On what cameras can you maually set the distance accurately?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If I want to be sure to get the eye pupil pin sharp on portraits, do I need
a pro SLR, or are there any fixed lens prosumer cameras, a little compacter,
still with total control?
/per

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:29:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>per wrote:
>> If I want to be sure to get the eye pupil pin sharp on portraits, do
>> I need a pro SLR, or are there any fixed lens prosumer cameras, a
>> little compacter, still with total control?
>> /per
>
>Do you want to measure the distance with a ruler, or simply be sure the
>camera is correctly focussed?

I'd guess it's sharp focus he wants, regardless of method.

Wanting the pupil in focus as apposed to the eye or entire face is
rather strange. I guess he knows a girl with pretty pupils, but a
mediocre eye or something :-)

He needs a manual focus DLSR with nice glass. Also possibly a black
sheet with a hole cut in it to mask the other facial features if they
are visually offensive in some way.

Or just forget the focus, shoot at f22 and then do some serious
light-vignetting in Photoshop to fade-to-white everything but the
pupil in question.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Friday 25 February 2005 13:55, per wrote:

> If I want to be sure to get the eye pupil pin sharp on portraits, do I
> need a pro SLR, or are there any fixed lens prosumer cameras, a little
> compacter, still with total control?

Most of the better AF P&S's allow you to "hold" focus, while recomposing
by keeping the shutter release depressed slightly. A real pain, by the
way. This way you can place the focusing reticle on your subject's eye
to focus, then recompose after the focusing is complete.

I know of NO digital P&S that has accurate manual focus. The fixed lens
SLR pro-sumer cameras can be accurately focused manually. They will
even "beep" when accurate focus is achieved, but for what they cost,
I'd just go with a DSLR and use manual focus. This method for either
film or digital works everytime, and has worked reliably for over a 100
years.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nesredep egrob wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:11:01 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
> <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> per wrote:
>>> If I want to be sure to get the eye pupil pin sharp on portraits, do
>>> I need a pro SLR, or are there any fixed lens prosumer cameras, a
>>> little compacter, still with total control?
>>> /per
>>
>> I strongly suggest s DSLR with say a 50mm 1.4 lens. Great combo
>> for traditional portrait work.
>>
>> The DSLR will allow you to see the real image clearly. I have
>> never seen an electronic display that is going to give you the kind
>> of display you need for what you want.
>
> Silly me. There was I going to answer 120-150mm was the perfect
> portrait lens, at least that was so when I went to school some 70
> years ago.

70 years ago, that should have been 150 - 200. (4X5) 120 might have
been good on a 2¼ but not many people were using them for portraits 70 years
ago. They cam in about 40 years ago. :-)

>
> I realise that there is a timeshift but the only thing that has
> happened in reality is that we have changed to digital and that I
> should move back a bit and set my S1 on 10x optical zoom and wide open
> aperture and we are nearly back to the days of film.
>
> Borge, Perth
> Pentium P4 2.4Ghz, 1 Gb memory, 600 GB space
> Olympus 2100UZ, Pentax Optio S, Canon S1.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

My old Olympus C3030 3MP has manual focus only available numerically in
the control menu. There is a slider bar in feet or meters.


per wrote:

> If I want to be sure to get the eye pupil pin sharp on portraits, do I need
> a pro SLR, or are there any fixed lens prosumer cameras, a little compacter,
> still with total control?
> /per
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A 50mm f/1.4 might give you really shallow plane of focus wide open,
but one can achieve the same shallow plane simply by using a fast
telephoto lens!!! 50mm is a little too short for portraiture because
you have to get so close to the subject for anything but full length
portrait that it causes perspective distortion when you want just head
and shoulders...the face is made to look much rounder by the close
viewpoint of the shoot. 100mm-135mm was considered ideal for 35mm
format for proper perspective of waist-up portraits and 150mm was good
for the tight headshots. With the smaller format sensor of digital
with APS size, that puts you into about 65mm-90mm

--Wilt

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:wzWTd.23825$8B3.12828@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Stefan Patric wrote:
> []
> > I know of NO digital P&S that has accurate manual focus.
>
> You should check out the manual focus on the Panasonic FZ20, then. I hear
> good reports of some Sony models as well, but I haven't tried these
> myself.

Manual focus was possible but a bear on the F707 (but it was useful for
macros of static subjects). But I really liked the point that you could set
the focus distance to a specific distance manually and accurately, something
you can't do on dSLRs.

> This particular Panasoniz camera also has an f/2.8 lens which will be
> helpful for shallow depth-of-field portraits.

Well, it's a tiny sensor, so it has about the same DOF as f/11 or so at the
same effective focal length on an APS-C dSLR...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bruce Graham" <jbgraham@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8b0eaddde1d784989840@news.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <cvpfnd$9tv$1@nnrp.gol.com>, davidjl@gol.com says...
> > > This particular Panasoniz camera also has an f/2.8 lens which will be
> > > helpful for shallow depth-of-field portraits.
> >
> > Well, it's a tiny sensor, so it has about the same DOF as f/11 or so at
the
> > same effective focal length on an APS-C dSLR...
> >
> In a brief play, I got some apparently OK results by working at a greater
> distance than usual OOF looked OK. The IS let me do that.

Yes. I usually remember/bother to point out that at 200mm equivalent, the
DOF at f/11 on a dSLR (or f/16 on a full-frame) isn't all that wide. The
difficulty of getting selective focus with dcams is _somewhat_ overblown.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

wilt wrote:
> A 50mm f/1.4 might give you really shallow plane of focus wide open,
> but one can achieve the same shallow plane simply by using a fast
> telephoto lens!!!

True, but few people use telephoto for portraits that tends to make the
image flat and lifeless IMO. .

> 50mm is a little too short for portraiture because
> you have to get so close to the subject for anything but full length
> portrait

This is a digital newsgroup. Typically there is a factor of about 1.5
(dependent on the sensor size) so a 50 mm lens would have the equivalent
perspective as a 75 mm on a full frame 35 mm. 75mm might be considered a
little long (flat) by some photographers, including me.

> that it causes perspective distortion when you want just head
> and shoulders...the face is made to look much rounder by the close
> viewpoint of the shoot. 100mm-135mm was considered ideal for 35mm
> format for proper perspective of waist-up portraits and 150mm was good
> for the tight headshots.

Not in my view. I would go with 65 - 90 as ideal. (BTW normal for 35
mm is closer to 47mm than 50)

The choice is not one of right or wrong; it is a mater of artistic
choice. Neither your recommendation nor mine should be taken as a rule, only
a suggestion or starting point. The photographer should chose for
themselves.

I believe it has been good that you have introduced this issue and
allowed for more detailed information on the matter of focal length choice.

> With the smaller format sensor of digital
> with APS size, that puts you into about 65mm-90mm
>
> --Wilt

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I thought I would check in and see if I got some answers, and boy did I
ever, thanks all you guys.
Anyway, I have tried a few point and shoot cameras and am quite familiar
with the press halfway method and such. Too often they don't focus exactly
where I want it and I begin to get a bit tired of that. And I don't want to
measure with a ruler, but really see whats going on. Seems like I need to go
the DSLR route after all. I have historically used a Konica Autoreflex and
while I am often happy with the outdoor pics now with the digitals,
portraits are absolutely unsatisfactory so far.