Your choice for handheld portraits?

[Stephanie Brim]

Right now I'm using a Mamiya C3 with an 80mm Sekor-S. I love it. I've somehow misplaced the prism finder, though, and I miss it. I prefer it for portrait shooting, though the waist level isn't bad.

 

[NJS]

I get really pleasing results with pentacon 6 and CZeiss 180/2.8, also, 80/2.8 serves the purpose too, when I need wider. I tried with M645 but the 6x6 does better job when I shoot only one person. when I shoot 2 or 3 or more persons in one frame then I reach for M645.
also, with 35mm, 85/1.4 is great on Nikon, but sometimes I mount 28/2 when I need that 'dramatic' effect.

 

[JohnArs]

Nikon F5/100 with 135/85mm lens or my Bronica GS 1 with the 200mm lens!
But today most of the shoots I do with one of my DSLRs!

 

[narsuitus]

For shooting fast and furious hand-held portraits, I normally used a Nikon 35mm SLR with an 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2.5, or 180mm f/2.8 Nikon lens.

For shooting fast and furious hand-held portraits, I normally used a Nikon 35mm SLR with an 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2.5, or 180mm f/2.8 Nikon lens.

Occasionally I would take my Mamiya C220 TLR with pentaprism and 180mm f/4.5 lens off the tripod and shoot it hand-held for head & shoulder portraits.

For hand-held full-length portraits, I would use the Mamiya C220 with waist-level finder and 80mm f/2.8 lens.

 

[df cardwell]

Usually: M3 Leica with a 50 Summicron,
Often: Nikon F with an 85/1.8,
Sometimes: Graflex Super D with a 10" Commercial Ektar,
Sometimes: Rolleiflex.

 

[jordanstarr]

A good sleeper lens and 645 setup is a Mamiya 645 1000s with the 80mm f1.9. I could do great handheld portraits in regular room lighting.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Pentax KX with a 55mm f/2
Hasselblad 500 with 80mm f/2.8 (and sometimes a 21mm close-up attachment)
Wish I had a Graflex 5x7 SLR.

 

[cdowell]

6x6 SLR and a 135mm lens; second lens 65mm or 80mm. I wouldn't rule out a nice TLR either, since people like strange-looking, unfamiliar cameras and you sometimes get the benefit of a puzzled, curious expression

 

[tkamiya]

I think, it depends on what kind of portraits you'd want. I am in a portrait class at a local art school, and one of the difficulty I am having is that great expressions on subject's face or body language only lasts few seconds. Often, they can not be recreated and still look natural. By the time I raise my M645, focus, fiddle with exposure, etc, it's long gone. On the other hand, with Nikon N80 (35mm auto focus), I have a chance of capturing them.

This kind of thing may not matter if done in studio or if you are hiding around the corner doing street photography, but for kind of portrait I'd like to take, speed is being a limiting factor.

 

[Leighgion]

"Portrait" is a rather vague term in photography when you get down to it. It can be applied to a variety of circumstances, so recommendations are always in peril of being completely off the mark for a given individual.

That said, no medium format rig is going to beat a 35mm for lightweight flexibility. If you want a rig that's going to be easier on your back, I'd strongly recommend surrendering romantic notions about medium format, accept that your camera will make a little noise, and go about finding a 35mm SLR system that you like.

My Mamiya 645 Super is one of the trimmer medium format SLRs around, but even if I compromise and go with the very compact 110mm f2.8 instead of the hulking 145mm f4 Soft Focus (great lens, but boy is it heavy), I need to psyche myself up to decide to carry it even though I have by all accounts, a strong back and no joint problems. The Mamiya's big enough to feel like a burden and it simply can't handle as fast as my 35mm rigs.

On the other hand, one of my Nikon SLRs like my favorite FE2, is very light and fast-handling paired with a prime lens or two. My 85mm f2 is only marginally larger than a 50mm lens.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

expressions on subject's face or body language only lasts few seconds. ... By the time I raise my M645, focus, fiddle with exposure, etc, it's long gone.

That's why classic portrait technique has the camera on a tripod: aimed, focused, cocked; ready to go off with the slightest pressure on the cable release.

For 'candid' portraits I have been able to convince subjects to freeze when I raise the camera to my eye so I can get the shot off.

The other technique is to get the subject to ignore you even though you are clicking and whirring all around them with a camera fixed to your eye - usual technique is to expend several 'rolls' of no-film in the camera to loosen the subject up.

In summary, keep the camera ready to go off at all times or get the subject to freeze (naturally - takes a bit of practice but it isn't hard).

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another good option for at least semi-candid photos is a Graflex SLR. Although you'll be obvious as hell using it, most people will have NO idea whatever that you're photographing them, because you're staring into a chimney finder, holding the thing at waist level. Couple that with a 12-sheet bag mag and you're good to go.

I'm also partial to a Rolleiflex, either the standard or the Tele-Rolleiflex. While not as subtle as a 35mm rangefinder, they're extremely quiet, can again be used inconspicuously with the waist-level finder, and produce beautiful images.

 

[fschifano]

OK. So you're asking about portraiture with a possibility of using medium format. 645 doesn't float your boat, and I don't blame you. The negative is about three times larger, really more if you crop 35 mm to fit the 4/5 aspect ratio, and the image quality is much better, but they are slower to use than a 35 mm SLR. 6x6 SLR's are great if you like the square, but once you crop to the rectangle, you are effectively in 645 land. The tradeoff in speed isn't worth the bit of extra image quality you get in return. Given that a Pentax 67 gives a much larger negative that fits the classic 4/5 aspect ratio with very little cropping and handles with about the same speed as an eye level 645 SLR, the choice is almost a no-brainer if you are looking for the best image quality. The focal plane shutter might be a limiting factor if you like using fill flash in daylight. The slow sync speed will limit you to using slow to medium speed films if you want to do that in daylight. The other popular and now affordable option is the Mamiya RB or RZ series of cameras. These big and heavy beasts boast excellent lenses with leaf shutters that allow flash sync at all speeds, allowing you up to use even fast ISO 400 speed films and fill flash in daylight. The downside to these cameras is their size and weight. They are big and bulky enough to make them something you might not relish using hand held.

If candid spontaneity is your thing, there really is nothing out there that can beat a 35 mm autofocus SLR for quick handling speed. In that category, I can recommend a nice used F100 with a fast 85 mm or 105 mm lens because I have and use that equipment. But there's nothing wrong with equivalent Canon cameras and lenses. Both companies make excellent bodies and lenses, and bashers of one brand or another are just acting silly. It really comes down to a matter of personal preference. If you like Canon, go with that. Nikon? Same thing. Something else? Get the one that fits your hands and your wallet best. Then go out and make pictures.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Minolta XD-11 with an 85mm MD Rokkor f2. Light and small with good build quality, fast, and relatively inexpensive. Beautiful sounding shutter, easy to focus, and great wide-open results for portraiture. With T-max 100 or Across you can do some pretty good enlargments as well.

Of course longer tele lenses such as the 135mm f2.8 will give you tighter crop and the subject more room if needed. But hard to beat the beauty of that 85mm wide open!

Jed

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

I think I counted 12 votes for a 35mm camera with a 85mm lens, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta, Pentax etc.

If you count the rangefinder cameras with 75mm or 90mm lens as being similar then the count goes up.

For quiet stealthy type existing light portraits it is going to be hard to beat Leica M cameras with 75mm or 90mm lens. I am using a Canon 7 with a VC 75mm f2.5 for this type of photography right now. Mainly because the slow speeds on my Leica M2 are wonky. I have also used a Canon P with the 75mm VC.

Plenty of choices listed. Pick one or two and go shooting!

Wayne

 

[picker77]

In the 35mm RF group the Zeiss Ikon ZI using any of the Leica M compatible lenses is pretty sweet if you prefer an electronically timed shutter and the ability to choose aperture priority metering for fast shooting. I love mine, and it's very close to the same shutter sound level as my Leica M2. Didn't cost a heck of a lot more than the M2, either.

 

[df cardwell]

That's why classic portrait technique has the camera on a tripod: aimed, focused, cocked; ready to go off with the slightest pressure on the cable release.

Umm, I think classic portrait technique has about 100% to do with the photographer,
and mainly 0% to do with the camera, tripod, or lens. Claiming some authority for 'tripod photography' seems specious to me, but this does beg what we might mean by 'portrait'. It usually works best if we are self-selective about our standards and intentions.

If you like rules, find whatever rules work for you. If you like people, use whatever seems handy and right at the moment.
I've got an 11x14 Commercial Deardorff, and I hang the M3 from the the stand. Sometimes the subject likes to be still, sometimes not.
Mainly, I use the M3. Sometimes I even put it on a tripod.

The OP said, no tripod, so we might stick with that.

 

[nsurit]

There are many suggestions for 35mm cameras and based on the direction MJS has said they want to go, I would say try one on for size. I would not buy a different car without seeing if it fit my 6'4" frame. Same goes for the 35mm camera. I'm a big guy with big hands and I use one of the smallest 35mm cameras around (The Olympus OMs) Ken Norton, another member of the list and another big guy uses the same system. An OM with an 85mm attached to it is a comfortable as a warm pair of gloves. I've owned many 35mm SLRs in the past and nothing feels as natural, for me, as the OMs. Find one, preferably with an 85mm Zuiko and see how it fits. Same goes for other cameras you might consider. Bill Barber

 

[Chazzy]

Mike, is there an appropriate Rolleinar close-up lens for your 1939 Rolleiflex? If so, you would have your medium format portrait solution, unless you are unhappy with the contrast of the uncoated lens. Rolleiflexible gets wonderful portrait results with his Rolleiflexes, but admittedly they are probably of more recent vintage.

 

[Rinthe]

hasselblad 500cm

 

[removed account4]

That's why classic portrait technique has the camera on a tripod: aimed, focused, cocked; ready to go off with the slightest pressure on the cable release.

Umm, I think classic portrait technique has about 100% to do with the photographer,
and mainly 0% to do with the camera, tripod, or lens.

there you go, thanks df.

john

 

[mjs]

What a great discussion, thanks to everyone who's contributed! Based on all my sources, including this group, my current conclusion is to use my Rolleiflex New Standard, maybe with the Rolleinar II I forgot I had, along with my Minolta SRT-101 or my Nikon FE. I'll look for an 85mm lens for the SRT or FE. The combination together will weigh substantially less than an RB/RZ (which I've been eying for quite a while,) and might be quicker to boot. And the square aspect of the Rollei will give me something new to learn as well; perhaps I'll learn to be creative after all!

I'd love to use a quiet rangefinder, but Leica's and things like that are just out of my budget. A pity they didn't offer interchangeable lenses for my Yashica Electro! I'll keep looking to see what comes up; perhaps something unexpected will happen. Thanks to everyone who's contributed and please, let's keep this going! I've learned something from every post!

Mike

 

[anglophone1]

Rolleiflex 2.8 Planar, at 4 with Rolleinar 1.

See Dead Link Removed

Clive

 

[df cardwell]

my current conclusion is to use my Rolleiflex New Standard

What a great choice; uncountable great portraits have been made with that camera, and you can make even more !

The film we have available to us would shock the folks who used the camera when it was new. Have a lot of fun.

d

 

[benjiboy]

Portraits are my main interest, I shoot portraits in both 35mm and M/F, but find that the miniature format just doesn't have the quality, and tonality that roll film is capable of, and that a fairly run of the mill inexpensive 120 camera in the hands of someone who knows what he's doing, indeed I've compared shooting the same subject with a top quality Pro.SLR(Nikon F2) and an inexpensive TLR ( Yashicamat 124G) and found after spending a fortune on the Nikon I was "sick as a parrot" the second hand Yashica blew it away for photo technical quality, and I found that since I used the same film in both cameras ( Ektachrome 64) the colours were stronger and purer, and had better tonality than the 35mm shots.