Fast pro spec primes for mirrorless - which system?

[Itsallicanafford]

Evening, over the next few years I will be transitioning across to mirror less and will be looking at 24-35-50-85 pro spec primes (and most likely the 28-70 and 70-200 f2.8 zooms) and would like to start investing in advance of purchasing the camera to spread the costs out a bit.

So the big question is, with my proposed field being wedding photography, which pro system to invest in, Canon, Nikon or Sony?

[Simpo Two]

Itsallicanafford said:

Evening, over the next few years I will be transitioning across to mirror less and will be looking at 24-35-50-85 pro spec primes (and most likely the 28-70 and 70-200 f2.8 zooms) and would like to start investing in advance of purchasing the camera to spread the costs out a bit.

So the big question is, with my proposed field being wedding photography, which pro system to invest in, Canon, Nikon or Sony?

I can't advise, but have you considered the fun it will be carrying that lot around on your shoulder all day? And (out of curiosity 'cos I used to do it), why are you heading for wedding photography?

FWIW I did all my weddings with Nikon DSLRs. In your case I would start with the body and two zooms, and see how it goes from there.

[Tony1963]

Itsallicanafford said:

Evening, over the next few years I will be transitioning across to mirror less and will be looking at 24-35-50-85 pro spec primes (and most likely the 28-70 and 70-200 f2.8 zooms) and would like to start investing in advance of purchasing the camera to spread the costs out a bit.

So the big question is, with my proposed field being wedding photography, which pro system to invest in, Canon, Nikon or Sony?

Don’t buy the lenses before you have a body to fit them to. Put the money away, earn a little interest, and watch the market. Maybe buy used as they become available. Having expensive glass sat in a cupboard for a few years doesn’t sound sensible to me.

[tog]

I'm using my DSLR primes adapted to mirrorless with no problems at all, and feel no urge to replace them.

[Itsallicanafford]

Thanks for the replies. Wedding photography is something I’ve always wanted to do, but another totally unrelated career got in the way.

I have an existing Nikon dslr system with a few N primes, it just feels further investment in this would be dead ending the money as it feels dslrs and starting to superceeded.

The N primes would work via the adapter on the Nikon Z series of course.

In regards to kit, 2 light bodies, 1 with a 35and 1 with an 85. All other lenses would just be back up if the venue or situation requires.

In regards to investment in glass, I have always felt this to be better than the camera side, as although they are updated, maybe less often than the cameras, and a great lens is always a great lens. Having this sitting idle for a while just works for how things are funded.

[mike80]

I would probably stick to Nikon then, as you can continue to use your existing lenses if you don't want to cough up for that lot all at once!

[SteveKTMer]

I’m not a wedding photographer and having done a few for friends, not something I’d want to do again but this woman has the personality to do it well and has made some interesting videos about it.

https://www.youtube.com/@KatelynJames

[Simpo Two]

Itsallicanafford said:

Thanks for the replies. Wedding photography is something I’ve always wanted to do, but another totally unrelated career got in the way.

I have an existing Nikon dslr system with a few N primes, it just feels further investment in this would be dead ending the money as it feels dslrs and starting to superceeded.

Both fair answers. But until you get your dream setup together, you could go out and shoot weddings perfectly well with what you have.

Itsallicanafford said:

In regards to kit, 2 light bodies, 1 with a 35and 1 with an 85. All other lenses would just be back up if the venue or situation requires.

In regards to investment in glass, I have always felt this to be better than the camera side, as although they are updated, maybe less often than the cameras, and a great lens is always a great lens. Having this sitting idle for a while just works for how things are funded.

Again, fair answers. The tog's motto is 'Always have a back-up'. But I think lenses are the least likely thing to go wrong on a shoot. The body and flashgun (if you go that route) are more likely to play up in my experience.

I think you plans are perfect financially; where they may require modification is in combat. I don't know how skilled you are at other photographic genres but by comparison weddings are Omaha Beach. That's why I think getting some combat hours in with what you have might be useful time spent, building experience and track record, and finding out what kit you really need.

You also need to consider - you may have done so already - what your style is going to be, how your offering is going to be more appealing than the competition, and how to market your services. The world is full of wedding togs from brilliant to rubbish, and you don't want to be the proud owner of a cupboard of shiny new kit but no work for it.

[sociopath]

You're going to get lots of different answers but when I was doing weddings I got to the point that I didn't use anything other than my 24-70 L.
Just seemed the perfect fit for what I was doing, sold my 70-200 as it just never got used

[Itsallicanafford]

SteveKTMer said:

I’m not a wedding photographer and having done a few for friends, not something I’d want to do again but this woman has the personality to do it well and has made some interesting videos about it.

https://www.youtube.com/@KatelynJames

Thanks for this resource, will give her youtube video's a good watch... many thanks again.

[Gweeds]

I've just shot my 636th wedding so have some experience here.

The choice of make is pretty much irrelevant now - they're all very, very good. I've shot all three of the makes you mention and the couples didn't give a st. I shoot on A9's now, with 24/35/50/85 GM lenses and use the middle two for 95% of every wedding if not 100%.

If you're happy with the way Nikon works then I'd stick with that as the transition is easier.

[Itsallicanafford]

sociopath said:

You're going to get lots of different answers but when I was doing weddings I got to the point that I didn't use anything other than my 24-70 L.
Just seemed the perfect fit for what I was doing, sold my 70-200 as it just never got used

many thank for the reply and for your experience with this...this could well be a good way to go. Canon do a 28-70 f2 which might play to all strengths especially wide open for subject isolation and Bokeh...its a heavy beast at 1.3Kg though! a F2.8 in the other brands would do most of this in a lighter package.

[Itsallicanafford]

Simpo Two said:

Again, fair answers. The tog's motto is 'Always have a back-up'. But I think lenses are the least likely thing to go wrong on a shoot. The body and flashgun (if you go that route) are more likely to play up in my experience.

I think you plans are perfect financially; where they may require modification is in combat. I don't know how skilled you are at other photographic genres but by comparison weddings are Omaha Beach. That's why I think getting some combat hours in with what you have might be useful time spent, building experience and track record, and finding out what kit you really need.

You also need to consider - you may have done so already - what your style is going to be, how your offering is going to be more appealing than the competition, and how to market your services. The world is full of wedding togs from brilliant to rubbish, and you don't want to be the proud owner of a cupboard of shiny new kit but no work for it.

Thanks for the reply, i like the sound of Omaha beach, really looking to test myself....

I think you are absolutely correct about experience, i am just starting to turn the corner with work/ life balance of having more time to build up experience. Would like eventually to get some unpaid experience with a seasoned pro, even if it is not from behind the camera but holding the flash boom or similar. Watching how they communicate with their subjects, anticipate the shots, scout out the venues for back ground schemes or even just move through a crowd...getting to know the rhythm of the day, when what happens and how to capture the essence of the day without being an obtrusive part of it..

Edited by Itsallicanafford on Monday 28th November 14:40

[8bit]

tog said:

I'm using my DSLR primes adapted to mirrorless with no problems at all, and feel no urge to replace them.

I've just switched from Nikon D610 to Z6 II, using my F-mount lenses with the F to Z adapter. It works better than I had feared, especially given that most of my lenses are Sigmas. No issues using them on the FTZ adapter at all, the only issue I've found is that Lightroom doesn't always identify the make/model of lens quite right in the Lens Corrections tool.

One handy thing with the FTZ adapter is that it has an additional threaded hole on the underside for a tripod. I use a Peak Design Slide strap which has a small plate to attach one of the quick-release tabs to, this connects to that threaded hole on the bottom of the camera body. On the D610 I'd have to remove that to put my tripod plate on but having the additional threaded point on the FTZ adapater means I don't have to do that Note that the second-gen FTZ (FTZ II) doesn't have that threaded hole so if you want to be able to do that then get the original FTZ.

[Itsallicanafford]

Gweeds said:

I've just shot my 636th wedding so have some experience here.

The choice of make is pretty much irrelevant now - they're all very, very good. I've shot all three of the makes you mention and the couples didn't give a st. I shoot on A9's now, with 24/35/50/85 GM lenses and use the middle two for 95% of every wedding if not 100%.

If you're happy with the way Nikon works then I'd stick with that as the transition is easier.

Thanks for the reply and your insight as a pro with a big chunk of experience!!


You are of course correct, they all look pretty comprehensive and ultimately it's kind of irrelevant. The investments i have made towards the ultimate goal so far have really been with my time (brushing up my lightroom and photoshop skills) and in a Godox flash (AD200) system so i can learn more about flash, wireless triggers, different heads etc. plan was to just start squirrelling away a few of the more expensive items (ie lenses) so that when i can make the jump, the kit outlay is a little more palatable.

I am going to just keep shooting as much stuff as i can with the DSLR Nikons (school plays, local football teams, anything really as my family are bored of me taking pictures of them) to get as much portrait experience as possible and the ability to read situation and be ready for the little moments that stand out.

thanks again for the reply, its much appreciated.

[sociopath]

Itsallicanafford said:

sociopath said:

You're going to get lots of different answers but when I was doing weddings I got to the point that I didn't use anything other than my 24-70 L.
Just seemed the perfect fit for what I was doing, sold my 70-200 as it just never got used

many thank for the reply and for your experience with this...this could well be a good way to go. Canon do a 28-70 f2 which might play to all strengths especially wide open for subject isolation and Bokeh...its a heavy beast at 1.3Kg though! a F2.8 in the other brands would do most of this in a lighter package.

The L lenses can certainly be heavy, but they can also survive a 1m drop onto a concrete path (I know this, don't ask why)

As it happens I have huge hands and find a lot of camera bodies too small so a big heavy lens helps balance the big heavy body I use (1d mk4)

[Simpo Two]

Itsallicanafford said:

You are of course correct, they all look pretty comprehensive and ultimately it's kind of irrelevant. The investments i have made towards the ultimate goal so far have really been with my time (brushing up my lightroom and photoshop skills)

Talking of software, with weddings you really have to shoot RAW. Not only is this perfect for correcting white balance but also best for retrieving otherwise good shots... you'll encounter all sorts of ambient lighting from harsh sunlight one moment to dull tungsten the next, dark oak panelling that sucks light out of the scene and barn ceilings you can't bounce the flash off. Weddings can go very fast at times and not only do you have to be in the right place but you may only get one shot, and it won't always be right in camera. RAW can get you out of a hole.

Itsallicanafford said:

I am going to just keep shooting as much stuff as i can with the DSLR Nikons (school plays, local football teams, anything really as my family are bored of me taking pictures of them) to get as much portrait experience as possible and the ability to read situation and be ready for the little moments that stand out.

I think that's an excellent idea. You'll learn how to use your kit fast (eg walk backwards down the aisle in front of an advancing couple whilst checking each shot and adjusting EV to suit while framing up the next shot) and also anticipation in a dynamic environment. I do the photos for my local theatre group - musicals and plays are fun and a good test of skill for anticipation for (a) where you need to be, (b) which lens to have on, and (c) who's likely to do what next in a group of people. Lighting can be 'interesting' too. So maybe see if your local group needs their next play photographed, and portraits for the programme too!

The good thing about working for free is that if you mess up or miss a vital moment, they can hardly grumble. When you're shooting weddings for a four-figure sum, the pressure is rather greater. Bangalore torpedo!

[Turtle Shed]

I believe there is a place for mirrored and mirrorless, and I think there will be for quite some time yet.

To that end whenever I buy lenses for my Nikon cameras, I still buy the F-Mount ones and use the adapter on my Z6*. Can't be done the other way round of course.

Advantages if DSLR over mirrorless? Battery life for one, instant startup another, optical viewfinder a thrid reason. If I ever just pick one camera and one lens for a few photos, it's the D750 with the 24-120 f/4 rather than the Z6 and adapter every time.

• That *might* change if one day there are actually 24-120 Z f/4 lenses available rather than awaiting stock. That's the one Z lens I am keen on, can't justify the money for the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 70-200 f/2.8

[steveatesh]

Personally I don’t think it really matters what brand you decide upon, as others have said they are all very good.

For what it’s worth my associate and I normally do branding/people shoots but we have done three weddings.

They all wanted an emphasis on candid shots rather than the traditional array of posed shots, although we did some of these too to take advantage of some of the features of the various venues.

We use Sony and we decided upon using Sony 24-70 f2.8 GM and 70-200 f2.8 GM rather than the primes we have.

the choice really worked well to get wider shots of groups or tables of people and the longer Len’s allowed for close ups of people showing emotion or whatever.

We used AD200s balanced with ambient and we were amazed at what two of these lights could do.

Anyway, the clients were delighted with the results, they only wanted them on digital rather than print which in my experience reflects what the majority of people use their photos for - phones, tablets and social media - although they may well have printed out some of their own of course.

If you’re just setting up consider looking at Capture One Pro software as a RAW editor, their recent upgrade is very good at dealing with lots and lots of people shots to save you time, plus the style brushes are very very good too. So much so I rarely use a pixel editor now and when I do it’s Affinity Photo.

Anyway, whatever you chose good luck, we’re certainly not looking to do more weddings they are very demanding !

[Tony1963]

Has anyone heard of wedding photographers using ‘medium’ format cameras such as Fuji GFX and Pentax 645?