brad b

I've thought about this myself (for down the road a bit) I have the SB-800 and it's awesome (I'm glad I forked out the little bit extra over the SB-600) and I think myself, I'd go ahead and get a second SB-800 just because it's that much better and if you ever wanted a flash for both cameras at the same time, they'd both be the same model.

Does that make sense?

let's have it.. be honest

when you shoot a wedding, how many of your images are keepers and how

many are garbage?

And on a related note.. do you shoot conservatively, trying for that

perfect capture everytime, or do you fire away and hope for at least

some keepers afterwards?

you're right Aga.. I'm not right, I'm never right

and I do apologize for 'starting' a Canon vs. Nikon debate here - it won't happen again.. I assure all of you

I'm outta here

oh sorry, I forgot

Brad B, nevermind where I live, don't have a website

well, you have to admit Aga, that even though your original post had the word 'wedding' in it, it really had little to do with weddings..

perhaps it should have been posted in the Camera Equipment category :)

By the way, the above mentioned comparison is completely bogus. The photos were all adjusted and played with in post-processing software... and notice how the 'Canon' pictures were all in focus as compared to the 'Nikon' pictures. No bias there.

I say, everyone buy the equipment you want. It's your money.

I'm so tired of this 'Noise' debate. It seems that the 'Noise' preachers don't like to mention the fact that Canon sacrifices some detail for lower noise (due to the fact that they are just applying a noise filter at those high ISO's). In the end it's all just a matter of personal taste and unless you're displaying your photographs at very high magnification, most paying customers will never know the difference anyway. It's amazing how companies can emphasize one small feature of their cameras just to bump up sales.. but I guess it works (for Canon AND Nikon)

Besides, if you have a noisy camera, why not just invest in a good set of earplugs...

hey Aga... 'the more "pro" you are' - are there actually 'levels' of pro-ness? (just a joke)

you know what I think (and this is not exactly along the lines of your original post) but what I think is that most people choose their camera based on how much they like the company logo inscribed just above the lens mount... (I for one chose Nikon because I like the way they imboss the text right into the body of the camera) oh wait.. is that just on my cheap little D50...

Aga Mat,

don't you love it when people completely misunderstand your question - makes for lively discussion, anyway...

Dan,

could you please explain in detail why full frame CCD is 'the way to go' and also why you feel the Canon 5D is the 'de facto' wedding camera...

thanks very much

Are you strictly a verbal director, or do you get right in there and

tilt heads, adjust clothes, push people closer together, etc. (or a

bit of both, maybe?)

Just curious, that's all.

this discussion has been fun - I didn't think it would get this good a response

thanks guys

exactly.. 35 being, like you said, around 50 and a 50 giving you 75-80 depending on your brand. It's such a toss-up between the 35 and 50, but I think I would finally have to come down on the side of the 50 only because it's just the tiniest bit faster (even if it is only in my mind) and probably sharper and the '75-80' angle would be better for portraits.. you'd just have to move back more for the wider stuff. I think it would be do-able.

and by the way, my preference for CF cards would be (in my dream kit) between 4 and 8 2GB cards - depending on what type of assignment I was on (4 would probably always be enough) - as it stands I have (2) 1GB SD cards for my little wee Nikon D50 and that's plenty

this is fun...

I asked this question for the precise reason that I think it would be great to be 'forced' to be creative and original be limiting yourself to minimal equipment (sometimes). I think people envision the wedding photographer with 80 lbs of stuff hanging around his neck and on his shoulders, but wouldn't it be fun to just spend the day firing off shot after shot and just enjoying the creative process. Yeah, the 'no back-up' thing is the one issue that lingers in the back of my mind. But hey, life is all about taking risks, right.

If someone asked me to do a wedding, I would be really tempted to try the minimalist aproach.

Let me say first of all� I�m not a wedding photographer. I�m not

about to do a wedding for my cousin/brother/grandma/best buddy (at

least no one has asked me to) and I�m not even sure I�ll ever shoot a

wedding (I know what�s involved and it�s kinda scary)

But, just for fun� do you think it would be possible to shoot an

entire wedding (not a huge one) with one digital SLR, a 50mm f1.4 (or

maybe a 35mm f2 � to give the effective angle of a standard 50mm) and

a good speedlight (for some good bounce flash, of course) Keep in

mind, I�m just asking this for fun.