Today....I couldn't believe my eyes!

In brief:

Have you wedding-guys ever thought of using a wee-little APS-C mirrorless body for your pro wedding shoots?
Well, I saw it today!

A bit more detail:

I'm NOT a wedding photographer....I'm the guy who , in Japanese, stands in front and says, "Do you...?" to the happy couple. But being a well-known concert-photographer for Missus Skygod (MkIII) and all her prop' opera chums, I've got a great relationship with all the guys who shoot at the wedding chapels where I officiate.

Usually, they use 5D2s or 6D bodies, or Nikons (but I won't expand on that...hahaha!)

Well, today, for the first time ever, one of my mates pulled out a Sony NEX-5, slapped on a Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 and proceeded to shoot the wedding-ring shots.

I think my jaw hit the altar!!!!!

Anyway, after a chat, he said - and this guy is no amateur - that recently, he's happier using lighter gear as it still produces amazing shots, but without the cost and bulk of FF dSLRs.

He's still using FF, but he said he's trying out his NEX/Zeiss combo for more and more "scenes", and he's pondering on where the camera companies need to get to, before he can jump fully into NOT using FF any more.

I'm still a bit in shock....

What do you think?

Regards,

Simon

This has crossed my mind MANY times. I really do enjoy using micro four thirds gear when shooting video. The lenses are small and light and awesome. I mean, my pro-quality 7-14 F/4 lens (14-28FF equiv) is smaller than a 50 1.4! Compare that to the Nikon 14-24, which I used to have and it was H-U-G-E and heavy, and so awkwardly shaped it didn't fit nicely into ANY of my bags. I can fit practically an entire M43 setup in the space it took to hold that one damn lens.

The one thing holding me back though, is the focusing in really really low light is still not on par with my canons. Otherwise, in decent to good light, it's probably actually better and less work. You can teach your camera who the bride and groom is and it'll automatically lock on focus to their faces all day.

So many reasons for me to switch, but very few to not. The only problem is, those very few reasons are BIG reasons. Like low light focusing and dual card slots. Image quality is not even a concern, all modern large sensor cameras (m43 and up) are excellent.

Though I shoot many weddings by choice with no FF bodies. Two 40D bodies, my EF-S glass, a couple L's, and I'm set for a wedding. So I'm no stranger to ditching the overhyped and overpraised Full Frame format.

But I would REALLY love to move to m43 for weddings and events. It's getting there, but not quite yet. Maybe in a few years. But I don't think I can ever get rid of my FF canon bodies for my commercial work. I need the lineup of Canon TS-E lenses for the buildings and huge industrial projects I shoot.

There are no rules to what a wedding photographer can/cannot use in a wedding. At the end of the day, if the photographer is able to stay in business with the gear they are using, then that's all that matters.

skygod44 wrote in post #16367134
What do you think?

Mirrorless camera and lenses are really starting to show the features as quality that for years you'd only expect from dslr. Now with Pro's gushing over mirrorless camera like the Fuji x100s and even doing shoots with them I'd expect to see more and more mirrorless cameras showing up where before you'd only expect a dslr.

I don't know my photo history to well but if I'm not mistaken, for years medium format was the camera of choice then 35mm SLR's started to show up where before you'd only expect a medium format camera. I can see this happening again with DSLR's and Mirrorless camera as mirrorless become better and better.

Many photographers are using smaller cameras for parts of the day, technology has caught up. Like Lloyd said low light isn't as good yet, and depth of field is wider, which many people consider to be inferior but can be an advantage in some situations.

skygod44 wrote in post #16367134
In brief:


I'm NOT a wedding photographer....I'm the guy who , in Japanese, stands in front and says, "Do you...?" to the happy couple.
I think my jaw hit the altar!!!!!

Simon

...do you also judge the couple that you're going to wed whether they will last or not simply by the way they look? length of relationship prior to marriage? wealth?

I could frankly care less what camera body i use. What I do care about is

very clean ISO up to 8000. anything better is just a bonus as far as im concerned.

ability to shoot shallow

ability to use correct lens for portrait perspectives and ability to telephoto compress backgrounds in my photos

a camera with an accurate servo tracking system

If any camera can accomplish this....im all ears. Until then, i will stick with my very reliable canon camera bodies. Love the 5D3's

The medium format guys would probably laugh at how tiny 35mm sensors are....

This all makes sense and it's only a matter of time, certainly better than an iphone.

I can't find it for the life of me, but I once saw a review by a guy who did an entire wedding with a Fuji X-E1 (APS-C sensor, similar ballpark as NEX but with slower AF). He had some absolutely incredible images in that gallery. One was the bride walking down the grand stairway of the castle with soft lighting hitting sideways from the tall window, taken from above, and I would frame that one and put it in my living room - and I don't even know the couple (edit: there we go, found it - my bad, was an X-Pro1; same sensor and glass though). So yeah, I'm not surprised you can do good things with APS-C mirrorless gear.

Thing is since they're recent tech they generally have first-tier noise control at high ISO, which is great for doing ambient light shots at wedding venues, some excellent fast primes, but suffer from poor AF (except a few models) which I guess you can overcome if you're good enough. I can see why they're an increasingly popular choice.

I'd sooner carry 3 mirrorless bodies around than 3 DSLR's. If the camera does the job I want it to I don't care what type it is.

Bottom line is that the Sony NEX-5 isn't as good as a Canon Mark3. Here's a comparison:

http://snapsort.com …D-Mark-III-vs-Sony-NEX-5N

About the only thing the Sony NEX-5 has got going for it is size, and I don't see that as an issue. I shoot with Mark 3s and often with the 50mm - its a very compact setup. If I whack my 85mm 1.2 on things start getting larger, but size has rarely factored into any of my decisions vis-a-ve gear. The only time I've had issues is when my very petite second shooter couldn't hold up the 70-200m for very long. But I prefer my lighter 135mm anyway, and there is no replacing a long optical focal length when you need it, and no getting around the size of one.

Ultimately, the NEX-5 is only going to sell to those professionals who are cash-strapped, IMHO.

Problem is that it doesn't really do the job. It has shutter lag, poor battery life, worse image quality, no weather sealing, hardly any lenses, etc etc. It's a pretty shoddy tool when you compare it to Canon and Nikon flagship bodies.

If carrying around 2 bodies bothers you, I'd highly recommend the Spider Holster system. One of the best purchases I've ever made. I carry two on the hips and a third either in my bag or slung. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.

vanmidd wrote in post #16369406
If carrying around 2 bodies bothers you, I'd highly recommend the Spider Holster system. One of the best purchases I've ever made. I carry two on the hips and a third either in my bag or slung. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well.

It doesn't bother me and I already use a black rapid double-r. The point I am making is once the technology becomes sufficiently good I'd consider adding in a mirrorless to the equation.

(Mostly) interesting comments guys. Thanks.

I've been here for 10 years now, so I had no idea what was the "norm" over there in the west.

But it appears that a few of you are beginning to see mirrorless bodies as perfectly acceptable alternatives, so long as the AF and shutter-lag issues can be sorted out. Along with higher ISO problems.

I was one of the first to get my hands on an EOS-M, and was VERY impressed with it, even with my 100-400L slapped on the front, it was good enough to consider buying.....
.....but in the end, I really wanted an optical viewfinder.

So, it seems that attitudes over there are not so "gear-prejudiced" as over here. At least, not where I live and work!


Great to hear!

Regards to all,

Simon