Fashion cameras - the argument (help!) :(

[zipperfoot]

Note: Keep in mind, when I say "best" what I'm really talking about is image quality (which I'm also taking lenses HIGHLY into consideration), color processing, etc., etc. I do know that personal preference plays a big if not the biggest role in deciding which camera is
"best". c: Thanks for your help!!

Hi! I've been practicing photography for six years now, most primarily fashion photography, and I plan on going to school for it later this year. Currently, I use an Olympus E500, which is a nice little camera, but has its own share of disadvantages, especially for what I want to do.

Image quality, and the ability to come out with large prints, is a big thing I am considering. I am also taking lenses into HUGE consideration, as well as the opportunities each brand offers.

I have been looking so far at the Nikon D90 (was looking also at the D300 but I think I've decided it's a little too much for me...), the Canon EOS 50D, and, finally, as recommended to me by a professional who does a little work in this field, the Sony a850. I discussed this option with another working professional in an entirely different setting who agreed that would probably be the best set-up I could get, especially for my dollar. For starters, Sony does offer a few technical things that I could really use, such as their patented slaving external flashes to work in a similar way to strobes, their rotating hotshoe flashes, and the a850 has a really cool, very simplistic, straight-forward set-up, which would be ideal, since I don't really want to deal with all the crap I won't ever be using. cx

However, I recently got into an argument with a couple people who have been pushing for me to go with Nikon, although I'm not really sure who I should listen to, since I'm pretty certain the people giving me the advice are NOT professionals, and in some areas, I'm not one-hundred percent positive that they know exactly what they're talking about. However, everyone's opinion is valid, especially when they've worked hands-on with the equipment. I know very little about Sony since their SLR line literally just came out, and that is also something that scares me a little.

I just need something with good color, the ability to do huge resolution photos, preferably full frame (which is another thing that I was told: that the Sony a850 is about as close to a medium-format camera as I can get without it actually being medium-format, which would be ideal... I need a camera I can take to school with me and use for quite a while before progressing to the next step), and good image quality. xDD I bet this is what everyone's looking for, though...

Here's what the arguers have said about my being interested in Sony:
(Keeping in mind that for the time being, I *am* doing small-scale...)

"Sounds like you might want to get some new advisers. The Sony might not be a bad camera to do small-scale fashion work (at least no worse than any other consumer dSLR), but the vast majority of pro fashion photographers shoot MF."

"Another problem with Sony,they arent that popular. It may be not a problem for some ppl, but lets say in my country you wont find reliable source to buy those glasses, and ofc, price is much higher."

"I think a used Canon 5D ($1500 for EX+) is IMHO the best "deal" in full frame 35mm digital currently available."

Anyway, if anyone could shed a little light onto the subject, it would be GREATLY appreciated... after all, as we all know, dSLRs aren't exactly the cheapest things on the market, and I'd really like to get as many opinions as I can before I go out and buy another.

[OldClicker]

There are some really good studio photographers on this site that can offer more experienced info than I, but I will make a few comments from the Sony point of view.

"...Sony since their SLR line literally just came out..."
Sony is Minolta - not new. Minolta started making the A-mount (now alpha-mount) lenses in 1985 and Sony still uses the same mount with full functionality.

"The Sony might not be a bad camera to do small-scale fashion work..., but the vast majority of pro fashion photographers shoot MF"
And the A850 cannot manual focus for some reason???

"Another problem with Sony,they arent that popular. It may be not a problem for some ppl, but lets say in my country you wont find reliable source to buy those glasses, and ofc, price is much higher."
I don’t know where you are, but Sony is #2 in Europe and doing very well in China and South America. Sony does not have the pro support like Canikon. If you need to rent lenses or need fast repairs in more remote locations, you would be better off with Canikon.

"I think a used Canon 5D ($1500 for EX+) is IMHO the best "deal" in full frame 35mm digital currently available."
I know little about the 5D, but your reason for FF was large prints. You want 12 MP or 26? (But remember, that is a huge file.) Nikon uses the same sensor as the A850, though I think you need to spend $5000+ to get it.

“Sony does offer a few technical things that I could really use, such as their patented slaving external flashes to work in a similar way to strobes…”
I think in the studio you are going to want a radio controller system. You don’t have to get into very complex positioning before the Sony IR (or anybody else’s) control just doesn’t cut it.

“…their rotating hotshoe flashes..”
I assume you mean the ability of the F58 to be used with a bounce diffuser even when the body is turned to portrait. It is nice. (Others don’t do this?)

TF

EDIT - Ah ha - MF= Medium Format. Someone really thinks that the 'vast majority' spend that kind of money??? - TF

[drg]

Welcome to photography review!

Sounds like you are caught in the cost, quality, and flexibility swirl!

One consideration is to determine what the school you will be attending may require. If they are only having you do fashion photography that could make for a very different answer to all of your questions.

MF (medium format, I know, not manual focus) digital cameras are obviously way outside of the cost/budget range you seek. That comparison is thus something else to not consider at this time.

You will buy more camera bodies in the future. The modern DSLR is changing still and even the best pro bodies of the moment will be superseded in the not distant future for some types of work.

First, set a reasonable budget range.
Second, be certain as to include in the budget the lens types and lengths/zoom ranges you will most need to start. Spend a lot more on your best lens than anything else.
Third, how much 'system' do you want or need? Will you be using external studio setups or do you need portability? In the system area Nikon does excel in the DSLR format. Canon is a close second though flash control is only better with Canon in a limited number of areas and Nikon is much better across the board and less costly. Personally I believe at this time Nikon wins on the flash control and capability in their 'system' flashes. However when you start using external lighting the differences are no longer camera dependent!

Research the actual image quality of each camera, not brand, that you are considering. Different models do very different things.

Sony has raised/lowered the Full Frame cost bar dramatically. However, Sony even admits to applying a fair amount of in camera processing to their images. Sony does have many fine lens choices and if one of the current bodies seems to produce the quality you seek I wouldn't hesitate.

One factor many people bias their decision towards is what they use or the lenses they currently own. I've change my thinking to using the best available tool. Available often has to include cost!

Good luck and hope this is a small start. Do look around the columns and be sure to look at the work of benjikan (his PR name) who does fashion work with a Pentax.

[Anbesol]

"Sounds like you might want to get some new advisers. The Sony might not be a bad camera to do small-scale fashion work (at least no worse than any other consumer dSLR), but the vast majority of pro fashion photographers shoot MF."

Hogwash! In order to go medium format digitally, you'd have to invest literally tens of thousands, Hasselblad is offering their flagship MF body at $35k Link. Neither Canon or Nikon or Sony will offer any upgradability to medium format, period. Further, what is this guy saying, that anything under $20k is inadequate?

The one small advantage Canikon have over Sony in their full frame range is high ISO image grain performance (mostly due to their lower resolution), which in studio use means diddly squat as everything is under ISO 400 anyway.

The Sony IR flash triggers do actually work very well, I use them myself and find its comprehensive for quick strobe work. I also use normal AC strobes as well, 3 white lightning 1600's. The one problem I run into with Sony's IR trigger system is that the flashguns that work with it will not do an instant recharge like other strobes can, so after you take one shot, you need to wait a few seconds for the next. That, and you have to keep batteries nearby (or get an ac adapter/external power supply).

"I think a used Canon 5D ($1500 for EX+) is IMHO the best "deal" in full frame 35mm digital currently available."

more hogwash! lol, as you said your self you want some serious resolution, not back down to 12 MPix. Neither the original Canon 5D nor Nikons current D700 can provide you with that. As far as I see it, you have a few options at the ~$2.5k range - Canon 5D Mark II, Sony A850, and Sony A900. Nikon offers you nothing in that range with even close to that resolution. If you felt like spending doubly thousands more, Canons 1Ds Mark III and Nikons D3x also enter the mix. Though I don't think the advantages of those bodies justify the huge extra cost for your studio use ($8k for the Nikon, $6.5k for the Canon).

Sony even admits to applying a fair amount of in camera processing to their images.

All in camera processing can be turned off, and of course, there is RAW images.

Heres a full res image from Sonys A850 at ISO 100 - Link, Imaging-resource offers a lot in way of image samples for the various cameras. If you look on the bottom it will mention the 'comparomater' which will allow you to put two cameras images side by side, thus you can compare the image quality of the cameras for your self.

[Photo-John]

What's large to you? I can make great quality prints from all kinds of camera. Print quality often has more to do with proper exposure and processing than the camera you're using. A better camera is always nice. But be careful about buying into the hype when it comes to cameras.

One reason to change cameras is marketing. As sad as it is, having a camera that impresses a client can secure jobs. I have a friend who shot weddings with a Hasselblad for just that reason. He didn't love the Hasselblad but his clients thought it was better. The Canon EOS 5D Mark II is a great camera. But you could argue that its reputation is even better than it is. Same goes for the Nikon D700 or D3 - they're both great cameras. But they're never any better than the photographer who uses them. You could very well be making better photos with your Olympus than a super pro with a D700.

[Franglais]

I've done a few fashion shoots (for free) and I'd like to do more.

When I look at my collection of "fashion" pictures that I use as examples (collected from magazines) then I notice that at least half of them are not done in the studio but out in the field with nothing sophisticated in the way of lighting. On my last shoot we did half studio and half out in the street in bars and restaurants with just a 12Mpix DSLR (D300) and a cobra flash. We improvised and most of the ones that were chosen by the client were the street ones because they were more fun.

My understanding of the professional studio market is that the low-end people use a high-end 24x36 DSLR (1DS Mk3, D3X..) and the high-end people use medium-format digital (Hasselblad) or large format film.

[zipperfoot]

Hey everyone -

Thank you SO much for your input -- as I'm sure most of you know, advice is invaluable when it comes to buying a new camera, especially a dSLR.

Sorry I didn't put in a little note to mention that MF meant medium format and not manual focus, as you all picked up on anyway -- actually when I first read that I thought he meant manual focus as well and thought he was insane for a few seconds.

Your advice has only helped to more solidify what I've been thinking on, and that is saving up a little more for the a850. My only concern is that, other than Imaging Resource, I haven't really seen any work done with the Sony a850 (which also reminds me, Photo-John, you're absolutely right when it comes to the comment about having a more well-known or impressive-sounding/looking camera...which is tragic).

On the comparisons of the two from Imaging Resource, it seems that the Sony a850 has a bit better color and is also a bit sharper when it comes to the smaller details... however this sharpness is also something I fear a little -- does anyone know if the a850 is a camera where that sharpness can be toned down a little? Or is this merely a lens thing?

Also, what is everyone's opinions on Sony lenses and/or Zeiss lenses?
Thank you very much for all your help and recommendations.

[Anbesol]

Good call zipper on the 'too-sharp' sharpness, I know exactly what you mean, sometimes its not good to be able to count the number of pores on a persons face in an image. The sharpness is adjustable very simply in your camera menu, as well as contrast and saturation. They default to a modest amount of all, but you can knock em down or boost them up if you please. You can also add different filters on the lens that softens details up a bit, a diffusing lens filter gives a very soft and pleasant glow in images.

[Photo-John]

You can also add different filters on the lens that softens details up a bit, a diffusing lens filter gives a very soft and pleasant glow in images.

It's easier and better to do that with software now. By doing it in post-processing you get to preserve a "perfect" original and the portrait software now is really, really good.

[zipperfoot]

Using software is fine and of course a regular thing to do... but it seems like for something as basic as getting a RAW that has not been sharpened to the point of being borderline gross, it should be an automatic camera function...

:/

[OldClicker]

Using software is fine and of course a regular thing to do... but it seems like for something as basic as getting a RAW that has not been sharpened to the point of being borderline gross, it should be an automatic camera function...

:/

Then it wouldn't be RAW. - TF

[Anbesol]

You can adjust the sharpness in your raw conversion the same way that the camera would. It would default to the setting you put on it, but can be adjusted just the same. If JPEG is what you are going after, then in-camera settings are vital.

[Photo-John]

Using software is fine and of course a regular thing to do... but it seems like for something as basic as getting a RAW that has not been sharpened to the point of being borderline gross, it should be an automatic camera function...

I think you're worrying too much. Unless we're talking about crunchy photos because of too much in-camera JPEG processing, I can't imagine there being a problem. I've never looked at a RAW image from any camera and thought it was too sharp. With the A850 you may have a lot more detail than you're used to just because the files are larger. But sharpness is a separate issue and one that's really only a problem with in-camera processing. And there is no digital SLR that doesn't allow you to adjust the in-camera sharpness.

[zipperfoot]

I think you're worrying too much. Unless we're talking about crunchy photos because of too much in-camera JPEG processing, I can't imagine there being a problem. I've never looked at a RAW image from any camera and thought it was too sharp. With the A850 you may have a lot more detail than you're used to just because the files are larger. But sharpness is a separate issue and one that's really only a problem with in-camera processing. And there is no digital SLR that doesn't allow you to adjust the in-camera sharpness.

You're right, and I'm sure that toning down the sharpness (if there really is an issue with this) would not be very difficult.
I'd love to see more images taken with this camera that don't come from Image Resource. xP

[Anbesol]

Link - these are some ordinary outside candids, or are you wanting more lab shots?

[zipperfoot]

Link - these are some ordinary outside candids, or are you wanting more lab shots?

Thanks for linking, I did see those before, though. I'm hoping to find some more studio / inside, portraiture stuff as well. c: