Weddings - Cheap camera Vs. Expensive camera

These days Digital cameras are rated by their shutter count, that is the maximum amount of shutter clicks the camera can provide before the shutter mechanism breaks down. Cheaper(not really cheap !) cameras are usually rated at 150,000 clicks, while more expensive top-notch cameras are rated at 200,000+ clicks. That's a lot of clicks for the average shooter, but not for the wedding photographer. A typical wedding photographer will shoot about 2000 pictures per wedding. That is 2000 clicks not to mention the clicks taken during tests and calibration and the clicks taken for personal use.

 

Now if you multiply 2000 by 100 that is 200,000. So a typical wedding photographer with a Top-Notch camera can shoot about 100 weddings before the shutter gives out. A typical wedding photographer with a cheaper camera can shoot about 75 weddings before the shutter gives out.

 

Given that the average wedding photographer shoots about 50+ weddings per year, that means a replacement every 2 years or so for the Top-Notch camera and 1.75 years for the cheaper camera. Less if that camera is used for other things which they usually are. A replacement for a cheaper camera won't crimp your lifestyle too much, but a replacement for a top-notch camera can put a huge hole in your pocket. To make matters worse, most wedding photographers use 2+ cameras. One camera is the Primary while the other is a back-up. If they use an assistant, the assistant will most probably use the back-up camera and if they are trigger happy they can run-off about as many clicks as the primary photographer. This is now getting pretty expensive !

 

Given those numbers, what would you do if you decided to shoot weddings. Or what do you do if you already are shooting weddings ?

Shutters do not "automatically" fail at the rated number. Some earlier, most much later. If I were ever enough of a masochist to do weddings again I would be more conscious of camera age / clicks than price. At the least, one older and one newer camera. I would use the best quality cameras I could afford. In film days, it was two Nikons and three flashes, one a spare, since only the flash ever failed, the Nikons just kept working, and do to this day. Weddings and Murphy's law are closely related.

I think the statistic is probably mean time to failure. Which means some cameras may go on forever, and some might fail the day after you buy them. Getting too wrapped up in this figure is probably thinking too hard. I have bought two Nikons that came out of wedding fleets, and both are heavily worn, but still ticking. One of them cost me $25, and I suspect it's on its way to forever. Edited March 10, 2018 by michael_darnton|2

I have sworn to never again do weddings, but first of all I think that a lot of photographers these days shoot a lot more than they necessarily "need" to. 2K sounds nuts to me, especially considering that I use to do 8-12 rolls of 35mm film and maybe a half dozen medium format. That's 500-600 shots.

 

All of that aside, Nikon charges $300-400 for a shutter replacement. That generally also includes a CLA, which puts the body in good shape for a while. If you're using something like a $500 D3xxx or $700 D5xxx body, it doesn't make sense to replace the shutter but there are a LOT of reasons why I wouldn't use one of those. Move up to something like a D500, D700, or D800($2K to $3K) that $400 makes a lot of sense.

 

Aside from that, I think a lot of makers are pretty conservative on their life "ratings." Yes, they may fail sooner, but many go much, much longer. I have a D300s(150K rating) with 450,000 shots on it. Not too long ago, I read about a D2H that made a million shots before the shutter had failed. It had gone back to Nikon twice for a dead autofocus motor-something that's not likely to wear out these days for most photographers considering that most lenses across the range have migrated to AF-S(in lens motors).

Given those numbers, what would you do if you decided to shoot weddings. Or what do you do if you already are shooting weddings ?

 

You should probably use a mainstream sort of camera capable of what you intend to shoot. It's got to be "affordable" within your business model. For the most part, with modern pro gear, you will just send it in for service, rather than replace it with a new unit.

 

Regarding predicted shutter life, it's not really a cut and dried issue. I've put the question to reps of one major camera maker - the response 'bout 10 years ago was that all of the components are designed/selected for the intended lifespan. That is, they expected the vast majority of components to last that long, they did NOT design for 50% of the units to fail by then.

If there are people paying me to do the click then I won't worry about how much those clicks cost because they are cheap compared to other expenses.

I don't do weddings and such like, but archaeological photography involves lots of clicks and also a lot of dirt/dust.

Mean-time-to-failure is only a very general measure, as said. The key thing is to have back-up.

 

I collect old cameras too, and many of the oldest and cheapest are still working away just like new.

Wedding photographers that shoot fifty weddings a year are pros and know how to make their equipment last as long as economically possible and then sell the old gear and buy new gear taking advantage of tax depreciation schedules. Most of them are pretty savvy in that regard. .

[sarcasm]Since we all know that more is always better, maybe wedding photographers should just start charging by the click and then the most prolific gunner will make the most money![/sarcasm] ;)

When you are paid for doing something, you equipment must be reliable, and effectively deliver what you need to accomplish. I costs about $500 to replace a shutter in a pro-level DSLR, which is not a lot of money for something that generates cash flow. If you can't afford that, you aren't charging enough. More important are the essential features of image quality,focus and exposure accuracy, and possibly shooting speed.

 

To a certain degree, the quality of your gear affects the way your customers perceive you. Doctors used to drive Cadillacs, Lawyers Jaguars, and wedding photographer used Hasselblads. You could probably do a presentable job with a cell phone, but I wouldn't expect much in the way of testimonials. Expect there will be a gear-head or two in the crowd who will know (and hopefully respect) your choice of gear.

I don't do weddings and such like, but archaeological photography involves lots of clicks and also a lot of dirt/dust.

Mean-time-to-failure is only a very general measure, as said. The key thing is to have back-up.

 

I collect old cameras too, and many of the oldest and cheapest are still working away just like new.

I have a lot of old cameras too but a 50 year old film camera may have fewer clicks than a DSLR in 5 years.

Keep in mind that modern cameras have (or can have) electronic shutters. Not only are they dead silent but if you use only the electronic shutter, you won't have to worry about the shutter mechanism. Of course you should still have back-up bodies at all times, regardless.

 

I don't know why one has to be a masochist to shoot weddings. It's not my specialty but they are very rewarding. You do have to be on top of things, and you don't have the luxury of thinking too much. It's not like we're in muddy trenches being shot at with artillery. ;-) Use whatever camera you want as long as you are very familiar with it.

Expect there will be a gear-head or two in the crowd who will know (and hopefully respect) your choice of gear.

 

The last wedding a went to where the photographer was using film(probably around 2007), he was using a Bronica ETRSi with a big Metz potato masher. I expected to see 35mm or digital come out at the reception, but he kept the Bronica the whole time. I saw the album afterwards, and they weren't at all disappointed. I'm not sure where he had the film processed, as the one semi-local pro lab that did both my wedding work and all my personal E-6 had closed about a month before.

 

At the same time, in 2005 the photographer at my sister's wedding did the whole thing with a Fuji S3 Pro. Now that I own one, I don't know how I'd stand it since using all the "selling points" including the extended dynamic range makes the camera glacially slow especially in RAW(granted he may have used JPEG). Still, they have a big canvas-probably 30"x40"-hanging over their fireplace and I'm always amazed at how good a 6/12mp camera(that's more like 9-10mp) managed-although admittedly the canvas is somewhat forgiving. In terms of skin tones and holding contrast, though, I think the 2005 era technology kills its contemporaries-I know a D2x wouldn't have done that well, and I doubt a 1Ds Mk II would have done it either.

I'm not sure where he had the film processed, as the one semi-local pro lab that did both my wedding work and all my personal E-6 had closed about a month before.

Is it possible he processed it himself?

I too have to question the 5000 images in a wedding. I've heard of it being done but can't imagine having to edit that many much less a couple going through it all trying to make some picks. Not to mention I don't know what subject I would shoot that many images of. I'm an old newspaper hacker and no stranger to high frame counts at news and sports events and processing all of the film. And printing it. My last wedding was last June and with a D800 and a couple backups I shot maybe 700 images over 2 days. My D4 is much faster than the D800 but even if it gets away from me I doubt I would go over 1000 images at the fanciest of weddings. All that said I would not shoot a wedding with lower end cameras except as back ups. It's the cost of doing business.

 

Rick H.

I was at a family wedding a couple of years ago and the photographer and her assistant told me they planned to take at least 2,000 pictures each. I was using my Rollieflex and they asked how many pictures I was going to take. I told them 12 and they assumed I meant 12,000 and they were very impressed. When I explained that there were just 12 pictures per roll of film I don't think they believed me. I have shot a lot of weddings with the Rolleiflex and can not even imagine shooting 4,000 pictures. I guess that is why no one ever asks me to shoot their wedding anymore.

Yikes, 2000 or more photos per wedding! It would take me two years to go through them all. That many photos sounds like spray painting the wedding. It has been a while since I did weddings on a regular basis, starting out using a Koni-Omega Rapid M. About 10 rolls of 120 were the norm then. These days I shoot maybe three or four a year mainly as favors. At most I take about 250 photographs.

 

But getting back to your concern of cheap v. expensive equipment, if you are going to shoot weddings professionally and you really will take that many pictures, you owe it to your clients to do the best job you can using the best equipment you can afford. For pros, equipment failure is never an excuse.

When you get into the thousands, why not just film/video the whole thing and isolate individual frames? Have your cake & eat it as well. Not a video guy, but it makes sense to me. When I shot my Son & Daughter in Law's wedding, I was still thinking in film - right around 180 shots - equivalent to 5 36 exposure rolls. There was a pro 2 man team so I could do as I wished as long as I stayed out of their way. Don't know how many shots they took - but I delivered months ahead of them, and had everything covered except their off site shots.

A wedding might last 15 hours from preparation to couple leaving the reception. If you record continuous video at 30 fps you end up with 1.6 million frames, from which you’d have to choose the ones to present. 2000 shots is a lot less post processing work than 1.6 million. Furthermore when recording video, you cannot use flash, and somehow you need to get the focus always correct at every moment. Finally your images will be comparatively low resolution and probably have significant rolling shutter as well. Not so appealing IMO.

 

2000 shots is just 2.2 shots per minute. If you are shooting a 15 hour wedding day and not finding two interesting unique subjects every 30 seconds, you’re probably slacking off and not working very hard. On top of that usually I take 2-3 shots per situation as a minimum to be sure that even my wide open shots are in focus and subjects haven’t blinked.

 

Personally I think about 1500 shots per 15 hour wedding day is what has worked for me. Some shoot fewer shots and some shoot more. It is all a part of personal style.

For some markets, image counts. It's part of marketing.

• "You have an expensive camera, it must take good pictures."
  
  • Some people associate picture quality with the gear, not the photographer.
    

  [*]You may have to shoot a full frame dslr, not a crop senor dslr.

  • Or your competition may market that as their advantage over you. "We shoot "full frame," not crop like photographer X."
    

  [*]BIG lenses look impressive.

  • That you may not need the lens speed, is not the point.
    

  [*]So it is with bodies. You may need a Pro level body, just for marketing.

If you are really in business, as has been said, the camera is just one variable of many, in your business model.

Plan and budget for regular servicing, repair and eventual replacement of the camera.

BTW, you need another body in your kit, for when one of your bodies is in the shop for servicing/repair. Or you have to rent that body.

Your pricing model just has to take all that into account.

 

BTW, the cost difference of a $500 body vs a $2,000 body is $1,500. But over the 25 wedding difference you noted in your post, that cost difference comes out to $60 per wedding. Raise the price to cover the gear.

 

To put this in perspective, the value of the cumulative HOURS that would be spent editing files is worth more than the cost difference of the bodies.

Those hours are built into the pricing model, or should be.

 

BTW, pro level body does not mean the "most expensive, top of the line body."

A $2,000 Nikon is a D750, not a D850 or even higher.

So good enough to meet the marketing requirements.

And plenty good enough for the job.

Edited March 11, 2018 by Gary Naka

If I were shooting weddings now, I would opt for at least 2 lesser priced cameras rather than one top of the line DSLR. No matter how great the camera, if it is dropped it is probably going to need repairs before you use it again--not a good thing on a Saturday or Sunday evening when getting another camera won't happen until Monday. When I did shoot weddings on film, I took at least 3 bodies and flashes that I had thoroughly checked before the wedding just to be sure that if anything terrible happened I could continue working. As it turns out, the biggest failure I ever experienced was a frame counter that quit, but knowing that I could get the job done was a great confidence booster. As for having the most expensive camera in the room, I never gave that a thought. The people who hired me did that on the basis of my portfolio and reputation, not what camera I used.

If I were shooting weddings now, I would opt for at least 2 lesser priced cameras rather than one top of the line DSLR. No matter how great the camera, if it is dropped it is probably going to need repairs before you use it again--not a good thing on a Saturday or Sunday evening when getting another camera won't happen until Monday. When I did shoot weddings on film, I took at least 3 bodies and flashes that I had thoroughly checked before the wedding just to be sure that if anything terrible happened I could continue working. As it turns out, the biggest failure I ever experienced was a frame counter that quit, but knowing that I could get the job done was a great confidence booster. As for having the most expensive camera in the room, I never gave that a thought. The people who hired me did that on the basis of my portfolio and reputation, not what camera I used.

 

AJG

Agreed. ONE camera = NO BACKUP :(

That would be an invitation for Murphy to pay a visit.

I cringe when I read of someone planning to do a wedding with ONE body.

You could go mirrorless, use the electronic shutter, like the Sony A7RIII or the new lower cost 24 megapixels full-frame Sony A7III. Or just go with Canon or Nikon DSLR and get it fixed when it breaks.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Mark Keefer

AJG

Agreed. ONE camera = NO BACKUP :(

That would be an invitation for Murphy to pay a visit.

I cringe when I read of someone planning to do a wedding with ONE body.

 

The last wedding I did was about 10 years ago. My main cameras were Canon New F-1s, one of which had been serviced by an independent tech who retired as head of the Canon west coast service facility(Ken Oikawa-still living and working on F-1s) just two or three months before, and the other of which had been serviced by him about two years previously. Even though those were old cameras at the time and one had obviously been around the block, I knew(still know) both of them inside and out and also had a lot of confidence in them both given that I knew they'd recently been expertly serviced. Sometimes one got passed off to my assistant, and at other times she was loading one for me while I shot with the other.

 

I also had three other fully serviceable bodies on hand. I had 3 or 4 50mm 1.4s, and in addition to a couple of Canon dedicated flashes I had a pair of Vivitar 283s on hand. When the bride was about to walk down the aisle, I had both my F-1s loaded with a fresh roll of film and had the secondary one slung over my shoulder with everything set correctly and a flash already in the shoe with the ready light blinking. If something had happened with the one I was using, I'd have been back in business in 2 seconds or less just by grabbing the other camera and getting it up to my eye.

 

Granted shooting on film is quite different, and you had to be conscious of how many shots you have remaining. I kept motors on my F-1s for those events that could do power rewind, but even though it was blisteringly fast it still seemed to take an eternity when it really counted. Plus, it was loud enough that I wouldn't have cut one loose in the middle of the ceremony. Thank goodness I could manually rewind those cameras, and I'm glad that Nikon has kept manual rewind intact on the F6. Still, though, the strategy I used was to ALWAYS have a second camera ready to go when time was critical, and reload the other when I had time.

When you get into the thousands, why not just film/video the whole thing and isolate individual frames?

Video frames are barely postcard quality.