Leica M6 at a weddings

[will_staples]

Hi, My name is Will and I am a wedding photographer. I shoot with Bronica and Nikon and was thinking of getting a M6. Is this a good camera or bad camera for weddings? If it is a good camera, why is it good? What is the best lens to get if I only can get one? Thanks Will

[john_c.]

This is a joke, right?!?

[tony_rowlett2]

I've heard of several wedding photographers using the Leica M. I

myself have used the M in weddings, but not for the formals. I think

it makes a great camera for the casual shots which, in many cases, are

even more important than those boring formals. I wouldn't switch from

your medium format for the formal shots, though.

[john_c.]

What I meant when I asked if this was a joke: How is it possible that

someone who shoots weddings for a living, using Bronica and Nikon

equipment, would be unaware of the basic specs of a Leica M6? While I

am certainly aware that M6s can be, and are, used for informal shots at

weddings (and so are many, many other cameras), I can't believe that

any wedding pro would seriously consider an M6 as part of his arsenal.

The other thing I found odd about this post is the manner in which the

question was asked: �If it is a good camera, why is it good?� Now let's

get blatantly honest here, at the risk of being rude: this has to be

the most juvenile question asked in a long time. Again, this working

pro MUST BE semi-knowledgeable about the pros/cons of rangefinder

cameras versus SLRs. He MUST BE capable of applying that knowledge to

determine if his working requirements would be met, at least in part,

by using an M6. So what is there for us to tell him? How can anyone say

what is "good" or "not good" for him? What he is really asking for is

an extended essay about RF systems. Or maybe I'm just feeling ornery

today... but I still think this question, if not a joke, demonstrates a

lack of know-how that can't/shouldn't be addressed on this forum.

[steve_lehuray1]

As I have never shot a wedding I am not really qualified on that genre.

But, it seems to me that you may be using the Bronica for the formals

and the Nikon for casuals. So when you ask what lens to get for an M6 I

would recomend your favourite focal length you use on the Nikon. As for

a Leica M6 to shoot weddings this topic comes up regularily on the

Leica Users Group (LUG) seems like several photographers have taken to

shooting the candids with the Leica, many of them in B&W. Best M6 lens

would probably be the Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH.

[john_c.]

I would agree with Steve that, if you're gonna shoot some casuals with

an M6, the 35/1.4 ASPH would be the lens of choice.

[silverfish1]

Not having the blacked out image when the mirror flips up as in any

format SLR gives the Leica or other rangefinder system an advantage

in a multitude of situations but especially in conjunction with

strobe in poorly lit places. Focusing is faster and more precise in

very low light with the Leica. Of course you can't pre-visualize

depth of field with the Leica M. With few exceptions the optics are

superior with the Leica. Assuming your clients don't need anything

larger than 8x10's, the Leica, with an appropriate focal length lens,

might well serve as an alternative Wedding camera system,

including, "for the formals". You may have to overcome skepticism

fueled by the inertia of medium format being the most frequent choice

of pros. In the end it is really about preconceived notions of what

wedding photos have to look like. In any event the Leica M is superb

for the candids.

[albert_smith]

There are no dumb questions, just remember all of the answers will be

an opinion unless you ask something along the lines of what is 2 plus

2?

 

<p>

 

I have shot weddings and used medium format for the formals as well

as Nikons for candids at the reception and during other aspects other

than the actual ceremony. I love Leicas, and believe them to be

unmatched for surreptitious photography. If you are the official

wedding photographer, this benefit will not be that important... you

simply will not "blend in". Additionally, Leicas are somewhat

limited for flash, at least with any bright ambient light, due to the

anemic flash sync. If I was happy with my Nikon, I'd keep using it.

 

<p>

 

That said, I have attended several weddings as a guest, and brought

my Leica M6 with 35mm lens. This camera almost looks like the point

and shoots that the rest of the crowd is using. This anonymity

allows for true candids due to the lack of attention. I love it when

some helpful person tells me my flash didn't fire... must have been

looking at the frameline illumination window. The best thing is when

you casually hand some prints to the wedding party later and they

think they are better than the "official" shots. Sometimes it is

good to be the photographer... and other times, just a guy with

a "point and shoot".

 

<p>

 

If you are a photographer, the addition of a Leica can be a good

thing, not always for what it does, but sometimes what it doesn't

do.

[jay_.]

I have only shot a couple of weddings, and only with a Hasselblad,

but I have seen many wedding pros using 35mm for the candid shots.

I've never had success with the M for fast-paced candids, I'd prefer

an AF SLR or perhaps a Contax G2. I have taken the M to weddings as

a guest, mostly because I can get the body into one suit pocket and

the lens in the other without looking like a clown. But in my hands

any decent point-and-shoot would be faster focusing and faster to re-

load. For me the M is the ultimate walking travel outfit, I've just

never been able to exploit its prowess as a candid camera the way so

many others do.

[andrew_schank]

A few years ago I brought my M3 and the 50 and 90 with some 400 speed

film to an Eastern Indian wedding of one of my wife's cousins. Lots

of colorful clothing made for some great existing light shots. I was

told later that her cousin liked some of the images I took the best

out of any they got from the ceremony. Even so, I think if I was the

one actually responsible for the wedding images, I'd have had my

Pentax 645 and TTL flash loaded up with Fuji NPH and/or a Nikon AF

SLR. I guess I am not as confident with my Leica to be able to work

fast and the 1/50 second flash would limit outdoor fill flash work--a

must for many wedding shots in my opinion.

[robin_smith]

Personally, I think that an M Leica would make a very fine wedding

camera. Its only drawback being its slow flash sync. This could be a

serious limitation. It depends a bit on the photographer. I agree

with the others that say its main strength would be for candid shots

taken in available light. For formal shots a leaf shutter MF camera

or a fast sync camera would probably be more acceptable for the

average purchaser. I would second the suggestion that a 35mm would be

excellent with the 50mm Summilux or Summicron as a second.

 

<p>

 

I don't really find this question stupid, to many the world of Leica

is a mystery so I am not surprised by Will's question.

[marker]

http://www.dunas.com/wedding1.html

 

<p>

 

Take a look and see what Jeff Dunas can do with m6.

[j._o.]

I've seen pros use M3s for existing light work during the ceremony:

there's often no flash allowed anyway and it's nice to be quiet then.

Personally I think a Rollei 2.8 TLR would have worked just as well and

would be even quieter. Plus the Rollei'd be cheaper and a real backup

camera for your MF gear.

 

<p>

 

Antedeluvian film handling would axe the M for me --- if I was still

shooting weddings.

[wladimir_schweigert]

Will,

 

<p>

 

Here's the deal:

 

<p>

 

If you show up at a wedding as the pro with an instamatic, you'll

elicit loughs. "Perception is reality," remember? If on the other end

you suck at photography and show up with a foot-square mamiya 6x7,

you have the croud. So unless you are brilliant at photography, don't

show up with less than a Rollei 6x6 with all the whistles (TTL flash,

fill flash, etc.). Then you can rest assured, you have the client,

croud and the cash.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand, if you know something about photography and your

clients are the kind that relly appreciate creativity, get yourself

two Licas with say a 24, a 35 and a 90, load one with Fuji 400 the

other with good ol' Trix or Afga 400, get a small portable flash and

you'd never need to look back.

 

<p>

 

wlad

[wladimir_schweigert]

Here we go again Will,

 

<p>

 

Check out David Allan Harvy's equipment requirements in a link next

below to your posting. Less equipment, more photography!

[john_c.]

With all due respect to David Alan Harvey, I doubt his minimalist

method would be consistently fruitful in the wedding business. Aside

from the rare avante-garde client who wants B&W prints taken with a

Leica (does the average bride-to-be even KNOW what a Leica is? 99% of

the posters on photo.net are men), most work will be done with medium

format and large strobes because the clients want well-lit, sharp color

prints. They also want to be assured that the photographer knows what

he/she is doing. The last thing you want to do is make the bride

nervous at her wedding. If you're shooting with a Leica, without flash,

she's going to be nervous. If you're shooting with a Hasselblad and a

large Metz unit, she won't be (at least not about YOU). That's the

simple reality about the wedding business. Denis Reggie didn't get to

the top of the heap in the wedding business by using a Leica. Look, I

love my M6, but I won't be using it to shoot NCAA basketball, and I

won't be using it to shoot weddings. Neither will most wedding pros.

[tse_sung_wu7]

<i> With all due respect to David Alan Harvey, I doubt his minimalist

method...</i>

<p>

Not too sure if I follow. I read:

<blockquote>

99% of photo.net posters are men<br>

therefore<br>

brides-to-be don't know what a Leica is or are not interested in B&W<

br>

therefore<br>

they won't be nervous if they see a Hasselblad and a Metz flash unit.

</blockquote >

I'm amazed at the importance people place on eqpt to impress the

wedding couple (as if the couple were photo.net posters...?). All my

friends who've gotten married just point to the pix., and more and more

of them are photojournalistic, often B&W prints. Even one wedding had

prints in IR (B&W). In the dozen or so weddings I've been to, I've

only seen one or two MF rigs. The rest are SLRs.

[tse_sung_wu7]

oops- in the last sentence, I meant, "the rest are 35mm SLRs."

[john_c.]

Well, let me make it clearer:

<b>99% of photo.net posters are men</b>. To me, this fact [which I

intended as a bit of hyperbole, but I haven't heard anyone dispute the

figure] leads to several conclusions: (1) women are less inclined than

men to take an interest in photography, whether it be professionally or

on an amateur basis; (2) even if women have such an interest, they are

less enamored of discussions about equipment and technique than men

are. That's what we're discussing here, aren't we?!? EQUIPMENT: whether

to use Bronica or Nikon or Leica at a wedding. My point, first, is that

most women couldn't care less about photo equipment, and the fact that

most photo.net posters are men bears this out. That's NOT to say,

however, that women (and men) who are uninvolved in photography don't

have some idea of what they think is appropriate equipment for a

wedding. After all, images of working photographers fill the media and

entertainment biz. You don't have to have an M.F.A. to conclude,

correctly, that the wedding pro using a disposable camera for formals

is a dolt. And since everyone and their brothers have a 35mm camera,

the working pro needs to distinguish himself, <b>in part through his

equipment</b>, to inspire confidence in the client. If you deny this

need, you're living in a dream world. But you needn't confine yourself

to photography when looking for examples where someone's professional

image/appearance plays a role in attracting business and inspiring

confidence. The appearance of confidence, expertise, and success leads

to a conclusion of confidence, expertise, and success. I'm not saying

that a pro should never use an M6 at a wedding; I'm simply saying that

someone who uses ONLY an M6 is not going to exude professionalism from

every pore among his client base. You may disagree with that, but it's

the truth.

[djphoto]

As a working commercial and editorial photographer who also does

weddings with 35mm exclusively, I can tell you I've never needed to

use medium format equipment to impress the bride. The only ones who

are impressed with a photographer's equipment are other photographers.

If the pictures are good, the bride is pleased. If they aren't, it

wouldn't matter if they had been made with an 8x10.

 

<p>

 

If anyone would like a copy of the text of my article "The Case for

the 35mm Wedding," which ran in the March, 2000 issue of The

Rangefinder magazine, please send me an e-mail off-list.

[djphoto]

To John Costo's post above, let me say very kindly but very clearly:

baloney! I'm complimented at almost every wedding I do for my

professionalism. People at weddings frequently tell me they know the

pictures will be great because in their eyes I'm doing a great job.

It's my professional demeanor and conduct that convinces them -- not

the size of my camera.

[john_c.]

Dave, I've re-read my posts and I believe I said nothing about "size"

of the camera. And I don't believe I said that 35mm should not be used

at weddings. I spoke only about the M6. I'm sure you occasionally hear,

while you're shooting a wedding, some guy saying "I could do that;

what's so special about him?" And it's because that guy has a 35mm

camera. You and I both know the prevalence of that attitude: "why hire

a pro photographer when "___" can do it?; he has a Nikon". I'm glad you

distinguish yourself through your conduct, dress, and attitude (not to

mention results)... but I doubt you're using an M6. The camera is just

not designed for wedding work. And be honest: YOU'RE not impressed by

equipment because you're a pro. However, many people ARE impressed by

equipment. I simply said, and I believe it's true, that in professional

photography, like any other endeavor, equipment can and does contribute

to the impression, however unfounded, that someone is competent and

experienced. That is simply basic PSYCH-101 material. And I believe

it's a widespread attitude. Perhaps your own clients are more

sophisticated, or you simply like to believe that you're judged only on

your merits. But human nature dictates otherwise.

[kens]

Jason posted a related question on this subject last Nov 1st, which

noone responded to. He includes other related links in his posting,

which I've pasted below. Food for thought.

 

<p>

 

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0040Ku

[djphoto]

Actually, John, I do the majority of my wedding work with Canon EOS

A2s. My Leica is an M3 and I use it for available-light black & white.

I do agree that the sophistication of the bride is a major factor.

Upscale clients are more able to buy my wares and less likely to be

concerned with how I produce them.

[kyle_cassidy]

like the initial respondant, i'm puzzled that you have to ask this

question -- the answer though, is that the m6 can be a fine camera

for weddings. just don't take it as your only camera. make sure you

give them the formals they're looking for, in glorious 6x7 suitable

for 8 foot enlargements, or that they've seen your b&w leica-only

portfolio before you go in.

 

<p>

 

i wouldn't shoot weddings for a million dollars, it's too much

responsiblity, but i have brought my m6 to a couple and ran around

behaving like a retired dentist:

 

<p>

 

http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/pix/5-12-01-wedding/

http://www.asc.upenn.edu/scrapbook/1999/richandmaureen/

 

<p>

 

fwiw,

 

<p>

 

kc

 

<p>

 

p.s. leica lenses are rediculously expensive. i recommend you get a

couple of 3rd party knock-offs -- the voigtlander 35 and 50 are both

very fast and not expensive and will fit your leica for about 30% of

the price of a "real" leica lens.