Wedding photographers using Sony

Messages
157
Name
Iain
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
Morning guys and girls

I'm sorry if this is a question asked before..... I've been a Canon man since I got into photography 15 years ago and never deviated. I have been very tempted to get a Canon Eos R but haven't tried one yet to see what is like

After chatting to a few people, several seem to use Sony gear and rate it highly. Just wondering if anyone has got/used the Eos R and can give me some feedback on it or whether to make the switch to Sony as their stuff seems to produce great images and it's cheaper than Canon

Thanks for any help received, I really appreciate it
 
Messages
4,777
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
I've never been a Canon user, but I know of 3 really good Pros who have been all their working lives (2 Weddings, one Portrait Trainer) and all 3 switched to Sony within the last 18 months and have each told me they were blown away by how much better it is

Canon, like Nikon, are playing 'catch-up' so neither would be in my line-up for a change to mirrorless

HTH

Dave
 
Messages
7,507
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#4
10 years Canon user, now Sony user.

I did the transition slowly, I had 5D4s and pretty much all the L glass from 16mm up to 135mm, Canon flashes and whatnot. Bought Sony gear and used both side by side for a year to make sure the Sony can do the job (always having the Canon as a back up and safety net if it went wrong) and it didn't. It more than held up on every front and I found myself reaching for the Sony in my kit than the Canon.

I would say the only negative in Sony is the colours still isn't as nice, I know you have all these blind test online from people like Tony Northrop who says Sony wins but I dunno, I found myself in certain photos spending more time tweaking the colours than I used to. But I did a studio shoot earlier this month and I think out of like 2000 shots, I could count the number of missed focus (eye not in focus) shot with my fingers which was remarkable.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
I've never been a Canon user, but I know of 3 really good Pros who have been all their working lives (2 Weddings, one Portrait Trainer)

Dave
What is a Portrait trainer?
someone who just trains portrait photographers or trains models for portraits or both?

I would say the only negative in Sony is the colours still isn't as nice, I know you have all these blind test online from people like Tony Northrop who says Sony wins but I dunno, I found myself in certain photos spending more time tweaking the colours than I used to. But I did a studio shoot earlier this month and I think out of like 2000 shots, I could count the number of missed focus (eye not in focus) shot with my fingers which was remarkable.
Colours is definitely an odd one to debate. Having gone back and used Fuji, canon and Sony I realised I prefer no one brand. Fuji for people and skin tones, canon for foliage and greenery and sony for the blue hours for example.
but you can now find profiles to apply on LR. You just download the canon EOS R profile and apply it to your Sony RAWs ;)
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
Sony as their stuff seems to produce great images and it's cheaper than Canon
Well the canon's RF 35mm f1.8 and 24-105mm are cheaper than Sony equivalents.
The fast primes are f1.2 variants and hence more expensive. Sony doesn't have any f1.2 AF primes. Only one available is from Sigma i.e. the 35mm f1.2 prime.
I'd never be able to pay £2800 for the RF85/1.2 so I am happy with my 85/1.4 for which I paid 1/3rd the price.

On the other hand current 3rd parties only seem to support e-mount (sigma supports L-mount too since they are 1st party for that). This also provides from cheaper options on sony at the moment.
But if you do want 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 and so on canon has them now vs. waiting for sony or sigma to release them in future.
 
Messages
4,239
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
#7
I'm in a similar boat albeit not in the same genre of photography. I'm literally 5 mins away from making the decision, but I will still keep some Nikon stuff whilst I transition.

From everything I've read and heard (not just online) I won't regret it.
 
Messages
185
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#8
The benefit of going down the EOS R route is that your canon lenses will work as well (or better) than they do now with the ef-rf adapter that usually comes with it.

The down side that keeps a lot (but not all) wedding togs from using the R is it has one card slot.

I have an R, it takes a bit of getting used to compared to a dslr but when you do it is fantastic. I have used a 1d mk3, mk4s, 100d, 77d and they all feel very similar, the R has a learning curve and you would need to dedicate some time, don't expect to just use it at the next wedding, but I expect it would be the same if you changed to sony.

I shoot events and bought some sony tough sd cards and format each time I put it in the camera to minimise the risk. I toyed with changing to the sony but the general consensus was ef lenses on the sony do not work well, and I liked my lenses and the lens selection canon offer.

T
 
Messages
4,777
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
What is a Portrait trainer?
someone who just trains portrait photographers or trains models for portraits or both?
A Portrait Photography specialist who runs workshops, online training and does 1-2-1s at the higher end of portrait photography, as well as shooting for his own clients

Given that we're talking about cameras & photography on a photography forum I didn't think anyone would assume I meant someone who trains models ;)

Dave
 
Messages
7,507
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
#10
Colours is definitely an odd one to debate. Having gone back and used Fuji, canon and Sony I realised I prefer no one brand. Fuji for people and skin tones, canon for foliage and greenery and sony for the blue hours for example.
but you can now find profiles to apply on LR. You just download the canon EOS R profile and apply it to your Sony RAWs ;)
I don't think it's an objective thing, I mean you can make it an objective thing but we all shoot different things in different lighting conditions and we all process differently so it becomes a subjective thing. And subjectively, for me, I find myself sometimes kinda yearning for a Canon colour RAW file in some shots.

It's a MINOR gripe, if you can call it that. Whereas with Canon I was always going on about "I missed this shot by a fraction dammit!" I now do rarely do that.
 
Messages
14,341
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#15
The biggest issue for me as a wedding photographer would be the lack of a dual-card option with Canon.
It is a complete non-starter to be fair, but next one (high res?) will likely have it.

The positives of canon are bigger and more comfortable body and better EVF at least over Sony a7RIII.

I am debating also which brand is better way forward; until you really buy new glass you can still go back and forth relatively easily across both of them. I probably want to see the new Canon before I can really make the call.
If I had to buy one today for a serious job it would be Sony due to reason above.
 
Messages
13,055
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#16
I'm not certain on this, but if it's true it's incredibly ironic: the first camera to have dual card slots was a Canon! The Canon EOS-1D mkII in 2004 [no doubt someone who knows better will tell me otherwise]
 

West Camera

Can I be Frank?
Messages
166
Name
frank west
Edit My Images
No
#17
In my reading I've often read Canon users' remarks that 'when Canon catches up to Sony in mirrorless it will surpass it'. True or not? Something to think about if it means to switch then have to switch back. Expensive. Any thoughts that Canon may catch up and surpass Sony? (Maybe a good idea to keep your L glass and see Sony as only an interim camera? Yes, it is better. But for how long?)
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,345
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
#18
In my reading I've often read Canon users' remarks that 'when Canon catches up to Sony in mirrorless it will surpass it'. True or not? Something to think about if it means to switch then have to switch back. Expensive. Any thoughts that Canon may catch up and surpass Sony? (Maybe a good idea to keep your L glass and see Sony as only an interim camera? Yes, it is better. But for how long?)
Sony aren't exactly sitting still.
 
Messages
21,104
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#19
In my reading I've often read Canon users' remarks that 'when Canon catches up to Sony in mirrorless it will surpass it'. True or not? Something to think about if it means to switch then have to switch back. Expensive. Any thoughts that Canon may catch up and surpass Sony? (Maybe a good idea to keep your L glass and see Sony as only an interim camera? Yes, it is better. But for how long?)
Without taking this thread too far off track...

It wasn't so long ago that it was said (by the usual commentators) that Canon simply didn't have the technology to make Sony level sensors and if that's true they'll possibly always be behind the Sony cutting edge until they swallow their pride and buy Sony sensors, as Nikon do but it's something Canon don't look willing to do, or spend a lot of money updating their plant to be able to produce Sony level and beyond sensors.

I think we're possibly at another watershed moment in photography but all this is happening in slow motion so we'll have to wait and see what happens. I think that the future possibly does belong more to the mega electronic companies than to what we used to think of as the more traditional camera companies like Pentax, Nikon and Canon, assuming of course that the mega electronic companies want to remain in the market and want to take it away from the camera companies by continuing to spend mega money on R&D and production.
 
Messages
14,341
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#20
Sony aren't exactly sitting still.
In lenses department Canon is already outdoing Sony. f/1.2 primes. F/2 zoom, all control rings. You may not need it but its there.
It's not exactly impossible for Canon to come up with better sensor if they wanted. Their RD team and budget are almost limitless.

Neither is really going away any time soon
 
Messages
13,055
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#21
In lenses department Canon is already outdoing Sony. f/1.2 primes. F/2 zoom, all control rings. You may not need it but its there.
It's not exactly impossible for Canon to come up with better sensor if they wanted. Their RD team and budget are almost limitless.

Neither is really going away any time soon
If Canon pulled their socks up and stopped restricting every other camera they brought out I swear they would be killing it. I don't get why they do this. If the R had IBIS I think I might actually own one.

But this is about Sony for wedding, and let's face it, for pro work Sony is king right now. I don't think they're the most friendly system for anyone who enjoys decent ergos or usability in general [or anyone non pro on a tight budget] , but if you are all about end result they're untouchable. Luckily many of us are beyond the clinical 'end result matters most' mentality and prefer more fun cameras, or it'd be really f'ing bland with everyone shooting the same system.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,341
Name
Nightmare
Edit My Images
No
#22
It wasn't so long ago that it was said (by the usual commentators) that Canon simply didn't have the technology to make Sony level sensors and if that's true they'll possibly always be behind the Sony cutting edge until they swallow their pride and buy Sony sensors, as Nikon do but it's something Canon don't look willing to do, or spend a lot of money updating their plant to be able to produce Sony level and beyond sensors.
Better hope that it doesn't happen. Competition is good. If sony is the only one left making sensors you can bet the innovation will slow to snail's speed. Canon may be behind now but it doesn't mean they can't turn it upside down. Their biggest problem is their marketing department peddling old tech.
 

West Camera

Can I be Frank?
Messages
166
Name
frank west
Edit My Images
No
#23
I am not too keen on Sony's typical strategy. For example there were issues with the first model of the 7. However, rather than correcting them in that model Sony produced the next 7 model with some corrections but, kept producing the first model with all its issues. So to get a corrected model rather than get a firmware update you got to lay out the dough to get a better performing camera. You can plainly see the strategy. They keep you coming back. There's never going to be a 7 model that has it all just like it should be; just like you'd expect it to be. I've observed the same in other Sony cameras. The Sony marketing department at work. Canon may be slow to upgrade but at least I get a camera that works well. With Sony I am never quite sure when buying something 'new' from them. And, I resent having to buy two cameras of the same model to do so. Would bet there are many who have regretably had to own more than one 7 before they got something that satisfied them. Marketing.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#24
In my reading I've often read Canon users' remarks that 'when Canon catches up to Sony in mirrorless it will surpass it'. True or not? Something to think about if it means to switch then have to switch back. Expensive. Any thoughts that Canon may catch up and surpass Sony? (Maybe a good idea to keep your L glass and see Sony as only an interim camera? Yes, it is better. But for how long?)
For me I have no problem switching to canon when they match/surpass Sony.
They have done pretty well on the 90D. They increased the resolution without losing any dynamic range or ISO performance.

Sony aren't exactly sitting still.
What do you call A9ii and A6400/6600 which uses the same old sensor. I found the 90D more exciting than A64/6600. When you find canon sensors more exciting you are either crap at making sensors or sitting still :p

In lenses department Canon is already outdoing Sony. f/1.2 primes. F/2 zoom, all control rings. You may not need it but its there.
It's not exactly impossible for Canon to come up with better sensor if they wanted. Their RD team and budget are almost limitless.

Neither is really going away any time soon
Well it's not that easy. You can't just make the next latest greatest sensor because you felt like it now but you didn't for the decade :p

Also those fast lenses aren't cheap. The primes are nearly twice the price is f1.4 versions. I imagine just like me a lot of people while would love have those just can't afford it and would simply rather buy f1.4 version at a cheaper price. It's a compromise like all things in photography.

I am not too keen on Sony's typical strategy. For example there were issues with the first model of the 7. However, rather than correcting them in that model Sony produced the next 7 model with some corrections but, kept producing the first model with all its issues. So to get a corrected model rather than get a firmware update you got to lay out the dough to get a better performing camera. You can plainly see the strategy. They keep you coming back. There's never going to be a 7 model that has it all just like it should be; just like you'd expect it to be. I've observed the same in other Sony cameras. The Sony marketing department at work. Canon may be slow to upgrade but at least I get a camera that works well. With Sony I am never quite sure when buying something 'new' from them. And, I resent having to buy two cameras of the same model to do so. Would bet there are many who have regretably had to own more than one 7 before they got something that satisfied them. Marketing.
I am not sure this is entirely true tbh. They have done pretty well on firmware updates. The A7/Riii, A7ii, A9 and even A6000 long back for some decent firmware updates.
I don't think there is/was a huge lot they could have fixed on A7 via. Fw updates.

Not saying Sony are angels I am sure there is a bit of what you said but I imagine that's the same on any brand. They are in a business after all ;)
 
Messages
6,345
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
For me I have no problem switching to canon when they match/surpass Sony.
They have done pretty well on the 90D. They increased the resolution without losing any dynamic range or ISO performance.



What do you call A9ii and A6400/6600 which uses the same old sensor. I found the 90D more exciting than A64/6600. When you find canon sensors more exciting you are either crap at making sensors or sitting still :p



Well it's not that easy. You can't just make the next latest greatest sensor because you felt like it now but you didn't for the decade :p

Also those fast lenses aren't cheap. The primes are nearly twice the price is f1.4 versions. I imagine just like me a lot of people while would love have those just can't afford it and would simply rather buy f1.4 version at a cheaper price. It's a compromise like all things in photography.



I am not sure this is entirely true tbh. They have done pretty well on firmware updates. The A7/Riii, A7ii, A9 and even A6000 long back for some decent firmware updates.
I don't think there is/was a huge lot they could have fixed on A7 via. Fw updates.

Not saying Sony are angels I am sure there is a bit of what you said but I imagine that's the same on any brand. They are in a business after all ;)
Incremental upgrades.

No one is going to update from an A9 to an A9ii. But anti flicker will be a plus to sports and press photographers, along with the faster mech shutter.

They're updating their cameras every 2 years. Not every update is going to be massive though.
 
Messages
1,439
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
In my reading I've often read Canon users' remarks that 'when Canon catches up to Sony in mirrorless it will surpass it'. True or not? Something to think about if it means to switch then have to switch back. Expensive. Any thoughts that Canon may catch up and surpass Sony? (Maybe a good idea to keep your L glass and see Sony as only an interim camera? Yes, it is better. But for how long?)
Well the idea of switching back and forth just for the sake of getting the better camera is idiotic. only if better equals significant advantages for your photography and/or business it will make sense and even then you must take into acount the losses both in value when buying/selling and the time taken to do the buying/selling and learning/relearning the new gear. The only thing youll need is gear thats adequate for the stuff you do and lets you do it without fuss. despite this talk about Eye AF, ultra fast tracking, high framrate and large sensors superiority in low light etc. you still see photographers, even profesionals, using the lesser desireable gear and despite that doing very well.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#27
Incremental upgrades.

No one is going to update from an A9 to an A9ii. But anti flicker will be a plus to sports and press photographers, along with the faster mech shutter.

They're updating their cameras every 2 years. Not every update is going to be massive though.
I see that as sitting still ;)
 
Messages
2,290
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
No
#28
The benefits you will get shooting Sony is a higher keeper rate and live feedback before you even click the shutter. I would never go back to using DSLR cameras again, AF fine tunings lenses all the time was the bane of my life
 
Messages
185
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#29
It is a complete non-starter to be fair, but next one (high res?) will likely have it.
I'm working on the assumption that higher res sensor means lower iso ability, as the 5Ds and 5Dsr.

Great for blowing up images and heavy cropping, but only fit for well lit and studio. In dark venues the 5Ds I had at my last employment struggled!

I have stopped listening to the rumors a long time ago, they are all fairy tales made up by someone who is laughing at us all!!

T
 
Messages
21,104
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
#30
In lenses department Canon is already outdoing Sony. f/1.2 primes. F/2 zoom, all control rings. You may not need it but its there.
It's not exactly impossible for Canon to come up with better sensor if they wanted. Their RD team and budget are almost limitless.

Neither is really going away any time soon
I think Canon are going for the exotic lenses to create some differentiation between themselves and Sony as if they go for the more usual f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms what have they got? They've got a generation or so behind me too system that is beaten by Sony for body tech such as AF and sensor performance and is also behind Sony in native lenses options so maybe they had to do something different to get some headlines? Where this leaves Canon buyers I'm not sure. The latest f1.4 primes are too big and too expensive to interest me as I prefer the smaller and lighter f1.8 options (actually I think the f1.4 options from a few years ago were good enough. Stuff like the non Art Sigma 50 and 85mm f1.4's. I had those and I thought I'd never want better lenses.) so I'm definitely not interested in buying a line up of big heavy and expensive f1.2 AF primes and f2 zooms.

Looking at it dispassionately I can't imagine why anyone would want to be in the camera manufacturing business at the moment. There must be easier ways of making money. Actually I can see one reason to be in it... to provide a shop window for a larger sensor and other tech industry aiming at other markets such as phones, process equipment and AI and that's possibly what Sony has at least half an eye on rather than looking purely at the section of the camera market that interests us.

Also I don't think you should make light of the issues Canon face in sensors. You do realise that some plant simply can not produce the latest chips and circuitry? I've not worked for any sensor producers but I have worked in general circuit board and electronics manufacturing and the fact is that the manufacturing kit has limits and from what I've read Canon hit those limits whilst Sony and others moved on. What Canon have bought in since the commentators said they couldn't do it I don't know but it certainly isn't as easy as waking up one morning and deciding you're going to do it. You have to rip the old plant out, buy the new plant and get it up and running and it's an expensive and time consuming process.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
6,809
Edit My Images
Yes
#31
I'm working on the assumption that higher res sensor means lower iso ability, as the 5Ds and 5Dsr.

Great for blowing up images and heavy cropping, but only fit for well lit and studio. In dark venues the 5Ds I had at my last employment struggled!

I have stopped listening to the rumors a long time ago, they are all fairy tales made up by someone who is laughing at us all!!

T
That is not necessarily true. Higher canon sensors mean lower ISO ability ;)
But canon has gotten over this too to some extent. 90D is as good as 80D but with more resolution.
Sony A7RIII and A7III are about the same (there is a slight advantage to A7III but not much at all)
Sony A7RIV isn't as good as A7RIII at higher ISO but I say that is down to Sony re-using the old processor. I am willing to bet a penny or two the A7RV will have the same sensor with a newer processor to increase its dynamic range and ISO performance.

I think canon rushed out with the 5DSR to win the megapixel competition. That they did but with terrible performance for the most other parts.
I am hoping their next product out will be more refined and not as big a trade-off between resolution and dynamic range/ISO performance.
 

West Camera

Can I be Frank?
Messages
166
Name
frank west
Edit My Images
No
#32
Well the idea of switching back and forth just for the sake of getting the better camera is idiotic. only if better equals significant advantages for your photography and/or business it will make sense and even then you must take into acount the losses both in value when buying/selling and the time taken to do the buying/selling and learning/relearning the new gear. The only thing youll need is gear thats adequate for the stuff you do and lets you do it without fuss. despite this talk about Eye AF, ultra fast tracking, high framrate and large sensors superiority in low light etc. you still see photographers, even profesionals, using the lesser desireable gear and despite that doing very well.
I often see that? Nope. Not very often. If you are a pro you stay up with the crowd kit wise. Otherwise what does your client think when you show up with your 'brownie' for a shoot? No. The vast majority of the pro's. keep up with the latest equipment. No matter whether it means to switch or stay with a single manufacturer. A pro's kit is his livelihood. It pays to have the best.

I remember back in 2010 when several pro's sung the song of micro four thirds and professed to have switched camera systems. Would bet that song is no longer sung and the videos they made for YouTube are now gathering dust. "Small and light" is no excuse for lower resolution when producing as a pro. Would bet now that they are back to FF, mirrorless or not. Surely they did not stay 'married' long to the limits of the system they espoused. New tech comes and goes and forever marches onward. For lesser photog's. it is not as big an issue. We can stay with what we love be it the best or not. For me I am still happy with my cameras that are based on the 1/2.3 sensor. That makes me happy. But, for a pro he must produce the best and only the best of cameras will give him that if he is going to be competitive and pursue his livelihood . And, what is the 'best camera' is forever changing.
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,786
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
#33
I often see that? Nope. Not very often. If you are a pro you stay up with the crowd kit wise. Otherwise what does your client think when you show up with your 'brownie' for a shoot? No. The vast majority of the pro's. keep up with the latest equipment. No matter whether it means to switch or stay with a single manufacturer. A pro's kit is his livelihood. It pays to have the best.
TBH it pays to have the kit that lets you bring home the best pictures. Few brides would going to send their photographer away with his tail between his legs because he turned up with a D750 instead of a Z7 or an A7III. At the same time, equipment is an asset that can be written down over time and a tool that will wear and require replacement - one would expect busy togs to be replacing and sometimes upgrading bodies every couple of years, just because that's all part of keeping kit in good condition.

It would be unusual for a pro to change make of gear without there being a clear advantage with the new stuff, however if there WERE an advantage, as Raymond L cited, then it's entirely sensible to do so. Nothing to do with marketing, and all to do with the camera actually being a better tool for the job. If switching from Canon to Sony meant that the image hit-rate changed from 50% in focus to 90% in focus then that's brought a substantial improvement for the photographer in reduced time required checking each image at pixel level and in being sure that the best moments will always result in a usable image.
 
Messages
1,439
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#34
I often see that? Nope. Not very often. If you are a pro you stay up with the crowd kit wise. Otherwise what does your client think when you show up with your 'brownie' for a shoot? No. The vast majority of the pro's. keep up with the latest equipment. No matter whether it means to switch or stay with a single manufacturer. A pro's kit is his livelihood. It pays to have the best.

I remember back in 2010 when several pro's sung the song of micro four thirds and professed to have switched camera systems. Would bet that song is no longer sung and the videos they made for YouTube are now gathering dust. "Small and light" is no excuse for lower resolution when producing as a pro. Would bet now that they are back to FF, mirrorless or not. Surely they did not stay 'married' long to the limits of the system they espoused. New tech comes and goes and forever marches onward. For lesser photog's. it is not as big an issue. We can stay with what we love be it the best or not. For me I am still happy with my cameras that are based on the 1/2.3 sensor. That makes me happy. But, for a pro he must produce the best and only the best of cameras will give him that if he is going to be competitive and pursue his livelihood . And, what is the 'best camera' is forever changing.
Id bet it's only a very small minority who would actually know the camera makes and models from each other. What you are really saying is that pros should use Canon since that brand is the most widely known among the general public. Does pros really anounce what camera the are using and does their clients ask and care? No.
 
Messages
3,156
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#35
Id bet it's only a very small minority who would actually know the camera makes and models from each other. What you are really saying is that pros should use Canon since that brand is the most widely known among the general public. Does pros really anounce what camera the are using and does their clients ask and care? No.
Not very often but they do occasionally, as an example a potential client sent us this message on our Facebook business page a few weeks back. It doesn't happen often though.

Capture.JPG

What I have found interesting is that we have photographed a few weddings for other wedding photographers and not one of them asked about equipment. They being more clued in obviously know that the equipment doesn't matter that much.

Years ago I shot some fashion stuff so would be known locally by a lot of m.u.a's and hairstylists etc. that work in that area we have shot a lot of their weddings and they often ask about equipment.

Amateur photographers always seem to ask about equipment as do people who have friends that are amateur photographers, I think their amateur photographer friends often advise them to ask.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,439
Name
Soeren
Edit My Images
Yes
#36
Not very often but they do occasionally, as an example a potential client sent us this message on our Facebook business page a few weeks back. It doesn't happen often though.

View attachment 256935

What I have found interesting is that we have photographed a few weddings for other wedding photographers and not one of them asked about equipment. They being more clued in obviously know that the equipment doesn't matter that much.

Years ago I shot some fashion stuff so would be known locally by a lot of m.u.a's and hairstylists etc. that work in that area we have shot a lot of their weddings and they often ask about equipment.

Amateur photographers always seem to ask about equipment as do people who have friends that are amateur photographers, I think their amateur photographer friends often advise them to ask.
But having no clue as to what to do with that info it will not lead them to make any informed decisions whatsoever leading me back to my comment above re all pros should use canon since that's what most people know
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,156
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#37
But having no clue as to what to do with that info it will not lead them to make any informed decisions whatsoever leading me back to my comment above re all pros should use canon since that's what most people know
Not really most people know that Canon sucks.
 
Messages
3,156
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
#39
LOL. I'd say the attachment in your previous post say otherwise
The reason he asked was because he didn’t want to book someone who uses Canon equipment as a friend who is a “photographer” had advised him against booking someone who shoots Canon.
 
Top