Anyone here shoot weddings with three bodies?

[studio460]

<p>In a recent thread, Marc Williams wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Ask almost any experienced wedding photographer what lens they'd select if given the choice of only one, and it'd be the midrange zoom. There is very little that cannot be done at a wedding with a 24-105/4 . . . "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, and since I'm a Nikon shooter, I chose the AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0G VR (in lieu of the more popular 24-70mm f/2.8) as my go-to event lens. For event shooting, this lens is rigged to a Nikon D3s, SB-800, Newton rotating bracket, shortened SC-17 TTL cable, and a hip-worn, Quantum Turbo. I love this rig because, as Marc says, it's always ready to shoot just about anything. My second Nikon D3s body historically got the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR.</p>

<p>However, I've been seriously re-thinking my body/lens strategy as I continue to prepare for my first wedding client. I'm really not a huge fan of the 70-200mm f/2.8--it's too long, and it's too heavy in my opinion for handheld portraiture. So, a few months ago, I "retired" my 70-200mm, and bought the Sigma 150mm f/2.8, specifically for shooting portraits. Since then, the only two lenses I seem to shoot for non-event work is my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and Sigma 150mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>So here's the quandary. I really like shooting available-light, using two bodies, one with my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 mounted, and the other with my Sigma 150mm f/2.8. But for events, the flash-fired 24-120mm rig is pretty much mandatory. So, what to do? I'm thinking to shoot the 24-120mm body as the default rig, then momentarily hand it off to an assistant when wanting to grab some two-body, available-light photography using the 35mm/150mm combo. Does anyone else here do something similar?</p>

[studio460]

<p>While this all began as a clever plot to rationalize the purchase of a snazzy new Nikon D<em>f</em> (for use as the "third" body), I just realized, I could instead switch out the D3s flash-fired body, and use my D800E instead:</p>

<p>• Nikon D800E + 24-120mm f/4.0 + SB-800 [flash-fired rig].<br /> • Nikon D3s body 'A' + Sigma 35mm f/1.4.<br /> • Nikon D3s body 'B' + Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS.</p>

<p>This makes sense in that all of the formals and group portraiture will be shot with the D800E anyway--mainly, due to its increased pixel-count, higher dynamic range, and the fact that the D800E shoots high-speed sync (aka, "HyperSync," FP sync, HSS, etc.) much better than my D3s bodies do (I can shoot up to 1/8,000th with no visible shutter-curtain shadow with the D800E).</p>

<p>At least this way, when switching between the two "available-light" bodies, I'll have identical control layouts. In a perfect world, I would trade my two D3s bodies for two Nikon D<em>f</em> bodies instead for available-light duty.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Ralph: I'm a doctor and I diagnose a severe case of unremitting GAS. Treatment: isolate yourself from all external photographic influences for at least a year, use what you have and just take pictures. If you find you really need something else to add to your immense pile of equipment, you will know. Of course, the patient has to <em>want</em> to get better from this dreadful condition, so my prescription may not work.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Good diagnosis, Robin.</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>I don't use three cameras but I do use two. I have a 24-105 with a speed light attached and the other is a 24.1.4 for available and I love it. I don't hand it off to an assistant as that would be inconvenient and distracting. I instead use the black rapid double camera strap. I don't know how anyone can do with out this when shooting with two cameras.</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>A bride, a groom, and a bridegroom? Is that legal?</p>

[studio460]

<p>Robin said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Of course, the patient has to want to get better from this dreadful condition, so my prescription may not work.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would I want to get better? I like photo gear! People spend money on different things. I have zero debt, and all my vehicles are fully paid for. I don't have kids, and don't go out that much, so I have a fair amount of disposable income. I do own a crapload of guitar amps, but that's a story for a different forum (three rack-mounted Mesa/Boogies, a Soldano SLO, and a modified Peavey 6505).</p>

[studio460]

<p>Michael said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>I don't use three cameras but I do use two. I have a 24-105 with a speed light attached and the other is a 24.1.4 for available and I love it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting choice. I would've thought if a wedding shooter could carry only one prime on a second body, it would be a fast short-tele, like an 85mm f/1.4. I was afraid my 24-120mm f/4.0 might be too slow, so it's reassuring to know you also count on your 24-105mm f/4.0 as your primary flash-fired lens.</p>

[Dave Gardner]

<p>LOL...i tried to rationalize a third body that same way...then the one that controls the money said...nice try...i'll just hand you a lens when you need it sport.</p>

<p>I currently use a 17-35 2.8 on one body and the 70-200mm VR on the other. Then change to an 85 1.4 for the low light. Works for me...but i'd love a third body.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>(three rack-mounted Mesa/Boogies, a Soldano SLO, and a modified Peavey 6505).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh dear it's much more serious than I thought...</p>

[studio460]

<p>Dave said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I currently use a 17-35 2.8 on one body and the 70-200mm VR on the other. Then change to an 85 1.4 for the low light. Works for me...but i'd love a third body</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Another interesting approach. Ideally, I'd like to customize the shooting bodies per location. The bride-prep room for example, I would prefer to shoot with just two bodies: either a 24mm or 35mm f/1.4, and an 85mm f/1.4, since I'll be in fairly close proximity--in a perfect world, each with TT1 triggers, firing an off-camera source. A while back, I shot some available-light candids at a friend's fashion show in a hotel conference room with just two lenses: a 24mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 (for runway shots, I used a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR with a bracket-mounted Speedlight):<br /> <br /> <img src="http://studio460.com/images/backstageB.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D3s + AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G; available-light.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://studio460.com/images/backstageA.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D3s + AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G; available-light.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>In a perfect world, I would trade my two D3s bodies for two Nikon Df bodies instead for available-light duty.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I can forget about the Nikon D<em>f</em> for now (whew!). I just read DPreview's review--apparently, the D<em>f</em>'s auto-focus performance in low light (even moderately low light, according to the review) leaves much to be desired, not to mention the D<em>f</em>'s too-tightly clustered AF array. I guess I'm "stuck" with twin D3s bodies for available-light; they're gorgeous cameras, with super low-light performance--they just weigh a ton!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Here's a guy who shoots weddings with three bodies (whose "Destination Wedding" blog I thought made for some interesting reading). His third body? A Nikon D5300!</p>

<p>http://www.slrlounge.com/shooting-destination-wedding-hawaii-matthew-saville</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Ralph. I did weddings when we were still using film. My wedding kit contained three Bronica ETRSi bodies, two canon EoS bodies with a 28-70 2.8L and a 70-200 2.8L for heads and dancing. I carried three fixed focus medium format lenses, a number of backs, three Vivitar 285 flashes, two Canon EZ flashes. As opposed to you at this point I did a number of weddings with this kit. I never had an assistant. I was better at fill flash with the 285s than I do now with with EX flashes. I did a lot of bright sun weddings near the water and high powered fill saved my butt more than once in high contrast situations. It took at least three bags to carry all of this gear but it was my security blanket. I could easily do a wedding now with one body and a 24-105 but with backup and a flash. My brides were not interested in my defining every wrinkle and facial hair, however, my Bronica PE lenses were quite sharp. There is a lot of movement at a wedding and shooting with 1.8 or 2.8 apertures was saved for still formals shooting. DOF for me was insurance as was one to two stop under ambient fill as my customers were not that discerning. Managing all that gear was difficult particularly when changing camera backs and transitioning from MF to 35mm. I swore after using fixed focus mf lenses I would not do weddings again without using zooms. I think you will get more pictures with one body and one backup body and a couple of decent zooms than you will messing with three cameras and fixed focus lenses. If you are going to use the 800e for a thousand pictures processing would be daunting. My best work was done by catching spontaneous action, smiles, loving gazes. I found that was much more important than what gear I was using and I also thought I was there to capture the event not to stage it. For the most part I was fairly successful at doing that. I think I made things hard on myself screwing around with all of that gear and missed some good pictures changing backs and lenses. There is a flow to most weddings and in my opinion it is important to follow it. Getting along with the bride and the wedding party is far more important IMO than my gear. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Dick, I also did my share of medium-format and 4x5 photography as a student, back when I owned a complete Mamiya RB67 set-up with three lenses and multiple backs. Sure, the negatives/transparencies were gorgeous, but, of course, it's certainly not the system I would choose to cover a wedding today. Kudos to you for slugging it out in the days when medium-format gear was <em>de rigueur</em> for professional wedding photographers.</p>

<p>I love shooting twin DSLRs for events, and I really enjoy using just two fast primes when shooting "documentary-style" stuff for fun. Ideally, I would hire a second shooter to cover all of the 24-120mm, flash-fired stuff, and I would shoot everything else (including the lit formals). On another tack, I think Matthew Saville (the photographer linked above) has some pretty clever ideas. Carrying a one-pound, consumer DSLR doesn't add that much more bulk, and given the image quality of Nikon's newest DX sensors, can provide some excellent imaging opportunities which may have otherwise been left un-captured. And, that's certainly my goal here--to facilitate the near-instant ability to capture an increased number of spontaneous moments.</p>

[studio460]

<p>The idea of using a DX body as a third body only occurred to me after reading Matthew Saville's blog, detailing his use of a Nikon D5300 in his wedding work. Although I wouldn't mount a slow zoom like the 18-140mm on it, I do think a DX body could be useful as a "specialty" body. For example, mounting an ultra-wide or a DX fisheye for those once-a-venue establishing shots, or for a tripod-ed, time-exposure of the venue exterior. A second shooter (or, even a competent assistant), could manage these shots, adding some breadth to the coverage, while keeping the principle photographer free to concentrate on other duties.</p>

[savagesax]

Keep it simple. You can often use just 1 zoom lens. The 24-70 or the 24-120, Nikon.

 

Why you may ask! The more you mess around with assorted bodies and lenses the more you will miss

some shots. Carrying 3 bodies on your shoulders is nuts. If you wish to do this you should hire an assistant simply to

carry around your gear. I'm not kidding here! Pay a kid in high school around $100. You will be happy and the kid will get to take a girl to the movies!

 

I'm not fond of the above photo, the group shot. You almost nailed it, however you cut off the head of one

of the girls. Will the bride like this shot? Maybe, however it could have been fantastic. This is the perfect

example with staying with one lens, a zoom. If the dance floor is jammed I will throw on the Canon 16-

35; 17-35 nikon. I think they make that lens?

 

By the way I carry 3, 1 DS Mk 3 cameras and one converted 20D IF camera. (IF- Inferred) I have with me a mess of lenses as spares. They stay sealed in a locked rolling case. The case is always within 20 feet or less from me. I also carry 3 or 4 mono lights with stands for the reception, if time allows I sometimes set up these at the church/ temple/ you get the idea.

 

The wedding can be as much fun for you as it is for the bride and the groom. Now that everyone has

confused you let us know what you do! Best wishes.

[studio460]

<p>Bob said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Carrying 3 bodies on your shoulders is nuts. If you wish to do this you should hire an assistant simply to carry around your gear.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I definitely plan to hire either two assistants, or one assistant, plus a second shooter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If the dance floor is jammed I will throw on the Canon 16- 35; 17-35 nikon. I think they make that lens?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I own the AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4.0G VR, but <em>do not</em> own the faster, AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>By the way I carry 3, 1 DS Mk 3 cameras and one converted 20D IF camera. (IF- Inferred) I have with me a mess of lenses as spares. They stay sealed in a locked rolling case. The case is always within 20 feet or less from me. I also carry 3 or 4 mono lights with stands for the reception, if time allows I sometimes set up these at the church/ temple/ you get the idea.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'm planning a similar working method. Depending on the layout of the venue (stairs, etc.), I plan to work out of a rolling cart with lockable camera/lens cases. Monolights, inverters, light stands, modifiers, etc., will stay on the cart's bottom shelf until needed (I'm planning to buy a mini Magliner for rolling gear around).</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The wedding can be as much fun for you as it is for the bride and the groom. Now that everyone has confused you let us know what you do! Best wishes.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks! I definitely always try to keep things light when shooting, even if I'm battling a storm of technical details in my head. When and if I eventually shoot this, I'll definitely post a full report about the job.</p>

<p>The date still isn't determined (which I was told could be many months away), so I still have a ways to go. All I know is that it will be local, somewhere in Southern California. I've known both the mother and father of the bride for 18 years, and all three of us work in television, so both parents are already aware of the ins and outs of production (which I think will prove to be a huge benefit). I have a good working relationship with the father, and we discussed today how he would assist in "producing" the shoot (his words) as I showed him my portfolio. Thanks for all your words of advice!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Bob said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I'm not fond of the above photo, the group shot. You almost nailed it, however you cut off the head of one of the girls.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're absolutely right! I chopped off the girl's head in Aperture to crop out a woman on the far-left frame, since at 24mm, she was looking pretty distorted. I've since become much more fond of using my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for wide-angle, available-light candids.</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>There is a big difference in having two cameras which one is a back up and using two cameras. I used to have four hasselblads that i took to every job but I only used one to take the candids. When we all switched to digital I was still in the same shooting mode. I had two cameras but I only used one and the other was in the case ready just in case. Today I am swinging two cameras one right after the other to get shots with flash and the other photojournalistically and I love it. I think this is what Ralph was talking about. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Yes, exactly, Michael..</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Ralph. My last wedding before I quit. I never had problems until this one. Beautiful Stone church. Lots of guests and big bridal party. . Formals inside church after ceremony. Changed prime lenses on Bronica for wide angle. I knew I set 2.8 on the wide angle. I did not. Lost 15 priceless pictures. Bride was leaving with ten foot train behind. I stepped on train going out and brought her to a surprised halt. She was very nice as I explained I wanted to reshoot. We did well in the church's formal garden. thankfully. She wanted pictures of her getting in limousine. I was carrying my 70-200L and trying to mount it on a canon body, while still having my MF for formals in garden. I dropped the 70-200 and it bounced a foot in the air above the concrete sidewalk. I got the limo pics with another lens. I then followed her to a cliff above the ocean and shot down on her and the train. Nice pictures. The 70-200 survived. I used it to shoot a swim meet at Harvard today. She was very understanding and we parted friends. I ultimately gave her the negs because she turned out to be such a good sport. You may want to hire assistants but my bottom line was too important to do that. As Bob said and I said earlier and I think we both speak from experience. don't get bound up with too much gear. Things move pretty fast sometimes. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Thanks for sharing that, Dick. The school of hard-knocks is tough to beat in the experience category. I've done my day job long enough as a TV camera operator that I can do it without thinking and not miss a trick. But for stills, I've found that on each one of my past dozen or so "practice" shoots, I screwed up at least one thing that could've been fatal on a real job (making careful note of each screw-up for next time).</p>

<p>On my last daylight-exterior shoot, the modeling light switch on my monolight was inadvertently switched "on," draining my 17-amp hour inverter battery to almost nothing in less than an hour. Thankfully, I brought a second battery, and had a third in the car. I'm now gaff-taping the switch in the "off" position for future shoots. Hopefully, I've made enough mistakes up until now to make it through a real job without incident. But, as your anecdotes prove, anything can happen.</p>

<p>It's true, much of the event coverage I've done was captured almost exclusively with a single FX body, using a single lens, the 24-120mm f/4.0 zoom. So, yes, I've defaulted to "keeping it simple" during past shoots out of necessity, due to the pace of the event. But, I'd still like to be prepared to have the option to shoot available-light with a pair of bodies with fast primes, should time permit. I think working from a cart will help facilitate that, yet still allow me to be highly mobile, with a minimum amount of hand-carried gear.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Let me re-state the question without the lengthy preamble: <em>Does anyone shoot weddings using three bodies (for a single shooter), not including back-up bodies?</em> Although I'm not asking about specific lenses, I am mentioning lenses as an ancillary part of the discussion. I'm not asking anything about workflow.</p>

<p>However, <i> [the conversation has brought up] </i> some gaps in my knowledge. I don't know how any of these guys shoot speeches from across the room, or a ring at the ceremony from long distances. I don't imagine anyone's packing a 300mm f/2.8 tele-monster, yet I'm sure you're not always guaranteed a position close enough for a 70-200mm to do the work either.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I've shot some with three identical bodies but then I was shooting with two and having the third in the bag ready to go with a lens on. If you need to move around I think actually shooting three cameras at the same time is too much.</p>

<p>A few comments though. I would make sure to have the bracket on a quick connect, or actually two. One so you can put the bracket on a tripod and one so you could easily remove the camera from the bracket.</p>

<p>Also find a way to mount the battery pack to the bracket, at least temporarily. That will make it a lot easier to to put the rig down, hand over to someone else or just pick it up to shoot a few shots.</p>

<p>If I was shooting with the gear I'd put the primes on the two D3s and I'd use those as my primary setup. Then I'd put the D800 or perhaps insert one of the D3s on the bracket with the 24-120 and shoot that rig only when the zoom or direct flash was needed. That would likely only be the processional/recessional and part of the reception.</p>

<p>Anyway for weddings I think the key is to use as little equipment as possible with as much versatility as needed, setup in the fastest and most reliable way. Depending on your needs that could actually turn out to be quite a lot of gear.</p>

<p>In regard to reliability and speed I'd go over every piece of equipment and tape everything down with gaffa tape that won't ever need to be moved. That would be man/af switches on the lenses, settings on strobes, radio triggers etc.</p>

<p>Some of my stuff like tripods I would carry in a partially extended state so setup would be faster. I'd have markings on it to get to different positions without fiddling. Mostly shooting in two positions, low for full length portraits and high for upper body / head shots. I'd have off camera speedlights already set up with radio triggers and mounting hardware and sometime already attached to the light stand.</p>

<p>Basically I'd do anything I could think of that would (in priority order):<br>

1) minimize potential problems<br>

2) make setup and brake down faster<br>

3) carrying the equipment easier.</p>

<p>If I'd change something or buy something new I'd practice setting up and braking down and time myself doing it. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast :-)</p>

<p> </p>