Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
This could have been my post. Now I'm asking myself, "Huh... Which of the two is MORE annoying?"
*thinking*
*thinking*
*thinking*
*thinking*
*thi...*
*head explodes*
......
What's your opinion of shooting weddings with DX?
- Thread starter Panza
- Start date
*thinking*
*thinking*
*thinking*
*thinking*
*thi...*
*head explodes*
......
Michael J.
Senior Member
Well, I definitely couldn't sit through that video twice. There is a lot of truth there though. To say you need an FX camera to shoot a wedding and it can't be done with a crop sensor is being elitist.
If I was looking for a wedding photographer, and there were only 2 available, an excellent photographer with a DX camera, and a mediocre photographer with an FX camera, I would take the one shooting the DX.
If I was looking for a wedding photographer, and there were only 2 available, an excellent photographer with a DX camera, and a mediocre photographer with an FX camera, I would take the one shooting the DX.
Ruidoso Bill
Senior Member
I agree with Don, I don't shoot anything DX and haven't for several years. FX and raw, the only way to go in my opinion.
Ruidoso Bill
Senior Member
I agree with this especially the D810, much more quiet than my D800.
This is the EXACT opinion people need to have, it doesn't matter what you are shooting, if you have the eye and the know how, it doesn't matter what gear you have !
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Zach admits in his video that FX delivers better bokeh and that FX has better dynamic range. Not a lot in his opinion but better nonetheless. So from a factual, objective standpoint he's saying FX is better. From a subjective "in my opinion" standpoint he states the differences are small; which I guess is debatable. Everyone has opinions obviously.
He also points out how technology has vastly improved the quality and capability of DX sensors. What he fails to point out is how the same technology improving DX sensors is also improving FX sensors. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander after all.
DX has the "crop factor" which can be handy, but wide angle focal lengths are truly wide on FX so I consider the "crop factor" two sides of the same coin and a moot point in the final analysis.
I'm not saying DX isn't an entirely capable format, clearly it is; but from a purely technical standpoint I don't see what DX can do that FX can't, and possibly do better.
He also points out how technology has vastly improved the quality and capability of DX sensors. What he fails to point out is how the same technology improving DX sensors is also improving FX sensors. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander after all.
DX has the "crop factor" which can be handy, but wide angle focal lengths are truly wide on FX so I consider the "crop factor" two sides of the same coin and a moot point in the final analysis.
I'm not saying DX isn't an entirely capable format, clearly it is; but from a purely technical standpoint I don't see what DX can do that FX can't, and possibly do better.
I think the "they're all the same" misconception originates in the fact that most comparisons are made at a 1Mpix 8-bit level. That's also why half the world is shooting their phone and are under the impression that delivers quality too. The internet simply isn't a decent medium to compare formats.
If you're constantly subjected to the differences at a max level while processing, you clearly see why the one isn't the same as the other.
If you're constantly subjected to the differences at a max level while processing, you clearly see why the one isn't the same as the other.
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
I think you actually agree.
The comment was two different skill sets...the better skill set shooting DX and the lower skill set shooting FX. In that case, the DX images probably come out better.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The pro on a DX vs hobbyist on FX is simply a red herring. Can it be done, yes. To avoid noise you need lots of light. However, FX is better suited for what you're generally going to find in a wedding setting. Additionally, the bokeh is better out of an FX when all things are equal.
I think you actually agree.
Now. .. two photographers, identical in skill and price, one shoots FX and one shoots DX. ; )!
You go by the one who's portfolio style you like more!
Last edited:
RocketCowboy
Senior Member
AC016
Senior Member
This guy does a lot of his wedding photography with an APS-C camera: Daylight | Sydney Wedding Photography | James Day.
Actually, medium format is the only way to go when shooting weddings. FX?? Pffffft, to small.
From what I hear the autofocus on Medium Format is slower than a Canon rebel with an 85mm f/1.2L attached to it. If you can take action photos with a medium format camera regularly, then the great photographer is a skillful one. Especially with those 1 shots per second. Who needs rapid fire when you have the perfect shot 95% of the time.
I had a lot of hopes for the Pentax 6XX series : ) Less megapixels just stresses the autofocus systsem the least. Manufacturers have finally settled that 20MP is the magic number. : )
$6000 per 10 hours of wedding. I need to do what this guy is doing. Lol
AC016
Senior Member
Yeah, i was saying it more in jest though. There is nothing written in stone that states you have to shoot weddings with an FX camera. It's all subjective, as is the whole photography medium. As you have seen, people shoot weddings with APS-C, FX, medium format.... hell, some people still do it with film! They are just different tools. What matters the most, is the result and remember, content is king!
I know you were joking, I meant to be joking but now that I reread it I can see how it seems somewhat serious : ) oopsie
Creative wedding photography is something that doesn't come easy. You could have the best camera gear in the world (whatever that might hypothetically be) and be a complete failure at it.
The main ingredient is your self confidence. When someone approaches you to buy your services, don't try to sell them the camera you use. You sell them the person you are and the way you can relate to them. THEY are the most important part of the deal, not your camera. Buyers just want to feel they are the most important people in you life for the day they hire you. They don't care about the camera you use, but they care about how they are treated. You treat them right, you get referrals, treat them bad and you won't be in business for a long time. And you have to learn how to direct people, place them in a spot and make them comfortable or put them in a certain mood, this is probably the most important tool you can have in your toolbox.
Second ingredient is the way you know how to use the light to make great looking images. Wether it be natural or flash, you've got to master it and know how your camera can translate what your eyes are seeing to a single picture. This is something you learn and keep learning.
Oh I could go on and on. Photography as a profession that can be learned, not bought in a camera box. If you think you can sell more jobs showing off your gear, you might be at risk for a hard landing when the work doesn't come in regularly. People shopping for a wedding photographer will look at two things, the pictures in your portfolio and the person you are. It either clicks or it doesn't. The camera you have around your neck doesn't mean much to them.
The main ingredient is your self confidence. When someone approaches you to buy your services, don't try to sell them the camera you use. You sell them the person you are and the way you can relate to them. THEY are the most important part of the deal, not your camera. Buyers just want to feel they are the most important people in you life for the day they hire you. They don't care about the camera you use, but they care about how they are treated. You treat them right, you get referrals, treat them bad and you won't be in business for a long time. And you have to learn how to direct people, place them in a spot and make them comfortable or put them in a certain mood, this is probably the most important tool you can have in your toolbox.
Second ingredient is the way you know how to use the light to make great looking images. Wether it be natural or flash, you've got to master it and know how your camera can translate what your eyes are seeing to a single picture. This is something you learn and keep learning.
Oh I could go on and on. Photography as a profession that can be learned, not bought in a camera box. If you think you can sell more jobs showing off your gear, you might be at risk for a hard landing when the work doesn't come in regularly. People shopping for a wedding photographer will look at two things, the pictures in your portfolio and the person you are. It either clicks or it doesn't. The camera you have around your neck doesn't mean much to them.