(I'm sorry, I don't speak English fluently) I'm seriously looking for a Minilux. The qualily of the lens and the fast aperture (2.4) are my priority. So, as nothing is perfect, I like portraits...: obviously, 40mm is not a good choice. Minilux zoom can be an alternative in this case but the quality of the lens and the aperture (3.5) lets me perplexe. Can you tell me your results about "human face taken a "little bit far or close" with your Minilux ?

Thanks a lot : S.F.Greg

-- Syl F. Greg (sygreg@aei.ca), May 18, 2002

Answers

Sorry, I can't offer any advice concerning the Minilux, but I think you can still make some fine portraits with other than the recommended/"official"/long portrait focal lengths. Anyway, most of the really tight examples where the face fills the whole frame seem rather boring to me, perhaps because it precludes showing anything as a counterpoint or something that would help describe the personality of the subject.

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), May 18, 2002.

I'm not a good photographer by any stretch of the imagination just been doing it as a hobby for a long time. What I found is the tight headshot photo isn't as exciting as it used to be for me. Now I like to get my subjects as they are involved in some activity. So that the photo isn't just about them, its about a time and place. For me the that really lends itself for lenses between the 35-50mm range. I chose a Konica Hexar AF with the 35mm f/2 lens.

-- bubble (bubblegrass@yahoo.com), May 18, 2002.

as lonmg as you keep yourself 6-8 feet (opr more) away form your subject, no matter the lens, the perspective will be ok -- but you have to settle for the field of view that whatever that lens is gives you. But that means the 40 is not for a "head shot", but okay for upper 2/3 body shots, etc. Getting 2-4 feet away, no matter what lens, will give you distortion (thought the field may be narrow enough not not notice so much).

-- Lacey Smith (lacsmith@bellsouth.net), May 18, 2002.

Imagination, creativity, desire "to get a (the) shot," are far more important than the focal length of any lens, or any rules. This shot was taken a the min focus distance. Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 18, 2002.

I really don't want to start any wars, but that picture was not taken with a 50 at closest focus distance. A 50 at close focus, say 3 feet (or less), would encompass a field no more than 15-18 inches max dimension (one of these facces, relatively), so I know this is further back. Nice shot though, and point taken -- perspective is never the only issue in portraits. However, should you want to avoid big noses or giant knees/feet out of proportion, stand a little back. Or else have people fomr the side, so one body part is not closer than the others (which is also operational in the last shot, somewhat).

-- l smith (lacsm@bellsouth.net), May 18, 2002.

The photo looks to be shot at about 5 feet/2.4m away; if a 50mm lens was used

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 18, 2002.

I chose a Konica Hexar AF with the 35mm f/2 lens.

I love this camera- but I found that close up (head) portraits with it were not always very flattering- big nose, side distortion. For 2/3+, no complaints. I haven't attempted as many head protraits with the 35 Asph, but I have a feeling the rectilinear (sp?) distortion is rather less.

I think a 50mm that could focus closely with would be a nice compromise between the more 'classic' short tele potrait lens, and something wider and a little more versatile. In my simpler days (v. thread about keeing it simple) of just one camera/one lens, it served well for portraits (and landscapes, and street, and comets, and...) As others have said, any lens is a portrait lens if the photo it takes is what you'd call a portrait. I once took a wonderful series of some friends, a couple, with a 28/2.8 on my SLR- torso/head. They in turn took one of me off to the edge, sitting at the table, and turned the whole thing into a picture book. In the end, for me, it's really more about caring about or relating in some way to my subject, rather than precisely what focal length I have.

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), May 18, 2002.

Lacey's right - just want to add that one can always get "proper" head shots with the Minilux with a little cropping. In fact, I would prefer a 40mm lens to a 50mm for portraits, because I can stay closer to the model when doing full-lengths and the lens is still long enough not to look like a wide-angle.

The Minilux Zoom has a far slower lens and doesn't allow for exposure control apart from the EV compensation.

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), May 18, 2002.

My wife uses the Minilux. It took her several weeks to remember to shut off the flash when doing vertical (portrait) shots. She's had some pleasing results by backing off slightly and not attempting to get the "Head shot only" but to include a little more.

Her major ploblem has been to learn how to frame the subject, as the viewfinder doesn't correct for parallax. Just a couple of the ubiquitious "close focus" framing lines in the viewfinder are there to assist.

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), May 18, 2002.

I agree that portraits shot a little looser are more interesting. Including a bit of background off to one side or the other sort of follows the compositional guide "rule of thirds" that is so pleasing to the eye. A 40mm works quite nicely for this look. And the faster aperature helps soften the background and make the subject pop.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 19, 2002.

Thank you very much for all your suggestions.

I have not taken a final decision yet but your advices were precious. In my case, I have some reasons to prefer close-up. First, I'm not a very good photographer (it's not a false modesty, be sure!) and second, I love particularly children's and animal's expression.

Two recent exemples : there was a child -3years old- and she was making puzzles. I have taken 6 pics about this situation. The better of them has been the closer (vertical). We can see a peace of puzzle in her hand but above all, we see her extreme concentration at the moment where she is looking for the good puzzle's place. For me, the theme is to capture her concentration. About the 5 others pictures non close-up I have taken, we see her concentration but also we see a part of the puzzle she made -Winnie the Pooh- and the banana's peel leaved just beside...

Other exemple : My dog has seen suddenly a cat in a backyard. I'm very close at him and I "shoot". (Only his face). Wow ! Their eyes seem like eagle eyes and his hight thrill is really perceptible. For me, the must is to be able to capture this emotion (and you don't see garbage and part of cars just beside !) But yes, I know, a good photographer can capture and the dog (and his thrill) and the cat, and there are no garbage or cars in the way ! P.-S. The good pic with the child and the puzzle has be taken with a good Pentax but too heavy zoom lens for me. The photo with the dog has be taken with a P&S (Canon Sure Shot 120 Classic), very, very versatile but all the pics are frankly flat. My budget being mini and my philosophy a little bit Zen whith the age, there are probably those ultimate solutions : stand back, remove the banana's peel before a shot and buy a Minilux. (And sorry again for my English)

-- Syl F. Greg (sygreg@aei.ca), May 19, 2002.

Syl

I think the 40mm is a very nice portrait tool. I would say don't go too close, but on a r/f or on the Minilux you won't be able to anyway. I have many good portraits - usually of my toddler daughter taken with the Leica CL and 40mm Rokkor and they are quite charming. The 40mm is one of the reasons why I would prefer the Minilux over the average 35mm lensed P & S.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 20, 2002.