Which system?

[MGrayson]

Nice images, Matt. And a Cambo handheld to boot! I like the Graflex, particularly since I have a small collection of them. I'm sure the groom appreciated the big camera charm (Hey! You could have even used a film back on the Cambo!). You should download all the DXO charts too and match the graphs up with each image. I'm sure your clients will be simply amazed.

Ken

Thank you, Ken. I wasn't gonna bring out the Cambo, but when he started with the Graflex, I thought it was fair game. The story is interesting. A few years before, the bride's mother (Fern Schad, who, with her first husband Tennyson, ran the Light Gallery in NYC back in the 70s-80s) married my father-in-law (my wife's mother having passed away a few years earlier). The photographer for *their* wedding (Mark Mann) later married her daughter and is the groom in these pictures. The bride, Katie, is a photo editor and the groom, as mentioned, is a photographer. It's a very photographic family.

My best shot of the evening, however, was of my father-in-law during a VERY drunken speech by the old friend who had introduced him to Fern. (Olympus µ43 in truly horrible lighting.)



Hee hee. Enough rambling!

--Matt

PS. I've shot one frame with a Graflex. My God, it's hard to focus that thing!

 

[voidshatter]

ISO 1600. The picture of the bride was lifted almost 3 stops, hence the noise. The bride and groom examining Polaroids was lifted only about 3/4 stop.

You should download all the DXO charts too and match the graphs up with each image. I'm sure your clients will be simply amazed.

He did mention that he lifted almost 3 stops. Is this just coincidence with the DXO charts of the inflated ISO numbers from the CCD? :toocool: Of course his clients would never know that an APSC CMOS with a fast lens could have done a lot better.

 

[Chapel]

The whole noise issue is interesting. My Leaf can make very nice files at iso 200 and barely acceptable files with 400 in great light, but I can also have a lot of noise if I push the files at iso 80. At the wedding, the Nikon D7100 was noisy at iso 800 with a 50mm 1.4 lens, and the Sony was pretty noisy at 1600 using both a 55 1.8 and a 24-70 2.8 lens. The Sony files cleaned up better than the Nikons without as much loss of detail.
Nice pictures.
Thanks
Greg

 

[Don Libby]

Please allow me to add a few thoughts. I'm a landscape, nature and an occasional wildlife photographer who does not photograph people or weddings. Listen to those who have offered advice based on their (years of) experience, the same people who have "been there done that" and have the scars to prove it rather than those whose sole experience comes from reading texts and examining charts and grafts.

There's been a lot of very good information/suggestions here based on this collective wealth of experience.

 

[Chapel]

One from the wedding with the Leaf.

Decent light. Not great.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Not a people guy but the IQ150 in my experience trumped every CCD back I ever owned including Leaf, IQ140, IQ160 etc. IQx 100 even better but TBH the IQx50 was the game changer for me for flexibility and practical high ISO support.

 

[Shashin]

I would probably go for a 645z or one of the other 50mp Sony sensor MF cameras/backs. It will give great quality and usability.

Having said that, an APSC CMOS sensor will blow away anything Nadar used, but I doubt it would be as beautiful...

 

[Chapel]

I think I'm going to rent a 645z. The higher iso performance is the deal breaker.
Thanks for all your help.
Greg

 

[fotografz]

I think I'm going to rent a 645z. The higher iso performance is the deal breaker.
Thanks for all your help.
Greg

Not so fast Greg:ROTFL:

If you are serious about shooting weddings as a business venture, plus perhaps portraits and some other people type photography ... then I have a few tips for you.

I AM a wedding photographer ... with a lifetime of experience, and those hard earned scars mentioned above.

Like you, (but unlike most wedding photographers), I also have a predilection for MF cameras and have always incorporated them into my wedding/portrait/corporate work.

I've found the trick with MFD cameras is using them for their strengths, and avoiding their weaknesses. Used correctly MFD can help to separate you from the phalanx of Caniksony wedding photographers out there.

The other insight I can share is that low light is often bad light (in quality, or direction, or both) ... and unfortunately it is far to often even worse at a wedding. We do NOT have full command of when or even where pictures may be taken. We can try to guide things and set a schedule ... but as you already learned, things get delayed, locations change, weather changes, light mutates or disappears. Casual shooters have the luxury of not shooting when things go south, we do not.

High ISO performance does not magically turn bad light into good light. It merely allows us to somewhat better record the bad light, far to often yielding poor color reproduction, ramped up contrast, ugly noise and ghastly skin tones ... all the enemy of good wedding work.

Personally, I shoot available light whenever it is advantageous and beautiful. However, sometimes you have to shoot available light even if it is bad (like in a poorly lit church that doesn't allow flash during the ceremony). Modern CMOS DSLRs show their strength in these types of situations ... which is why I always have one with me. It doesn't have to be a mega-meg DSLR, just one that's quick to focus and reasonably good to ISO 1000.

While I also shoot MFD in nice available light, fact is almost any camera is good for that. Where I found MFD to excel is when using lighting ... especially in concert with Leaf-Shutter lenses because 1) it can do some things 35mm digital can't to provide more control over difficult lighting situations or the unexpected, and 2) I don't need high ISO.

While a modern CMOS focal plane shutter MFD camera like a a 645Z may satisfy your love of using one, in the end it will not provide a significant advantage over many current focal plane DSLRs or Mirrorless cameras ... in fact, it may well place you at a disadvantage in many circumstances. Forcing MFD into disadvantageous use rarely ends well ... trust me on this.

I have always used, and still use CCD based MFD because it is different in look and feel, and doesn't need to pretend it is a CMOS DSLR ... which it can NOT compete with on so many other levels at a wedding. While this is pure subjectivity on my part, nothing has proven me wrong to date, and myriad weddings and assignments later.

No one likes to hear the practicality of gear use, but I'll say what many are thinking ... for how wedding images are used and reproduced there is no practical difference between a D800, Canon 5Dmark-whatever, or a Sony Mirrorless ... and MFD ... except subjective predilections. What can be technically different is the use of lighting.

After too many struggles and missteps along the way, I learned to NEVER shoot a wedding without bringing lighting ... for use with any camera, and especially MFD.

I'm willing to talk further off-site about this with you if you wish.

- Marc

Here's cross section of shots using MFD and lighting to solve particular problems that came up during a wedding shoot ... only one of them was an available light MFD image ... a couple of them were specific client requests, would not exist were it not for lighting ... no DSLR shot high ISO available light would have solved the problem.

 

[D&A]

Aside from the lovely pics, Marc's post in my opinion and from my having far far less experience than his with shooting weddings, but having extensively shot in very difficult and complex low light situations and having to deal with them for commercial use of extremely large prints (while employing a wide variety of systems).....Marc's advice and explanations is one of the most well thought out and informative postings in a very long time. Advice I would both personally heed and seriously consider when deliberating your choices.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Transposure]

Not so fast Greg:ROTFL:

If you are serious about shooting weddings as a business venture, plus perhaps portraits and some other people type photography ... then I have a few tips for you.

I AM a wedding photographer ... with a lifetime of experience, and those hard earned scars mentioned above.

Like you, (but unlike most wedding photographers), I also have a predilection for MF cameras and have always incorporated them into my wedding/portrait/corporate work.

I've found the trick with MFD cameras is using them for their strengths, and avoiding their weaknesses. Used correctly MFD can help to separate you from the phalanx of Caniksony wedding photographers out there.

The other insight I can share is that low light is often bad light (in quality, or direction, or both) ... and unfortunately it is far to often even worse at a wedding. We do NOT have full command of when or even where pictures may be taken. We can try to guide things and set a schedule ... but as you already learned, things get delayed, locations change, weather changes, light mutates or disappears. Casual shooters have the luxury of not shooting when things go south, we do not.

High ISO performance does not magically turn bad light into good light. It merely allows us to somewhat better record the bad light, far to often yielding poor color reproduction, ramped up contrast, ugly noise and ghastly skin tones ... all the enemy of good wedding work.

Personally, I shoot available light whenever it is advantageous and beautiful. However, sometimes you have to shoot available light even if it is bad (like in a poorly lit church that doesn't allow flash during the ceremony). Modern CMOS DSLRs show their strength in these types of situations ... which is why I always have one with me. It doesn't have to be a mega-meg DSLR, just one that's quick to focus and reasonably good to ISO 1000.

While I also shoot MFD in nice available light, fact is almost any camera is good for that. Where I found MFD to excel is when using lighting ... especially in concert with Leaf-Shutter lenses because 1) it can do some things 35mm digital can't to provide more control over difficult lighting situations or the unexpected, and 2) I don't need high ISO.

While a modern CMOS focal plane shutter MFD camera like a a 645Z may satisfy your love of using one, in the end it will not provide a significant advantage over many current focal plane DSLRs or Mirrorless cameras ... in fact, it may well place you at a disadvantage in many circumstances. Forcing MFD into disadvantageous use rarely ends well ... trust me on this.

I have always used, and still use CCD based MFD because it is different in look and feel, and doesn't need to pretend it is a CMOS DSLR ... which it can NOT compete with on so many other levels at a wedding. While this is pure subjectivity on my part, nothing has proven me wrong to date, and myriad weddings and assignments later.

No one likes to hear the practicality of gear use, but I'll say what many are thinking ... for how wedding images are used and reproduced there is no practical difference between a D800, Canon 5Dmark-whatever, or a Sony Mirrorless ... and MFD ... except subjective predilections. What can be technically different is the use of lighting.

After too many struggles and missteps along the way, I learned to NEVER shoot a wedding without bringing lighting ... for use with any camera, and especially MFD.

I'm willing to talk further off-site about this with you if you wish.

- Marc

Here's cross section of shots using MFD and lighting to solve particular problems that came up during a wedding shoot ... only one of them was an available light MFD image ... a couple of them were specific client requests, would not exist were it not for lighting ... no DSLR shot high ISO available light would have solved the problem.

To the OP...
Marc succinctly hits the nail on the head. I could not agree more. Cheers Marc!
I am a professional photographer and these days primarily shoot commercial subject matter. However, I spent many years as a wedding photographer as well (not as many as Marc though! Lol). I own a full kit of Canon pro gear (1series and many L lenses). I own a Phase XF with a Leaf digital back. I own a crapload of Profoto lighting, packs, heads, etc. I own many Canon Speedlites.
why do I bring the equipmnt list up? Well, to point out that I have the option to choose what makes sense for the task at hand.

And what is my go-to wedding kit?

1Dx with a 70-200f2.8 and a flash bracketed flash in one hand and a second 1Dx with an 85f1.2 and no flash in the other. A couple other lenses at the ready too. I actually use a MoneyMaker strap.
I bring (5) Canon 600EX-RT flashes with some grids, gels, and small umbrellas.
That's it. Notice the number of Speedlites. Bulletproof Canon radio controlled. Learn lighting and be successful.

Lightweight, highly mobile, fast focusing, bulletproof, versatile, etc., etc. oh, and 18MP. Yup, just 18MP.

I use the MF Kit weekly in my studio and outside. For weddings though, one of the only advantages I can see for the medium format is with daylight, flash assisted, shooting at f2.8. The leaf shutters combined with the Profoto Air and a Profoto strobe allows you to do some cool stuff shutting down the ambient. But beyond that, I personally haven't had a need for the weight, and complexity of MFD and the associated lighting.....AT A WEDDING.

i have shot weddings with fees ranging from $3k to $10k and in the end, the largest shot that has to be printed, with very few exceptions, is the 14" tall x 22" wide print that is the two page album spread of a 11x14 album.

Your mileage may vary....

Here is a link to some of the wedding shots I made strictly with DSLR's and Speedlites over the years...

http://transposure.com/home.html?lb=712056532e4ccbb

 

[dougpeterson]

My own (biased) thoughts:
- When I go bigger on my main camera I go smaller on my second camera to compensate. I used to shoot two 5D2 cameras. Now I shoot Phase XF + Fuji X Pro. Usually with an IQ3 100mp or IQ3 50mp.
- When I switched to medium format as the main camera I switched from zoom to prime. The 70-200 is actually a pretty large/heavy lens. I've never weighed them but a [5D with 70-200] and a [XF + core prime] probably favors the XF once you account for how far out the weight of the zoom flops away from your body.
- I do significantly less post on the files from the XF than the Fuji. While I shoot maybe 70% of the frames on the XF the post processing ends up being spent 70% on the Fuji files. The color and tonality out of the XF just require less work.
- Flash sync speed is HUGE to me. A small Canon speedlight can add some subtle fill at great distances at low power settings when you're shooting ISO400 @f/2.8 and knocking down ambient with a shutter speed of 1/1600. Using a pseudo-sync like HSS loses so much light you can't do things like bounce the light off a large wall a dozen feet away and still knock down the ambient. True sync speed makes that easy. Everyone thinks fast sync is mostly useful for overwhelming daylite and making over the top dramatic clearly-lit images. I use it mostly to add very subtle fill without having to bring a large/heavy light+stand to do so.
- In dusk-level and other moderate-low-light scenarios I'm still comfortable using the XF. In twilight and candle-lit or dark-cavernous-reception-hall light I switch to the Fuji. If my second shooter is using two Nikons I might switch to one of those as well. In very low light medium format is not the right tool.

In the past I also used P+ backs and CCD backs. The sensor+ helped a lot, but they are no comparison to the CMOS Phase One backs.

For what it's worth my wedding work is here: New York Wedding Photographer. I'm glad to send you raw files and DT (the Phase One dealer I work at) is glad to help you test a CMOS Phase One back to see if it's a good fit for you. Only you can decide that, and really you can only decide it with hands on testing. Everything else is just theory.

 

[voidshatter]

It might be helpful to attach some comparison between the 35mm format and the 44x33 format under the same low-light condition.

Setup a): Nikon D810A with 50mm f/1.4 wide open
Setup b): Pentax 645Z with 75mm f/2.8 wide open

Shutter speed has been adjusted to 1/50s for both setups to avoid motion blur for wedding. ISO numbers have been adjusted accordingly for the correct exposure.

The 645Z pictures have been down-sampled to match the size of the D810A pictures. It is clear to see that even with down-sampling the 645Z is still no match against the D810A in terms of details, because the lens of the 645Z is too slow (only f/2.8).







In addition to the disadvantage of low-light image quality of the medium format digitals, the 645Z (as well as the Phase One XF+) system is also short of good auto-focus performance, especially under low-light conditions where it would be hard to nail focus without hesitation. The Nikon system does a much better job for low-light auto-focus (and is a tad better than the Canon/Sony counterparts).

It is also worth to note that the 645Z uses the same/similar auto-focus module from their APSC cameras, hence covering a very small fraction of the central region of the whole frame. Only very few auto-focus points are cross-type, which could be problematic when you nail focus on some main subjects with only texture in one direction (e.g. portrait direction onto an eye or onto hair). The Phase One XF+ may also run into the same issues of lack of auto-focus performance under difficult situations.

I see no good reason to pick medium format digital for low-light wedding (due to inferior image quality and poor auto-focus performance), unless you needed the size and weight of gear to impress the clients.

 

[dchew]

Sunli,
I think what you are missing is that no bride will ever look at her wedding photos that way.


Dave

 

[voidshatter]

Sunli,
I think what you are missing is that no bride will ever look at her wedding photos that way.


Dave

But I know lots of brides who like bokehliciousness in their wedding photos.

Medium format digital is no match against 35mm format in terms of degree of bokehliciousness (normalized diameter of circle of confusion, aka background blur, separation of main subject from the background), because the sensor size does not compensate enough for the slower lenses (same as for the normalized low-light signal-to-noise ratio above).

Below shows that the 44x33 format with 75mm f/2.8 is only equivalent as 35mm format with 50mm f/2.2, and is no match against 35mm format with 50mm f/1.4, if you want to impress the brides with bokeh.

 

[Shashin]

I see no good reason to pick medium format digital for low-light wedding (due to inferior image quality and poor auto-focus performance), unless you needed the size and weight of gear to impress the clients.

The next time I photograph a wedding at night next to building, I will remember that...

 

[voidshatter]

The next time I photograph a wedding at night next to building, I will remember that...

As I said before, a good work from one system does not justify the purchase of the system for a seasoned gearhead. A side-by-side comparison between two systems under the same condition justifies the purchase of one system over the other.

You could shoot the same bride under the same condition with two systems and ask her which one she prefers (without letting her know which pictures were shot with the heavy and bulky gear).

 

[Shashin]

As I said before, a good work from one system does not justify the purchase of the system for a seasoned gearhead. A side-by-side comparison between two systems under the same condition justifies the purchase of one system over the other.

You could shoot the same bride under the same condition with two systems and ask her which one she prefers.

If the comparison is valid, then it is OK. But simply biasing the variables to support a point of view is hardly definitive.

 

[voidshatter]

If the comparison is valid, then it is OK. But simply biasing the variables to support a point of view is hardly definitive.

You could design your own "unbiased" variables for a comparison.

I claim that 35mm format is better than medium format digital for low-light wedding because:

a) 35mm format has better low-light image quality - your clients don't want photos with excessive amount of noise or loss of details after noise reduction;

b) 35mm format has better degree of bokehliciousness - your clients want fancy look of bokeh and better separation of main subject from background;

c) 35mm format has better auto-focus - your clients don't want you to miss the best moments and don't want out-of-focus pictures.

If you call these biased then you are welcome to correct these with unbiased opinions.

 

[Shashin]

I claim that ...

All they are are your claims and point of view. None of what you wrote is anymore than your projection of what you think clients want. I imagine they simply want good pictures that reflect their experience of the wedding. Something to remember it by. Noise and depth of field will have nothing to do with it. Besides, the amount of depth of field is neither here nor there. It really depends on the image. Not sure a group shot is going to be ideal with razor thin DoF.