D5300 basic video interview setup

Hi there,

I want to shoot a static video interview in an office space. In the end you just see my talent talking for a product endorsement.

I plan to purchase two D5300 using
1.) a 35mm 1.8 lens for the main view (upper body)
2.) a 50mm 1.8 lens for close up head shots
3.) standard 3-point LED lighting setup (plus maybe some ambient lights)

My aim is to fully seperate the subject from the background - so only the upper body is in focus and the background (bookshelf) should be completely blurred (bokeh).
I did 2 days of online research to come up with this cost efficient setup but I'm new to this, so if you can suggest improvements (within the same price range) I'd really appreciate your input

P.S.: Audio is handled via a lavalier mic attached to a portable Roland audio recorder (basically just a better Zoom recorder)

manlyman said:

Hi there,

I want to shoot a static video interview in an office space. In the end you just see my talent talking for a product endorsement.

I plan to purchase two D5300 using
1.) a 35mm 1.8 lens for the main view (upper body)
2.) a 50mm 1.8 lens for close up head shots
3.) standard 3-point LED lighting setup (plus maybe some ambient lights)

Click to expand...

IMO (experience shooting portraits), 35mm is simply too short to plan upper body shots. The concern is that you will have stand too close to the subject to crop the view. One consideration is that better portrait perspective (about relative size of noses enlarged by too-close distances, etc) is best if you always stand back, say at least six feet. More if you can. Zoom in all you want, but stand back a little for perspective.

Plus, not only perspective, but 35mm f/1.8 depth of field is not all that shallow. The Depth of Field chart implies acceptably sharp limits, not nearly blurred out of focus.

So always best to prepare a featureless background, but a background is more out of focus (and a more narrow horizontal view hiding more of the view) with a longer lens standing back a little farther.


Field of view:

35mm lens at six feet, DX field of view is 4' 1.4" x 2' 8.9"

50mm lens at six feet, DX field of view is 2' 10.6" x 1' 11"

50mm lens at eight feet, DX field of view is 3' 10" x 2' 6.7"

70mm lens at six feet, DX field of view is 2' 0.7" x 1' 4.5"

Now true, I am considering portrait orientation, where your video is landscape, which swaps the numbers, and requires greater distance. The 35mm 2' 8.9" at six feet should frame the body view of the subject. But "fully separate" will need some distance behind the subject. I'm thinking you instead need more focal length to blur any close background.

Still, the 2 1/2 foot frame height is about a waist up body view.

Regarding DOF, here is a 50mm DX at f/1.8, grapes at 7 feet, wall at 13 feet. That is NOT separated.
The flowers visible are 24 inches above table.

Thank you so much WayneF for your detailed answer.
I got a bit lost since I'm not familiar with inches but your sample shot llustrates very nicely that it won't work the way I imagined it with these lenses.

when you write

Zoom in all you want, but stand back a little for perspective.

Click to expand...

do you think I'm better of with a zoom lens?
I have around 3,5m (so around 11 feet) to move back from my subject while the bookshelf is around 1m (3 feet) behind my subject.

So with 11 feet available distance I guess I should start with a 70mm?

P.S.: Maybe to ealry to bring this up since I'm not sure what lenses to get but I'm trying to stay within my budget.
A quick search put up lenses like the Sigma 70-300mm F4,0-5,6 DG Makro (around 100€) but I'm not sure if zoom lenses will deliver good results for this. The demo pic from this lens looks nice though

Here's one awesome shot (but that's a 85mm 1.4 on a full frame)
Do you guys think this look can be achieved with a cheaper lens on a DX?

It is not about cheap. Minimum DOF is about longer focal length and wider aperture (and of course, greater distance behind subject too). 85mm is more than double 35mm, and f/1.4 is about 2/3 stop wider than f/1.8, and FX has less DOF than cropped DX... so there are three factors helping to blur that background, and more background distance is probably four factors.

I suspect users buying a short f/1.8 for the DOF purpose are often disappointed. 85mm would be better than 35. A pro trying to eliminate the background will use a longer lens, maybe 200mm. You stand back more, but this does two things. One, the narrow view greatly limits the lateral span of the visible background, allowing picking a better small spot that has little in it to be seen. Where the trees are instead of the house (where 35 sees it all, and more). It may not be f/1.8, but two, whatever it does have will normally blur better in similar situations with the longer focal length. This is speaking outdoors however, where there is distance to the background. Indoors is a tough problem. Providing a featureless plain background can work.

Sorry about the inches, I did not see any country for you. There are 12 inches in a foot, so 2' 6" is 2.5 feet. And 3.28 feet in one meter.

Alright I get it - so back to square one then, since FX and f/1.4 glass is out of the question budget wise.

So I hide the bookshelf background by placing a plain featureless background behind my subject.
Is there any particular lens (or focal length) you would recommend at 10 feet distance for a nice protrait shot on a DX?

Hmm...and I thought indoors would be easier since I can freely manipulate the lighting conditions. Wishful thinking at work I guess.

P.S.: I just had a funny thought
- I take a shot of the bookshelf
- blur it nicely in photoshop
- print out the blurred background and put it as a large poster behind my subject

...but that would probably look even more weird

I often use about 110mm zoom at ten feet for FX portraits (upright portrait orientation of waist up pictures).
For DX, that equivalent would be about 70-75mm. I used to try to use 60mm (DX) within five feet (waist up), but farther is better.

This is speaking portrait orientation, but your video would be landscape, so that necessarily wider view surely means 2/3 the focal length by definition (1/1.5 = 2/3). So that is towards 50mm again, but the shorter lens will have greater DOF.

The field of view of 50mm DX at 3 meters is 1m 44cm x 0m 96cm.

That would be the DX photo however, and 1080 video at 16:9 would be a little smaller, certainly the height is less.
If 144 cm / 1.5 is the 96cm, then 144 / 1.78 is 80.9 cm height for HD video?
Sorry, I don't know those exact video numbers, but I think that is ballpark.

So zoom lenses have much versatility, but a f/2.8 lens is pricey again.

Something like a bed sheet can be hung to make a plain background. This is often wrinkled however, which often shows as such, can look bad. f/1.8 might help, but a garment steamer can fix it. If you use a subject light, the background is more distant, and so will look gray. For portraits, we light a white background with another light. Saying, a little practice first will pay off big.