Chinese wedding, Sony A9!

That's a bit more than a "little preview" ;)
I'm not sure I'd include the photo of the dog doing it's business though and a couple of the laughing shots look forced.
Otherwise a very good set.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Nice indeed

But if I can just ask @Project Valentine why the move from the Fuji to FX? I'm wondering as a couple of my mates rave about the fuji having moved from Canon/Nikon FX to it

Cheers

Dave
Click to expand...
One of my friends who shoots weddings has recently switched from Fuji to Sony because the AF on the Fuji (X-T2) was just not reliable enough for weddings (in his opinion) and had messed up too many times.
On the flip-side I have another wedding tog friend who has moved from Canon (5D3) to a Fuji setup (X-Pro2 and X-T3) because of the size factor and that it doesn't compromise on image quality. No idea what he thinks about AF reliability though, will have to ask.
 
ABTog said:
That's a bit more than a "little preview" ;)
I'm not sure I'd include the photo of the dog doing it's business though and a couple of the laughing shots look forced.
Otherwise a very good set.
Click to expand...

Thanks! Surprisingly, the dog pooping photo has gone down the best with people on social media :ROFLMAO: I guess they're enjoying something a little different! The laughing shots are all natural though during the drinks reception.

DG Phototraining said:
Nice indeed

But if I can just ask @Project Valentine why the move from the Fuji to FX? I'm wondering as a couple of my mates rave about the fuji having moved from Canon/Nikon FX to it

Cheers

Dave
Click to expand...

Hey! Thanks :) I moved from the Canon Mark iii in September 2017 to the Fuji XT2 and LOVED the change. The size and weight was unreal coming from all my heavy canon gear. I never really had an issue with the focus speed as I had a bag of lenses so grabbed the right one to suit the moment. It did mean having a few extra lenses though, like the 23mm f2 and 23mm f1.4, one for speed and one for low light!

When the XT3 came out and they said about the speed boost and backlit sensor, I thought my prays were answered. A faster system and better low light. Turns out the low light performance in image quality was no better off though focusing was much snappier and it made the older 1.4 and 1.2 lenses MUCH better, so much so I didn't use my f2 lenses.

The one thing I always missed though was the full frame look on the wider lenses like 35mm, and the extra advances with the stops of light. When it's grim up north and you're not in the best of lit venues, I was having to ride the ISO and although it's much nice than my Canon files, I knew I'd have an extra advance going back to full frame so jumped to Sony to keep with the mirrorless system. I love the EVF, it's really helped with nailing it first time and moving on to the next moment.

If you live in a place where you get better weather, I'd have the XT3 in a heartbeat. I can see why so many international photographers use them religiously and I still have an XT2 for personal work and holidays and they're a very fun system to use.

TGphoto said:
I follow your work on instagram as you did my friends wedding, stunning work both here and on IG.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much!!

ABTog said:
One of my friends who shoots weddings has recently switched from Fuji to Sony because the AF on the Fuji (X-T2) was just not reliable enough for weddings (in his opinion) and had messed up too many times.
On the flip-side I have another wedding tog friend who has moved from Canon (5D3) to a Fuji setup (X-Pro2 and X-T3) because of the size factor and that it doesn't compromise on image quality. No idea what he thinks about AF reliability though, will have to ask.
Click to expand...

AF reliability on the XT3 is much better than the XT2, but compared to the Sony... it's not as good. The Sony is a machine at locking on and nailing it 9 times out of 10! The Fuji was great for static subjects but did struggle with moment more.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Thanks for that Jack - I'm really intrigued as I know a 'grim' Pro who swears by his Fujis and another (southerner lol) who's just moved to the S-T3 from his Canons too

Cheers :)

Dave
Click to expand...

I think it is a question of a good big one always beating a good small one.
however the difference in peoples actual shots that we see seems almost infinitesimal. So there can not be a definitive answer.

The size weight and convenience of a whole kit can have a biger say than the very imperceptable difference in quality.

The focussing ability and the lowlight performance of both Sony and Fuji are now so far in advance of any previous mirrorless cameras, and almost all Dslr's that the choice must come down to a purely personal one. A customer will neve tell the difference.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
A customer will neve tell the difference.
Click to expand...

That's the key factor for me too as I consider switching to mirrorless

The two chaps I was referring to say the smaller (lens mostly) size makes them far less conspicuous and candids more easy - which I like

I do recall having to use my then top-of-the-range D2Xs at 3200 ISO and almost crying at the embarrassment of the noise and lack of quality :( Yet one of those church images made for a double-page spread and the couple loved it :) We are our own worst enemy in this at times :D

Dave
 
The noise performance on the fuji is much nicer than my Mark iii. It’s more like a film grain without the colour noise so looks cleaner. Bad light is bad light, all cameras will suffer when it’s like that, but I’ve had shots at 6400 on fuji and they’ve been fine, also had shots were they’ve been muddy.

Had a 2nd shooter use canon at my last wedding and the hit rate, noise and size of the camera makes me realise I’d never go back!!
 
Project Valentine said:
Had a 2nd shooter use canon at my last wedding and the hit rate, noise and size of the camera makes me realise I’d never go back!!
Click to expand...

Yep I can appreciate that - especially of Canon lol

If the face/eye detection is good on my day out playing with Fuji on a workshop then that'll be where my money goes next. The more I see/read the more I realise it'll be a really useful step-forward for how I like & want to shoot :)

Thanks for your comments

Dave
 
Great work Jack. Haven’t look in here for along time but glad I did.

@DG Phototraining do have a good look at the Sony if you’re switching systems, I too wouldn’t go back for all the reasons mentioned. Hit rate is phenomenal.
 
Livin The Dream said:
Great work Jack. Haven’t look in here for along time but glad I did.

@DG Phototraining do have a good look at the Sony if you’re switching systems, I too wouldn’t go back for all the reasons mentioned. Hit rate is phenomenal.
Click to expand...

I have been looking at both Kris, and both have advantages & disadvantages that are pushing & pulling me in almost equal measure, that said, Fuji has the edge at the mo and I'll make that decision after a forthcoming day using them shooting on a fine art workshop with a guy who's work I like and I know him fairly well too

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I have been looking at both Kris, and both have advantages & disadvantages that are pushing & pulling me in almost equal measure, that said, Fuji has the edge at the mo and I'll make that decision after a forthcoming day using them shooting on a fine art workshop with a guy who's work I like and I know him fairly well too

Dave
Click to expand...

Tbf Dave, both systems I’m sure will be up to the job. We are spoilt these days and there’s slight pro’s and con’s both ways I’m sure.

One major benefit for you may be to utilise your existing lenses with adaptor easily enough?
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
I have been looking at both Kris, and both have advantages & disadvantages that are pushing & pulling me in almost equal measure, that said, Fuji has the edge at the mo and I'll make that decision after a forthcoming day using them shooting on a fine art workshop with a guy who's work I like and I know him fairly well too

Dave
Click to expand...


The problem is that we are living in exciting times. It it just one ground breaking development after another.
I can not believe that we will hang on to bodies that long.
So buying decisions must take into account the quality and size, weight and COST of of the various lenses. I am impressed with the quality of both Fuji and Sony lenses, however the size and weight of the Sony FF lenses is somewhat off-putting in comparison.
.
 
@Livin The Dream & @Terrywoodenpic

Yep my Nikon lenses would work with the Sony via the adaptor, but adding the adaptor means the combination is as big as the current bodies are, so there's no benefit there

The Fuji on the other hand has much smaller lenses some of which are already better than my current ones

Added to which the comparable Fuji / Sony setups has the Fuji at over £2,000 cheaper

Both cameras have 'upgrades' in operation of the DSLR, and a major benefit too is size reduction - not really for weight (I'm no wimp lol), but just getting what I need in a smaller bag too would be a bonus

I believe the Sony with the best glass is better than the Fuji with the best glass, but the margin is so little it doesn't warrant the cost or size/weight disadvantage - at least that's my research/thinking so far; the playday with Fuji will settle it :)

Cheers

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
@Livin The Dream & @Terrywoodenpic

Yep my Nikon lenses would work with the Sony via the adaptor, but adding the adaptor means the combination is as big as the current bodies are, so there's no benefit there

The Fuji on the other hand has much smaller lenses some of which are already better than my current ones

Added to which the comparable Fuji / Sony setups has the Fuji at over £2,000 cheaper

Both cameras have 'upgrades' in operation of the DSLR, and a major benefit too is size reduction - not really for weight (I'm no wimp lol), but just getting what I need in a smaller bag too would be a bonus

I believe the Sony with the best glass is better than the Fuji with the best glass, but the margin is so little it doesn't warrant the cost or size/weight disadvantage - at least that's my research/thinking so far; the playday with Fuji will settle it :)

Cheers

Dave
Click to expand...

I dismissed the advantage of size as, like you, am fit and able, so didn’t foresee an advantage, especially given my lenses are mostly 1.4’s. But the one small 1.8 I do have is great to use and you do become a little more conspicuous as a result.

Sounds like a no-brainer for you. I actually thought you were using Canon kit where the adaptor is excellent.
 
The Fuji is VERY good value for money. Yes the hit rate isn’t as good as the Sony, but it’s certainly better than my Mark iii was! The size of the body with the 23mm 1.4 was perfect for sneaking around. The 35mm 1.4 for my Sony is way to big and I’m hoping the rumoured 35mm 1.8 is much smaller. I’m willing to drop the extra stop for the size as I like to get close and the size currently makes it too obvious!
 
Project Valentine said:
The Fuji is VERY good value for money. Yes the hit rate isn’t as good as the Sony, but it’s certainly better than my Mark iii was! The size of the body with the 23mm 1.4 was perfect for sneaking around. The 35mm 1.4 for my Sony is way to big and I’m hoping the rumoured 35mm 1.8 is much smaller. I’m willing to drop the extra stop for the size as I like to get close and the size currently makes it too obvious!
Click to expand...

Wouldn't hold your breath on the 35 1.8. Some people have been waiting years! :LOL: Like you i would consider it instead of the 35 1.4 I use.

I moved over to Sony and wouldn't go back to DSLR. The hit rate is insane. Confetti shots with 50 pics taken and two OOF is pretty incredible especially at f1.4.

Some great work Jack (y)
 
DG Phototraining said:
That hit-rate is insane !!! But so is taking 50 shots for confetti lol :D

Dave
Click to expand...

Easily done, and ensures you get the right expression of the couple. Easy to delete after than to wish you'd shot more. I always do a confetti tunnel and sometime they can be 75 foot long. It's a lot of fun and bride and grooms love it.
 
T_J_G said:
Easily done, and ensures you get the right expression of the couple. Easy to delete after than to wish you'd shot more. I always do a confetti tunnel and sometime they can be 75 foot long. It's a lot of fun and bride and grooms love it.
Click to expand...

I 'tunnel' too - but with rarely more than 30 guests, 15 a side, its about 20ft long :)

I usually take about 12 aiming for 3 worth them seeing, if more than 3 that's a bonus

I guess using the electronic shutter means you don't care about shooting too many as there's no 'actuation' record that reduces the value of the camera?

That's not why I shoot so much fewer though lol

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
I 'tunnel' too - but with rarely more than 30 guests, 15 a side, its about 20ft long :)

I usually take about 12 aiming for 3 worth them seeing, if more than 3 that's a bonus

I guess using the electronic shutter means you don't care about shooting too many as there's no 'actuation' record that reduces the value of the camera?

That's not why I shoot so much fewer though lol

Dave
Click to expand...

I don't use electronic shutter. I'm not fussed about camera value, just fussed about delivering the best photos possible in that situation. The cameras are just tools, they'll be worthless in 2 years anyway.

I've had tunnels with 70 guests so probably twice as long as yours. I always make sure the couple have plenty of confetti and this is something I mention I did in the initial meeting.
 
T_J_G said:
I always make sure the couple have plenty of confetti and this is something I mention I did in the initial meeting.
Click to expand...

Fascinating - I love this business for how differently we all approach the same thing :)

I NEVER bring up a confetti shot as most of my couples don't want one, it probably crops up about 1:10 - I hate them being covered in the stuff before any private B&G session too, so where it does crop up in conversation I ask them to consider if they really want those shots 'spoiling' with confetti; most then decide not to bother

For those that do want it though I always suggest they buy it themselves as so few Guests I find now bring any. Just a few weeks ago I had a confetti shot where 3 elderly women asked for a confetti shot, and the B&G obliged even though they hadn't planned for one, they just shared 1 box as that's all they had between them - while the expressions were fun the amount of confetti was pathetic :D

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Fascinating - I love this business for how differently we all approach the same thing :)

I NEVER bring up a confetti shot as most of my couples don't want one, it probably crops up about 1:10 - I hate them being covered in the stuff before any private B&G session too, so where it does crop up in conversation I ask them to consider if they really want those shots 'spoiling' with confetti; most then decide not to bother

For those that do want it though I always suggest they buy it themselves as so few Guests I find now bring any. Just a few weeks ago I had a confetti shot where 3 elderly women asked for a confetti shot, and the B&G obliged even though they hadn't planned for one, they just shared 1 box as that's all they had between them - while the expressions were fun the amount of confetti was pathetic :D

Dave
Click to expand...

Ah I always offer it, it’s such a fun way to end the group shots. The confetti never spoils the couples photos after.

I had one at a wedding, two people with confetti. Couple still wanted a picture done!
 
DG Phototraining said:
As & when I do change it will be to the Fuji system - maybe later this year even :)

Dave
Click to expand...
Aren't you worried about low light & subsequent AF performance with an APSC sensor
 
gilbouk said:
Aren't you worried about low light & subsequent AF performance with an APSC sensor
Click to expand...

No - the Fuji is fine at 4000 ISO, which is my usual highest, and the lenses are faster so I'm less likely to need 4000 ISO anyway

The AF is fine on the XT-3 too, I've already used it in relatively low light. The rest of the time it, with face and eye tracking, is far superior to a DSLR

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top