Results of the Wedding Photography Equipment Survey are up on my photo.net gallery

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>I'm an engineer, so I'm used to looking at data in order to improve my processes. Trial and error by others saves me time and money. And in photography, good tools don't come cheap.</p>

<p>I think this survey is more or less perfect, because I either own, or want to own, all the gear that made the top of these lists. ;^<)></p>

<p>I also think it's significant that the proportion of people who use full frame cameras is much higher among people who do more than 11 weddings per year. And it's no surprise to me that Canon is tops, because they continue to deliver the best combination of value and performance that I have seen. Also, they were first out with an affordable CMOS sensor camera. A lot of people invested in Canon lenses back then to fit those CMOS cameras, and don't want to switch now.</p>

<p>The only potential downside to this survey is that some newbies will follow the survey recommendations, dump a lot of money on the most widely used equipment, and still botch their first wedding. But if they have talent, drive, and a willingness to learn from others mistakes, having the right tools can only help.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Thanks, I found the results quite interesting.<br>

I have a point of methodology: <br>

<em>"<strong>I split the results </strong>by those who shoot 1-10 weddings a year as a primary shooter, and 11 or more weddings a year as a primary shooter. I did this because many people were <strong>concerned that newbies would have really different responses than those who have been doing this for a while</strong>, but the results came out quite similar."</em></p>

<p>Irrespective of how the results came out, the reason for splitting the results this way is illogical.<br>

The number of Weddings performed as a Primary Shooter each year, is not an indicative of experience.<br>

I thought there was a question about years’ experience?</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Will, the number of weddings shot as a primary shooter was the best I had at the time. The one about years of experience was added after the original survey went out. Unfortunately, that was only for the last 26 responses, so if I had divvied it up that way, it would have been a tiny sample. It was something I was having trouble grappling with at first when I was limited to just 10 questions. It originally was meant to be sort of a tool for sorting out people who are just starting out, and that aren't running their equipment as hard. In the end, frankly, I like looking at the numbers as a whole, but they pretty much appear to tell the same picture that way as well. Really wish I had done the years of experience one, vs the stupid RAW v JPEG one I put in there! But such is life. I was just trying to hit on several of the questions that come up time and time again on the forum.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The results are not uninteresting and although much of it strikes me as obvious: for example, that most wedding photogs use the 24-70 and 70-200mm lenses the most. This is hardly surprising, but I do think it is worthwhile for new folk who find they are being told by "trusted professionals" they should be buying a 35/1.4 and 85/1.2 or other exotic options. I think it is a useful reality check.</p>

<p>Maybe the people who need this advice should not be wedding photogs as they do not realize this already, but I think here there is a wisdom in the crowd in this case and everyone has to start somewhere.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>What I got from the survey, is if you want to maybe have a different look than everyone else, don't use a 5D2 & a 24-70 ;-)</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"The one about years of experience was added after the original survey went out. Unfortunately, that was only for the last 26 responses,"</strong></em><br>

Understand - Thanks.</p>

<p><strong><em>"I was just trying to hit on several of the questions that come up time and time again on the forum."</em></strong><br>

The reason(s) for you originally making the questions and posting it, was never in question: I understood those from the get go.<br>

WW</p>

 

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Joshua,</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5083608">Joshua Sigar</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 12, 2011; 09:21 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Thank you, this could be handy some day.<br>

Vail, do you think you could do lenses most used by camera sensor size (full/crop)?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>here it is by crop sensor vs full frame as you asked.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/12815869</p>

[joshuasigar]

<blockquote>

<p>here it is by crop sensor vs full frame as you asked.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Awesome! Really appreciated!</p>

[alwin_lai]

<p>Ooohhh! I love colour bar graphs! Then again, I was a Stats major. Lol!<br>

Curious that there the 1ds series didn't make it even near the top of the pack. I guess likely its weight?</p>

<p>Nevertheless, this data might be useful for outfits like Sony or whatever entities that might want to either enter the market or cater to the wedding photogs.</p>

[photom]

<p>I assumed the point of the survey was to help less experienced photographers make choices for future equipment purchases in the case of uncertainty. One method would be to sit in a room and ask yourself <em><strong>"How am I limited by the gear I own?"</strong></em>, think about it, make a guess, buy something, and then wait until you have done more weddings, mess them up, or find out what shots you missed - and then refine your opinion as to what is needed by you. Another method is to, prior to the next wedding being possibly better equipped because of reviewing what other professionals are using, and then refine your opinion as to what you need. The second method is no guarantee, but it seems to me better than the think and guess method. Getting advice in my opinion is always better than getting no advice. You can always think about the advice and reject it if it does not make sense for you.</p>

<p>Another way to look at this survey is a summary of the competition. Most businesses would be interested in what their competitors are doing. </p>

<p>Another point of value is for someone wanting to be a second photographer. It appears that owning a Canon may improve your odds of getting such a job. The statistical dominance of the 5Dii to the degree shown, somewhat surprised me.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"the question you might ask is: " <strong><em>How am I limited by the gear I own?" </em></strong>That might yield some answers....and best of all....they would be <strong>your</strong> answers....Respects, Robert"</p>

</blockquote>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Sorry for the late response - haven't been trolling much the last few days :)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00YNhE"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1769024">David Schilling - Chicago, Illinois</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 12, 2011; 11:16 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Zack says: <em>"I'd like to think that white is the most popular because it's softer and more diffuse than silver, but really I suspect it's merely because it is more common."</em><br /><em> </em><br />So Zack, What you're saying is that white is more common (popular) because it's more common???</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, popular and common are two totally different things, as any 'regular-looking' high school kid can tell you. While I usually enjoy games about semantics, this one is built on a misunderstanding. I believe white umbrellas are the most <em>popular </em>because most pre-made lighting kits come with white umbrellas, making them the most <em>common</em>; just about everyone has at some point owned one. To most photographers that haven't studied or had curiousity about their craft (which is an unfortunately large number), an umbrella is simply white. There <em>are </em>no other colours.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Vail, A tripod is a standard, necessary piece of equipment for almost every wedding. While it may not be used at every wedding it should always be packed and available. Explaining the need/advantages of using a tripod for weddings shouldn't be needed for anyone accepting money to take photos at a wedding....which is why the low percentage of tripod users in the survey is (IMO) a red flag over the validity of the survey.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This part I agree with. I only do about one wedding a year (mostly friends or friends of friends), and I always bring a tripod. I don't usually end up using it because the bride wants to hurry everything along, but it's <em>always </em>in the bag.</p>

 

 

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Actually Zack, we're talking about reflectors and not umbrellas. When it comes to reflectors I believe that white is the most common of the three. Most commonly owned, most frequently used and IMO, most popular.</p>

<p>Umbrellas OTOH, in my experience have a white inner lighting with a black outer lining the vast majority of the time, occasionally black outer with silver inner, and less often simply white or translucent. Course YMMV.</p>

[zack_zoll]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00YOo1"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1769024">David Schilling - Chicago, Illinois</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 15, 2011; 11:24 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Actually Zack, we're talking about reflectors and not umbrellas. When it comes to reflectors I believe that white is the most common of the three. Most commonly owned, most frequently used and IMO, most popular.<br>

Umbrellas OTOH, in my experience have a white inner lighting with a black outer lining the vast majority of the time, occasionally black outer with silver inner, and less often simply white or translucent. Course YMMV.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, I was talking about umbrellas. Reflectors ... so ... now I'm right on two counts? I'm confused. Your last post leads me to believe that you had no reason to contradict me in the first place, unless this whole give-and-take between us was because you didn't understand the difference between <em>common </em>and <em>popular</em>.</p>

 

 

[steven_crist]

<p>I'm curious about the Leica users. Do you have auto-focus models or do you shoot manual focus? I know back in the late 60's I could get away with manual (manual everything actually) focus, but not today.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Steven, I'm one of the minuscule number of Leica users in that survey ... although there are more of us than you may imagine from that sample : -) I use a pair of Leica M9s at almost every wedding. However, I do use an AF DSLR also. By far I prefer the rangefinder.</p>

<p>So, mostly they are Leica M rangefinder cameras which are manual focus and always have been. BTW, the "Decisive Moment" style of candid photography so popular today is the brain child of the famous Leica rangefinder toting Henri Cartier Bresson.</p>

<p>Rangefinders are a totally different way of both seeing and focusing compared to manual SLRs or DSLRs focused manually ... once mastered, rangefinder focusing can be as swift as AF in certain conditions, and often more accurate. Obviously, not a choice if you shoot sports with a 300mm IS lens on a motor-driven camera ... but instead a small, stealthy alternative for those that wait and get that one defining moment.</p>

<p>... like a sniper verses a machine-gunner ... both can be effective, so it is just a different way of approaching wedding photography. </p>

[fotografz]

<p>One thought that occurred to me about all this is that the choice of equipment survey is skewed toward getting the job done.</p>

<p>Someone mentioned "Reality Check" ... well, the reality about "getting the job done" is that with the resolution of today's DSLRs, most weddings could be completely shot with a 24-70 zoom and nothing else. </p>

<p>I could see that as the primary concern of those starting out ... but is it one for those breaking out? As communications increase via the net, it seems that virtually everything is becoming more and more homogenized ... use the same gear, the same actions, the same programs, the same poses, etc., ... which surveys like this tend to promote. That has always been dangerous when dealing with any creative enterprise.</p>

<p>That's why I liked Dave Luttmann's response : -)</p>

<p> </p>

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>Marc, I think a better way to look at it might be that most serious professional wedding photographers should have a minimum set of tools, including a quality camera body and medium zoom. I use a 17-55mm f2.8 IS on a crop frame as my "go to" lens, which is pretty much the same thing as a 24-70 on a full frame. I also use a 70-200mm f2.8 IS, because it what it lacks in wide open full zoom sharpness and portability is more than offset by its versatility.</p>

<p>The thing that separates the technician from the artist is not which gear they have, but whether or not it is used creatively. And quite frankly, the gear that makes the top of the survey is ideally suited to a technician doing formulaic and predictable cookie cutter wedding photography, or an artist capturing the romance of a once in a lifetime moment.</p>

<p>Tuppence,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

[fotografz]

<p>That was the point I was trying to make ... except, I've yet to meet really creative photographers that weren't interested in different tools to accomplish new ways of capturing something with a look and feel that better matches their emotional ideas. The tool wasn't separate, it was part of the thinking. Kubrick even had new stuff invented just for him.</p>

<p>That's what I meant above by "Breaking Out" ... not everyone is a beginner, and not everyone is satisfied with a standard set of tools even if they are quite creative with those standard tools. </p>

[surfidaho]

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>While it's true that Stanley Kubrick was a great innovator, he also had the luxury of being able to reshoot most of his scenes if they didn't turn out the way he wanted them to. </p>

<p>One point that rarely gets mentioned is that innovation requires experimentation, and experimentation means risk. You can always play with stuff beforehand, but sometimes the particular challenges of a wedding may make unproven tools unworkable.</p>

<p>In order to manage risk at a wedding, my associate photographer and I agree that one of us will stick to tried and true methods, and the other will experiment with doing things a bit differently, perhaps with a new piece of equipment, or perhaps using old equipment in new ways. That way if things don't go as planned, we can fall back on the images produce with the tried and true methods.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Yep, totally agree Paul. Yet, this type of thing isn't an "all or nothing" proposition. It's a discretionary application.</p>

<p>When introducing any new technique or new piece of exotic gear to a wedding shoot I practice for a time on my own, and then I bleed it in slowly. Even when working alone, I'll experiment with something only on non-essential shots until confident in it, and my ability to use it, in a real-world wedding environment.</p>

<p>However I'm not risk averse to the point of obsession, (again, not necessarily for those who are still mastering the basics). If one is experienced, you know what is absolutely essential and what you have elbow room on. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"I could see that as the primary concern of those starting out ... but is it one for those breaking out? As communications increase via the net, it seems that virtually everything is becoming more and more homogenized ... use the same gear, the same actions, the same programs, the same poses, etc., ... which surveys like this tend to promote. That has always been dangerous when dealing with any creative enterprise." -Marc</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I was wondering if and when someone else would comment about the dangers of "following the pack".....</p>