What camera(s) do you use for weddings?

startingjourney

I just talked to a wedding photographer today and she told me more photographers use Nikon for their wedding photography. Just wondering what you use as your primary camera body and backup.

ChatKat

startingjourney wrote:

I just talked to a wedding photographer today and she told me more photographers use Nikon for their wedding photography. Just wondering what you use as your primary camera body and backup.

No - Most of the wedding shooters I know use Canon. I shoot with a 5dmk2 and a 5d with a 50d and 20d for backup cameras.

joshhuntnm

boo!!! Nikon!

Yeah! Canon!

And just by the way, if you are just diving in, I'd get expensive glass and several flashes before you got an expensive body.

ChatKat

joshhuntnm wrote:

boo!!! Nikon!

Yeah! Canon!

And just by the way, if you are just diving in, I'd get expensive glass and several flashes before you got an expensive body.

I would have had a very hard time shooting Saturday with anything but fast glass (2.8) and High ISO. My 16-35 and 70-200 2.8 lenses allowed me to geth the shots with 1600 iso and I still had noise. No flash ws allowed and I had to shoot into the stained glass, not flas hor light for fill and the window was in full sun. I should have had silhouettes.

DarosK

Every single wedding photographer that I've met has used Canon. I remember because we always end up geeking out about lenses and accessories etc etc.

Most of the fashion photographers I've met use Nikon.

I don't know what that says.

pwp

I've seen exclusively Canon bodies. Not just as a photog, but as a guest at the several weddings I attend a year as well. I shoot with a 5D2, and backup body depends on the location and if I have my assistant with me or not. If I'm outdoors all day long, have my assistant shooting, and have good light, I've even gotten away with my XTi as a second body.

wadesworld

I don't do weddings, but my opinion is it doesn't matter much. The two wedding photographers I know are split. One uses Nikon, the other uses Canon. As others have said, it's the glass and lighting that matter more.

Nikon did go through a bad period at the start of the pro digital photography "revolution" where its cameras had technical problems and just weren't delivering clear images. A lot of pro photographers switched to Canon at that time out of sheer necessity.

However, recently some Canon photographers have switched to Nikon as Nikon has turned out some awesome new stuff. It's a constant battle of leapfrog.

But in the end, if you look across all fields of professional photography, I think you'll find both Nikon and Cannon being used successfully.

If you've already got an investment in one system or the other, stick with it - both are equal to the task.

zoomer

For me it is about being able to shoot at high ISO.
Canon used to kick Nikon's butt until the d3.
I use the Nikon.
I imagine it is about a 50-50 split.

Blurmore

My mentors used Canon way back to film cameras Elan 7, and EOS 1v (in addition to Hasselblads and Mamiya c330) I work as a second to a photographer who shoots Nikon D3/D2x backup. I use a Canon 40D/30D/20D. Many of the second photographers that seem to get sent out on my subcontract jobs (I have no control of who they are) shoot Nikon, in fact only 1 has ever been a Canon shooter. All of the subcontract jobs I've ever been a second on the first shooter was Canon (except for 1 and she is primarily a freelance PJ). One of the former District coaches for the company I sub for I have stayed in contact with just traded his 2, 1D MK II's in on a 5D and a Leica M8. I personally would pursue a Leica/40D route myself when Leica gets around to putting the full frame Sony sensor ala D700/A900 in a M9 rangefinder. Untill then I may supplement my bag with a cherry used 5D I've seen lately if the price is right, or maybe a well cared for 1DS MKII, but for the most part I'm happy with my xxD lineup.

elizabeth_Luna

Started with a canon 20d which is now my backup then used a canon 40d and just now upgraded to a 5dmarkII which arrives today wut wut!barb

joshhuntnm

elizabeth_Luna wrote:

Started with a canon 20d which is now my backup then used a canon 40d and just now upgraded to a 5dmarkII which arrives today wut wut!barb

I am too jealous!

WingsOfLovePhoto

it's a toss up. Most are either Canon or Nikon. I'm a Nikonian using the D3 and D300 for backup. Either or it's the quality glass that makes a huge difference too. Having fast stuff for low light helps!

Photog4Christ

The Canon vs Nikon debate is probably as old as the RAW vs JPG debate.

I used (I no longer shoot weddings) two D200s and a 50mm 1.4, 17-55mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 VR.

Art Scott

It really depends on which crowd you hang out with.....I still know photogs that will not do a wedding with anything less than a film med. format and they are slplit betwixt Mamiya and Hassey users...but in the DSLR camps it will be a close call......remember the high dollar nikon glass is still black.
I had been doing all my work with 2 Konica Minolta 7D's with my backups backup being a KM A2......andI just acquired 2 Nikon D300 one with a 18-200 VR.....the second cam will be fitted with a Sigma10-20 and possibley a 17-70 in the bag......also in abag will be a Siggy 50-500 for those really big Cathederals ......

mmmatt

I shoot canon but it seems everyone else I meet around here (In Milwaukee) shoots nikon... then there is the whole mac vs pc thing...

Matt

Blurmore

Photog4Christ wrote:

The Canon vs Nikon debate is probably as old as the RAW vs JPG debate.

I used (I no longer shoot weddings) two D200s and a 50mm 1.4, 17-55mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 VR.

Wait there is a RAW v .jpg debate?? Not for anyone I know.

bdcolen

Blurmore wrote:

Wait there is a RAW v .jpg debate?? Not for anyone I know.

I shoot Olympus - E3s, E330. Who else offers an f2 zoom of 28-70 equivalent, and a second f2 zoom from 70-200? And then there's the 7-14 (35 equiv of 14-28) f4. No, the high iso performance doesn't match that of the latest Canons and Nikons, but having shot Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and Leica M over the years, I honestly believe that the best of the Olympus digital glass is as close as I've seen to the Leica M aspheric glass - and that's more important to me than high iso.

http://www.bdcolenphoto.com/gallery/8438912_veHkq#554580995_wwtZ2

mdruiz

I shoot Nikon..Not to knock Canon I just like the speed of the AF on Nikon. I think the quality of Nikon Glass is the same. Canon bodies feel to much like plastic.

Jeff_Milo

Photog4Christ wrote:

The Canon vs Nikon debate is probably as old as the RAW vs JPG debate.

I used (I no longer shoot weddings) two D200s and a 50mm 1.4, 17-55mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 VR.

There is a debate between RAW & JPG for weddings???? I would never dream of shooting a wedding in anything but RAW. As far as the MAC vs. PC anyone who has used a MAC to edit pictures knows there is no debate there either. Its a MAC hands down (and thats from an old time PC guy)

Canon vs. Nikon is more like Yankees vs Red Sox

I now shoot Canon 5d MkII with a 30 D as backup until I can afford another 5dMkII

insanefred

wadesworld wrote:

I don't do weddings, but my opinion is it doesn't matter much. The two wedding photographers I know are split. One uses Nikon, the other uses Canon. As others have said, it's the glass and lighting that matter more.

Nikon did go through a bad period at the start of the pro digital photography "revolution" where its cameras had technical problems and just weren't delivering clear images. A lot of pro photographers switched to Canon at that time out of sheer necessity.

However, recently some Canon photographers have switched to Nikon as Nikon has turned out some awesome new stuff. It's a constant battle of leapfrog.

But in the end, if you look across all fields of professional photography, I think you'll find both Nikon and Cannon being used successfully.

If you've already got an investment in one system or the other, stick with it - both are equal to the task.

QFT...

It dosen't really matter what you use, it how happy the client is when they see the pictures!

My friends use Canon, I use Nikon. Some of my canon friends are seriously considering the switch to Nikon.
One of the guys i work with used to work for a camera store recently. He told me, "You'd be surprised how many more Canon (5dmkii and 50D bodies) bodies get returned vs Nikon (D300 and D700 bodies)"

Jeff_Milo wrote:

As far as the MAC vs. PC anyone who has used a MAC to edit pictures knows there is no debate there either. Its a MAC hands down (and thats from an old time PC guy)

Ohhh, get a life!

mdruiz wrote:

I shoot Nikon..Not to knock Canon I just like the speed of the AF on Nikon. I think the quality of Nikon Glass is the same. Canon bodies feel to much like plastic.

From my experience, Canon has noticeably faster AF acquisition.
I won't comment on who has better tracking though.

dank-photo

Blurmore wrote:

Wait there is a RAW v .jpg debate?? Not for anyone I know.

I 2nd shot a wedding a little while back, and I couldn't believe it when the primary said she shoots jpg! I like having the security of RAW, but if you don't need it...I can see how some (maybe less computer savvy) photogs would love it by saving hard drive space. Still...what a loss of detail. I was wondering why she also didn't know what a terabyte was...

I shoot with a Nikon d700, with a d70s as back-up...but I agree that Canon and Nikon are pretty equal. I'm only partial to Nikon because I've invested in their whole system...and I love their controls...although I do shoot Canon sometimes when shooting commercial work for a studio...and Sinar 4x5's w/digi backs:D love them!

Go Mac!

urbanaries

While the debate is interesting (I guess?), the camera does not make a wedding photographer.

I'd put Shay Stephens with his 20D up against any newbie (or vet, for that matter) with a shiny 1dMKIII or D3 any day.

The most important thing behind the lens is between your ears.

ChatKat

Raw vs Jpg
I shoot RAW + Jpg on my 5d2 and 5d but didn't until I took a class from Canon about 3 years ago and saw what the difference is, Lightroom has really made a huge difference for me this year as well in my processing. There are a number of wedding photographers who shoot jpg only because of the ease of workflow. I like the insurance of RAW but as an old film girl, my goal is to be able to use all my images SOOC with little PS as needed.

I did a shoot and burn on Saturday, culled the duplicates and a few I did not like, made a few adjustments in LR - color and crop and uploaded the full wedding Monday. Waiting to send the disk to the Bride after I get some orders from guests/family while the iron is hot. With my pre-lightroom workflow, I'd be processing select RAW's and using Canon's DPP. And I'd use the jpgs if there were no reason to use the RAW.

Oh - And I switched from Nikon to Canon during Film days and my glass investment in Canon now is just too much to switch and I have no reason to do that.

Blurmore

ChatKat wrote:

With my pre-lightroom workflow, I'd be processing select RAW's and using Canon's DPP. And I'd use the jpgs if there were no reason to use the RAW.

Oh - And I switched from Nikon to Canon during Film days and my glass investment in Canon now is just too much to switch and I have no reason to do that.

UGHHH!!! DPP 3 letters NO photographer should ever have to deal with. Canon should invest all their money in competing with Sony/Nikon on sensors and NONE on their "software" that ship has sailed LR is awesome and I can't imagine using anything else. Same here on the glass, when I switched from medium format to digital the 20D was where its at, and now that the investment has been put into glass...I'm not going anywhere, even a shift to Leica would just be a supplement and not a replacement.

Photog4Christ

Blurmore wrote:

Wait there is a RAW v .jpg debate?? Not for anyone I know.

For the record. I shoot RAW 100% of the time (on my DSLR) and every pro I know shoots RAW. But, there is the "I'm new.... Should I shoot Canon or Nikon? Should I shoot RAW or JPG?" thread on almost every forum I've been on and that is what I was referring to. There are togs that believe that getting it right in camera and not doing any PP is the only way to go. I haven't met one yet, but they are out there.

zoomer

I shoot with the d3 as my main body with flash and bracket and a d700 on my belt with 200mm lens.

I shoot everything in jpeg. There are a lot of pros that shoot everything in jpeg.
I shot my first 3 years in jpeg, then I shot raw for 2 years, now I am back to shooting everything in jpeg.

Shooting jpeg I can process a wedding in 1/3 of the time and trust me NOONE can tell the difference in the pictures. using Lightroom I can do all the same processing steps to a jpeg I can do to a raw photo.
The loading in and out of programs and file space, card space is a huge difference in favor of jpeg.
There is a slight noticeable difference in the ability to save highlights in favor of the raws vs. jpeg....the only significant difference I have ever noticed.

I have done the pick raw vs. jpeg picture test several times on pro forums.
Nobody can pick the raws from the jpegs.

Possibly if you have identical full size full resolution photos side by side it may be possible to tell the difference. But even the slightest variations in exposure or sharpness from photo to photo make is impossible to tell if a set of photos is done in raw vs. jpeg.

This is my own experience, others may have different opinions earned through their own experiences. I say shoot in whichever format makes you more confident with the outcome of your work, and whatever makes your customers happy.
My customers are happy when they get their photos back fast.
My family is even more happy when I am spending a lot less time on the computer.

tenoverthenose

Amen to that. Gear is just a tool to help express your ideas. And by the way, I still think the 20D was one of the better cameras Canon has made (I'm still upset I sold mine).

urbanaries wrote:

While the debate is interesting (I guess?), the camera does not make a wedding photographer.

I'd put Shay Stephens with his 20D up against any newbie (or vet, for that matter) with a shiny 1dMKIII or D3 any day.

The most important thing behind the lens is between your ears.

elizabeth_Luna

tenoverthenose wrote:

Amen to that. Gear is just a tool to help express your ideas. And by the way, I still think the 20D was one of the better cameras Canon has made (I'm still upset I sold mine).

I agree with you on this one - even though I upgraded to a 40d I was still using my 20d for some reason now I understand why - I just now upgraded now to a 5dmark2 but I cant compare that to my 20d now hehe

I shot in jpg I did try the raw way but like zoomer yes I couldn't tell the difference from my experience.

bdcolen

ChatKat wrote:

I shoot RAW + Jpg on my 5d2 and 5d but didn't until I took a class from Canon about 3 years ago and saw what the difference is, Lightroom has really made a huge difference for me this year as well in my processing. There are a number of wedding photographers who shoot jpg only because of the ease of workflow. I like the insurance of RAW but as an old film girl, my goal is to be able to use all my images SOOC with little PS as needed.

I did a shoot and burn on Saturday, culled the duplicates and a few I did not like, made a few adjustments in LR - color and crop and uploaded the full wedding Monday. Waiting to send the disk to the Bride after I get some orders from guests/family while the iron is hot. With my pre-lightroom workflow, I'd be processing select RAW's and using Canon's DPP. And I'd use the jpgs if there were no reason to use the RAW.

Oh - And I switched from Nikon to Canon during Film days and my glass investment in Canon now is just too much to switch and I have no reason to do that.

I shoot RAW, but always import and save as Adobe DNG. Shooting JPG only is the equivalent of shooting film, sending it out for develop and 4x6s, and then throwing away the negs. Makes no sense.

FedererPhoto

DarosK wrote:

Every single wedding photographer that I've met has used Canon. I remember because we always end up geeking out about lenses and accessories etc etc.

Most of the fashion photographers I've met use Nikon.

I don't know what that says.

Funny, I've noticed the opposite. Most wedding photogs (I'd say 70%) I know personally shoot Nikon ... the two 'fashion' photogs I know personally shoot Canon.

I shoot Nikon.

Qarik

bdcolen wrote:

I shoot RAW, but always import and save as Adobe DNG. Shooting JPG only is the equivalent of shooting film, sending it out for develop and 4x6s, and then throwing away the negs. Makes no sense.

try shooting stuff in jpg and then editing it in LR. You can do the exact same edits and acheive identical outputs in 90% of pictures as long as you get exposure "close enough" in camera. It is true that you have a lot more "data" in raw but you throw away 80% of that data away when you export anyway. The question is how much of that 80% was actually needed for the raw processing? Well that depends on how good you are in camera. If you practice in jpg then I think it is a legit flow.