Walking down the aisle!

[picturesque]

<p>John--OK, I'll take your word for it. My point is--just using the 50mm by itself, won't guarantee accurate focusing. You gotta improve your technique, do those 'other things' I talk about, and be smart about what your gear is capable of.</p>

<p>What I mean about the margin of focusing error re f stop is exactly what you said--don't shoot at f1.4, and a wider angle of view means 'more' DOF. I wasn't referring to speed of focus. Anyway, I still wouldn't recommend 50mm for a cropped sensor camera (for the processional).</p>

<p>Re Nikon flash metering--again, I'll take your word for it. And again, I'll say the same thing about knowing what your gear is capable of and using those capabilities wisely.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>I'd have to agree with Nadine ... I wouldn't think of using a 50mm for processionals <em>or recessionals</em>. Personally I wouldn't use one on a FF camera let alone a crop frame, and I'm a prime lens shooter. </p>

<p>Regarding use of manual focus on a prearranged spot ... of course that works, but it is limiting, especially for those less familiar with manual focus techniques which is a different set of skills, requiring equipment that has good manual focus performance, <em>which many commonly used digital cameras and lenses do not. </em></p>

<p>However, by definition you are hoping one shot will do. Today most use a zoom and shoot three or so of the Dad/Bride processional and pick the "Money Shot" ... and that often includes swinging around and zooming in to grab the Groom's reaction shot as the Bride enters ... then as the Dad/Bride passes grabbing a couple side shots, then immediately getting the hand-off shot Dad/Groom hand-shake or hug, then the "Love You Daddy" shot. Whew ...</p>

<p>You have to be darned good at manual focus to do all that in a few seconds ... which many folks aren't these days, especially using most common AF lenses which are less than stellar at compared to well dampened manual focus lenses, and the camera often requires a different focusing screen to do well. IMO, that is part of Nadine's "<em>Know what your equipment is capable of.</em>" Better to learn the abilities of your camera's AF system, and use it.</p>

<p>Here's a demo of shooting multiple shots (again, in a dark church compounded by fairly strong backlighting): Because I am using a Sony A900 24 meg high resolution FF camera, I know I can shoot wider and keep it that way as the Dad/Bride approach me, then have more than one shot to select the best expression "Money Shot" by cropping in if needed. As usual, I tracked them walking toward me in AF increments. Sony A900, ISO 800, 1/60 shutter, Zeiss ZA 24-70/2.8 @ 24/2.8. <em>Most of this couple's images were B&W at their request. </em></p>

<p> </p>

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

[fotografz]

<p>BTW, just as the above processional started, I swung around and got this Groom's "first reaction" shot, then instantly back to get the processional. Ya gotta be gunslinger quick and even more accurate ... LOL!<strong></strong></p><div></div>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Walking down the aisle!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Just to be pedantic, no brides ever walk down the aisle. Aisles in churches are the passageways at the sides. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/dictionary/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=245">http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/dictionary/index.php?a=term&d=1&t=245</a></p>

[jillian_hartley]

<p>Hi Marc, really nice shots. So were these taken without flash then?<br>

Taking everything into account, I will definitely upgrade to a full frame in the near future. In the meantime, and in response to Nadine about not using a 50mm prime especially on a cropped sensor, might a 35mm 1.4 be useful in the meantime to get wider shots (whilst saving up for my full frame and upgrading my zoom lens)?<br>

Thanks again for all your help!</p>

[fotografz]

<p>No Jillian, it was a pretty dark church with dark wood all around ... those all were shot using TTL flash with a Lumiquest bounce (same idea as a white card only bigger).</p>

<p>I almost always set the camera on manual metering mode and the flash to TTL for this type of shot, and use the flash compensation buttons to put more or less light on the subject. ISO 800 and a shutter speed of 1/60th @ f/2.8 allowed me to get much of the ambient feel, but the subjects would have been too dark/muddy without the use of flash. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Jillian--I seem to pick up that you think you can't get sharp processional shots using your 'lowly' Tamron and that you need to get a full frame camera and a 'real' lens to do so.</p>

<p>Let me repeat that you most certainly can get sharp processional shots with the gear you have. One of the biggest things you can do is stop using AI Servo and use focus assist, with some of the techniques described above.</p>

<p>Whether to use flash or not is up to you, but in really dim conditions, I would use flash. As stated above, if you are using flash, be sure you make use of focus assist by using single focus mode, not continuous focus. Focus assist is not available with continuous focus.</p>

<p>Or, if you don't want to use flash, you can set up your camera/flash to use focus assist (still with single focus mode) without the flash firing.</p>

<p>The rest is shooting 'smartly', meaning doing some of the things described above. Indeed, a 35mm f1.4 would be completely fine for your processional 'money' shot. But you can get good results <strong>now</strong>, with your Tamron. Using a prime also means you don't have the option of quickly changing the angle of view, which can be very important if you are using one camera, during the processional. You simply do not have time to change the lens. Look at all the different shots Marc shot. These all happened one after the other. I also shoot a series of shots based on what is possible to do, and I could do the same using two cameras (using a prime), perhaps, with something planned out in my head.</p>

<p>I should add that perhaps I'm not so sensitive to how much faster a Canon lens might focus than my Tamron, since I shoot processionals using focus assist. Perhaps the times even out a bit. I have an L lens so I guess I could test it. But I shoot processionals with my Tamron and don't have a lot of trouble. Maybe if I shot no-flash and tried to track, I'd be complaining a lot, but then, I wouldn't expect that out of my 5D. In fact, I often think using a Tamron is part of my success with not having as much trouble with autofocus as others have had with 5D/5DIIs. The Tamron is slower--but surer.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>One more thing. I'd like to repeat the point that John D. brought up way at the beginning, but expand on it. Think about what the processional shot of the bride and dad is all about. Of course, you've seen many alternative and creative shots of this part of weddings, such as the bride and dad silhouetted in a doorway, or shot before they even touch the aisle carpet, or a close up showing the bride or dad with some emotion, etc. These are great to get, of course.</p>

<p>However, IMHO, the processional shot is really one of the most important shots of the day--the processional shot that shows bride and dad clearly, in context, and with details showing, such as the dress. To a bride, this is one of the main things the wedding is all about.</p>

<p>For me the money shot is the vertical shot like my example. I like to also take a wider shot, like Marc's, that shows context--the church surrounding, the guests in the pews. That's the second money shot for me. Unless I am prohibited by church rules, I <strong>always</strong> get these two shots, with as many others as I can without being rudely obtrusive.</p>

<p>Again, I am pretty sure that if you asked a bride whether she prefers a sharp, clear flashed shot of herself and her dad, or a fuzzy 'artistic shot', she would choose the former. I am not denigrating fuzzy artistic shots either. By all means, shoot them. But be sure to get the money shot--at least one.</p>

[jillian_hartley]

<p>Thanks again Nadine, I have found all the advice really helpful. I think I am a bit of a perfectionist in that I love a really clear crisp shot. I have just done a couple of comparisons of my two lenses (Tamron zoom and Nikon prime) and at the same settings, the prime is the clear winner in terms of sharpness (inevitable I know being a prime). Looking back at some of my processional shots in more detail, the shots which I have managed to get correct focus are just not as sharp in the dimmer lighting even though they are in fact in focus. Is this inevitable of the dim light or could a Nikon zoom produce a much cleaner image? Don't worry, I'm not just obsessing over kit... I completely agree that you can get great results with the less flashy equipment if you know your stuff. Believe me, I'm working hard on that aspect too!! : )</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Jillian, there are number of things that can make an image un-sharp looking that are unrelated to AF accuracy. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Since I don't use Nikon cameras, I can't say whether a Nikon zoom would be sharper than a Nikon prime other than to repeat the general rule of thumb about primes and zooms. That is, a prime will generally give sharper results than a zoom, particularly at wider apertures, and narrowing as the apertures get smaller, until at around f8 or so, you will probably not be able to tell the difference. Contrast and color are other matters, however.</p>

<p>When looking at your samples, though, ask yourself whether they were shot at f2.8 and on the longest end of the zoom (on the Tamron). That particular setting is a bit soft on Tamrons. It sharpens up nicely in post processing though. Again--f2.8 on the Tamron is wide open, and you aren't going to get the sharpest results, particularly compared to a prime shot at f2.8, when f2.8 is not the widest aperture. I don't use f2.8 for processionals, and generally don't use 75mm (or 50mm on your lens) for processionals either.</p>

<p>As for the particular zoom or prime, I know the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 is supposed to be very sharp. Don't know how it compares to the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, but everything I've read says it is a superlative lens.</p>

<p>To answer your question--no, dimmer lighting isn't going to affect sharpness in terms of the lens' inherent quality. Sharpness used in this way is different from 'in focus'.</p>

<p>I used to be much more of a perfectionist re 'in focus' in the past. Now, I grudgingly accept that there are some instances in which content overrides focus, but I'd much rather have everything in focus if I can help it, particularly if the 'out of focus' was not intentional. :^)</p>

<p>I just did a mini test with my L lens (a 16-35mm f2.8) and my Tamron 28-75mm re speed of focus without focus assist and with focus assist, in a dim situation. Perhaps, with focus assist, the L lens is slightly faster. However, with focus assist, I really don't see much difference. I tested using f2.8 on the Tamron, with focus assist on a moving target and still got in-focus images using the method I described above. I use a smaller aperture because, as you might have noticed, I like margins of error. You never know when the bride and dad might move a lot faster than usual, or the ringbearer decides to bolt for the altar.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>As for the particular zoom or prime, I know the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 is supposed to be very sharp. Don't know how it compares to the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, but everything I've read says it is a superlative lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 is a very, very good lens. Sharp wide open. The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is probably better, but in regards to wedding photography, I doubt one would notice a difference between the 17-55 on a cropped sensor vs the 24-70 on a full frame (besides the difference in the circle of confusion between the two cameras). However, on the copies of the lenses I have had, there is a big difference between the Tamron and the Nikon lenses. As well there should be: the Nikon is like three times more expensive! I think the thing to keep in mind that ALL lenses are a compromise to achieve a result. Now what a person is willing to compromise on depends on the individual. For the money, the Tamron is a nice lens. Will it <em>consistently</em> focus as fast and/or as accurate as the Nikon? No. Will it be as sharp wide open? No. It's a compromise. Spend $1424 on the Nikon or $499 on the Tarmon. They had better darn well be a difference! Now that isn't to say that you can't get good results, but at some point, yes, you will realize the compromise of a lens that costs $900 less. So, our OP has a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens that costs almost as much as the Tamron 17-50... I would say if you feel the 50mm prime is working better, I would agree. As to whether you should shoot a processional/recessional with it is another matter!</p>

<p>Let me tell a story. We use the Nikon 17-55 on a D300... and it got dropped at a wedding. Shaved the lens off right at the mount. We were near a camera store so I sent the assistant off to the store to get another copy of the 17-55. In the meantime, we used our backup: the Tamron 17-50. The assistant gets back and lenses are swapped out (sometime during the church service). I should also tell you my wife was the primary photographer using the 17-55/17-50. Back at the computer and I am post processing the images and I can tell you exactly when we switched from the Tamron lens back to the Nikon without looking at the metadata. </p>

[fotografz]

<p>John is right, most of the time you get what you pay for. However, incremental gains in lens performance are disproportionally costly. A $1,500 lens, while a visually better performer, is rarely 3 times the image quality compared to a $500 lens.</p>

<p>People usually get primes for a faster maximum aperture like f/1.4 or f/1.8. These are designed to get the most out of their max aperture, but are even sharper stopped down to f/2.8 compared to most zoom lenses at their f/2.8 max aperture. Stop both lenses down to f/5.6 or f/8 and the difference is hard to see. Like Nadine said, her Tamron is a bit soft wide open, but stopped down it's fine. That fits her preference for more depth of field as a cushion anyway.</p>

<p><strong>The presumption of AF accuracy:</strong> most people presume the new lens they bought is accurate. This is <strong><em>not</em></strong> true more often than you may think. My friend who shoots Hockey went through 3 different copies of a Tamron zoom to get one that was actually sharp @ f/4. I have sent new Zeiss, Canon, Nikon and Leica lenses back because they proved to be out of calibration when I bench tested them before use.</p>

<p>If you already own a lens, you can calibrate it to the camera body, and the D300 has this feature (as does the 5D) ... read here: http://www.prophotohome.com/lens-calibrating-a-dslr-is-easy-and-fun-dont-be-a-chicken-just-do-it-peter-gregg So the first thing I'd do is calibrate that zoom to your D300 to rule out poor registration with your camera. Camera's don't have this calibration feature for nothing, and don't presume that just because a lens is sharp outdoors that it actually is. Outdoors often is crispy light, and if stopped down a bit, the DOF will mask lack of pin-point focus calibration.</p>

<p><strong>In-focus verses sharp looking images:</strong> There can be a difference between pin-point sharpness and an image that looks sharp to the eye. The difference is <em><strong>"contrast."</strong></em> A perfectly focused, low contrast image can <em>"look"</em> less sharp compared to a perfectly focused image with "snappy" looking contrast. When we use sharpening tools in post, it isn't actually sharpening a slightly out-of-focus image, it is increasing the edge micro contrast ... which is why you see a white edge line around an over-sharpened subject. Some lenses are so good at optical micro contrast, that even a slightly OOF image looks sharp to the eye.</p>

<p><strong>Resolution and the appearance of sharpness:</strong> Most wedding images aren't printed or viewed at 100% like when we pixel peep images on our computer. At actual size they look perfectly sharp even if they "technically" aren't ... and this is especially true when printed. Resolution can and does play a role here. A full frame 21 meg 5D-II image will be reduced to make an 8X10 print ... reduce any image and it sharpens up visually ... the more the reduction the sharper it appears. Photos posted here a 700 pixels wide may look sharp, but may not be at 11" X 14"</p>

<p>However, for purposes of wedding work, a camera like the D300 is usually just fine when printed at normal sizes ... performance above that, and incremental gains come at a disproportionate cost.</p>

<p>IMO, better lenses are the better investment. Cameras come and go ... it is the lenses that stay.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>A $1,500 lens, while a visually better performer, is rarely 3 times the image quality compared to a $500 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed! But I am reminded of a horse race story that was told to me many, many years ago. Any horse race is going to have a first, second, third & so on finish. The first place purse is much larger than the the second place purse. Often 5x or more. Here's the thing, the first place horse isn't 5x faster than the second place horse. The horse isn't 5x better in any regard. Many times it is a very close race. Sometimes by a nose. No matter how close it is, one horse wins. One horse gets a very big prize. The other, a much smaller slice of the purse. It's the winning edge. Is the image quality, build quality, and everything else quality of the 17-55 3x better than the Tamron. No (or at least very debatable). But it does give you that winning edge...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>People usually get primes for a faster maximum aperture like f/1.4 or f/1.8. These are designed to get the most out of their max aperture, but are even sharper stopped down to f/2.8 compared to most zoom lenses at their f/2.8 max aperture. Stop both lenses down to f/5.6 or f/8 and the difference is hard to see. Like Nadine said, her Tamron is a bit soft wide open, but stopped down it's fine. That fits her preference for more depth of field as a cushion anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Another <em>very</em> good reason to use a prime is that a fast prime lets in more light than a fast zoom, regardless of the aperture use to record the image. An f/1.4 lens lets in 2 stops more light (4x the light), than a f/2.8 lens.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>John and Marc--you're both right, of course. I take a much more pragmatic approach to lens choice. When I bought my 5D (by the way Marc, the original 5D does not have calibration capability), and needed to get a mid range zoom, I could have gotten a 24-70mm f2.8L. Money was not the problem. The problem was that I felt the Canon 24-70mm was a bit short for my liking, and I had heard about all the problems people had with focusing accuracy with the lens.</p>

<p>So I looked elsewhere. The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 had 'enough' quality to work for me for wedding photography. Clients do not notice that my Tamron images are severely lacking (because they aren't). Heck, I don't notice that the images are severely lacking, because I know how to maximize the usage of the lens. I don't use the lens much at 75mm at f2.8 because I know it is a bit soft. I knew this before buying the lens because I researched reviews. I also have 2 copies of the Tamron and maintain the lenses by sending them to Tamron about every 3 years for calibration and cleaning.</p>

<p>I can see the difference in contrast and color when I look at a colleague's 24-70mm L images--yes, I can. Is that difference worth it to me? Not presently. I am waiting to see how the new 24-70mm II is re focus accuracy. I'll still have to do something about the long end though. Maybe change lenses more often. :^)</p>

<p>In any case, the Tamron is totally fine for the work I need to do for weddings. Album enlargements look great. The files, even online, look great. Getting back to processionals--processional images look great--even pixel peeping. Focus assist works fine for processionals. I can't complain. My clients don't complain about image quality or focus.</p>

<p>As I said above--know your gear's capabilities. Work with your gear to maximize quality. Know when 'its your gear' and when 'its you'.</p>

<p>By the way, Tamrons get decentered over time--the upper left quadrant gets soft. The corners are always a bit soft. If the softness you are seeing is in the upper left quadrant (landscape orientation), you need to send it in for calibration. Tamrons have a 6 year warranty.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Right you are Nadine ... I meant to type 50D ... and I believe the 5D-II has the ability to calibrate each lens and keep in memory. When I shot a Nikon D3/D3X I had to calibrate almost 1/2 my "new" lenses ... and one I sent back because it was so out of focus calibration. </p>

<p>You buy what you can afford, or make decisions based on preference for focal length even if you can afford more ... no argument from me on that. Personally, I never liked the Canon 24-70/2.8 all that much ... and when I shot Canon, I converted a Zeiss Contax-N 24-85 using a chipped Canon data base mount. Now that Zoom I loved, even though it was only a 3.4/4.5 ... which didn't matter to me since I use flash with a mid-zoom anyway ... and went with primes for everything else.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>