MASTER LESSON: Wedding Equipment

[fotografz]

<p>William ... post a photo from the Pentax !!!!!!!</p>

<p>Anyone using an Olympus E camera for weddings? How about a 3/4s camera of any kind? If you use one, it was for a reason ... tell us about it. I'm seriously curious about those possibilities for some wedding applications. Small, compact, with some darned good IQ based on some images I've seen. </p>

<p>Let's open this thread up folks ... if you still use a film camera even part time at a wedding ... tell us about it and show a shot. I LOVE my Nikon F6 and have just one lens for it ... an AFS 50/1.4D with a SB-800 ... it's all such a compact kit.</p>

<p>I'm still a crazy film fanatic and sold some digital gear to get a top end Imacon scanner. </p>

[jmichaelc]

<p>I loved how you described the way you feel about primes William:<br>

love these lenses. I have rediscovered photography, in a way, by going back to primes. Results are terrific, or perhaps I should say, my photography has improved as a result. It took me a while to "get" primes. It's NOT that the image quality is markedly better at the given focal length. And it's not necessarily that the primes are faster, although several of mine ARE faster than f/2.8. For me, it's more a matter of, well, discipline, like writing poetry that rhymes and scans instead of free verse. If I know that I'm stuck with a focal length of 28mm, well, it limits my options in a way that I frankly find rather liberating. Yes, it slows me down, but that has been entirely a good thing.<br>

I feel the sampe way and completely understand what your saying - limiting those options allows you to understand what you have and, like you said, liberates you with the ability to use it appropriatly.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>Used to be a <em>gearslutz</em> ~ for many years --- ( first NKN F in the early 70's) but, recently (finally) was able to sell all the gear for less than 10c on the original cost ..and that> took many years to even find interest > in the 8X ~ 4X views / 6X7 / etc --- ...all down to one camera and one 2.8 zoom</p><div></div>

[ron_day___greensboro__nc]

<p>Hi Marc,<br /> <br /> You mentioned earlier the<br>

<em>"The Flash debate:</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

There are those who feel the Canon shoe mount flash system to be inferior to Nikon, but I have to admit that hasn’t been my real world experience with later Canon flashes like the 580EX. Give or take a few attributes, they are both quite good, and IMO not a compelling reason to select one camera brand over the other for wedding work."</p>

<p>I only have experience with Nikon flashes and find that Nikon flashes tend to consistently overexposure with subjects wearing black like tuxs - black dresses, etc by 2/3 - 1 stop. Has that been your experience? Also with the SB900 - I have randomly gotten about 1 stop over exposure with direct flash across the center of the frame, etc. (set to even) especially at wide angle. It is not repeatable but does occur at most weddings when using direct flash.</p>

<p>Pocket wizards are also my choice for remote flashes. CLS may be ok for portraits, etc but is inconsistent in a changing reception venue, etc.</p>

<p>Thanks, Ron D</p><div></div>

[alex.karasev]

<p>Marc,<br>

A wonderful article and a level headed, pretty cool overview of the different systems - thank you!<br>

A few things on the SONY system:</p>

<p>The system is indeed missing PC lenses, among others, although the excellent Schneider 28mm f/2.8 Super-Angulon shift lens is available with the SONY Alpha mount. I use one: http://public.fotki.com/SashaKarasev/sony-minolta-photo-eqpt/schneider-28mm-pc/ There's no tilt, but frankly at 28mm and narrow working apertures normally used for landscapes and architecture, the DOF is such that tilt is a pure gimmick. I think the tilt feature would add a lot more real value on macro lenses with focal lengths 50mm and longer.</p>

<p>The 100mm f/2.8 macro in its present plastic-clad barrel does not look like much, but it is a lens well regarded for its sharpness and bokeh. Certainly not a slouch - perhaps you got a bad sample. Minolta also made a 180mm macro, in G series, which SONY (so far) has unfortunately elected not to carry over.</p>

<p>Regarding low light performance, in inheriting the Minolta system SONY also continues Minolta's great attention to color. A900 color fidelity scores are in the medium format back territory. The point is, this great low ISO performance can be impacted if the Bayer microfilters are made less dense or wider band than they are presently, thus admitting more light to the photosites and improving the low light performance. Personally I'd rather have outstanding performance at base and low ISO (managing the light and/or bringing the in-camera image stabilization to bear to get the extra stops rather than upping the ISO) than have SONY follow Canon and Nikon and compromise SONY's differentiating feature, its trademark color fidelity, for "me-too" high ISO.</p>

<p>-- Alex Karasev<br>

[fotografz]

<p>I'd have to agree with you about the color Alexander. It is the best out of the camera I've ever seen. As I mentioned in the article, the need for high ISO is a new siren's song from the manufacturers, but I question the true need for it ... which was the point of the Exif Info exercise ... to see if you DO need it. </p>

<p>I've worked up some approaches for noise control on the A900, and now can shoot up to ISO 1000 with confidence ... even in poor light. Stabilization helps, but does nothing if the subject is moving ... that is where a higher ISO for a higher shutter speed comes into play.</p>

<p>I have not shot or owned the 100 macro. Others who I trust have used it. My personal bench mark is the Leica R 100/2.8 APO Macro ... which can be adapted for use on the A900. If I needed a 35mm Macro, that is the solution I would employ. But I don't need it ... I use a Medium Format macro for critical close up work.</p>

<p>For me tilt/shift work is a moot point, but for others it is an important aspect of their work ... this blocks the A900 from consideration. However, this is an article aimed at wedding shooters primarily. T/S is not a hot topic for event work.</p>

<p> </p>

[mikestryinagain]

<p>Execellent presentation Marc! Its good to see I can pop in after a couple of years and still find some great stuff going on here! What can you tell me about using the Contax 645AF at weddings (film or digital)?<br>

Thanks!</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Hi Michael.</p>

<p>Loved the Contax 645 for weddings! Used it first with film ... then used a Kodak Pro-Back 645C for digital. My pal Irakly still uses a Contax 645 with a Phase One digital back.</p>

<p>Auto Focus is a bit dicey in lower light, but the viewfinder is pretty bright for manual focus when needed. I moved to a Hasselblad H3D-II for faster AF.</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[mikestryinagain]

<p>Thanks for the response Marc! As long as the AF is good in decent light, it would probably serve my purposes. My eyes kind of like the AF on cameras these days LOL! Which lenses did you find yourself using most of the time? I think you once mentioned that you used the 120J flash on this camera, would that still be your recommendation? Thanks!</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Sorry, I lost follow up on this article ... my bad.</p>

<p>Michael, I no longer use a Contax 645 ... as mentioned, I moved to a Hasselblad H system for the better AF. Actually, the H viewfinder is also much brighter than the Contax 645 for more critical manual focus usage like in studio. </p>

<p>Back when shooting the C645 I had most all of the lenses ... but a few favorites emerged. The 55mm is a sleeper of a lens with a rare ability to produce beautiful bokeh both front and back of the subject (often rear Bokeh looks great on some lenses, but front doesn't). The 120/4 Macro is maybe one of the best ever made for medium format. This camera would be worth owning just for that Macro IMO. In essence, all the lenses were very good for that camera, and still are.</p>

<p>I still think the 120J with a Contax TTL module would be a viable solution if not hard to locate. I really do prefer bare bulb. I never liked the Quantum solutions because it requires lugging around a battery pack for power at weddings where the 120J will take AAs in the flash. Most Quantum light modifiers work on the 120J.</p>

[madeleine_hopkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"The one thing that has remained consistent regardless of what gear is used is a knack for that nano second capture that snatches a fleeting expression, body language or moment of humanity from the rushing river of events that is a wedding. That talent, technique, or whatever you want to call it I freely admit is intuitive and hard to explain. It's there in every wedding I shoot ... sometimes to my surprise and delight since it's instinct at work. I simply trust it. The day that aspect fails to show up is the day I hang up my wedding boots."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I absolutely love this quote of yours, Marc. I can completely relate. It's strange to read something that is exactly what I have been thinking and feeling recently. I am relatively new to the SLR world having just purchased my first one in December but I have definitely found my calling. I went to a friend's wedding a couple of weeks ago and took my new Sony A550. As it turns out, I took some absolute cracker shots, one of which is the bride's favourite. She used it on her thank you cards and is going to be enlarging it for her living room wall.</p>

<p>My dad has been a hobby photographer for over thirty years and while I was growing up our family would have regular slide shows. I guess from looking at so many excellent photographs as a child I naturally learned how to compose and take a good picture.</p>

<p>Thanks for this very informative article. It has been incredibly helpful for me.</p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>Thanks Madeleine.</p>

<p>Nice catch ... that's what it is all about.</p>

<p>Depending on your personal tastes, you may want to experiment with contrast levels when converting to B&W. I found the Sony cameras to be excellent at color because of a great mid-tone range response ... but often in need of a bit more contrast added to B&W conversions than other digital cameras.</p>

<p>Marc</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[madeleine_hopkins]

<p>Thanks for the tip, Marc. Hey do you mind me asking what lens do you give to your assistant at weddings? Thanks.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Hi Madeleine.</p>

<p>Not sure what you mean by "what lens I give to my assistant at weddings?"</p>

<p>If the person is purely assisting, they aren't shooting ... they are helping me shoot.</p>

<p>My usual semi-assistant/second shooter Noel has her own Canon 5D and a crop frame Canon back-up (30D?) ... she shoots with a Canon 20-35/2.8L, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 macro, and another back-up zoom that I don't recall.</p>

<p>Sometimes I have her up on the balcony shooting one of my Sony A900s with a 70-200/2.8 Zoom on a tripod while I work the main floor of the Ceremony with a Leica M9. </p>

<p> </p>

[madeleine_hopkins]

<p>Thank you. And yeah I meant your "second shooter".</p>

[tyler_leeds]

<p>Great article.<br>

You listed a lack of a fast 35mm as a Con for Sony. I think you might have overlooked the 35mm 1.4G lens. This is a currently produced lens and not an out-of-print Minolta. :-)<br>

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=11039113#specifications<br>

You'll also get your wish for a fast 24mm Zeiss Prime very soon with the upcoming release of the 24mm Zeiss f/2 SSM (Yep.. SSM focusing)<br>

If you can get your hands on it, the 100mm f/2 Minolta lens is reputed to be one of the sharpest primes ever made. They're accordingly as rare as hens teeth and very expensive on the used market when they come up.<br>

Another very interesting option is the 135mm STF lens. It's a very esoteric optic, but there's literally nothing on earth like it. The smooth transition from focus to out-of-focus rips your subject from their background. It's really something to see.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>A fast <strong>Zeiss </strong>35mm was the wish. But you are right, the G is no slouch, but it is priced like a Zeiss.</p>

<p>Yep, drooling for the AF Zeiss 24/2 ... if it gets here in my lifetime. This article was written prior to that announcement.</p>

<p>the 135 STF is a manual focus lens, and I already have the AF Zeiss 135/1.8 which also "rips the subject from the background" : -).</p>

<p>Good input ... I'll have to search for that 100/2!</p>

<p>-Marc</p>

<p> </p>

[valdez_brown]

<p>Wow, in reading all of this, you most definitely will confuse a amateur on what to start off with. However, I started with a Nikon, and want to upgrade to the D700. I'm kinda of lost on the lenses to purchase, I notice you mention the 24-70/ 2.8 as a main, but is that the only one? What are some other good lenses, flashes to go with for wedding photography? Club photography as well? When I say club, I mean setting up lights on a backdrop in club environment. Suggestions please.</p>

[norbu]

<p>Thanks Marc! I have bookmarked this and it became like my manual now.</p>

[kelly_hughes]

<p>I have that elusive Minolta 100/f2 and I use it on my Sony A700. Oddly, my Minolta 35-105 (old style) beats it on sharpness every time I compare them directly on the same scene. That's one heck of a sharp zoom! And quite the bargain for around $100 to $200 typically. I don't think my f2 is a bad copy; it does seem really nice... it's just that the 35-105 is stellar. I couldn't speak to the bokeh between the two, 3D effect, etc. But now that I've read your article, I'm certainly going to look for it!</p>

<p>I'm still quite the amateur compared to you guys. I'm a very low-volume shooter whose sessions are family get-togethers, graduations, random stuff I see on car trips that I can pull over and shoot from the side of the road, etc. I can go weeks without taking any shots, but I always look forward my next session sneaking up on me. I do have one regular "customer" though... one of our best friends who has me over for a photo shoot in their back yard each year for Christmas pictures of their kids. No money exchanged, purely for the mutual benefit of it. (Cards for her, shooting for me.) She poses them, and I snap away. It's neat to later see one of my pictures arrive in the mail on a Christmas card, having been cleverly cropped and processed. She has a better "eye" than I do, but isn't very equipment savvy. So between her final touches and me working the equipment, together we make a pretty good photographer, lol. The picture always makes me go "Wow, I can't believe I took that!"</p>

<p>Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for the great article. You pretty much nailed most of my own views about hardware vs content, although I get by on micro-budget contraints. It's good to see there are still people out there who take the time pass on their knowledge. It's wonderful when it's done in a logical, sensible way that invites open conversation about various systems without all the flaming and bickery that has ruined many discussion boards in the last few years.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p> </p>

[fun-wedding-photography]

<p>great info about use the right equipment for wedding photography</p>