So I've been shooting video and film for ages, but I want to get into more photography, especially headshots, but apparently after my little experience there is a lot different between video and till photos.

The one thing I just noticed is that my micro four thirds lenses for the GH4 are nowhere near the DOF compared to my Canon 7d. The 25mm Panasonic (should be 50mm 35mm comparison) is more like a 24mm. I even have the 75mm, which should be 150mm 35mm equivalent, but it looks more like a 85mm equivalent.

I know there is a crop factor settings you can change certain things, but I haven't done it yet. Maybe I just have my settings wrong on the camera, but the 75MM (150mm) should not look like less than a 85mm.

Also, has anyone used the GH4 for headshots, and if so, do you have some samples and suggestions for taking them, i.e. settings etc.

Any help would REALLY be appreciated.

Thanks

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that your 25mm MFT lens looks like a 24mm full frame equivalent - that is just not true. I own a Panasonic 25mm MFT lens and compared it to a 50mm lens on a Canon 6D. Shot the same picture by putting both my GH3 and 6D on a tripod. The photos look the same, the 25mm MFT lens is the exact equivalent of the 50mm FF lens from a focal length point of view.

The only difference was the depth of field. I shot both pictures at f/1.4, but since the GH3 has a crop factor of 2, you have to multiply that by 2 as well, which then becomes the equivalent of f/2.8 on a full frame camera, regarding depth of field. So f/1.4 on a MFT camera does NOT look the same as f/1.4 on a full frame camera, from a DOF point of view. However, the focal lengths (25mm on MFT and 50mm on FF) should produce identical results.

Well, I used my 7D in a room for the last year and it was really tight on everyone. When I brought my 25mm Panasonic last week I pretty much saw everything and it was much wider.

Maybe I am doing something wrong, but they were nowhere the same.

I have attached two photos. One is with the Canon 7d 50mm, and the other is with the GH4 25mm (which should be 50mm equivalent. You tell me if they are the same. It's the same set up and room and same subject. Maybe the GH3 is different the GH4, because I JUST set them up again side-by-side and the 25MM Lumix is so much wider than the Canon 50mm.

Did you shoot @ 1080p or 4K with the gh4? There is a additional crop at 4K to consider.

The Canon 7D is an APSC sensor with a 1.6x crop factor that would make the Canon 50 mm lens equivalent to a 80mm lens

The 50mm Canon lens on a full frame camera will look the same as a 25mm lens on the GH4

Obviously photography and cinematography require very different technique.

I shoot headshot's with an 85mm lens on a 5D3 with at least two strobes so that I can shoot ISO 50, f./7 @1/125. If your using continuous lighting your going to have to increase the ISO and probably have to open it up and slow it down a bit which means your not going to get a tack sharp image.

That's not to say that you can't get good headshot's shooting 4K video with a GH4 [if that's what your trying]. This has more to do with the lighting than the crop factor.

Did you shoot @ 1080p or 4K with the gh4? There is a additional crop at 4K to consider.

Majority is 4K on the GH4.

The Canon 7D is an APSC sensor with a 1.6x crop factor that would make the Canon 50 mm lens equivalent to a 80mm lens

The 50mm Canon lens on a full frame camera will look the same as a 25mm lens on the GH4

Well, that may explain it, because I tested iot side by side and they were no way near the same focal length.

Obviously photography and cinematography require very different technique.

I shoot headshot's with an 85mm lens on a 5D3 with at least two strobes so that I can shoot ISO 50, f./7 @1/125. If your using continuous lighting your going to have to increase the ISO and probably have to open it up and slow it down a bit which means your not going to get a tack sharp image.

That's not to say that you can't get good headshot's shooting 4K video with a GH4 [if that's what your trying]. This has more to do with the lighting than the crop factor.

Well, Im trying to just do stills outside my video stuff. So I wouldn't be using video and grabbing screen shots.

I do like to keep the headshot sharp especially the eyes. Isn't the lowest ISO on the GH4 200? How are you shooting 50? Excuse my ignorance, but I know very little about photography.

No worries Brian, I shoot still with the Canon 5D3 and most of my video with the GH4. You are correct the lowest ISO for the GH4 is 200, at least for video, there might be a setting somewhere that lowers the ISO for stills but I've never seen it.

This is one of these thing where you have to watch what you wish for, I used to shoot only video but once I started shooting stills I was hooked. And shooting stills has really improved how I see lighting.

I've shot about 18,000 stills of about 1000 different cars...

Yes, I definitely want to get into still photography, especially headshots for now and people in general. Is there some tutorial you know of that explains the basics? Like why shutters peed, ISO, Aperture etc should be set a certain way.

There's Kelby Training and Lynda.com.

Kelby is more geared towards photography, Lynda.com more towards applications. Both are pay sites that costs approximately $20/month but you can cancel and only pay for the month you cancelled in which is really useful for beginners.

Yes, I definitely want to get into still photography, especially headshots for now and people in general. Is there some tutorial you know of that explains the basics? Like why shutters peed, ISO, Aperture etc should be set a certain way.

Here's a tip:

Many (if not most) headshots will likely be with the camera held vertical (portrait orientation), of course this depends on the environmental aspects of your "assignment". I see that your two examples you posted earlier in this thread were of one person but "landscape" orientation (horizontal). Coming from mostly video and motion picture you may have to fight this tendency a bit.

On the web look for tutorials and articles on portraiture as a lot of this will relate directly to headshots. I'll generally use larger apertures (f 5.6 to f2.0 or so), with shutter and ISO set for the lighting environment, however if your subject is in motion you may want to use shutter speeds fast enough to freeze that motion.

Your 75mm lens should be almost perfect for headshots and portraits if you manage your shooting distance and distance from subject to background elements properly. I have that same lens and enjoy using it, with the maximum aperture of f1.8 it lends itself beautifully to DOF management and people pictures.

Good luck

Here is some quick advice from years of shooting stills. I was shooting headshots long before I started shooting video.

Shoot vertical.
Shoot tight. (Head and shoulders tight.)
Don't retouch anything that would not be covered by makeup.
Use a 70mm to 120mm (in 35mm equivalent.) This gets you tight but also close enough to interact with your client. They MUST be at ease or the shot will never work.
Don't use 50mm equivalent. (Too boring.) Don't EVER use anything wider than 50mm equivalent. (The noses will look grotesque.)
Shoot wide open.
Focus on the NEAR eye. If they are slightly angled, the far eye should already be going soft. On my best portrait lens - the great Pentax 77mm LTD - even the farther eyelash in the near eye is getting soft.
Avoid sunlight. In fact, avoid anything that makes it look like a snapshot.
Find a way to get good catchlights in the eyes. It's all about the eyes.
Give the shot lots of faceroom.
A good headshot should look exactly like the person on their best day, and should instantly speak to the viewer as in, "I want to meet THIS person!"

It's all about the eyes.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Remember TINSTAAFL. You will never get a professional-looking headshot with the world's best camera and a cheap lens. You CAN get a good headshot with a cheap camera and an expensive lens.

Quite frankly, as a director, when I am looking at headshots, the FIRST thing I look for is the lens it was shot with. (I can almost name the lens by now.) It it's a cheap lens and it was shot at a small f-stop, I don't usually look at it much further, simply because I feel - right or wrong - that if the actor was not willing to invest in their headshot and hence their career, why should I invest my time, money and talents in them.

Cheap headshots shot on cheap digital Rebels with cheap kit lenses, shot by their boyfriend or uncle are the bane of most director's existence and will get them bounced out of the audition room quickly. It's too bad, and a good talent might get undiscovered, but the reality is that a headshot is their calling card. Remind your clients of this, and remind them that if they are SERIOUS about their career, they should be SERIOUS about good headshots. Good lenses cost money. Good headshots cost money. Bottom line.

By the way, good luck and let us know how you make out!

I'd check into a vintage 50mm f/1.4 lens and an adaptor to fit to your GH4. They can often be found for $50 + a $20 adaptor. They make for incredible head shots with the right separation and lighting.

This is a frame grab from video that I was doing late one evening fly fishing with all my old college pals. The lens is an OM Zuiko 50mm F/1.4 with a metabones speed booster. That combo is $450 and makes for an effective 75mm f/1.0 lens.

Work on lighting and separation techniques with what you have first then worry about expensive gear. It won't help at all without the first two pieces of the puzzle lined up first.

Cheers,
Pete

Cheap headshots shot on cheap digital Rebels with cheap kit lenses, shot by their boyfriend or uncle are the bane

You're mostly right but I will take a bit of exception with the above statement.

It is mostly the visual sense and skill level of the person behind the viewfinder that matters, a cheap digital Rebel with cheap kit lens can work very well in the hands of one who knows what he is doing. I used to operate a portrait, wedding, and commercial studio shooting mostly with Hasselblad, Mamiya RB67, and Camerz long roll production cameras. The digital age swept in while I was a civilian staffer at an air force training base, when I retired we were working with 1.5MP Kodak adaptations of Nikon cameras (I think the air force was paying about $40,000 each).

I got away from photography for about 4 years but got drawn back in, the most affordable "real" digital camera then was the first digital Rebel at $999.99 at Walmart, I managed to get one.

I'm looking at a display print on my wall right now shot with it in 2004, a 16x20 of Whitehorse, an Indian re-enactor, shot with the 55mm end of that "cheap" kit lens in soft daylight in open shade cast by a teepee. Definition matches what I used to get from 6x7cm negatives shot with the RB67 outdoors and printed by a pro lab. I had it printed by MPIX and hang it when I'm invited to display.