russ_konrad

IMHO every photographer should have a 50mm f/1.8 (or f1/4) lens in their bag. Low cost for simply GREAT performance. It also does a great job on both the smaller sensors as well as the full frame bodies that are available.

 

Having said that - the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron (or Sigma or Canon version) is a much more usable and practical lens for most wedding situations. Your current kit lenses will only be of use if the wedding is outside. Inside during a ceremony - i.e. no flash - they will be almost useless.

In addition to the above lenses listed - I always carry the 10.5 f/2.8 fisheye<i> (soon to be a 16mm f/2.8 fisheye on my D3)</i> and the 85 f/1.8 in my think tank system belt.

<p>

As Mary mentioned - give your customers shots that the guests with their point and shoots will never be able to get.

"...Umm...yes. I routinely shoot 3-20 frames per minute at a wedding. It's normal for me to walk away from a six hour wedding with 2000 to 2500 frames.

<p>

I edit those down to 300. The result is that the final 300 are really good. I tell people that the goal is to make your throwaways just as good as the keepers of other photographers..."

<p>

Or you could be more "old school" and take your time - select the shot - and take 900 to 1200 shots per wedding and deliver 300 to 350 images to the bride and groom that are really good.

<p>

Photographers that grew up and learned on film will usually shoot less and obtain the same results as the younger photographers that are almost shooting at "video" speed. It's really all about selecting your shot at just the right moment IMHO.

Peter - you are right.

 

Other than COST, TIME, PRINT ROBUSTNESS, and CONVENIENCE - there is really no reason to select real lab prints over home inkjet printing!

 

;)

Adam,

 

What camera body do you have for a backup?

Ed is right.

 

REAL photographic paper will outlast and out-perform any home inkjet printing.

 

Home printing is fine for your own personal use - but if you are doing these prints to sell to your customers - your products won't be in the same league as the best of your competition. Ultimately - selling inkjet prints will hurt your business.

In marginal lighting situations - you need to "expose to the right" even risking blowing out the highlights.

 

And still - at the resolution that you presented - there is very little noise showing.

 

How are you delivering the images to the bride and groom - computer files or in print? What does the image above look like if you have it printed out on photographic paper?

<B>"I can't really see the noise problem in this picture, maybe because of its size. Is it something the bride would notice?"</B>

<P>

And even more importantly - what does it look like in print?

With proper exposure - you can shoot the D200 with very little noise up to ISO 1600.

 

The D300 will go up to ISO 3200 at about the same noise levels. (And the D3 will do the same to ISO 6400 or even beyond!)

We own both types of Tamron lenses in this focal length - (in the Nikon mount).

 

The newer version has the motor built into the lens and definitely focuses faster than the older version. It is well worth the few additional dollars that the new version costs.

We have used f/2.8 lenses as well as f/4 lenses during many ceremonies and achieved excellent results because the church was well lit and/or had windows that allowed a great deal of natural light to enter during the ceremony.

Alan,

 

I would be willing to bet that there are literally hundreds of thousands of users who have no problems at all with Sandisk Extreme cards.

 

Personally - we have used the 2GB, 4GB, and 8GB Sandisk Extreme III cards with no problems at all

D300 no question!

 

It is one of the best camera bodies that I have ever used! It was the best until we purchased a Nikon D3!

 

Get a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens ($400 online) and the 50mm f/1.8 lens ($120 online) and you will have an awesome

camera/lens combination to get you started in photography!

Gary,

 

Only 4GB cards on the D3?

 

We use 16GB dual cards on the D3 - writing the RAW file to both at the same time!

<b>"...I believe your exposure and TTL will revert back to the center point when you do that...."</b>

<p>

That's what the AE-L/AF-L button is for on the back of the camera. You can program it to do one or the other or both. (at least on Nikon camera bodies!)

A better option IMHO than putting the images in a "sleeve" is to use a flush-mount album in which the pictures are mounted directly onto the page. No plastic to interfere with the image.

<p>

Here is one of the companies that we use:

<p>

<a href=http://www.premiraalbums.com/><b>Premira Albums</b></a>

<b>"...I don't need a link to a site to hold any sort of validation from those that feel it's necessary...."</b>

<p>

Or someone who has no website for us to view.

<p>

Pretty sad that some people try to tell everyone else what is "best" and have no examples of their own to show.

<p>

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic!

We always shoot all of our weddings with two photographers. Each of us will carry at least a couple of lenses for the day.

<p>

Personally, my main lens on the D3 is the 24-70mm f/2.8. I use the think tank system and carry the 85mm f/1.8 lens, the 70-210mm f/4 lens, and the 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye (yes - I know it is a DX lens but it works for now until the full frame fisheye arrives!).

<p>

I would also recommend the Black Rapid Strap to solve the weight issue of a heavy camera/lens combination on your neck.

<p>

<a href=http://www.blackrapid.com/><b>Black Rapid Strap</b></a>

<b>"..Unethical: Call up your competitors and act like you want their services. Ask them what they would

charge..."</b>

<p>

Actually - with the websites that most photographers have these days - there is no need to do anything "unethical".

Just do a google search in your area for "wedding photographer" in your area and look at the websites. Most

photographers will list their pricing. IMHO - the ones that don't list their pricing seem like they are trying to hide

something.

Well said David!

 

Cheers!

There is one additional reason not discussed here yet - a second (or third) shooter allows you to charge more for high end packages. Just another "justification" for a customer to select you over the competition who is only providing one photographer for the day.

<b>"... I did have one case wiere the bride asked for her to take the pictures of her getting dressed. Worked well. WIthout her there, I could not have got that shot...."</b>

<p>

My partner is female and I can relate to that comment. MANY times the brides have shown a visible sign of relief when we mention that I will be with the guys as they are getting ready and my partner will be with the bride and bridesmaids as they are getting dressed.

We have no problem in taking the parent's credit card number if they are paying for the wedding photography.

Necessary? no

 

Useful and an advantage? yes

 

We shoot all of our weddings with at least TWO photographers. Even if you are superman (or superwoman) you can't be everywhere at the same time. With two shooters you can capture more of the day - esp the fun, spontaneous shots that are easily missed if you are the only shooter.

 

It is also a very good selling point. Customers can easily understand that it can be hard for one photographer to "get everything" - esp if it is a large wedding. It does give you a built-in backup for the day as well. On one occassion a lens died on us during the day. It seemed to be "working" during the wedding, but when we got to the computer screen - every shot that was captured at f/2.8 (wide open) was out of focus. Having the other person shooting through all the day allowed us to present a full day of shots to the customer without any gaps in the coverage.

John,

 

From your images here on photo.net - it seems that you do NOT shoot weddings. Although the D2x is a fine camera body in good lighting - it is decidedly at a disadvantage (compared to the D300) in lower light conditions - such as weddings!

 

We currently use a D3, D300, and D200 in our wedding work. We had considered a D2x but it's low light performance was not acceptable for ANY lower light situations.