[Closed] Canon DSLR. Lens upgrade recommendations?

For a cheap good portrait lens I would be looking at a 50mm prime on your crop-sensor camera.
a 50mm 1.8 at the cheap end, or a 50mm 1.4 at the still affordable but a bit more end.

Maybe a 85mm of the same, a little more again, it kind of depends, your kit is it a 18-55? do you wish it gave a tighter crop? then the 85.

a full frame refers to the sensor size being the same as 35mm film, rather than what you have, a crop at 35/1.6
In simplistic terms a bigger sensor collects more light, allows you to get better quality images.
This goes hand in hand with them only available on the more expensive bodys anyway, and really needing expensive glass to get the best from them, as the imperfections in glass are harder to keep out the closer to the edges of the lenses, and a bigger sensor needs a bigger sweet spot in the glass.
basically, dont worry about full frame unless you are going to move into spending relative big bucks.

50mm 1.8 is the obvious (and fairly cheap) answer.

Full Frame sensors are the same size as 35mm film, while the normal (non-pro) DSLR sensors are smaller. Bigger means you can capture more light, which is good. It also means that a 50mm lens acts as something closer to an 80mm lens on the smaller sensor.

https://www.phototraces.com/best-50mm-lens-for-canon/

I'm out of the loop with Canon lenses, although some years ago I was very much in love with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens I bought for my 40D. On a 500D it might be somewhat unbalanced though.

Full-frame refers to the sensor size. Full-frame means "the same size as 35mm film", whereas many digital cameras (such as the 500D) use "the same size as APS-C film", which is a bit smaller. This is often called a "crop".

This has two implications:

1) A larger sensor can have bigger pixels so will have less image noise at high ISO. This isn't really relevant unless you're a professional who needs to use very high ISO. Larger sensors also mean larger cameras: compare the 500D with the 5D for example.

2) The sensor size has a direct impact on what a given focal length lens looks like. A 28mm lens on a full frame camera will be wide angle, whereas on a APS-C it will be more zoomed in. This is why a standard general purpose lens on a full frame body is 28-90mm, but on a cropped APS-C body the same results will be achieved with 18-55mm. For APS-C, the multiplier is 1.6. Again, just buy lenses which suit.

Prime?

A 50mm lens (Canon’s ‘nifty fifty’, look it up!) taught me a lot. It was also economical and the sharpest, creamiest least-distorting of all. Love at first shot. There’s a lot (for against) to be said for a prime lens and many have, so I won’t spend ages here. Maybe for portraits you’d be better off on the 70-100ish side depending but I’ve kept my 50mm where others have failed.

https://photornia.com/how-to-use-a-50mm-lens-for-portrait-photography/

Also had a 40mm pancake and liked what I saw in initial trials, but it came to me with a (used) Canon Body that I had to return due to a fault. Would like to revisit the 40mm one day.

https://www.roseclearfield.com/5-reasons-the-40mm-is-better-than-the-50mm/

Thanks chaps. Yes, I've heard of the "nifty fifty', might be a good choice. I also do a bit of video if that makes any difference. Although tbh, I bet I'm better off using my iPhone for that...

I have a couple of mates who both take photos for a living and they both mumbled something about full frame. But they're in demanding environments, niteclubs and film sets. My camera never leaves my studio. So I think an inexpensive lens upgrade will suit me more than buying a whole new camera. I literally use it about once a month when I have some spare time. Learning slowly though.

From experience, fullframe won't change your life greatly if you are a hobbiest. We went from a Canon 500/550 I think to a Nikon mirrorless fullframe z6, it is far more capable than I am (I leave my wife to use it mostly), personally I went for the vintage style simpler life with a Fuji x100f (35mm equivalet fixed lens), it's what I'd been looking for for ages without realising it had been there for long time.

As others have said, the 50mm prime is excellent in both 1.8 and 1.4 varieties (for the money the 1.8 is just so satisfying).

The nifty fifty probably won't be much good for video, I believe it still uses the old DC focus motor. It sounds fairly clunky in AF to me. The newer kit lenses use the more quiet STM type. The little 50mm f1.8 is a great lens, still always have it in my bag whenever I go out.

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51356194594_024cda572e_h.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51356194594_024cda572e_h.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2mfaVqW ]Akra Muffler[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/colinhines26/ ]colinsphotos26[/url], on Flickr

personally I went for the vintage style simpler life with a Fuji x100f

omg am well jel 🙂

But decided to give serious digital photography a rest until (if) reach old age, have then planned to maybe explore the peculiarities of Sigma/DP/Merril/Foveon sensors. Until then, I also have a (film) Olympus Trip to fix up (courtesy of Josh of this parish) and play with.

#nichescapephotography
#isitweirdtoscanfilm

OP have you ever tried a prime lens? Unless yr body is full-frame then make sure to account for the magnification/crop factor. On my 10D the 50mm lens was 1/6x on the cropped sensor. Giving the equivalent of 75mm full-frame. So ideal for single portrait use (imo). Flipside: Not useful for group portraits.

bit of video if that makes any difference. Although tbh, I bet I’m better off using my iPhone for that…

Check out if you haven’t Rafael Rincon’s fixie videos, using iPhone 6s

To do what?

You only need to "upgrade" the lens if it doesn't do something you want it to do. The stock 18-55 kit lens is fine for walkabout duties and, I mean no disrespect here, but from the type of questions you're asking I don't think you've outgrown it.

If you do want a better version of the same thing, there's a fairly new 17-85 which is no money and it is astonishingly good.

If you want a zoom lens, or a macro lens, or a portrait lens, or a wide-angle lens, these are all different questions. What are you planning on shooting?

Full frame refers to the sensor size and IMHO the entire argument is willy-waving nonsense unless you're a professional photographer, as a hobbyist I really wouldn't worry about it. Your 500D can take both types of lenses, a full-frame or a crop (note the white dot on your kit lens, that indicates crop); A full-frame camera requires FF lenses (red dot).

And never forget rule number 1: a better camera / lens / [insert hardware here] is not going to magically take better pictures. Mate of mine is a Nikon boy, he has a landscape canvas on the wall that he shot up in the Lakes somewhere. I asked him, "that's great, what lens did you use to take that?" and he replied, "oh, iPhone."

What you need to take better pictures is to learn how to use what you've got. Get out there and pull the trigger, digital photography is free. Click, click, click, the only bad photo is the one you didn't take. If you've got money burning a hole in your pocket then this should be your next purchase.

I'm selling a 50mm f1.8 at the moment if you are interested. All working well, looking for £45 posted.

40mm Canon lens is a beaut. Having a fixed focal lens can improve your photography skills and will take noticeably better pictures than your kit lens (in some situations.)

The nifty fifty probably won’t be much good for video, I believe it still uses the old DC focus motor. It sounds fairly clunky in AF to me. The newer kit lenses use the more quiet STM type.

The current 50mm 1.8 is an STM, I'm guessing you're on the older (mk2?) version. I had the mk2 replaced with mk3.

I like the 50mm 1.8, it's a huge upgrade to any basic kit lens in terms of sharpness, chromatic aberrations, bokeh etc and it looks great when you do test shots and you see amazing results. But for me it's the 'wrong' length, particularly as an only lens. On a crop sensor it's too cropped for anything other than tight portraits - something like a 25 to 40mm lens is much more usable.

I'm too out of touch with lenses to really know what's good value these days, but I like the 'pancake' 24mm lens. Much more versatile IMO.

Full frame refers to the sensor size and IMHO the entire argument is willy-waving nonsense unless you’re a professional photographer

I’m not aware of there being any real ‘argument’ (and have never owned a full-frame digital) but it’s crucial to be aware of the difference in crop-factors if choosing a lens for one or the other. I was fortunately primed (ha!) when buying my first 50mm (to go on a crop sensor DSLR) to expect it to appear akin to 75mm on my old 35mm film camera. Even then, when it arrived, it still made me take a few steps back. I then spent the next five years taking those same few steps back. #enoughpuns

(Full frame sensor image on the left and crop frame sensor image on the right. Same lens and position on both)

https://www.borrowlenses.com/blog/new-dslr-owners-what-you-must-know-about-full-frame-vs-crop-frame-sensors-before-choosing-a-lens/

In other words: Any old crop will do (as long as you weren’t expecting it do something that it doesn’t 😉 )

#okthatwasthelastoneipromise

What ctk said. The 40mm 2.8 STM is cheap and lovely, and a more useful focal length (IMO) on APS-C, and it works better with video (although video is a PITA on a 500d IIRC).

The 50mm 1.8 II isn't awful - cheap and a bit faster than the 40mm, but noisy, slow focussing, and very plasticky.

Oh just seen the later posts - didn't know there was a mark 3 50mm. I'd still go for the 40mm as I prefer the focal length but thats a very personal choice.

To do what?

You only need to “upgrade” the lens if it doesn’t do something you want it to do. The stock 18-55 kit lens is fine for walkabout duties and, I mean no disrespect here, but from the type of questions you’re asking I don’t think you’ve outgrown it.

If you do want a better version of the same thing, there’s a fairly new 17-85 which is no money and it is astonishingly good.

If you want a zoom lens, or a macro lens, or a portrait lens, or a wide-angle lens, these are all different questions. What are you planning on shooting?

Full frame refers to the sensor size and IMHO the entire argument is willy-waving nonsense unless you’re a professional photographer, as a hobbyist I really wouldn’t worry about it. Your 500D can take both types of lenses, a full-frame or a crop (note the white dot on your kit lens, that indicates crop); A full-frame camera requires FF lenses (red dot).

And never forget rule number 1: a better camera / lens / [insert hardware here] is not going to magically take better pictures. Mate of mine is a Nikon boy, he has a landscape canvas on the wall that he shot up in the Lakes somewhere. I asked him, “that’s great, what lens did you use to take that?” and he replied, “oh, iPhone.”

What you need to take better pictures is to learn how to use what you’ve got. Get out there and pull the trigger, digital photography is free. Click, click, click, the only bad photo is the one you didn’t take. If you’ve got money burning a hole in your pocket then this should be your next purchase.

Pretentious/creative portraiture mainly, and also product photography for a printing side-business. Mugs, T shirts, bags etc.

Yes you're spot on with the rest about learning to use what you've got. I'm still very much a beginner with regards to the big camera. I take photos all the time with my iPhone, but then that does everything for me, except composition.

Suppose I was just wondering what a decent lens is like.

Edited as I misread your post.

The Canon EF-S 24mm pancake lens is tiny and really nice for general messing about photography and Canon's 60mm EF-S Macro doubles as a decent portrait lens ime. I have both and they're decent.

Both are designed to work with the smaller image sensor in the camera, so the quoted focal length is correct. as above the plasticky 50mm is very sharp and a bargain at the price, but not a '50mm lens' on your camera.

Suppose I was just wondering what a decent lens is like.

What you'll notice most obviously relative to the stock zoom lens, is the incresased sharpness with a prime lens. It also makes you think harder about your shots because you can't just wind the zoom in or out to change framing.

So 'full frame' offers advantages such as mentioned above, plus being often significantly better in low light situations (such as nightclubs etc). But yes it's all more expensive, and from the sound of it, you don't need to go down that route just yet. The Canon 50mm f1.8 EF is an excellent lens, you'll find one for under £100. The large aperture is good for portraiture, as it offers shallower depth of field; the amount of areas in focus in front and behind the actual focus point, is less, which renders those areas more blurry, a characteristic traditionally favoured in portrait photography. An f1.4 lens will offer even less DoF, but cost more.

I’m selling a 50mm f1.8 at the moment if you are interested. All working well, looking for £45 posted.

Bargain. Buy that!

Full frame refers to the sensor size and IMHO the entire argument is willy-waving nonsense unless you’re a professional photographer, as a hobbyist I really wouldn’t worry about it.

Utter rubbish. That's like saying any bike over say £1000 is pointless unless you're a 'professional cyclist'. Buying what suits your needs, and your budget, should be the only considerations. I'm only a 'hobbyist', yet have worked professionally with very cheap, basic gear, but I now own some pretty expensive kit. I've used everything from single use film snappies, right through via many dozens of different cameras, in different formats, right through to digital from small-sensored compacts to what I use now; full frame 'professional' type cameras. Waving my willy about is really the last thing on my mind, when it comes to photographic equipment. The cameras I have now enable me to take the kind of photographs I want, and provide the kind of image quality I'm after. I really don't care what anyone with penis envy thinks.

The smaller depth of field and change of aspect of the 50/1.8 on an apsc will definitely help get more a traditional portrait look by dropping the background out of focus if that is what you want. The effect is more dramatic with full frame and
easier to achieve .
OP I would definitely take up that offer of the nifty fifty from that poster, especially for your portrait work.

I missed the offer. Yes please! Message me. Thank you.

The current 50mm 1.8 is an STM, I’m guessing you’re on the older (mk2?) version. I had the mk2 replaced with mk3

Ah yes, you're absolutely right. Shows how long I have had my 50! I think it was broken from a drop once and repaired. Still going strong, despite the all plastic body and mount.

for your existing lens, do you take shots at the zoomed out end or the zoomed in end of the range? if zoomed in the 50mm f1.8 is a great choice, if somewhere in the middle the 24mm is probably better. I found the 50mm a bit restrictive for a lot of use. it might also be worth considering a 18-50(approx) f2.8 lens. Canon, sigma and taxon all offer them, and all are a good upgrade to the kit lens. Slightly less sharp than a prime lens, but more flexible.

Always in I think. The camera lives on a tripod and the subjects are usually 1-5 feet away.

Buying secondhand from an outfit like MBP.com is a great way to build your kit cost-effectively and try out different lenses and bodies. Fancy full-frame? - check out an older 5Dmk2.
If you go that route you might want to think about lenses that are EF mount rather than EF-S. That way if you do go full frame in future your lenses will fit the full-frame body as well as your APS-C sensor 500Dbody.

Another vote for the nifty-fifty, though i ultimately upgraded to the 1.4 as the shallow depth-of-field is so stunning, particularly for portraits and still-lifes.

Always in I think. The camera lives on a tripod and the subjects are usually 1-5 feet away.

In that case, the 50mm might be all you'll ever need 🙂

Buying secondhand from an outfit like MBP.com is a great way to build your kit cost-effectively and try out different lenses and bodies.

I've found them a bit hit and miss; some good purchases, but I've received too many items that fall way short of their claimed grading. 'As new' items with obvious wear, less than clean optics, that sort of thing. Their returns policy is good though.

One thing to consider, is that Canon, like Nikon etc, are moving over to mirrorless cameras, with a different lens mount. The Canon R range has a different lens mount to the EF mount DSLRs (and film SLRs from the late 80s!). I understand Canon and Nikon are discontinuing quite a number of their DSLR lenses, and photographers moving over to the newer systems may mean you'll see a lot more perfectly good lenses and equipment becoming available second hand. The 100mm f2 is an excellent portrait lens; comes in at 160mm f3.2 equivalent on the APS-C format, and a good one will come in under £300. Then there's the 200mm f2.8; becomes a 300mm f4.5 equivalent, good reach for say wildlife etc, at around £500. At the wider end, it becomes trickier if you want prime (fixed focal length) lenses, because of the crop factor, but there are some very good zooms from 3rd party manufacturers, such as Tokina, Tamron and Sigma. I've seen used prices for such 3rd party lenses drop quite a bit recently. And if you ever do want to move up to the newer mirrorless system, then there's adapters available to use your old lenses.

Utter rubbish.

Except it's not because you've missed my point. Because

what I use now; full frame ‘professional’ type cameras.

... that's a different scenario. You may well be a professional but the OP has no requirement for a "professional" camera. At his level - at my level - there's absolutely no reason to go full frame and a couple of compelling reasons (cost and choice) not to.

Look at the photo comparison P7 posted. You could've created the photo on the right by shooting the one on the left and then lopping the edges off it and it would be identical for most practical purposes.

Except it’s not because you’ve missed my point

Your point was:

Full frame refers to the sensor size and IMHO the entire argument is willy-waving nonsense unless you’re a professional photographer, as a hobbyist I really wouldn’t worry about it

Which is utter nonsense, because you seem to suggest that full frame is pointless unless you're a 'professional' photographer, which is just rubbish. Again, I've used all sorts of cameras across multiple formats, both film and digital, and have over 30 years experience taking photographs. I know what works best for a given scenario, for me. And often, it's full frame. Because that gives advantages not found with smaller formats such as APS-C. Such as the very shallow DoF that can be achieved with fast prime lenses, as APS-C effectively increases DoF for any given focal length. A 50mm f1.8 only becomes the equivalent to an 80mm f2.8 or so, but an 80mm f1.8 lens on full frame, has shallower DoF. Larger sensors are better in low light situations. So; whilst you can of course take amazing photos on all sorts of formats, it's helpful to know what advantages and disadvantages there are to each.

… that’s a different scenario. You may well be a professional but the OP has no requirement for a “professional” camera.

Ok, so two points here. One; I am not a 'professional' photographer, I'm simply a 'hobbyist', and two; there is no such thing as a 'professional' camera, just cameras and equipment favoured by professionals because they happen to be the best tools for the job. Again, I've worked 'professionally' using cheap, 'amateur' level equipment. There are many professional photographers out there using APS-C and sometimes even smaller formats.

At his level – at my level – there’s absolutely no reason to go full frame and a couple of compelling reasons (cost and choice) not to.

How do you know what 'level' the OP is at? Have you seen their photos? You may well be right, but there's no reason they shouldn't move to full frame, if they decided their photography would benefit from that. In fact, I'd even say that full frame is where anyone who has an interest in portraiture should be headed, if they really get into it, for the reasons given above. You don't have to, no. And perhaps not everyone can afford to. But it's still useful to know what options there are.

OP:

I’m no photographer, just have a small interest in it as a hobby. Don’t want to spend loads of money as it’s only a ‘side-hobby’ 🙂

It doesn't seem like they would need full-frame and the extra expense is probably not justified.

That's not the same as saying "no hobby photographers should get a full-frame camera", mind.

Look at the photo comparison P7 posted. You could’ve created the photo on the right by shooting the one on the left and then lopping the edges off it and it would be identical for most practical purposes.

A ‘hobbyist’ would ideally/instead learn early on take a few steps (or move the tripod) back (or change focal length, which will also change perspective, space between subject elements and the background)

In someone else’s words

Heavy cropping reduces the file-size dramatically, leaving the resulting image unsuitable for printing and enlargements. The effect of this may well be visible to a viewer in the form of softness, pixelation and lack of detail. Relying on cropping to make up for poor compositional technique is not advisable

First mistake I made when setting out in digital photography was to unlearn my film days, go snap crazy, ie shoot first and then ‘compose’ later (via heavy cropping)

*afterthought: To be fair to Cougar’s point I suppose it all depends on what a ‘hobbyist’ intends from their hobby in terms of understanding and practice.

Tubes vs tubeless, they all do the job. As do 90s MTBs. Etc.

I bought a 29er in 2016 and happy to note that willy is identical before and after. Though do since get less bashing of nuts trying to roll bigger ruts. Horse on a course, in a tent with a porpoise!

It doesn’t seem like they would need full-frame and the extra expense is probably not justified.

That’s not the same as saying “no hobby photographers should get a full-frame camera”, mind.

Fair enough, but:

Also, could somebody explain what ‘Full Frame’ means and the benefits of using a full frame camera.

So.

I’ve used all sorts of cameras across multiple formats, both film and digital, and have over 30 years experience taking photographs. I know what works best for a given scenario, for me.

Precisely. And you are not the OP.

How do you know what ‘level’ the OP is at? Have you seen their photos?

Because I read what they posted. They said themselves, "I'm no photographer".

It doesn’t seem like they would need full-frame and the extra expense is probably not justified.

That’s not the same as saying “no hobby photographers should get a full-frame camera”, mind.

Quite, and that's kinda what I mean and I worded it badly. It's one of those, when you find yourself wanting / needing FF you'll know. If you don't know then you don't need it.

So.

So, have you answered their question?

With reference to P7's quote, what advantages does FF bring which makes it a better choice over an APS-C body with a larger megapixel sensor count? To a hobbyist, that is.

FF sensors will generally have better IQ. larger area allows for bigger pixels = getter sensitivity and less noise.

Better lenses don't just offer faster apertures but less CA and sharper images.

focal length and aperture does not change with sensor size just FOV. Crop a FF center down by 1.6 (canon) and you'll have the same image as a APS-C (canon).

Lens choice depends on what you want to do. If you are happy with the kit lens FL then I would change to say Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

prime lenses are nice. I used to have a range of them. loved the 135mm f/2 and the sigma 30mm f/1.4.

I also played about with manual lenses as you could fit adaptors for the old ones.

Zeiss 50mm f/1.4

I preferred my 5Dmk2 to my 40D

focal length and aperture does not change with sensor size just FOV. Crop a FF center down by 1.6 (canon) and you’ll have the same image as a APS-C (canon).

that’s not true. Sorry I don’t have a reference right now, but the DOF also changes at a given aperture size. This is immediately apparent when you try a FF camera.

Edit: ref Zeiss https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/making-sense-of-sensors-full-frame-vs-aps-c

Edit edit: applying brain, ok you’re actually right. But if you fit a 50mm lens to a FF camera, and a 31.25mm lens to an APS-C, you’ll get the same FOV but a different DOF for the same aperture.

As for lens advice, hell yeah grab a nifty fifty or 40 prime. It’ll teach you a lot about what you can get and what you want from a lens. Should be great for your portrait work.

You also mention product photography. I find a Zoom useful. You don’t need the wide end and you don’t often need a crazy big aperture. So that makes the L series zooms (intended for full frame) a good buy. I use a 24-105 F4 L. I am not pro either, this can be obtained for reasonable outlay second hand. And they retain value if you ditch it. The sharpness, contrast, and other measures are excellent on the L series. The 28-70 f2.8L could be a smart used buy. The other thing that is important for product photography is lighting. There are some inexpensive brands out there doing two flashes and a transmitter deals if you want to get into that.

hell yeah grab a nifty fifty

There's one in the post thanks to the previous poster.

The other thing that is important for product photography is lighting.

Yeah, I've been messing around a lot with lighting. I've found that I can't beat natural light. But then you can't just muster up perfect natural light in a studio. A photographer mate gave me a Canon Flash which I've yet to play around with, and when I first started I bought some of those huge softbox kits off eBay. They've now been relegated to rave lights 🙂 I suppose you get what you pay for but I always struggled to get much light out of them, especially as there's three of them and they take up so much space. Is it a question of just using one box but spending on a more powerful bulb?

I've really neglected my photography over the years. I need to buck my ideas up and make some more time for it. Enjoy the nifty fifty when it arrives!

I’ve found that I can’t beat natural light. But then you can’t just muster up perfect natural light in a studio

I found that I both can and can’t ‘beat’ natural light depending on a lot of things in any given scenario. Indoors is a pain for lighting with natural light for a number of reasons.

Here’s a quick and brutal comparison (one is natural light, one is not)

I’ve found that I can’t beat natural light. But then you can’t just muster up perfect natural light in a studio

You’ve described the challenge and the ideal perfectly there. But, of course, a skilled professional studio photographer with the right equipment and the right knowledge really can conjur up perfect natural light in the studio. It’s basically their job 🙂

As an amateur, natural light often is your friend. But with a small amount of of study and investment, it is very possible to get good studio product photography results using 2 inexpensive flashes. I learned my craft from https://strobist.blogspot.com/?m=1 a few years ago. Yes, an actual blog, so quite a few years ago! Was good then, hope they haven’t broken it. It caused quite a buzz in the amateur photog space.

Here’s a quick and brutal comparison (one is natural light, one is not)

I reckon I could produce either image with a few flashes in a studio. The upper is mostly lit by a single light source (I suspect a window) far away from the subject, in a brightly painted room so there is lots of fill light.
The second is lit by a single light source very close to the subject, so it looks unnatural. This is the flash image I suspect.
I could reproduce the ‘natural’ image artificially by bouncing a flash off the ceiling to produce some fill, and adding a second flash pointing at the subject to produce the highlight.

When you say "natural light" are you wanting things to look natural?

If you're using a different kind of light source (LED, lightbulb etc all make your pictures look slightly different) you can go into the camera settings and select a different white balance to make your photos look better to what you think looks natural

If you have an application to post-process your pictures, you might want to shoot your images in RAW, and then tweak the white balance and colour temperature to make them look how you want them to look. You can also tweak exposure, hightlights, shadows and other settings to give your pics some pop and energy.

You could look at Canon DigitalPHotoProfessional which is a free download. Or if you're getting more serious about your photography, take a look at Adobe Lightroom which is a combined photo cataloging and post-processing application that makes life so much easier.

The upper is mostly lit by a single light source (I suspect a window) far away from the subject, in a brightly painted room so there is lots of fill light.

Dashed fine deduction 🙂

Upper is lit only by slightly cloud-diffused sunlight. It’s taken with an ipad in a magnolia-coloured kitchen. There are three windows, one at a right angle to the other two. I’m in the way of the largest window

The second is lit by a single light source very close to the subject, so it looks unnatural. This is the flash image I suspect.

Angle-poise desk-lamp with 5000k (IIRC) LED. Some diffused window light (IIRC)

Great colour and saturation, but as you say it’s obviously a close light-source, hence unnatural. A reflector/soft box would help but the emitter output is low compared to a flash.

Here’s another (top pic) I just took on the ipad, except with white kitchen paper taped over the lamp. It’s virtually the same, just a faint softening/diffusion:

Pic of apples OTOH is simple natural daylight on a cloudyish day. (Can’t remember the camera. Probably iPad, I only really shoot for drawing reference these days so don’t require to print large)

Generally prefer using this natural method of lighting for my usual style of photography. Having a bigger sensor would help here to be able to push the shadows and reflected light in PP to save faffing with reflectors etc.

Didn’t ever really get into strobeism as only had one decent flash unit (500EX) and then had to sell it on a rainy day. From what little I did manage to achieve (and from what I’ve seen from others) I like it a lot.

So, have you answered their question?

Yes. And the Zeiss guide Goldfish linked to is very good.

With reference to P7’s quote, what advantages does FF bring which makes it a better choice over an APS-C body with a larger megapixel sensor count?

Not quite sure what you mean here, as FF cameras generally have at least as many, often more megapixels than smaller formats. But generally, the more pixels, the smaller they are. So in a FF camera with say 24Mp, vs an APS-C camera with the same number, the FF camera's pixels are larger, and therefore can gather more light. Basic physics. This enables better low light capabilities; less noise etc. This has been mentioned already though.

To a hobbyist, that is.

Forget this notion of a distinction between 'hobbyist' and 'professional'; it's all just photographers. Whether or not you earn money from photography is pretty much irrelevant. You buy what suits your needs, budget and talent. Or indeed whatever you want; if someone wants to buy a £5k+ bike just for pottering about on, why shouldn't they?

Because I read what they posted. They said themselves, “I’m no photographer”.

I gave advice based on my experience and knowledge. They asked about portraiture; a FF camera would be better than an APS-C one, for the reasons already explained. But you'll also notice I'm not actually telling them they have to buy a FF camera, and that they can enjoy portraiture and other genres, with the equipment they have already.

 

In regards to light, with portrait photography, the key element will very often be the subject's eyes. Irrespective of whether or not you are using natural light, studio lighting etc, it's important to focus (literally and metaphorically) on the eyes. A little bit of white card or similar, can provide enough to just give a little 'catchlight' in the eyes, a little reflection that adds that bit of sparkle.

https://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-create-catch-lights-in-your-natural-light-portraits/

Concentrate more on capturing the personality of the subject, try to tell a 'story', before worrying so much about lighting. What is that's so interesting about this person?

Get good with the kit lens or the nifty fifty offered above. Learn about composition and camera control before spending more. Find the limitations of the lens and your requirements.

A good book on lighting I got was the speedliters handbook by Syl Arena.