Is it feasible to do professional wedding photography with older equipment such as M3's and Leicaflex SL's ? Or are weddings and the like more conducive to using Nikon and Canon autofocus systems ?

I have an M3 and an SL and was hoping to do some part time work of this nature. Am I going to be out of my depth with this type of equipment ?

Regards,

Tony Salce

-- Tony Salce (NadinaTony@bigpond.com), May 07, 2002

Answers

Sure, it's feasible but why would you want to do professional wedding photography? This subject comes up on the LUG occasionally and it seems, from the posts there, to be an unrewarding and risky business. Many pros have expressed a strong aversion to it, some even saying they deliberately overcharge to discourage customers. Some have operated on the basis that they hand over the exposed films and that's the end of their involvement.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), May 07, 2002.

Hello Tony, It is sure feasible, I make from time to time wedding photo's for friends as a wedding present. I use 2 M3's and a leicaflex for it. Measuring the light in the fast changing light circomstances is with the M3 sometimes hard but wedding photography seems always to be a hard job. I would advise to keep films with the same speed in all camera's to make sure you don't make exposure errors. Greetings,

-- Frederik Boone (frederik.boone@harol.be), May 07, 2002.

It is feasable to do weddings with M and R cameras but why? Dont get me wrong, I do 55 weddings a year for 19 years now and it a wonderful rewarding part of my life, but there are better tools for it. I use BronicaS (get it? the S is for many) the key is to know your camera so well that when you even have the slightest doubt, you put it away ant pull out a spare. The removeable backs are necessary, the medium format perfectly suited for thiese ocasions. I own Leicas, but I only bring one to a wedding as a black and white casual shooter. If weddings are what you want to do, go for it, just get the correct tools and work alongside a working pro for some time. Most people who put down wedding photographers wish they had the skill to pull it off.

-- mike (thearea19@aol.com), May 07, 2002.

Yes to the Ms, maybe to the SLs. Weddings involve a fairly wide range of shooting situations and conditions. Many wedding hacks have standardized how they shoot to minimize errors, leading to a standard look to the end result. So, there is an enormous opportunity to be creative in this field if you avoid standardization and accept that there are calculated risks involved. The Ms are wonderful for the B&W candids so popular today. But you'll need something to capture a few more formal shots ( I use a Mamiya 7II and 3 lens system because it's small and light, easier to focus than any other medium format SLR, and the neg is bigger ). A used Mamiya 6 is also a less expensive choice. However, the move to digital is considerably altering pro wedding photography for reasons of cost savings and work flow. My main 3 cameras for weddings these days are an M with Lux lenses for available light candids, a Nikon D1x with 3 fast lenses, and the Mamiya. It all fits into one roller bag for ease of transport and access. Being an Advertising Executive by day, people often ask me why I under go the stress and pressure of weddings. I tell them that it's because I get to go to a lavish party where everyone is very happy and emotional, get fed at exclusive Country Clubs or flown to wonderful places, do what I like doing most of all: shoot people, have clients that cry with happiness when they see the results. and get paid big bucks for doing it. So what's the question?

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), May 07, 2002.

Tony, I shot a wedding in mid-April using an M3 & an M6TTL. I left behind my Hassies, somewhat as an experiment. The shots are w/o exception superb. I did standarize on NPH400 so there'd be no exposure confusion (there wasn't). I used an SP-20 w/ Lutz's Sfill for evening shots--quite soft effects, no redeye. No downside that I know of except that the clients were not open-mouthed at the heft of the Hassies & the pro tripods that I usually break out. But the results are all that matter.

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), May 07, 2002.

I use both M cameras, Nikons, and Rollei TLRs. For most wedding work, I wouldn't shoot anything but the Nikon, and the reason is dial-in fill flash. Your classic group shots in the June sunshine will give you deep eye sockets in shadow. Fill flash opens it up, and gives that "wow" professional look. A Nikon zoom shooting Fuji's Reala produces great looking 11X14s, especially when printed with Fuji's Frontier printer. Also, during the service, you'll need some long lenses, unless you're at the alter with the couple. 1/250 flash sync and 3D Matrix metering can't be beaten! Now I'll agree, there will be spots for the M's. Some natural light candids, wide angle "whole scene" shots. I still like to work the crowd with a 70-300 zoom for tight head shots of unaware subjects. Sure, you can do it with any equipment. I've had a very good time at weddings when the pro was lining up the staged shots, and I was slinking around grabbing candids with my Leica.

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), May 07, 2002.

I'm primarily a commercial/editorial photographer, but weddings have been part of my product mix since 1972 because I enjoy doing them. I was turned on to the photojournalistic approach by Susanne Szasz's wonderful book, "Modern Wedding Photography" in the late 70s. An outstanding photojournalist for many national magazines, she was the true pioneer of wedding PJ, not Denis Reggie. If you can find a copy of her book, you'll see that her work is as fresh as anything being done today.

Because of the very conservative nature of my market, PJ wedding photography has been a hard sell and an uphill battle. But it does seem finally to be coming into its own, as more and more brides commission me specifically for this reason.

If I photographed weddings according to some standardized pattern or pre-set shot list, I would probably use medium format. But because I'm primarily interested in capturing the unique essence of each individual wedding, I work with 35mm because it increases my chances of catching the significant instants as they happen. I used medium format for the formal photos for many years, but have been all 35 for the last two.

With 35mm Reala, I can produce 16x20s that most people can't tell from medium format. For all non-formal work I've standardized on Fuji Press 800, a truly amazing film. I've used the Canon EOS system for the most part, but am using my Leicas more and more.

Anyone who is interested in a fuller explanation may e-mail me for a copy of the text of my article "The Case for the 35mm Wedding," which appeared in the March, 2000 issue of "Rangefinder" magazine.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), May 07, 2002.

Tony, I dont see the point of your question. It depends on how confident you are using a manual camera as opposed to a point and click auto everything camera. The debate about image quality is not that much of an issue, earlyish Leica lenses are very comparable or still better than most modern autofocus lenses, but I believe for candid and 'natural' shots, a M body is the way to go

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), May 07, 2002.

Tony

The answer is yes, of course they will work fine. They are harder to use with flash as none have TTL flash nor even hotshoes, so multiple flash solutions are difficult, but regular off camera flash on auto will work just fine. If you want to use faster film then the PJ approach will be perfect for either camera. You will not look so "flash" as the great lummoxes you see lugging around their colossal cameras with awesome lens hoods, but hopefully your results will speak for themselves. The M3 is a perfect low light and candid wedding camera. It all depends what the clients want. Clearly neither camera will produce medium format-like formals.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 07, 2002.

I have an M3 and an SL and was hoping to do some part time work of this nature. Am I going to be out of my depth with this type of equipment ?

I dont mean to be a smarty here but only you can answer this. What's the likelihood you can be the second shooter (to get a feel of things) at a "friend of a friend's" wedding? The pressure wouldn't be as intense as being the primary shooter but then you won't get sued either if the pictures don't meet the B&G's expectations.

-- Fred Sun (redsky3@yahoo.com), May 07, 2002.

tony:

while I dont do weddings I was recently asked to do one for a friend. while I own 9 cameras between 35mm, MF a SL a R6.2 and a M3, the camera I used for the wedding was my old olympus OM2n. It was my first, and the one camera that i will always be able to operate in my sleep. if you know your M's and SL so instintively that if you miss the shot it will be your fault not the camera's then your choice is fine. if not, there are no do over's in weddings. good luck.

-- greg mason (gmason1661@aol.com), May 08, 2002.

Thanks to all of you for your replies. I was hoping to do some wedding work part time as supplemenatry income. I think I'd better stick to my day job and concentrate on photography for pleasure. I think weddings may be too stressful. I commend those that do it.

Thanks again for your replies.

Kind Regards,

Tony Salce

-- Tony Salce (NadinaTony@bigpond.com), May 08, 2002.