Wedding Photag. Gear

[oldmacman]

Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have and 2: if you spend you're time fussing with your gear you risk missing those "money" shots.

After you have spent some time on the forum you will realize that many people think they are ready to shoot a wedding without any experience. The fact that you asked the question hinted that you haven't shot a wedding before. FWIW, many photogs that want to get into the wedding business start out as second shooters, or assistants. The idea is to job shadow the pro and learn the ropes... In essence, follow them around like a puppy.

Having multiple camera bodies means you can have multiple lenses mounted, which also helps to get the money shots. Good gear also means spending money on faster lenses for the times when flash is not allowed, or you want a shallow DOF to isolate the subject from the clutter. Those types of shots are very difficult with standard kit lenses.

Just my two cents, but reznap provided some good advice if you are willing to look a little harder.

 

[MissCream]

For one, they handle noise better. Also, they are better for shallow depth of field shots since you have more frame to fill without taking a step back, say with a prime lens.

I'd also want to be able to do high speed sync with a flash... and my Rebel's not having that. Maybe I wouldn't need a full frame camera for that but a higher-end body at least.

I see what your saying but you have to agree that you don't NEED a full frame camera to shoot a wedding nicely.

Sync speed is a killer, it drives me nuts that I can only go to 1/180... My mentor has shot weddings for over 30 years and right now has the same camera I have and his pictures are amazing.

OP, I have been researching for the last 3 years, I have a mentor and this summer I will be shooting a wedding as a second shooter, there is NO way I would ever feel comfortable being the primary shooter at a wedding right now. I wouldn't want my name associated to work that wasn't to my standards (which -thanks to this forum- are ridiculously high...).

 

[sobolik]

OK people here is the answer to every question on photography. It don't matter the question.

Just go out and buy the most expensive piece of equipment there is. It is guaranteed to make you the greatest photographer there is. You will have no problems at all.

If a new product hits that market that has warp speed flash sync dual core processing manual overdrive then you immediately need to sell your old model as it is now completely useless for any task at hand.

Yes folks I hate to break this to you (I would not have to if you would do a little reading of photo magazines) but all of your equipment is woefully underpowered and under engineered. It is completely useless. In case you have not noticed the new and improved models have hit the stores and you need to go buy them. I mean how in the heck do you expect to take superior images by using that garbage you are using. You must have full frame cameras and fast glass. Would you please get with the program.

 

[heyjoe]

Lame. Nobody stated you have to get the latest and greatest.

 

[ajkramer87]

Sobolik do you have an online portfolio? Id like to see these wedding shots that you used basic equipment on that you seem to think are so good that you dont think anyone needs to buy better lenses.

 

[KmH]

Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have ...

Total BS, because you can't make beautiful wedding photos in low light without strobed light, unless you have gear that is low-light capable
Low light capable gear is expensive, though I guess what you consider expensive may not be what I consider expensive.

 

[tirediron]

Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have ...

Total BS, because you can't make beautiful photos in low light without strobed light, unless you have gear that is low-light capable. Low light capable gear is expensive, though I guess what you consider expensive may not be what I consider expensive.

Ehhh... I don't think it's total BS Keith; you're right, low-light is an expensive area to work in, but there's lots of other areas, landscapes, outdoor portraits, etc, where someone can make award-winning images with the cheapest body and lens. Look at it this way: How far ahead in IQ is even the cheapest lens made today compared to that which Ansel Adams used? Seems to me people still like his pictures pretty well.

 

[misstwinklytoes]

I was just wondering what "photag." was. lol

Nah, jk.

Good luck on finding the information you need, OP. This forum is tough on anyone wanting to shoot a wedding.

 

[sobolik]

Sobolik do you have an online portfolio? Id like to see these wedding shots that you used basic equipment on that you seem to think are so good that you dont think anyone needs to buy better lenses.

2 things.

1) I don't have model releases for the wedding photos nor do I care to get any. I am not here to peddle my work but to help others.

2) The attack dogs on forums would love nothing better than to use a photo - any photo - of mine as an excuse for their attacks. After all I GASP! question sacred cows like fast glass. GASP! An infidel how dare he - we must attack. - It happens all the time on forums.

From your tone I highly suspect your are ready to attack all you need is one sight of my photo, any one of them will do

ps try reading for understanding I never said "dont think anyone needs to buy better lenses" YOU did!

pss from your bragging list following your post I can see why you are so bent out of shape. 2.8, 2.8, 1.8, 1.8 Sacred cow being questioned?

 

[gsgary]

Why would you need a full frame?

For one, they handle noise better. Also, they are better for shallow depth of field shots since you have more frame to fill without taking a step back, say with a prime lens.

I'd also want to be able to do high speed sync with a flash... and my Rebel's not having that. Maybe I wouldn't need a full frame camera for that but a higher-end body at least.

In case I was being serious? Wow, that comes across as quite rude. I've done weddings before, however I don't spend my time following around wedding photographers like a puppy dog, so I like find out what gear others prefer to see if it might be something I want to add to my bag.

If you've done weddings before why are you asking 'umm what's the bare minimum gear to use for a wedding' ??

Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have and 2: if you spend you're time fussing with your gear you risk missing those "money" shots.

Lets see some money shots with cheap gear

 

[Light Artisan]

Big surprise... :thumbdown:

Do you even own a camera or do you just start crap on forums? You seem to be an expert on negative forum affairs, after all.

 

[sobolik]

For one, they handle noise better. Also, they are better for shallow depth of field shots since you have more frame to fill without taking a step back, say with a prime lens.

I'd also want to be able to do high speed sync with a flash... and my Rebel's not having that. Maybe I wouldn't need a full frame camera for that but a higher-end body at least.



If you've done weddings before why are you asking 'umm what's the bare minimum gear to use for a wedding' ??

Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have and 2: if you spend you're time fussing with your gear you risk missing those "money" shots.

Lets see some money shots with cheap gear

ROFLMHO! Try surfing the web. There are millions of "money shots" that were taken with "cheap gear"

 

[sobolik]

Big surprise... :thumbdown:

Do you even own a camera or do you just start crap on forums? You seem to be an expert on negative forum affairs, after all.

Well who ever you are talking too can be expertly negatively sure that the Abraham Lincoln never said what you credit in the quote you had in your last post

"Use your better judgement, most of what you read on the Internet are opinions, not facts. Even more so, opinions stated as facts." - Abraham Lincoln

 

[gsgary]

Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have and 2: if you spend you're time fussing with your gear you risk missing those "money" shots.

Lets see some money shots with cheap gear

ROFLMHO! Try surfing the web. There are millions of "money shots" that were taken with "cheap gear"

What you call money shot is probably a lot different to what i call money shots

 

[KmH]

Because I don't believe in spending a ton of money on gear for two reasons- 1: if you're GOOD, you can make beautiful photos with whatever gear you happen to have ...

Total BS, because you can't make beautiful photos in low light without strobed light, unless you have gear that is low-light capable. Low light capable gear is expensive, though I guess what you consider expensive may not be what I consider expensive.

Ehhh... I don't think it's total BS Keith; you're right, low-light is an expensive area to work in, but there's lots of other areas, landscapes, outdoor portraits, etc, where someone can make award-winning images with the cheapest body and lens. Look at it this way: How far ahead in IQ is even the cheapest lens made today compared to that which Ansel Adams used? Seems to me people still like his pictures pretty well.

The thread is about shooting weddings. So my post should read, "you can't make beautiful wedding photos in low light..."