Having the right gear for the job is essential in being able to handle the barrage of lighting scenarios that a wedding photographer will encounter on each outing. I, like many others, am constantly thinking about the next piece of gear. What lens, what camera, or what lighting system will allow me to take higher quality images and provide a better experience to my client? This led me to think, what do I really need to shoot a wedding? I mean in reality, to walk out my door and provide my bride with the images she expects, what are the bare essentials I really need?
Whether you are a seasoned professional who is always spending that next bit of extra money on a new lens or whether you are new photographer thinking about jumping into wedding photography, it's important to nail down your essentials-only gear list.
It might sound nice to some to have two Nikon D4Ss or D810s, every lens under the sky, and a full Profoto lighting system to take with you on every wedding, but is it really what you need? And even more importantly, is it even ideal?
The Minimum Gear
Camera Body
Let's start with camera bodies. First, do you need two camera bodies or one? I personally shoot with two bodies, but I love the idea of shooting with one. I do, however, think it's important to have two cameras on you just in case something happens to the first. Part of the job of wedding photography is being foolproof, meaning nothing can go wrong that would stop us from recording that day. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't photographers who don't carry only one body. There are in fact some very good ones that do that, but it's a risk. The chances of a body failing during a wedding (especially a new body) are very slim. So you decide if you want to take that risk, but I personally wouldn't recommend it at all.
My current camera body of choice on wedding days is the Nikon D750, which is currently selling for about $1,900 new on B&H. I've often said that Nikon has made this camera too good, because wedding photographers don't need to spend $6,000 to get the low-light capabilities of a model like the D4S that was previously the standard.
If you are looking for a less expensive option, I think you can still photograph in most lighting conditions with very professional results with the Nikon D610, which retails for about $1,500.
The Nikon D7000 series is also a good value, and I would have no qualms with a D7200 or D7100 being a backup camera body. They perform decently in low light and also do a fair job of focusing quickly. One should keep in mind though that these are crop sensors. That means they are not full frame, and you need to be mindful of that, especially when making lens selections.
Final Verdict: If you are looking for your main camera body and the cheapest option to start shooting weddings, I would recommend either the Nikon D610 or the Canon 6D, with the 6D coming in at about $100 less expensive.
And if not? If you are to attempt shooting a wedding with a lower model like the Nikon D7200, I would suggest — in order to protect yourself and in the bride's best interest — that you be up front. There are certainly countless examples of beginner, entry-level camera owners being asked to shoot a wedding. In fact, that is how many get started in wedding photography. But you should be clear to your couple that, while you are confident that you can take photos for them throughout the day, you are not a professional and your gear is not professional gear. Your cost should therefore be in-line with your skill set and gear capabilities. If you can't ensure you will get all the shots with professional quality you shouldn't be accepting professional rates.
Camera Lenses
You need to be able to basically do two different things: shoot wide and shoot far. The usual choice photographers have to make is whether to go with zoom lenses or prime lenses (fixed focal-length lenses). My personal lens list looks something like this:
- Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 - $2,400
- Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II - $2,100
- Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 - $950
- Nikon 85mm f/1.4 - $1,600
- Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Macro Lens - $900
Full disclosure, here: I barely use my 70-200mm and only pack it just in case I need the longer focal length. Ninety percent of my wedding images are shot with either the 50mm or 85mm prime while a few images on each wedding are taken with the 24-70mm zoomed wide and the 105mm Macro. So, even on my own list, I could eliminate a couple of lenses if I needed to. What I need though is the ability to shoot wide at either 24mm or 35mm and the ability to zoom in with something like an 85mm. You also don't need the f/1.4 lenses if you are on a budget. Moving down in price range to the f/1.8 can work when dealing with primes. Note, however, that the difference in these lenses is not the two-thirds of a stop, it's the overall quality of the lens build and lens elements. If you would like to see my gear in action, check out some of my blog posts. All of my recent posts are using the D750 and D810 and this lens list.
You could probably make do with a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 (which retails for about $530) for your wider shots and a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 (which retails for about $500) when you need to punch in a bit. I would also recommend picking up a 50mm, mainly because the price point is so low for what you get. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 retails for about $200, and the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G retails for about $450.
Also, let's look at the comparable Canon lenses and their approximate cost.
Lighting
First, do you need a flash in order to shoot a wedding? My answer is yes. You are going to have to shoot in situations that are not ideal. Not every wedding is going to have the perfect outdoor ceremony followed by the perfectly lit reception. Most first dances happen on a dance floor that requires you to light the subject. The bottom line is, if you are walking out the door without any lighting, then you cannot shoot in any situation.
Second, do you have to be able to get the flash off-camera? And, my very hesitant response: No. You can light a group with your on camera flash -- not well, but you can do it. You can also light dark reception venues without having a light off-camera. It's not the look I like at all, but you can do it.
Also, keep in mind that if you only have one flash and no flash triggers, then you may be able to fire that flash with your on-camera pop-up flash. And while the pop-up flash isn't by any means the best, I have seen some pretty good first dance and exit photos using pop-up flash along with an off-camera flash as a backlight (this is a scenario where you only have one external flash).
Ideally, you should have two or three flashes and be able to shoot off-camera using a light stand, umbrella, and flash triggers. My wedding kit includes five flashes and an Einstein strobe with a couple of different modifiers.
For flashes, your two main options are brand or off-brand. The Nikon SB-910 runs about $550, and the lower end SB-700 runs about $325. In the Canon realm you can choose from the 600EX for about $470 or the 430EX for about $300. My other recommendation would be looking at a brand like Yongnuo. The newer model with iTTL for Nikon is around $100 and the Canon model is about $20 more. Yongnuo also sells a great set of triggers that allow you to change the flash power remotely. One transceiver and one controller combined go for around $85. Fellow writer Jason Vison recently put together a great article on them.
Also, I want to note that if you are shooting the wedding with only one on-camera flash, you need to know how to use it. Just pointing the flash straight at your subject is not going to cut it. Being able to bounce in multiple directions (left, right, up, back) and use the flash as a subtle fill in certain situations is essential to lighting and shooting in the constantly changing landscape of the wedding day.
The Bare-Bones Kit
Nikon Kit
Nikon D610 - $1,500
Nikon D7100 - $800
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 - $530
Nikon 85mm f/1.8 - $500
Yongnuo 568 EX - $100
Total: $3,430
Canon Kit
Canon 6D - $1,400
Canon 70D - $1,000
Canon 35mm f/2 - $550
Canon 85mm f/1.8 - $370
Yongnuo 560EX - $120
Total: $3,440
I mentioned earlier that you could very well decide to not pick up the second camera body, but that is at your own risk, and I do not recommend it. Also, if you were looking to expand this kit just a bit, I would recommend picking up the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4, a second flash, a light stand, an umbrella, a set of triggers, and a 5-in-1 reflector. These additional items would probably run you about $500 and are well worth the money, given that they provide you with much more flexibility. You also need to keep in mind you will need memory cards for your camera, and I highly recommend extra batteries for your camera body. Heading out with one battery to shoot a wedding is asking for trouble. Lastly, you will also want something to carry your gear in as well. If I were going to build a starter kit that was a little bit more ideal, I would recommend setting aside about $10,000. But if you are looking to start off in wedding photography, you can set out with around $4,000.
Summary and Disclaimer
Finally, I want to again state that in my opinion if you are setting out with lesser camera bodies, without a flash (and the knowledge of how to light with only one flash), and without a wide and tight lens, you should be very upfront with your bride or groom. If for nothing else than to protect yourself. You don't want the expectations to be unsaid and then deliver images that are not what the client expected. (this statement is more for the beginners, I don't want anyone new misleading themselves and then getting themselves sued). As a wedding photographer the job is unique in that you need to be ready for any and all situations.
That being said, having all the best gear in the world does not replace knowledge and experience, nor predetermine success or "professionalism". Conversely, not having a D610 or D6 doesn't mean you can't shoot epic weddings, certainly skill and knowledge can over ride your gear budget (within reason), but having lower end gear, even with great skill, does mean you will be some what limited in particular situations. This article is simply a gear list intended for those looking to build their first kit, to have a starting point, or for those looking to stream line their wedding kit.
Exactly.
Ugh. "professional" vs. "non professional" gear. This needs to stop! A lot of people who know nothing about photography sometimes hear, make sure your photographer has a full frame camera. This is BS. It's photographers shooting other photographers in the foot. If Photographers did it with ISO 100-800 film only a few decades ago, you can do it with any current digital camera on the market today. Improve your technique, style, and educate yourself! GAS is a real thing and it doesn't make you any better than the next person. Please stop the full frame lie!
Far less about Full Frame and Crop and more about low light shooting/ISO and focusing - Nikon Crop sensors can't handle low light anything like the D750, imo
professional gear is a real thing. If you are heading out to shoot weddings with an entry-level DSLR you are not, guaranteed, going to be able to deliver high-quality, professional-quality, images in ANY lighting condition.
Conversely, I would agree that having top gear does NOT ensure you can do the job either. This is purely a gear list, not a skill set list.
I think gear is overrated these days, sure you can deliver professional quality with entry level dslr's. It sounds cliche, but it's still the man/woman behind it that does the job. And if you shoot with a entry level all your life, and you're getting booked for a wedding because of your work.. you sure can do it.
"If you are heading out to shoot weddings with an entry-level DSLR you are not, guaranteed, going to be able to deliver high-quality, professional-quality, images in ANY lighting condition."
What? I'm sure W. Eugene Smith heard similar words when he went from medium format to 35mm. This simply is 100% incorrect. Don't get me wrong. a "pro" full frame camera will be easier to get the shot with (in some conditions), but that is not to say it can't be done with aps-c or even m43.
So Kevin would you say you could take a Nikon D3000 out on a wedding day and be able to shoot and focus on fast moving subjects and then shoot an outdoor night time first dance and any other condition, and deliver high-quality images your client will be happy with and want to print?
I get you point, and the point is correct, but also the statement I made about not being able to guarantee you can get any shot in any lighting condition with an entry-level camera is correct. Wouldn't you agree that a Nikon D3000 at ISO 6400 wouldn't hold up as professional quality to a bride paying 3K or more ?
..."would you say you could take a Nikon D3000 out on a wedding day and be able to shoot and focus on fast moving subjects and then shoot an outdoor night time first dance and any other condition"...
You've heard of flash and zone focus?
People used to shoot weddings with Speed Graphics and TLRs, fer crying out loud. All this angst about fast AF and stratospheric ISO settings sounds like the insecurity of a new generation who either 1) simply can't imagine a different style, approach or way of working, or 2) are in the habit of buying technology rather than developing technique. Jeez, guys, I'm only 51, but you're making me feel like an 80-year-old geezer chastizing the whipper-snappers.
Well, this article can be a bit misleading. Bare-bones minimum to photograph a wedding? Hm. there is more to this then just some list of cameras and lenses. I know photographers who will shoot with 2 full frames bodies and 2 primes and set of OCF and pretty much create unbelievable creative imagery in such a compelling way one can only dream about. Then I know masters who bring only an extreme wide angle zoom lens, no flash and rule the day with it like no one else does. And then another great crazy photographer I respect brings his 70-200 and for the 90% of the day he will literally knocks down everybody to tears with his amazing portraits he is able to cover in that range through the day and his one camera on him is enough for that. It is all about who you are, how you feel and know to express your vision and how capable you are to do it the way your clients will beg you to photograph their wedding day. Knowledge and capability to consistently deliver what you are the best at is the key here IMO! Is gear important? Yes! But do not ask me to shoot your wedding day with just a 24-70 for example, because yes I can do it, but my client will not like it since my portfolio shows variety of lenses and creative techniques mixing ambient light and OCF through the day as it was needed. That is my shooting habit, and I know about it and that is why I can deliver it to my clients. Everyone has its own shooting habit. And you need time to realize what it is :) or what it will be! So the gear in general means nothing here. It is about who you are, what you know to do with particular gear set up and how you deliver every single time to your clients. A camera with a lens is the extension of my mind, eyes and hands in order to create... I could have the golden Hasselblad from saudi arabia and it would not help me to get better because I do not see things in square format :) Do you see my point? Knowledge comes before gear! So if you have one camera and one lens and nothing else, shoot, observe, be critique to yourself, shoot more, get better and then if you feel you need more and know exactly what that one camera one lens combo did not let you do, buy what was missing :) but get some gear based on advice of others seems to me as coming to a Best Buy and ask what is the most bought gear by wedding photographers here... and you end up short of couple hundreds or thousands $$$ with the same exact result like after reading this article :) Just my 50 cents thanks :) Enjoy your day and tomorrow grab a camera and shoot and learn so you know more about who you are when you work with your camera :)
Jozef, not sure my article and your views are mutually exclusive, because I actually agree with what you've said and stand by the article. The nature of this is if you are going to walk at the door and shoot weddings (which require you can handle to constantly changing conditions) AND you want to spend the minimum $$$ then here is a minimalist list you can start from. for instance you can shoot 90% percent of your day with you 70-200 but you still need to be prepared if you need to shoot wide. So you could go 70-200 and a 24 or something like that, but the cost would prob be higher. So I'm balancing cost with being able to handle different situations.
but yes, an individuals tendencies, shooting habits, skill set, etc are essential. But again, take the best wedding photog and give them a D5000 and they won't be able to shoot really well in low-light, the gear becomes limiting. ya?
Hi Lance, Are you a wedding photographer? If yes then you know your fellow photographers from the same region, shooting at the same venues like you can have completely different styles. That style often depends on their personality and gear they use. If a person has a shy personality he will probably opt for a longer lenses through the day since 35mm would require from him to stay close by most of the time and he would not be able to stand the pressure being around couple and the guests in such an intimate distance for example. So the idea of minimalist gear in general does not help here IMO. I have also said YES THE GEAR MATTER :) so pulling out example of the basic Nikon D5000 model which is archaic these days is an under par statement do not you think :)?. And yet I am glad you mentioned that camera because it is a tool and if used by a skilled photographer at a wedding I am 1000% sure he could be able to pul amazing stuff out of it despite its lack of low light focusing and possible bad quality noise in colour images :). In fact if you have ever seen Jerry Ghionis weddings images, I have to strongly disagree with yours : "But again, take the best wedding photog and give them a D5000 and they won't be able to shoot really well in low-light, the gear becomes limiting. ya?" He entered couple years back into Album of the year competition book with images shot only on iPhone, which had a joke camera specs compared to your mentioned D5000 one! No one knew the album comes from a phone camera images!!! Now he finished 4th !!! in the world toughest wedding printed contest ever, and he was able to keep up with the others in top ranking..? Btw, he also took 1st place with another couples album in the same contest !!! So to me, the camera gear is a tool like for a carpenter is a hammer. Give a lousy carpenter the best hammer you can buy and watch what he will create, give a skilled carpenter a regular Home Depot hammer and he will build you a house !!! Again, this is just how I see it and I believe a skilled carpenter will buy himself a decent hammer to make sure his work is as efficient as he needs it to be :) Enjoy your day guys :) I am back to my work, designing two more wedding albums :) today.
you are missing the point, just a bit, and also we are not completely disagreeing.
my point with the gear slash D5000 examples is, can you get all the shots, guaranteed. Getting lots of great shot or even an award winning shot can certainly be done with any type of camera, even an iPhone.
But, if you are going to be able to know for sure, you are going to all the shots, in any condition, you can't work with low end gear. Ghionis got a great and amazing shot on an iPhone, but he nor anyone else can make the ISO performance on an D5000 better. ya? You are even saying, yes the gear matters and then arguing against it. Seems like we are saying the same thing. You can get amazing great images on even an iPhone if you are skilled,but still a wedding photographer needs a certain standard of gear in order to be able to shoot on a 8 hour day in constantly changing conditions and often in very dark situations.
would you shoot your next wedding on 2 D5000's ? or 2 D5500's ? or even more importantly, back to the nature of this article, would you recommend to a new photographer to take a D5500 and go start shooting weddings and accepting thousands of $ from clients to do so, of course not. I think you are inferring that yourself. Can a great craftsman make incredible work with amateur tools, of course. Can a wedding photographer shoot in the dark with an entry-level DSLR, of course not.
:)
"can you get all the shots, guaranteed."
What on earth does "all the shots" mean? The relevant question is can you get shots of sufficient quantity, variety and quality to satisfy the client. If you want total coverage, just set up a 4K cam in each corner of the room.
Well said, Jozef! "It is all about who you are, how you feel and know to express your vision and how capable you are to do it the way your clients will beg you to photograph their wedding day. Knowledge and capability to consistently deliver what you are the best at is the key."
Thanks, everyone has its own way how to see this :)
My gear for weddings.
Canon EOS 6D
Canon EOS 500D
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM
Samyang 14mm f/2.8
Helios M44 f/2
Yongnuo YN568 EX II
* A wedding photographer with only one body is not a pro
* A wedding photographer shooting a D7x00 can be a pro, though.
Finally, how is the Canon 6D more pro than a Nikon D7100?
The Nikon actually has better AF, comparable image quality and durability.
So, you're one of those "gear makes the photo" guys right? I own a 6D, i've owned a D300s (yes Nikon), i own a EOS 500D, and a film EOS 33. I'd recommend you the Zack Arias video about this subject, you might learn a thing or two.
Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh6zr3wKRV0
where's the part where they shoot a wedding at ISO 6400 and then make 24 x 36 prints?
Buy a Medium Format camera then, the AF is slow as ass but still you can make those prints. Pentax has a very good one, the 645Z.
I use film for large prints, and hey, it's not that the bride will print 24 * 36 prints from inside the church or whatever temple they marry in.
The thing is, people look way too much at gear instead of looking on how to overcome the gear "flaws".
I can agree with that
Sorry, my previous comments were split in two.
I really don't think that the gear makes the photo.
But that's what the original poster seems to imply, even though he used a consumer camera with not-so-good AF and one card slot as an example for a pro camera.
There just are too many flawed arguments in this article. I'm out.
I read the whole article and you never said why the Holga in the lead picture was part of the bare bones minimum kit!
Hahaha, hey Rick, the lead images is meant to be the opposite of the bare bones kit, I basically just grabbed everything I could find at the time. There's also 5 camera bodies and a roll of tape. :) meant to be funny
Currently I have the Nikon kit with two bodies zooms and primes along with speed lights and strobes. For my second shooter (wife ) she uses one of the bodies but I been meaning to get her own kit especially since a new D7000 the shutter got stuck during the isle walk (in 2012). After resetting the camera it worked again. I missed just a few shots since then I try to have two bodies with me for the "critical" shots along with a spare speedlight.
I thought about getting a fujifilm kit either for me to have as a second body on my belt since even the nikon DF with a 50mm seems a bit heavy. I use the DF for low light situations/no flash but this is my wife's camera.
For the Fujifilm kit
X-T10 with 35mm and X-T1 with battery grip 56mm 1.2mm (awesome lens). Fujifilm X100T for the 23mm lens. For light I can either get the nissin or fuji speedlight for TTL purposes but I can use my current speedlight/strobes but in manual mode only. For portraits this is fine but for weddings TTL is very useful. Now these are 35mm 50mm and 85mm equivalent. If I needed wider I would use the nikon kit or for tele shots since I don't "plan" on getting anything wider or longer for fujifilm. Thats is plan A.
Plan B is to get a D750 for my wife and use the nikon arsenal that we already have. The only reason I considered the Fujifilm is the everyday camera kit/street camera and light body.
Can't understand that you say a D610 is alright, but a D7200 can't be. I usually use the both oh them and they are exactly the same unless the Crop Sensor for the D7200 (But the AF is better for this one). You can keep a clean picture until 6400 ISO without problem with the APS-C, and it's enough for almost all the situations.
An other point : I see now a lot of professional wedding photographer (and some of them are really, really good photographer) use the Fuji XT-1 only, and it doesn't seems to be a problem. Well, this is a Crop Sensor right ? So why it shouldn't be OK with a 7200 ?
People who want a wedding photographer don't care about the gear. They want a photograph with good skills and talent. A good professional with a D7000 or equivalent will make photo 1000 times better that a random people or a bad photographer with the best gear you can give to him.
(Oh, and apologize if my english is bad)
basing most of this off of high ISO test, had to draw the line somewhere, nature of writing an article like this. From what I've seen the 7200's / 7100's don't do so well in the ISO 5000 and up range, I had a 7000 a few years ago, it was great expect in extreme low light conditions.
Last weekend I shot my first wedding with a FF camera. Prior to that I shot only crop sensor cameras. I never felt handicapped. I never felt obligated to tell my clients what camera I used. I only felt obligated to know my gear, inside out, have plans A, B, C, and D mapped out, and be as courteous, respectful, and attentive to their needs as possible. Clients can look at my portfolio and if it doesn't tickle their fancy, then we aren't a match and I'd want them to find someone who better meets their needs. It's about them, not me or my gear.
A crop does struggle, slightly, in low light but not by much. Throw in off camera lighting and that problem is largely resolved. Not sure if you've heard but the Nikon D7200 is a lowlight beast and can lock focus in super dark conditions (-3EV). Sure ISO noise kicks in faster than a FF but you can account for this numerous ways.
Also, compared to the Canon MKiii, the current stable of Nikon crops hold their own (Canon fanboys are surely going to flame me for this). http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II...
I now shoot with D750s and am happy but in no way would I feel like I was handicapped if I had to pull out the D7200. These days it's the Indian, not the arrow. Know your gear, have a back-up,understand OCF and have solid post-processing skills and you'll be ok.
Mac, have you had the chance to shoot with you D750 in the higher ISO range, 6400 and up? even my D800 can't compete. D750 in low light is a whole other ball game.
Not yet, but I will at my next wedding as it is being held in the equivalent of a dungeon! :) I am super excited to see far far I can push my 750!
ISO 5000
Ii've shot mine with a Nikon D300s and a EOS 500D and i'm alive and kicking. Like you say and well, the indian matters more than the arrow.
alive and kicking is different than thriving. Also to some of Adam's points The D300's a few years ago would have been seen as acceptable but as gear increases in its capabilities so do expectations and standards. If the people around you can shoot ISO 10,000 with acceptable results and you have to cap 3 or 4 stops lower, you are at a serious disadvantage. I'm considering this from a client's expectations today and a business being able to offer un-comprimised results in today's market. Nothing wrong with those cameras, but if today's bride expects amazing printable images at her post sunset ceremony and you say, well I missed some shots cause they were under-exposed, etc she will either be disappointed effecting your worth of mouth referrals or even worse.
But, if you read the entire post and comments you'll see I actually agree with the indian mattering more than the arrow concept.
Only if the couple understands about photography they will ask for such thing. The post sunset pictures are not the most important here where i live, but the couple pictures in gardens or so are very important. On those i use Digital and Film, 20 megapixel images allow prints up to 1 meter on the larger side, around here people don't go over 70cm on the larger side, at least not my costumers, or the ones i had. I feel that people are more worried with pictures to post on Facebook than pictures to print, but that's what's going on around here.
agreed, in well light scenario's the differences become minor, its in the more extreme examples. I regularly have outdoor receptions at night, or outdoor first dances at night, etc - thats where the gear helps
That's true. I usually lit those situations with speedlites and slow shutter speeds for those crazy light effects (dance), as for receptions, i tell my assistant to mount two speedlites with two brollies to create soft light (this given the fact that the reception is the same as here).
For Pentax, my gears :
* Pentax K3
* Pentax K5 IIs (backup)
* FA 31mm f1.8
* FA 77mm f1.8
* Metz 52 AF1
True story. I. No one told me I was to be the wedding photographer, when I arrived in Denver for the marriage of my widowed brother-in-law.
Honest to god, I couldn't believe it when it was explained to me that Joe "really likes my pictures" and thought I'd do just fine. Except, he never told me, or his kids, or my wife. At least, not until I was 1,300 miles from my home, on the day before the wedding. I just kept muttering, "really ? no one could have told me ?"
I had just come from a week in San Diego (working remote and caring for my Dad), and the following week I was to be in Seattle. My camera gear was with me, and was just for my personal walk-around entertainment. Canon 6d, 35mm, 100mm (macro). No big flashes, umbrellas, no zooms, and no tripod. I went to WalMart and picked up a SunPack flash to have some means of illumination. Which was important because when I went to the rehearsal I discovered the church was very dark. Cave like. I used HDR to capture a single image of the altar. For the rest of the wedding, I would be shooting wide open at ISO 800. Fortunately, one other person was "volunteered" and was also a Canon owner. He had a Rebel T4i and an off camera flash. Best of all, he had a 70-200 f4 with a tripod. We decided to split up, he would take the close ups from the front pew, and I would take long shots, staged shots, and then from the side lines. I'm agreeing that there is no way that I'd have used anything less than a 6D, 35mm, 100mm. The end result worked, but the rehearsal, ceremony and reception were a tough slog.
That's a crazy story, and good on you for pull off the job!!!! ya the lower end gear is great in the well lit venue, its when you have to shoot in a "cave" that the lower end will disappoint and you'll have to say well I got the shot, but you know it was dark in there, so I did the best I could, sorry, kind of thing.
Thanks for sharing the story, that's one you'll have for a while!
This may be a a tad off-topic, but isn't your pricing (or worth) determinant on (among other things) your time + your experience + the expectation from your clients? I see PLENTY of wedding photogs who get by with outdated or non-top-tier gear who can produce amazing results, and sometimes, even results that are even too Instagrammy to produce a quality print from. One of the main factors in them continuing to get the gigs is that their name and reputation precedes their work. Brides know that of course they'd want great quality images, but not at the cost of a photog who is not a people-person, is known to miss key moments, or is known to drink a little too much at the reception he/she is shooting at. A person with reputable clout can charge whatever the heck they want, and people will pay him/her, even if the images aren't produced with the CanNikon D900D...most-likely, the bride and groom could care less, because they're paying for a great photographic experience and memorable images.
I would say pricing is more about client expectations and marketing. but there is certainly more to it than that.
Do you think Kevin Mullins or Paul Rodgers are telling their clients they aren't professionals with professional gear? Are you telling them they aren't professional photographers using professional gear because they shoot on crop sensors?
This kind of attitude toward gear needs to come to a halt here and now. The camera doesn't make the image, the photographer makes the image and the photographer's knowledge of how to use his tools is what makes the image a quality image. That's like telling an artist you aren't a professional artist unless you use only red sable brushes and you aren't creating art unless you've hand stretched your own canvas. Or you have to have a specific pen and paper to create a true piece of art. I've seen a real artist create positively stunning images with Crayola Sidewalk Chalk on a 24x24 piece of crappy plywood, and not once did I hear someone say to them they weren't professionals because they were using 3 dollar chalk and 5 dollar piece of wood; in fact they were told how phenomenal they were simply because of what they can create with the limitations. That's the true mark of a professional...
So long as there are cameras and photographers there will be discussions like this. The camera is a tool and it provides a baseline of capabilities. Smaller sensor = less information. At each step smaller in sensor size you are forced into a different set of abilities of physics/photographic calculations. The larger sensor, generally, the larger potential for information. It is the information that is captured, along with the creativity of the photographer that make every foto. To claim the sensor size does not matter does not make sense. If you [repeatedly] get paid for shooting a wedding, you are a pro. Leaving the pro or not discussion aside, if you want to shoot weddings and deliver a competitive product with the highest amount of detail/information then you go FF. If you want to go smaller, then you learn how to deal with the compromises in DOF, amount of information, detail, etc. Either can work, and either can be pro.
Ok, so my clients must be photographers, because only photographers give a shit about FullFrame, crop,ISO etc etc. The only thing that matters to the client, is good pictures, period. Posting that you need FullFrame to be sure to deliver High quality pictures, be "Pro", and it has a connection to your rates, is, simply put, bullshit. There are tons Of fulltime Pro wedding photographers using ApS-c sensors, one Of the cameras that is uset a lot is the Fuji X-T1. But i gues that they need to lower their rates, and warn the clients, because even the are full time pros, they dont use FullFrame ;)
My kit was once a single body, three lenses, and a few film backs. That RB67 kit was over $10k. Switching to four EOS 1N bodies was cheaper. Now I use a 6D, 5D for backup, five flashes, and whichever glass I need for conditions.
its really minimal but without a 70-200 2.8 please stay at home :) fix lenses are cool but when the report thing need 70-200 is the ultimate with a FF body.
And have at least 2-3 flash if want some strobist fun , or battery pack big flashes.
I shot most of my wedding season with Fuji/sony mirrorless cameras. All with crop sensors. Not once did I hear my clients say they wished I used "Pro" gear. If you are a photographer with vision and technical skill you can get a printable image out of a rock.
Its an interesting post, for sure... but it seems like the title is off... maybe it should be, "Choosing the best gear to make your life easier on wedding shoots" or something. The idea that tastes have evolved among clients is interesting, especially considering that the current trend is to make the photos appear LESS modern with VSCO and Mastin settings muddying up the images to make them look like they were taken on technology from decades ago. IMHO the clients dont care what the gear is until it fails. Redundancy is great, and i would say thats much more important than the age/format/size of the sensor, if the skills of the photographer are up to par. There are pros working professionally with nothing but Nikon F100s, 645 Medium Format, and negative film producing jaw-dropping work. We werent hired by our clients to impress other photographers. We were hired to create images they will cherish in a reliable, consistent way. If you can do that, day in and day out, and get hired for it, that makes you a pro.
Hans I think you summed up much of the debate here in one line, the client doesn't care about the gear until it fails. and my point is to direct those looking at gear, which would be mostly newer wedding photogs, towards the gear that is less likely to fail them in more extreme situations like low light. The client won't care at all, until you tell them you didn't get any great first dance pics, because it was outside and you couldn't shoot in that dark of a setting.