[Medium FormatPro]

Don't most wedding photographers use zooms

Depends upon the caliper of a true professional photographer. Ideally most professionals doing a wedding would use medium format and then switch between something below an 80 and then something just above. I've also seen people use Leica's - especially the Leica Tri-focal length lens (but not zoom). For people using full frame dslr's... I've frequently seen people using two bodies - both with fixed lens.

The idea behind so many people electing to use the fixed lens is the better optics. If by chance it isn't quite close enough in the original that the mp of the sensor will still leave enough room to digitally zoom into the image later. Imagine also having a medium format between 50 and 80 mp - which still leaves quite an extraordinary amount of room to edit later and then enlarge to most any size - even when cropped extensively. Btw expect medium format backs to be available in the 105-110mp range within about six to eight months

[Drinkkeri]

Depends upon the caliper of a true professional photographer. Ideally most professionals doing a wedding would use medium format and then switch between something below an 80 and then something just above. I've also seen people use Leica's - especially the Leica Tri-focal length lens (but not zoom). For people using full frame dslr's... I've frequently seen people using two bodies - both with fixed lens.

The idea behind so many people electing to use the fixed lens is the better optics. If by chance it isn't quite close enough in the original that the mp of the sensor will still leave enough room to digitally zoom into the image later. Imagine also having a medium format between 50 and 80 mp - which still leaves quite an extraordinary amount of room to edit later and then enlarge to most any size - even when cropped extensively. Btw expect medium format backs to be available in the 105-110mp range within about six to eight months

On my behalf I must say used equipment is purely based on shooting conditions. Up in the northern Finland where I work most of the churches are old small wooden ones, ironically dark as the deepest pits of hell and that means no medium format since smaller sensors fare better in the dark. Last summer I was shooting in the second oldest church in Finland where even flash is prohibited since it affects the paintings. Leica, altough most propably having the best lenses in the world, is out of the question because you'll get the same results, when printed in reasonable sizes (the biggest we offer is 120x100cm), with SLR-system with a fraction of the price.

When I worked as a freelancer and used my own Pentax equipment (from K10 to K-5) I at first used my fast primes to cope with noise and when I rolled up the evolution of Pentax bodies I started to use my f/4 and F/2.8 zooms and eventually the old trusty primes were used only when f/2.8 just wasn't fast enough. As I started working in fairly large studio I had to use their equipment (Canon 1DsII to 5DmkIII) i grew quite fond of using two bodies and two fast zooms (16-35 and 70-200) during the wedding seremony and in the afterparty switched the 70-200 in to 50 and 85. Medium format, in my opinion, is reserved for the portrait work where you are not in the hurry and thus have the time to get the best out of that sensor.

During the film days a medium format body or two with changeable backs loaded with fast negative film was the ultimate answer since it actually worked better than the same film in 35mm format.

And for the actual topic
I can't wait having full frame K-mount body and fast ultra wide zoom lens since the only reason I'm not still using my own equipment instead of company offered Canon is the lack of that nice 11-16/2.8 all the others are getting in aps-c from Tokina. Also the PTT-L system could get a tad more consistent.

edit: Also, while being quite fond of the 16-35mm focal lenght, I'm not that fond of the image quality of said Canon lens wide open (even the II-version isn't that good).

[creampuff]

Depends upon the caliper of a true professional photographer. Ideally most professionals doing a wedding would use medium format and then switch between something below an 80 and then something just above. I've also seen people use Leica's - especially the Leica Tri-focal length lens (but not zoom). For people using full frame dslr's... I've frequently seen people using two bodies - both with fixed lens.

The idea behind so many people electing to use the fixed lens is the better optics. If by chance it isn't quite close enough in the original that the mp of the sensor will still leave enough room to digitally zoom into the image later. Imagine also having a medium format between 50 and 80 mp - which still leaves quite an extraordinary amount of room to edit later and then enlarge to most any size - even when cropped extensively. Btw expect medium format backs to be available in the 105-110mp range within about six to eight months

Sorry but I what you've stated does not bear out at all with what a number of professional wedding shooters whom I know very well use for their work. Two of my friends who are FRPS members use everything from zooms and prime lenses and typically use Nikon or Canon, not Leica and rarely with medium format unless it's a planned formal setup shot. Most do not use medium format on digital at all but rely on the gear that allows them to focus and shoot quickly to capture the spontaneity of the session, that's FF or cropped APS-C sensors.

The suggestion that one needs to use prime lenses alone is ludicrous. Top shooters compose within the viewfinder and rely less on the digital zoom idea that you suggest. They will use any lens, zoom or prime, so long as it delivers the results they seek.

[ElJamoquio]

Depends upon the caliper of a true professional photographer. Ideally most professionals doing a wedding would use medium format and then switch between something below an 80 and then something just above. I've also seen people use Leica's - especially the Leica Tri-focal length lens (but not zoom). For people using full frame dslr's... I've frequently seen people using two bodies - both with fixed lens.

I see a wedding almost every week at work. I've yet to see a Leica. It's mostly Canon's.

[Winder]

I know of 5 wedding togs in my market that use either 645 or 6x6 MF at least 50% of the time. Film has made comeback in the higher end markets where people can still pay the added cost of film.

I don't know of any who are using a digital back, but plenty of higher end guys shooting MF film and carry FF Canon/Nikon digital bodies. I'm sure everyone's market is a little different.

[photoephemere]

I used to work as wedding photographer, but i m also director of photography for french humorists ...

I've had Nikon, Canon, Pentax bodys ... for weedings, I only work in France for big ceremony and ... I 've choosed now to work with only furtives Pentax K5 ... why ? Because it's a great body, light, giving me quite equal quality to my D3 ones !

Canon's body like 7d, 5dmII i was using didn"t enjoy me : plastic made, not great focus for the 5dmII, not real better picture than my k5, not enjoying to control ... for me it has always been 'has been' body ! ... i 've sold them within 6 months !!!

Nikon ? i still have one and won't comment as i love it as my pentax !

I enjoy a lot the rendition of the k5, well balanced, well contrasted, it's the only one that gives me the feeling to work with "argentique".

Choosing Aps-c ... instead of full frame ? ... For same price, Find me an equivalent for a 127 1.4 ( 85 1.4 cropped x 1,5 ) like a 135 1.4 on ff and i will enjoy !

For the moment, K5 + 127 1.4 ( 85 1.4 or a 30 1.4 or 50 1.4 ) is a best combo for weddings and low-light shooting like party ! ... For the price, i never saw elsewhere this equivalent of such a combo with 135 1,4 mm etc etc ...

I work so with 2 K5 setting them with different lenses : 30 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4 and 16 50 2.8 & 50 135 2.8 ; 2 x Flash AF360

It gives me the best and furtive way in weddings, but i also work with a d3 as a full frame when needed ... when needed ? : now only for very very fast action and compo and when i need to manage more my bockey with full frame, also when i need raw that i can develop very quickly ( 12 Mo ), when i need a precise balanced softness that the 24x36 can deliver better to me, when i need to work real lens without crop ... waiting to see what pentax will deliver us one day !

For studio when time and money is given to create best, or in weddings for best studio (in or out) pictures and when specfic back plan and bockey is needed i used a 645d whe had bought with some others photographer i know, because no other format can deliver such back bockey ...

On a wedding day ? when a geek dad photographer asked me ( very marginaly) what i' m working with, showing me he has a brand new canon ? i 'm used to answer thant i work with my eyes, my head and my hands and my experiences to deliver best pictures using best lenses no way the the body ... ;-) , other times, i answer that i work with a smile !

at this point of view, i must tell you that all my bodys had been modified with black gafer as "no name" ones, same for optics.

It's very very unusual for me to see some people coming to me to ask me what i m working with ... but it always makes me laugh because when someone comes too me with that asking it's always turning in "can you explain me something i didn't understood on my canon ? " or "can you deliver me some tips ?" ...

Prime lens and practice makes advantages of a photographer ... not the company name of a body ! ...

i 'm so used to see people with last canon FF equiped with an entry level transtandard zoom being proud of their body but didn't suceed taking picture without flash in a church : of course at f 5.6 with a 70 210 3,5 5,6 ! or didn"t succeding for a quality picture because their body are not calibrated and lenses not adjusted ! the more of them use in P modes, take iso at max ... !!! ...

i prefer my k5 with primes that are very furtive and less disturbing for people (as the shutter 2 is very furtive ! imagine in a church the advantage !!!!!!! ;-)))), and if a body fall and break down ... it's a better controled invest !

Let me tell you again that it's very marginal that people matter with my equipment, and i must tell that in 95% of my activity, no one mater what i m working with, it's my affair as i deliver satisfacting pictures they are waiting for and they paid me for !

For the moment, my combos K5 + D3 for full frame is the very best for me till pentax will wake up showing me what they can do with ff ! ;-)

645 is a format "must have" for very high controled and quality pictures.

98% of my recurent customers haven't seen i have changed my bodys ! : all that matter is when they have a look on the pictures and they feel and say : "it's great pictures, i enjoy, thank you very much that's exactly what we were wainting for !!!! "

So ... stop thinking that people are looking at your equipment and Enjoy ! ;-))))

(sorry for my old poor english, i don"t practice a lot here in france) ...

[Ash]

Simply put, pros who do the job daily, and need practicality, not just IQ, use the gear that gets the job done - and that gear can be found in most of the brands nowadays, including Pentax. The K-5 is a fine machine for the fast-paced wedding. Low light capability and good lenses are just about the only requirements, and the K-5 can do this. Of course, so can the top end APS-C and FF C&N models. For the photographer, it's just a means to an end. Enthusiasts are more interested in the journey. So the photographic experience is more pertinent to them, hence Pentax's niche in this group. And that's what makes me a Pentaxian.

[photoephemere]

that's what i think 2 ! ;-) ( and i was thinking one time that it was the pentax way of photography, a pentax feeling ! ;-) ) ...

more important to me is to have the feeling ! : the feeling with my camera, the feeling with my customers, the feeling of the time, the feeling of what i shoot ;-)))) Material just help me to do easily what i want ;-)

If in a shooting day, i don't have the feeling with people for example, if they are boring with me ... i can do what i want and have the best camera ... i will fight to have THE picture ;-) ... if felling is here ... it will be more easy ! ;-)

but ... we re flooding ... the object here is : pentax full frame camera ! ... so ...

WHEEEEENNNNNNNN ?????

[Fl_Gulfer]

If It dosen't happen before Dec. 21, 2012 then it's never going to happen.......lol

[Allison]

Depends upon the caliper of a true professional photographer. Ideally most professionals doing a wedding would use medium format and then switch between something below an 80 and then something just above. I've also seen people use Leica's - especially the Leica Tri-focal length lens (but not zoom). For people using full frame dslr's... I've frequently seen people using two bodies - both with fixed lens.

The idea behind so many people electing to use the fixed lens is the better optics. If by chance it isn't quite close enough in the original that the mp of the sensor will still leave enough room to digitally zoom into the image later. Imagine also having a medium format between 50 and 80 mp - which still leaves quite an extraordinary amount of room to edit later and then enlarge to most any size - even when cropped extensively. Btw expect medium format backs to be available in the 105-110mp range within about six to eight months

I am sorry, but this is not necessarily true. In the local pro group I belong to (and most members are wedding shooters) no one is shooting on medium format or leicas. Now that said, most of them are using FF. some use two FF bodies, others use a crop and a FF. Ideally, I would like to have both a FFand crop body so I can take advantage of the best of both systems.

I find that most wedding shooters are also mixing in zooms and primes. I have been in venues so dark I need to take full advantage of a prime wide open. I have also been in such tight spaces that I cannot move surfing the ceremony and I rely on zooms to give me a few different perspectives from a very tough spot. Plus, there are differences in the part of the day you are working on. For instance, the romantic shots, well, I do almost all of those on the fa ltds. I shoot engagements on the fa ltds. But...getting ready in a small bedroom with a bride and 6 bridesmaids? That belongs to the 16-50.

As to cropping in post, wedding shooters can do this with a ff or with a crop. Most prints are 16x20 or smaller with an occasional 20x30. Neither the photographer or the clients need a 50-80mp image, let alone 700-1000 of them.

I am not saying that there aren't wedding pros out there using medium format, certainly there are, but you are talking about the pros who are charging 7-10k per wedding. The average American wedding is going to be shot on either FF or crop with both zooms and primes.

[Medium FormatPro]

Just take a look at ones local market. Unless one really lives in a very rural area in america - whould we include the top fifty american sities??

-And also just how much could one expect to pay to cover a quality wedding? One really has to consider a few major factors, such as:

1. Is the photographer a career professional and/or artistic professional, r part-time pro.
2. How long have they been doing photography, how many professional clients, and what does the portfolio look like.
3. How much coverage? Just day of the wedding and then the dinner afterwards; or more along the lines of coverge that might take three to four full days?

If we're talking paying someone to shoot a wedding for about 1k; then you really get what you pay for. I cannot begin to tell everyone how many horror stories I've heard about items such as this. Paying someone to do something and then they miss all of the critical coverage and moments - not even enough qality results to make much with.

I alo happen to know photographers from quite the number of diversified markets. Let me name a few as examples...

In Pittsburgh, PA there are nine professional photographers that do weddings with either high end full frame's and also offer medium format. Naturally not every one of their jobs is medium format. Let me also specifically mention; that's part of my market. Last calender year (2011) I did eight wedding that were done mostly with medium format at the wedding event. Five of those weddings were enough to pay for A Hassy with three lens' and then some. Naturally that's also not including all of the other work I've done.

To conclude for now... Something as critical as portraits and weddings rely rely on two specific items that really tend to show up in enlargements. Those two items; sensor size and also lens optical ability. Take a cut off of the lens quality and you'll might as well be shooting a wedding with a LensBaby. It wouldn't take a photographer to tell the difference between real results when going to an enlargement 11x14 or larger. Better to have more room to work with than not enough.

[monochrome]

If we're talking paying someone to shoot a wedding for about 1k; then you really get what you pay for. I cannot begin to tell everyone how many horror stories I've heard about items such as this. Paying someone to do something and then they miss all of the critical coverage and moments - not even enough qality results to make much with.

In defense of wedding togs, sometimes they produce what the buyer wants to pay for. [EDIT: The rest of the post contributes nothing to the discussion so I removed it]

[topace]

Choosing Aps-c ... instead of full frame ? ... For same price, Find me an equivalent for a 127 1.4 ( 85 1.4 cropped x 1,5 ) like a 135 1.4 on ff and i will enjoy !

Those are not equivalent systems. To get the same image, the max aperture and ISO will have to change as well, so get a 135/2.1 and use just over twice the ISO value to get the same image from the FF camera.

So, starting from some FF capable lenses, the equivalent APS-C I'd have to find would be:

135/1.8: 90/1.2
85/1.4: 57/0.95
50/1.2: 33/0.8

and so on. These obviously don't exist in APS-C, and if they did, they would be quite outrageously expensive. I guess that's my main reason for wanting FF, at least as far as image quality goes.

[Clavius]

Those are not equivalent systems. To get the same image, the max aperture and ISO will have to change as well, so get a 135/2.1 and use just over twice the ISO value to get the same image from the FF camera.

So, starting from some FF capable lenses, the equivalent APS-C I'd have to find would be:

135/1.8: 90/1.2
85/1.4: 57/0.95
50/1.2: 33/0.8

and so on. These obviously don't exist in APS-C, and if they did, they would be quite outrageously expensive. I guess that's my main reason for wanting FF, at least as far as image quality goes.

A 50 1.2 creates a shallow DOF on APSC that's barely useable. The DOF on FF will be even more narrow. I'm very intersted in what kind of situatiation a photographer would actually need 50mm 1.2 on FF.

[Kunzite]

Forum "APS-C vs. FF" comparisons?