mark_man

This sounds unrealistic. For a daytime wedding whether in or outdoors no flash would be OK, in fact preferable in many ways. For sunset and onwards they are asking for poor quality pictures I'm afraid.

On the contrary, LCD TVs are much more expensive than similarly sized LCD monitors. Why I have no idea - tuners are not *that* pricey!

I would be more worried about your wallet than your camera gear. BUT, obviously, pickpockets will target you if you look like your wallet might be worth more than the next guy's... Watch for people who approach you unsolicited eg flower/umbrella/etc "sellers." Best to be a little paranoid than sorry...

Red Rock was pretty good when I was there one late afternoon. Dunno when it closes though re sunset shots...

Speaking as a primarily non-wedding photographer, I am always bemused by threads where there's much hand-wringing on the part of wedding pros at the "rise" of the uncle Bobs. I think the hand-wringing is mainly because wedding pros (understandably) generally think pro wedding photography is more important than it really is to many brides/grooms. Many couples don't value pro photography as much as we would all like to think. They're quite happy to spend more on beer and less on pictures. And why not? If they can't or won't appreciate the expertise afforded by a pro, why should they fork out extra? Why should they book someone a year in advance when they'll never look at the albumn? I agree with you Lauren, not all weddings need to be photographed by a pro, and there is plenty of room for pros who are less experienced or skilled. As long as people realise they get what they pay (or don't pay) for then that's perfectly fine.

I find Fuji films generally accentuate greens (whichI don't mind at all). If you want more muted colours try 160S (new version of NPS) or 400H (new version of NPH) both of which are beautiful for portraiture.

I don't know if your film choice depends on whether the wedding will be colourful or not. It more depends on how you want the skin tones to look and whether you want to emphasise or de-emphasise the colours. The Fuji films are good for skin tones generally, though I don't have any experience with Indian skin tones. If you want realistic colours I would use NPH; if you want more saturated colours go for NPS or Reala. If you want to take indoor shots under mixed lighting, all of the above are good.

Thanks for the useful info Mark. Great to see DSLR sensor technology has some life in it yet - would be soul-destroying if we were stuck with what's currently available...

I think you want the Fuji F11. Not only minimal shutter lag, but very fast to start-up for a digicam. Don't underestimate the importance of start-up time! Has manual controls which F10 doesn't.

The tube is fantastic for photography - use high ISO (no flash allowed). A lot of tube stations have their own distinctive character and the tunnels can be interesting. London has a plethora of markets - endless photo opportunities at Portobello Rd, Camden, Greenwich, Covent Garden. Actually just camping out at Covent Garden on a Saturday afternoon is pretty interesting - fab for people photography. If you want classic London architecture, head for Chelsea/Knightsbridge/Kensington for beautiful rows of Victorian/Georgian terraces. I have to say London is not the best for night photography though. Paris is good though...

I'm not an optical engineer either Martin, but there would definitely be some light loss similar to using an extension tube. Basically the image falling on the sensor will be dimmer.

Sorry to hear that Tim. Almost certainly nothing to do with the x rays though. Did you verify that the images were there immediately after taking them?

Sounds like an excellent idea. The optics might actually be quite simple, as simply moving the position of the rear element forwards should reduce the size of the image circle reaching the sensor. There would be some light loss of course.

Why don't you use one of your old film bodies (if you still have them)? Big advantage: same 35mm format! (plus dirt cheap of course) Can't go wrong with an EOS 3 + a few rolls of Reala when the 5D packs it in...

What about a fast short tele prime eg 85/1.8? Would be great for weddings and portraiture on the 30D, plus still useful for landscape photography on 35mm? 85mm (or 135 with 30D) is a very useful focal length IMO.

OK I'll get in my 2p before it gets ugly and this thread is deleted... I don't think Nikon is on a slippery slope, in that I don't think it will continue to decline. Its DSLR line is solid and I believe they'll soon bring out a FF body. In a way I have to say this because Canon really needs a strong competitor to keep it on the razor edge of technology (and affordability). Anyway, if you have a lot of FF Nikon glass I would hold on to it - unless you need FF before the next 2 years or so. Nikon will feel obliged to produce a FF DSLR within that time otherwise it will be staring down the barrel of yet another unanswered Canon FF DSLR (5D replacement). The other piece of evidence is that Nikon continues to sell a wide range of FF glass without any current FF bodies except the F6 - there's got to be a good reason for that... Before anyone repeats the oft-heard cry that FF sensors are too expensive I would point to the fast-reducing price of the 5D (don't tell me Canon are making a loss on that one!) The cost barrier is rapidly evaporating...

Getting a bit off topic now, but in response to Kenneth's excellent point about noise being just as important (if not more so than MP), I would caution that none of the new crop of higher ISO digicams announced at PMA has been independently tested (as far as I'm aware). Being as cynical as I am, I suspect the actual noise performance of at least some of the models will *not* be acceptable. Higher numbers are always a valuable marketing tool to suck in the unwary...

This where a strong Nikon line is vital to force Canon to improve its price/performance ratios. Imagine if the D200 had been further delayed, or was clearly an inferior product...

Roll on affordable FF! Falling 5D prices are great news cos it makes it more likely that the 5D successor will be priced in the USD2000 range - much more reachable for most than the 3000+ initial 5D price. Canon is clearly showing price aggression on the 30D front vs the D200 - I guess they are trying to create doubt in the mind of the first-time Nikon purchaser... I have to say such a big price difference would definitely put me off the D200 if I were a non-aligned user looking for a cropped DSLR.

The difference between 6 and 8 is greater than the difference between 8 and 10. The difference between 6 and 10 will be not much greater than 6 and 8. The major difference in image quality between the 30D and D200 appears to be in high ISO performance. Your decision should hinge on whether this is important to you or not (+ handling/cost).

David, I actually already have the F10. I agree, for the current generation of digicams it's great! But the noise performance at high ISOs is nowhere near that of a good DSLR sensor. I come from a film background, so I cannot understand why we currently do not have the same access to high quality imaging in a small form factor as we used to with film. There is *no* technical barrier to such a product - both consumers and manufacturers must get out of the MP mindset and focus on bringing innovative digital product to market!

I would also jump at a truly compact digicam with a decent noise-free sensor and sharp lens. This is a niche which has not yet been addressed by manufacturers. The newly announced Panasonic DMC-TZ1 might fit the bill but I seriously doubt it as it appears to have a tiny sensor, like the rest of the crowd. When will manufacturers wake up and put a DSLR sensor (preferably from the 20D/30D) behind a high-quality P&S lens? (the Sony R1 doesn't count - way too bulky)

Whether it's white or ivory the lighting in snowy areas is going to be challenging if the day is bright - similar to a beach wedding on a sunny day. If I were the photographer I would try to use non-snow backgrounds as much as possible for both skin tone and contrast reasons. Don't despair though, a good photographer can make the most of what sounds like a fairytale wedding location! Don't stress about the dress...

I'm not a big fan of "artificial" looking effects, but obviously the client is the final judge. In many countries, the more artificial the effect, the more the bride likes it, so depending on where you are, your PS technique might be very successful...

I was going to say exactly what Lex said - unless there is a particular reason to restrict the shutter speed to .5/1 sec, it would be best to use a slower film rather than 400/800. Reala would fit the bill perfectly.