4 ms·

More complex cameras have greater dynamic range, thus better capturing both shadow detail and not blowing out or washing out the highlights (lightest parts) of

More complex cameras have greater dynamic range, thus better capturing both shadow detail and not blowing out or washing out the highlights (lightest parts) of the image. They also have better image sensors which means less degradation in low light situations, less graininess, and with better lenses, less distortion. My take, anyways...

olefoo 16y ago
I just got a Panasonic GF-1 this spring, and it has refreshed my passion for photography. I did a lot of research beforehand and I'm glad to see that OKCupid is confirming my choice. A fair bit of the credit has to go to the 20mm Pancake lens that Panasonic makes, it's one sweet piece of glass, and it lets you make excellent portraits, where the subject is in focus and the background is blurred. Like this photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/laprice/4757480230/in/set-72157624287094139/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/laprice/4757480230/in/set-72157... Amazon has a deal on that combo right now too http://amzn.to/brBxsE http://amzn.to/brBxsE
- starkfist 16y ago
  A 20mm lens is not an excellent portrait lens. It will make your face look fatter.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - masomenos 16y ago
    Going by the analysis in the post, and in the parent comment, the 20mm would probably be positively correlated with attractiveness because it's easier to get a shallower depth of field with it. However, you're certainly correct that conventional photographic wisdom is that people look better on longer lenses, for just the reason you cite -- wider angles can distort faces unpleasantly. It would have been interesting to see an analysis of lens length & perceived attractiveness from this dataset.
    - starkfist 16y ago
      You have to be too close to the face in order to throw out the background with a 20mm 1.9. It's going to make the nose look weird and accentuate a double chin, if you have one. (I have the same camera and lens)
      - j00lz 16y ago
        I get great results from using that lens for portraits. The 20mm lens is really a 40mm due to the x2 cropped sensor in m4/3 cameras.
        jonah 16y ago
        40mm equiv. is too wide for portraiture. typically you use around an 85mm lens. this would work out to 40-50mm in micro four thirds.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > A 20mm lens is not an excellent portrait lens. It will make your face look fatter. It depends on the sensor size. A 20mm lens in (35mm) full-frame is a very wide lens. A 20mm lens on a Canon/Nikon DSLR is the same as a 35mm lens on a (35mm) full-frame. A 20mm lens on a point-and-shoot is even "longer".
    - tincholio 16y ago
      In a (micro)4/3ds camera, 20mm is equivalent to 40mm in 35mm, which is close to a normal lens. It's on the short end for portraiture, but you can get nice results if the lens is fast enough.
jacobolus 16y ago
This is both true and irrelevant. It is completely possible to avoid blown highlights and noisy shadows with any point and shoot camera. At the size pictures are presented on dating sites, the optics and sensors of any point and shoot are also more than adequate. More clearly: that the pictures taken with point-and-shoot cameras are crappy is not the fault of those cameras, and pictures taken at the same time by the same person with a different camera would likely also be crappy.
- Terretta 16y ago
  Sensors, perhaps. Optics, not so much, when going for a shallow depth of field (one of the later graphs).
  - patrickgzill 16y ago
    Actually for the same size lens, a larger aperture (lower f-stop number, e.g. f2.8 vs. f8) always results in less depth of field. More precision, better design and better optical quality glass all cost more. Since more expensive optics usually tend to have a larger max aperture ...
- lsc 16y ago
  speaking as a crappy photographer, I disagree. A nice camera with a reasonable lens makes up for a lot of photographer incompetence. I mean, yeah, my photographs, in general, turn out much worse than photographs taken by a person who knows what they are doing. However, my photographs taken with cheap point and shoot cameras, well, you can't even tell what the subject is half the time. A good camera brings the picture quality up to "you can read the serial number off the equipment if you zoom in" - I mean, the composition isn't any good, and I've got flash glare, but it's a /huge/ difference. and, considering that for most things I take photos for (usually something I'm selling) have a relatively low 'good enough' bar, a good camera is the cheapest way for me to get above that bar.

olefoo 16y ago

I just got a Panasonic GF-1 this spring, and it has refreshed my passion for photography. I did a lot of research beforehand and I'm glad to see that OKCupid is confirming my choice. A fair bit of the credit has to go to the 20mm Pancake lens that Panasonic makes, it's one sweet piece of glass, and it lets you make excellent portraits, where the subject is in focus and the background is blurred. Like this photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/laprice/4757480230/in/set-72157624287094139/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/laprice/4757480230/in/set-72157... Amazon has a deal on that combo right now too http://amzn.to/brBxsE http://amzn.to/brBxsE

starkfist 16y ago
A 20mm lens is not an excellent portrait lens. It will make your face look fatter.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- masomenos 16y ago
  Going by the analysis in the post, and in the parent comment, the 20mm would probably be positively correlated with attractiveness because it's easier to get a shallower depth of field with it. However, you're certainly correct that conventional photographic wisdom is that people look better on longer lenses, for just the reason you cite -- wider angles can distort faces unpleasantly. It would have been interesting to see an analysis of lens length & perceived attractiveness from this dataset.
  - starkfist 16y ago
    You have to be too close to the face in order to throw out the background with a 20mm 1.9. It's going to make the nose look weird and accentuate a double chin, if you have one. (I have the same camera and lens)
    - j00lz 16y ago
      I get great results from using that lens for portraits. The 20mm lens is really a 40mm due to the x2 cropped sensor in m4/3 cameras.
      - jonah 16y ago
        40mm equiv. is too wide for portraiture. typically you use around an 85mm lens. this would work out to 40-50mm in micro four thirds.
- anamax 16y ago
  > A 20mm lens is not an excellent portrait lens. It will make your face look fatter. It depends on the sensor size. A 20mm lens in (35mm) full-frame is a very wide lens. A 20mm lens on a Canon/Nikon DSLR is the same as a 35mm lens on a (35mm) full-frame. A 20mm lens on a point-and-shoot is even "longer".
  - tincholio 16y ago
    In a (micro)4/3ds camera, 20mm is equivalent to 40mm in 35mm, which is close to a normal lens. It's on the short end for portraiture, but you can get nice results if the lens is fast enough.

jacobolus 16y ago

This is both true and irrelevant. It is completely possible to avoid blown highlights and noisy shadows with any point and shoot camera. At the size pictures are presented on dating sites, the optics and sensors of any point and shoot are also more than adequate. More clearly: that the pictures taken with point-and-shoot cameras are crappy is not the fault of those cameras, and pictures taken at the same time by the same person with a different camera would likely also be crappy.

Terretta 16y ago
Sensors, perhaps. Optics, not so much, when going for a shallow depth of field (one of the later graphs).
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  Actually for the same size lens, a larger aperture (lower f-stop number, e.g. f2.8 vs. f8) always results in less depth of field. More precision, better design and better optical quality glass all cost more. Since more expensive optics usually tend to have a larger max aperture ...
lsc 16y ago
speaking as a crappy photographer, I disagree. A nice camera with a reasonable lens makes up for a lot of photographer incompetence. I mean, yeah, my photographs, in general, turn out much worse than photographs taken by a person who knows what they are doing. However, my photographs taken with cheap point and shoot cameras, well, you can't even tell what the subject is half the time. A good camera brings the picture quality up to "you can read the serial number off the equipment if you zoom in" - I mean, the composition isn't any good, and I've got flash glare, but it's a /huge/ difference. and, considering that for most things I take photos for (usually something I'm selling) have a relatively low 'good enough' bar, a good camera is the cheapest way for me to get above that bar.