed and the background is WAAAY brighter - or too busy - or too dark, or bad color, etc.


Oh yeah -Hurray Broncos!

amehta Loc: Boston

I think everyone here would say that good lighting and composition are necessary for a good portrait.

The question is about a pretty small difference in sensor size, and many of us are saying that doesn't matter much.

amehta Loc: Boston

:-)