Re: My camera
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:29 pm
It's both a simple and not simple at all thing. Will weigh in later when I can get on the computer...
Yeah, full frame is overkill for just model photography. I use mine for a lot of family pictures as well...JimD wrote:Wow. In English makes it a lot easier to understand. Thanks for taking the time to put that together.
So ideally I think full frame would be ideal overall...however...I just don't think a $1,500 camera is going to fly just so I can get pictures of models that I don't hate.
That's backwards, actually. To find the proper "focal match" for an APS-size sensor, divide by 1.6. So mimicking a 50mm lens would take you to a 31mm lens. My D300s packs a fixed 35mm lens, which is close enough and IMO the best lens you can get for APS-sized DSLRs. It's cheap, too!So my understanding is if I were using a APS sized sensor and wanted to mimic your results I'd want an 80mm lens and a 100 mm lens (since you said you're using a 50 and 60mm...multiplying by 1.6...there isn't a 96mm lens I'm assuming)...and I'd need to be further from the subject to get the same DOF and FOV. (Assuming I'm understanding things correctly.
No, noise won't be an issue. At least the way I shoot (ISO 100, f/22, then make the shutter speed whatever it needs to be). It's more if you're trying to shoot handheld, you can push into higher ISOs without getting grainy trash back. Came in really handy at my son's birthday party when my external flash decided to not work. This was shot at 5000 ISO:Now increased noise is a drawback like you say...but realistically in the parameters of a set up for model photography is that going to be an issue....given a similar lighting setup.
Personally, I'm not a fan of zoom lenses since the added glass can result in some reduced sharpness. That and they're never anywhere near as fast. I prefer fixed focal length/prime/whatever you want to call them lenses. Less glass, they're generally ultra-sharp, they're very fast, small, light. They're also almost always rather affordable, especially when you look at lenses designed for APS-sized sensors.Are there any inherent drawbacks to variable lenses that would reduce image quality etc?
Not a dumb question at all. More megapixels are not always better. In fact, for most use cases, they can actually be worse.And one really dumb question....megapixels...seems intuitive that more is always better...but in the off chance I'll ask...go with as many as you can get? (Not that that seems to be cost prohibitive...it's just weird that I'm seeing DSLRs with lower megapixels pushing much higher prices than some with higher...though I'm sure there are other differences...but I'm looking at this on a very superficial level at the moment.)