Has anyone photographed weddings with only the Q3 and Q3 43?

[MaViTh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi!
 

I'm considering an assignment (one of my friends' daughters is getting married) but I'm not entirely sure about photographing a wedding with cameras that only has one memory card slot and slow AF. Photography is not my occupation and I sold all my professional equipment last year. 

I don't have many details so far.  It’s not a big wedding and I expect the bride and groom to be followed for 2-4 hours for ceremony photography, portraits, some group photos, and reportage photos until dinner.

I had a Leica Q for many years, before I replaced it with a Q3. I've had the Q3 43 for about six months. Unfortunately, I haven't used the Q3 and Q3 43 much yet, and am therefore a bit unfamiliar with the limitations for now.

I've photographed weddings before, but with two camera bodies (Canon 1Dx, R3, R5 etc, lots of lenses to choose from, both fixed focal lengths and zoom)

In many ways, one could argue that a lot weddings have been photographed with much simpler cameras, but I'm still wondering if anyone has concrete experience with a comparable case. 

[Olaf_ZG]

I have done many weddings, and I guess the both Q’s are capable. But, I would miss a portrait lens, and would for sure use off camera flash as well. Not because the Q image can’t handle low light, but a fill makes a reportage so much nicer.

[Dazzajl]

I think that would be a very enjoyable way to shoot a wedding and should deliver great results too. 

[M11 for me]

When you document a wedding then everything matters: You have no second chance.

To my understanding you need a camera with an internal backup (2 card slots or internal memory) plus a backup camera (which you would have with your 2 Qs).

On the other hand you might want a longer lens unless you are prepared to just strongly crop your Q files if needed. 

You always experience all sort of scenarios. There are people who use an M camera for a wedding. Why not? 

I would'nt dare to do that. It takes a lot of experience to document such an event. The focal length is just on thing. And mybe by far not the mist important.

[Smogg]

I think you can shoot a wedding with any camera, just like you can hammer a nail with a Leatherman. But why make it so difficult for yourself? Why not choose a more suitable device for this?

[MikeD70]

I would leave it to a pro, too many headaches, contract issues, Mother of the Bride Vs the Bride issues, you get the idea.  They are paid to put up with all of those issues and more.  If you do it, you need at least a 70, you don't want to spend the day in their face, as then, you will be in ALL of the guests photos taken. you need to have a respectable working distance, as you are there to record the event, not be a part of it.  I shot weddings for years, too many to count.  Lessons learned. (the hard way)

Edited January 26 by MikeD70

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, MaViTh said:

 

In many ways, one could argue that a lot weddings have been photographed with much simpler cameras, but I'm still wondering if anyone has concrete experience with a comparable case. 

I was thinking about this recently. Many weddings were shot on a Rollieflex, one standard lens and maybe half a dozen rolls of 120.

The thing is that ‘fashions’ have changed as have people’s expectations. 
 

Weddings can be anything from a small informal gathering to a stage managed event held over several days. 
 

People may want Hello magazine type coverage plus videos and clips for social media. They think anything can be fixed with software (make it look like a sunny day even though it was a dank January afternoon). 
 

You need to meet with the couple to fully understand what they want and also explain what you are able to deliver and only proceed if you’re both in full agreement.

[bobtodrick]

The Q would be great for (IMO) all that you will encounter at a wedding except the formal portraits if they are wanted.  Don’t know the particulars but there are a lot of people who now favour a ‘reportage’ style of wedding photography, if this is the case one of the Q’s would be fine.

As to the one card slot…if you are using good quality cards I wouldn’t worry about it.   We do card recovery.  In 2010 we did 10 or so a week.  Now we go months without doing any and there are a heck of a lot more digital cameras out there.

Anyone really worried about that sure didn’t grow up with film 😂

[Kim Dahl]

I have photographed many weddings. Often with a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 f 2.8. I have the Q328 and Q343 myself and know it well. It covers the 26-70 mm range well. Maybe even better than a standard zoom 24-70 f2.8. In church, however, I would miss my 70-200 and for many detail photos too. Flash - as one writes, not because of lack of light - but to just brighten faces and clothes. So the conclusion and my advice. You can flash photos with the Q, you have to be comfortable with that. And the long focal length 70-200 you can get around if you use your creativity. So it can be done. So now that's the equipment you have and you don't have to do photography, it's ok. But if you have to do it often, I would prefer an R5 (sony eller canon) with two zooms and off flash.

[Cogito]

don't do it, you're libel to lose a friend. let someone with the right gear who does weddings every weekend do it, the wrangling of all the different family groups alone is a skill and an art. bring your Leica and get a couple candid shots that the primary photographer missed.

[charlesphoto99]

You should be fine, though get in lots of practice with those cameras beforehand. I've photographed friend's weddings with just M's before and they turned out great. Since you've photographed weddings before, you should know all about expectations, and discussing those beforehand. IME, and sadly having experienced this myself, it's making sure the wedding couple have some sort of backup plan in case of your illness, such as another friend with photo skills they can lean on. I wouldn't worry about the memory card thing, and just shoot a lot so even if the AF misses on a few there will be plenty to choose from. The most important thing is not only to capture the moments they want, but also the ones they wouldn't think of. 

[LocalHero1953]

Since you say you've photographed weddings before with typical pro kit, and since you say you have previously owned pro kit, I think we can assume you know what you're doing with weddings and understand the risks and need for backup/duplication, and don't need told "don't do it".

I can't reply from direct experience to the question you actually posted, but I have owned a Q2 and now own a Q3 43. I have often used my SL2-S and 24-90 and 90-280 zooms (and occasional primes) for events, but with the improvement in performance of the Q3 and Q3 43 over the Q2 and earlier (both AF and low light/high ISO, plus tilt screen for discreet high and low angles) I have recently concluded that the two Qs could easily replace the SL2-S in the 28-90 range - you will know best whether you would want wider or longer. 

[viramati]

I don't do weddings any more but I did use the original Q in the past for dance floor shots but that was with using flash and manual focus and would have used it for other parts of the day but never as a sole camera

[Jonas Larsson]

"For me, to be creative is to shoot with purpose and vision, and involves conscious manipulation of gear, settings, light, perspective, composition, and processing to capture the envisioned mood or story. Creativity is challenging oneself to think differently in an effort to reveal the unapparent". 

Megan Dill, New York

[Miltz]

I agree with local Hero, what I don’t understand is if you’ve done weddings before then you know if the Q3 will work for you or not. No one else can answer this but you because it depends on your shooting style. The autofocus is fine for a wedding, just don’t plan on any fast action or tracking shots. The Q3 simply can’t keep up. 

[Herr Barnack]

Only a madman would agree to photograph a wedding.  😳 

That said, on six occasions I did take leave of my senses and photograph weddings.  My clients were pleased with the results. 

Nowadays, I am way too near the embalming table to take such an insanely foolhardy risk again.

As for the original question, the Q3 and Q3 43 are indeed up to the task.  The question is:  Is the photographer up to the task?

Edited February 1 by Herr Barnack