Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 350D for weddings.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 10:39:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Is anyone using a Canon 350D for wedding shots? If so what lenses are
you using. Likes, dislikes, on board flash or hot shoe flash ( what
kind).

Thanks,
Bruce

More about : canon 350d weddings

Anonymous
May 18, 2005 12:30:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I recently used a 300D for a friend's parents' 50th anniversary
renewal ceremony/reception. Did ceremony by available light, with
50/1.7 and 28-135 IS. Switched to 420EX flash for reception, all with
28-135. Pleased with results!

Paul B.
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 10:47:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1116423583.591319.168040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
bikerb422 <bstrawse@harris.com> wrote:

> Is anyone using a Canon 350D for wedding shots? If so what lenses are
> you using. Likes, dislikes, on board flash or hot shoe flash ( what
> kind).

There ya go...stick that flash right on the camera and do every shot
with one light.
Related resources
May 19, 2005 8:54:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bikerb422" <bstrawse@harris.com> wrote in message
news:1116423583.591319.168040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Is anyone using a Canon 350D for wedding shots? If so what lenses are
> you using. Likes, dislikes, on board flash or hot shoe flash ( what
> kind).

8mp is not nearly enough for wedding photography. Most wedding
photographers use medium format film. If they use digital, they shoot with
something like the Fuji S3, which Fuji says brings photography "closer" to
film at 12.3 million effective pixels, as you can see here.

http://fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductS...

This Popular Photography article says it takes an $8,000.00 16.6mp Canon
EOS-1Ds Mark II to rival ISO 100 35mm color print film.

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=4&articl...

If you are doing amateur work, the Canon 350D would be okay, but a pro would
not use it for this application. You could get by quite nicely with 35mm
film and high quality lenses, unless you can afford a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II.
If you are really serious about doing wedding photography, shoot medium
format film.

Muffin
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 8:54:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Muffin" <muffin@buttered.net> wrote in message
news:o _Uie.1890$5Z1.389@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "bikerb422" <bstrawse@harris.com> wrote in message
> news:1116423583.591319.168040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Is anyone using a Canon 350D for wedding shots? If so what lenses are
>> you using. Likes, dislikes, on board flash or hot shoe flash ( what
>> kind).
>
> 8mp is not nearly enough for wedding photography. Most wedding
> photographers use medium format film. If they use digital, they shoot
> with something like the Fuji S3, which Fuji says brings photography
> "closer" to film at 12.3 million effective pixels, as you can see here.
>
> http://fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductS...
>
> This Popular Photography article says it takes an $8,000.00 16.6mp Canon
> EOS-1Ds Mark II to rival ISO 100 35mm color print film.
>
> http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=4&articl...
>
> If you are doing amateur work, the Canon 350D would be okay, but a pro
> would not use it for this application. You could get by quite nicely with
> 35mm film and high quality lenses, unless you can afford a Canon EOS-1Ds
> Mark II. If you are really serious about doing wedding photography, shoot
> medium format film.
>
> Muffin
>
>
8mp is more than enough for wedding photography, and more than the S3 will
deliver, since it is a 6mp camera. I haven't seen any wedding photographers
using Fujis in my area, not to say that they don't, just I haven't seen
them. OTOH, I have seen them shooting with 10Ds, 20Ds, 1D and 1D mkIIs, 1Ds
and 1Ds mkIIs and Nikon D2x and D2h cameras. Very few use MF in the field,
just in the studio, or if they do use them in the field, it is for the
formals. The present desire for "photojournalistic" images sort of makes MF
difficult to utilize at its best, at 10-12 images per roll, it's hard to
keep spontaneity going.
We use 20Ds with stellar results. The biggest enlargement we've gone to so
far is 24"x36". And, to boot, film does not give the post production
control that digital does.
That article doesn't really say that 16.6 mp is the minimum to match film.
And some articles have said that 16.6 mp rivals MF.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/digital-thouht...
By the way, the first sentence is in no way meant as a slam on the Fuji, it
is a fine camera, and its innovative pixel arrangement gives better dynamic
range than what is available to normal Bayer sensors, but to call it a 12mp
camera is roughly akin to calling the Sigma SD10 a 10mp camera...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 11:53:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bikerb422" <bstrawse@harris.com> wrote in
news:1116423583.591319.168040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> Is anyone using a Canon 350D for wedding shots?

I suppose it would be OK if you only wanted to print black & white
wallet-sized photos.
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:18:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Muffin wrote:
>
> "bikerb422" <bstrawse@harris.com> wrote in message
> news:1116423583.591319.168040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > Is anyone using a Canon 350D for wedding shots? If so what lenses are
> > you using. Likes, dislikes, on board flash or hot shoe flash ( what
> > kind).
>
> 8mp is not nearly enough for wedding photography. Most wedding
> photographers use medium format film. If they use digital, they shoot with
> something like the Fuji S3, which Fuji says brings photography "closer" to
> film at 12.3 million effective pixels, as you can see here.
>
> http://fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductS...
>
> This Popular Photography article says it takes an $8,000.00 16.6mp Canon
> EOS-1Ds Mark II to rival ISO 100 35mm color print film.
>
> http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=4&articl...
>
> If you are doing amateur work, the Canon 350D would be okay, but a pro would
> not use it for this application. You could get by quite nicely with 35mm
> film and high quality lenses, unless you can afford a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II.
> If you are really serious about doing wedding photography, shoot medium
> format film.
>
> Muffin

I gather from your reply that you are not a wedding photographer, and
have no personal experience in the area.

Firstly, there are weddings and there are weddings. Where one couple
will spend a million dollars on a wedding and want mural-sized shots on
every wall, another more modest couple will want more family-type shots,
none over about 8x12, or maybe one or two at 11x14. For this second
couple, a 6 or 8 megapixel digital will amply fulfill the need.

Absolute needle-sharp definition is not required, just sharp-to-the-eye
prints with pleasing colors and accurate color balance, which is where
digital shines.

I shoot weddings with a 300D, and have no complaints.

Colin
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:18:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
> Absolute needle-sharp definition is not required, just sharp-to-the-eye
> prints with pleasing colors and accurate color balance, which is where
> digital shines.

Does anyone ask for black and white?
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 2:18:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid&gt; wrote in message
news:7xy8ab34a5.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
>> Absolute needle-sharp definition is not required, just sharp-to-the-eye
>> prints with pleasing colors and accurate color balance, which is where
>> digital shines.
>
> Does anyone ask for black and white?


We get a lot of requests for b&w. It's an easy conversion from a digital
file, but we've on occasion shot b&w film, too.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 10:18:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
>
>>Absolute needle-sharp definition is not required, just sharp-to-the-eye
>>prints with pleasing colors and accurate color balance, which is where
>>digital shines.
>
>
> Does anyone ask for black and white?

I had an inquiry last week for color and black & white, but haven't had
any followups from them. Guess I should give them a call on Monday,
should be a nice break from editing shots from the weekend.


--
Whatevah / Jerry Horn
Jerry {at} Whatevah.com (working address)
Freelance Photography and Web services.
spambait: spam@uce.gov
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 8:31:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
> > Absolute needle-sharp definition is not required, just sharp-to-the-eye
> > prints with pleasing colors and accurate color balance, which is where
> > digital shines.
>
> Does anyone ask for black and white?

As of this time, no-one has. Interesting thought, tho'

Colin
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 8:31:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/mc4.html

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:428D6815.38649549@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>>
>> Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> writes:
>> > Absolute needle-sharp definition is not required, just sharp-to-the-eye
>> > prints with pleasing colors and accurate color balance, which is where
>> > digital shines.
>>
>> Does anyone ask for black and white?
>
> As of this time, no-one has. Interesting thought, tho'
>
> Colin
!