D90 for pro photography

[R1chy11]

Just wandering if people feel the D90 is good enough for pro photography, I'm not a pro myself but a few friends want portfolio shots and have asked me to do them for them. I currently have a d40 but would like to upgrade.

[thehawk]

Even the cheapest Nikon is good enough for pro-photography if it's just portraits, it's you lenses which will give you better pictures and lighting.

[lowdrag]

The lens and lighting are certainly the key here especially if we are talking studio work. If on a tight budget look at the 85mm f1.8 or if feeling richer the f1.4 as a start - those will give you that wonderful effect called bokeh where the object is in focus but the background blurred. I do a lot of candid work as a hobby and find f2.8 quite enough though for what I need and many a time the D3 is set to 7mp and not the full 12mp.

[Simpo Two]

If they are friends looking for portfolio shots then even a humble D40 will be fine - far more important IMO is your skill with it, lighting and processing.

Big apertures are great but such shallow DOF can be tricky to manage. The mugshots I did last week were at f2 and that was about right for the job.

[RobDickinson]

As said D40 will be fine, you just need the location & lighting and a decent lens.

[Nick M]

lowdrag said:

The lens and lighting are certainly the key here especially if we are talking studio work. If on a tight budget look at the 85mm f1.8 or if feeling richer the f1.4 as a start - those will give you that wonderful effect called bokeh where the object is in focus but the background blurred. I do a lot of candid work as a hobby and find f2.8 quite enough though for what I need and many a time the D3 is set to 7mp and not the full 12mp.

Just to add that some of the old manual focus lenses are well worth looking for, such as the 105mm f2.5 AIS lens. Can be had on ebay for about £120 for a really good example, and it's a wonderful portrait lens.

Just check which camera bodies it meters with, but I *think* the D40 is one of them.

[Elderly]

Nick M said:

lowdrag said:

If on a tight budget look at the 85mm f1.8 or if feeling richer the f1.4 as a start - those will give you that wonderful effect called bokeh where the object is in focus but the background blurred.

Just to add that some of the old manual focus lenses are well worth looking for, such as the 105mm f2.5 AIS lens. Can be had on ebay for about £120 for a really good example, and it's a wonderful portrait lens.

Don't forget that these are FX (full frame) lenses, so multiply the focal lengths by 1.5 when using a Nikon DX camera and
IMO the 105 (recently sold my mouldy example) would become too long for a true portrait lens, and an 85 would become marginal.

[SamHH]

Elderly said:

Don't forget that these are FX (full frame) lenses, so multiply the focal lengths by 1.5 when using a Nikon DX camera and
IMO the 105 (recently sold my mouldy example) would become too long for a true portrait lens, and an 85 would become marginal.

Portraiture is so open to the photographer's interpretation that I think almost any focal length is suitable. I've got a 105mm lens that I think is great for portraiture on a small sensor camera.

[Nick M]

Elderly said:

Nick M said:

lowdrag said:

If on a tight budget look at the 85mm f1.8 or if feeling richer the f1.4 as a start - those will give you that wonderful effect called bokeh where the object is in focus but the background blurred.

Just to add that some of the old manual focus lenses are well worth looking for, such as the 105mm f2.5 AIS lens. Can be had on ebay for about £120 for a really good example, and it's a wonderful portrait lens.

Don't forget that these are FX (full frame) lenses, so multiply the focal lengths by 1.5 when using a Nikon DX camera and
IMO the 105 (recently sold my mouldy example) would become too long for a true portrait lens, and an 85 would become marginal.

Just take a few steps back

The 85mm and 105mm (and the 135mm lens too) tend to be categorised as 'portrait' lenses because of the way the focal length produces a pleasant or flattering image by foreshortening the features and not making features like big noses stand out.

You have to change your perspective to get the same sized head if you use a 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm lens, but the closer you are, the bigger features like noses and ears appear to be. They're not, it's just a product of perspective.

Probably a really crap explanation, but it's about how the brain sees faces and the like, and what it finds pleasing to the eye.

[Elderly]

SamHH said:

Elderly said:

Don't forget that these are FX (full frame) lenses, so multiply the focal lengths by 1.5 when using a Nikon DX camera and
IMO the 105 (recently sold my mouldy example) would become too long for a true portrait lens, and an 85 would become marginal.

Portraiture is so open to the photographer's interpretation that I think almost any focal length is suitable. I've got a 105mm lens that I think is great for portraiture on a small sensor camera.

As Nick M quite rightly says: "it's about how the brain sees faces and the like" - it's for this reason the 85 mm to 105 mm lenses fulfil that criterion of a 'Portrait lens'; but of course you can can take a portrait with any lens .... it doesn't have to be with a 'correct' portrait lens.