Help w/ Lenses & Natural Lighting

[digiscraping]

I am a natural light photographer and I am currently doing children's

photography. I am growing and learning every time I take an exposure but I am

stuck right now in an in-between phase. I want to do some wedding photography as

I really think I would be great at it. I love doing portraits in natural

lighting as all of my children's photography are as such.

 

Here is where I need help from the rest of the wedding photography community!

First, I would like to know which lenses from the Olympus digitals would be

best. I am right now considering the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 only because it is the

cheaper than the 35-100mm f/2.0 (which I do have my heart set on this one but I

just can't fork up the money for it -- just yet). I am assuming I need a great

zoom lens with a good shallow aperture like the two listed above. But I was

thinking about how most people expect you to do a typical "line up" of the

wedding crew which would require a wider angle of view. And I don't want to be

going "Wait a minute while I run to the other end of the church" if you know

what I mean. I'd rather avoid the line up altogether too if anyone has good

ideas. Also, I am better at head shots than full body (and dress) shots because

the lenses I currently have are good for it. I would love to be able to do a

shot from far away, getting the bride (and or groom) all in, feet and all, and

still have a nice shallow depth of field. Is this possible with the 50-200mm

f/2.8-3.5? I currently own the 50mm f/2.0 for portraits and I also have the

18-180 but I'd rather not mess with it and I will probably sell it soon to fund

my new lens.

 

Here is my second question which is very important! I do natural light

photography and I really don't want to mess with flashes. Is it even possible to

do indoor church photography with the natural light? Will I just need a very

bright lens?

 

Since I have the 50mm f/2.0 I'd rather not get the 50-200mm as it is redundant

so if someone can overly convince me to do the 35-100mm (or another Olympus

lens) then please let me know as I could also save the money and just get the

lens later. Any ideas to help me out would be great! I need it.

[jackie_boldt]

I am a fan of natural lighting, however most of the time, you will need to use an external flash, even if it is just for a little bit of fill light. You definitely, definitely need it for indoor church pictures on the alter. Well, you most likely will need it for most situations. The lighting in churches, even with a flash, is horrible!

 

I use all Canon & Tamron equipment: 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 135 f/2, and 17-35 Tamron. I have a 5D and a 30D as a back-up. I'm not sure how Olympus performs in low-light situation in regards to noise, but I know the 5D is fantastic. I also know that Canon is known for handling digital noise very well with their cameras. It might be something you want to look into if you are a fan of natural light. Again, I'm not sure of what Olympus can do, but I don't hear of many wedding photographers who use Olympus. Just some food for thought...

 

Anyway, I hope this helps!

[digiscraping]

That definitely helps and I would love to get a hold of a nice Canon. But before I can do that I will need to work a while with my Olympus so I need some advice on that end. It is a little discouraging to hear I can't do all natural light photography with no external flash as I would never use it in any other situation.

 

So if anyone has some *tricks* to get away with not using flash at all for a wedding, I would be willing to try it even if I have to get someone to follow me around with some light reflectors (not sure if that would work either, really). I was thinking about advertising in some churches (or around the town) that I do outdoor ceremonies... not sure how well that would do me. Or perhaps I would do pre-wedding portraits? I don't know how lucrative that is... Or what about just asking to do the after-wedding photos outdoors?

 

Just bouncing ideas around... your turn!

[jimstrutz]

Partly because of the small sensor, and partly for other reasons, Olympus' 4/3 system is not the best choice for low light shooting. Other cameras have better (less) noise at high ISO. The only thing offsetting this situation (at least partly) is Oly's very fast aperture lenses. If you have your heart set on natural light weddings I would save up my pennies for the f/2 zoom. It will have shallower DOF (more blur to the background) than the f/2.8-3.5 lens, and with the resulting lower ISO, less noise.

 

You can shoot most weddings without flash, but most receptions can't be done well this way. The rooms are too dim and people are moving too fast.

 

You will also need a wide lens, and 18mm is not wide enough on a 4/3 camera. You're going to want a fast aperture zoom starting at 14mm (10 or 12mm would be better.)

[jimstrutz]

Also, wedding are not the place to practice. There's too much on the line, and they move too fast. With wedding photography there is a lot to learn that is nothing like other types of photography. In addition, you would need to have two of everything - just in case. You might do well at wedding photography, but it will cost to get in.

[digiscraping]

I agree Jim, about not practicing at the wedding itself. I certainly plan to practice beforehand by finding a friend to dress up and meet me at a church or ask someone if I can casually take photos and I know someone who I will team up with to take the photos so that takes care of the double equipment. I am so bummed about the Olympus equipment! I didn't know any better when I bought it all last year as I only started to take photos of my own kids and now I am getting into pro work. I have a feeling I will work with it a while before I can get anything else but I will work my way up to that point. I have noticed some grain in lower light situations but since I do all my portraits in natural light during the day it hasn't been a problem for me yet. I was hoping to just put the money into a good Olympus lens but I am going right now to check out some other options.

 

--But that doesn't mean I don't need advice with the Olympus! Any help and advice I can get for my current situation is very much appreciated.

[enzo_simonelli]

" ... some *tricks* to get away with not using flash at all for a wedding".

 

A Monopod with a quick-release plate Head !

 

As long as Bride&Groom won't start dancing in front of the priest (usually they keep steady), You can shoot long shutter-speeds, say 1/15 with no Camera-shake, thank to a Monopod.

 

It is hard instead to get, a steady image by an hand-held 100mm (200mm equiv.) Telephoto; this lead You to 'spend' LV by setting 1/125. Unless You have E-510 featuring sensor shift based Image Stabilization.

 

.

[enzo_simonelli]

Since the Zuiko 35-100mm f/2.0 needs to be afforded and indeed with it at 100mm, You might expect more-but-not-so-much more than with Your 50/2 (in respect of "shallow depth of field" whole-body shot from far away), take into consideration a third-brand "prime" Lens:

 

Sigma 150mm f/2.8

 

You can buy it by one-third at least less, than the Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 which at 150/200mm no longer keeps f/2.8 and 200mm will be way often too long (400mm equiv.), almost un-usable in weddings.

 

.

[mag_miksch]

in weddings you have to shoot groups also, so you will need some wider lens. The 50-200 eg. is a very good lens, I often use for soccer, but how to use it at a wedding. A drawback of the Olympus system is the lack of real fast lenses, the only is the Sigma 30/1.4, so for wedding Nikon or Canon with a lot of 1.4 primes is the better choice, and eg. Canon D30 are cheap this days and have low noise at higher ISO.<br>Regards<br>Martin

[fotografz]

Andrea, a few thoughts about available light work when shooting weddings.

 

 

Many churches won't allow flash during the ceremony anyway. I carry a tripod just in case

the light levels are to low to hand hold the camera. This may be quite true for your specific

camera since it is not a high ISO performer so you can't increase it to much to get the

shutter speed up high enough even with a faster lens. F/2.8 to 3.5 is not a fast lens BTW,

F/1.4 or 1.2 is fast.

 

 

So, the times you may need a flash ( actually, it's more like when you will almost always

need a flash) is when shooting formal groups at the alter (many clients insist on this) ...

this is because you may need to increase the depth of field when shooting multiple rows

of people ... also, for shooting the procession & recession because the people are moving

... for fill in bright conditions or you end up with deep shadows in the eye sockets and

long nose and chin shadows ... and finally at the reception when the available light is not

so available ... like when they turn down the lights for the first dance ... or flash to stop

motion in lower interior lighting, like when the Bride tosses her Bouquet.

 

Now, many of those situations can, and are, shot using available light ... but it's risky ...

and those that do shoot that way often have high ISO performing cameras like the 5D and

very fast aperture lenses like a 50/1.4 or faster.

[digiscraping]

I think I have been persuaded to trade in for a Canon. I will have to get the d30 instead of the EOS 5d because of the cost and I will just work my way up to a 5d. Thanks everybody!

[greg jansen]

It is absolutely essential that you both have, and know how to use, your flash for weddings. Just having a fast lens or two is not going to cut it. The problem (or challenge) with weddings is that you are forced to shoot in less than ideal conditions most of the day.

 

Locations vary greatly. Most weddings are in churches. Most churches have horrible lighting. How would shoot a processional without a flash? A fast lens used at its widest aperture is going to have such a shallow depth of field that you would be lucky to get one out of 10 shots usable. Your shutter speed is going to be so long, even with fast glass, that the subjects will be a blur.

 

For a few formal shots at the altar (which they will want), if you do not use a flash your shots will take on the color cast and direction of the overhead lights. Couple that with a long shutter speed and you have orange looking blurry people with racoon eyes, directional light overhead, and severe grain from using a not so great high ISO camera. Not the recipe for a happy client.

 

If you do not use fill flash outdoors, majority of people will have black eyes in the shots. You need a bit of fill to lighten the eyes.

 

The trick with flash is to use it sparingly. That takes a lot of practice.

 

In addition to using a flash, you need to have complete back-ups for everything you use. That means a minium of TWO camera bodies, a mid range and long zoom, a fixed lens or two, two flashes, etc. etc. etc.

 

I'm not trying to be harsh, but you are a long ways from shooting a wedding with the equipment and experience you have.

 

Yes, you can get some great natural light shots at a wedding, but that is a small percentage of time during the day. Since you are not in control of where or when most of the shots are taken, you have to use flash.

 

Every portion of a wedding is important to brides. The processional, the formals, the candids, the getting ready stuff, everything. Natural light only for the whole day and you will have unusable shots for majority of the day. Not good.

 

Even a small wedding outdoors at a park you will need fill flash.

[lightbox]

Don't take this personally, but it seems like most people hide under the 'available light' blanket when they start doing photography because they are just afraid to use a flash. I was for a very long time, and some of my photog friends were too and we've been using this for quite a few years. But, it's way easier to learn flash with a dslr than it was with film, so now there's no reason not too. :-)

 

If that's you, or if you've never learned to use manual, off-camera flash, I would suggest going to strobist.com, picking up 1 or 2 cheap sunpak or vivitars, and learning how to really use flash. If after you are competent at creating that style of light, you still can't stand flash, then get a rangefinder with F1.2 lenses or a high-end canon with F1.4 lenses. You'll need something faster than f2.

 

As for lenses to round out your kit, you need something wide, something normal and something long. The 50 f2 seems great for the long end. Maybe get something in the 15-18mm range (for 4/3) and something in the 25mm range and you should be fine.

 

That's my 0.02

[annealmasy]

Nathan beat me to it. :)

 

When I first started shooting, I was a "natural light photographer." All it really meant was

that I wasn't comfortable with external light sources; I didn't really know how to best us a

flash to my advantage; I didn't know how to make it look as natural as possible.

 

To this day I prefer natural light over flash, and I go the natural light route as much as

possible.

 

But weddings are widely varied events with drastically different lighting conditions, and

you absolutely cannot expect to become a good wedding photographer if you are not

willing to learn and use flash. Period.

 

I highly, HIGHLY recommend Zack Arias's One Light Workshop: http://

www.onelightworkshop.com. It's a fantastic intro to lighting for people who know their

cameras, but aren't comfortable with lights.

 

There are so many options for how to light that it's ridiculous, but I suggest that you get a

couple of Pocket Wizards (Transceivers are $189 each) and something basic like a Vivitar

285 ($70). With that one light you can bounce off walls, or into umbrellas or softboxes for

portraits. You can easily shoot an entire formal portrait session in a dark church with that

one light on a stand in an umbrella. As you get more and more comfortable with your

lighting, you can add more flash units (maybe even upgrade to more powerful flashes) and

more Pocket Wizards.

 

I would say the key is to (from the start) learn to use your flashes OFF your camera. On-

camera is no-holds-barred the safe, easy, amateur way to go. Not to say that you can't

manage your on-camera flash in a pro way. But if you get stuck in the TTL rut you'll never

get out. :)

 

Don't be scared. :) It's so worth it. :)

 

I'm not familiar with Olympus so I can't really give you any lens recommendations. Good

luck!

[annealmasy]

Oh, one more thought... I have shot indoor church ceremonies with the 85mm f1.2 at 800

ISO and BARELY had enough light -- definitely not enough for a portrait. (Most churches

won't allow the use of flash except for portraits after the ceremony.) The world gets REALLY

dark when the sun goes down! ;) So, no. It's not possible to shoot an entire wedding sans

flash. :)

[bruce_t]

Andrea Halsey - "I think I have been persuaded to trade in for a Canon. I will have to get the d30 instead of the EOS 5d because of the cost and I will just work my way up to a 5d. Thanks everybody!"

 

My suggestion is to go and rent a Cannon for a few days and see if you like it. Go in a few local churches and take some snapshots with each. If you like it better than your current setup a trade may be the right choice, but if you don't you'd have avoided a costly mistake.

 

As for pros and cons of switching, the Cannon without a doubt has better high iso performance, but Olympus will have better depth of field when shot at wide apertures. If you want image stabilization, a Cannon will require an investment in some very expensive lenses whereas Olympus bodies are available which have stabilization built in, allowing a cheaper upgrade path. Also, if you need a really fast lens on a budget, remember that you can get adapters to use older non-4/3 lenses and there are many fast primes available on the used market.

[picturesque]

It is generally not possible to photograph weddings without flash, but I thought Jeff Ascough did just that for a long time. I know he uses flash for night receptions when he absolutely has to. It requires some planning and the ability to sell your clients on the resulting images, since you may not be able to provide them with what they are expecting. You do need fast lenses though.

[digiscraping]

The advice here has been overwhelming helpful! I do love natural light photography and its true I don't really want to mess with flash but I learned some things about flash and I now realize it would be needed for doing traditional weddings. I am very interested in doing wedding photography in the future but I really don't think I can afford it! Geez, I am seriously scrounging for the money for a decent camera (including having to sell the one I already have) so buying two of them is not going to be possible. I think I could still sell myself for pre-wedding portraits. The problem is making enough money to make more money!

 

I can't believe I'm saying this but I do want to look into using flash (at least for fill flash if nothing else). Thanks again for everyone's help!

[annealmasy]

Andrea, your portraits and cards are too freakin' good for you to be financially strapped.

Perhaps you should charge more. :)

[picturesque]

What Olympus camera do you have? And what gear do you have now? I don't know that you NEED to sell your camera just yet. Anyway, if money is a serious problem and you want to go Canon, I'd recommend trying to locate a used Canon 20D. On the fredmiranda Buy and Sell Forum, they can be had for about $600-700.

[enzo_simonelli]

I follow and develop Nadine's addressing: don't be in a hurry to get rid of Your current equipment, not so bad really, but hard to be re-sold fast and well.

 

Good a deal for the money, it MIGHT arises on Konica Minolta Digital Reflex Cameras, worth a sight.

 

Maxxum 7D (2005, Jan) 6 Mpx http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/konicaminolta7d/page2.asp

 

Maxxum 5D (2005, Jul) 6 Mpx http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05071503kmmaxxum5d.asp

 

Also marketed as Dynax 7D and Dynax 5D (here in Europe) both them feature *** sensor shift based Image Stabilization ***; that translates into 2-3 slower steps as available Shutter-speeds, without incurring in Camera-shake blurring. So You can capture more Natural Light thanks to slower shutter, still if almost-steady subjects.

 

Every Lens You mount, became stabilized; good range of Lenses available.

 

Neither Canon or Nikon still offer Image Stabilizer at Sensor level: they turn You to buy, IS/Vr called, Stabilized Lenses, things of expensive.

 

Maxxum/Dynax 5D 7D are also good ISO-performers: lowest noise up to ISO-800; ISO-1600/3200 also there.

 

As a previous poster recalls us, Sensor's dimensions (how much large it is) enter in play in the "shallow Depth of Field" thing. Konica Minolta DSRLs have 23.5 x 15.7 mm CCD sensor, as large as Nikon D70 D200 and Canon 400D 30D have (so called, APS-C frame; Full-Frame is Canon 5D's 36x24mm Sensor). Olympus DSRLs instaed, employ smallest 17.3 x 13.0 mm one. Held Your Olympus as a worth back-up equipment.

 

.

[daniellane]

I am a bit curious. For all of the Strobist freaks, (of which I am one. I never miss a post) how many weddings has he shot?

 

I see a great number of people sternly warning against the unspeakable evils of "on camera" flash, but when shooting candids, how do you avoid it? How practical are cardboard snoots (I've got four in my bag mind you) when Aunt Hagatha from Montana will barely stand still for a photo long enough for the AF to lock, much less wait for you to set up your "off camera" light stands?

 

If you're talking Formals, sure, everything's on the table there.

 

"On camera flash", done properly, is perfectly valid that can produce excellent results.

 

http://weddingphotographyproject.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/

 

Direct, on camera flash, which I think most people are referring to when they think of "on camera flash" is another matter.

[lightbox]

Daniel - I don't know if he's shot any. My point about suggesting strobist was for the OP to become familiar with how to use flash as a style and learn the various techniques, and only then make a comparison on what is a better fit for her style-wise.

 

The weddings I've shot have been mostly on-camera bounce (and direct for fill outside), but I have done some off-camera stuff too. I'm not a pro at it by any stretch of the imagination, but it has opened up many different creative possibilities that could be applicable at weddings.

 

I haven't tried it yet, but there are a lot of people here who use off-camera flashes mounted on stands at receptions with great success. They set them up at the start and leave them and adjust settings (aperture/shutter) on camera as they move around the room. Others use monolights shot into the ceilings. Some people use a flash on a monopod and hold it out that way and move around the crowd. I've seen assistants holding flashes in some pictures. I've even seen one guy using a deer light. :-)

 

I agree that on camera flash can (and should) be done really well and I use that quite a bit now. There are many other techniques to choose from as well, and I think which you pick depends on the style you want. Basically, I was suggesting learning how to actually use a flash before deciding to make a purchase based completely on using available light.

 

BTW, I'm quite impressed by David since he took his leave of absence at the paper. That's a gutsy move for him - I wish him well.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Aside from what Anne already said about being too good for not affording the best lens (with which I totally agree), consider going to www.fredmiranda.com to look for good used kit at a decent discount. Just make a search on the seller in the B&S forum before deciding to buy. You are welcome to email me for help if you are not familiar or are uncomfortable with that process.

 

Best, D.

[enzo_simonelli]

Marc Williams wrote: " ... this is because you may need to increase the depth of field when shooting multiple rows of people ... "

 

Greg Jansen wrote: " How would shoot a processional without a flash? A fast lens used at its widest aperture is going to have such a shallow depth of field that you would be lucky to get one out of 10 shots usable. "

 

This is a good reason for Andrea, beeing aimed to do mainly-Natural Light works, to hold Her current Olympus equipment, too. This small-sided sensor Camera wants wider a focal-length to catch the same scene as an APS-C sized Camera does instead through a less-wide lens.

 

The wider/shorther the Focal-Length, the depther the depth-of-field; still by same f/value. I can suppose She at a reception, She dialing to a large Aperture to catch as more Natural Light as possible, so incurring in the "shallow depth-of-field" thing; as more if APS-C and even more if FullFrame sized Sensor.