Is a DSLR Mandatory for todays Wedding & Event Photog? (Fuji X Pro1?)

<p>Somehow I read all of the responses and did not read clearly your OP... it seems to me as if you are thinking re-inventing the wheel with a Fuji will change the results you could not get with the 5D. As the owner of a Fuji, only you can answer that question, and it's likely you already know the answer.</p>

<p>Personally, I like using a DSLR (with bracket, strobe, and battery) because not only does it give me a lot of options to make good shots but the rig separates me from the guests and lets me interact with them on a different level. If I showed up with a camera little or no different than the other guests, it would diminish my authority to pose and direct people (when necessary). Probably just a power trip on my part :-).</p>

<p>If your thing is to use smaller cameras in a discreet manner and you get great shots, more power to you.</p>

<p>This could go on until the cows come home because it has to do with what each person <strong>thinks</strong> they need to do the job, not necessarily what is really needed. Whatever works for you is all that matters.</p>

<p>The one caution I would offer about some of the current smaller cameras is one of matching your skill with using it in the face of the usual demands at a wedding. This has nothing to do with projecting authority or presence, and everything to do with what style of imagery you are selling, and your ability to meet or exceed the expectations of the current wedding client pool ... <em><strong>in your market. </strong></em></p>

<p>IMO, the reality of most wedding photography assignments can be summed up in one word ... diverse. Frankly, the fastest, most diverse tool available is the 35mm DSLR. I see the smaller cameras as supplemental ... I may do 1/2 of a wedding with Leica M, but the other half would be quite a challenge even though I am very skilled at using the M camera. So, while I am sure I could do an entire wedding with a M or one of the Fuji/Sony/Oly crop of small cameras, my question would be why? Why limit yourself? Professional wedding photography is hard enough without throwing in more challenges into the mix.</p>

<p>The counter point to that, would be if you sell only discreet candid work with no shot list in the client's head going in ... which some photographers have been successful at marketing ... unfortunately, I'm not one of them. In my market, you have to be prepared to do a pretty diverse mix of imagery ... which brings it all back to the old saying ... <strong>Horses For Courses. </strong> </p>

<p> </p>

<p>David Bell said: "Jon, I think you may have missed Frank's point. He is speaking about the impression the couple and the guests may have of a principal photographer wielding what to them looks like a small, unprofessional camera. First impressions do count for a lot. Doesn't matter how skilled the photographer or how good the little camera is, I agree that it can create a negative impression amongst some people. Others may not care. I haven;t used any of the Fuji cameras but I know some people who have used them at weddings with amazing results. For me, I like shooting at ISO6400-12800 if necessary, and for couple shoots I love shooting at 200mm, F2.8. Also, snappy focussing is essential. These smaller mirrorless cameras cannot fulfill these needs, for my purposes at least."<br /> <br /> David, the solution to your first statement is "educate your clients". It's as simple as showing them existing work created on a range of equipment. That soon reassures them.<br /> <br /> The Internet is awash with armchair commentators who have never used the kit they're going on about! You're wrong on a few counts when it comes to the Fuji X series cameras - at the high ISO values you speak of the XP1 is quite capable, and a long high quality zoom is on the Fuji roadmap for early next year (in fact Fujinon glass is amongst the best out there, on par with or better than your Canon L glass) the autofocus is far from slow thanks to the most recent firmware updates. Whilst the X series cameras are best suited to photographers with a certain style, in skilled hands they are more than capable of creating excellent wedding photography and sublime professional portraits.</p>

<p>Edit: If I see you in January I may well force one of my little bodies into your hands, just to prove a point! (-:</p>

Somtimes a guest may show up with a camera that the pro's use. The guest may think you are a joke. Who care's. If you get the shots with quality,don't worry about the guests that come with $8000 cameras and 22 lenses that can take video too.

<blockquote>

<p>IMO, the reality of most wedding photography assignments can be summed up in one word ... diverse. Frankly, the fastest, most diverse tool available is the 35mm DSLR. I see the smaller cameras as supplemental ... I may do 1/2 of a wedding with Leica M, but the other half would be quite a challenge even though I am very skilled at using the M camera. So, while I am sure I could do an entire wedding with a M or one of the Fuji/Sony/Oly crop of small cameras, my question would be why? Why limit yourself? Professional wedding photography is hard enough without throwing in more challenges into the mix.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, you are dead on. One of the problems with this forum is a lot of people simply do not realize that just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. DSLRs exist for a reason. There is no law that says you SHOULD use one but why not? I get so tired of people reinventing the wheel on here for no apparent reason. I was in a debate in an iphone camera phone thread. I mean seriously people? If you want to do some professional photography work I can pickup a used DSLR and 50mm prime for less than an iphone and have so much versatility. Why even argue about it? It's just argument for arguments sake.</p>

<p>I agree with the marketing. I shoot film along side digital. If I shot weddings I would just shoot digital unless someone paid me MORE yes that is right MORE to shoot medium format film. But I would market that service. I would sell it. Otherwise I would just go with the flow and make my money.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Today with digital cameras every consumer has access to the same cameras. I see plenty of amateurs walking around Times Square every day with $3000.00 cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jon, I live in America. Let me assure you the average person has never touched $3,000 of consumer electronics of any type let alone a camera. Unemployment is <em>officially</em> at 7.9%. This is not the type of environment that is littered with $3,000 cameras.</p>

<p>Interesting, I have a range of 'vintage' cameras that I charge my clients extra to use (£100 per roll) everything from Box Brownies to my big old wooden 5x4.<br>

Weddings should be fun, otherwise what's the point!?</p>

<p>I went to the journalist school in Argentina and Cuba and i remember my teacher in Buenos Airies always say...don't worry about camera brand and expensive gear you can take the best pictures with any cheap and simple cameras!<br>

Now everybody talk about sharp lenses and sofisticated cameras and in many cases went you see a big guy with heavy cameras and lenses he take ugly photos without felling.I think that sometime the tecnology kill our imagination and creativity.The america consumer society is killing the planet.<br>

I have publication in the Boston Globe newspaper and also in Argentina magazine for inmigrant i use all type of cameras from Rollei,Contax 645,Hasselblad,Mamiya 7,Canon 5D markII.I sold everything and i only keep my Rolleiflex tlr and my Fujifilm EX1....If i need a faster camera for any job i prefer to rent.<br>

I can say that my best photos was taking went i was in the school with a simple canon AE1 and only one lens a 50mm f1.8<br>

In this country EU everything is about how people look appearance,money and competition and we are human and imperfectos!</p>

<p>I went to the journalist school in Argentina and Cuba and i remember my teacher in Buenos Airies always say...don't worry about camera brand and expensive gear you can take the best pictures with any cheap and simple cameras!<br>

Now everybody talk about sharp lenses and sofisticated cameras and in many cases went you see a big guy with heavy cameras and lenses he take ugly photos without felling.I think that sometime the tecnology kill our imagination and creativity.The america consumer society is killing the planet.<br>

I have publication in the Boston Globe newspaper and also in Argentina magazine for inmigrant i use all type of cameras from Rollei,Contax 645,Hasselblad,Mamiya 7,Canon 5D markII.I sold everything and i only keep my Rolleiflex tlr and my Fujifilm EX1....If i need a faster camera for any job i prefer to rent.<br>

I can say that my best photos was taking went i was in the school with a simple canon AE1 and only one lens a 50mm f1.8<br>

In this country EU everything is about how people look appearance,money and competition and we are human and imperfectos!</p><div></div>

Juan BEAUTIFUL image!

I also have a degree in photography (MFA) and I like you have come to realize, photography really has

nothing to do with cameras or gear. Unfortunately this art form tends to attract technicians more then

artisans. Or simply put "gear heads"

Keep making gorgeous photographs

<p>Thanks Jon..here are more pictures from that years!</p><div></div>

<p>Lo escencial es invisible para los ojos!!<br>

The essential is invisible for the eyes!!</p><div></div>

Based on the first page, the op has already made up his mind before posting here. Therefore, no accounts of better

flash capability, focus speed/accuracy, lens variety, burst function, live view performance, focus tracking,

shutter lag, write speed, overall practicality, etc., will change his mind anyway. He's obviously used to taking things

slowly and methodically with medium format and that's the kind of wedding style he will have. Spontaneity and fast

moving subjects will just have to get missed sometimes.