Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Andrew Jordan wrote: >. Question: Is the EOS >system superior to Nikon with respect to focusing in dim light? I don't know, I haven't used Nikon AF. The EOS doesn't always work perfectly either. > Second, if >the autofocus is a "must" for you why do the "pro" photographers still >almost exclusively use 500CM and similar MF cameras at weddings? >Surely, not for focusing ease in action shots on the dance floor. I have never been to a wedding in the Midwest where anyone used a medium format camera. To my knowledge, none of my friends have made an enlargement from their wedding bigger than 8x10. A Hasselblad is plain overkill for small prints and you end up spending a lot of time cropping negatives to get the right size final prints. With 35mm and zooms, I can shoot everything without the need for future cropping and the couple can take the negs to any minilab and get prints that look great. ( I give the prints and negs to the couple and they get to handle it from there) Plus I do quite a bit of available work, try that with a Hasselblad. I can also use lens from 17mm to 200 quickly. Try that with a Hasselblad or M. (I had a Hasselblad and sold it to buy M) and I can shoot a series of moving subjects. Some of the most well known wedding photographers use both EOS 35mm and 2 1/4 Hasselblad. Besides, they get paid big $$$ to shoot weddings and the clients probably expect that they'll use it. Also many of the shots I've seen from the dance floor (in magazines at least) are taken with a really wide SWC which is scale focused anyhow. There are lots of ways to shoot weddings. If you can get everything the bride and groom wants using a Viso and DR or an M with 3 lenses. GO for it. I know that 40 % of the stuff I shoot could not be done with an M camera period . The other 60 % could and I admit that a few shots probably would improve by using M. Probably 75% of the stuff couldn't be done with a Hasselblad. As much as I like M-cameras I know their limits with the work I do and I can't stand being limited by a stupid camera or not having the right lens. I want to be able to use lenses from 20 to 200 quickly. I need to be able to frame the same shot several ways quickly. In some churches I've stood on a pew or a chair to get up higher for the formal shots. How in the world can you get the framing perfect in this instance (without a zoom) without moving the chair or hopping between pews? You certainly can't do that quickly and you'll probably fall or drop a camera. Last off, none of you have seen my wedding photographs and I have seen none of yours. So let's try not to take things too personally. I would far rather sit in the audience with my friends during a wedding than work it. I'm not a wedding photographer, I'm the in-house photographer who shoots about everything imaginable. I photograph all kinds of medical stuff, technical stuff, journalism stuff, advertising stuff, family portrait stuff, sports stuff, post card and calender stuff, travel and tourism stuff and have photographed more top government officials and dignitaries than you can shake a stick at. I have just seen too many awful wedding photographers who have no idea what they're doing, miss certain moments, don't seem to get the right expressions and don't pay attention to details. I've seen people who might take great stuff of sports or landscapes but can't do weddings. Let's face it, it's easier to talk about it than to do it. Duane