Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'll begin by stating that I'm not a wedding photography by trade. I shoot mostly commercial lifestyle and product professionally and landscape for fun. 

 

I've shot a good few event style jobs with Sony and back when I had Nikon, but this was the first wedding shoot on the Sony system.

 

It was almost as if I was using a camera for the first time. I fumbled between the many prime lenses at my disposal (the sought after G Master 24-70 2.8 nowhere to be found) because I opted not to rent a second camera. I had a second shooter with two Canon bodies and delegated various things to him. What I brought with me for the A7Rii in my possession was as follows: 

 

- My 55 4/1.8 Zeiss (My favorite lens despite how long I have to spend de-fringing) 

- My 70 - 200 f/4 (which I didnt use as it's not fast enough...new 2.8 nowhere to be found!)

- My 28 f/2 (which I used only during dancing and sparklers at the end of the night)

- A rented 35 f/1.4 Zeiss (great bokeh, slow focus and horrible fringing on this body)

- A rented Canon 85 f/1.2 with Metabones adaptor (insanely unreliable focus, softness, light leaks from adaptor, and notoriously horrible fringing)

 

There you have it. I know I sound a little negative right now, but I'm only trying to emphasize the difficultly of said task in contrast to what I usually consider a fairly delightful shooting experience with Sony.

 

I opted to stick mostly with the 85 and 35 rentals (silly perhaps) throughout the day and spend a great deal of time hunting for focus while my subjects bobbed about with the occasional calculated pose (thankfully). The camera encountered a deep internal error/freeze about 6-8 times while shooting with the adapted Canon and required about 15 seconds to turn off and back on. As you may or may know, turning the A7Rii on from a freeze often takes a great deal of time as it attempts to get itself back in order. I'm confident this was a Metabones issue. Not sure what version of its firmware I was operating, but it wasn't pretty. Sidenote: light leak from the adaptor could be solved by covering the sides of the adaptor with my hands (didn't have black tape available on short notice). 

 

The 35 Zeiss I've used before on several occasions. It's a pleasing lens with fairly slow focus as I mentioned above. My editing experience always proves to be a free-for-all of teals, blues, and purple variants--typically shades that Lightroom can't identify as fringing. Fun! Later in the evening this wouldn't be an issue, but midday and golden hour I spend a good amount of time shooting into the light with a plethora of lovely plants and trees scattered about my subjects. Once de-fringed, however, the lens delivers some great stuff. On par with the Sigma Art 35 roughly. 

 

Focus in general with the A7Rii (which is known to be lesser of mirrorless evils when it comes to this) is, of course, a bit of an Achilles heel. I depend on center focus to focus and re-compose as I've come not to rely on its otherwise abilities. With Sony lenses, the center focus bracket is rather large (is there a way to make this smaller and more precise I don't know about!?) when compared with Canon and Nikon DSLRs, so I'll often miss when trying to aim for a small subject at center frame. This leads to many mis-focuses in crowded environments with many subjects moving about. 

 

Another factor that made things difficult was how long the A7Rii took to buffer as I fired off large RAW files in burst (high speed of course because...well, I needed everything I could get). It would quickly fill the buffer attempting to write to my high speed cards, and when I went to chimp my shots I always had to wait a good bit until it was finished writing and could render a preview. I'm used to this (been shooting with the camera for 9 months now), but it was made painfully apparent during such a shoot. The large files rapidly filled up several cards (42 MP is certainly overkill for a wedding, but that's my choice). 

 

Exposure is another something I have trouble with at times. I find that the 35 Zeiss is a particular nuisance as it gives me unpredictable exposures when shooting on Aperture priority. I opted not to shoot manual very often as the lighting was constantly changing as we moved about the venue. I love the live-exposure preview feature of mirrorless EVF, but find that for me it seems inconsistent with the brightness displayed on the screen and a little too dark during daylight to get a feeling. In the EVF I could see details and the exposure looked nice, but when chimping on the screen (brightness turned up for day), highlights would appear very much blown out. I was shooting Ap-priority with my exposure compensation dial cranked to anywhere between (-0.75) and (-2.25) most of the day. Once back on my computer, I found that said underexposures did end up giving me typically slightly underexposed shots, but only by a small amount. I prefer this actually on the Sony, as I find that shadows recover more than its highlights in Lightroom. 

 

I think I have a good deal of great shots as I run through the catalogue, but there are likely a great deal less usables than if I had shot with a modern DSLR. Good thing i opted for that high-speed burst all day and had a second shooter!

 

Overall, I love these cameras, I really do, but for professional use I really do think they should be giving those G-Master lenses away. Either that or these cameras ought to be sold for such a reasonable price that the G-Masters seem like a no-brainer. Really, I'm thankful to be able to use my Sony when shooting inanimate objects, landscapes, and slow-moving models. For scenarios such as this, I truly feel as if I entered a race and shot myself in the foot at the starting line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there's been lots of feedback on the use of Canon glass with the metabones adapter, I'm not surprised how frustrated you were.  Would have been great to hear if you could have rented a Zeiss Batis 85 and 25, both are excellent performers in the category you were working in. personally, I haven't seen any fringing on either of the lenses, and am surprised about your experience with the Sony-Zeiss 35 f/1.4 as Steve Huff claims it's the best lens he's ever used. Maybe you got a bad copy? I haven't used this lense so can only go by other's experience. As one of the Sony's most expensive non-GM lenses, you would think it would perform much better than your experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there's been lots of feedback on the use of Canon glass with the metabones adapter, I'm not surprised how frustrated you were.  Would have been great to hear if you could have rented a Zeiss Batis 85 and 25, both are excellent performers in the category you were working in. personally, I haven't seen any fringing on either of the lenses, and am surprised about your experience with the Sony-Zeiss 35 f/1.4 as Steve Huff claims it's the best lens he's ever used. Maybe you got a bad copy? I haven't used this lense so can only go by other's experience. As one of the Sony's most expensive non-GM lenses, you would think it would perform much better than your experience.

I would love to have been able to rent a Batis, but as they're also in low supply, my local provider didn't have any available. I've had a lot of issues with fringing with my A7Rii. It's actually the second copy I've had and has been sent to Sony Pro for an inspection (they simply cleaned the sensor and sent it back). I'm not sure why, but most people don't have this issue like I do. Everyone I've shown it to has agreed how severe the fringing is when used with any prime lens (Zeiss or not). Maybe my shop (Samy's of Southern California) does have a bad copy of the 35 Zeiss, as I believe it's the same copy I've always rented, but it's hard to say. I really wish I could use Sigma Arts, but have (with reason) always been hesitant to invest in an adapted setup. I also wonder how it might perform differently on the A7Rii compared to my old Nikon FX kit, where it performed flawlessly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shot weddings for years using various Pentax models in pairs, and often nothing more that 28-70 and 70-200 lenses, and trusted the expossure and focusing and white balance implicitly .

 

When I stopped weddings I sold up and bought Sony A7 bodies and currently use a r2 which I love and enjoy using no end, but I have to say given all the odd choices my A7 bodies have made, re focus, exposure and white balance I would not dare to shoot a wedding, with one or two., to much risk of missing those important shots we all need to keep every one happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to shoot my first wedding next week, and I'm a Sony shooter. I've shot at weddings previously with my trusty A6000 with a Sigma 30mm f/2.8 and Nissin i40 which is an absolute treat in a tiny package, but this is the first time I'll be doing it professionally. I have, probably, way too many lens options at my disposal and I'm not quite sure what I'm going to use. I have the basic 28-70 kit, 35 f/2.8 Zeiss, 55 f/1.8 Zeiss, 90 G Macro, 70-200 f/4, and a 24-70 f/2.8 Sigma with LA-EA3 adapter coming in the mail this week. I can say that my favorite lens thus far is the 55 Zeiss, and I'm happy with the 70-200 outdoors, but inside it might prove to be a little slow. I honestly think I'll just put the Sigma on my A7ii and the 70-200 on my A7 and leave the fumbling for primes for another time, even though I'm more of a prime type shooter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When useing primes I would use 2 bodies.

I'm happy with a set of FE1635, 50/55 and 90/2,8 Macro for general purpose shooting, but I never have the pressure of a wedding (must get THIS shot). For concerts I also use a Fisheye for 2-3 photos (e.g. mixer). The wide zoom is also quite nice for short film clips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Peter Kelly

To anyone considering weddings, I'd offer some advice.

 

Most important, know what the couple want and what is expected. You can make reasonably sure you can fulfil that if you offer a specific service, but don't promise the earth if you haven't the knowledge, ability, or equipment.

Once you have that nailed down, make sure you have the kit to do it and, under no circumstances, ever go with just one body. If it fails you are completely stuffed and will let down the couple on their most important day.

 

That said, using two bodies eliminates lens swapping (or fumbling?). The lenses are always a matter of choice and the resolution and ability of the A7Rii allows for a lot of leeway in that respect. You could just use a 25mm and 85mm Batis and have no problem. Personally, I go with the standard 24-70, 70-200 set up, but use an 85 for intimate shots when I have more time, and a 16-35 if the groups are large. Those four would cover almost everything, even if one or two failed!

As to f4 being too slow, that is not the case.

 

In terms of performance, the A7Rii is more than up to the task, providing you know how to use it. Curiously the Minolta 7D was mentioned on the main site very recently and I shot weddings with them; the A7Rii knock spots off that camera every day of the week and twice on Sunday. If you find you're missing the shots, you either haven't done your preparation, or shouldn't be covering weddings. I don't wish to be harsh, but they are so important no one should take them lightly.

 

Could I shoot a wedding with one camera and one lens? Yes. Could I delight the couple with the pictures? Very likely. Would I even begin to consider doing so? Not on your life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those glorious old photo albums of the weddings of

our elders, and of some not-so-elders, were mainly

shot by one person [per wedding] with one lens, of

FL equal to the format diagonal.

 

When setting up for all the group shots a mildly wide

lens was substituted, but it was not otherwise in use.

Some of the more venerable practitioners employed

a primative form of AF... they simply set the distance

on the focusing scale.

 

I remember one wedding specialist being more artsy

than the usual guys from Bachrach et al. He carried

TWO Rolleis and an extra optic: a Tele-Rollei, a 2.8,

plus a wide angle Mutar ... so that's 60, 80, and 135

on 6x6. But he was very special [and solidly booked].

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Peter Kelly

Those glorious old photo albums of the weddings of

our elders, and of some not-so-elders, were mainly

shot by one person [per wedding] with one lens, of

FL equal to the format diagonal.

 

When setting up for all the group shots a mildly wide

lens was substituted, but it was not otherwise in use.

Some of the more venerable practitioners employed

a primative form of AF... they simply set the distance

on the focusing scale.

 

I remember one wedding specialist being more artsy

than the usual guys from Bachrach et al. He carried

TWO Rolleis and an extra optic: a Tele-Rollei, a 2.8,

plus a wide angle Mutar ... so that's 60, 80, and 135

on 6x6. But he was very special [and solidly booked].

 

You are talking about a whole world away from current wedding photography.

 

In the days of film, it was far less rushed. The photographs were a very specific interlude in the proceedings and consisted only of groups and portraits.

Most photographers used MF, such as Hasselblad and Mamiya, but would certainly have a backup near to hand.

 

Despite the differences, though, it was still exactly as I suggested: they knew what was required, knew what was needed to get it, and knew their job backwards (no checking and chimping with film!).

 

 

P.S. What exactly do you do to write your posts in narrow columns and why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As photography has become more mainstream, it's also become much more competitive, so in order to keep your job as a photographer you need to produce amazing images compared to the standard DSLR/iPhone user. I would assume in the days of Hasselblad film weddings people were simply happy that you had a "proper camera", while nowadays a DSLR is so commonplace it's not such a big thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Weddings aren't currently my main employment, but I did work that circuit for 5+ years before moving on in 2013. My opinion is that a Canon body with a 24-105 and another with 70-200 was the most efficient and reliable way to work, and that still stands if I were doing it for a living, grinding it out every weekend.

 

Nowadays when I do book a wedding (on average 1-2 a year) I shoot Sony mirrorless, but only because the client likes the type of work I do with my Sony cameras using my favorite prime lenses.

 

The most recent wedding I shot I used an A7II, A7s w/Loxia 21, Contax G 45, and Contax G 90mm.

 

It was easy to carry all day, vs my Canon setups from a few years back. I kept a few batteries in my pocket- the loxia hardly got used, 45 and 90 is really a great pair.

 

Once you get in practice with the manual focus+peaking (protip: switch the viewfinder to B&W and peaking to Red), its a very reliable way to work. I love having the cameras in speed priority+silent. The people I've shot loved the silent tiny cameras, they were definitely more comfortable.

 

Overall- yes they can be used for weddings. No I wouldnt want to grind it out every weekend with them. 3 small prime lenses on silent cameras is a totally fine way to work, but its a different MO than 2x DSLR w/24-105 and 70-200.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.............  P.S. What exactly do you do to write

your posts in narrow columns and why?

 

It's an old film era trick, call "carriage return".

  

The "why" is not open for discussion :-) Let's

just say I'm typing, not texting. It's who I am.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Peter Kelly

It's an old film era trick, call "carriage return".

  

The "why" is not open for discussion :-) Let's

just say I'm typing, not texting. It's who I am.

 

You do realise it makes reading your posts a little more awkward, especially on smaller devices? Am I to assume you like to make life more difficult?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

Once you get in practice with the manual focus+peaking (protip: switch the viewfinder to B&W and peaking to Red), its a very reliable way to work. I love having the cameras in speed priority+silent. The people I've shot loved the silent tiny cameras, they were definitely more comfortable.

 

 

How do you switch the viewfinder to B&W?! It's a great idea!

(you shoot raw and set the cam to B&W?)

 

Do you use the 45mm for group shots?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I just got finished shooting my first wedding with a mirrorless, and here are a few thoughts:

 

  • I have way too much gear to be carrying around. I used one speedlight, one strobe, two light stands, one camera, and three lenses total, and I brought three to four times that amount of gear.
  • I need to go back to the gym. Getting "the shot" all day required enough effort that I was sore for the next two days, and was physically exhausted for most of the next day.
  • There is never enough time. Portrait sessions had to be whittled down to 15 minutes or less, and you need to work fast because people won't stay in a pose for more than a few seconds.
  • I need to learn how to pose non-models. Trained models do most of the work, but regular people usually do exactly the wrong thing and they're super nervous in front of a camera.
  • SEL70200's f/4 maximum aperture is inadequate for focusing inside a dimly lit church.
  • SEL55F18z at f/1.8 is fine for portrait work and focuses well, but will not get a child in motion in focus. Stop down and bump shutter speed.
  • High ISO is necessary when a priest tells you that you can't use flash. ISO 6400 can be a necessity rather than a creative choice.

Despite all of that and 98f weather with 70%+ humidity plus a 13 hour day (literally drenched in sweat most of the time), I had an absolute blast! My next wedding is in two weeks, and it'll be even better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to shoot a lot more weddings than I do now.  I'm moving from Nikon equipment to Sony for studio and video, but for weddings and sports I still keep my Nikons.  Here's why:

 

The a7RII is good for super-sharp shots with great detail in natural light, but I would NEVER expect it to keep up in terms of buffer capacity or batteries.  The buffer is especially a killer, I shoot combo RAW/JPEG and had an a7RII fill up on me and stay unusable for over 10 minutes while the buffer cleared.

 

With Nikons and battery grips, I could often make it through an entire wedding with just the batteries in the grips of two bodies (comes from years of shooting film, which makes one a lot more conservative in terms of how many images are taken).  How well does that work on a Sony a7RII?  HA HA HA HA HA!  Yeah, I've tried it.  I was switching batteries so often I felt like I was back in 'Nam reloading a rifle during a Viet Cong attack.

 

My usual set up is a Nikon body with a 24-70 and an SB800, plus an a7RII with a 28mm and the Sony HVL 43.  In a small bag I'll carry an a7SII with a 55 1.8 Zeiss (no battery grip) for wide-open profile shots in difficult light.  I carry two HVL 43's in case one overheats and shuts down.

 

I have several noise-reduction programs that do OK, so the 70-200 f4 works just fine for me.  I'm not afraid to crank up the ISO a little bit.  I've got the 70-200 f2.8 Nikon, but that's way too heavy to carry around at a wedding.

 

Sometimes I'll just put the 55mm Zeiss on the a7RII and keep the a7SII as a backup body, depends on the client and the venue.  I'll also have another Nikon body on standby.

 

I would never try to do a wedding with just one Sony body.  If I had to use only Sonys, I'd have at least two main bodies (a7RII's in my case) and an alternate (the a7SII).  A lot of shooters are using the A6300 as a backup, or even just loading up on several of those bodies as they are smaller and (relatively) cheap.  For studio and landscape and video and situations where they aren't going to be pushed to their physical limits, they're the best.  For sports and weddings, they aren't ready for prime time unless you carry backups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can understand how traditional dslr designs focus much better in low light, I didn't have any problem with battery life or multiple bodies. In fact, I took a backup a7 and used it very sparsely, then it made it into the trunk and stayed there. I suppose my shooting style is quite a bit less trigger happy, but I do know the a7ii actually does a bit better than the a7rii; same card write speed (USB 2.0 bus speed), but half the megapixels to write. I only had one instance where I hit the buffer when I was trying to get the b+g with ambient soap bubbles a kid nearby was blowing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Peter Kelly

 

The a7RII is good for super-sharp shots with great detail in natural light, but I would NEVER expect it to keep up in terms of buffer capacity or batteries.  The buffer is especially a killer, I shoot combo RAW/JPEG and had an a7RII fill up on me and stay unusable for over 10 minutes while the buffer cleared.

 

With Nikons and battery grips, I could often make it through an entire wedding with just the batteries in the grips of two bodies (comes from years of shooting film, which makes one a lot more conservative in terms of how many images are taken).  How well does that work on a Sony a7RII?  HA HA HA HA HA!  Yeah, I've tried it.  I was switching batteries so often I felt like I was back in 'Nam reloading a rifle during a Viet Cong attack.

 

I have several noise-reduction programs that do OK, so the 70-200 f4 works just fine for me.  I'm not afraid to crank up the ISO a little bit.  I've got the 70-200 f2.8 Nikon, but that's way too heavy to carry around at a wedding.

 

For sports and weddings, they aren't ready for prime time unless you carry backups.

 

I don't wish to appear rude, but I'm at a loss to accept some of your claims.

 

I have to assume that you are exaggerating for effect concerning the wait for the buffer to clear. I doubt that it's possible to take sufficient shots to lock up an A7Rii for 10 minutes. That sounds like a faulty camera, or card, to me.

It also contradicts your later statement concerning being more studied about the number of shots you take. Either you blast away untl the buffer is full, or you pick your shots, but it can't be both.

 

With regard to getting through a day using a DSLR without changing batteries, that is not unusual at all. Indeed, it would be expected for all but the longest weddings. I had little difficulty with the A99 and that has no OVF.

However, the idea that you have to swap batteries so often with the A7Rii again makes me suspect you have a faulty camera. I will swap usually once, or maybe twice in a long day.

 

I think you need to explain your reason for thinking the 70-200 f2.8 is too heavy for weddings. Certainly, weight is a significant reason I moved over to the A7 series, but just about every wedding photographer in the world will be carrying a 70-200 f2.8.

 

As to whether the Sony are ready for professional use, they are. It's a case of knowing your equipment and I have no problems using them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Peter--  One detail of the "buffer fill" situation you apparently failed to notice was the "I shoot combo RAW/JPEG" (suits my workflow).  Obviously you've never tried that on an a7RII.  With Nikons, you can set a small size for the JPEG, which helps tremendously on the buffer, but with the Sony the JPEG is set to a much larger size.  Also the a7RII does some wonderful things while processing JPEGs, but that takes a lot of processor time and power.  Whether it was a camera malfunction or normal operation, it's what happened.

 

While I may shoot less than some photographers who came up purely in the digital age, like nearly every photographer I do shoot a lot more than when I was using film.  However, when shooting combo RAW/JPEG, you are in effect doubling the number of images you take, with the RAW using up a lot of write space and the JPEG using up processor.  Couple that with a really super photo opportunity, and me blazing away to make certain I get not just "a" shot but "the" shot, and like everybody else I can fire off over a hundred frames a minute, resulting in over 200 frames getting written to the card.

 

The Nikon D810, in my experience, will have a few two- or three-second hiccups during such times, and maybe the light will go on for 10 seconds at the end of the episode, but it will not completely fill up and refuse to fire for more than a couple of seconds.  On the other hand, the a7RII has been turned into a brick by such on several occasions for several minutes.  (Precision Camera says it's working fine.  You can take that for what it's worth.)

 

One drawback of the a7RII that has been discussed on forums is the tendency for the camera to use up a lot of battery while hanging on the strap.  Conjecture is that the camera senses the photographer's body as a face being near the viewfinder, and keeps the viewfinder powered up.  Couple that and the need to keep the cameras always ready during an event, with lots of autofocus activity and etc, and you have a lot of battery drain.  If I'm not using a grip, I can get maybe 30-60 minutes out of a battery during times of very heavy use.  While I have to admit I'd reload my weapon a lot more often than that during a VC charge, it still feels like a lot, especially when I have to do it in the middle of a special moment.

 

I'll often bring along the 70-200 2.8 as a backup and leave it in the car, but I seldom need to bring it out.  Aside from the rare situation where the full stop of exposure is critical (and really, when's the last time you absolutely needed f/2.8 at a wedding when you had a flash on the camera?), about the only practical advantage the 2.8 gives is one extra stop of selective focus (see previous note about noise reduction software).  The 4.0 does just fine at maybe a pound less weight.  My average wedding is nine or ten hours, and at age 62 every little bit helps.

 

Bio:  http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=555352.  It's a little dated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Independent corroboration on the battery life, using an almost identical firearms comparison.  From page 402 of David Busch's Sony (alpha) a7RII/a7II Guide to Digital Photography:  "...if you're involved in some heavy-duty shooting, such as sports or event photography, particularly when continuous shooting is involved, you'll be spending a lot of time swapping batteries.  I've got eight of them, and sometimes I feel like James Bond feeding clips into his Walther PPK during a shootout."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...