Wedding photographer selection equipment

[steve_johnston9]

<p>Hello,<br /> I have been asked by the bride to be, to help with the selection of their wedding photographer. We have had four photographers around, and looked at their portfolio/previous and wedding books all of them looked good. However she is very hung up on them having the “right equipment”, and as I am into photography, I am in charge of making sure this is the case.<br /> While I have pointed out to her that the camera doesn’t make the camera man, she is adamant she wants to make sure they have the”right equipment”<br>

They all have a good range of lenses, and backup cameras. But the primary cameras for the shooters are:<br>

Canon 450d<br /> Canon 500d<br /> Canon 5d mark 2.<br /> Pentax K-x<br>

<br /> The guy with the mark 2 portfolio is the worse judging from his sample albums, despite having the best camera. Again I personally think it’s the shooter not the camera that makes the shots, but then again I have never shot a wedding. Are there any cameras on the list that you wouldn’t allow someone to shoot you wedding with?</p>

[sami_zahid]

<p>Steve you're right when you say the camera doesnt make the camera man......just like owning a ferrari doesnt make you a good driver. I think the bride-to-be should concentrate less on the equipment and more on the style of photography, portfolio, value for money, end results etc. Having the best kit on the market does not guarantee the perfect wedding pictures.Maybe you could reassure her on this.</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>Good luck with that. Your initial response to the bride was the correct one. The only legitimate equipment related issue (IMO) is do they have back-ups. After that, their portfolio should be the focus. Of course, I am biased and would guess, based on the equipment listed, that she is looking for a "bargain" wedding photographer. Nothing wrong with that and certainly no disrespect to the photographers. But, sometimes you actually do get what you pay for.</p>

[missy_kay]

<p>I respectfully disagree with the posters above. I think that if the budget is over $1500, the photographer should have a full frame camera, backup camera and a nice portfolio. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>If she wants an "equipment decision", I would be looking at the main lens(es) not the main camera.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[eric merrill]

<blockquote>

<p>I respectfully disagree with the posters above. I think that if the budget is over $1500, the photographer should have a full frame camera, backup camera and a nice portfolio.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that's a good example of why picking something like the color of the camera is just as meaningful as dictating the size of the sensor. With that attitude, you'd eliminate Jeff Ascough as a contender. :)</p>

[2yellowdogs]

<p>Ask the bride if she's checked out the caterer's stove and cookware too, because that has the same effect on the food as the camera does when picking a photographer. If she likes the sample work, has checked his/her references and gets along with the shooter personally, what possible difference could the brand/model of his camera make?<br>

You're right, it's the shooter, not the camera. Tell her that.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Suggest that instead of just looking at their folio and a few wedding books, be sure to take a look at a few "complete" weddings. As WW has said above, what is likely to be more critical and a better indicator is the quality of their lenses. Suggesting that they need a full sensor camera is sophomoric, a couple of years ago top shooters across the country were more than happy with a Canon 20d and their large reprints looked fine. Welcome to P-net and for more info on equipment you may wish to look at: <a href="../learn/wedding/equipment">http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment</a></p>

[missy_kay]

<p>I agree that a good camera does not make a good photographer. I've seen many people with mkII's that look like they're shot with disposable cameras. But I think everyone should agree that our goal as professionals is to continuously improve the quality of our images. So if a photographer was in the business a couple of years and didn't invest in their equipment (bodies, lenses) and also workshops- I would question why</p>

[mark_t5]

<blockquote>

<p>I respectfully disagree with the posters above. I think that if the budget is over $1500, the photographer should have a full frame camera, backup camera and a nice portfolio.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>full frame does not a good photographer make. there are a lot of top photographers that shoot with 1ds series that are not full frame cameras...I guess they are out of the running as well for those brides</p>

<p>from the different photographers that i've seen, a lot of those that insist on the superiority of the equipment over everything else are the kind that lacks skills and need the equipment to help them, which it can do up to a certain extend.</p>

[ejder]

<p>I think that the AF system is one of the more important reasons why I haven't kept using a Rebel series camera. I don't believe the full frame is absolutely necessary to do a good job with weddings, but I prefer it. I still shoot with 5D classics, and I have a 40D for backup and ultra-wide. There are other photographers in the same price range as me (under $1k) who shoot with Nikon D3 and D700 cameras, both much more expensive than mine and better in low light and AF function.</p>

<p>If the photographer does a genuinely "good" job based on complete wedding sample sets, then apparently they know and trust their equipment and are satisfied with what they have for the time being as effective for the job....different people have different standards. I have thought seriously about replacing my 40D with a Rebel T2i for the sake of having video and better high ISO performance, but I would not be able to swap out memory or batteries anymore.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I just about made a very inappropriate joke about having the "right equipment". But I'll refrain from doing so.</p>

[ejder]

<p>What's the client's photography budget anyway, and what lenses and flashes do these photographers use?</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I do agree that equipment does not a photographer make. However, every craftsman should have a healthy respect for what their equipment can do (a better camera focuses faster and more accurately for one)(another side note, I prefer cropped sensors for weddings: larger DOF @ same ISO/aperture; my 85mm is a 130mm and so on). I think someone shooting with an entry level body is, well, an entry level photographer. No disrespect intended as we all start somewhere. But, if the budget is such that that is all that can be afforded, then yes, there are many, many other issues of higher importance. Someone pointed out that lens choice is more important than the camera. Very true. With lens <em>selection</em> coming in close after that! And, IMHO, flashes come before the lens! A Vivitar 285 is cheap and powerful enough, but manual shooting 100% of the time along with a 10 second recycle time makes it pretty useless as a primary flash at a wedding. And one flash is barely enough to shoot a wedding well.</p>

<p>All said, take another critical look at the photographer's portfolios. Can you see examples of off-camera flash? A simple gauge of this is to look at reception images and see if there is more than one light source or if it's just flash forward with a black background. How about a longer lens (creamy, out-of-focus background)? How about a wide lens or even a fisheye? Not that a fisheye makes a photographer any more than any other one piece of equipment but is does show at least some concern over lenses! The fisheye shot is unique shot. And make sure the album is from one wedding, not a selection of best images from several weddings.</p>

<p>Finally, I wish I could remember where I read this....</p>

<p>Amateurs worry about gear.<br /> Professionals worry about money.<br /> Masters worry about light.</p>

[ejder]

<p>I actually know of some very well-paid and good wedding photographers who do not ever use longer lenses. One of them doesn't even own anything longer than 50mm - and he's very successful. Two others own a 70-200 they never use anymore. I almost never use mine either: For OOF backgrounds I depend on fast primes.</p>

<p>The tilt-shift lenses are in style right now. I probably will never own one, and if I do it will be for architectural photography rather than weddings because the effect often does not appeal to me. However, it's modern and fashionable, and it does use the rule of subject isolation.</p>

[hal_b]

<p>Obviously, the proof is in the portfolio, so to speak. And that means, as others have pointed out, complete wedding sets, not just the "best of" collection. This will help you pick the best photographer based on their product, not their equipment.</p>

<p>On the subject of camera bodies, however, there is a bare minimum level of quality expected. If the photographer is using a 4MP camera, I would be wary. I certainly wouldn't want my wedding portrait taken with a 4MP resolution, if I wanted it blown up to 18x12" or larger. As even the Rebel 450D has 12MP, you really needn't worry about that.</p>

<p>Make sure the photographer can consistently take the kind of pictures you want. Look for specific poses, first dance, exchanging the ring, etc. Some great photographers are magicians when it comes to pulling great shots out of any situation. This has nothing to do with whether they are using a latest gen entry level camera or pro level camera. Note that the Canon Rebel cameras you have mentioned ARE latest gen. It's not like they're using the original Digital Rebel 6MP.</p>

[e._hughes]

<p>As far as this equipment selection B.S., I just have to chime in... no one really cares what type of paint brush Monet/Renoir/Van Gogh used for their works, and yet so many photographers are so freakin' concerned about <em>other</em> photographers cameras/lenses. I'm not ashamed to say that I've shot multiple weddings with digital Rebels, and produced significantly better images than many photographers around here who used "better" cameras!<br>

<br /> To the OP, go on portfolio alone. Yes, backups are important and all that, but <em>IF</em> you know what you're looking for and are skilled enough in photography yourself, the portfolio will tell you all you need to know. All of them probably have the "right equipment." However, based on the recent thread about a photographer using images for their portfolio they didn't actually take, gauging authenticity of portfolio is another story...<br>

<br /> And although it is tempting to suggest a photographer for this bride from your personal opinion, she still needs to take the time to meet them and make sure <em>she</em> actually gets along with them. If all else is equally good, the rapport she has with the photographer will make the difference between "ok" wedding pictures and fabulous ones!</p>

[e._hughes]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not ashamed to say that I've shot multiple weddings with digital Rebels, and produced significantly better images than many photographers around here who used "better" cameras!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And just to clarify... by "around here" I meant photographers in my local area...</p>

[ejder]

<p>Capability of a Rebel model camera to produce good pictures is not in question. The advantages of better cameras are largely about making it easier (or possible) to take good photos in more difficult situations.</p>

<p>Then there is the task of managing depth of field: crop sensor cameras are good for deeper DoF, but when I was learning photography I couldn't figure out why my shots looked a lot like snapshots from a P&S camera. As I learned more I discovered that a big part of this was background blurring and DoF, or lack thereof. IMO DoF is the greatest limit (and one of the biggest advantages, besides extra effective reach) of crop sensor cameras, and the main reason I don't use them as my primary cameras anymore. The style I like best calls for lots of subject isolation, and I can only get the type of isolation I want from full frame cameras. This is especially true with wide primes - I use primes 99% of the time now, from 24mm through 135mm (plus the 15mm fisheye).</p>

<p>In any given wedding I shoot, I could show you a number of photos that would not have been nearly as good with deeper DoF because the main subjects would compete for eye-drawing attention with other objects.</p>

<p>Are you saying you did a better job with your Rebels than others with more expensive cameras because other people said it, or because you believe it? I try to let others decide if my stuff is any good, and not let it be up to me to say - but that's my preference.</p>

<p>On a side note, looking at the last poster's portfolio I am seeing some shots that are soft probably because of misfocusing. This is one of the big issues I had back when I owned a Rebel XT.</p>

[rafael_s]

<p>As long as they're not using a point and shoot, or throw away camera. Sometimes it's a good idea to get some pre bridal portraits a few months before the wedding. You can tell a lot about the photographer's ability by seeing those and it gives you time to search out for another photographer should they not meet your standard.</p>

[e._hughes]

<blockquote>

<p>Are you saying you did a better job with your Rebels than others with more expensive cameras because other people said it, or because you believe it? I try to let others decide if my stuff is any good, and not let it be up to me to say - but that's my preference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Others. I'm not <em>that</em> narcissistic. ;) I'm not saying that Rebels are the best cameras for the job. But, the huff and puff over minute differences in cameras above a certain threshold is ridiculous!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On a side note, looking at the last poster's portfolio I am seeing some shots that are soft probably because of misfocusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On another side note: I can tell that you think my work is not good by the mere fact that you had to bring that up, and guess what? I really don't care what other photographers think of my work, the responses of the brides and families are plenty for me. And that's the most important thing; that the bride likes, no, LOVES her pictures!</p>

<p>To the OP, now that I think of it, references from past brides are a good way to gauge whether the photographer delivers on great imagery. If the bride raves about the photography or is just "so so" about it IMO is more important than the "right equipment."</p>

[picturesque]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Are there any cameras on the list that you wouldn’t allow someone to shoot you wedding with?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em></em><br>

Nope.</p>

[ejder]

<p>It was natural to ask who thought most highly of your work because you said you did better than others with better cameras, and I would want to know whose opinion it was.</p>

<p>I brought up the OOF shots because I wouldn't put them in my portfolio - specifically the shot of the shoes in foreground on right hand side of the frame, and the rings on top of a piece of wood. The shoes shot is front-focused and I can see that the shoes are soft; whereas the ring shot is back-focused and the detail is blurred (probably would have been best with a stopped down aperture). If you don't already, you can try to shoot, then re-focus and take 1 or 2 duplicate shots so you get one in focus.</p>

<p>Again, as I said before, I stopped using Rebel series cameras largely because of the AF not being adequate. This wasn't a slight on "your work" so much as a comment reinforcing my belief in needing good AF. Since two of the photographers in question in the OP's post use Rebel series cameras for their primaries, this is something I would be concerned about personally. However, maybe the AF has been improved since the XT and XTi; maybe the newer ones are as good as the 5D II (which isn't the best on outer points, but the center point is very accurate). That's something worth finding out, I think.</p>

<p>Incidentally I also like being able to switch between 1/3 stop ISO settings.</p>

[eric merrill]

<blockquote>

<p>As far as this equipment selection B.S., I just have to chime in... no one really cares what type of paint brush Monet/Renoir/Van Gogh used for their works, and yet so many photographers are so freakin' concerned about <em>other</em> photographers cameras/lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not just photographers. Pick an art form, and some people are very concerned about equipment. I'll admit that I enjoy shooting with great lenses and bodies. I enjoy having many fine tools at my disposal.</p>

<p>Several years ago, I decided to learn to play a guitar. While I was taking lessons locally, I lurked in a couple online forums. I couldn't believe some of the arguments people were having over the *type of guitar pick*. That just seemed ludicrous to me. And still does. It's almost like arguing over which lens is best not because of how sharp it is or how it renders in-focus image areas but because of how it renders *out of focus* areas.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[baby_dragon]

<p>Hi Steve,</p>

<p>What does the Bride-To-Be regard as the 'right equipment'?</p>

<p>Which portfolio did she respond to the most and why?</p>

<p>By the way John I love your quote so much I thought I'd repeat it (in italics)<br>

<em>'Amateurs worry about gear.<br />Professionals worry about money.<br />Masters worry about light.'</em></p>

<p> <strong><em>BD</em></strong></p>

<p> </p>