or can you get by with a good lens or two, with two cropped cameras (one for backup) and speedlight(s)?
Is full frame necessary for wedding photography?
- Thread starter PictureTaker
- Start date
Necessary? No. Very helpful, yes.
People have been doing fantastic weddings with crop cameras for quite some time now. Far more important than the camera is the experience and skill of the photographer, particularly when it comes to lighting and posing.
Remember that this is one of the most important days of most people's lives. You shouldn't take their money unless you're 100% sure you know what you're doing.
People have been doing fantastic weddings with crop cameras for quite some time now. Far more important than the camera is the experience and skill of the photographer, particularly when it comes to lighting and posing.
Remember that this is one of the most important days of most people's lives. You shouldn't take their money unless you're 100% sure you know what you're doing.
Nah. FF makes certain things easier, high ISO without flash, for example. However, the newer DX cameras have way better high ISO output than earlier DX cameras, so that point, while not moot, is certainly not a huge concern. I'm not even sure that one can claim that those who use FF now are making better pictures for weddings than they did using DX cameras...
Of course! What do you think people were shooting weddings with before full frame digital was available?
It's about the photographer, not his tools
No, a full frame is not necessary for a wedding. It is very convenient thought and its low light capabilities very hard to beat.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Can you explain? How come? Thanks.
+1
Welcome to the Cafe. I don't know your background but I would say that experience trumps a lot for weddings. If I was a paying customer I would prefer an experienced photographer using DX equipment than a lesser experienced photographer with FX equipment. Actually as paying customer, I could care less if the photog uses DX, FX, Nikon, Canon or whatever...
Are you trying to get into the business or thinking about shooting the wedding of a friend/acquaintance to get experience? If so, I suggest you volunteer to shoot 2nd or assist a willing & experienced pro a few times with your current gear to get that experience.
Generally speaking for weddings, FX does have the advantage due to the higher ISO capability.
I'm going against the grain and going to say yes, FX is necessary. In this day in age, I'd prefer my wedding shot in FX. Mainly for the shallow DOF you can only get on FX. I'd also like my FX wedding photographer to have a compliment of primes such as the 24 1.4 and 85 1.4. As a photographer and a married man, I'd want the best pictures. As a photographer, you should do whatever it takes to get the gear...drive a junkie car, eat ramen, sleep in your parents' basement...whatever it takes to get the best. :wink:
For pretty much everything that has already been said. Better ISO performance in low light. The D7000 is closing the gap between DX and FX, but if I were buying a camera for weddings/events, I would still go with a D700 right now.
Yes. Yes it is necessary. Unmatched IQ. :smile:
I think it's a very bad thing when we judge a photographer on their equipment rather than their results. I know lots of people with very expensive equipment who I wouldn't let shoot my dog's birthday party.
Isn't that what a portfolio interview is for? Heck if the photographer said he can nail awesome shots with nothing but a D700 & 35 1.4, I'm letting him shoot my wedding! :wink:
It's a matter of style. One person might like shallow DOF candid wedding pictures, another may prefer posed up event style photos. The first requires an FX kit. The latter can be handled either by FX or DX.
The fact is, DX cannot match FX extreme shallow DOF or bokeh. The 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 85 1.4 and 200 VR for example are lenses that shine best on FX.
Last edited by a moderator:
Obviously, the photographer is the most important element. Beyond that, though....
Apart from the aesthetic differences, FX adds a LOT more flexibility in recovering files that aren't perfectly exposed. This is clearly evident in available light shooting, but in flash shots as well. Not every flash exposure is going to be perfect, and a RAW file from a full frame camera is a lot easier to work with. The difference, to me, is clearly visible in shadow detail, highlight recovery, and noise.
If the exposure is more than a half-stop off in either direction, I'd rather be working with an ISO 800 file from an FX camera than a base ISO file from DX.
Apart from the aesthetic differences, FX adds a LOT more flexibility in recovering files that aren't perfectly exposed. This is clearly evident in available light shooting, but in flash shots as well. Not every flash exposure is going to be perfect, and a RAW file from a full frame camera is a lot easier to work with. The difference, to me, is clearly visible in shadow detail, highlight recovery, and noise.
If the exposure is more than a half-stop off in either direction, I'd rather be working with an ISO 800 file from an FX camera than a base ISO file from DX.
Gee. Didn't the the D3 came out around Jan 2008 and the D700 in Aug 2008. What were wedding photographers using before that? Did they jump from film to FX?
I'm not a professional photographer but I hang out where many do. For the 99.999% of the US general public (74M, aged 20-54), they would not know the differences, would not understand the differences or probably don't care about the differences.
For pros who have or advertise on websites, why are you displaying the pictures you took and post processed? You should just post a pic of your gear and say, "I'm better because I use superior FX equipment...."
I'm not a professional photographer but I hang out where many do. For the 99.999% of the US general public (74M, aged 20-54), they would not know the differences, would not understand the differences or probably don't care about the differences.
For pros who have or advertise on websites, why are you displaying the pictures you took and post processed? You should just post a pic of your gear and say, "I'm better because I use superior FX equipment...."
The advantages of jumping to FX from previous DX was a major turning point for Nikon. It wasn't just a MP upgrade, it was a complete photographic revolution into low light. Literally changed the style of shooting for everyone. Now everyone is claiming they can do 6400 or 12800 ISO, though the 12mp FX bodies are the only ones that can cleanly pull it off.
+1:biggrin:
When you sell yourself, perception matters to potential clients. Like it or not, a flashy website will impress clients who do not know photography. They think if the website looks good, the pics will good. Same way with gear.
Those of us in the camera industry know better, but the successful pro photographer doesn't shoot for other photographers nor try to impress other photographers. Images matter and the overall image of the photographer matters.
It's something I thought about in the future and I didn't want to start of wrong. I love the pictures I've seen with the D700 and the Canon 5d and I don't know that I can get the same bokeh with the crop camera. I'm afraid I'll be disappointed with the crop when my intention is for portraiture, maybe weddings one day - way off -, but I'd use the camera for "normal" things like family pics as well. I just don't see how I can get those beautiful shots without full frame, although I've seen a lot of d300 shots here and there that I liked. maybe I'm fooling myself. That and I can actually afford the D300 (nots s). Another intention is to get the 24-70 2.8 lens as well. I really like that lens.
Similar threads
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/