Using a Leica M for weddings am I nuts?

[uk]

Mark,

 

I'm one of a very few wedding photographers on P/N regularly shooting weddings with

just Leica M's. It is tough and for next season I've added a Canon DSLR which will become

the main body and the M's will be replaced/supplemented by/with an M8.

 

Whilst the M's produce the most wonderful images, shooting 600 images in an afternoon

is just too much hard work compared to a very sophisticated point and shoot.

 

I note your interest is more as an additional camera and that will work well for part of the

wedding, say prep or ceremony when you have the time to select the images you want.

Howevever, the advantages of a DSLR for a large part of the modern wedding are

overwhelming.

 

As for your choice, I suggest you change your preferred model and I recommend without

hesitation the M7. I don't have it and might have stayed on board if I had. My reason is

that there is too much to do with a moving subject - compose, focus, adjust meter,

recompose, damn lightings changed, refocus, lightings changed, damn forgot to change

meter .... Under that exaggerated pressure, putting the meter on auto is a big help.

 

Lenses - you've got to have an f1.4 in the bag to lift the 1/8 sec exposures to 1/15th, and

as above flash at 1/50th is not much help in church, or out of it.

 

You've got to have a second/third M in the bag to avoid lens swops.

 

In civil weddings I need tungsten colour until I get to the door, then I need daylight and

slower film, damn the meter needs changing.

 

After about 300 frames you know there's some errors, you're not sure how many and you

pray there's enough of the key shots to get you through thr album and of course there

always is - beautifully toned, exceptionally sharp images with glorious bokeh. Gee it's all

worth it.

 

Appreciate that I've dramatised it more than a little. Take one with you on a wedding and

let us know how long you lasted before reaching for the 45 point auto focus, auto

exposure, focus tracking, 300 frame 4 Gb with auto backup card, hi-tech wonder.

 

Buy any M and enjoy it. :-)

[john_amiet2]

I must say a lot of the remarks above make me smile. As an (almost!) ex wedding photographer of many years, using mainly Hasselblads for that time, I now almost exclusively use leica M's. But that is all gear selected to suit the style of images demanded at the time.

 

My real point point is this. A good photographer, wedding or otherwise, chooses gear to achieve the clients requirements, best suited to how he/she works. The tools are your choice. The good pictures are your skills at work.

 

Broadly speaking, I am finding I return much better images with the Leicas than I did with the Blads, but that is largely because my style, and demands on me, have changed with the times. When the M8 is released (into my hands) it will be the "last word" in wedding shooting, and my mainstay of theatrical work..... till something even better happens along. :-))

 

What I have been trying to say is, know your brief and choose the tools accordingly so that you can work at your peak skills level. Remember, the camera is only a tool. You are the artisan and that is the big factor.

 

Cheers,

JA

[SolaresLarrave]

<a href="http://www.reallifeweddings.com/index.shtml">This guy</a> shoots with Leicas exclusively. He is, or was, based in Chicago and his work (all in B&W film) is really good. As you see, there's life in film yet.

[fotografz]

Just do it. I shoot weddings with a variety of cameras ... matched to the specifics of each

wedding. While cameras have come and gone, the constant through the years has been

the Leica M ... mostly to shoot B&W which I agree with you can't be matched by digital.

 

Since you already have a SLR type camera, and it's back-up, why in the world would you

need another? A rangefinder will provide a different shooting experience ... not to

mention a break from carrying around a brick all day.

 

The key to wedding work is familiarity and anticipation. After a couple of them, you pretty

much know what happens and when. So, you know when to change film and what lens

you'll want ... and the idea that you can't cover a processional without a motor wider is

humorous at best ... although I prefer an even slower Hasselblad for those and the formal

shots.

 

IMO, the notion of shooting 1000+ images at a wedding has been a result of Motor hosing

instead of anticipation, and the use of promiscuous digital where it's deemed to be free ...

until you get to the computer and have to wade through all the crap and edit ... usually

down to 200 or so shots ... which you would have gotten out of the 400 or so done on

film. When I shot all film I rarely did more than 10 rolls of 35 and 3 rolls of MF.

 

Personally, I am so sick of spending my own time in front of a computer doing lab work

that I've decided to go back to using more film for weddings ... guess what camera will

have the B&W film in it?

[r22eng]

Mark,

 

It seems odd to buy an F6 to shoot B&W available light candids unless you are going to use all the F6's features and don't mind carrying around a big SLR in addition to your DSLRs. I prefer using a FM2 loaded with B&W film over the F6 for a wedding. The FM2 is lighter and less expensive than the F6 and allows you to use the same set of Nikon lenses. The FM2 and M6 have comparable manual camera controls.

 

IMHO, save your money and try an FM2. You can always buy the Leica M system later if you really want a light, fast, and quiet RF camera for candid shots at weddings.

 

Ricky

[stephen_w.]

Why bother? More than 1/2 will end up in the round file (trash).

[melaniec]

I used my M3 to shoot my brother's wedding. Despite my inexperience (I'd only been

taking photographs seriously for a couple of months) and the fact that I didn't really have

a working light meter, everyone was pleased with the results. (It probably helped that I

was a member of the wedding party and did not have problems getting intimate shots.)

 

Since you are a professional and undoubtedly a better photographer than me, I think you

will enjoy using an M for wedding jobs. It is very unobtrusive and most folks do not notice

or care when you use a camera like this. I did not use a flash at all either.

 

Some photos I took are here:

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=6356

 

Hope this helps.

[mark_eggers]

Marc Williams,

 

I must say that I agree with you on the Post Processing of the Digital files. I absolutely hate

going through the pictures done at a wedding. My wife and I shoot as a team. Honestly

comming from a film background I shoot about half the number of pictures my wife does.

So on a typical wedding we end up with 1000+ files to sort through. It sucks. My wife

always wants me to do it because she says I have a better eye with White ballance and

such. The thing is, due to this work I am beginning to dislike my photography. Digital just

does not have the "soul" that B&W film does for me. I do appreciate the control I have in

PS and I do enjoy using digital for studio work due to the volume being so much less. I just

dread post processing of wedding images due to the volume.

 

Mark

[mark_eggers]

Ricky,

 

I have used an FM2n and an FM3A. I found both difficult to focus in low light using AF lenses

that don't have Hyper Focal marks on them. The F6 will do it and I can with a "M" because of

the hyper focal marks.

 

Thanks, Mark

[Brad_]

Melanie, gorgeous photos - and super post processing.

 

Mark, maybe the solution is to not shoot 1000+ photos?

[mark_eggers]

Brad

LOL, Yea tell my wife that! See, to her digital is "Free" so she gets trigger happy and wants me

to do the editing. I actually usually shoot about 250-350 of the 1000+. I guess I still have

shutter control from my years as a film shooter. In all fairness she does do a lot of the post

processing. She is just not as comfortable with it. She hates color corections.

 

Mark

[colin_elliott]

"Without a motordrive(not to mention precise focus)"

 

Precise focus is what Leica M's are all about. Whatever the lighting situation, the M will be easier to focus. There is NO auto focus camera that gives precise focus automatically; that's why they have manual overide, more properly called "correction."

 

Below 90mm focal length, I've found nothing to come close to Leica M focussing speed or accuracy. It's ideal for fast paced wedding environments.

[uk]

Marc said:

"usually down to 200 or so shots ... which you would have gotten out of the 400 or so

done on film. When I shot all film I rarely did more than 10 rolls of 35 and 3 rolls of MF."

 

So right Marc, there is always enough keepers to fill two albums from 10 rolls of film and a

couple of rolls of MF. Don't know about others, but I get closer in with the M and feel

more in touch with the subject, but that may change with more DSLR experience.

 

Interesting how so many are disatisfied with digital images in spite of the fact that many

claim "haven't shot a roll of film for x years". These are just alternative methods of

capture and not mutually exclusive ....... "can't use film as a backup to a DSLR" ! (?? Turn

to stone ?).

 

Give it go Mark, it can be very rewarding and provides real choices for B&W and wide

dynamic range subjects.

[thomas_sullivan]

Melanie Chang....if that is only a couple months worth of experience with a camera........you are a natural. Don't ever stop.......really nice work.

 

As far as the original question......if the price tag don't hurt you, then by all means buy it. Just don't do it because of the "name". It's been my experience that names don't usually live up to their names.

[al_kaplan1]

Back before digital if you shot weddings for a studio the boss would get upset if you shot too much film. On the other hand, photographers prided themselves in getting proper exposure without bracketing, pushing the release at "the decisive moment" rather than firing off a burst, and getting the framing right without having to crop afterwards. I can see where somebody whose background was digital would have trouble making the switch to film.

[Brad_]

<I>I can see where somebody whose background was digital would have trouble making

the switch to film.</I><P>

 

 

Why is that? <P>

 

Your notion that photographers who shoot digital inherently have no self-control with

respect to pressing the shutter, framing, getting the exposure right, etc is silly in the

extreme. Perhaps it's more about projection; ie what your shooting habits might be if

shooting digital? You're either a good photographer - or not...

[al_kaplan1]

Hey Brad-, i said "somebody", not "anybody". You seem to be a talented photographer and I'm sure that your Leica wedding photography is right up there with Marc's. Don't get so defensive.

[r22eng]

Mark,

 

You are right about the lack of DOF markings on the AFd lenses. I use the AIS 100 f2, 50 f1.8, and 35 f1.4 on the FM2 for B&W since those were the lenses I started with years ago. The 50mm 1.8 and 24mm AFd work well with DOF on the FM2. Consider getting (borrow) an AIS 100 f2 for your FMs and try it before buying the Leica system. In business it comes down to keeping expenses down and increasing revenue. Will the F6 or Leica really increase your revenue compared to the FM? Will the ease of focus with the Leica give you more keepers of the wedding?

 

Since your wife is shooting Digital anyway, I would say pick the M6 system over the F6. You might want to consider adding a 28mm to the Leica outfit depending on your shooting style and the reception room size. The 28mm provides more DOF than the 35mm to capture the spontaneous things that happen during the wedding day. The AF system still has a delay when focusing in dim light compared to the manual FM or Leica M.

 

Two M bodies: one M4-P with the 28/35mm mounted (depends on the location and room size) and the second M6 with a 50/90mm mounted (90mm for close-ups on details) covers most of what I need for a wedding.

 

Digital or film: Camera settings are based on incident meter readings of areas in the room most likely to be used and documented on a 3x5 card. Quick check of meter reading as the people are being posed and then concentrate on capturing the monment until they move to a new location.

 

Film budget is 10 rolls of 36 exposure - carry 20 rolls. The down side of using the Leica is that the family will want almost every candid shot and they will go over budget. :-)

 

Ricky

[emmett_s]

Yikes Melanie - what great stuff - keep it up!

 

Marc Williams = so sick of sitting at the puter? I hear ya.

 

Now for my dilema...my most recent wedding was all digital at the brides request. I was thrilled with the shots. I thought to myself well I guess it's digital from now on. Then, I received some prints from West Coast Imaging....Holy Smokes! That's what a 35mm print is supposed to look like? Now what to do? I know, I know, shoot both. But I feel like one can't serve two masters....Not a film vs. digi rant just a personal dilema

[35mmdelux]

No. What happened is that you just handled the best camera ever made.

 

Heres the deal: with the M6 you won't get the high sync speed you may want/need for wedding work - so think it over. Also, frankly, its more labor intensive because you'll need to adjust the shutter/aperture, unless its a M7 AE.

 

Years ago I used an M4-P for such work, and that didn't even have a internal meter.

 

Today, I prefer using a M7 w/ 35mm lens and F5 w/ 105mm lens. Both cameras of course have AE, so its not such a big deal anymore.

[35mmdelux]

Let me just add this: I graduated to the Leica from the 'blad. I found w/ the 'blad unable to focus quickly in lowlight. ditto that w/ my F3. Fewer lost shots w/ the Leica.

 

The Leica was precise and fast in focusing. However, changing film was a PITA and its low sync speed made me have to alter my style. But it worked out. Learned to shoot avail lite until the setup was too slow, at which time I used a V283 flash unit.

 

So, what I'm saying is I went from shooting slow (blad) to shooting faster (Leica), more methodically. I don't know what it would be like if one went from hyper shooting (digi for example) to a slower speed.

 

I'm okay with it.

[uk]

"changing film was a PITA"

 

Paul, many comment on that, but it's become less of a problem for me as time has gone

on. I run the MP alongside an M3 for part of the wedding so I have 72 shots to go before

the next forced change. The newer MP/M6 film spool is a doddle so apart from rewind it

hardly gets in the way.

 

I never miss a picture doing this because pictures only exist that I see and shoot. Nothing

else qualifies. I consider changing at 30 exposed frames and will slow down on also ran

shots or change to the M3 till we enter anothe r quieter period.<div></div>

[uk]

Sorry guys, slightly oversize. Forget the one above.<div></div>

[35mmdelux]

Gary, Kick Ass. Great shot man! Anyone I know?

[mark_eggers]

Paul,

 

I am looking at this for an available light camera only. My D200's with SB800's will handle flash work fine.

 

Thanks, Mark