Aspiring Wedding Photographer - equipment questions

[van_deleon]

After consulting with one professional photographer regarding what kind of

camera I should consider for Wedding photography, I have it down to three choices:

 

The Canon EOS 5D, Nikon D200, and Fujifilm S5 Pro. I would like other people's

opinions on these 3 cameras before I take the big plunge and put down alot of

money for a camera. I know the Canon Mark III is for sports/action, but is there

any real benefit in getting the Mark III for Wedding photgraphy?

 

I am still a beginner, but I do great a deal of research before making these

type of decisions. Please help me choose a camera =)

 

I would also like people's opinions of the type of lenses & flash I should use

for weddings. Here's what the professional wrote to me before:

 

"The 5D's a good choice, but I'd also consider the Nikon D200 which is much

cheaper and also the Fujifilm S5 Pro which has a D200 shell, but superior tonal

dynamic range - something wedding photographers value with all those white dresses!

 

The choice of lenses is also crucial - you'll need something bright and fast and

good under low light, so f2.8 models are ideal.

 

Having two bodies with different lenses also covers you for long and wide shots

without swapping lenses all the time."

 

I've already read many of the topics regarding this, but I would like a fresh

set of answers from people who truly know Wedding photography. Your input would

be of great value to me.

 

-Van

[heartyfisher]

Have you done any photography? Have you done any wedding photography? if so what tools do you currently use?

[duchan]

Van,

ideally, you'd have backup gear, including, of course, an additional camera. I do know of two local photogs who never take along backup gear, maybe it's an indigenous habit, but one fine day their habit may backfire on them and their indifference is going to make the rounds in the matrimonial community. I've had three weddings, no complications, but all was well never means all will be always well, and I would never give up on taking along backup gear.

Greetings,

Duchan

[van_deleon]

Tze Weng Foong & Duchan,

 

Yes I have done wedding photography before, but not on digital slr, and not as a professional, just a guest in the wedding. I definitely plan to have back-up gear, but for now I'm just looking for the right camera. I am also a digital editor for a professional wedding photographer so I have a good idea on how to take shots from the pictures he sends me. We dont actually have direct contact with each other, he just sends the pictures to me and I edit it and return it. I dont want him to think I'm trying to take over his business or anything like that, that is why i am asking here and not from him.

 

I plan on shooting a good amount of my first weddings for free as many of my friends are about to get married, so I'm sure they wont mind at all me shooting and doing it for free. I would just like your input on cameras and lenses that are best for weddings.

Thanks =)

 

-Van

[fotografz]

Van, skipping the questions about your qualifications, etc. and assuming you'll deal with

gaining experience in the same fashion you seem to be doing with the gear questions,

here's my opinion:

 

If you have the money to invest, and assuming you will be shooting a lot of candid type

photography, I'd strongly suggest the Canon1DMKIII. If you don't have the money to

invest, any of the choices you are considering are fine with the 5D the better choice for

lower light work because of it's performance at higher ISOs.

 

Why the 1DMKII: None of the other choices you are considering shoot to two cards at the

same time like the Canon 1 series DSLRs. This is security against improbable but possible

card failure. Cards are so inexpensive now it's no longer an issue.

 

According to specs, this will be the fastest just about everything camera on the planet. It

will also be the highest ISO camera available (6400), an area of performance where Canon

has been proven to be the industry leader.

 

Perhaps most importantly, this camera offers a new approach to dynamic range that in my

opinion is perfect for the contrast situations found at weddings (read the specs and

explanation on the Canon site).

 

Pick up a digital Rebel as a back-up camera ( makes for a great vacation camera also).

 

Flash: get the newest top of the line from Canon (soon to be released), and buy a smaller

one like a 400 series flash as back-up.

 

Lenses: if you like zooms get the 24-70/2.8L. one wider lens or zoom, one faster lens like

a 50/1.4 and eventually a 100/2.8 Macro. The lens factor of the 1DsMKIII is 1.3X so take

that into account. For 98% of wedding work the 24-70/2.8 will do the job.

[van_deleon]

MARC,

 

Thank you very much for your input. I will greatly consider your opinion. As of now, I am still doing my extensive research and saving for the right camera. The Mark III has definitely crossed my mind and thank you for the recommendation of a Rebel as a backup. Currently, I've only been doing the majority of my research on the body and not the lenses. I will be doing that very soon.

 

I dont plan on jumping into the wedding photography business just because I got myself a nice camera, etc. I definitely will be practicing alot before I do any kind of charging.

 

Again I thank you. Anymore input from you or anybody is greatly appreciated.

 

-Van

[steve_levine]

Buy a pair of film cameras for a few hundred dollars, and save yourself a lot of time, money and aggravation.

[van_deleon]

Steve,

 

Thank you for your input, but I already have film cameras, and I'm definitely looking to go digital now.

 

-Van

[duchan]

Van,

shooting your first wedding for free is a good idea, I was "talked into" my first wedding by my sister's girlfriend, who wanted me to cover her wedding, and I thought it would make a neat wedding present for her and her husband. I used a Rebel XT then, here is a photo result of that wedding, no spectacular image, but nevertheless not bad for that XT with the cheap kit lens. (Next wedding will be analog per request of client).<div></div>

[michael_madio]

Steve makes a good point about using film cameras as there are many ancillary costs with shooting digital that most don't consider. Since you really want to go digital (again, it's much more expensive than it initially seems) you don't need high-end cameras. Even the entry-level DSLR's from respective manufacturers can produce excellent results. Just remember that you're buying into a system and not discrete components (lenses, flashes, etc.). Frankly, pretty much any model from the major manufacturers will be fine. If you already have an investment in compatible lenses or accessories, that could influence your decision. You need backup equipment for pretty much everything (this is where 2 entry level bodies is better than a single high-end one) and spend on quality lenses and lighting equipment.

[conraderb]

van -

 

first, YES, you must have two cameras. it is just stupid to walk into an event without a backup. better yet, shoot with two all the time. that's what I do and it is great. I can cover a huge range of things w/ two lenses always available, plus it looks very ninja-like. clients love it.

 

second, you need to go find three friends and fondle these cameras.

all are capable of fantastic results. you could pick any of them and do well.

 

I personally pick canon b/c nikon cameras are NOT intuitive at all to me. Nikon has great ergonomics, I will admit. at the time I bought my 20D bodies (remember you need TWO cameras - one as a backup!!), canon was considered to have better high ISO files. some people say that's still true, some people don't.

 

I have generally heard that fuji does very well with flesh tones, however, my 20D files don't leave me wanting anything more!

 

again, all are capable cameras. if you fail at wedding photography with any of these, it ain't the fault of the camera!

 

heck, you can shoot weddings with a 10D or a digital rebel and get great results.

 

in the words of yoda, "decide you may, but fondle you must".

[conraderb]

van - another thing. the dual writing capability is nice, however, IMHO, it's a lot of money to spend on a feature that many professional photographers have decided is not worth it (since a lot of professional photographers don't have dual-write capable cameras and seem to do okay). I completely respect marc and he is a better photographer than the vast majority of the people on this board (myself included), but I might disagree with him on this one. just an idea...

[duchan]

Allison,

not the very best of images, I agree, some constructive criticism would have been welcome, just wanted to use the image to indicate that the Rebel XT and kit lens served its purpose during that particular wedding, whereby it was my first wedding and I was rather unprepared to cover it. But it turned out to be lots of fun, and that's why I covered two more weddings, intend to cover more, simply because I enjoy the endeavor and don't have a competitive, I'm-better-than-you mindset. It's not an ego thing for me, and I'm not in it for the money. Greetings.

Duchan

[big kahauna]

Duchan, I hope you don't show that photo to people to get wedding work.

It's about the worst I've seen. Sorry to be so harsh. It's not sharp, no contrast,

and about the worst shadow I've ever seen on a wedding photo. You need to

quit using the built in flash. Get your self a cheap Vivitar 285 or Sunpak 383 and

a bracket. There are alot of great photographers on this forum. Check their websites

for samples.

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

Van,

 

I own two of the cameras you listed and have used the third. You can't go wrong with any of them. That said, how the camera works in your hands is probably the most important factor when determining which to choose, IMO.

 

The 5D clearly has the best ISO performance. The Fuji is a close second. The Nikon handles the best, IMO. The Fuji has the best color and WB.

 

The Mark III is probably going to be a great camera. I'm even on a waiting list to get one. But I must diverge from Marc's opinion somewhat. The dual card thing is nice but to me not crucial. We back up with two cameras (each) and two photographers. Do you wear a helmet in addition to your seatbelt when you drive to a wedding? My biggest problem with the Mark III is that there is no lens for it. There is the 16-35 that costs two limbs and isn't long enough and the 24-70 that isn't wide enough. Canon makes a 17-55, but it's an EF-S lens which the Mark III can't use.

 

So I may buy the Mark to add to my Nikon kit for real low light situations and sell it when Nikon releases their Canon killer D3X this fall. Right Nikon? Please. Pretty please.

 

Paul

[van_deleon]

Thank you everyone SO much for your input. I do admit that the Mark III is a bit of a stretch for me.

 

And please know that I am shooting at my friend's wedding for free and is not the main photographer. I'll prolly be shooting a good number of weddings for free before doing any kind of charging.

 

I've seriously thought about the 5D as my main choice (the second camera can come later when I start charging), but I've heard/read they've stopped producing it? Is the rumor of the next generation 5D true (EOS 3D or something like that) or are they just plain rumors? If they are true, I may just wait a while longer.

[surfidaho]

If you already have good glass, buy the camera that the glass fits. If not, go Canon for lower noise and good IS lens selection.

 

I shoot with two Rebel XT's, and expensive glass. (EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS and EF 70-200mm f2.8). Each lens cost twice as much as one of my cameras does these days.

 

The glass makes a MUCH bigger difference than the camera does. Put your money in glass first. With good glass, you should never have to go past ISO 800 at a wedding.

 

Even if you buy two film cameras (which I don't recommend, but Steve and I come from different worlds, and I respect his viewpoint) buy good glass that you can put on a digital body later.

 

Bear in mind that if you buy EF-S glass, you will never use it on a 5D or 35mm film camera. That's not a problem for me, because I love how the 17-55mm f2.8 IS performs on my Rebel, and I plan on having at least one cropped factor camera for a long time.

 

That said, if you can afford two 5D's, that's what I would do. I consider it the finest camera of the lot, and much better than my Rebel XT's. But whatever you do, NEVER go to a wedding (even a freebie) with one camera, even if your only backup is a film camera.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[van_deleon]

Paul,

 

Thank you for your input. As I am new to all of this, what exactly is a cropped factor camera?

 

-Van

[yves_jalbert]

I second everything Paul Thomas said. Been following this thread and this is the best answer that I've seen so far. At first I was shocked to see recommendations for the Mark III; especially for somebody who doesn't even do this for full time work. But Paul's recommendations are excellent.

[van_deleon]

Yves,

 

Thank you for your opinion. Love your website by the way. What camera do you use? I imagine you shoot alot of low light conditions, many of which occur at weddings also, without all the fancy lights.

 

-Van

[sfcole]

"Buy a pair of film cameras for a few hundred dollars, and save yourself a lot of time,

money and aggravation."

 

Sorry--in these days, this is simply not good advice, and a wedding photographer will be

at a serious disadvantage. Who will pay the film/developing/scanning costs? And the real

aggravation will be born by the film photographer who has to spend hours at the

computer retouching all those scratches incurred by the scanning process. What about

shooting a ceremony on a roll of film whose leader didn't catch correctly? Or a failing

shutter? You'd never know till a week later. And customers new will want a DVD

immediately.

 

And yes, I'm sorry to say that the above photo simply says nothing about the capabilities

of the Rebel XTi. It's poor in just about every respect. Not trying to be harsh here--but it

was submitted.

[fotografz]

Well, I did say "If you have the money" concerning the new 1DMKIII ... and he did say "it

had

crossed his mind", or I wouldn't have mentioned it. If I've learned one thing in all this, it's

that going on the cheap costs you in the end. But I understand the concept of just not

having the money.

 

And I agree, the dual card aspect shouldn't be a deciding factor ... billions of photos have

been taken without it. Yet if available, why not use it? All it takes is "one time" when you

are shooting weddings. That "one time" happened to my shooting partner... an absolute

disaster. After that, we both started using the dual card system for all the key shots. Just

experience speaking, that's all.

 

As far as lenses, Jeff Ascough uses a Camon 1DMKII with a 24-70/2.8 for most of his work

and seems to do okay. It all depends on your approach.

[van_deleon]

Marc,

 

Again thank you for input. I saw your website and love your work. I'm leaning towards the Canon D5, but I've been reading rumors of a next generation D5, the D3? Any thoughts on whether this is even faintly true? I've read some forums and specs and it sounds pretty legite to me, but then again, I'm no pro. If there is a Canon D3 coming out sometime late this year, I might be willing to wait, unless the D5 has major discounts.

 

-Van

[fotografz]

Thanks Van. I've not heard anything about a 5D replacement. Canon may implement some of

the stuff

in the 1DMKIII like they've done in the past. But who knows, they are pretty tight lipped. The

soon to be released 1DsMKII replacement has been hotly rumored for well over a year now.

[surfidaho]

Hi Van!

 

In response to your question about cropped frame: It's easier to explain full frame (FF) first.

 

A full frame camera has a sensor that is the same size as an individual 35mm frame, so that if you take a picture with a 35mm camera and a full frame camera using the same settings and lens, the framing should look almost identical.

 

A cropped frame camera has a smaller sensor than a 35mm frame. For example: if the sensor is smaller by a factor of 0.625, then the camera has a "1.6 cropping factor" (which is the inverse of 0.625). This means that for the purposes of zooming, a 35mm lens on a cropped frame camera has the same field of view as a 56mm lens.

 

This does NOT mean that on a cropped camera, the 35mm lens is more "normal" (close to 50mm) because "normal" relates to perspective transformation, and not field of view. A 50mm lens on a FF camera is just as normal as a 50mm lens on a cropped camera. But on the cropped camera, the image field of view will look like it came off an 80mm lens.

 

The reason for all this is because although the lens throws the same size image at both the full frame and the cropped frame the sensor, the cropped frame sensor is smaller. Therefore, the information on the edges that would be caught with a full frame sensor is simply thrown away on a cropped frame sensor.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky