Wedding photographer selection equipment

<p>Why is the question of "equipment" limited to a camera? How about lenses, tripods, lights, remote controls, software, etc.?</p>

<p>I am going to pick on myself. We have two Nikon D90's and two Nikon D300s's. And to be honest, I don't like using the D90 to shoot professionally, wedding or otherwise. Why? I like having 51 focus points. I like having a better overall AF system. I like having a better overall metering system (especially as applied to flash photography on the go). I like having controls as buttons on the camera body and not having to delve into the menu. For these reasons I can get images I might have otherwise either missed or simply had not shot as well as with the D90. There does come a time when your equipment might limit you. For some, that time never comes. Or perhaps the the ROI (return on investment) isn't great enough to warrant better equipment for the service offered. But again, any craftsman will take a certain amount of pride in their equipment. So for me, when I "notice" someone shooting with entry level equipment, one of my first thoughts are that they haven't realized the benefit of better equipment. 51-focus points don't do you any good if you only ever use the center focus point! </p>

<p>As far as shooting a wedding with nothing longer than a 50mm lens.... no matter how successful that person may be, I would certainly never want a wedding shot with nothing but a 50mm (and a successful photography business has very little to do with photography!). The 50mm is the "normal" perspective. I tend to agree with Ansel Adams, why would I want that? Don't get me wrong, the 50mm is probably my favorite lens, followed by the 85mm! And I like the 85mm because the focal length will compress subject features and deliver an excellent bokeh- more so than the 50mm. But now we are entering into a artistic discussion (which is great) but I wonder how many wedding photographers shooting with an entry level camera care about this. Which leads back to the gear you use does say something about you. </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Are there any cameras on the list that you wouldn’t allow someone to shoot you wedding with?"</em><br>

<em></em><br />"Nope." (Nadine's response)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just don't get caught by Judge Joe Brown.</p>

<p>Have a great weekend across the other side of the pond, guys and girls.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>cameras have nothing to do with the quality of the shooter, and almost nothing do with the quality of the output.</p>

<p>the proof is in the pudding. tell the bride to look at the work and make a decision based on that.</p>

<p>quality gear usually suggests high quality work, but it's not a guarantee. the latter is more important. I use two canon 5d mark 2's and a pile of L lenses. that doesn't make me more qualified than a guy with a rebel and the kit lens IF his or her work is as good as mine.</p>

<p>"Just don't get caught by Judge Joe Brown."</p>

<p>Oh William Wallace, you never fail to make me laugh...</p>

<p><strong>

<p>Why settle on just equipment? :) !</p>

</strong></p>

<p>Give out other things to cull you out or keep you in the running.</p>

<p>Heck add : age; gender; height, weight, race, religion, income, political groups, hair color, married/single; # kids; film brand used; Mac or PC or Linux user; version(s) of photoshop used; whether a legal copy or not of all software is used, tripod type; hobbies, backup camera used.</p>

<p>WITH a giant MATRIX a couple could search for a Mac user who is tall with red hair; under 35, belongs to the Whig party, Likes Bridge (cards); hates Adobe Bridge; has 3 kids uses a Canon 5D; Metz flash; has a Tiltall tripod; uses a Yashica D for backup, uses a Firefox Browser; uses a Blackberry and not an iPhone.</p>

<p>With a giant Matrix; couples could cull out Nikon or Canon users, If a Canon user had 12 L lenses and listed a kit zoom too; you could disgard him/her as garbage; ie you cull them out.</p>

<p>The original inquiry was based on rational thought: The most recent responses don't seem to be.</p>

<p>I just read some of the responses and have to laugh...</p>

<p>I've been fairly successfull over the past 3 years, using Nikon D300's. I have no plans to upgrade to a D3 or D3s or even a D700 in the near future... Why not? Not because I can't afford it... I can... But the D300 meets my needs and the client's needs just fine. </p>

<p>I have a priority list for the profit I make - Camera's, Gear and Equipment are at the bottom of that list. Sorry Missy K - my money doens't go back into the business - it goes back to my family and things they need first.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I often wonder how people can spend thousands on the latest gadgets, software, & hardware and can't contribute a few dollars for a P-net subscription even though it appears to be a primary source of continuing education................</p>

<p>Ohh, a P-net plug. Do you work for P-net?</p>

<p>Have you ever wondered why people could go out to the movies and buy popcorn and candy for their kids, but they can't afford to fix their car until it dies on the side of the road?</p>

<p>David - I've wondered that same thing myself!</p>

<p>so If I shoot with an H3D II 39mp then am I out of the running too?</p>

<p>I had a bride who insisted that I tell her what equipment I used on 2 occasions via email after she had already received all the other information including package prices. After much thought, I never communicated with her again and decided not to photograph her wedding, I could sense problems. I use excellent equipment and I think I get good results, how I arrived at those results, in most cases, has very little to do with the equipment I am using.</p>

<p>Dan Zimmerman<br>

You are so hilarious and your comment was awesome..LOL.. At the end it's true what most of them agree.. It's the shooter and not the equipment.. I do have all good toys like 5DII... 7D 85 f1.2 L and couple more L's what's the fun having them unless I know how to play around..</p>

<p><em>"Ohh, a P-net plug. Do you work for P-net?" -Joey A.</em><br /><em></em><br />No, I don't work for P-net, just a subscriber that's appreciated the forum over the past several years. I also don't recall P-net ever pushing for subscribers and I've rarely seen anyone else plugging subscriptions. Subscribing is completely voluntary, but I wonder how much non-subscribers value the medium......especially those that are frequent posters.</p>

<p>I would allow Alex Majoli to shoot my wedding with his favorite Olympus point and shoot. And Rinko Kawauchi can come along too with her favorite Rolleiflex. If the officiant has a problem with Majoli needing to use flash, or with Kawauchi needing to be very close to the ceremony with her sole 80mm prime, I'll just find another officiant. The priest isn't the person I'll necessarily care to remember 50 years from now. But those photographs will be priceless, and I hired the photographer(s) I wanted for a reason.</p>

<p>The question is, how important are actual results to the bride to be? Has she chosen a caterer yet? I'd like to know if she's going to reject the best tasting and most beautifully presented food just because it was cooked on Cuisinart rather than All-Clad.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would allow Alex Majoli to shoot my wedding with his favorite Olympus point and shoot</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Point and shoots are nice but as Alex Majoli has stated he likes them for the depth of field which is one the reason that people prefer professional equipment for weddings, the ability to isolate the subject.</p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=659770"><em>Peter Kervarec</em></a><em> </em><a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Mar 19, 2010; 09:53 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>I had a bride who insisted that I tell her what equipment I used on 2 occasions via email after she had already received all the other information including package prices. After much thought, I never communicated with her again and decided not to photograph her wedding, I could sense problems. I use excellent equipment and I think I get good results, how I arrived at those results, in most cases, has very little to do with the equipment I am using.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I did the same thing a few years ago. Never regretted it. I think she was someone who was planning to get into the business but wanted to "use what the pros use" by finding out what they used. :)</p>

 

<p>@John: The quote is from Vernon Trent, but misses the last part:</p>

<p><em>amateurs worry about equipment,<br />professionals worry about money,<br />masters worry about light,<br />I just take pictures…</em></p>

<p>A backup body and other equipment can be rented. I don't think the photographer has to own everything.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Point and shoots are nice but as Alex Majoli has stated he likes them for the depth of field which is one the reason that people prefer professional equipment for weddings, the ability to isolate the subject.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see my point was lost on you. If I were to hire Alex Majoli to shoot my wedding, I am obviously going for his style, and extended depth of field is part of it. If I wanted pictures in which my surroundings were obliterated such that nobody can even tell where my wedding took place, I wouldn't be hiring Alex Majoli or, say, Daido Moriyama.<br /> <br /> Isolating the subject is easy. Anyone with a Noctilux or 200mm f/2 can isolate a subject. But to be able to take a picture with all elements in the foreground, background and subject contributing to a coherent, unified whole? That takes something called <em>skill,</em> and it can't be bought.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone with a Noctilux or 200mm f/2 can isolate a subject.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure why you seem to be picking on me, but I guess I could state that any monkey with a point and shoot will be able to get great dof, but that is besides the point, I use point and shoot cameras quite often when the environment is as important as the subject matter, that is not the case in weddings as quite often the background is cluttered and it becomes a distraction of what should be the focal point. Alex Majoli mostly does war and poverty, subjects that lend themselves to having the environment included. Now have a great day, Hugh.</p>

<p>John Deerfield wrote: "I like having a better overall metering system (especially as applied to flash photography on the go)."<br>

Well, if you want to get picky about equipment, some photographers (perhaps I'm one of them) will scorn anyone trying to work without a decent handheld light meter. The capabilities of a DSLR, no matter how expensive, are far short of what a skillfull photographer equiped with a light meter can do.</p>

<p>The bride probably did an equipment comparison when choosing a husband too. An old friend of mine used to say " Its not the wand, its the Magician", But I don't think he was talking about photography.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However she is very hung up on them having the “right equipment” .... I have pointed out to her that the camera doesn’t make the camera man, she is adamant she wants to make sure they have the ”right equipment”...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with her that she needs the right equipment. But it's not the camera and it's not the lens. She should worry about the person using it. Nothing else matters.</p>

<p>Just for the record, there is no fundamental difference between any of the cameras you listed, at least not one that's worth debating. Any of them can produce great pictures in the right hands. And in the wrong hands, they can all produce rubbish.</p>

<p>Thank you Andrew! You have helped make my point. An incident light meter will give you a more accurate reading at the subject. In other words, it is better than the reflective metering found in any camera. Which is to say that some cameras will meter better than others. Not all cameras use the same metering "parameters", with the more expensive cameras doing a betting job of it. For myself (and I image at least a few others), I am relying on TTL metering for the flash (at a wedding). I shoot manual and let the camera work out the flash. For many shots, I simply don't have the time to take a meter reading of my flash. One example might be the processional where subject distances are rapidly changing. I have a choice of using TTL and firing when I want or calculating for one or two exposures based on a predetermined distance (a certain pew) and taking that shot even if I don't have a great expression. Please don't read into that as if I never take the time to do this. But all of this would be another discussion. The fact of the matter is that if you believe an incident reading to be better than an a cameras reflective reading (and I do), then it stands to reason that some cameras will also meter better than other cameras. And that is part of my point. I shoot Nikon and have shot Canon and tend to follow those two brands. Every piece of literature will tell you that the "better" cameras have an improved AF and metering system. Better relative to <em>their</em> other cameras.</p>

<p>And I do believe that a skilled photographer is the most important part of the equation. But I repeat, I would rather use my D300s than my D90 for all of the reasons I have stated. If I were shooting Canon, I would probably prefer the 7D over a 50D or Rebel for the same reasons. My skill set won't change but the tool I am using will allow me to do better job. I know this. Therefore I choose such a tool. If I didn't feel this way, I could use the D90. And I have shoot weddings using 2x D90's. And the results were just fine. But I would have gotten better results using the D300. Just as I would have gotten even better results had I used an incident light meter in every situation. </p>