This will be one of the biggest time-wasting endeavors I will get to do for a long time, so I should get on it immediately. If the mods remove my thread entirely, I won't be surprised (but thank goodness for copy and paste!).
So..........This is based on two dimensions of wedding photography: skill/knowledge and equipment. These are the most familiar elements for dispute and discussion among people wanting to get into wedding photography, and they are the main factors that can be most easily altered (personality is much less changeable).
1. Okay, you just bought a digital SLR in the last few months. And you have a kit lens, too: are you ready to photograph a wedding? 99.9999% chance you are not.
Why? At this stage, your shots will almost certainly look like any other snapshots. Also, you will have no backup equipment to handle failures and no ability to handle all the dimly lit environments except using built-in flash (which will look like a snapshot). Many of your shots in dim light will be misfocused, even with built-in flash assist. Your current perception of the most important thing in photography is to get "the sharpest images possible" and you will frequently stop down your aperture to that all-masterful f/8 or so to accomplish that. You have no idea about white balance, usually do not understand why your photos don't come out better when everything is in focus, and have limited or no knowledge of composition or light angles.
The best photographer in the world would probably only be able to make good use of about 10-15% of the environments they would find during the wedding with this kit.
2. You have a dSLR, kit lens, probably a 50 f/1.8 and possibly 55-250 or similar lens, and you've been shooting for a few months to a year or even two: Are you ready? 99% chance you are not.
Why? See above. Replace "no ability to handle dimly lit environments" with "only able to handle environments with about 3-4x the average reception lighting levels." Any normal reception or fast-paced sitution in a dark place will force you to use your built-in flash (resulting in a snapshot) and your motion shots will often come out misfocused anyway. At this stage, you probably have a very rudimentary understanding of composition and the 50 f/1.8 may be your "portrait lens." You probably don't care about bokeh quality and are still trying to get "sharp images," but you may be starting to realize that not everything has to be in focus.
The best photographer in the world would probably be able to make good use of about 25-35% of the environments they would find during the wedding with this kit.
3. dSLR, kit lens, an f/2.8 standard zoom, 50 f/1.8, and 430EX or 580EX flash, few months to 1.5 years experience or somewhat more. Are you ready to do weddings? As a second shooter, you might get lucky and find someone willing to work with you...but definitely not as a solo shooter.
Well, what's changed here is you are able to actually illuminate most of the environments - with the 50 f/1.8 and 580EX, in particular - satisfactorily, if not creatively. You probably have very basic knowledge of flash and will spend most of your time avoiding using it unless you have to. When you do use it, you'll probably use it bare, or else attach an omnibounce or similar diffuser with results that parallel snapshots with slightly lighter shadows (some people seem to think this is better). If you are familiar and comfortable with bouncing flash, you are ahead of 95% of your peers at this level.
The best photographer in the world would probably be able to make good use of about 95-100% of the environments they would find during the wedding with this kit.
4. 2 dSLRs, f/2.8 standard zoom, 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4 and/or a wide and/or long fast lens, 430EX or 580EX (preferably x2), at least 1-2 years experience, comfortable with bounced flash, some experience with off-camera flash. Can you handle a wedding now?
At this point, the answer to this question finally depends much more on your experience and knowledge than on your equipment. If you are comfortable with your entire kit, you should be able to handle a wedding by yourself and do a job ranging from subpar/average to very good. How good a job you do now depends on....
Your understanding of the rules of composition, lighting, framing, posing; your ability to consider context, your photographic eye; your skill with on and off-camera flash, adaptability to quickly changing situations/environments, how good you are at making your equipment lock focus on the intended target, how accurate and responsive your equipment is when you need it (especially for fast-paced situations), how good you are at working with people, how easy or hard the subjects are to work with...
Can you handle all jobs at this point? Your kit limits your ability to do church weddings without a fast long lens (preferably with IS). If, for instance, the officiant/priest restricts how close you can get to the b&g during the ceremony, you might not be able to get very close for some shots like the ring exchange (which you can usually - but not always - recreate later). This cuts down on the variety of shots you can do during this time. Otherwise...you can probably do everything else without a long telephoto lens.
5. Variations on a theme: Photographer with 1-2 dSLRs, kit lens or f/2.8 standard zoom, 55-250 or 70-300 or some similar lens OR 70-200 variant, 50 f/1.8 or similar, any number of other cheap or expensive lenses, 430EX or 580EX, anywhere from <1 year to >20 years experience with photography, possibly including weddings, knows nothing about bouncing flash, uses bare flash, omnibounce or other diffuser, often a flash bracket, has a very traditional perspective and does not understand modern styling or artistic photography, has little or no creativity, very little photographic eye, does not understand much or care about lighting angle, hardness, or white balance, and is typically 35-65 years of age. Can this person handle weddings with their kit? Probably. Should they be shooting weddings?...........
I could point you to the results of this type of person shooting weddings, and they would think they did/do an acceptable job (with, of course, admittedly some flaws). What you would see would be underexposed backgrounds and/or faces, orange faces with blue specular areas on them and flat shadows (interior), very formal posing, faces with fake or blunted expressions, lots of in-focus backgrounds and background/foreground objects that do not benefit the composition (chain link fences, cars, fans, other distracting or unattractive elements), and a general absence of life, spirit or feeling in the photos. Are the photos snapshots? They are not far off.
6. Another variation: Creative person with limited kit that may include a 1 camera, kit lens or f/2.8 standard zoom and/or 50 f/1.8 or similar and/or some other lens, and possibly (but not definitely) a flash. Very familiar with what their equipment can do, and is able to manipulate it creatively and adapt well. Has a sincere appreciation for and understanding of composition and lighting angles, an awareness of how these things affect the mood of a composition, an eye for line, form, color, with or without much posing knowledge. Should this person be doing wedding photography? As second shooter, probably yes; as solo, definitely not - until they have a kit with backup camera. Experience probably ranges usually from 1-5 years.
This person may have many of the artistic traits that are very useful when trying to create or find appealing photos. They have a much better chance of producing high quality work than the elder with a bigger kit and much more photography experience. The finished product from this person is distinctly different: They don't produce many snapshots: a much higher percentage of their photos will be good, and most will be better than the best photos the above person with more experience would provide. Why? The eye for what works and what doesn't, the understanding of light and composition.
7. 2+ dSLRs, a pretty well rounded kit (you can decide what this is), most likely 2+ years photography experience, some understanding of composition, lighting, form, line, color, posing, recognition of the importance of these elements, comfortable with on-camera bounced flash and off-camera flash, some presence of a photographic eye, and at least a modicum of creativity. This is an average person with lots of room for growth and an ability to actually do so (at whatever pace, fast or slow). This person should be able to handle wedding work, and do a job ranging from acceptable on up. This is obviously not the most common person coming to forums and asking questions - in fact, this type is probably the least common person to see here (perhaps next to the creative type above).
It's important to remember that retouching makes a big difference in the finished product. Any one of these people can raise up the quality of their output by several notches by having good retouching skills; conversely, even the person with the best photographic skill/knowledge/eye/etc. ends up with mostly (not all) average or only good photos without some retouching skill. The retouching, color style, etc., brings out the life in the photos.
***Update*** Another important thing to consider is your background in photography: What did you shoot before you wanted to do weddings?
If a person shot social or business events, then they're probably familiar with getting candids, snapshots of groups together, documenting an event, and (if your event experience is in a fast-paced environment with one-time-only shots) possibly action photos. They may or may not have much experience with flash, and most of the time these shooters use on-camera flash with omnibounces or other diffusers, or bare flash. They rarely use bounced flash, and almost never off-camera flash (with a few excellent exceptions). Composition and quality would be most important with the journalist who is skilled at documentary style photography, while the average night club photog or part-time business event shooter usually has limited knowledge about technical aspects of composition/light/etc. These people often have little/no experience with posing, and the average event photographer's primary advantage would be understanding about capturing the day overall and sometimes some flash use.
If they shot sports events, then most of the time they are used to getting action photos. Depending on whether these were outdoors, indoors, etc., and whether they were good/experienced enough or had the option to use off-camera flash, they may have accumulated some familiarity with the benefits of flash for freezing motion. These people often have little or no experience with posing either, and they may or may not know how to use flash much (almost never bounce flash or diffusers). Their primary advantage is ability to handle fast-paced action.
If they shot predominantly natural light portraits, then their skill is usually dependent on natural light. These may be either average or excellent photographers, but most of them avoid flash completely or almost completely. They will probably have the advantages of understanding some/many aspects of composition, lighting concepts and sometimes posing (although some great wedding photographers who use natural light 99% of the time are photojournalists), and the big disadvantage of not knowing how to creatively use flash. Often these photographers are also not used to fast-paced situations. There are some excellent photographers who shoot only with natural light, and I give them due credit for their skill.
A studio-only photographer could have any number of skills. They may have compositional and lighting strengths and be good with posing, off-camera lighting, etc.,, but many times they are not as good at using available light or adapting their studio/off-camera light to wedding work. They also are not used to capturing things in such a fast-paced situation as weddings frequently have, and they are not often used to working with "whatever's available" environmentally.
A macro-only photographer may have the advantages of understanding light, color, texture, and/or overall composition, but little idea how to document the wedding day or capture fast-paced situations. Working with people is much different, and they probably will have no experience with posing or other important people-managing skills. Again, adapting the knowledge of lighting from a controlled situation into the busy environment of a wedding often doesn't come quickly.
A landscape or wildlife photographer is in a similar boat with the macro photographer: various levels of understanding of many principles, but limited experience with people. A landscape or wildlife photographer is probably less likely to understand how to create their own lighting than a macro photographer, but a wildlife photographer may be used to capturing action.
A product photographer...likely similar to a macro photographer in skill focus. Will probably be able to take really good details shots, but photographing people will not be as natural for them.
These various photography trades all have something to lend to wedding photography, but none of them ultimately prepares a person entirely for wedding photography. You have to be a natural light portrait photographer, an event photographer, a macro photographer, a product photographer, a portable-studio photographer, and a sport photographer, all in one. None of these is your sole profession, but every one of them is part of it. A jack-of-all-trades, perhaps...or, if you're really good, an ace-of-all-trades?
***End of Update***
Am I stereotyping and classifying? Yes I am. Does everyone fit into my typecasts? Very few fit exactly, but many fit mostly and others fit some.
And this is the end of my rant...for now.
