Equiptment for Candids...

Hi all,

 

I use a hasselblad outfit with 60mm and 150mm lenses for

event/wedding photography, and my wife backs me up from another angle

with 35mm. For the candid stuff I have been using the hassy, and

sometimes switch to the 35mm. However, my hassy lenses arent that

fast (both are f3.5 & f4.0), and I want to use more natural light. I

am thinking of getting a 80mm 2.8 (could also use this as a backup

for formals) planar for another stop of speed. Other options I am

exploring are buying a canon 50mm 1.4 for my wife's eos outfit (she

has a long telephoto and a 100mm macro, but no prime 50!), or a

rangefinder, as I figure with a rangefinder (perhaps a Voigtlander

Bessa R or R2?) I could use slower shutter speeds with a fast lens.

 

Any advice/opinions would be appreciated. Thanks to all who post.

 

Patrick

Shooting fast paced candid work with a Hasselblad is tough duty, especially in low light.

IMHO, the 80/2.8 won't be a whole lot easier than the 60/3.5. The Canon 50/1.4 is the

inexpensive way out and may well be the best solution, considering your wife's camera is

AF.

 

But if you're talking manual focus, a Rangefinder will give you a whole new approach. Very

easy to focus in low light because you aren't looking through the lens. And it is true that

it's possible to shoot a rangefinder at lower than normal shutter speeds due to zero mirror

slap.

 

Voigtlander's don't have a viewfinder to match a Leica M, nor will they hold up as well, but

there are a couple of pretty nice pieces of glass available for a fraction of their Leica

counterparts. I used a 28/1.8 for awhile and was VERY impressed with the images. Others

tout the 50 Nocton (sp?).

 

IMO, the still reigning champ of ultra discrete, manual focus ease in low light, coupled

with screamingly fast glass that performs wide open, is the Leica M with a .085 viewfinder

and a 35/1.4 ASPH. Heck, you don't need that arm and leg ; -)<div></div>

In my opinion, you are ripe for digital photography. Natural light makes a 'demand' on

your ability to create sharpness for the client. I said 'for the client'. Why? Because they

want to see themselves not as mere symbolic objects but as whole people. You will thusly

be needing to give them sharp pictures more often than a newspaper photographer would

be required to do.

 

Because natural light can easily be 4-5 f stops under Daylight, you will be using more

open f stops that decrease depth of field sharpness. The way to 'get this sharpness depth

back' is to use digital cameras with their 25mm format which is about 60% of a 35mm

format. You can use more open apertures for low light, and still get lots of

sharpness with them. They are abit revolutionary, in additioin, because they usually flash

sync at 1/500th which is a boon for outdoor flash fill, too. There are some outstanding

examples of 25mm digital pictures in photo.net threads by wedding photographers and

others.

 

I think that use of a Canon EOS 35mm camera is very popular amongst wedding

photographers today. A moderate 35mm-70mm lens is enough. 28-70mm is more

usable. But I would have a 35mm f2.0 or f1.4 as a standard choice here. I would be using

the prime 35mm alot in a dark environment, too.

 

You will be wanting to take your natural light photographs at about 1/125th or 1/250th

for sharpness. 1/250th is a standard setting for me because this is where my flash will

sync and I know that there is very little additional sharpness advantage if I use 1/500th.

 

If you use rangefinder, well, more power to you! I used a big 6x7 Mamiya Super 23 for

several years in the 1970s, so I trust rangefinders. But still, be cautious about slow

speeds. I am trying to please the client, you know; blurred photographs are difficult to

sell.

Nikon user here: 28mm 1.4. Anything this wide over 28mm will give you useless depth of field.

Foreground subject sharpness isn't the function of the shutter speed in dark conditions

using flash as much as it is the function of flash duration. Shooting at 1/250th or 1/500th

makes it damned near impossible to record any ambient background light.

 

Timber, you keep telling us what clients want to the point that it's a wonder how any of

the rest of us sell anything to anyone.

 

Why don't you post an example of one of your 1/250th sync shots in a dark reception hall,

so we all can learn exactly how you defy the laws of physics.

Also, don't ask me the technical reasons, but medium format has generally less depth of field than 35mm, so shooting the Zeiss 80 at f2.8--you'd better have your focus right on, because the depth of field is very shallow.

The Voigtlander's a decent camera but doesn't hold its value very

well. If you try it and decide you don't like it, you're liable to lose a

bit of money. Even though the Leica's more expensive, if you buy

used you can often sell for exactly what you paid for it. I've done it

several times now.

 

Plus the Leica is just much nicer in the hand and has the

operational advantage of being quieter, too.

 

I have an EOS-3 / M6TTL kit and the Leica definitely delivers

better results in candid, available light situations for me. I find it

such a pleasure to use under those conditions.<div></div>

L O V E that shot Kevin.

Thanks, Marc!

<p>

I dunno, Timber, even with the 1/250th sync of the EOS, I still

drag the shutter indoors with flash. And with the Leica and its

1/50 sync, I'm <i>always</i> dragging the shutter, like it or not.

1/15th is pretty useable unless the subjects are moving

fast, and the ambient light helps the shots look more 3-D than

with 100% or the light being provided by the flash.<div></div>

Kevin, please tell me that's an ice cold beer in his hand! That is hilarious. Good work.

 

Duane

Kevin, you seem to use the Leica a lot at weddings, at least from your postings.

 

How much? I ask because I've noticed that I am getting the shots with digital (1Ds), but

when I select the best shots for a large group of images, there are a disproportionate

number of them from the Leica work.

Yes it is! A Bud Light, I believe. He's the bride's brother and he

kept his shirt off as long as possible just to mess with her.

 

Marc, I just got the EOS-3 recently and I haven't used it in a

wedding yet, I've just been practicing with it. (I don't get to shoot

weddings as often as I'd like because I'm a stay-at-home dad.

Looking forward to pre-school!) I picked it up to do the things

the M isn't good at, like tracking focus and outdoor flash.

 

I do like the way an all-manual camera focuses my concentration

when I use it. I tend to develop lazy habits when using a camera

as sophisticated as the Canon. The M is such a perfect people

camera that I'll be curious to see how many 'keepers' I get with

the Canon, too.

Marc, for me, an SLR forces you to see the shot through the viewfinder. With a Leica M, you see the shot first, frame it, shoot it. You aren't distracted by depth of field and focal length. With an .85 VF you pretty much see everything as your eye sees it, all you have to do is frame the shot. That is my theory anyway.