FX or DX???

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Meant to say... Canon also make a perfectly good range of cameras. There are lots of rumours about the (very old) 7D being replaced soon, so I might wait a couple of weeks before making too many decisions at the high end, but I guess you're looking at something like a 50D. I believe there weren't many changes in the 50D to 60D generation, and the 70D is current and more expensive - but I've not been following in too much detail, so I recommend dpreview.com's comparison tool (and reviews). Canons don't seem to get quite the dynamic range of the latest sensors used by Nikon, Pentax and Sony (which are often the same sensor), but if you get the exposure right this doesn't seem to be a huge problem for them. The biggest differences for me come down to how you like to move the control dials (try them in a shop - I find the Nikon layout is more "under my fingers" when shooting, but less good when the camera isn't to my eye) and whether auto-ISO in manual mode is something you want.<br />

<br />

Back to the original question, the only way you'd get full-frame digital on a $700 budget (possibly barring a Kodak DCS) is with an old Canon - original 5D or 1Ds (or nearly full frame with the first couple of 1D cameras). Probably don't - they'll look more pro (especially the 1Ds), but technology has moved on a long way. Just in case you see the prices and start wondering!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>with that budget, you can forget doing weddings for now. also, the only thing a d3300 has going for it over a d90 is resolution and maybe better video. they both have primitive AF, but the d90 has an internal focus motor which means you can use screwdrive lenses on it, like the original tamron 17-50 and many nikon AF-D lenses. the d3300 is less suited for professional use than the d90, which also has two control dials. both would be okay for studio use, but i'm not sure why you say the E-500 was a better camera. it had less resolution and was far worse at high-ISO. also kind of misleading to say it had two card slots, since one was for xD cards, which Olympus doesnt even use anymore. </p>

<p>in your situation, i would try to find an extra $100 and jump on the d7000+ tamron 17-50 "kit." that would be far better than a d3300 with kit lens and makes more sense as a long-term option. the bottom line however is that you just can't cheap it out on equipment and also expect to do everything you want right away.</p>

<p>but here's a thought: if your E-500 set up worked so great for weddings, why not continue to use that and do portrait sessions until you can save up enough to invest in a good, recent, DSLR system? all you really need to make money off photography is a website and business cards if you already have a home studio. i realize 4/3 is an obsolete system, but some of the lenses for it were optically-excellent and can be found used for good prices.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>If you don't mind refurbished equipment. There's a pretty good sale going on right now. <a href="http://www.cameta.com/exclusive-deals.cfm?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-2014-9-3&utm_content=Email+116+-+Nikon+Refurb">HERE</a>. A D7100 for $889 or even a D3100 for $225.</p>

[rachel_rose1]

<p>ok, So some people don't seem to listen to what I have previously said, I will explain again:<br>

I am a professional photographer, academically and professionally qualified so would appreciate if those who want to argue this fact, would refrain from doing so. I primarily shot weddings in the past with my Olympus E-500/300 and both of these cameras are now old and damaged, rendered unusable. I need a new camera. No one has EVER complained about my work, nor have I ever used a back up camera. But the D90 is now MY BACKUP CURRENTLY. I do have a backup! :)<br>

I am using the D90 right now in studio and not happy with the resolution whatsoever in prints, the Olympus did better...don't really care if some ppl believe me or not! If I could show you the print comparison, you'd probe be stunned like I was! They are printed with Lambda, for comparison. Highest quality printing. Oh, and I am also graphic designer, so yeah, I know about printing and prepress and the technical sides of things. <br /><br />There have been some quite snobbish rude remarks on here from people telling me I am not professional...Have you seen my award winning work? -YES, THATS RIGHT, THOSE IMAGES WERE FROM A DX DSLR! -could anybody (including the judges) tell it was from a DX camera, compared to an FX,.... nope! <br /><br />Cheers to those who have been polite and actually read what I explained. You're help is truly appreciated and relevant to my decision. :) I am glad to hear so many pro togs out there are doing what I plan to with the same model I am looking at. :) </p>

[orcama60]

<p>I do agree with Kent Staubus. I have been shooting weddings with my D300 ( not the D300s ) and I never had any problem. It is about knowing what to do and to know the technique to use your flash ( this is a MUST if you want to get into this business ). <br>

My suggestion is to read and learn from a professional wedding photographer like Neil Van Dierke. His technique is simply superb. And, the D7100 is enough camera to get excellent pictures in a wedding with the right lenses attached to it ... without minimizing of course, who is the “man behind the wheel” .... </p>

<p>Maurice.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Rachel. Thank you for clarifying your situation (and apologies on behalf of us regulars for any misconceptions.) Just to be clear, your Olympus equipment is now unusable, but you have a D90 which works but whose image quality doesn't meet your needs, yes? (I thought the D90 was your friend's, so I'd not realised it was in the equation. Unless you just mean it's available for loan for events.)<br />

<br />

Which lenses do you have available to you already in Nikon mount? That may affect our advice.<br />

<br />

I don't see a problem with a D90 as a back-up camera - it's generally well-regarded, and has the same sensor as the D300 (which is the nearest thing Nikon have made to a modern pro DX camera, though some with a D2x might disagree). It's actually relatively competitive with more recent DX cameras over its ISO range, but the D7000 <i>does</i> give you the ISO 100 that you want, and <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7000-versus-Nikon-D90-versus-Olympus-E510___680_439_465">gains</a> an extra stop-and-a-half of dynamic range while doing so. (Sorry for including an E510 - the E500 predates DxO's tests.) I believe the D7000 might have a weaker AA filter than the D90, and it's got a significant megapixel count increase. It would be interesting to know what you don't like about the raw behaviour of the D90 - it might be a workflow issue that's resolvable - but the D7000 should be better.<br />

<br />

If you're used to the handling of a D90, or if you're using a D90 as a back-up (and since you'd still get passable pictures that way, I think that's reasonable - I've taken an F5 to a wedding as a back-up for a D700, although only as a guest) my suspicion is that you'd find the handling of a D3x00 or D5x00 series frustrating. The D7000 handles much more like the D90. So unless you can stretch to a D7100 (and if you want lenses, that's quite a stretch) I'd still stand by that camera suggestion.<br />

<br />

Good luck with whatever you choose.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Hi Rachel<br>

I am not a wedding photographer I am an equestrian event photographer. Believe it or not we run into the same kind of problems. Lighting that is all over the place and rules about where we can shoot from as well as concerns about noise.<br>

Until just recently I had been doing all of my work with a D300 and a D300s and I was very happy with those cameras. I have always liked the advantage of the crop for doing tele work and never found the wide angle issue to be an issue.</p>

<p>My only concern about the D3300 for pro work is some of the things Nikon left off. If you use studio strobes there is no PC port. If you are using a radio trigger that's not a problem. Also I would wonder about the robustness of the camera itself. Will the shutter hold up as long as you would like?</p>

<p>My suggestion would be to go to a camera store and get your hands on the camera you are thinking about. See if it fits your hands and will do the things you want it to do.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what I frustrate my wife by calling "horse jumping", I'd be worried about the autofocus on the D3x00 series, give or take pre-focus. But I think the clincher would be that if you're going to have a back-up, it's very helpful for it to handle like the main camera - especially if you're using it with one lens on each camera for fast switching, not just for when one camera fails. The single-dial interface of the D3x00 and D5x00 series (and low-end Canons) is significantly different from the way of working of the D90 - and toggling between the two would be worse than just getting used to the single-dial mode. Rachel, I hope you can find a D7000 in your price range. Even if this means you're limited to manual focus lenses (and the digital rangefinder on Nikons works with manual lenses, unlike Canon's, so you're not stuck with the view through the finder) I'd have thought that would be the best way to start out. Though getting the decent f/2.8 lens when you can afford it is going to help a lot!</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Andrew<br>

I use a D4 for my main camera now with the D300s as a backup. I have never shot with a D3300 but I have held on in my hands and found it to be to small for me.<br>

Also on the AF unless the light is really bad the AF on most cameras is good enough to track a moving horse. They are a good sized target.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the E-500 was actually a pretty good camera; my ex-gf had one. good build quality, produced decent 8mp files. But the d90 has higher resolution, strictly in a megapixel sense. the Oly looks different than the d90 because it has a CCD sensor, whereas the d90's is CMOS. while CCD sensors arguably had better IQ than CMOS, they are more limited at high-ISO -- especially considering the smaller sensor size of a 4/3 camera -- which is why they are no longer in use. the E-500 produced weird colors at high ISO.</p>

<p>(as an aside, i have to say i considered swooping on the e-500 two-lens kit when they were about $500 new. now you can get them used for about $300, and some of the better 4/3 lenses are now affordable used. so if budget is an absolute priority and you like the e-500 files, you could replace your unusable cameras for not much coin. for studio work at base ISO, the e-500 could still produce usable files, although 8mp is far below today's standards.)</p>

<p>in any event, you say you never had a backup camera, then you say the d90 is your backup currently. that's confusing and seemingly contradictory. if the d90 is your backup camera, what's your main camera? or are you looking for a main camera for which the d90 will be your backup? if it's the latter as Andrew surmises, a d3300 will be a step backwards in many ways from a d90, except for the much larger resolution, of course. a d7000 would be a much better choice, especially because it has a focus motor to drive screw-drive lenses. and since the d7000 is built on the d90 platform, the control layout and UI will be similar and not nearly as frustrating if you are switching back and forth between two bodies.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Last spring we had outdoor family portraits done by Yuen Lui, and I noted that the photographer used a Canon 5D, which I did know was an FX (Canon might not use that term) DSLR.<br>

So, the previous post that no-one will notice isn't quite right, as those reading this forum are likely to know the difference. We tend to look at the cameras others use. I had some discussion with her about the 5D (original, not Mark I or II). She had heard that some had them fail, but that Yuen Lui is responsible for fixing them, not the photographer. <br>

They have a plan where we got a CD with the images, not just prints, and I believe that the file says which camera was used. (In case someone wanted to know later.)<br>

The last wedding (maybe 2 years ago) I went to was done with multiple photographers with D700 cameras. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Yes, technically I have to say that my wife (a couple of years back) gifted me with some images of herself taken in a studio setting by a professional, since she normally hates being in front of a camera, to do with as I wished, and I noticed (from the exif) that the camera used was a low-end Canon (possibly an Eos 450 - it's been a while) and shot with the kit lens. I wasn't hugely impressed with the photographic skills being shown either, but I like to think that's a coincidence rather than related to the equipment, and they weren't <i>terrible</i>. And I'm grateful for them, because I love my wife. But as cheaper DSLRs become more common, it's definitely true that using kit that's obviously cheaper than what the customer has at home tends to have an effect on the impression one makes.<br />

<br />

From that perspective, it's almost better to have an older camera. An original 5D may not be a sensible buy at the moment, and its image quality won't hold up to low-end current DSLRs, but I'd almost rather see a pro using one because it suggests they've been using it for several years.<br />

<br />

Oh, and occasionally on this forum we play "identify the camera and lens" from an image. Some people are scarily good at it. So we'd notice. Whether we'd care is another matter. But then, we're probably not your average clients.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ive seen good photographers shooting with low-end or older gear, including one guy who's done national museum multimedia projects who had a canon 60D about two years ago, and a viideographer/filmmaker who uses a 7d. it's also common not to see newish cameras on natives in third-world countries, where gear is often bought 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th hand. my newest nikon is a d3s and i still shoot with the d300s and occasionally d90 because i know those cameras well and they fit my purpose. i also know folks who shoot with 5DII, Df, and d800. obviously a high-resolution sensor or FX isn't needed to make professional shots, but if you're going to try to do this as a business, it helps to know what the competition is using. the 5D was a great camera in its day, especially for studio, but the AF is so much better in later cameras that it might be a liability today in some situations.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Most people given a set of prints from a variety of cameras will not be able to tell the difference between the cameras from looking at the prints. As a photographer when I talk to other photographers I am more interested in the quality of the work they do then what they do it with. it will always come down to the monkey behind the camera.</p>

<p>In what I shoot I deal with people who have horses that cost more then my house some times a lot more. For them to dump 10K on camera equipment is not unheard of. Why do they still buy my photographs? Because I know how to make a photograph they want.<br>

Man all this gear snobbery makes me think I am on a Leica forum</p>

 

[rachel_rose1]

<p>Thankyou to all the latest repliers, who havent been snobs :P <br />I get where everyone is coming from is regards to the difference between E500 and D90 etc. Its been a few years since Ive ever used my olys professionally and am borrowing the D90 as a loan cam, right now as primary studio cam, until I get the new one. My business partner and I have a canon mark III, so that is in the mix too, but it's not mine specifically. I want my own cam, I miss my olys, but hell, they were 8-10 megapixels and weird colours changes, in high light and electonic lights....hates them! I'm keen to see the difference in my own hands with a newer Nikon. So I have actually decided on the D5300, for these reasons, built in wifi, gps, its lighter, 39 af points, and the higher megapixel count also. <br /><br />Oh, and the D5300 I will only be using as primary cam during the relaunch, its never going to become a permanent committment (or so I foresee) <br /><br />Something interesting: There is this new trend starting to take off here, where pro's are selling off all their high end gear to replace it all with point and shoots for weddings...yep! WEDDINGS. The pro's I know charge about 5k per wedding and do not miss a shot with their tiny new cams. Amazing right??? Amazing and insane at the same time maybe. lol.<br /><br /> A few of you made me laugh with your responses - in a good way! Thankyou for keeping it light hearted!<br /><br />I have truly listened to all advice, and everyone has covered so many angles to think about.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The choice of equipment is the photographer's decision and it is only a small part of the process. What is important is that you're familiar with and comfortable with the gear and that its use eventually becomes second nature so that you don't have to think about the operation. It should not get in the way of getting the picture, or fight the photographer's will. Of course budget concerns are always present and affect the decisions we make. Thankfully it is the photographer's personality and ability to interact with subjects that plays the most important part in the results of portrait shoots. At weddings it is a little different as today it is usually not expected that the photographer is the conductor or director at the event, rather an observer (outside of the formal photography).</p>

<p>I'm curious about your preference for continuous lighting. I can understand that in the studio it allows you to see exactly what you're photographing and how it will look, the light and the shadows, and the continuous lighting doesn't cause eye blinks like flash can (especially TTL flash). But on the road, at events, flash gives more light per weight and it mixes with daylight better in terms of colour than continuous artificial light does. I found myself mixing flash with videographer's halogen lights and I used CTO on the flash to fit the two together without substantial casts. This worked well I think, and the (mostly bounced) flash allowed me to improve upon the continous lighting where it was a bit on the dull side by itself. I don't think it would have been possible for me to set up my own continous lighting and roam with it in the crowds of relatives friends and other guests in a somewhat chaotic party. Also I think that the use of any artificial lighting that is moved around with the photographer will change the people's behaviour, flash in particular can make the subjects more aware that they're being photographed and change their behaviour towards a more posed shot. I still use flash at weddings when the quality of the existing light is poor and to get better colour (more easy to correct skin) on the main subjects. I would rather not use it, in situations which are candid in nature, as opposed to posed formals where it is obvious that the subjects are being photographed.</p>

<p>Still I know some portrait photographers who use continuous lights very effectively and beautifully. I just think the flash is more adaptable in terms of the light it emits (the cone of light can be adjusted using modifiers and the zoom head, the colour can be adjusted easily with filters, and there is a huge range of output flash energy levels that can be selected, and other flashes can be controlled from the controller panel; with continuous lights adjusting the lights on the go would involve going to the light itself). But perhaps in this world where flash is omnipresent at events, and the half closed eyes triggered by preflashes and red eye reduction lights, a continuous light approach would be refreshing in that it is stable and consistent and people get used to it. What about heat? Halogen lights give great colour but they run very hot. I guess there may be a nonzero risk of fire hazard if someone bumps into stand and it falls. LEDs are cooler but I think creating a lot of light through high quality LED patterns is expensive. I would be interested to know what your approach to continous lighting is and how you use them at weddings outside of the portrait context. Thanks.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Most people given a set of prints from a variety of cameras will not be able to tell the difference between the cameras from looking at the prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suppose that Michael is right in saying this, but, to compare other formats for a moment, I always thought that I could tell the difference between those old medium format black and white prints from the forties, fifties, sixties, and later compared to what people printed from 35mm film negatives.</p>

<p>Perhaps I deceive myself to this day, but, when I see those old medium format prints, I still think that I see a certain detail and smoothness, combined with great tonal gradation and dynamic range that I am not certain that I have seen with smaller formats, either FF or crops of various sizes.</p>

<p>Now, for the record, as much as I admire medium format in both film and digital, I can neither afford it nor care to carry such heavy equipment for most of my shots.</p>

<p><strong>THEREFORE</strong>, I carry the largest format size consistent with the vast majority of shots that I want to make or am liable to make. In other words, I do think that the larger formats are better, but practical considerations carry the day for me. (Check out large format shots if you don't know what I mean about larger formats being of better qualilty!) That is, I <em>adore</em> large format quality, <em>love</em> medium format quality, but am willing to get by with 35mm format digital--it really is pretty good and has gotten better with digital, in my opinion. (For the record, my two FF cameras right now are the D800E and the D3s. I also have a couple of crop sensor digital cameras--which I certainly do use.)</p>

<p>My sincere belief, without going through all the technical details already mentioned above, is that FF is over all of higher quality than crop format (1.5x for Nikon and Sony, etc., and 1.6x for Canon, on down to other smaller formats). Yet, yet, I see the logic of having both and shooting both (and sometimes smaller).</p>

<p>Day in and day out, however, I find that I am typically willing to put up with the bigger lenses and bigger bodies of FF, and so I do. That is, like as not, I walk out the door these days with either my D800E or my D3s, depending on what type of shooting I plan to be doing. If I am in a more casual mode, or if FF is not convenient, I will carry a crop sensor camera and lens.<br /> <br /> <strong>SUMMING UP</strong>: I believe that the larger the format, the better quality image, but I draw the line for practical and financial reasons (not to mention convenience) at full frame--MOST of the time. That is, my choice is full-frame because I can, enough of the time, tell whether I shot a shot with one of my big Nikon FF cameras, or one of my smaller ones. I admit that I cannot always, but, when I can, it is sometimes a wonderful if subtle difference.</p>

<p>Other people have other reasons for drawing the line where they do. There is no right answer on this, but I have tried to explain why, most of the time, I do prefer full-frame--I do think, that is, that larger formats give better quality pictures, but at the sizes we print, we do not always see the differences.</p>

<p>Why don't I shoot MF or LF, then? Well, two answers: money and convenience. That is, 35mm (full-frame) seems like a reasonable compromise, and cameras and lenses get more expensive in a hurry as they get bigger. Besides, FF digital has gotten so good that I think that it is really superb these days.</p>

<p>For weddings? I would carry the biggest rig I can set up and use--and that means full-frame.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Lannie - I think you need to allow for technology advances in your analysis. With the current sensor generation, yes, I'd say a D800 gives better image quality (as a result of reduced enlargement) than a D7100, for example. I'd say that a 10x8 Velvia shot is likely smoother and in most cases sharper than a 35mm roll, with a 6x7 being somewhere in between. But just as I'd claim a D7100 - or even a current micro 4/3 camera like the GH4 - can run rings around an original 5D or a Kodak DCS, I'd say a modern 35mm roll film can keep an 1800s-vintage glass plate (or even early sheet film) quite honest, depending on grain size advances. Of course, it helps that you could stop a 10x8 lens down to f/32 without diffraction completely ruining the image, which gets rid of a <i>lot</i> of optical aberrations - and that relates to a reason I still want to get a 5x4 at some point.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>If you've got a Canon 5DIII why not get another Canon so you can share lenses? You can get a 5D from Keh for $600. It's an older model, but you'd be in the same system at least. If you don't want to be carrying such a historic piece you could have a 50D or 60D.</p>

[rachel_rose1]

<p>why not get another Canon mark III ....are you kidding me? I have a budget of $700!!! How do you suppose a single mother who is currently not working come up with that?? Renting for me is not an option and I am not going to explain why, its private. Just because my biz partner can, doesnt mean I can. And she doesnt have a tonne of lenses, she has two, which she will be using continuously. She isnt a photographer...but a videographer.<br /><br />I dont know how many times I can say the price I can afford, quite frankly its getting tiring. The megapixel counts on those older models imo just isnt going to cut it. If I wanted older, I'd just go get my olys fixed. :/ And I have thought of that. It'll probs cost the same to get those bodies fixed. The only thing that is bothering me with the Nikon 5300, is that the other lenses wont be AF. Even my Oly has AF motors. :( But I suppose if I get used to manually focusing quickly it would be ok. <br /><br />Illka, as for lighting and flash discussion, I use on camera flash with a diffuser attachment (not the one built in to the flash itself) it's very much event documentation styled...I cannot carry lights around with me everywhere through crowds etc...just wouldnt ever work. I would not use portable lighting such as halogens at a wedding, they are just too hot and with people drinking and what not could trip on them and hurt themselves...then I'd be liable for that injury...nightmare scenario...imagine someone knocks a halogen onto the brides dress....the flames to follow!.... it is just not something I do. I also use reflectors outdoors, and hand held rotolights for back lighting, or extra fill. Hope this helps!<br /><br />Again thanks everyone for your help and opinions, this forum has been fantastic in terms of responses and genuine information.<br /><br /></p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I have shot with every format there is and I have to agree that the larger the better. Over the past few years I have moved from film to digital with no regret especially with the incredible advances in printing digital images.<br>

At present I am shooting with a Nikon d810 and d7100 and I am as happy as a clam. I do admit I keep my Hassy 500 CM on the shelf where I can reach it in an emergency.<br>

-O</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Rachel I get that you are on a tight budget and also that your standards and skill level are quite high. That said, you are going to have to compromise somewhere for the time being like it or not. While I am not one who thinks dual cards are a must (only one card failure in 11 years of digital) I do believe multiple bodies are a necessity. My solution a couple of years ago was to buy a pair of D200 bodies. Yeah I know, 10mp, older tech and limited in some ways. Still I have had no complaints at all on image quality from clients and there is nearly nothing I want to do that these bodies limit me on. I'd prefer something newer but nothing currently available really makes me want to go out and buy so I keep using these relics. As for glass, you can get the job done for now with something like an 18-55 kit lens and I use a manual focus 80-200/4 Nikkor. Small and light, superb image quality, I have no problem focusing it on DX bodies. Again probably not what you'd like but it will get the job done. Finally, I get along just fine with something like the SB-24/25/26/28 flash units. They don't speak the same language as my digital bodies but they have their own auto function and that works just fine. These two bodies, lenses and flash units will fit into a single back pack bag that is not crazy heavy. CF cards are not pricey and you won't stress the space limits on your hard drive. You can buy it all from KEH very close to your budget. Shoot it for a year, re-evaluate at the end of next year and upgrade as you can. Like I said, this is a compromise but some days you just get stuck with that. Stick around here and keep us up to date.<br /><br /><br>

Rick H.</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Rachel - I think Andy was talking about an original 5D, not a mk3. But I believe that technology has overtaken the full-frame advantage since the 5D was launched, so I think you're better with a crop sensor, more recent camera. The only thing I'd say is that the differences between the D5300 and D5200 aren't all that huge, so if you've not already bought a 5300 I'd check whether you need to pay for the latest version. (Oh, and you never know what's going to get announced at Photokina next week, which might influence prices of older models.) I still think the handling advantages of the D7000 would have been beneficial, but I appreciate you may feel the need to save money for lenses. I'm sure you'll be very happy with the image quality of the D5x00 series, even if maybe not the handling!<br />

<br />

Good luck with your new system.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Illka, I am one of those photographers that still uses hot lights. Just saw some of my dad's work from the 30's and amazingly it is similar to what I gravitated to in my work. Like you, I shoot at wide apertures so their lower power isn't a draw back for the type of work I use them for and I switch to a 10 stop range Einstein for more light/larger modifiers/soft light. The "panel" that I check immediately upon arrival on location or scouting is the breaker box and I keep a flash light handy if they trip. With hot lights, may not have the subject blinking, but, like in sun, may have squinting. Since they are "hot" I keep a fire extinguisher at hand just in case when using gels or if they get close to any flammables like lace or cloth. I don't haul them to weddings. Strobe is much more versatile. </p>