zonevt Posted October 15, 2009 Share #41 Posted October 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is no surprise to me that the Leica M cameras are not the best tool for most wedding photographers. Through the years photographers have used the M cameras primarily for photojournalism and street shooting what they excel at. Those that do use them for weddings seem to have a photojournalism style of shooting and some prefer B+W natural light for this another area where Leica M's do well. For weddings and studio work medium format works best for formal photos along with an SLR for the candids. Large format for studio product, fashion, architecture and landscape. These general use categories don't happen by chance they evolve from years of working professionals developing the right equipment for the photography application. Yes modern technology has pushed the lines between these but the general categories still exist in film or digital. Look on the shelves of working pros and you will find a variety of formats and brands to draw from when assignments come in. When I hear others saying that other rangefinder cameras will soon take over sales from Leica M cameras I say probably not....at least history tells me that for decades Leica has been making the best quality lenses for M and SLR market in low volumes at the highest quality standards and prices. They have even made the cross over to full frame digital. The over all look and image quality of M and R glass has no competition in this class of camera. if you are looking for the ultimate image quality and not just a good normal use lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 15, 2009 Posted October 15, 2009 Hi zonevt, Take a look here Ascough on the M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Bernd Banken Posted October 15, 2009 Share #42 Posted October 15, 2009 End of 2006 I got my first Leicaq, a M6. My first RF camera in the modern form with distance metering etc. It was just a half roll of film to become familiar with this kind of viewfinder and it's behavior.Shooting only from 21 - 50 mm the small focus patch is no problem despite my glasses. BUT one disadvantage is there for me: I like to shoot portraits with 35 or 28mm as in the past with my F but the window style of the M finder doesn't show me the tiny border of the lens influence of distortion, or in other words, the small range of a very slightly overpronounced head which I like so much in close up head shots. I know it's against the "rules" but from the feedback of viewers these 28mm shots have the "something" special, f.e. here: Life is hard... on Flickr - Photo Sharing! or the moderate distance and overwiew as here: klick on Flickr - Photo Sharing! A RF window shows nothing in this respect therefore for me a SLR has the built in optical warning not to go too far....but my D300 becomes more and more heavy for me..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 15, 2009 Share #43 Posted October 15, 2009 It is no surprise to me that the Leica M cameras are not the best tool for most wedding photographers. Through the years photographers have used the M cameras primarily for photojournalism and street shooting what they excel at. Those that do use them for weddings seem to have a photojournalism style of shooting and some prefer B+W natural light for this another area where Leica M's do well. For weddings and studio work medium format works best for formal photos along with an SLR for the candids. Large format for studio product, fashion, architecture and landscape. These general use categories don't happen by chance they evolve from years of working professionals developing the right equipment for the photography application. Yes modern technology has pushed the lines between these but the general categories still exist in film or digital. Look on the shelves of working pros and you will find a variety of formats and brands to draw from when assignments come in. When I hear others saying that other rangefinder cameras will soon take over sales from Leica M cameras I say probably not....at least history tells me that for decades Leica has been making the best quality lenses for M and SLR market in low volumes at the highest quality standards and prices. They have even made the cross over to full frame digital. The over all look and image quality of M and R glass has no competition in this class of camera. if you are looking for the ultimate image quality and not just a good normal use lens. Like so many things in photography it depends on the individual. I primarily use DRFs for professional wedding work. Most of my own wedding work also has a lot in common with the pictures I make of people in public places. The line between some kinds of wedding photography and what some call "street photography" can be very fine. Good to see another Vermonter here. <G> Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 15, 2009 Share #44 Posted October 15, 2009 I like to shoot portraits with 35 or 28mm as in the past with my F but the window style of the M finder doesn't show me the tiny border of the lens influence of distortion, or in other words, the small range of a very slightly overpronounced head which I like so much in close up head shots. I know it's against the "rules" but from the feedback of viewers these 28mm shots have the "something" special, f.e. here: Life is hard... on Flickr - Photo Sharing! or the moderate distance and overwiew as here: klick on Flickr - Photo Sharing! A RF window shows nothing in this respect therefore for me a SLR has the built in optical warning not to go too far....but my D300 becomes more and more heavy for me..... That's a good example of why an SLR can sometimes be the more suitable tool. BTW, with respect to size and weight, have you considered the Pentax K7 with the Pentax pancake lenses? Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted October 15, 2009 Share #45 Posted October 15, 2009 That's a good example of why an SLR can sometimes be the more suitable tool. BTW, with respect to size and weight, have you considered the Pentax K7 with the Pentax pancake lenses? Cheers, Sean, since 1970 I'm a Nikon boy. The F was my third eye...... Here you can see the dude 39 years ago:rolleyes: My F & me on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Cheers Bernd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted October 15, 2009 Share #46 Posted October 15, 2009 Like so many things in photography it depends on the individual. I primarily use DRFs for professional wedding work. Most of my own wedding work also has a lot in common with the pictures I make of people in public places. The line between some kinds of wedding photography and what some call "street photography" can be very fine.... I agree. I've been shooting all of my wedding work with M8s, 90% or more with just two lenses-- 24/1.4 and 50/1.4 Pre-Asph. Every frame on my site is M8. This was my first season doing wedding work, and as I move up to larger (and more expensive) weddings, I'm not sure how confident I am in the M8. It may have something to do with my M8 shutter failure during my last wedding. And it's irrelevant since I sold both of my M8s anyway. But my point is that depending on your style and preferences a rangefinder can work very well for wedding photography as long as it suits your style. Going forward I plan to shoot more weddings on film. If clients want digital for some reason it'll be M9 or D700. But most people seem to be responding to the film images, and there are definite workflow advantages. Jeff's work is amazing, he is one of the photographers who inspired me to pursue wedding work as a side business to support my documentary projects. But I'm not trying to copy hist style nor do I care if I use the same gear. Jeff wasn't insulting RF users, or saying that the M9 is a bad camera, just pointing out why SLR cameras suit the way he works now. In the end, only the photographer cares about which tools were used. The clients only care about the quality of the photographs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted October 15, 2009 Share #47 Posted October 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ....but my D300 becomes more and more heavy for me..... Reading last night about the D3s prompted me think about weights and put my old F2 on the scales: D3s body (from Nikon website) 1240g D300s body (ditto) 840g F2AS body and finder 860g F2As with MD3 winder and batteries 1580g Taking the respective capabilities into account the DSLRs don't seem all that heavy ... until you compare them with the weight of a digital M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 15, 2009 Share #48 Posted October 15, 2009 > my Nikon D3 with a Nikkor 85mm lens, which freezes at least once per session with that particular lens. Jamie, I seriously think you should send this camera in for repair. I am pretty active in most of the major Nikon forums and have never heard of this one.You would expect a high volume campany such as Nikon would get reported to death if such thing exists. The wedding photography forum I frequent has had many reports about this, but thanks for your advice. I'd venture to guess wedding shooters find things more easily sometimes since we often shoot through a lot more images than many groups and sometimes under more conditions My D3 will be going in for its annual check; I'll send the 85 along as well. In this case, you need to pull the CF cards (how's that for weird) to clear the error I'd personally rather pull the battery Here's the dpreview description (I just googled it, and voila!) CD error message on D3: Nikon D3 - D1 / D700 Forum: Digital Photography Review FWIW, this only *ever* happens to me with the 85 1.4 attached. No other lens seems to trigger it (and I've had the 85 checked recently). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 15, 2009 Share #49 Posted October 15, 2009 I agree. I've been shooting all of my wedding work with M8s, 90% or more with just two lenses-- 24/1.4 and 50/1.4 Pre-Asph. Every frame on my site is M8. This was my first season doing wedding work, and as I move up to larger (and more expensive) weddings, I'm not sure how confident I am in the M8. It may have something to do with my M8 shutter failure during my last wedding. And it's irrelevant since I sold both of my M8s anyway. But my point is that depending on your style and preferences a rangefinder can work very well for wedding photography as long as it suits your style. Going forward I plan to shoot more weddings on film. If clients want digital for some reason it'll be M9 or D700. But most people seem to be responding to the film images, and there are definite workflow advantages. Jeff's work is amazing, he is one of the photographers who inspired me to pursue wedding work as a side business to support my documentary projects. But I'm not trying to copy hist style nor do I care if I use the same gear. Jeff wasn't insulting RF users, or saying that the M9 is a bad camera, just pointing out why SLR cameras suit the way he works now. In the end, only the photographer cares about which tools were used. The clients only care about the quality of the photographs. Hi Noah, FWIW, my wedding kit right now is an M9 (M8.2 as backup) and a 5D Mk II. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 15, 2009 Share #50 Posted October 15, 2009 Sean, since 1970 I'm a Nikon boy. The F was my third eye...... Here you can see the dude 39 years ago:rolleyes: My F & me on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Cheers Bernd cool... Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonevt Posted October 15, 2009 Share #51 Posted October 15, 2009 Sean, yes a fellow Vermonter....we met on-line a couple years ago in another forum and I subscribe to your reviews. I gave up shooting weddings several years ago for more profitable work in corporate and editorial areas. In the past I shot with medium format and Leica R and a couple of M6's. I sold my two M8's last year but if I did weddings I would enjoy using the M9 for a B+W journalism style. In looking at what the other M wedding photographers are doing they have much more visual interest to me rather than the standard formal medium and SLR work that is popular. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted October 15, 2009 Share #52 Posted October 15, 2009 FWIW, my wedding kit right now is an M9 (M8.2 as backup) and a 5D Mk II. So why the 5DII? Do you find the M9 not quite capable enough in low light or do you use the SLR for lens flexibility (longer lenses, etc.)? I don't do well when mixing systems. I either go all RF or all SLR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
autillo Posted October 16, 2009 Share #53 Posted October 16, 2009 Ascough is a canon guy... I personally prefer his past leica work. I agree with him, but....the compact camera we need is here, and has a name: m9, with great choices of lenses, if you choose a 28/2,8 or A 35/2 you have a very compact camera. My wedding gear is now a d700 and a m8 (may be m9 in a few months), I need AF sometimes and very good 1000-1600 ISO. Two m9 plus a noctilux and my 28/2 will be perfect though expensive!! daniel belenguer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 16, 2009 Share #54 Posted October 16, 2009 Hat's off to all you chaps who shoot weddings. That was the first to go as I steered my business in other directions. So much work in respect to the money. I'm sure I must've sustained some permanent hearing damage from all those horrid bands that substituted volume for talent. I did develop a keen knack for keeping my kit intact whilst playing duck-and-dodge between drunken guests having fistfights with one another Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 16, 2009 Share #55 Posted October 16, 2009 So why the 5DII? Do you find the M9 not quite capable enough in low light or do you use the SLR for lens flexibility (longer lenses, etc.)? I don't do well when mixing systems. I either go all RF or all SLR. Hi Noah, It's an interesting question. The short answer is that I sometimes use the Canons for high ISO work (I trust the latest ones even at ISO 3200 for some subjects) and for the flexibility of having a zoom lens at times when I prefer to stay in essentially one place (rather than moving and potentially disturbing a formal church ceremony for example). I don't much like to use zooms as a rule but there are certain progressions of events in some weddings for which they become useful. I don't normally use the two types of cameras at the same time. Rather the Canons are sometimes used for specific events/passages of the wedding (when I used them at all). Indoor ceremony vs. outdoor, size of the space, light levels, etc. all affect this. More details later if you're interested - a full explanation would take some time to write. At one point in my life I would not have photographed a wedding for all the money in the world. But at this point in time there are clients who hire me to photograph their wedding much as I would photograph any other gathering (planned or unplanned) of people (ie: people on the street, on beaches, in parks, etc.) In other words, it is possible to photograph weddings while doing little to no "wedding photography" per se. The people who hire me do so knowing that my task is simply to describe what happens among a given group of people on a given day. If one removes the cliches of wedding photography from the equation, the subject itself is really interesting and rich. Fortunately, there are not only a number of us who work this way but also a number of clients who want what we do. Again, the line between what some call "street photography" and the pictures one might make at a wedding can be quite fine. The fundamental visual challenges are often the same and, therefore, the influence of the finder is also much the same. Jeff has come to favor SLRs but he makes an important point in that blog post (IMO) which is that how we see the subject (via the camera) really matters. I believe you feel the same way Noah. Most of us who've been working professionally for some time *can* get the job done with various types of cameras. But, as I think you'd agree, the way the camera shows things really can influence the pictures. In a sense, what some of my clients are doing (and a lot of them happen to work in creative fields) is hiring me for a day to make them, their family and their friends the subjects of what some think of as "street photography" or photojournalism. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted October 16, 2009 Share #56 Posted October 16, 2009 In other words, it is possible to photograph weddings while doing little to no "wedding photography" per se. The people who hire me do so knowing that my task is simply to describe what happens among a given group of people on a given day. If one removes the cliches of wedding photography from the equation, the subject itself is really interesting and rich. Fortunately, there are not only a number of us who work this way but also a number of clients who want what we do. I've only done one wedding job in my life, in part as a favor to a friend, and shot it exactly as I would have any other documentary job. I agree, if you take out the wedding cliche images and setups it's very interesting, the interaction of people and some great images can result -- and is a perfect situation for making the most of the M system's advantages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 16, 2009 Share #57 Posted October 16, 2009 I've only done one wedding job in my life, in part as a favor to a friend, and shot it exactly as I would have any other documentary job. I agree, if you take out the wedding cliche images and setups it's very interesting, the interaction of people and some great images can result -- and is a perfect situation for making the most of the M system's advantages. Exactly... Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted October 16, 2009 Share #58 Posted October 16, 2009 More details later if you're interested - a full explanation would take some time to write. At one point in my life I would not have photographed a wedding for all the money in the world. But at this point in time there are clients who hire me to photograph their wedding much as I would photograph any other gathering (planned or unplanned) of people (ie: people on the street, on beaches, in parks, etc.) In other words, it is possible to photograph weddings while doing little to no "wedding photography" per se. The people who hire me do so knowing that my task is simply to describe what happens among a given group of people on a given day. If one removes the cliches of wedding photography from the equation, the subject itself is really interesting and rich. Fortunately, there are not only a number of us who work this way but also a number of clients who want what we do. I feel the same way. I always avoided wedding photography because I don't like, well, 'wedding photography'. I decided to offer my services to people looking for something a little different though, and it's been both a challenge and a lot of fun. I do shoot weddings just like any other assignment or project. I don't like mixing systems, but at the same time I do see why you may need or want an SLR for certain situations. I would be curious to hear more of your thoughts on the matter. All of my wedding work so far has been with M8s, so I plan to continue that with film M cameras and the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 16, 2009 Share #59 Posted October 16, 2009 Hi Noah, If a wedding is outdoors I normally shoot everything with the M cameras. If the ceremony is in a large darkish church, for example, then I might do the following: Getting ready pictures: makeup, getting dresses, people hanging out before the wedding, etc.- all with Ms Ceremony: bride's entrance may call for a 28 and hand-held flash followed by no flash and longer focal length - maybe 50 - 75 or more (during the ceremony proper) and then back to wide angle and flash for the exit. These changes, of course, all take place in seconds. Rather than work with two M bodies (wide angle on one and longer lens on the other - both set up with flash on cords) I might simplify for this part of the day: one Canon body with a 28 - 75 zoom, camera set to center AF focus point only, single flash on a cord. As the bride et. al. enter, the camera is in my right hand (AF on) and the flash is in my left. When the ceremony starts the flash drops into an open case on my belt, the ISO goes up to 1600 or higher and I zoom up to whatever focal length I need. I try not to move around much during the ceremony because I really believe in not disturbing things. So rather than zoom with my feet (which is normal for me) I might zoom with the lens for that specific part of the day. Then as the bride and groom exit I drop the ISO, zoom the lens out and pick up the flash. That part of the ceremony is crazy enough that using just one camera (one that is great at high ISO) and one zoom lens makes for a kind of simplicity that I find useful. Sometime after that I go back to the Ms and tend to stick with them for the rest of the day and night. I have fast lenses for both camera types but I'm not always so interested in the paper thin DOF look that some wedding photographers seem to love. I'd often rather have a bit of DOF which means I need as much ISO as I can get (reliably). So an F/2.8 zoom and a clean ISO 1600/ decent 3200 will often do the trick for a darkish ceremony in a large church. It all depends of course. I shot a really cool and unusual wedding in an art museum this summer and did everything with the Ms. I've also shot weddings in meadows, out in the middle of a forest, on mountaintops, etc. So the reasons for sometimes using the Canons are: high ISO capability, zoom lenses (in lieu of multiple bodies at certain times) and center-point AF when I'm not zone focusing and need my left hand free for free-handing the flash. When I use the Canons, its usually for a specific part of the day (rather than mixing and matching SLRs and RFs during the day). That said, Larry Burrows did some great war work mixing a Leica for wides and a Nikon for teles. Of course, with the Ms I may sometimes shoot almost all of a wedding using just one lens on one body. The other body ends up coming along for the ride all day. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.