# Cannon v Nikon in respect to Portraits



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

I know a good photographer can take good pictures once learning whatever his tool is.  And I'd rather not have the thread go in that direction.

Having talked to and seen some local photogs works, I am noticing that most of the portrait shooters use cannon.  I am wondering about some of the pros takes on that here in our online community.

Am I just seeing a favored trend locally, or is cannon equipment better suited for portraiture?  I am curious as to personal experience not read knowledge.


----------



## Marcelle (Jun 21, 2012)

it is not the camera that makes the photo, it is the optics.
in portrait you choose a small tele, 85 or 105mm to get a blurry background
light is also very important
do you intend to take portrait in studio or natural light ? 
anyway I would advise to get a decent reflector (like lastolite) or to make one by yourself, just for uncluttering the shadows


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

hrm....I didn't exactly say the body was the question.  I guess I could have specified more the lenses...but since you dont have nikon lenses on cannon bodies, one would assume bodies are of topic.

and well...Yeah...lighting is important...so are reflectors....I am not sure what other qualifiers I should put out there so they are not brought up as an answer to a what I thought was a pretty basic question...Do Cannon setups favor portraiture over Nikon setups.  I only ask because it is what I am seeing physically being used...not because of what has been told to me or what I have read or anything like that.


----------



## Marcelle (Jun 21, 2012)

personally I had great results with my micro nikkor 105 in studio portraits but it is quite a hard lens
for now I use my canon 70-200 zoom and I am very satisfied about it
I guess you know the aperture rule for males and females in "classic portrait"
for women you use a big aperture to reduce the skin details while doing the opposite for men


----------



## Overread (Jun 21, 2012)

It's most likely a local trend - however Canon did have some head start for portrait work in the 5D camera body. In its time it was the cheapest fullframe 35mm camera body on the market and very much in a league of its own. Whilst its AF was nothing special, for studio and portrait work it gave the photographer a more affordable option to the fullframe market - so I can well see many who would have jumped on the bandwaggon and used it and gone for Canon (and as a result remained with the Canon line).


Honestly though, outside of some very specific requirements I doubt that there is any great Canon or Nikon bonus in portrait photography. Each brand has a very full line of highgrade lenses of both own and 3rd party brands on offer as well as lighting setups and the rest. Any brand preference is either going to be simple bias or might reflect very specific desires on the part of the photographer (eg somephotographers want a certain "look" that some lenses can give which others can't).


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

Marcelle said:


> personally I had great results with my micro nikkor 105 in studio portraits but it is quite a hard lens
> for now I use my canon 70-200 zoom and I am very satisfied about it
> I guess you know the aperture rule for males and females in "classic portrait"
> for women you use a big aperture to reduce the skin details while doing the opposite for men



I am not interested in this thread becoming  a thread on the best way to shoot portraits.  Sorry if that comes across as rude...but in both your replies you are giving advice on how to take portraits.

I am simply looking for personal experience of people having used both companies equipment and which they liked better and why, I have not met personally any nikon portrait shooters yet...so I'm very curious.

You also stated that you shot nikon and now cannon.  So I'll ask...do you prefer Cannon and why or why not?


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

Overread said:


> It's most likely a local trend - however Canon did have some head start for portrait work in the 5D camera body. In its time it was the cheapest fullframe 35mm camera body on the market and very much in a league of its own. Whilst its AF was nothing special, for studio and portrait work it gave the photographer a more affordable option to the fullframe market - so I can well see many who would have jumped on the bandwaggon and used it and gone for Canon (and as a result remained with the Canon line).



That makes sense...so the local trend could simply be affordability...I had not thought of that...I instantly went to looking into quality vs. price.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 21, 2012)

I've never seen anyone shooting photos with a cannon... But I choose to shoot photos with my Canon cameras.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 21, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> I've never seen anyone shooting photos with a cannon... But I choose to shoot photos with my Canon cameras.



I dont want to go to prison.


----------



## orb9220 (Jun 21, 2012)

Yep as mentioned by Overread Canon has deeper market pentration and much more advertising. As a results will see 3 or 4to1 kind of thing on canon vs. nikon. As Nikon had less choices for full frame. As both can deliver the goods with right glass and setup for lighting.

For me when it came to deciding went and handled both. As things like handling,feel button and menu layout can have a significant impact on an individuals use. Not that one is better than the other except in regards to the individual. And I prefered the ergonomics and button and menu layout on the Nikon significantly better for my style.

With Nikon coming out with Full Frame D600 and used D700 will make the choice harder for an individual.
.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 21, 2012)

OMG!!!! I bought the wrong gear!!!!

This thread is going to offer you what?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 21, 2012)

OP, is this a Troll thread you're hoping goes out of con-Troll


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> OMG!!!! I bought the wrong gear!!!!
> 
> This thread is going to offer you what?



Insight on personal experience with the different brands that people have, as I have limited experience with nikon thus far and zero experience with canon.

It also answers a curiosity I had after seeing a lot of canon shooters lately doing portrait work and very little nikon.

Your reply, however, has offered me nothing.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> OP, is this a Troll thread you're hoping goes out of con-Troll



I thought I was very clear in my question...

and where else to ask personal preference than on a forum with people who use the gear I am asking about....

screw it, I won't ask questions when I have thoughts or curiosities on here...I'll just hang out in the galleries and look at pictures like a good troll.  You guys are being kinda being dicks lately.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

orb9220 said:


> Yep as mentioned by Overread Canon has deeper market pentration and much more advertising. As a results will see 3 or 4to1 kind of thing on canon vs. nikon. As Nikon had less choices for full frame. As both can deliver the goods with right glass and setup for lighting.
> 
> For me when it came to deciding went and handled both. As things like handling,feel button and menu layout can have a significant impact on an individuals use. Not that one is better than the other except in regards to the individual. And I prefered the ergonomics and button and menu layout on the Nikon significantly better for my style.
> 
> ...



That's why I chose my nikon over the canon I was looking at when I got mine...it just felt better, I figured both at entry levels were the same in regards to quality.  I was just really curious seeing all the canon gear as of late.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 21, 2012)

If you shoot people with a cannon, have a look here:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/288651-dead-tanks-machine-gun.html

No, seriously, a friend of mine would not recommend Canon or Nikon for portrait work, but a Linhof! And seeing his recent work, I think he must be right!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 21, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > OP, is this a Troll thread you're hoping goes out of con-Troll
> ...



Wow, next time act like everyone is all serious


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 21, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Wow, next time act like everyone is all serious



You were all wrong, I am the troll in this thread!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 21, 2012)

lmao


----------



## Overread (Jun 21, 2012)

Actually if you want to get into serious serious portrait work you should also consider the medium format range. Vastly more expensive (esp the digital - film is affordable in startup costs, but film costs over time will add up)than 35mm digital - but on the flipside gives you - well it gives you medium format, which means great resolutions and also the ability for even finer depths of field.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

Overread said:


> Actually if you want to get into serious serious portrait work you should also consider the medium format range. Vastly more expensive (esp the digital - film is affordable in startup costs, but film costs over time will add up)than 35mm digital - but on the flipside gives you - well it gives you medium format, which means great resolutions and also the ability for even finer depths of field.



I am serious about learning it, and will be tagging along with some photogs next month learning and assisting.  I'm far away from actually buying anything though...

thanks for the info.


----------



## Overread (Jun 21, 2012)

Well learning portrait work will likely mean far more about learning posing and lighting - the camera itself, whilst an important tool - oft  takes a second place to how you've posed and lit your subject and the environment they are in. I'd expect a portrait photographer to end up sinking far more money (early on at least) into lighting and studio equipment.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

Overread said:


> Well learning portrait work will likely mean far more about learning posing and lighting - the camera itself, whilst an important tool - oft  takes a second place to how you've posed and lit your subject and the environment they are in. I'd expect a portrait photographer to end up sinking far more money (early on at least) into lighting and studio equipment.



yeah, I'm currently studying lighting too as I'm pretty ignorant on that and have zero experience which is why I'm grateful I will be getting to assist on lots of shoots this summer.


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 21, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Well learning portrait work will likely mean far more about learning posing and lighting - the camera itself, whilst an important tool - oft  takes a second place to how you've posed and lit your subject and the environment they are in. I'd expect a portrait photographer to end up sinking far more money (early on at least) into lighting and studio equipment.
> ...



Have you checked out Welcome to Strobox - Create, Share, Learn


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Ernicus said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



Nope, haven't seen that site before.  Thanks for the info.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

Mj, is that just a gallery showing photos taken with the choices of lighting as examples...or is there places to read there as well?  I have not joined yet and was just browsing as a guest.


----------



## Infidel (Jun 21, 2012)

Canon has the 85mm f1.2 lens, although wide open it has issues with longitudinal chromatic aberration...can't really be fixed in post. Also, f1.2 is like a sewer pipe! It's too fast!Nikon has the "defocus control" primes which are highly regarded in the Nikon community for portrait work.


----------



## mjhoward (Jun 21, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> Mj, is that just a gallery showing photos taken with the choices of lighting as examples...or is there places to read there as well?  I have not joined yet and was just browsing as a guest.



The site is unique in that EVERY photo posted to it also has with it the lighting setup they used.  This includes a graphic showing the placements of everything and the photographer will usually post notes that go with it.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 21, 2012)

Infidel said:


> Also, f1.2 is like a sewer pipe! It's too fast!



Too bad the AF isn't as fast as the lens aperture.


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Ernicus said:
> 
> 
> > Mj, is that just a gallery showing photos taken with the choices of lighting as examples...or is there places to read there as well?  I have not joined yet and was just browsing as a guest.
> ...



That's cool.  Seeing the setup would definitely help.


----------



## Marcelle (Jun 21, 2012)

lol I switched to canon when my studio got broken into and all my gear stolen...so really no preference both do the job, from a certain level of quality, brands is just a fashion matter


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 21, 2012)

Marcelle said:


> lol I switched to canon when my studio got broken into and all my gear stolen...so really no preference both do the job, from a certain level of quality, brands is just a fashion matter



damn, that sucks.  I'd hate to have all my gear stolen...once i have gear worthy of stealing that is.  lol


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 21, 2012)

The Canon vs Nikon issue for any specific niche is largely a matter of timing.
It is especially evident in professional sports shooters.
A dozen years ago Canon was way in the lead for high iso work, so sport shooters who wanted high iso to allow fast shutter speed whenever migrated to Canon and one would see only white lenses (Canon L glass) at events like the Olympics.
Comes the new Nikon era of high iso and Nikon making it easy for pros to switch and, all of a sudden, not nearly so many white lenses.
Pro portrait people don't have the high visibility of the sports shooters and if they started back when they wanted FF digital, Nikon didn't have one, so the only real option was Canon. 
There's not a huge incentive for a studio to switch and Nikon won't get much publicity from a studio switching so they don't make it easier and cheaper.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 22, 2012)

Ernicus said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Well learning portrait work will likely mean far more about learning posing and lighting - the camera itself, whilst an important tool - oft  takes a second place to how you've posed and lit your subject and the environment they are in. I'd expect a portrait photographer to end up sinking far more money (early on at least) into lighting and studio equipment.
> ...



Strobist: Lighting 101


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 22, 2012)

Village Idiot said:


> Ernicus said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



Thanks.  I have seen that link up here before, and didn't write it down.  Written down this time.  ;-)


----------



## Dao (Jun 22, 2012)

Why limited to Canon and Nikon?  In the portrait area, most of the dslrs should do fine.   That's include Sony, Pentax or Olympus etc.  In fact, I believe the forum member Benjikan shoot with Pentax.(According to his profile here)


----------



## Ernicus (Jun 22, 2012)

Dao said:


> Why limited to Canon and Nikon?  In the portrait area, most of the dslrs should do fine.   That's include Sony, Pentax or Olympus etc.  In fact, I believe the forum member Benjikan shoot with Pentax.(According to his profile here)



As stated, it was a question based on a personal observation locally as of late.  Had I seen other brands, I would have included them in my question, but I haven't.  This is not intended to be a typical Nikon v Canon thread as many have been quick to assume.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 22, 2012)

Dao said:


> Why limited to Canon and Nikon?  In the portrait area, most of the dslrs should do fine.   That's include Sony, Pentax or Olympus etc.  In fact, I believe the forum member Benjikan shoot with Pentax.(According to his profile here)



Because potato.


----------



## Overread (Jun 22, 2012)

In recent years (decades?) Canon and Nikon have dominated the 35mm and 1.5/6 crop sensor markets both for hobby and professional use. There are other companies, however quite a few were late in jumping into the Digital band waggon - as such they did rather get left behind in the dust as Canon and Nikon forged ahead and took lion shares of the market. As such you see other kinds a lot lot less, sometimes this is reflected by them simply having far less marketing, whilst having perfectly good products; other times its a reflection that they don't quite have the breadth or range of options that the bigger players have (more often you see this in that other companies will have good high level options, but might be far more limited in lower tier/price choices - as such they miss out on a segment of the early starting photographers).


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 22, 2012)

Two things Nikon doesn't have for portraits that canon does:

50mm f/1.2L
 and the legendary 85mm f/1.2L II

The latter is pretty much the reason most professional portrait shooters go Canon.


----------



## MWP (Jun 22, 2012)

I'm an amateur photographer but one of my best friends is a pro and he seems to prefer Nikon for portraits and studio work and Canon for filed work. I can't specify exactly why though.  Hope that helps.


----------



## MWP (Jun 22, 2012)

Also he recently pick up the D800 and uses that in studio.


----------

