jeff_forbes

-<div></div>

The B&G gave me a small list of shots they wanted, and they will have someone there that knows who they want formals done of, beyond what we disucssed. They gave far more weight to their special requests than the normal formal picures (specifically, a shot of them riding their motorcycle from the ceremony to the reception, complete with motion blur (should be fun to shoot, eh? Good thing I have a lens with IS))

 

Equipment I'm taking:

 

8.5GB in CF. 4, 2, 1, 1, .5. Good for 1000 RAW shots, or 2500 JPEGs.

 

2x bodies

2x flashes

2x diffusers

1x tripod

1x monopod

Both tripod and monopod use the same QR system, and I keep the bases on the cameras.

3x batteries for cameras

12x AA batteries for flashes

laptop w/external hard disk for onsite backup, if necessary.

lens hoods for the lenses that need them

2GB in USB memory sticks

 

 

 

Insurance: uh, maybe next time, and certainly not at the price I'm charging here.

 

Assistant: Hah. No money for that, as I had mentioned originally, I'm doing this very cheap; a family member will help out with who to shoot, though.

 

I've made the mistake of forgetting equipment before, so now my tripod and monopod live in my car, and I quadruple check everything before I leave if I'm going anywhere further than the end of the road.

RAW files on the 30D run around 7-7.5MB, and 5-6MB on the Rebel. This gives me 880-900 shots in RAW, or, conservatively, 800. I could probably shoot everything in RAW with what I have, and the 2GB I will probably pick up in addition will be plenty; it is a small wedding, and I don't typically feel the need to shoot candids blazing at 5FPS. The JPEGs in RAW+JPEG will be small, minimum quality ones, they are in the 200-300KB range, and are more for browsing through efficently than anything else (The couple will also get most of these shots, which I've gone over with and is in the contract).

 

It isn't a huge wedding, by any means, either; 70-80 people is it.

 

I do have a tripod, failed to mention that, but I presume you mean using the tripod and dragging the shutter for the formals, which I will most definitely do; I do drag the shutter a fair bit in my normal shooting with flash - I'd presume it's pretty safe to dip in to the 1/8-1/15th range dragging it with a tripod, as long as the people hold still. I've had fine luck without a tripod shooting down to about 1/20-1/60 (with flash), depending on focal length, but there's no sense in not using the tripod for the formals.

The way the ceremony is set up, I won't be able to shoot the formals beforehand.

 

Thanks for reminding me of the groomsmen - I would have seriously forgotten, otherwise.

 

As I won't have an opportunity to visit the location, I'll be showing up an hour early so I can scope everything out. Far from ideal, I know, but I can make do with that.

 

I'll definitely remember to get a couple formal shots of the bride alone... should I bother with the groom alone?

No point in renting cards when the rental costs almost as much as a new one, and the nearest rental place is an hour away; if I can spot a deal locally, I can grab another 2-4GB card, if not, I can borrow a few smaller cards from a friend.

 

I expect to shoot 100-150 shots through the ceremony, then another 40-50 or so for the formal pictures - I'll be fine if I shoot the second part of the day in JPEG, I might need to swap out to a second card, but I might not. If it comes to hitting my last 1GB or so, I'm confident enough in the "normal" quality JPEG for my uses. I won't be shooting the whole thing in RAW due to the amount of time it takes to process RAW shots as compared to JPEG.

 

Point taken on not shooting a way I'm not famaliar with; I'll keep the flashes on camera.

 

Thanks!

As the subject says, I'm shooting my first paid wedding this weekend. The

general photographic aspect I'm comfortable with, my equipment is pretty adequate:

 

Canon 30D, 300D, 580EX w/diffuser, 420ex w/diffuser, 6.5GB of CF cards (might be

a bit low, but I'll have someone that can dump the 4GB card to my laptop if

needed), 70-200 f4l, 17-50mm F2.8, 17-85IS, and 50mm 1.8... so I'm all set on

bodies, lenses, flashes, and backups. I'll be shooting RAW+ small/basic JPG for

the ceremony and formals, and just JPEG for the candids and reception afterwards.

 

Odds are, I'll use the 300D with the 17-50mm 2.8 zoom, with flash, and the 300D

with the 50mm prime or 70-200mm (maybe with flash, maybe without), depending on

circumstance. The 70-200 might just stay on the camera with the flash.

 

I'm more comfortable shooting candids than I am formal shots, which is my second

biggest weakness coming in to this. I've shown the couple what I've done in the

past, so they know what to expect (I've priced myself at a comfortable level

according to my skillset, so I don't see that as a concern). I'm comfortable in

ambient light and using fill flash, although my tendancy to underexpose in

tricky conditions is annoying, if I stay deliberate, I can do fine in that

regard, and my mistakes with underexposure are easily enough fixed in PS

(Underexposing a stop at ISO 100 isn't the end of the world).

 

 

My biggest technical worry is using multiple flashes. I've hardly dipped into

using a second flash, so I'm thinking I will probably avoid trying to use

something I am not comfortable with. I can use the 2nd flash "okay" as long as

I'm sticking to using both flashes at the same power level, but I have a hard

time dealing with flash ratios... I'm thinking that if I use 2 flashes, it'll

only be on the occasions for where I need more even lighting for a larger group

shot. I'm very comfortable bouncing a single flash in a small room as a primary

light source, and okay at balancing fill flash to ambient lighting for a larger

room or in outside dusk situations. Outside in daylight, I have better luck

just running the flash at -1 or -2/3 than getting it perfect, so I'll stick to

that as the results are acceptable.

 

 

 

If I use the 2nd flash, I'll likely just run the slave on the low side, and use

it to kill shadows or light the background a bit more - but the big question is

whether I should even bother doing that, or if I should just keep the flashes on

the bodies, and forget about getting too fancy.

 

 

My main concerns are the flow of the event. I've shot at a couple weddings, one

as a slightly overambitious guest, another as a free, but "offical"

photographer, and in the second try, I did a fair bit right, but need a lot of

work in some areas.

 

I will not be doing the dressing room shots, so that's a non issue.

 

 

Ceremony:

 

The one time I shot a ceremony, I found it incredibly difficult to get a good

angle on what was going on, despite having freedom to go all around the couple.

Then again, I was looking for some idealized, amazing picture that simply

didn't exist. The results weren't fantastic, and the couple was satisfied with

them, but I wasn't. I've seen some people here recommending longer lenses for

the ceremony - with the previous one, I shot with my 17-85, and shot most

pictures in the 30-70mm range, some on the wide end. I suppose which range to

focus on using (I'll have both avalible, with a lens and flash on each body),

and I'm comfortable doing people shots with the telephoto lens, and I do have

plenty of flash power to do so.

 

I won't be happy if the ceremony shots don't work out well, but I won't lose

sleep over it. The bride and groom are more concerned with other stuff, but I'd

still like to do the best possible work.

 

Formals:

 

When are the formals typically done? Just after the ceremony?

 

From what I understand, they are often done inside if the venue is nice, and

there's enough time. I think the couple has the chapel for two hours for the

ceremony and setup, so I'm thinking that it would give us enough time to shoot

them in the chapel after the ceremony, before people start going outside. The

couple has expressed an interest in doing them outside, but the forecast is

looking to be bright and sunny, which doesn't bode too well.

 

The typical groups for the formals are the B&G, the couple with

parents/immedeate family, bridesmaids, and, what else? I just know I'm going to

miss *something*, but, again, the couple is more concerned with some other stuff

(they have a couple specific shots which were their main concerns)

 

At the reception, I'll be in my comfort zone, shooting mostly candids of

everyone at the party, and extraneous couples/families together.

 

 

Contract-wise, I'm in good shape, as it protects me, and spells out pricing

details on almost everything, so I don't forsee any significant issues with it.

If you are photoshopping all of the pictures, charge a flat-ish rate per photo. This means that $450 would be reasonable to ask for, as, frankly, anything less than $1 per edited shot is ridiculously cheap.

 

But, as you said, you shot the wedding for little money, and your future clients don't need to know what they paid.

 

If you won't be PSing them, perhaps something in the $125-175 range would be okay.

 

I'm shooting a "wedding on the cheap" this weekend (Getting some experience - did a couple free ones, now I'm charging a bit of cash), and in the agreement, I'll be giving the couple 2MP unedited JPEGs of everything I take (as "proofs"), and will give them a set 50 edited 8MP images (Included in the wedding cost), with extras avalible at an additional cost. I also add the "editing" fee to any prints they want to purchase from me that are different from the included photos (and I give them the file, too). 2 DVDs with all of the RAWs on them, however, will be more along the lines of what I'm charging for the wedding itself (DVDs of the low res JPEGs are cheap) - but I've made the couple aware of the difference in the files, too.

 

Next time you go in to this, no matter what, work out a pricing plan so that you know what to charge the couple if they want anything extra, and show it to them before you sign the contract.

Do you already have a lens for the camera, or are you looking before you buy?

 

The Tamron 28-75mm XR DI is a good lens, and would be good for portraits, but it does lack in the wide angle completely, it's effectively a 42-110 or so, in 35mm terms, but it also comes in well under your budget, so you could put it together with the kit 18-55mm lens to get full coverage of the most commonly used focal length ranges.

 

 

I originally went this route, however, and I didn't like it - I was switching lenses too much, and ended up using the kit lens more often than the far superior Tamron, because I needed the wide angle a lot more often than I needed the reach.

 

 

Another option would be to simply use the 18-70nn Nikon kit lens, and then look at spending the remainder of the money on an 85mm f1.8 lens, or maybe a 135mm f2.8 lens instead, which would give you a good portrait and general use medium telephoto lens with a large aperture.

It looks to me like either will fit the bill. Try both of them, and see which suits yourself better. The Canon has a flipout LCD, which is very handy, the Panasonic is a bit faster on the long end. I'd recommend picking the one with the interface you like more. I have extensive experience with Canon digicam interfaces, so I'd be more comfortable with the S2 IS, but I have also extensively used an FZ10, and it isn't bad in that regard.

All Canon asks for is a copy of the reciept and a copy of the warranty card. You don't need to email them or anything, just follow the instructions on the web site (pack the camera up with no accessories, inclue a letter with information, maybe some pictures to demonstrate the issue, and provide contact information and a return address), then ship it insured. If everything works right, you should get an email confirmation when they get the camera.

It isn't so much the quality loss that you will notice, but the very deep depth of field. Not much you can do about that. I used to have a G5, and it worked great for daylight shooting, provided that I wanted *everything* in the frame in sharp focus. Not the fastest camera either, if you plan on shooting action, bring the SLR. If you need some extra reaction speed on a G3, manually focus it to 6-10 feet, close the aperture down to f/4 or f/5.6 to further increase depth of field, and you should have something to the effect of 3 feet to infinity in focus. Combined with the flipout LCD, it works nice for street photography :)

 

Just keep it out of situations where you need to use ISOs over 100, and if you must use 200 or 400, you will likely want some noise reduction done on the images through a program like Noise Ninja.

The buffer size is a pretty big advantage over the 300D, you can get a lot more shots in, if you shoot sports/action or like rapid fire for candids. If you don't get the firmware hack for the 300D (Which voids the warranty), you lose out on flash exposure compensation and a number of other features. So, for starting out, unless you have a strict budget, it's possibly worth the extra cash for the 350D. If the 300D is a bit big for you to handle, then recommending a used 10D is a pretty bad idea, so I'll recommend against that.

Thanks guys :)

I have discovered a strange (to me) problem with my 300D.

 

The mirror assembly seems to be built into two seperate pieces, the

main mirror itself, and another small mirror that basically sits right

in front of the shutter. When the main mirror flips up, this

secondary mirror flips up into the back of the main mirror.

 

Well, it seems that mine is sticking. When the secondary mirror is

stuck in the "down" position, the camera takes a picture, autofocus is

functional. But, as it is stuck in the down position, when the

shutter opens, it only captures the top of the image, as most of it is

being blocked.

 

When it is stuck in the "up" position, autofocus seems to be totally

nonfunctional, but the camera shoots fine images in manual focus mode.

 

Is this problem a common/easy to fix one, or does it seem weird? My

camera is out of warranty, so whomever repairs it, I'm paying. Just

looking for a second opinion before I run to the camera repair shop.

Due to the small sensors in P&S digicams, you won't be able to get good results at ISO 200-400. As long as low ISOs are okay, they can offer excellent quality. The main limiting factor here is the sensor size, however, and not so much the lens. Back when I had a Canon G5, there were some instances where I could see noise in 8x10 prints that I took at ISO 50, but it wasn't horrible, and the G5 is about as noisy a camera as you can get.

 

IMO, the 7MP cameras with 1/ 1/8" sensors are better than the 8MP sensors, but the 8MP cameras more often come with better lenses, particularly if you like something like a 28-200mm zoom equivalent.

 

 

If you are looking for something to use in low light situations, where you'd be using ISO 800+ film, you are probably better off using film.

Images from the D350 and 20D are the same, essentially, slightly better than D70 images (MOre resolution, better high ISO performance). The advantages the 20D offers over the D350 are build quality, interface, framerate. Canon has a technology advantage and a more comprehensive lens system, but if you like the way the Nikons feel, it isn't like they are incompetent. The D70 handles better than a D350 because it has two control wheels, the other parts of the interface are best left for you to decide (I prefer Canon, others prefer Nikon's interface).

 

The D70 will happily work with all modern Nikon lenses, and it offers a better level of compatability with old MF lenses than Canon does. If you go the Canon route, you have lenses with two different mounts, EF, and EF-S - EF-S lenses help the 300D, 350D, and 20D get some wide focal lengths such as with the Canon 10-22mm lens, but the lenses can't be used on EF mount bodies (10D, 1D, 1Ds, etc). Furthermore, Nikon makes "DX" lenses that are intended for digital use, they can be attatched to film bodies but are quite useless with severe vignetting. Third party lens makers do this too.

 

All future Canon D-SLRs that have a 1.6x sensor should be EF-S compatiable, so if you don't plan on getting a full frame camera, it won't be an issue. The 1.3x bodies (1D and 1D MkII) will be phased out in time, I don't know if there will ever be a 1D MkIII with a 1.3x sensor. So, don't expect to see 1.3x bodies around forever, if you liked that idea.

 

So, I'd recommend looking at the overall systems first, if one of them suits you better than the other, then get a body in that system. If both Nikon and Canon's lens/flash systems are suitable for you, check out how the bodies feel in your hands, use them a bit, see what you are most comfortable with and go that route. Going from 6MP to 8MP isn't nearly as important as you being comfortable with the camera design.

 

The Canons in particular (But the D70 is excellent in this regard still) offer amazing high ISO performance compared to 35mm film. The 20D can produce surprisingly good quality ISO 3200 images, and ISO 400 is nearly noise free. ISO 100 is basically completely noise free. Because of this, digital images are much more pleasing than 35mm film when you make large enlargements.

 

The high end cameras (D2X and IDs MkII) easily compete with MF in most ways, only they do it with less resolution, and a lot less noise than MF gets grain (The Canon has a significant advantage over the Nikon at ISO 800+ on the high end cameras, but the Nikon is still excellent considering the resolution and smaller sensor). Odds are, the next generation full frame D-SLR shouldn't have a problem replacing medium format, at a huge cost, of course.

Whether the speed of your memory matters depends on your camera. A camera with a smaller buffer, and a slow write speed (300D, for instance) will quickly get to the point where you are waiting for the buffer to clear, but at the same time, the max speed the camera can write the data can be limited. This is the case for older D-SLRs, primarily (D30, D60, 300D, D1). Newer D-SLRS write to memory cards at much higher speeds than older ones, so the fast cards will show a much larger performance advantage (The 20D writes files at over 5MB/second, whereas the 300D writed files at around 1.2MB/second) - so, on the 300D, going from a 4x card (600KB/second) to a 40x card should show about a double in performance when writing images from the buffer to the card. On a 20D, you would see a huge increase in performance.

 

If you have a camera that has a large buffer, relative to the size of the picture (1D or D2H), then you will notice no difference in performance until you fill the buffer, which, in a wedding, with those cameras, is not something that will happen on a regular basis. When the camera needs to clear the buffer, however, you will see a much longer pause than if you had fast memory (Do note that the camera can write from the buffer to the card while you are taking pictures, too, you can just fill the buffer a lot faster than it clears).

 

 

If you don't take rapid fire shots, then the 4x card isn't likely to hurt, however, I'd recommend at least getting a decent card just in case, unless you have a very slow/deliberate style of shooting (When I do candids, I want rapid fire, personally - it wouldn't be an issue with posed portraits, flash, etc, as you will be working slower than the camera)

 

Your specific mentioning of "4x" cards has me thinking that you are focusing on Lexar/Sandisk, as most other companies don't label their cards 4x. Most other companies don't even make 4x cards. Maybe consider buying a different brand, where you can probably get a cheaper card (Rosewill, Transcend, Kingston, PQI are some examples)

I've never shot a wedding, but in situations where people pose for pictures, Paul's advice is worth its weight in gold.

Very few P&S digicams have a powerful flash at all. Most have a flash that will reach 10-15 feet (Larger P&S digicams often have one that can go 15-20 feet, and SLRs often have significantly more powerful onboard flashes, so if that's what you are used to, you will be in for a surprise).

 

As far as low light capabilites go, the sensors on the cameras are usually limited to a very grainy ISO 400, which is usually worse than ISO 1600 would be on your D100.

 

Your best option is likely a Canon G6, it has very low noise for a P&S camera, an F2.0 lens, and is more sensitive than a given ISO rating implies - ISO 400 on the G6 looks usable, and is equivalent with a "real" ISO 640 or so.

 

The G5 isn't nearly as good because the sensor is a lot noisier. The G3 could possibly be had for $300, and it's on the sensitive size, still has the F2.0 lens, and the 4MP sensor isn't as noisy as the G5's 5MP sensor.

 

 

The problem with these cameras is that they will not fit in your pocket.

 

 

The smaller cameras use F2.8 lenses, which when combined with what is usually ISO 200 at best, make for slow shutter speeds in low light. Even cameras that use a fixed focal length lens tend to be on the slow side (Olympus D-425 is F2.8, which gets you nothing on a typical zoom).

 

A final option would be a camera with image stabilization, like the Panasonic FX-2, you will be stuck with low shutter speeds, so you won't be able to stop motion very well, poor battery life, a weak flash, and the lens is rather slow on the telephoto end (F5.6) so you are forced to avoid zooming in much at all, without using the onboard flash.

 

For low light capabilites, this leaves you with relying on a small, weak flash, utilizing a very grainy ISO 400, using a camera significantly larger than you were planning on, getting a camera with IS that otherwise has some significant compromises, or looking at a compact film camera with a fast fixed angle lens, and some faster film (400-1600).

I'm under the impression that the Canon flash system normally has the flash work as a fill flash when you put the camera in aperature priority mode, which would explain the propensity towards slow shutter speeds, as the camera is trying to expose the flash to the foreground, but still expose for the background.

 

Someone that actually uses a 420EX should confirm this, however.

What exactly do you mean? Were you thinking of leaving the polarizer on the lens all the time? If so, why? It isn't the kind of thing you will want to be using most of the time, only in cases where you want the saturated color, deep blue skies, or need to get rid of some reflected glare - something else the polarizers do is significantly decrease the light getting into your camera (usually about 2 stops, if I remember correctly). If you are looking for something to protect your lens, even something simple like a UV or haze filter can drastically increase lens flare.

Wendy - Just multiply the actual focal length of the lens by 1.5x for any Nikon D-SLR to get the equivalent focal length for a 35mm film camera. So, on any Nikon, a 20mm lens becomes a 30mm equivelnt field of view, and a 100mm lens gets the FOV of a 150mm on film. Canon cameras have three sensor sizes, so it's a bit more confusing for us (We have full frame 35mm, 1.3x crop, and 1.6x crop).

 

If you are looking for something that is quite wide, the Sigma 12-24 4.5-5.6 should be avalible in a Nikon mount, although it is slow and from what I understand the quality is rather inconsistent. That would get you all the way out to an 18-36mm equivalent zoom, which will get you very wide, to slightly wide shots if need be. That Sigma covers a full 35mm too, so it can be used as an ultra-wide zoom on a film camera. It's probably not nearly as good as the Nikon, but it's a lot cheaper, too.

 

Also, Tamron is coming out with an 11-17mm zoom lens for digital in the near future. Given the short zoom range, I would imagine the price will be pretty reasonable ($500?), if you don't need something now, you might want to wait until that comes out.

 

If you like a 28mm focal length on film, the 20mm Sigma F1.8 would be close to that on your camera (30mm equivalent), and it's about as wide as you will be able to get a fast prime lens in.