Your "go to" gear when you MUST deliver

<p>It's a huge industry here in the US. I heard just the other day that the average cost of a wedding is like, $25K. My family is dirt poor. My wife's side is almost as bad. Our wedding cost $4K at most and the photography was the single most expensive item. He did a nice job but my wife hates the pictures. Oh well.</p>

<p>Best- Nikon F100<br>

Worse- Disposable point and shoot </p>

Goto: F4 with F as backup

 

Nightmare: Minolta Autocord (just cause I'm really slow with it, shooting and especially reloading)

<p>Leica M6 w/Summicron or Zeiss Sonnar both 50mm. </p>

<p>With only two rolls of film, a 120 camera with the needed fill flash wedding capabilities, only provides 24 total pictures. Not enough for the standard number of expected wedding situations to cover. With two rolls of 35mm, you'll yield 72 images. That could just about cover what the family expects in recording the event. <br /> A camera such as a Nikon FE2 that has the <strong>250th of second max flash sync</strong>, will easily allow for the <strong>"Pro"</strong> looking fill flash images.</p>

<p>Worst nightmare? - Oops! Only packed a <a href="http://microsites.lomography.com/fisheye/"><strong>Lomography Fisheye</strong></a> camera...</p>

<p>Best film camera for this situation, among those I own? Nikon F100, though if I had them an F5 or F6 would be even better. Fast autofocus and lots of other useful features. Too bad I don't have the fast mid- or tele-zooms to match, so if light is poor I'd be stuck with switching fast primes or using bounce flash if allowed. OTOH none of my manual focus bodies would be any better in this respect. I don't think my 80-200 f/2.8 AIS would be advisable as a wedding lens!</p>

<p>Worst film camera? Any fixed lens camera, on the basis that I'd be able to get a very limited range of shots. Take, for example, my Nikkorex Auto 35. OK, it's not working, but if it were it would be a lousy choice due to the fixed 35mm lens, quite aside from poor reliability. Also in the running are medium-format cameras that are slow to reload, have (generally) slow lenses, and are hefty to hand-hold, like my Pentax 67. I actually shot a P67 at my own wedding reception, but I only ran one roll and the camera was on a tripod. I love my Fuji GS645Zi which is quite a bit smaller and more nimble, but the lens is terribly slow for shooting a wedding and it only zooms in to normal range.</p>

<p>Whatever camera I choose, I would get it checked up professionally before the all-important day. And always have a backup camera and a few extra rolls (few extra media cards and charged batteries for digital).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... what would YOU grab?</p>

<p>"OH NO! Wrong bag!" What camera would be in there as your worst nightmare?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would grab my Nikon F2 bag that contains three very reliable bodies.</p>

<p>My worse nightmare would be to open the bag and find…</p>

<p>1. My medium format camera because I was only given 35mm film.</p>

<p>2. My pinhole camera only because it is not suitable for the subject matter.</p>

<p><a href=" </div>

<p>I shot a wedding with one Minolta X-700 with a grid screen and one SRT-101. All of the flash shots were done with the X-700 with a 280PX on a Vertaflip bracket. Today I would use a 360PX on the same bracket, also with a Duo-Synch cord. The idea when shooting something important is to have back-up equipment so if something fails you can keep going. This means at least two bodies, at least two flash units, a lot of spare batteries and maybe two fast 35mm wide angles. If flash were not needed I might instead bring a Canon F-1 and a Canon FTbN. That's what I brought to Alaska, with a number of lenses, a few summers ago. Both cameras worked perfectly. Any equipment, no matter how good, can malfunction. That's why it's important to check for obvious things regularly. If the meter reading you get looks very far off based on the sunny 16 rule then you may have a meter problem, a battery problem or both. Shooting with older equipment can sometimes be as frustrating as driving an old car but it can also be fun. </p>

<p>My F4s with the Nikkor 105 1.8 has never let me down.<br>

<br />My nightmare would be the horrid Topcon Uni; what a piece of garbage that thing is. It's even too ugly to use as a paper weight.</p>

<p>Over the years I've actually shot quite a few weddings, usually as an adjunct amateur, but often getting results some thought better than the official ones. My used-to-be combination was an F and an Olympus XA2. The XA2, with 400 print film is incredibly versatile and can be shot from almost anywhere without aiming. The F was great for people, and the XA2 for over-people's-heads shots and the like, where nothing else worked.</p>

<p>Nowadays, I'd probably substitute the F4 for the F, but I'd keep the XA2 in a pocket. </p>

<p>The one wedding where I actually found myself the main photographer, I was flying, left all the good stuff at home, and used a Konica C3 with a 35-70 zoom. Good results. </p>

<p>Would probably go with my Nikon D3000 over one shoulder & my Nikon F5 over the other. Out of choice I would use the F5 with Portra 160 but digital would probably win because of the instant feedback on what I have shot.<br>

I have to shoot a wedding in a couple of months & am dreading it & plan on taking the two above & duplicating shots with both cameras where time allows.<br>

I have tried to persuade them to get a pro photographer in as I have never shot one before but they don't have much money & I have been told it will be compact cameras & phones if I don't take my camera. No pressure there then lol.<br>

Will teach me to take my F5 to their youngest child's christening last year & come back with photographs that they liked.<br>

I have made it clear that I will do the best I can but don't expect pro standard images from me. So far have got 4 wedding photography books cheap off ebay to study.<br>

As the saying goes. Damned if I do, Damned if I don't. Can't forget the amount of posts I have read on here from people looking for advice on shooting their first wedding with the general consensus being don't if you don't know what you are doing.</p>

 

<p>I misprinted above, not that it matters much, and the camera I used for the California wedding was a Konica Autoreflex T3, not a C3. It was a really beat up nasty one, missing some trim, finder screen damaged, with a Sigma lens on it, and a cheap flash, all designed not to be a tragedy if lost. Using hearing aid batteries and off the cuff meter compensation. It performed perfectly of course. </p>

<p>For those times I have to get it right the first time for me it's the Pentax MX and various SMC-M lenses. If it's medium format, then it's the P67. I guess there's a trend there?</p>

<p>EOS 650, 430EZ flash, 50mm f1.8 lens for groups and a 75-300mm for tight shots. Has never failed me in 20 years. When that shutter clicks I know exactly what I will get. No LCD screens needed. I can shoot with my eyes closed. Matter of fact, I have shot three family weddings over the years with it.</p>

<p>#1 - My F3<br>

#2a - My F4 with the big battery pack rather than the small battery pack. TOO HEAVY for me to use for a long gig. I'm over 50 and in my middle-age I'm learning to appreciate the lighter cameras. I used to laugh at the Olympus, now I'm thinking about getting one, just because it is so light.<br>

#2b - My old Nikon 35mm P&S. Fine for a family vacation but not for the prime photog at a wedding. And I would be stuck with the small popup flash, not a stronger and faster external flash.</p>

<p>Ok, so to put my answer in perspective here are the cameras that I regularly use (there are others that I'm going to ignore):</p>

<p>Canon EOS-1v<br>

Canon EOS-33<br>

Pentax Spotmatic II<br>

Pentax Spotmatic F<br>

Minolta Hi-Matic 7s<br>

Canon Canonet QL17 GIII<br>

Zeiss Super Ikonta (one of the 6x4.5 models)<br>

Rolleicord III<br>

Mamiya C33<br>

Mamiya C330f<br>

Hasselblad 500CM<br>

Stereo Realist<br>

Wollensak Stereo 10</p>

<p>The winner in the "must deliver" stakes is without doubt the EOS-1v. Its fantastic auto-everything features would for sure deliver more keepers and more great candids.</p>

<p>The loser would have to be the Super Ikonta, closely followed by the Rolleicord III. This is simply because you would have to be very lucky to end up with any great grab shots, and also in the case of the 'Cord poor low light use (dim focus screen). But to be honest everything on my list would be capable of taking great wedding shots.</p>

<p>In a pinch you can probably make anything work. However, if I had a choice, I'd go with my Nikon F3 with MD-4.<br>

All my cameras have been serviced, and they work fine. I've had over 25 years with the F3, and I know what to do with it instinctively. I can always back it up with an F2 or F.</p>

<p>Second choice would be my Leica M7 with Leica Motor M. It might even become choice #1, as it is considerably lighter than the F3 with MD-4.</p>

<p>Nightmare choices for an important event would be cameras lacking flash synch, such as the pre-war Certo Dollina II, or Super Ikonta A.</p>

<p>If I had to shoot Film I would probably go for my Canon Elan 7e. I prefer this camera because of it's lightning fast AF and the relatively quiet shutter. I shot weddings and funerals before with the Canon EOS 3 but the noise of that camera would turn too many heads.</p>

<p>So here is what I would use: Combination of Kodak Portra 160/400 films. Canon Elan 7e, Canon 16-35mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 and Sigma 17-70mm combination. Metz 58 AF-2 speed flash as opposed to the Canon 580EX due to the thryistor technology of the Metz. Metz 45 CT-4 for large groups.</p>

<p>For digital a Canon 7D and everything I mentioned above.</p>

<p>I dont think I would be dissapointed by any of my cameras because I think each would would do half decent job. However if I had to focus manually that migh get a little scary especially if I had to shoot in dim lighting conditions. That would put my Nikon FM2 and FE2 manual cameras in that category.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Two rolls? 25-30, please. No less. I've barely warmed up after merely 72 exposures.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Best- Nikon F100<br /> Worst- Disposable point and shoot</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That could be my answer as I own both. ;-) However, despite bad memories, I'd pick my Leicas if I still had them. I used them for my first wedding and it didn't go well. But that was not the cameras' fault, it was my fault for not insisting on preparation (the groom, bless him, was too trusting of me!). If I got to pick any film, I'd use Kodak VISION3.</p>

<p>And if cost were no object, I'd use 28mm, 50mm and 90mm Summicrons in addition to a 135mm Elmarit. I'd only take a 24mm if I knew for sure that the 28mm wasn't wide enough.</p>

<p>So, overall, I see a nice variety of choices. Just as it should be!</p><div></div>

<p>My first Choice would be <strong>Minolta XE-5 with fast 50mm lens</strong>...<br>

...<strong>or Minolta SRT 102,</strong> not better than XE but full manual... <br>

...next is Minolta Hi-Matic 7s maybe Voigtlander Vitomatic IIa or Rollei 35S.<br>

I wouldn't take any battery-dependent cameras... some are really wonderful like Yashica GTN/GSN, Minolta XG-M but I don't trust them like I trust Minolta XE/SRT or Vitomatic IIa...<br /><br /> </p>

<p>For my must-deliver machine, I'd trust my F90X. For the "Oh no!" beast, it would be my Retina IIc. It has a great lens, but the vf/rf is impossibly dim and small. You are lucky to see bodies, much less facial expressions. </p>

<p>Canon F1N AE</p>

<p>I think I'd tell the kid I had the Vapors and pass on the honor. Or tell 'em to hire a pro photographer who specializes in that kind of photography. My absolute fallback is my Nikon F70. I have a couple of them and a zillion lenses from 19mm to 500mm and a backup F50 and all kinds of strobe units. The only way to shoot a "big event" is to be paranoid about your equipment. Something will fail.</p>

<p>Canon F1 wih another F1 body for backup.</p>