Yeah, i know that thread. Lens discussions can only go so far, i was more looking for some tips or gear beyond the basics.
i like the idea of slow shutter sync flash+ high ISO, ill give it a try, with the D7000 i'm comfortable going to 3200
My first wedding shoot, any tips, suggestions?
(33 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Since you're not in a church things will be much easier and the rules much less stringent.
Just a few suggestions.1. Go to the rehearsal, you only need to be there for an hour or so. Observe the practice and ask about the rules for photography. Also ask the venue planner about the best places to shoot indoors and out. Get a game plan for the next day.
2. Sync the time on all cameras. Simply have all cameras set to the same time and date. This will place the photos in order in a program like Lightroom.
3. Shoot RAW.
4. I wouldn't take the D70s above ISO 400, I wouldn't take the D200 above ISO 640.
5. Have a system to separate used CF cards from unused. I have a CF card wallet to keep the used ones safe.
6. Take five times more batteries than you expect to use.
7. Have more CF cards than you expect to use. 16gb per camera is probably safe.
8. Dress comfortably, especially good shoes. I used to wear a suit & tie. It's just not practical. All black with a black dress shirt is what most male wedding photographers wear.
Posted 2 years ago # -
gelu88 said:
i was more looking for some tips or gear beyond the basics.Your gear should not be that important
Just make sure you are completely familiar with it and have spare everything
Do look at the LCD from time to time and check the results for sharpness etc
DSLRs have a lot of buttons, check you have not swtiched somthing on or off
but the most important thing to remember, "Its the brides day"
Talk to her well in advance, and find out what photos are important to herPosted 2 years ago # -
ProImages said:
4. I wouldn't take the D70s above ISO 400, I wouldn't take the D200 above ISO 640.5. Have a system to separate used CF cards from unused. I have a CF card wallet to keep the used ones safe.
I'm pretty sure that the wedding you are replying to was held quite along time ago, it was started a year ago :) It was hijacked by a similar question yesterday.
Posted 2 years ago # -
thanks for the comments, the event was yesterday, and i can relate some interesting experiences.
I went to a camera store to rent a 85 1.8, but it turned out they no longer rented that out, they had an outdated table on their site.
So i decided to try out the 105 2.8 Micro instead, a little more expensive, but hopefully fun and effective
And it really was! Macro was great and i got some really great portrait shots. Though it was a little too tele for many uses (157mm effective).
But it got me in a bit of a conundrum: its tele nature plus its very wide and slow focus range meant that it was useless on my D60 (always hunted for focus), it only made sense on the D7000. But that meant my "main" lens (Sigma 17-70) would end up on the D60, which also has a partially defective shutter. In the end i accepted these limitations and it performed well, but i find it humorous that my broken D60 became my primary camera for the night.
In the end, the high number of 5 star, out-of-the-park shots the 105 gave me made up for everything. I often found it to be a very uncomfortable lens to use, but when the focal length matched what i wanted, it was gold.
I can't share much, privacy and all that, but check this out:
Its the ring shot, i was actually aiming for the action on the left, but the AF chose the right, probably since its closer, but it ends up being a decent shot nonetheless.
And this one rocked my world too:
SO in the end, i tried out a lens i potentially considered buying and decided it will never be worth it, but its a wonderful rental.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Well it is a macro lens and it does macro work great. It can just double as a portrait/telephoto lens, but it was still intended as a macro lens. It obviously isn't the best focal length for portraits either. A 50 mm lens might have been a better option and given you an extra stop or two for low light. I have the lens, and I don't think I would have chose it as my secondary lens. I would have used the 35 f1.8 I have before I used the 105...at least in the wedding case.
Glad it worked out for you though and if you learned something then it is all good. Also if you found out that you would never want to spend $800+ on the 105 macro then that is good as well.
Posted 1 year ago # -
given that i have a 17-70, both the 35 and 50 1.8 are redundant in my opinion. In a situation where anything can happen and you need the shot, a wide prime that duplicates a focal length you already have risks too much.
I would have preferred the 85 1.8, indeed i now feel more strongly that i must buy that lens, but like i said, they didn't rent it out anymore, so i figured the 105 was the second best choice as i had no telephoto option(no way i'd carry my 55-22 into a wedding)
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
