The new Nikon D500 DX for wedding photography ?

tesco

tesco

Messages
141
Edit My Images
No
I wondered whether it would cut the mustard for professional wedding photography or will full frame always be king for focal lenghth low light and Bokeh ?

I know we have seen no real world reviews yet but assume the AF is pretty stonking and the ISO to be discovered
 
In the hands of someone who knows what their doing, the d500 will be capable of producing stunning results,
It will be more than acceptable for shooting weddings. However, it's things like weather sealing and the robustness of the body and shutter life etc, that may or may not make it the choice of professionals.
 
I'm thinking sports/wildlife as the target for the D500 but of course no reason why it couldn't be used for weddings.
 
10yrs ago people were shooting weddings with the likes of D200, D2x etc, with a max ISO of 800 or 1600, so I think it's safe to say the D500 will be fine! :)
 
Perfectly acceptable for weddings, and far better than cameras that were used for weddings only a few years ago. If weddings is your primary purpose I'd still be going FF for the high ISO performance personally, especially when this will be more expensive than the the likes of the D750.
 
To explain I take wildlife images as a hobby and on balance I think dx has the advantage for wildlife but I also was thinking of earning money wedding photography I have done 5 weddings with my D300 I was wondering whether it's worth buying both d500 and d750 with the 750 for weddings or whether the d500 alone would be enough ?
 
tesco said:
To explain I take wildlife images as a hobby and on balance I think dx has the advantage for wildlife but I also was thinking of earning money wedding photography I have done 5 weddings with my D300 I was wondering whether it's worth buying both d500 and d750 with the 750 for weddings or whether the d500 alone would be enough ?
Click to expand...
In which case the D500 would be plenty good enough. Of course if you started doing a lot of weddings you'd probably want two bodies anyway to save swapping lenses, and of course if you have a problem with one on the day. A D500 and D750 would be a great combo (I'd have though, lahtough don't shoot weddings ;)), in fact it's exactly what I'd love. Now where's that money tree ;)
 
Last edited:
My first Pro camera for Weddings was the 6mp D100, which, within certain obvious ISO limitations was fine - and cost me about £1,250 plus £250 for the 1gb card

My second was the 12mp D2Xs, which, within certain obvious ISO limitations was more than fine - and cost me £3,500

My next was the 12mp D300, which, at about £1,000 was better than my D2Xs

My next was the amazing 16mp D7000 costing around £700 and was better than the D300

My current 24mp D7200 is the cheapest I've bought so far at around £600 and if by FAR the best of the bunch to date

The D500 is FAR too expensive and too advanced in many ways for my needs, and easily able to shoot pretty much anything, in fact with modern tech being so good I could happily shoot on the cheapest current Nikon DSLR and get similar results

I am considering changing systems though and it'll either be to the Fuji XPro2 or the D750 - neither is fully 'Pro' spec cos Wedding togs just don't need cameras like the D4 - that's a waste of money

Oh and its ALWAYS 2 bodies that are the SAME, this is sooooooo much easier to shoot without having to allow for the differences between bodies and how their sensor's record, so I certainly wouldn't consider a D500 & D750 to be a good Wedding pairing

SUMMARY

Just in case you couldn't be arsed to read all of the above...

ANY modern mirrorless, FX, DX, camera is good enough for Weddings :)

Dave
 
I remember helping my uncle shoot weddings in the 80's, and he used a Yashicamat 124G,

I think we are to fixated with having to use the best camera's. sure it helps but the skill is in the photographer surely.
 
I guess it all depends on your clients. If they choose you because if your work then any camera will do but if they specifically ask for ultra high ISO and incredibly shallow depth of field then I would steer away from any DX format or smaller.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Oh and its ALWAYS 2 bodies that are the SAME, this is sooooooo much easier to shoot without having to allow for the differences between bodies and how their sensor's record, so I certainly wouldn't consider a D500 & D750 to be a good Wedding pairing
Click to expand...
OK if you're primarily a wedding tog yeah you'd always aim for the same system, but if you were a general tog who just did the odd wedding but generally used crop bodies would you recommend getting a second crop or getting a FF to help in those poorly lit churches where you can't use flash?

I often shoot with two systems ( FF and m4/3) and don't struggle tbh, but then I don't shoot weddings so wouldn't know how this differs so it's interesting to hear from those with experience (y)
 
architectfadi said:
I guess it all depends on your clients. If they choose you because if your work then any camera will do but if they specifically ask for ultra high ISO and incredibly shallow depth of field then I would steer away from any DX format or smaller.
Click to expand...
Have you ever known a bride and groom that's ever asked for that? Do 99 % of wedding parties even know there's different DSLRs (FF And crop) let alone what ISO is? I certainly didn't when I got married, all I looked at was the portfolio. I didn't even look what camera he had on the day.
 
snerkler said:
Have you ever known a bride and groom that's ever asked for that? Do 99 % of wedding parties even know there's different DSLRs (FF And crop) let alone what ISO is? I certainly didn't when I got married, all I looked at was the portfolio. I didn't even look what camera he had on the day.
Click to expand...

Obviously you didn't get my point
 
snerkler said:
OK if you're primarily a wedding tog yeah you'd always aim for the same system, but if you were a general tog who just did the odd wedding but generally used crop bodies would you recommend getting a second crop or getting a FF to help in those poorly lit churches where you can't use flash?

I often shoot with two systems ( FF and m4/3) and don't struggle tbh, but then I don't shoot weddings so wouldn't know how this differs so it's interesting to hear from those with experience (y)
Click to expand...

Basically I'm saying that using two different systems on the same shoot can be a problem IF, and only if, you need to create a cohesive set of images. Different bodies within the same make often record colours etc slightly differently, so switching cameras for basically lens changes can be a problem to sort later. If you're creating a set of individual images then of course it doesn't matter

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Basically I'm saying that using two different systems on the same shoot can be a problem IF, and only if, you need to create a cohesive set of images. Different bodies within the same make often record colours etc slightly differently, so switching cameras for basically lens changes can be a problem to sort later. If you're creating a set of individual images then of course it doesn't matter

Dave
Click to expand...
OK, yeah I can understand shooting 2 different systems re the colour thing as, like I said, I shoot with Nikon FF and Olympus m4/3 and there's most definitely a colour difference which is why I don't shoot the same subject. But the D500 and D750 are both Nikon so would have thought colours would be pretty much the same so the only difference would be DOF/perspective. As I said though, how much of an impact this has when shooting weddings I'm not sure. I'm genuinely interested as I have been asked to take the odd wedding here and there but have turned them down to date, but at some stage I may consider it and would contemplate getting a 'cheap' crop body to complement my D750 but if it would potentially cause me issues obviously I'd need to rethink this.
 
snerkler said:
OK, yeah I can understand shooting 2 different systems re the colour thing as, like I said, I shoot with Nikon FF and Olympus m4/3 and there's most definitely a colour difference which is why I don't shoot the same subject. But the D500 and D750 are both Nikon so would have thought colours would be pretty much the same so the only difference would be DOF/perspective. As I said though, how much of an impact this has when shooting weddings I'm not sure. I'm genuinely interested as I have been asked to take the odd wedding here and there but have turned them down to date, but at some stage I may consider it and would contemplate getting a 'cheap' crop body to complement my D750 but if it would potentially cause me issues obviously I'd need to rethink this.
Click to expand...


i.e. Ceremony shots where its common to switch between lenses and hence cameras too - wide on FF closer up on DX - colours, DoF, tonal range all different in a series of images would look stupid in the album together IMHO

In my early days I replaced only one camera at once as the upgrade, so both were still DX, both Nikon, only 1 upgrade apart and a series of shots still didn't match well enough - hence every switch now is two cameras at once (or you could work a bit slower and just switch lenses and use one body. I know a BIG named tog who uses only one body but changes lenses)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
i.e. Ceremony shots where its common to switch between lenses and hence cameras too - wide on FF closer up on DX - colours, DoF, tonal range all different in a series of images would look stupid in the album together IMHO

In my early days I replaced only one camera at once as the upgrade, so both were still DX, both Nikon, only 1 upgrade apart and a series of shots still didn't match well enough - hence every switch now is two cameras at once (or you could work a bit slower and just switch lenses and use one body. I know a BIG named tog who uses only one body but changes lenses)

Dave
Click to expand...
Thanks, definitely food for thought. I've seen a number of folk use two different systems/manufacturers let alone only crop and FF by the same manufacturer and never thought anything about it and always liked the images, but granted never seen them side by side in a album so it's interesting what you've said about this. Cheers (y)
 
tesco said:
To explain I take wildlife images as a hobby and on balance I think dx has the advantage for wildlife but I also was thinking of earning money wedding photography I have done 5 weddings with my D300 I was wondering whether it's worth buying both d500 and d750 with the 750 for weddings or whether the d500 alone would be enough ?
Click to expand...

You need two bodies minimum for a wedding in case one fails on the job. An 85mm on one and a 35mm make a good working combination as a starter.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
You need two bodies minimum for a wedding in case one fails on the job. An 85mm on one and a 35mm make a good working combination as a starter.
Click to expand...

FX maybe, DX (which the OP also has or wants) not so

I often find myself shooting at 17mm (DX) so about 25mm FX but I also love my 85mm (so closest to 135mm prime FX)

My full-frame - FX - choice would be the Nikon's - 20, 35, 85 all at f1.8 all on 2x D750 and I'd just crop the 85 for extra reach (12mp is more than enough for a double page spread in an album, so that's a big crop on a 24mp camera)

I'm still working out what that would be on the Fuji system, though I suspect similar price but half the size/weight !!!

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
FX maybe, DX (which the OP also has or wants) not so

I often find myself shooting at 17mm (DX) so about 25mm FX but I also love my 85mm (so closest to 135mm prime FX)

My full-frame - FX - choice would be the Nikon's - 20, 35, 85 all at f1.8 all on 2x D750 and I'd just crop the 85 for extra reach (12mp is more than enough for a double page spread in an album, so that's a big crop on a 24mp camera)

I'm still working out what that would be on the Fuji system, though I suspect similar price but half the size/weight !!!

Dave
Click to expand...

I know many people use Fuji's for weddings but I have used the X-T1 and it doesn't really cut the mustard in my opinion. There are some very dark churches in York with very small windows. The high ISO required to capture images is just to full of noise for my liking. The AF trying to crack the B&G down the isle isn't good enough. Mind you this was prior to the latest FE update.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I know many people use Fuji's for weddings but I have used the X-T1 and it doesn't really cut the mustard in my opinion. There are some very dark churches in York with very small windows. The high ISO required to capture images is just to full of noise for my liking. The AF trying to crack the B&G down the isle isn't good enough. Mind you this was prior to the latest FE update.
Click to expand...

Noise - as Grain - used to be called 'atmospheric' in the film days :)

Only the modern 'need' for noise-free 1-zillion ISO sees this as a problem, Brides NEVER see it as a problem

Low noise is good but no noise is not needed :)

Dave
 
Thanks for responses really good discussion. One thing bothering me with DX for weddings is focal length other than specialist photos I understand the workhorse lenses for weddings are 24-70 and 70-200 however on DX these would be x 1.5 effective focal length longer would this be an issue ? In other words would you be outside the optimum focal length or would you just take a pace or two back and not an issue ?
 
Of course you need to consider the crop factor, but it does seem like you are over thinking this.

How good are your current pictures, coz a new camera(s) will not improve it.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I know many people use Fuji's for weddings but I have used the X-T1 and it doesn't really cut the mustard in my opinion. There are some very dark churches in York with very small windows. The high ISO required to capture images is just to full of noise for my liking. The AF trying to crack the B&G down the isle isn't good enough. Mind you this was prior to the latest FE update.
Click to expand...

High ISO on my Fuji X Pro-1 is very clean, even sooc jpegs. Shoot in RAW and they clean up very well.
 
Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 and D500 would make a killer wedding setup, add another D500 and Sigma 50 1.4 and you're sorted
 
GHP said:
High ISO on my Fuji X Pro-1 is very clean, even sooc jpegs. Shoot in RAW and they clean up very well.
Click to expand...

I do shoot in Raw and use PS6, but my my D750 / D810 eclipse my X-T1 for wedding photography in every way.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Noise - as Grain - used to be called 'atmospheric' in the film days :)

Only the modern 'need' for noise-free 1-zillion ISO sees this as a problem, Brides NEVER see it as a problem

Low noise is good but no noise is not needed :)

Dave
Click to expand...

I agree, low noise is good (acceptable) but I got high noise with my X-T1 in the conditions I was shooting which is not good !

I am from the film generation and grain does look good in monochrome. I even used to push 400 ISO films to 1600 ISO in an effort to create that look.

However, it does not look as good in colour.

Some B&Gs are aware of quality images, many are well informed, they read articles on the Internet and have friends and family as photographers. Don't underestimate the client ! Don't make the mistake of thinking Brides never see it as a problem.- some as you say won't be bothered, some are.

I tried the X-T1 on a wedding in a very dark church with very little daylight coming from small windows. Not only was the quality of noise but the AF was slow to respond to the B&G walking down the isle. Compared to my Nikon (D750 / D810) the Fuji was a let down and I would never use one again for a wedding. The Nikon's are consistently better in AF and noise reduction. Having used both systems this is just my opinion.
 
tesco said:
Thanks for responses really good discussion. One thing bothering me with DX for weddings is focal length other than specialist photos I understand the workhorse lenses for weddings are 24-70 and 70-200 however on DX these would be x 1.5 effective focal length longer would this be an issue ? In other words would you be outside the optimum focal length or would you just take a pace or two back and not an issue ?
Click to expand...
You would use the equivalent on DX of a 17-55 2.8 and the same 70-200 if you weren't bothered by the 15mm gap in the middle.
 
The Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 is a awesome lens [emoji106]
 
The biggest issue with a Nikon DX system is probably fitting their FX lenses into the set-up to achieve the focal lengths you require, as you've identified. I personally shoot weddings at 35/85/135 (with Fuji these days), that's extremely difficult to achieve with a Nikon DX system, there is still no native 35mm equivalent, er, 35mm, for example.

Sigma get around the issue quite nicely if you're using zooms, i.e. 18-35 and 50-150.
 
It is inconceivable to think about shooting weddings with anything less than full frame and less than Iso 1 million.

Buy the very best FF camera it will make you much better and you will book loads more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top