[monochrome]

That might actually be a business idea: "your wedding instantly in retro look on Instagram! The guests can enjoy the photos while the father-in-law is speaking!"

That actually happened at my son's wedding July 28th. iPhone sounds were a constant background throughout the reception.

One of the iPhone4s Instagram photos became the most-linked Facebook photo on their separate Facebook pages while they were (not posting) on their Honeymoon. No one cares that it was a crap photo - and we later learned it captured a "moment" that the paid photographer missed.

FWIW, the world has changed.

[Allison]

That actually happened at my son's wedding July 28th. iPhone sounds were a constant background throughout the reception.

One of the iPhone4s Instagram photos became the most-linked Facebook photo on their separate Facebook pages while they were (not posting) on their Honeymoon. No one cares that it was a crap photo - and we later learned it captured a "moment" that the paid photographer missed.

FWIW, the world has changed.

I can't tell you how many times I pose a couple and then an army of iphones are going off over my shoulders. Those pictures hit facebook and twitter immediately. And couples are asking me if I can do an "instagram" effect on some portraits too.

I don't actually consider this a bad thing. People are taking more pictures than ever and apps like instagram open people up to all of the things they can do with a photograph. When they get interested enough, they go out and buy a camera with an interchangeable lens so they can have even more options. This is just the evolution of the art form.

[Allison]

A bit more about a 1k wedding. Think of how much the typical photographer would make on a 1k wedding?

How much per hour in wages for the event(S)? How much just to print the results? How much to color balance and calibrate to the bride? How much for other editing? Also noting that most quality wedding albums easily exceed one hundred dollars each. Now we're talking that the photog would almost be making minimm wage for that - especially if they "legally declare" that income.

The typical 1K wedding doesn't include an album or prints or anything beyond online proofing. Most photographers out there shooting at that range are just offering the images on a disk with a release. The images are edited and if you are doing the shooting right, you are able to minimize the amount of post processing that is needed. A lot of wedding photographers out there are taking less than 5% of their images into photoshop for editing. The images are imported into lightroom, culled, and then the chosen ones have basic adjustments made.

Brides that want the albums, the prints, the canvases or the metal prints - they will pay more. Some will buy them in the months following the wedding. Of course you get what you pay for, but just because you could only afford to pay 1K doesn't mean that you aren't going to have beautiful images available to you, you just might not have a $800 album.

And yes, the mills are gone, people are educated, and there are more white collar workers here than there were 20 years ago, but...they there are plenty of sub-25K weddings in this city. Not all of those white collar, educated workers in western PA are earning over $100k. Those non-platinum brides are not your clients - I get it. Good for you - you serve the high-end crowd. But don't knock the pros out there who aren't shooting MF as being lesser because they made a choice to not shoot MF. There is no rule that says a "real" wedding photographer only shoots with MF.

[monochrome]

I can't tell you how many times I pose a couple and then an army of iphones are going off over my shoulders. Those pictures hit facebook and twitter immediately. And couples are asking me if I can do an "instagram" effect on some portraits too.

I don't actually consider this a bad thing. People are taking more pictures than ever and apps like instagram open people up to all of the things they can do with a photograph. When they get interested enough, they go out and buy a camera with an interchangeable lens so they can have even more options. This is just the evolution of the art form.

Yes, but you sound like you are good. If you've read my recent posts about my son's unfortunate experience you can surmise that the iPhones actually carried the pro instead of the other way 'round.

RE: ILC purchases, maybe when these mid-twenties kids start producing grandchildren.

[ihasa]

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.

The draw of a FF system (to me) is the possibility of narrow DOF from smaller, cheaper, more readily available lenses, or being able to stop down a click or two and still have the same sort of (or less) dof... the appeal is I wouldn't *have* to invest in f1.2 lenses to try in vain to get that 'look'. I say 'in vain' because if you crop into the image circle of a f1.2 lens at max. aperture, you increase the impact of all the glow and aberrations that usually go hand in hand with wide-open shooting.

[thibs]

Well, if you crop, you enlarge the image and you modify the DOF anyway (because CoC changes), for a given print size of course.

[bossa]

The thing that most of us seem to overlook is that the APS-C lenses (at least Pentax primes anyway) are closer focusing than their 'equivalent' and longer FL FF lenses making them completely different animals. I tried to match the output of my DA*55 on K-5 with my Sigma 85 on my D800 and failed without buying extension tubes to get closer..but then I couldn't get far enough away and the rendering was completely different anyway - too bland. Without buying a macro lens of similar FOV it would be almost impossible to match that lens but then other issues like aperture come into it. Unfortunately I sold both my DA*55 and FA31 last week but will probably keep my FA77... at least for now.

PS: I can only imagine a Zeiss 100/2 Makro planar doing what I want here and that's a very expensive lens.

[normhead]

hey bossa, I once tried to replicate the DoF on an FF by doing the same flower, and ruler using a 35 to emulate APS-c and a 50 to emulate FF, Exactly the same thing happened. I couldn't focus as closely with the 50 as I could with the 35 so I had to reshoot.

By the way the results were, twice as much DoF using the 35 as compared to using the 50 from the same distance with the same settings. ( Or twice as narrow depth of field using the 50, depending on how you choose to look at it. Sometimes you just have to cut through the BS and find out experimentally what's true. Yet some people on here have proved to me mathematically that it isn't so. Yawn.

(That's right folks, using "equivalent" lenses, twice as skinny DoF on FF if thats what you want...you heard it here first. Test done in normhead's back yard, deal with it.)

[RobA_Oz]

Actually I'm a bit amazed that the wedding photography industry is such a big thing - people are putting far too much money and prestige into weddings and still most if them get divorced

Look at it this way - if you plan on making your wedding the best day of your life, the rest has to be downhill from there. It's a form of unwitting self-sabotage, on that basis.

As for phone cameras at weddings (or any other occasion, for that matter) the fact that users, especially younger users, are taking photos of the bride and groom makes a welcome change from taking photos of themselves.

This thread has got seriously off-topic, but it's refreshing to see a FF thread being hijacked by photography in general, rather than the other way around.

[lammie200]

Look at it this way - if you plan on making your wedding the best day of your life, the rest has to be downhill from there. It's a form of unwitting self-sabotage, on that basis.

Same can be said about that 5-hour energy drink. Drink four in a day and you might live the most amazing day of your life. Drink five in a day and not only has the day been ruined, but the next day will be as well.

[Eric Auer]

This thread has got seriously off-topic, but it's refreshing to see a FF thread being hijacked by photography in general, rather than the other way around.

[xidai]

glad to know it!
Finally some good news about the FF camera!

[Allison]

Same can be said about that 5-hour energy drink. Drink four in a day and you might live the most amazing day of your life. Drink five in a day and not only has the day been ruined, but the next day will be as well.

Personal experience?

[RobA_Oz]

glad to know it!
Finally some good news about the FF camera!

Welcome to the Forums, xidai. We're a long way from seeing it yet, I suspect, but at least we can be confident about it now.

[ironlionzion]

I just installed a focusing screen into my K-x to make it easier to focus my manual lenses. For some reason it was a lot harder to line up the split image than my MX. I pulled out my MX with a standard m50 1.7 and compared it with my Kx+43mm. People really aren't kidding when they say how much brighter and larger the viewfinder in FF is. Manual focusing with the MX is simply easy and spot on, even in low light. With the Kx the image is so dark and small that it is borderline useless indoors. I also bought the split screen for use with my AF lenses indoors when the AF is acting up - so much for that.

Remember when you upgraded from that laggy, dark, glare-prone lcd screen in your point and shoot to the bright, open viewfinder in your APS-C. I couldn't imagine going back. It's kind of the same thing once you realize how much brighter and larger the viewfinder is in a FF dslr.

I like Pentax's lens lineup too much to jump ship, so for now I'll wait