@msmoto Your shots were totally acceptable to me...even those that you shot at 12,000+ ISO (i.e the one post a remark on...could not put the link here). Would a flash help, yes...specially if you had the Gary Fog Collapsible Lightsphere.

I was allowed to shoot some supplementary photos at my son's wedding this past weekend. And following my PAD posts for the last couple days will take someone to the "set" on Flickr.

My plans were to shoot two bodies, but the fact I had to be in the wedding at times, and was not allowed to wear my jeans and t-shirt, I decided the D4 with 24mm f/1.4. No fill. At times I utilized the videographers lighting..and at the cake cutting, where I was almost certain the mush in the face was to occur, I shot 8 FPS....

OK, the point....there are no doubt some of the photos on Flickr which are IMO marginal...needed a fill flash. But, the majority can be managed in LR 4.2 or other PP program and again, IMO are a more accurate representation of the situation than if I had added fill flash.

Conclusion: Two cameras, one with fill flash for the "lighting from H***" situations. And, while one needs big ISO, the second with fill might be only 6400 ISO.

Please understand, I have no problems with seeing a small amount of noise....

msmoto said:
I noticed a no budget restraints suggestion.... so D4, D800, 24mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and if the lights are horrid, a soft box fill on camera with about a 1 f/stop down on the flash exposure, i.e., just for a fill...

+1, +1.5? :)

A lot of cameras will do the business. I'd be far more uptight about lighting.

I couldn't believe it, but I saw a used D600 for $1700 in the window of one of my favourite camera stores this afternoon! Even crazier was the fact that a used D800 was placed right next to it for $2750. Apparently the D600 will drop like a stone in pricing especially for used bodies and will register below a used D700 because of the body structure differences if you can believe it. Both bodies were mint and had 2,900 and 3,000 actuations respectively. andens grab a D600 it is super light and takes great images. The 24-70 will serve you perfectly as well.

I'd probably lean to a D600 backed up by a D7000. They share a lot of accessories - batteries, cable release, SD cards only, etc. And functionally, the shape of the body and placement of controls are similar. The D700 is a good camera, but I would choose the D600 and related updates at a little more money. The D700, D300, etc have accessories that are not compatible so the savings is not what you would like.

I would more to the pro lenses which is where your money will go. The 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 are the classic combination but you might try the 70-200 f/4. You'll probably want a couple of flash units - one for each camera and to make sure you have a backup.

I noticed a no budget restraints suggestion.... so D4, D800, 24mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, and if the lights are horrid, a soft box fill on camera with about a 1 f/stop down on the flash exposure, i.e., just for a fill...

R8R said:
I've shot a friend's wedding with the D7000 and it was totally usable. The images came out great. You need to know that thing inside and out though to make shooting fast and flexible. Put good glass on it.

+1

I've shot a friend's wedding with the D7000 and it was totally usable. The images came out great. You need to know that thing inside and out though to make shooting fast and flexible. Put good glass on it.

If I were committing to Nikon as a wedding photographer my choice would be D800 with a D600 backup. If you are strapped for cash at the moment, you should go for D700 to which you could add a D600 later then D800 when you are rich and famous (;-/). The important thing is that you are exclusively full frame and so your camera body will not affect the style of photo you take, just the ultimate resolution. Next decision is glass - start with 14-24 and 24-70 f2.8's if you can - you'll never sell them to upgrade.

Even if you do get a D7000 (DX sensor) body which is very cheap right now, you should get FX (full frame) glass so you can upgrade the body later.

HTH.

ask anyone you know if you can shoot their wedding casually. then rent a body and some lenses (stay out of the main photog's way).

then see if what you have shot is anywhere near good enough.

then think real hard about wedding photography and what you'll need.

I have $30000 worth of gear and years of experience and would still be nervous shooting a wedding by myself.

If you really can't afford a D800 look at the D600 and get the D800 later but if you are on very tight budget the D7000 will be fine. forget the D90 and the D300 both now very dated, the other option is a S/H D700

Used D7000? Or a used D300s? Or D90, used. I am thinking one might want to start out inexpensively and when the new iterations of the model come out...add a body. One needs a couple lenses. The kit lenses with a flash for weddings may be fine. Then as the price goes up, so does the quality. I am shooting a wedding on full frame with a 24mm, and on DX with an 85mm. No zoom.

There is no doubt a lot of folks have done extremely competent jobs at weddings with the D7000. I suppose it depends on whether someone is spending $500 or $5000 for the photos...

More to come from the experts.....

I would suggest using a D600 ($1,000 less than a D800 and available now - plenty of images from it on NR PAD) combined with the replacement for the D7000 (likely to be named the D7200 and likely to be out early next year).

Hi,

Apologies, if I'm in the wrong place, I have used this site intermittently before so may need guidance as to which is the best forum. However, my main question is relating to 'What is a good Nikon camera, to begin photographing weddings with? As a bit of a background to assist, I have for many years used film and still do almost all the time (current camera's include Nikon F3, Minolta Dynax 7 and 9, and a Mamiya RB67) in addition to digital I have been a Sony A100 user, since they came out. However, I'm not ready to commit to the new translucent sensor technology, as it is still new, and as Sony have stopped making standard DSLR's I'm reluctant to commit the the A900 if that is the end of the road for Sony Dslr's. I have been asked to photograph a number of weddings later in the year and next, I realise that one digital is not a good idea, and hence I am thinking of changing platforms to Nikon and have been looking a the D7000 as the my first digital Nikon. Probably to use as them main camera to begin, supported by the A100 if need be, although i recognise all the issues with lenses and flash I have a full compliment of these for the Sony, I would look to get these for the Nikon as soon as practical. I have also looked at the D800, but that for the time being is a little out of reach. So the question really is do you thing that the d7000 id an adequate camera fro weddings, whilst supported with the Sony and the RB for the portraits and art photo's - if the time allows. Many thanks for your thoughts.