[luftfluss]

There has been much debate over whether wedding photogs need to use FF to get the results they want. To many beginners, FF is a requirement for being in wedding photography so much that even clients started to think that if the photog is using FF cameras, he/she must be good. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, I have been to weddings when the hired photographer uses FF but was having difficulties with the flash. The ability to use external flash properly when the lighting is not optimal is more important than have a FF camera for high iso performance IMHO.

The irony is that the APS-C cameras of today equal or surpass the FF DSLRs of yesteryear in terms of sensor performance.

[Nicolas06]

My point is that Pentax have some great awsome products, i love the K3 and the way that it performs with the lenses that i have... but there is a point when most of the "pros" needs something better than what APS-C can offer at this time.. so what they do? sadly they switch brands because we dont have a FF body yet.. will they come back in case that Pentax releases a FF?? mmmm good question... each day somebody switches from APC-S fo FF looking for better performance ( low light, resolution, etc) and that costumers COULD stay with the brand but there is nothing beyond the K3 ( wich i love ) and 645Z is way to expensive for most of us... In my case i love to take pictures in low light.. and i know that K3 can perform really nice.. but i also know that a FF will perform even better because of the ISO performance..

And thats the true.. its like if the brand is a marathon racer that runned 35KM at 1st place, performing great.. but after that it just start going down and down and down, and is where the other competitors start to stand up and mark difference... Pentax will finish the race in a good position.. but AT THIS TIME not in the top 3, I hope is that someday the brand will do it.

The pro don't need FF. Some may use it or want it but typically your entry level APSC DSLR has better quality than most FF film and would allow for huge prints already!

MF film is going to make much more visible difference in rendering and for the price of an FF you could have both: MF film + digital APSC.

Also everyday a one migrate to APSC, mirrorless or micro 4/3 because it is more practical...

[Rondec]

I used to see a different wedding photographer every week for about four years. Every week it was a full-frame.

I'm sure you are right. I live in a very rural and quite poor area of the country. I was just indicating that there are places where full frame hasn't made a big impact, even among professional photographers. As far as clients go, they really don't know the difference. When she shoots using a Pentax, they are under the impression that it is a special brand that only high end professionals use.

[Nicolas06]

I'm sure you are right. I live in a very rural and quite poor area of the country. I was just indicating that there are places where full frame hasn't made a big impact, even among professional photographers. As far as clients go, they really don't know the difference. When she shoots using a Pentax, they are under the impression that it is a special brand that only high end professionals use.

And she more true thinking that of Pentax than of Nikon or Canon... In practice Pentax has MF ! They have an offering for high end pro while Canikon has none.

[normhead]

There has been much debate over whether wedding photogs need to use FF to get the results they want. To many beginners, FF is a requirement for being in wedding photography so much that even clients started to think that if the photog is using FF cameras, he/she must be good. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, I have been to weddings when the hired photographer uses FF but was having difficulties with the flash. The ability to use external flash properly when the lighting is not optimal is more important than have a FF camera for high iso performance IMHO.

Here's the issue for me. As a wedding photographer, you want a few images that are different from what the brides friends could provide if they shoot the wedding. And your best advertising is the brides friends who come over and see the albums after the wedding. So you want to have a few images in there where they say "wow, how did he do that, that looks great". So the first thing I'm going to say is the FF images I'd take that would have to be taken with an FF would probably be less than 10% of my images. But it would be an important 10%. I'd also like to have MF along for maybe another 10% of the images.

To me, going to a wedding with less than a full arsenal of gear, is going to quickly reduce the value of your work to a large part of your prospective clients. My cousin made close to 100k a year shooting weddings with a pair of Hasselblads. He made more shooting weekend weddings than he'd did at his day job, because his work stood out from the work of guys shooting 35mm. I've had lots of guys tell me you don't need MF for weddings, and not one of them makes now what my cousin made in the 70's and 80s straight up, forget about the difference in the value of the dollar. I'm really hard sell on this issue.

I've seen my cousins sit there and put together an album, they were charging $6000 to $7000 for... when you've seen it done right.. you don't dream about trying to do it with less.

I couldn't get out of doing my daughters wedding. One pro with FF, myself with APS_c and another shooter shooting 35mm film. 3 guys shooting video, I called in every photographic favour I had out there, and still hired an outside pro with the proper gear to do the important work. I guess I find guys trying to get away with less than "everything perfect" for weddings kind of irritating.

[aleonx3]

Here's the issue for me. As a wedding photographer, you want a few images that are different from what the brides friends could provide if they shoot the wedding. And your best advertising is the brides friends who come over and see the albums after the wedding. So you want to have a few images in there where they say "wow, how did he do that, that looks great". So the first thing I'm going to say is the FF images I'd take that would have to be taken with an FF would probably be less than 10% of my images. But it would be an important 10%. I'd also like to have MF along for maybe another 10% of the images.

To me, going to a wedding with less than a full arsenal of gear, is going to quickly reduce the value of your work to a large part of your prospective clients. My cousin made close to 100k a year shooting weddings with a pair of Hasselblads. He made more shooting weekend weddings than he'd did at his day job, because his work stood out from the work of guys shooting 35mm. I've had lots of guys tell me you don't need MF for weddings, and not one of them makes now what my cousin made in the 70's and 80s straight up, forget about the difference in the value of the dollar. I'm really hard sell on this issue.

I've seen my cousins sit there and put together an album, they were charging $6000 to $7000 for... when you've seen it done right.. you don't dream about trying to do it with less.

I couldn't get out of doing my daughters wedding. One pro with FF, myself with APS_c and another shooter shooting 35mm film. 3 guys shooting video, I called in every photographic favour I had out there, and still hired an outside pro with the proper gear to do the important work. I guess I find guys trying to get away with less than "everything perfect" for weddings kind of irritating.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject of wedding photography. There is one thing I noticed that not everyone can appreciate (and differentiate) great photos versus just an average or even bad (in my book) photos. I do think that the ability to tell the difference makes us all better photographers than others. The reason I don't do weddings is not because I can't do it.... it is because I believe it needs to be done properly with a team of competent shooters and photo-editors.

[kooks]

At this time of the Digital Camera "era" i think that the biggest difference between APC-S and FF is low light performance .. besides that mmmm both can give us great images.. but for some people Low Light is really important, specially indoor shooters, events, etc...

[Class A]

At this time of the Digital Camera "era" i think that the biggest difference between APC-S and FF is low light performance...

Note that FF does not provide a low-light advantage (other than providing more lens options that are suitable for low-light shooting).

Have a look at this list of real FF advantages.

[kooks]

Note that FF does not provide a low-light advantage (other than providing more lens options that are suitable for low-light shooting).

Have a look at this list of real FF advantages.

Im thinking more like a high ISO performance, thats really what i ment, for example a D610 can go up to something like 2900 ISO without noticeable noise, but our K3 stays at arond 1200.. wich is not bad at all for an APS-C.. but as i said.. besides this ISO performance APS-C can do some great work... i wish to have int he future some APS-C technology that can push the ISO to something like 2000 without much trouble.. that would be nice specially for night/indoor shooters that need fast lenses

[rawr]

for example a D610 can go up to something like 2900 ISO without noticeable noise, but our K3 stays at arond 1200..

I can directly confirm those numbers via recent experience with both of those bodies. The high-ISO advantage is certainly real. Especially past ISO 6400. I don't care about every other FF/APS-C difference

[aurele]

Honestly, just for the huge VF, i'd like a FF. APS-C viewfinder is sized like a keyhole ...

Make an APS-C with a huge VF and i'll buy it !

[Rondec]

Note that FF does not provide a low-light advantage (other than providing more lens options that are suitable for low-light shooting).

Have a look at this list of real FF advantages.

Well, in theory, if you had a 30mm f1 lens for your APS-C camera, you could match full frame performance, but the reality is that the mounts won't take that size lens and lenses of those speeds take a huge amount of engineering to perform well.

I will say, that if you need a certain amount of depth of field and you tend to shoot low iso, you are much less likely to see a performance boost between APS-C and full frame. When I shoot landscapes at f10 on APS-C, I do so, not because my lens is sharpest there, but because I want a certain amount of depth of field. Moving to full frame just means that I have to stop down an equivalent amount. It is one of the things I have had to learn on film is that what was an adequate f stop on my K3 is not adequate on film (I need to be stopped down more, of course).

[kooks]

I can directly confirm those numbers via recent experience with both of those bodies. The high-ISO advantage is certainly real. Especially past ISO 6400. I don't care about every other FF/APS-C difference

Im going the same direction.. what i really care and like about FF is the ISO performance especially for events where light is too dim.. all the other things i can match them ( most ) with something like the K3 and some postprocesing and will be great. but ISO at APS-C have a limit...

Ofcourse for shooters that dont do it during the night/events or dont shoot at larger apertures they wont notice the difference between FF/APS-C .. and is not that APS-C is not going to do the job, its just that is not going to do it THAT good..

[totsmuyco]

I must admit that I too would like an APS-C that will have a processor that can shoot low light at 6400 without noise. Though FF may have other advantages, this is one of those I wish Pentax would give in there coming APS-C cameras.

[rawr]

is not that APS-C is not going to do the job, its just that is not going to do it THAT good..

True. There's a technical basis for that difference. It's not a value judgement.