what brand/camera is good for taking people?

[Lomographer]

get those with multi-face dectection esp if you're taking group pics,

there are many around, try to clamp down your choices by thinking of your budget, or what brand you prefer

 

[tunge]

I am wondering what camera is good for taking photos of human/people?

trick question? :think:


what are the special features that a camera would need to take better picture of human/people as opposed to other type of photos.

 

[photoart]

I am wondering what camera is good for taking photos of human/people?

I say Canon is good.
but when I asked my friend Peter, he says Nikon is good
but when peter asked john, John says Sony is the best
so the 3 of us went to ask Tom, Tom replied that Olympus is good too.

my dad over heard our conversation and say that we are all wrong, he said Leica is better than all.

 

[Diavonex]

Try them all out.

The taste of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[night86mare]

I say Canon is good.
but when I asked my friend Peter, he says Nikon is good
but when peter asked john, John says Sony is the best
so the 3 of us went to ask Tom, Tom replied that Olympus is good too.

my dad over heard our conversation and say that we are all wrong, he said Leica is better than all.

the goat at the zoo told me that pentax is the best

 

[marios_pittas]

as the guys above have implied .... it does not matter the camera

but I do encourage you to use shorter focal lengths that takes in more of the environment your subject is in (10-22, 20mm, 35mm and NO MORE than 50mm) IMHO

you should also have a liking for communicating with people ..... that is the one most important piece of equiptment that money cannot buy

erhmmm..... there is going to be temptation of using a long tele zoom to shoot street and people from afar..... that is cowardly and cold IMHO ..... I would avoid that (just my suggestion)

Ed.. I share in the above comments.. what puzzles me and would like to see more to understand is:

> 10-22

How? When people use the 10-22 the amount of distortion is just too much. Hiding behind the: "super wide sure got distortion one, what else can you expect" does not justify the use of the focal length for me.

50mm :thumbsup:, 35mm :thumbsup:, 28mm :thumbsup:, 24mm Hmm :thumbsup:, 20mm hm hm :thumbsup: but with extra caution where elements are placed..

but 10-22???

-- Marios

 

[ahbian]

Ed.. I share in the above comments.. what puzzles me and would like to see more to understand is:

> 10-22

How? When people use the 10-22 the amount of distortion is just too much. Hiding behind the: "super wide sure got distortion one, what else can you expect" does not justify the use of the focal length for me.

50mm :thumbsup:, 35mm :thumbsup:, 28mm :thumbsup:, 24mm Hmm :thumbsup:, 20mm hm hm :thumbsup: but with extra caution where elements are placed..

but 10-22???

-- Marios

Yes, distortion is there with the 10-22, but sometimes the environment around the subject makes the photo more complete and tells a better story. Knowning where to place your subjects is also important. Anyway, 10-22 doesnt mean only 10mm must be used.

This is one example I can find, there are many more out there.

http://dremer.org/category/photographs/by-collection/portraits/page/2/

 

[marios_pittas]

Yes, distortion is there with the 10-22, but sometimes the environment around the subject makes the photo more complete and tells a better story. Knowning where to place your subjects is also important. Anyway, 10-22 doesnt mean only 10mm must be used.

This is one example I can find, there are many more out there.

http://dremer.org/category/photographs/by-collection/portraits/page/2/

Without meaning to state what is wrong or what is right, taking what you write as a constructive engaging conversation, I find the distortion in the first 2 photos in the link that you gave (3rd less so) disturbing enough wanting to take it with a less wide lens.

Sure a less wide lens would require different composition because of the possible space constraints I understand, but personally (and here I am just stating a different point of view which maybe not everyone would agree with), I would rather not take it as I would have no use for it apart from being a "quick" reminder of an encounter, rather than an aesthetically nice photo that I could put up and share.

Different view perhaps ?

-- Marios

 

[ahbian]

Without meaning to state what is wrong or what is right, taking what you write as a constructive engaging conversation, I find the distortion in the first 2 photos in the link that you gave (3rd less so) disturbing enough wanting to take it with a less wide lens.

Sure a less wide lens would require different composition because of the possible space constraints I understand, but personally (and here I am just stating a different point of view which maybe not everyone would agree with), I would rather not take it as I would have no use for it apart from being a "quick" reminder of an encounter, rather than an aesthetically nice photo that I could put up and share.

Different view perhaps ?

-- Marios

I wish I am more compentent of a photographer so I can show my examples how I use wider angles to take pictures of people; the photo is taken at 17mm (but with the 17-55 and not 10-22).

My intent was to show one lone Cambodia pupil following the lesson while the rest of the students were somewhat distracted.

Of course on occassions, I wished I had a longer reach on my lens.

I just wanted the TS to consider that a wide angle can be used to bring his story across, depending on his intent.

And I agree, just different views.

 

[ahbian]

Deleted- Double post

 

[marios_pittas]

I wish I am more compentent of a photographer so I can show my examples how I use wider angles to take pictures of people; the photo is taken at 17mm (but with the 17-55 and not 10-22).

My intent was to show one lone Cambodia pupil following the lesson while the rest of the students were somewhat distracted.

Of course on occasions, I wished I had a longer reach on my lens.

I just wanted the TS to consider that a wide angle can be used to bring his story across, depending on his intent.

And I agree, just different views.

> I wish I am more compentent of a photographer
> And I agree, just different views.
I wish that I am as competent as you. I feel this is an excellent example of the use of wide angles (great angle in order to manage distortion, and careful placement of elements in the photo too so that whatever distortion is there does severely affect the main subject).. you are closer to the 20mm though [I used to use the 18mm in Cambodia too!!]...

> I wished I had a longer reach on my lens.
The grass is always greener isn't it? but is it?

I searched on the net and for the original poster here is use of the Sigma 10-20 (disclaimer: I am not a user/owner/seller of this particular lens)
http://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma10-20/pool/page1/

People and portraits wise from this list I like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/xochipilli/3927762499/in/pool-sigma10-20
http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithwendling/3930771200/in/pool-sigma10-20
http://www.flickr.com/photos/keithwendling/3930040169/in/pool-sigma10-20

though I am not able to see the focal length that the photos were taken with.

-- Marios

 

[RichardSeah]

I am wondering what camera is good for taking photos of human/people?

If you want to take people in action during a party, you will need a People's Action Party Camera

On a more serious note, I second the suggestion that, for good skin tones, get a FUJI!

 

[tryokane]

I haven't tried fuji yet. Need to find some places to test out cameras. I have an olympus now there is face detect but the auto focus still seems to be the point of focus and not the face detect so i don't think it actually works out that well. Well I don't know is it me or the I find the show girl photos i take. End up you have to control the focus to the point of the face to get a better shot instead of the face detection doing the work. That is what i think i haven't really tested yet. Just went to sony and tested the camera it seems to have multi points detection. Feels like olympus focus only one point inside of multiple points.

 

[tryokane]

I feel the pictures i take somehow with enough lighting...most of the girls don't really good?

 

[Timolol]

I haven't tried fuji yet. Need to find some places to test out cameras. I have an olympus now there is face detect but the auto focus still seems to be the point of focus and not the face detect so i don't think it actually works out that well. Well I don't know is it me or the I find the show girl photos i take. End up you have to control the focus to the point of the face to get a better shot instead of the face detection doing the work. That is what i think i haven't really tested yet. Just went to sony and tested the camera it seems to have multi points detection. Feels like olympus focus only one point inside of multiple points.

Which model of the Olympus are you using now, and did you set to the mode with the face detection (e.g. Potrait Mode) / turn the face detection on?

I'm not sure for Olympus, but my Nikon puts a square around the detected faces, so those will be in focus. Did Olympus show some indication that it detected the face(s) while you are shooting?

I feel the pictures i take somehow with enough lighting...most of the girls don't really good?

Perhaps post of on the photographs with the EXIF intact so the forummers here can help you better?

 

[aloyyolaaloy]

a digital camera is best.

dont get what you mean

 

[tryokane]

I gotta say i don't post process though...maybe it just suppose to come out like that

 

[Timolol]

dont get what you mean

Perhaps sarcasm was used?

 

[tryokane]

Hmm...i don't know... maybe i feel like the expression wasn't vibrant enough....hmm when i look at my photos i feel like looking at a flat picture sometimes >.< it's my fault for that.... or reality really breaks cause not many people are naturally photo genic?

 

[pinholecam]

Human camera, I don't know...

:think:

shoot ghost then IR cam is best :thumbsup:!