Wedding Photography Camera

gman

gman

Messages
11,203
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
A lot of people seem to use the Canon 5D Mk I for wedding photography but I was wondering if the Canon 1Ds Mk II would be good enough and if not why?
 
one camera is not enough - you need two - at least
 
the 5D is widely considered to be best for portrait and landscape work while the 1D is more sports orientated.

Doesn't mean you can't use a 1D for wedding though, the 1.3x crop factor will impact on the wider end of zoom lenses and that's need to be considered if operating in tight spaces.

I'm pretty sure there's more to it than that though!
 
I thought you would need a couple of 'Bodies' and quite a few lenses etc etc.
 
awp said:
one camera is not enough - you need two - at least
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to the model of camera rather than number of them

madhouse said:
the 5D is widely considered to be best for portrait and landscape work while the 1D is more sports orientated.

Doesn't mean you can't use a 1D for wedding though, the 1.3x crop factor will impact on the wider end of zoom lenses and that's need to be considered if operating in tight spaces.

I'm pretty sure there's more to it than that though!
Click to expand...

gman said:
A lot of people seem to use the Canon 5D Mk I for wedding photography but I was wondering if the Canon 1Ds Mk II would be good enough and if not why?
Click to expand...

;)
 
40D x2 is good enough with good glass and skill. In fact, 20D should be OK, unless they are playing a wedding football match in moonlight. In that unlikely case perhaps you would want D3s

1Ds II >> 5D mk I in terms of everything, including weight :lol:
 
How do you find the Ni-MH battery of the 1Ds MkII? Do you reckon a 1Ds MkI could stand up against a 5D?

Cheers
 
Oops, missed the 's' on the 1D so no crop factor to worry about - thanks fabs.
 
Richard King said:
10 years ago, a Nikon D1 was "good enough"
Click to expand...

Not for weddings, it wasn't - it was Shi'ite - I still used 35mm and 120 film (and a Nikon Coolscan if they wanted digital copies) in preference as the skin tones from the D1 were atrocious...

I only started shooting weddings on digital when the D1x arrived and that was still pretty iffy...:shake:

Canons of that era had much better colour rendition, which is one reason why so many photographers chose them...
 
Arkady said:
Not for weddings, it wasn't - it was Shi'ite - I still used 35mm and 120 film (and a Nikon Coolscan if they wanted digital copies) in preference as the skin tones from the D1 were atrocious...

I only started shooting weddings on digital when the D1x arrived and that was still pretty iffy...:shake:

Canons of that era had much better colour rendition, which is one reason why so many photographers chose them...
Click to expand...

The point I was making was about marketing hype. If it was "good enough" or not isnt the question or point I am making. We all know a D40 outperforms D1, D100 D1x (and a whole bunch of cameras inbetween), but nowadays a D40 isnt "good enough" to shoot a wedding

I am not endorsing the use of D40's for weddings I am merley commeting that "what seems to be acceptable" or "what is good enough" has changed over the years. Clearly you thought a D1x was OK enough to get out of the kitbag. But anyone saying Im going to shoot a wedding with a D40 or a D1x would (today) be branded all sorts of things

Im with you on the 35mm thing, I used it for a long time,, I still do, and ignored the D100 & D1 untill the quality really was there

If you want a sobering thought, or a really good girraffe - read this - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1/page20.asp In fact, anyone reading any review on a camera should read this first!!!! It will put things read about current models into a perspective
 
Last edited:
Richard King said:
...Clearly you thought a D1x was OK enough to get out of the kitbag. But anyone saying Im going to shoot a wedding with a D40 or a D1x would (today) be branded all sorts of things...
Click to expand...

Rightly so in light of better, more modern equipment being available.
I used a D1x for a few weddings, but it took a lot of P&P to get the images looking as good as a 10x12" lustre print from 35mm Fuji Reala.
 
I know what you are saying, it is just conversations nowadays (like they allways have done) seem to rotate arround the latest new thing and are totally blinkered to the fact that a camera in the right hands that is say a "generation out of date" like a Fuji S5 produces perfect wedding photography. As would be a MF Digital Hasselblad etc..
 
So.....:lol:

...how do you reckon a Canon 1Ds MkI could stand up against a 5D for wedding photography?

Leaving aside all the bits about it's down to the phographer, what lenses etc etc Is there any striking difference between the two which would make life a lot harder for the photographer?
 
very little between them, at normal ISO's you will be splitting hairs between them

5D is better at high ISO (but do you really shoot there?), has a lighter battery / charger and of course has ETTL-II flash. On the downside it is not weatherproof

TBH, investment is possibly better served with better RAW conversion
 
Richard King said:
very little between them, at normal ISO's you will be splitting hairs between them

5D is better at high ISO (but do you really shoot there?), has a lighter battery / charger and of course has ETTL-II flash. On the downside it is not weatherproof

TBH, investment is possibly better served with better RAW conversion
Click to expand...

Even though I own my own D3 and D3x bodies, for 'work' at work, I get to use a couple of slightly tatty D2x bodies which have been round the block a few times. Oh, and some old beat-up 28-80mm f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 lenses as well...:thumbs:

You can barely tell the difference after they've been JPEG'd down for Press use...and after the newspapers have done with them...:shrug:
 
There is only thing you need from a camera at a wedding:

Reliability.
 
Richard King said:
5D is better at high ISO (but do you really shoot there?)
Click to expand...

I always though decent ISO capability was important for weddings in case you can't use the flash?


Kris said:
There is only thing you need from a camera at a wedding:

Reliability.
Click to expand...

I appreciate this is important but then a point and shoot can be reliable but certainly isn't suitable for a wedding photographer. What I'm really aiming for here is are there specs on certain cameras which are generally considered essential for today's wedding photographer?



micloi said:
1Ds MKII is a better camera and a more expensive one.
Between the 5D and the 1Ds MKI I would choose the 5D every day.
Click to expand...

But what is it about the 5D that makes it so much better for wedding photography over the 1Ds MkI?


Arkady said:
I used a D1x for a few weddings, but it took a lot of P&P to get the images looking as good as a 10x12" lustre print from 35mm Fuji Reala.
Click to expand...

This is where my thought chain is heading. I'm wondering that although you can probably use just about any DSLR for wedding photography, would using certain cameras over others result in a substantial drop in PP? In this case, the 1Ds Mk I or MkII vs the 5D MkI?


It's just that whenever you read threads by wedding photographers they always seem to have either 5D MkI's or 5D MkII's (although I'm sure there are plenty who use other cameras now that I've said that! lol). So what is it about this model that makes it the Wedding Pro's choice over other cameras?
 
I can't speak for other Canon bodies as I've only used the latest EOS 1D MkIV on a trial basis, but for the past decade (and until the arrival of the D700/D3/D3x) they've had the edge on colour rendition.

If you want to seriously compete with the best of today's wedding pros then you'll have to buy the latest top-end kit - not so much for the image quality - at the sizes you'll be out-putting there's precious little difference - but for the other stuff: the ability to shoot in darker conditions than previously; the ability to use multiple off-camera flash units to create specific effects.

As the bar is raised by the capabilities of the latest equipment, so do the clients' expectations and they will demand more of the photographer - if you want to compete with the big boys, you'll have to have that capability as well...
 
gman said:
How do you find the Ni-MH battery of the 1Ds MkII? Do you reckon a 1Ds MkI could stand up against a 5D?

Cheers
Click to expand...

I have 3x 3rd party batteries. One seems to last days worth of landscape shooting, not more. 40D battery seems to go on for 2x longer. I guess original new one would be a little better. 2x should be easily enough for a wedding day.

I think I would much rather 5D than 1Ds mk1. mk1 is a bit of a dinosaur, poor high ISO, and only ETTL-1 + probably some very high usage by now, and limited support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top