Crop camera wedding shots

I was kind of hoping for lots of pictures. These things have been argued over and over.

cdifoto wrote in post #14907524
You're nuts if you expect a $1000 wedding professional to have the latest and greatest top end equipment.

A skilled professional could blow your mind with the kit lens and a rebel. Of course a skilled professional isn't going to be a mere $1000 though either, and probably wouldn't use the kit lens and rebel simply because it's not a very durable combination.

I guess I am nuts and all the wedding photographer I have seen in this small city with population of merely around 100k are even bigger nuts. Since I am into shooting urban wildlife I do run into wedding photographers quite often in the parks and none of them I have seen were using Rebels with kit lenses. I think the cheapest equipment I have seen them carrying around was a xxD body with a 70-200 f2.8L lens. Nowadays we have internet which contains enormous amount of information so I am sure most people do have an idea of what a high quality image should look like. Kit lenses may be able to produce decent images for online viewing but they are hardly good enough for larger prints not to mention their performance in low light situations. I know some people see photography as pure money making business and want to spend as little as possible to get as big as possible profits while others see it as a form of art and take it seriously so of course those people do want some high quality equipment. I am sure that the best photographers out there belong to the later. Now I am not saying that those with expensive lenses are all skilled photographers as I do not consider myself one of them even with all the money I have spent on this hobby but at least I take it seriously and want to improve my skills.

DigitalRev made a series of cheap camera challenges to show how the real pros work around the obstacles created by cheap equipment but they also made this:
http://youtu.be/hk5IMm​EDWH4

Charlie wrote in post #14908034
body is more important than lens when discussing two different form factors (crop vs FF).

cheap lenses usually have very soft edges and that would be even more obvious on larger sensors...
just read some of the lens reviews on photozone.de where they tested the same lens on both aps-c format and the 35mm format

These are some of the best crop sensor wedding shots I've seen. I believe they were all taken with a 7d:

http://www.yannislario​s.com/

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #14908162
I guess I am nuts and all the wedding photographer I have seen in this small city with population of merely around 100k are even bigger nuts. Since I am into shooting urban wildlife I do run into wedding photographers quite often in the parks and none of them I have seen were using Rebels with kit lenses. I think the cheapest equipment I have seen them carrying around was a xxD body with a 70-200 f2.8L lens. Nowadays we have internet which contains enormous amount of information so I am sure most people do have an idea of what a high quality image should look like. Kit lenses may be able to produce decent images for online viewing but they are hardly good enough for larger prints not to mention their performance in low light situations. I know some people see photography as pure money making business and want to spend as little as possible to get as big as possible profits while others see it as a form of art and take it seriously so of course those people do want some high quality equipment. I am sure that the best photographers out there belong to the later. Now I am not saying that those with expensive lenses are all skilled photographers as I do not consider myself one of them even with all the money I have spent on this hobby but at least I take it seriously and want to improve my skills.

DigitalRev made a series of cheap camera challenges to show how the real pros work around the obstacles created by cheap equipment but they also made this:
http://youtu.be/hk5IMm​EDWH4

cheap lenses usually have very soft edges and that would be even more obvious on larger sensors...
just read some of the lens reviews on photozone.de where they tested the same lens on both aps-c format and the 35mm format

There actually are a lot of low end photographers who buy more equipment than they need and/or their fees actually allow them to afford.

jaomul wrote in post #14908120
I was kind of hoping for lots of pictures. These things have been argued over and over.

You are right...

Here are some from my crop sony ex-camera..

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #14908162
I guess I am nuts and all the wedding photographer I have seen in this small city with population of merely around 100k are even bigger nuts.

I don't think you are nuts, but I do think that what you say is just rationalization. After all you spent so much money on equipment many others can never justify or afford buying!

I am tired of hearing why everyone without superior equipment just wasting their time.

From strictly technical grounds you are right: more expensive equipment usually means better image quality. But as it is the case with high tech equipment the law of diminishing returns applies. Do you think that your customers are interested in your equipment and not the photos themselves? A perfectly sharp photo showing every blemish on the face of the bride or the stubble on the groom is what they want?

Still if you are a professional it makes sense to buy the more expensive stuff because a) the market is highly competitive and b) you can afford it (or you hope you will earn enough to pay for it). Like the top boss of any large company must have better cars than a Ford Focus (which is a good car by the way) otherwise the customers would scorn them and think that they (or their company) cannot afford them. With the highest quality equipment you also advertise how good a photographer you are as you can afford it.

So you are not nuts, but please do not think that others are.

There are many levels of people. There are many levels of photographers. If every photography bought the most expensive equipment and all charged according to how much money they have invested, we would have thousands of brides letting uncle Bob take their wedding photos. A bride with a photography budget of $700 does not look at photographers that charge $3,500. Just like even though they love the $20,000 dress but find a $7,000 dress that they also love. I do this part time, I love it. I can't afford $10k worth of equipment, I also don't charge $3,500 the weddings that I have done have gone well, meaning the couple is happy, I'm happy, I've gained experience, made some money, and given the couple a good value. I want better equipment, and will save for it. What bothers me is this. If another photographer looking for a second shooter sees my work and says they like it, it's very much like the work they do, what do you shoot with, oh, sorry I can't use you. We are all hung up on if you spend more money it must be better. So to every photographer out there shooting with what you can afford, keep shooting, keep learning, keep being inspired, and keep inspiring others to do what they love to do with what ever equipment they have. Time to start lifting people up and stop tearing them down. The love if photography is more than enough for me.

afalco wrote in post #14910061
I don't think you are nuts, but I do think that what you say is just rationalization. After all you spent so much money on equipment many others can never justify or afford buying!

I am tired of hearing why everyone without superior equipment just wasting their time.

From strictly technical grounds you are right: more expensive equipment usually means better image quality. But as it is the case with high tech equipment the law of diminishing returns applies. Do you think that your customers are interested in your equipment and not the photos themselves? A perfectly sharp photo showing every blemish on the face of the bride or the stubble on the groom is what they want?

Still if you are a professional it makes sense to buy the more expensive stuff because a) the market is highly competitive and b) you can afford it (or you hope you will earn enough to pay for it). Like the top boss of any large company must have better cars than a Ford Focus (which is a good car by the way) otherwise the customers would scorn them and think that they (or their company) cannot afford them. With the highest quality equipment you also advertise how good a photographer you are as you can afford it.

So you are not nuts, but please do not think that others are.

I wasn't the one calling myself nuts lol that would be nuts if I did Also I do find it childish with the name calling and all that but this is an internet forum after all. I do agree with most of what you are saying but I never said that it's waste of time if you don't have good equipment. I just think that considering how much those wedding photographers charge they should at least have some decent tools and how limiting the ef-s 18-55 kit lens really is in many situations.

Here are mine - I wasn't the official photographer, I was just a guest with a camera...

All with the 7D - very low light so had to use ISO3200 for some of the indoor shots...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …jackhenriques/7​869380570/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …jackhenriques/7​869355768/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …jackhenriques/7​869329854/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …jackhenriques/7​869339298/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …jackhenriques/7​869315176/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …jackhenriques/7​869374560/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …jackhenriques/7​869344578/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …jackhenriques/7​869321616/

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #14910788
I wasn't the one calling myself nuts lol that would be nuts if I did Also I do find it childish with the name calling and all that but this is an internet forum after all. I do agree with most of what you are saying but I never said that it's waste of time if you don't have good equipment. I just think that considering how much those wedding photographers charge they should at least have some decent tools and how limiting the ef-s 18-55 kit lens really is in many situations.

I didn't intend to call you a name, but rather call your belief that $1000 for wedding photography is a ton of money nuts. I apologize. I don't even know where you're located. $1000 could very well be a lot of money in your area. In many areas, however, it's the low end - not much higher than the craigslist shoot & burn crowd and definitely not on the premium equipment and expertise level. Of course I never advocated using the 18-55 kit lens exclusively either.

The idea that the size of the sensor makes a difference is what is nuts.
I started shooting wedding with a Rolli. The film plane was about 4 times the size of today's DSLs.

Its nice to have L lenses. They make nice sharp images, providing the AF gets the focus right. With the Rollie I had to make sure the focus was right.

Getting good wedding pictures is about understanding what is going on, and being able to capture, or recreate the moment and emotion.

One thing that always amuses me is how brides Oh and Ah about my portfolio and exclaim how great the candid moments are captured. When I ask which images they like best, they almost always select the "directed" images. It worked when photographing executives for annual reports why won't it work with a bride and groom.

Bottom line, "its the indian not the arrows" to quote a golf pro friend of mine, when commenting on the difference between his game and mine.

And its true about wedding pictures as well.

dmward wrote in post #14911053
The idea that the size of the sensor makes a difference is what is nuts.
I started shooting wedding with a Rolli. The film plane was about 4 times the size of today's DSLs.

Its nice to have L lenses. They make nice sharp images, providing the AF gets the focus right. With the Rollie I had to make sure the focus was right.

Getting good wedding pictures is about understanding what is going on, and being able to capture, or recreate the moment and emotion.

One thing that always amuses me is how brides Oh and Ah about my portfolio and exclaim how great the candid moments are captured. When I ask which images they like best, they almost always select the "directed" images. It worked when photographing executives for annual reports why won't it work with a bride and groom.

Bottom line, "its the indian not the arrows" to quote a golf pro friend of mine, when commenting on the difference between his game and mine.

Yep people don't stop and do that romantic garbage on their own...or it's awkward and as far from photogenic as you can get if they do. They don't know how to stand, where to stand, or even how to kiss without help. Eating each others faces is not sweet and romantic.

Some great shots posted now. That's more like it.

I've had 5D or 5DII or 5DIII for all my wedding shooting for the past lot of years.
I picked up a 7D early last year, thought I'd give it a try as an alternative camera to my 5DIIs.

It was, (I sold it) a nice camera with one exception; it made my 16-35 into a 28-60 or so.

And that's a problem for me. I like wide. I also like long. I even tried a 10-16mm lens that a video guy using a 7D recommended. After three copies that I couldn't get to focus reliably I quit trying.

Lots of nice images from crop cameras. Just to prove that FF can make nice images too:

Here i took some with my 7D

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …rzphotography/7​333711128/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …rzphotography/7​333694690/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …rzphotography/7​333685488/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …rzphotography/7​333704892/