leica or canon for weddings from an ex journo

[matt_pierce]

After working as photojournalist/press photog for 7 years (im 27

now) i need to make some money and get some financial stability

(just got married so i can't globe trotte as much now )and do

wedding photography :-(.

 

I've compiled/shot stories for some large publications nad got a

book on the way. I have traveled too much for work and worked for

several papers however the money is bad, it can be dangerous, i've

been sick through disease and overall it's very tiring.

 

I have now reduced my equipment to a .85 M6 TTL & EOS 1 at present.

Use a 50mm/1.4 on the M and a 35/1.4 on the EOS.

 

Know both systems very well, both used very sucessfully and both

equal in quality and both have their strengths and weaknesses. (not

all but most of my other equuip was either my agencies or the papers)

 

In need some advice whether to buy an M7 via al la carte .58 with a

35 1.4 or 28/2 for the M or another EOS 1 with a 24/70/2.8 in

relation to weddings (cant do both has to be one or the other - need

other money for albums, marketing, folios etc)

 

Wedding photography sits a long, LONG way away from the rest of the

photographic world in my opinion. Some wedding photogs get away with

such atrocious photography - not even photography - that in any

other area of the industry they would be laughed at (apart from some

press work ). Not all of course, jeff ascough is a talent as is an

australian photographer called david oliver who's work i saw when i

was doing a story for the 2000 Olympics down there.

 

My Weddings are documentarty style only, no set ups, i use no flash,

i keep out of the way of my clients and i work alone - no digital -

no goddam way - for press work it is brilliant, low end commercial

brilliant - but there a hassle, flash cards are delicate and can be

damaged, their bad in low light, bad to pan with, colour management

ALWAYS causes problems - i've spent too many hours editing non

creative images for their pubs.

 

Im just not sure what is the best option for and photojournalistic

wedding photography - looking at photojournalists - david alan

harvey,salgado, alex webb, reza, allard, stanfield, abell used too

etc use M's. Nachtwey (genius) uses EOS among others.

 

So from those who know or can give some advice on what my be the

best option for the above style of wedding photography it would be

appreciated.

[morthcam]

Try the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=2021">Wedding Forum here</a>. You're not going to get unbiased responses on the Leica forum!

[pensacolaphoto]

How good is your eye sight? This is the main factor in my opinion. If you take photos at weddings [where lighting can be dim] you need to be able to focus accurately and precisely, and here [i hate to admit it] the autofocus cameras may do better.

[kevin m.]

I find the M to be great for wedding work, but prefer my EOS for anything longer than a 50. Try the Summilux 35 Asph for your M as it's much smaller and even better wide open than the Canon glass.

[mattalofs]

"their bad in low light"

 

Have you used a recent digital slr? They put color film to shame in low light.

[mike_elek]

For what it's worth:

 

-- I don't know how much sound the electronic EOS emits, but it's probably louder and more obtrusive than the Leica.

 

-- Don't know if you get involved in speed shooting, but it will take more time to load and rewind film in a Leica than a motor driven camera.

 

-- Some people shy at the sight of yet another SLR pointed their way, while a rangefinder doesn't seem as intimidating.

 

-- Lighting conditions for a ceremony can range from pretty good to horrible, so the ability to focus under different situations needs to be taken into consideration. I don't know if the EOS uses some type of focus assist light, but if it emits a little red beam ... well, it's not something the bride's mother will want to see during the ceremony.

[ronald_moravec1]

Sell the EOS and get a 35 for the TTL. Maybe an old screw mt 90 4.0 to keep in your pocket. If you can`t use 35 frames with the .85, get a 35 with eyes ment for the M3.

[al_kaplan1]

The 35/1.4 Summilux with eyes is an old design. It isn't really sharp at f/1.4 and vignettes a bit too. You really need to get down to f/4 for decent sharpness, but the lens's image does have a nice interesting look about it wide open. Beter to get a 35/2 Summicron with eyes. Or get one without eyes and pick up an M2 body for it.

[el_fang]

I'm shocked that someone of your claimed experience is asking a question so typical of somebody who doesn't have a clue.

 

<p><i>"- no digital - no goddam way - for press work it is brilliant, low end commercial brilliant - but there a hassle, flash cards are delicate and can be damaged, their bad in low light, bad to pan with, colour management ALWAYS causes problems - i've spent too many hours editing non creative images for their pubs."</i>

<p>...all typical complaints of people who don't understand digital and have no desire to learn proper workflow. BTW flash cards are extremely rugged, I've sent mine through several wash/dry cycles, used them in the heat of the desert and the humidity of a sauna and they're still working fine.

 

<p><i>"Im just not sure what is the best option for and photojournalistic wedding photography - looking at photojournalists - david alan harvey,salgado, alex webb, reza, allard, stanfield, abell used too etc use M's. Nachtwey (genius) uses EOS among others."</i>

<p>If you really have seven years of press photography as you claim, you should realize what works for you and what doesn't by now. Wedding photojournalism isn't that different from press photojournalism... I mean, you <i>have</i> covered ceremonies and events as a press photog, haven't you? The photographers you mention all have vision and talent going for them. Again, it's not the equipment - I see the rolling eyes, but obviously somebody hasn't learned that in 7 years on the job.

[matt_pierce]

...all typical complaints of people who don't understand digital and have no desire to learn proper workflow. BTW flash cards are extremely rugged, I've sent mine through several wash/dry cycles, used them in the heat of the desert and the humidity of a sauna and they're still working fine.

 

mmm..lol..im sorry to hurt your feelings..im not pro digital or anti digital..fact is..i couldnt care less what the format is (as apparently you do).."dont understand digital"... 3 years of uni and 7 in the field..lol..buddy u hav no idea how much i understand it..have u had to hit ridiculous deadlines where u have to just upload a image to the server and pray its ok..natchtwey (who iv shot with very briefly btw) struggles with digital and has the same probs ive mentioned...u love digital, its cool...i dont care either way..whatever does the job..btw as a press photog quality is not the issue..Work flow..What the hell..lol..at press ur lucky to get ur images back in time let alone give a crap about workflow..wake up...in regards to flash cards..u better tell that to photogs who have lost images on flash cards that there perfect and cant be damaged..recently friend of mine just got married and the genius wedding photog placed a damaged flash card in the camera and couldnt retrive it..50% gone forever..tell them that..no they cant be damaged..

 

"If you really have seven years of press photography as you claim, you should realize what works for you and what doesn't by now. Wedding photojournalism isn't that different from press photojournalism... I mean, you have covered ceremonies and events as a press photog, haven't you? The photographers you mention all have vision and talent going for them. Again, it's not the equipment - I see the rolling eyes, but obviously somebody hasn't learned that in 7 years on the job"

 

Wedding photog same as other..um no sorry..comments like "can u make our dreams come true" or "black and white photos make me sad" or "why isnt all the photo in focus" are just some gems i've heard from brides..i have a hard time not telling them how moronic they are..i tend to not hear the same comments in an aid station where prople r just trying to stay alive..as a press its all low res, flash images..either balanced or just whatever u can do at the time...wedding not at all like this..weddings are about the trimmings..appeasing a whining bride..getting quality at low light...

 

 

Not the equipment...lol..u talk about my ignorance..thats extraordinary..granted nacthwey,salagado etc couldnt give a damn but DAH makes a point of his leica useage (he didnt really excel till he adopted an M), Allard proudly pushes both R and M, Ralg Gibson says it Leica that allows him to capture images in a certain way..equipment is an issue..a huge, huge one...

[david_boily]

Matt,

 

It seems like you want to venture into Weddings but only the way YOU want. Sure the PJ approach to us is appealing, but if you want to get clients you will have to offer some sort of compromise. I have always offered a PJ package (ie all candids, no formals, B&W yadayadayada) and although people always say "Awesome, that's what we want" it is always followed by "But I'll need pictures with my family....and OH with my sister and her family...and a few in color because you know, my brides maids dresses are a really beautiful shade of pink." Basically they want some formals. I'm not knocking what brides want, I'm just saying that you need to me flexible to get the clients until you build a name as a purely PJ shooter.

 

That being said, EOS. The harsh reality of Weddings is that you don't have time to be winding film by hand while the B&G are exchanging vows or kissing. No flash is a romantic idea, but I have shot weddings that no flash meant No Pictures (Church, reception, hell, even formals). I encounter some of the worse backlighting problems ever at weddings and many times the only way out is overpowering it with a flash. Try to explain to a bride that the reason you don't have a decent picture of "the kiss" is because you didn't have a flash. Shooting wide open is fun for some shots, but don't forget that there are 2 main subjects that must often be in most shots (B&G) and shooting at f1.4 makes this very difficult.

 

If you are really doing this to put food on the table, you need to consier a 2nd body a 24-70 f2.8 zoom and a 70-200 f2.8 zoom and a pair of 550EX flashes (on a bracket). That covers just about everything you encounter during a wedding. As you get experience and build a reputation, you can be more selective in your clients, but until then, you need to get the gear that will produce beautiful pictures in any conditions and fast.

 

Now having said all that, I wish I could shoot an entire wedding with an M6 and a bunch of primes and a pile of B&W.

 

Good luck.

[matt_pierce]

Thanks guys so far, ur responses were constructive and helpful and only one of you seemmed offended cause i didnt lavish praise on digital cameras (im just indiffent to the whole issue of film/dig - i just speak from my and other full time working photographers experiences).

 

Nice response david, thanks.

 

 

Im shooting most of the wedding on 3200b&w and 800color. 1.4 is ok if you give it some distance and 3200 covers 90% or situations.

 

I'm definately aiming for a certain market - thats how one becomes successful i assume, find a niche an exploit it. Im aim for a market that doesnt want vile/cliched/circa 1987 cross processed images or cheesy images of the groom winking at the camera or tragic "wedding " fashion photography as its called (that no actual editoral fashion photographer would be seen dead doing) - havent seen testino, meisel, attemping this style lately? have you? Honestly, if a bride wants me to make her dreams come true then im not the photographer for her, She has to make them come true for herself and il record it. But i wont direct them or say "mmm..look sexy..bella..bella.."

[EricM]

I think Matt should stick around here and liven the place up!

[frdchang]

just use one lens and one film and focus on the photography.

[el_fang]

<i>"..recently friend of mine just got married and the genius wedding photog placed a damaged flash card in the camera and couldnt retrive it..50% gone forever..tell them that..no they cant be damaged."</i>

<p>So you've never heard of a lab damaging or losing film? Anti-digital fundamentalists will think of anything, even frank and utter BS, to justify their very weak arguments. You pick your poison in photography. As someone else in this forum so eloquently said, you choose digital, you deal with digital issues. You choose film, you deal with film issues. There are facts, and then there's BS.

 

<p><i>"Wedding photog same as other..um no sorry..comments like "can u make our dreams come true" or "black and white photos make me sad" or "why isnt all the photo in focus" are just some gems i've heard from brides..i have a hard time not telling them how moronic they are.." - Matt Pierce</i>

<p>If this is really your attitude, I don't think you're ready to tackle the personal relations side of wedding photography, which is 90% of the business. Newsflash: wedding photography is a service. If you consider your clients to be "moronic," then equipment really is the least of your concerns, dude...

 

 

<p><i>"granted nacthwey,salagado etc couldnt give a damn but DAH makes a point of his leica useage (he didnt really excel till he adopted an M), Allard proudly pushes both R and M, Ralg Gibson says it Leica that allows him to capture images in a certain way..equipment is an issue..a huge, huge one..."</i>

<p>Interesting also that as much as I like the work of DAH and Allard (don't care for Gibson, sorry), I hold the work of Nachtwey and Salgado in far, far higher esteem. Is it coincidence that, according to you, they don't give a damn about equipment? Maybe, maybe not.

 

<p><i>"only one of you seemmed offended cause i didnt lavish praise on digital cameras"</i>

<p>I'm not offended in the least. People like and dislike things, that's part of human nature. However, it seems to me that your dislike for digital is based on pretty baseless premises.

[adrian_nasti]

Dear El,

 

Methinks you have a massive bee in your bonnet over absolutely nothing; get over it, seriously.

 

You remind me of sales people in certain camera shops who, believe it or not, actually believe that customer service is not in their job description.

[Uhooru]

Actually, fwiw, I read an inteview w/Salgado, and at the time he was very enamored of his M4. Not for its own sake but because as a tool, he knew exactly what to expect from it and the lens/film he used for whatever light he was working with just from working with it for so long. Most people I know doing weddings out here in Calif. are getting 20 D's and use Hassy's for the formals. But I can dig it if you're not into pixels. I mean I'm sure you know a lot more about this stuff than most of us here. I think David's approach makes the most sense. Maybe you don't agree w equip choices, but you need to sit down and think through what is needed for a wedding. Also, though you need to be a firm business person, and you don't have to kiss ass, you still are providing a service that has a lot of personal import for your clients, and some skills in that regard wouldn't hurt. I'm not suggesting you don't have them, but jostling through a foreign airport is a little different than moving through a reception:)

[Uhooru]

Another thought, is keep what you have and get a Nocti for the Leica:)

[matt_pierce]

pixels..film..its all the same to me in the end. Whatever produces the best result. But i can only hope the wedding photogs dont use digital as we did. In that we shoot to a size that allow about a 4/6 300dpi (not that 300 is needed for paper work) and no more (unless you wanna start the gorgeous job of resing up the image via fractls). I presume alot of them do to allow shooting 1000 images in 3 hours. I gotta laugh at these wedding guys that manage to shoot 1000 images or more at a 3-5 wedding. Honestly iv shot combat stuff (vile hideous work for a 23 year old at the time) and i only shoot 1000 images over 2 days (and thats a war zone. So im not sure how or what these guys r shooting at a damn wedding to accumulate 1000 images) i im sure each one of those 1000 are absolute masterpieces.

[erin.e]

El did have a very good point tho, that courtesy to your clients is just as important as good imaging skills. If you regard them as morons you are soon going to go out of business. Even though some clients may be a royal pain in the ass, tact and professionalism on your part save the day, just as you learned as a press photographer, right?.

 

You have to take those weddings that you can get initially, in regard to your costings and ability and the soundness of the client. As you gain credibility you can afford to be more choosy. It can't be raced into.

 

Its fine to drop the name of exceptional editorial photographers into your thread, but does it help YOU?

 

Just to choose one example of professionalism, Salgado is multilingual and renowned for his exceptional tact and communications skills with ALL people, as well as being a top ranked editorial photographer.

 

I would suggest at this stage sticking with the Canon and expand your lenses to include 2.8 zooms plus wide (20mm or 24mm) and short telephoto primes (85 1.8) plus get another body, a couple or three dedicated flashes etc and maybe use the Leica for some nice niche shots that you could include in your future portfolios.

[andy m.]

Please.. no more digital vs. film battles.. <i>I can't take any more.</i> please.. pretty please? <p>

 

My anwswer to question posted above is a little circular.. i.e. <i>Whatever you feel most comfortable with.</i> As you have been shooting professionally for seven years, I'm sure you already know what this is.<p>

[williamw]

Both systems will work as long as you know what you want to obtain as an end result. If you really would like to add something I would probably get a 85mm lens for the EOS.

 

Btw, you seemed to have covered some quite interesting stuff in the past. Do you have a link where one can see some of your work ?

 

Cheers,

[boris_chan1]

Sorry to side with El fang on this, but.......

 

matt:"no digital - no goddam way"

 

Why?

 

Oh, this is why:

 

"flash cards are delicate"

 

Sure they are, but way less so than film.

 

"their bad in low light"

 

This is just plain wrong. Low light is exactly where a modern digi

camera pullls ahead of film.

 

"bad to pan with"

 

????????????

 

"colour management ALWAYS causes problems"

 

And presumably color management with film NEVER causes

problems?

 

"i couldnt care less what the format is"

 

Eh? Just a few lines ago it was "digital - no goddam way"..........

 

"natchtwey (who iv shot with......."

 

You want kudos for having stood next to Jim Nachtwey? It's a

shame he didn't tell you how to spell his name.

 

"natchtwey.......struggles with digital"

 

Sure he does. He's a guy of nearly 60 who has spent a lifetime

working with film, but he's certainly managed to overcome those

struggles with the help of his younger colleagues.

 

"natchtwey.......has the same probs ive mentioned"

 

What? He's having to shoot weddings at the weekend to pay his

bills? What's the world coming to? His editors at Time should be

ashamed.

 

"brides..i have a hard time not telling them how moronic they are"

 

I'm having the same trouble not telling you this.

 

"as a press its all low res, flash images"

 

Well it might have been for you, but that isn't the case for all

photographers working in that field. It's certainly not true for your

buddy "natchtwey"

 

"u talk about my ignorance..thats extraordinary"

 

It sure is. How could anybody sense ignorance in what you

say.....

 

"iv shot combat stuff"

 

Congratulations.

 

"i only shoot 1000 images over 2 days (and thats a war zone....."

 

Oh dear, I'm sensing ignorance myself now. You're using this to

illustrate the overshooting of wedding photographers, but, if

there's one area of photography where you're likely to work fairly

sparingly then it's in conflict areas. Typically it's long periods of

total unproductivity punctuated by brief but frantic activity.

 

"I'm definately aiming for a certain market.......find a niche an

exploit it"

 

I think you'll find a niche of one: "Matt Pierce - the photographer

who has nothing but contempt for the bride". I'm sure the cash is

going to roll in...........

 

Sorry Matt, but Fang sounds a lot more credible than you.

[david_boily]

Matt,

 

I'm glad you like my advice. Here's one more bit. Watch what you say on these boards. How long do you think it will take before Googling "Matt Pierce Wedding Photography" hits upon this thread? You'd be surprised to know how many of today's brides look you up on the net. I've had people complement me on some of my work that they've found on the net that I never knew was there (Yes Threads).

 

You could feasibly lose business based solely on what has been said so far... Seriously!

[brambor]

yeah. matt. stick around here for a while. It will be fun.

 

Is it just me or does anyone else get really anoyed when Erin only chimes in with some negative smartass comment and then trotts back to the Canon Forum table. Erin, I think you're a good gal but whenever you have an urge to do this please open the window and yell really loud or sumthin...

 

El Fang is as usual out of his league but that's another story. Did the shootout get cancelled? I've probably missed it as I've been neglecting photo.net for the past 2 months due to work deadlines.