Wedding Camera

IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
edited November 15, 2013 in Weddings
Wedding gurus . . . do you think the Fujifilm X-E2 would be a good camera for wedding candids? I've used the D700 and even D3s, but I'm attracted by the idea of a smaller, less "intimidating" tool for reception shots. I know it only has one card slot. What other mirrorless options are popular for this use? I'm thinking I'd likely hand this to a second shooter. And I'm thinking of it for available light shooting.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.

Comments

  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited November 14, 2013
    I have no idea but the mirror less cameras I"m aware of (and I have a Sony NEX-3) are slow at auto-focus, not very responsive, and don't do as well in low light.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    A former sports shooter
    Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
    My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited November 15, 2013
    Icebear wrote: »
    Wedding gurus . . . do you think the Fujifilm X-E2 would be a good camera for wedding candids? I've used the D700 and even D3s, but I'm attracted by the idea of a smaller, less "intimidating" tool for reception shots. I know it only has one card slot. What other mirrorless options are popular for this use? I'm thinking I'd likely hand this to a second shooter. And I'm thinking of it for available light shooting.

    Here's what it comes down to, for me:

    1.) Can it nail focus in low light?

    2.) Can it deliver usable images at ISO ~3200?

    3.) Are there options for AF lenses @ ~f/1.4-1.8?


    If the X-E2 is anything like the Panasonic GH3 and GX-7 that I have tested, then the answer to all three of these questions is YES, in which case I wouldn't nesitate to use such a camera for general candids, details, etc.

    Personally speaking though, having tried those cameras I just don't think I'm ready for something so different yet, so my compromise was to get the D5200 and now the 5300. Tiny and ultralight compared to the likes of a D700 or D3, but still compatible with all my lenses and with the Tokina 11-16, my desire for the absurdly oversized and pricey 14-24 is practically nill.

    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited November 15, 2013
    Thanks for wading in Matt. My thinking is that the D700 does all the things you mentioned quite well. Certainly it's my go-to camera for the important shots. I've been unimpressed with the D7100's focus performance, so was not attracted by the little Nikons, thinking they'd suffer from the same weaknesses.

    I also think, for me, using two systems with entirely different ergonomics might be easier for my old brain to process than if the bodies were vaguely similar. I dunno.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Sign In or Register to comment.