Looking to bring my phtotgraphy to the next level

[bethanyanna]

I have always enjoyed photography. I can't remember a time in my life when I didn't have a camera!
I currently have a point and shoot Sony Cybershot. It does good, for what it is. But now that I have children, I really want to hone my skills. I can take decent stills and landscapes all day long, but I want to get nice portraits without having to pay a photographer.

So I've been doing some research, and I think I've narrowed my search to the Canon EOS 7D. It seems to have gotten pretty good reviews, and it looks like it would be a nice middle of the road camera to get my feet wet with.

I think I read that it shoots in RAW, but I honestly am not going to even pretend that I know what that means. lol

So before I go drop a grand on a camera, I would love some feedback!

Thanks for the help!!

[jazzman1]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

You specifically mentioned wanting something nicer for portraits.  Of course any camera can take a "portrait" (even a phone), so when someone mentions wanting something "nicer" it occurs to me that you might be thinking of the effect in which the subject has tack-sharp focus and yet the background is beautifully blurred.  

A 50mm lens can do this, but the effect isn't particularly strong.  It's much stronger with an 85mm lens and anything over 100mm does very well -- and all of this assumes a low focal ratio.  One of my favorites is my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with the focal length out near 200mm and the focal ratio down near f/2.8 or f/4.  I also use an EF 135mm f/2 lens which has an intensely strong effect.

The variable focal ratio zooms (like the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6) don't have a very strong effect because as you zoom to the longer focal lengths, the focal ratio increases to f/5.6 -- which isn't very low.

The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM can do this, but you'll need to zoom to the 105mm focal length, use the f/4 aperture (at f/4) place your subject very close to the camera, and make sure the background is quite a bit beyond your focused subject.  The longer the focal length of the lens and the lower the focal ratio, the stronger the effect is.

---

Tim thanks much, you've stated this subject in plain terms that I now clearly understand.  And I had no idea my 24-105L f4  was good for portraits.   I thought my 50mm f1.4 was better.

[ebiggs1]

"So would it be bad if I just started with the 28-135 mm Kit that comes on the camera out of the box first? Which lens would gain me the most usability when it comes to portraits?

"For a general use camera I would choose the 70D over the classic 7D"

... that's kinda the point... I'm not looking for something general use. I really looking to bring my photography to the "next level". I'm looking to be able to create professional quality portraits."

Let's take these in order.  The EF28-135mm is a fine lens and you can be happy with it forever.  The EF 24-105mm f4 is a better lens.  The big difference is the build quality.  The latter is a "L" lens and designed as a pro level lens.  Either will do a good job on portraits.

The which one do you choose, the 70D over the 7D is also basicly down to build quality.  The 7D is built more like a pro body.  The 70D is a enthusists level camera.  Of course there are some features that each bring to the table but the photos, or portraits, either produces will be similar.

"I'm looking to be able to create professional quality portraits."

A point that has been over looked is the crop factor.  A 50mm lens on either camera will appear like a 80mm lens does.  If you are going to use millimeters a the measureing factor, you must multiply it by 1.6x.  50mm x 1.6 = 80mm.  This menas the 50mm lens will do a fine job for portraits on the 70D or 7D.  Likewise the 28-135mm or the 24-105mm has 50mm inside its zoom range!  Right?   Except for the wider aperture they will provide the exact same picture as the 'prime' 50mm does.

A 70-200mm does not include 50mm does it?  It will be too long for use on a 70D or 7D for portraits.

The bottom line is the 70D and the 28-135mm will do as you want.  If you feel you want a more pro level built in your camera the 7D and 24-105mm is the choice.  The results of either combo is going to be very similar.  IMHO, I would go for thr 7D and EF2 24-105mm f4 but that is me.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

A point that has been over looked is the crop factor.  A 50mm lens on either camera will appear like a 80mm lens does.  If you are going to use millimeters a the measureing factor, you must multiply it by 1.6x.  50mm x 1.6 = 80mm.  This menas the 50mm lens will do a fine job for portraits on the 70D or 7D.  Likewise the 28-135mm or the 24-105mm has 50mm inside its zoom range!  Right?   Except for the wider aperture they will provide the exact same picture as the 'prime' 50mm does.

A 70-200mm does not include 50mm does it?  It will be too long for use on a 70D or 7D for portraits.

---

At or near the wide end, the 70-200 is a perfectly good portrait lens on a crop-frame camera. I've used it often for candid portraits on a 7D.

I'm not sure how the 70-200 got into this discussion, but there it is.

[ebiggs1]

"I'm not sure how the 70-200 got into this discussion, but there it is."

Ahh, this.....

"One of my favorites is my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with the focal length out near 200mm and the focal ratio down near f/2.8 or f/4."

On a crop this lens is just a tad bit too long.   At 112 to 320mm?  You think that is a good protrait length?  To each his own I guess.

[ebiggs1]

My EF 70-200mm f2.8 is my very favorite portrait lens on my FF bodies, BTW.  Not on a cropper.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"I'm not sure how the 70-200 got into this discussion, but there it is."

Ahh, this.....

"One of my favorites is my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with the focal length out near 200mm and the focal ratio down near f/2.8 or f/4."

On a crop this lens is just a tad bit too long.   At 112 to 320mm?  You think that is a good protrait length?  To each his own I guess.

---

When I was using a film Nikon, my portrait lens was a 135mm prime. Some people preferred 90mm or 105mm, but I thought the 135 worked just fine for the purpose.

Today, of course, with a variety of zooms available for my 7D's and mmy 5D3, I wouldn't use a 70-200 for portraits except in a large room when I can't get close. But if I didn't have a 24-105, I think I could make do with the 70-200.

[ebiggs1]

Well there ya go.  I still have my FD 135mm f2 and FD 85mm f1.2.  I considered the 85 vastly superior to the 135 for protraits.  It is still a fabulous piece of glass.  My home studio was not big enough to really use the 135 comfortably.  It is a fantastic lens though.  But there is just something about f1.2.

I talk to many photographers that now have gone to the EF 70-200mm f2.8 as THE goto portrait lens and I can't say I don't disagree.  It just may be the best so far!

[jazzman1]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

"One of my favorites is my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with the focal length out near 200mm and the focal ratio down near f/2.8 or f/4."

---

---

If I understood correctly, the point of the discussion was which lens produced the "better bokeh" for portraits.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

"One of my favorites is my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with the focal length out near 200mm and the focal ratio down near f/2.8 or f/4."

---

---

If I understood correctly, the point of the discussion was which lens produced the "better bokeh" for portraits.

---

It wasn't I who said that. and I don't think it represents my opinion very well. I do think the 70-200 has its uses a a portrait lens, but I'd use it that way at its long end only under rather special circumstances.

[jazzman1]

I agree , I would use all the lens with capability over 100mm mentioned, at the long end also.  I know I can use the 50 or 85mm focal point with my 24-105 L.... But I had not heard before that my 24-105 L would be good for portraits, at the 105mm focal point for better bokeh.  That was good to hear.  I will test this out...soon as I can get a subject to work with. 

BTW...I know that quote was not from you, I just used it to make my point, since you used it in your message.