What camera(s) do you use for weddings?

[startingjourney]

I just talked to a wedding photographer today and she told me more photographers use Nikon for their wedding photography. Just wondering what you use as your primary camera body and backup.

[ChatKat]

I just talked to a wedding photographer today and she told me more photographers use Nikon for their wedding photography. Just wondering what you use as your primary camera body and backup.

No - Most of the wedding shooters I know use Canon. I shoot with a 5dmk2 and a 5d with a 50d and 20d for backup cameras.

[joshhuntnm]

boo!!! Nikon!

Yeah! Canon!

And just by the way, if you are just diving in, I'd get expensive glass and several flashes before you got an expensive body.

[ChatKat]

boo!!! Nikon!

Yeah! Canon!

And just by the way, if you are just diving in, I'd get expensive glass and several flashes before you got an expensive body.

I would have had a very hard time shooting Saturday with anything but fast glass (2.8) and High ISO. My 16-35 and 70-200 2.8 lenses allowed me to geth the shots with 1600 iso and I still had noise. No flash ws allowed and I had to shoot into the stained glass, not flas hor light for fill and the window was in full sun. I should have had silhouettes.

[DarosK]

Every single wedding photographer that I've met has used Canon. I remember because we always end up geeking out about lenses and accessories etc etc.

Most of the fashion photographers I've met use Nikon.

I don't know what that says.

[pwp]

I've seen exclusively Canon bodies. Not just as a photog, but as a guest at the several weddings I attend a year as well. I shoot with a 5D2, and backup body depends on the location and if I have my assistant with me or not. If I'm outdoors all day long, have my assistant shooting, and have good light, I've even gotten away with my XTi as a second body.

[wadesworld]

I don't do weddings, but my opinion is it doesn't matter much. The two wedding photographers I know are split. One uses Nikon, the other uses Canon. As others have said, it's the glass and lighting that matter more.

Nikon did go through a bad period at the start of the pro digital photography "revolution" where its cameras had technical problems and just weren't delivering clear images. A lot of pro photographers switched to Canon at that time out of sheer necessity.

However, recently some Canon photographers have switched to Nikon as Nikon has turned out some awesome new stuff. It's a constant battle of leapfrog.

But in the end, if you look across all fields of professional photography, I think you'll find both Nikon and Cannon being used successfully.

If you've already got an investment in one system or the other, stick with it - both are equal to the task.

[zoomer]

For me it is about being able to shoot at high ISO.
Canon used to kick Nikon's butt until the d3.
I use the Nikon.
I imagine it is about a 50-50 split.

[Blurmore]

My mentors used Canon way back to film cameras Elan 7, and EOS 1v (in addition to Hasselblads and Mamiya c330) I work as a second to a photographer who shoots Nikon D3/D2x backup. I use a Canon 40D/30D/20D. Many of the second photographers that seem to get sent out on my subcontract jobs (I have no control of who they are) shoot Nikon, in fact only 1 has ever been a Canon shooter. All of the subcontract jobs I've ever been a second on the first shooter was Canon (except for 1 and she is primarily a freelance PJ). One of the former District coaches for the company I sub for I have stayed in contact with just traded his 2, 1D MK II's in on a 5D and a Leica M8. I personally would pursue a Leica/40D route myself when Leica gets around to putting the full frame Sony sensor ala D700/A900 in a M9 rangefinder. Untill then I may supplement my bag with a cherry used 5D I've seen lately if the price is right, or maybe a well cared for 1DS MKII, but for the most part I'm happy with my xxD lineup.

[elizabeth_Luna]

Started with a canon 20d which is now my backup then used a canon 40d and just now upgraded to a 5dmarkII which arrives today wut wut!:clap:barb

[joshhuntnm]

Started with a canon 20d which is now my backup then used a canon 40d and just now upgraded to a 5dmarkII which arrives today wut wut!:clap:barb

I am too jealous!

[WingsOfLovePhoto]

it's a toss up. Most are either Canon or Nikon. I'm a Nikonian using the D3 and D300 for backup. Either or it's the quality glass that makes a huge difference too. Having fast stuff for low light helps!

[Photog4Christ]

The Canon vs Nikon debate is probably as old as the RAW vs JPG debate.

I used (I no longer shoot weddings) two D200s and a 50mm 1.4, 17-55mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 VR.

[Art Scott]

It really depends on which crowd you hang out with.....I still know photogs that will not do a wedding with anything less than a film med. format and they are slplit betwixt Mamiya and Hassey users...but in the DSLR camps it will be a close call......remember the high dollar nikon glass is still black.
I had been doing all my work with 2 Konica Minolta 7D's with my backups backup being a KM A2......andI just acquired 2 Nikon D300 one with a 18-200 VR.....the second cam will be fitted with a Sigma10-20 and possibley a 17-70 in the bag......also in abag will be a Siggy 50-500 for those really big Cathederals :D......

[mmmatt]

I shoot canon but it seems everyone else I meet around here (In Milwaukee) shoots nikon... then there is the whole mac vs pc thing...

Matt

[Blurmore]

The Canon vs Nikon debate is probably as old as the RAW vs JPG debate.

I used (I no longer shoot weddings) two D200s and a 50mm 1.4, 17-55mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 VR.

Wait there is a RAW v .jpg debate?? Not for anyone I know.

[bdcolen]

Wait there is a RAW v .jpg debate?? Not for anyone I know.

I shoot Olympus - E3s, E330. Who else offers an f2 zoom of 28-70 equivalent, and a second f2 zoom from 70-200? :wink And then there's the 7-14 (35 equiv of 14-28) f4. No, the high iso performance doesn't match that of the latest Canons and Nikons, but having shot Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus and Leica M over the years, I honestly believe that the best of the Olympus digital glass is as close as I've seen to the Leica M aspheric glass - and that's more important to me than high iso.

http://www.bdcolenphoto.com/gallery/8438912_veHkq#554580995_wwtZ2

[mdruiz]

I shoot Nikon..Not to knock Canon I just like the speed of the AF on Nikon. I think the quality of Nikon Glass is the same. Canon bodies feel to much like plastic.
:scratch

[Jeff_Milo]

The Canon vs Nikon debate is probably as old as the RAW vs JPG debate.

I used (I no longer shoot weddings) two D200s and a 50mm 1.4, 17-55mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8 VR.

There is a debate between RAW & JPG for weddings???? I would never dream of shooting a wedding in anything but RAW. As far as the MAC vs. PC anyone who has used a MAC to edit pictures knows there is no debate there either. Its a MAC hands down (and thats from an old time PC guy)

Canon vs. Nikon is more like Yankees vs Red Sox

I now shoot Canon 5d MkII with a 30 D as backup until I can afford another 5dMkII

[insanefred]

I don't do weddings, but my opinion is it doesn't matter much. The two wedding photographers I know are split. One uses Nikon, the other uses Canon. As others have said, it's the glass and lighting that matter more.

Nikon did go through a bad period at the start of the pro digital photography "revolution" where its cameras had technical problems and just weren't delivering clear images. A lot of pro photographers switched to Canon at that time out of sheer necessity.

However, recently some Canon photographers have switched to Nikon as Nikon has turned out some awesome new stuff. It's a constant battle of leapfrog.

But in the end, if you look across all fields of professional photography, I think you'll find both Nikon and Cannon being used successfully.

If you've already got an investment in one system or the other, stick with it - both are equal to the task.


QFT...

It dosen't really matter what you use, it how happy the client is when they see the pictures!

My friends use Canon, I use Nikon. Some of my canon friends are seriously considering the switch to Nikon.
One of the guys i work with used to work for a camera store recently. He told me, "You'd be surprised how many more Canon (5dmkii and 50D bodies) bodies get returned vs Nikon (D300 and D700 bodies)"

As far as the MAC vs. PC anyone who has used a MAC to edit pictures knows there is no debate there either. Its a MAC hands down (and thats from an old time PC guy)



Ohhh, get a life!

I shoot Nikon..Not to knock Canon I just like the speed of the AF on Nikon. I think the quality of Nikon Glass is the same. Canon bodies feel to much like plastic.


From my experience, Canon has noticeably faster AF acquisition.
I won't comment on who has better tracking though.

[dank-photo]

Wait there is a RAW v .jpg debate?? Not for anyone I know.


I 2nd shot a wedding a little while back, and I couldn't believe it when the primary said she shoots jpg! I like having the security of RAW, but if you don't need it...I can see how some (maybe less computer savvy) photogs would love it by saving hard drive space. Still...what a loss of detail. I was wondering why she also didn't know what a terabyte was...

I shoot with a Nikon d700, with a d70s as back-up...but I agree that Canon and Nikon are pretty equal. I'm only partial to Nikon because I've invested in their whole system...and I love their controls...although I do shoot Canon sometimes when shooting commercial work for a studio...and Sinar 4x5's w/digi backs:D love them!

Go Mac!

[urbanaries]

While the debate is interesting (I guess?), the camera does not make a wedding photographer.

I'd put Shay Stephens with his 20D up against any newbie (or vet, for that matter) with a shiny 1dMKIII or D3 any day.

The most important thing behind the lens is between your ears.

[ChatKat]

I shoot RAW + Jpg on my 5d2 and 5d but didn't until I took a class from Canon about 3 years ago and saw what the difference is, Lightroom has really made a huge difference for me this year as well in my processing. There are a number of wedding photographers who shoot jpg only because of the ease of workflow. I like the insurance of RAW but as an old film girl, my goal is to be able to use all my images SOOC with little PS as needed.

I did a shoot and burn on Saturday, culled the duplicates and a few I did not like, made a few adjustments in LR - color and crop and uploaded the full wedding Monday. Waiting to send the disk to the Bride after I get some orders from guests/family while the iron is hot. With my pre-lightroom workflow, I'd be processing select RAW's and using Canon's DPP. And I'd use the jpgs if there were no reason to use the RAW.

Oh - And I switched from Nikon to Canon during Film days and my glass investment in Canon now is just too much to switch and I have no reason to do that.

[Blurmore]

With my pre-lightroom workflow, I'd be processing select RAW's and using Canon's DPP. And I'd use the jpgs if there were no reason to use the RAW.

Oh - And I switched from Nikon to Canon during Film days and my glass investment in Canon now is just too much to switch and I have no reason to do that.

UGHHH!!! DPP 3 letters NO photographer should ever have to deal with. Canon should invest all their money in competing with Sony/Nikon on sensors and NONE on their "software" that ship has sailed LR is awesome and I can't imagine using anything else. Same here on the glass, when I switched from medium format to digital the 20D was where its at, and now that the investment has been put into glass...I'm not going anywhere, even a shift to Leica would just be a supplement and not a replacement.

[Photog4Christ]

Wait there is a RAW v .jpg debate?? Not for anyone I know.

For the record. I shoot RAW 100% of the time (on my DSLR) and every pro I know shoots RAW. But, there is the "I'm new.... Should I shoot Canon or Nikon? Should I shoot RAW or JPG?" thread on almost every forum I've been on and that is what I was referring to. There are togs that believe that getting it right in camera and not doing any PP is the only way to go. I haven't met one yet, but they are out there.

[zoomer]

I shoot with the d3 as my main body with flash and bracket and a d700 on my belt with 200mm lens.

I shoot everything in jpeg. There are a lot of pros that shoot everything in jpeg.
I shot my first 3 years in jpeg, then I shot raw for 2 years, now I am back to shooting everything in jpeg.

Shooting jpeg I can process a wedding in 1/3 of the time and trust me NOONE can tell the difference in the pictures. using Lightroom I can do all the same processing steps to a jpeg I can do to a raw photo.
The loading in and out of programs and file space, card space is a huge difference in favor of jpeg.
There is a slight noticeable difference in the ability to save highlights in favor of the raws vs. jpeg....the only significant difference I have ever noticed.

I have done the pick raw vs. jpeg picture test several times on pro forums.
Nobody can pick the raws from the jpegs.

Possibly if you have identical full size full resolution photos side by side it may be possible to tell the difference. But even the slightest variations in exposure or sharpness from photo to photo make is impossible to tell if a set of photos is done in raw vs. jpeg.

This is my own experience, others may have different opinions earned through their own experiences. I say shoot in whichever format makes you more confident with the outcome of your work, and whatever makes your customers happy.
My customers are happy when they get their photos back fast.
My family is even more happy when I am spending a lot less time on the computer.

[tenoverthenose]

Amen to that. Gear is just a tool to help express your ideas. And by the way, I still think the 20D was one of the better cameras Canon has made (I'm still upset I sold mine).

While the debate is interesting (I guess?), the camera does not make a wedding photographer.

I'd put Shay Stephens with his 20D up against any newbie (or vet, for that matter) with a shiny 1dMKIII or D3 any day.

The most important thing behind the lens is between your ears.

[elizabeth_Luna]

Amen to that. Gear is just a tool to help express your ideas. And by the way, I still think the 20D was one of the better cameras Canon has made (I'm still upset I sold mine).

I agree with you on this one - even though I upgraded to a 40d I was still using my 20d for some reason now I understand why - I just now upgraded now to a 5dmark2 but I cant compare that to my 20d now hehe:wink

I shot in jpg I did try the raw way but like zoomer yes I couldn't tell the difference from my experience.

[bdcolen]

I shoot RAW + Jpg on my 5d2 and 5d but didn't until I took a class from Canon about 3 years ago and saw what the difference is, Lightroom has really made a huge difference for me this year as well in my processing. There are a number of wedding photographers who shoot jpg only because of the ease of workflow. I like the insurance of RAW but as an old film girl, my goal is to be able to use all my images SOOC with little PS as needed.

I did a shoot and burn on Saturday, culled the duplicates and a few I did not like, made a few adjustments in LR - color and crop and uploaded the full wedding Monday. Waiting to send the disk to the Bride after I get some orders from guests/family while the iron is hot. With my pre-lightroom workflow, I'd be processing select RAW's and using Canon's DPP. And I'd use the jpgs if there were no reason to use the RAW.

Oh - And I switched from Nikon to Canon during Film days and my glass investment in Canon now is just too much to switch and I have no reason to do that.

I shoot RAW, but always import and save as Adobe DNG. Shooting JPG only is the equivalent of shooting film, sending it out for develop and 4x6s, and then throwing away the negs. Makes no sense.

[FedererPhoto]

Every single wedding photographer that I've met has used Canon. I remember because we always end up geeking out about lenses and accessories etc etc.

Most of the fashion photographers I've met use Nikon.

I don't know what that says.

Funny, I've noticed the opposite. Most wedding photogs (I'd say 70%) I know personally shoot Nikon ... the two 'fashion' photogs I know personally shoot Canon.

I shoot Nikon.

[Qarik]

I shoot RAW, but always import and save as Adobe DNG. Shooting JPG only is the equivalent of shooting film, sending it out for develop and 4x6s, and then throwing away the negs. Makes no sense.

try shooting stuff in jpg and then editing it in LR. You can do the exact same edits and acheive identical outputs in 90% of pictures as long as you get exposure "close enough" in camera. It is true that you have a lot more "data" in raw but you throw away 80% of that data away when you export anyway. The question is how much of that 80% was actually needed for the raw processing? Well that depends on how good you are in camera. If you practice in jpg then I think it is a legit flow.

[Blurmore]

As much as I too am embroiled in LR love, +/- 1 stop on .jpg is all the correction you can hope for from LR without things getting funky. Especially with color fringing when pulling down an over exposure. I agree that with 2 shots taken at consistent, correct exposure I'd have a hard time picking which was raw and which was .jpg, but for me the ability to correct WB "by the numbers" is worth shooting RAW alone, let alone the ability to fully control shadows and recover highlights. Qarik makes a valid point though about practicing in .jpg, 80% of what I shoot is as a subcontractor for a company that demands .jpg output, so I "practice" shooting .jpg all the time, but for my OWN weddings? Never, I would rather shoot reception stuff in sRAW to save memory than go to large .jpg

[ChatKat]

I shoot raw and convert to DNG. The Canon 5dMk2 and 5d let you shoot both RAW and Jpg silmutaneously. My work flow into lightroom gives me two images to work with so in a sense it gives me a back up image. I sort them into two directories before I import to LR on a separate drive. I do that for the insurance. When I am done with the import I now have a copy of each image in RAW and in JPG x2 on two drives as well as on my cards for a total of 6 images. When I am done I can use the jpgs and with one click upload them to my website for client proofing and still work on the RAW images for edits. The nif it's a client job, I back up to dvd and put a copy in the client folder. I will archive hard drives once a year

I had a whole week's travel shoot disappear when I was learning digital in 2001 while editing and I never want that to occur ever again. YOU CAN NEVER BACK UP TOO MUCH - I go to shoot an event with two cameras, duplicate lenses and flashes and safe guard my cards as well as the images.

[mmmatt]

Anything critical I shoot raw. I never delete in camera. I keep a working directory where I delete the ones I don't want and when I am done with my editing I keep 2 sets on different drives with 4 directories of full-res jpg, low-res jpg, every raw file, and xml files of my keepers. I backup temporarily to a 2nd internal drive on my main machine and permanantly to a series of external drives. I have an adapter that allows me to hook any type of drive through usb without a case, so for long term backup I have a stack of uncased hard drives and a 1TB external. When a drive is full I lable it with what is on it. HD space is cheap so I have no need to minimize my backups to jpg. I understand the time aspect of working with raw but if ever I feel the need to do all my processing on jpg only I will do a batch convert and still back up all the raw files just in case.

Matt

[zoomer]

All this technology you all are talking about makes me dizzy.

In case anyone is interested here is my process:
I shoot them in jpeg. Delete all the bad shots in camera (have deleted multi thousands of photos in camera over 7 years and never had a card go bad)
I use the D3 for my main camera. I can take 1400 jpegs at the highest quality available on a 16gb card. I shoot them on 1 16gb card and use the second 16gb card for backup(d3 has two card slots). I can shoot appx. 2000 photos on one battery charge as well.

I download them into Lightroom, saving the second card as backup.
I can import, process and export all the jpegs from all three cameras to my secondary drive in about 6-10 hours (in raw it took 10-12 hours just to import and export the pictures.) When shooting a wedding on Saturday I now have them essentially finished the next day, when I shot raw it would take me into the next weekend to finish them, which meant I had to work on them each night after coming home from my real job.
I shoot everything in full resolution and everything stays in full resolution.
In my last two weddings appx. 2500 pictures. There were only 2 jpegs where I could not rescue the highlights in Lightroom. I changed them to black and white and made them high key shots and went on..

If I could get them right in camera and do no processing at all that is definitely what I would do. It is actually my goal, but you have to be crazy good at composition, exposure and making sure your photos are straight and making sure there are no unwanted elements lurking in the photos.

Then I download appx. 150 favs into their online gallery and copy them all onto the clients disks. Once their photos are on their disk I delete all their cards. I keep all their photos in my secondary drive.

I also shoot some photos at each wedding with the d700(200mm shots) and d300 (macro for ring shots). I process exactly the same way.

My safety is keeping all the photos on the cards until all the photos are copied onto the clients discs. Then I delete the cards.

My assistant copies them onto her computer to meet and go over them with the client.

So long term they are on my secondary memory drive and my assistants computer and the clients have them on disc. We tell the client to recopy them to high quality discs when they get home and to copy them to their computer as well.

For me it is all about speed as long as it does not impact the quality.

We tell the client we do not guarantee we will have the photos for more than 6 months. END OF BOOK

[Blurmore]

All this technology you all are talking about makes me dizzy.

In case anyone is interested here is my process:


Interesting look into your process. I too delete in camera and don't worry about it, but untill I'm toting a 30MP camera I won't be using 16gb cards. The biggest I use are 4gb right now, but I'm going to buy 8's next time. I see having a whole wedding as a liability, you see it as convenience and security. I don't work with an assistant, so I do all the processing myself, and I don't meet with clients after the fact because I don't sell to them on the back end and frankly have no interest in doing so. I shoot RAW, process in LR2, I don't cull, I star system select 200-300, and assign a color to the ones I want in B&W, then I formulate a B&W profile and split tone depending on the couple's style and complexion. Then I apply, adjust, crop straighten all the B&W, then correct, crop and straighten the color, I bring the ones that need cloning or other work to PS. I work on the 3 that I do digital enhancements too then upload. I order proofs from smugmug, and in the mean while sync similar shots that didn't make the cut with ones that did, I do NOT straighten, clone or fix (other than bulk exposure and Color correction) the "extra" shots that didn't make the cut. When the 4x6 prints come in I assemble the proof album, burn DVDs (3 folders proofs, B&W in color, and Extras), make custom labels, print limited Lic to reprint, then deliver the book and hopefully and respectfully hope I don't have to hear from them until they want me to shoot baby pictures.

[mmmatt]

For the record I don't worry about deleting in camera as a way to damage or corrupt my card... I just keep everything just in case. Both CF and HD space are cheap. As for cards I have 4 8's, 2 4's, and 2 2's. I shoot the 8gb cards mostly but don't fill them if I can help it. When there is a break in the action and they are reaching half full I swap them out.

Matt

[zoomer]

Blurmore, that is so interesting to me to see how you do the processing part. We do it so diametrically opposite.
I cull the crap out of the pictures in camera. I only load good pictures into Lightroom for processing.
Now starting at the first picture I go through them and add effects adjust exposure contrasts and black level on the ones that need further adjustment. I very seldom need to straighten as the d3 has a virtual horizon that tells me if the picture is straight when I take it and I almost always use it.
Cropping is so fast in Lightroom but I seldom need to use it as I adjust the focus points as I am shooting to keep the subjects where I want them in the frame, and am very careful about composing so I do not need to crop.

I am kind of liking your star system for picking pictures. I may try it to see if it is faster than culling in camera....I find it convenient cause I can do it while watching TV and keeps me off the computer just that much longer.
I hardly ever do any cloning, if a pictures needs much of it I nuke it.

I am so glad I have a great assistant. I don't meet with the clients over any of the business part she does all that. She sits with them and looks through all the pictures with them on a dual monitor system. The clients at that time pick the photos for their books and their canvas prints and enlarged photos. My assistant does all the prepping of the photos for prints, does all the book creation and all the ordering delivering to clients etc.

I have nothing but admiration for you all that have to do everything. If I had to do everything I would just be burning discs and handing them over.

I hear you guys on the card thing. My reasoning and a big reason I use the D3 as my main wedding camera is that my largest stress during a wedding was cards, losing misplacing running of pics on a card at just the wrong second. Batteries, running out at just the wrong time, bringing enough charged ones to the event.
Now that I don't have to think about cards and batteries I can focus totally on shooting.

[TonyL]

Thought I would throw a wrench into the works.
I am using Olympus E3's with f2.0 glass.
No issues whatsoever. Yes more noise at Higher ISO, but I rarely need to go above 1200.

[Adrian Owerko]

Thought I would throw a wrench into the works.
I am using Olympus E3's with f2.0 glass.
No issues whatsoever. Yes more noise at Higher ISO, but I rarely need to go above 1200.


Another wrench... I am using PENTAX K-7 & K10D with
f2.8, f2.4 & f1.4 glass.
Primes & zooms. K-7 at iso 1600 can get the job done..
Shooting RAW & using Noise Ninja..

[Shima]

I shoot with two 5D Mark II's and lots of primes (I only own one zoom lens).

[Matthew Saville]

The Canon vs Nikon debate is probably as old as the RAW vs JPG debate.The Canon versus Nikon debate is actually as old as the 35mm film format itself... ;)

Since we're in the mood to throw wrenches at the "Canon vs Nikon" and RAW vs JPG" debates, here's a few images. I've never discriminated between Canon and Nikon, I think especially the current generation of D700 / 5D mk2 cameras are definitely NOT the weakest link in most wedding photography situations. To put it nicely. Neither do I discriminate between JPG and RAW. I shoot RAW when the situation demands it, I shoot JPG as the situation allows it. If the light is harsh, the white balance is impossible, or if I'm shooting a seriously important image, I'll shoot RAW. If the light is soft, the white balance is a piece of cake, and it's detail shot time, I'll shoot JPG and never look back. In short- I firmly believe that mastering BOTH formats has proven to be the ONLY path I wanna be on...


http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/photos/195929033_ngFYV-M.jpg
(...This shot was taken maybe four years ago, on a beat-up old D70 with a beat-up old Tokina 17mm 3.5. RAW, and heavily processed obviously.)


http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/photos/223870791_9LT5P-M.jpg
(This shot was taken on a Fuji S5 and a 50mm 1.4, a JPG file with no correction...)


http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/photos/405771536_zGRYp-M.jpg
(A nearly SOOC "straight out of camera" JPG file taken last fall on a D300.)


http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/photos/405771829_NDUYc-L.jpg
(A RAW capture from that very same wedding. I switch back and forth between RAW and JPG, depending on how easy the light is...)


http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/photos/521627298_sonPq-M.jpg
(JPG files, shot with in-camera B&W and a one-click processing preset I've dubbed "T-MAX, pushed")


http://matthewsaville.smugmug.com/photos/537563472_TEVss-L.jpg
(Back to RAW, shooting on my current D300. Processed in Bridge CS3...)


...For me the bottom line has been, can YOU tell a difference? What if I told you I had captured all the images on a 1Ds mk3, not a bunch of random old Nikon DX "junk", and that ALL the images were RAW? I'd be lying, but I hope I make my point- It's not so much about the camera, and to an extent it's not even so much about which format you shoot. With years of experience should come a sharp, keen sense of white balance and exposure. Also of course the intuition of which lens to pick for the shot, and the understanding of how to manage a low-light situation given the equipment you've gotta work with...

=Matt=

[TonyL]

Another wrench... I am using PENTAX K-7 & K10D with
f2.8, f2.4 & f1.4 glass.
Primes & zooms. K-7 at iso 1600 can get the job done..
Shooting RAW & using Noise Ninja..


Nice!

[FedererPhoto]

Matt -

You don't find that mixing JPG and RAW throughout a shoot slows you down more than you gain from the faster/less processing you do on the JPGs? On other words: isn't your workflow harmed by not having a homogeneous set of files?

[Andy]

Wait there is a RAW v .jpg debate?? Not for anyone I know.
+1 no possible debate. RAW is superior, offers more options and quality.

JPG can be great for events when you have biliions of frames to get out, and online asap.
Best is shoot RAW+jpg, storage is dirt cheap :)

[Art Scott]

I like the insurance of RAW but as an old film girl, my goal is to be able to use all my images SOOC with little PS as needed.

How often did you stand and watch the printer do your rolls of film..............
It is amazing just how much the printer does sittingthere at a machine getting the RGB or MCY correctso you pix look perfect isn't it?????????..........................

[David Manning]

Matt -

You don't find that mixing JPG and RAW throughout a shoot slows you down more than you gain from the faster/less processing you do on the JPGs? On other words: isn't your workflow harmed by not having a homogeneous set of files?

Not with Lightroom. Although it's not something I do often.

For me,

Canon
Raw
Lightroom (sent to Photoshop to batch sharpen/NR using a droplet)
Photoshop (if needed or a 5* image)As for workflow (more detailed), I ingest all images to LR. I use the P or X keys to pick or reject. For the second round, I make minor color/tonal adjustments and assign a star rating *, ***, ****, and for the best *****. Final edit, then export through PS droplet for sharpening or noise reduction and sharpening. But that's just me.
David

[bendruckerphoto]

I would say that Nikon right now has the advantage. The D3 is unmatched in the Canon world. The 5D Mark II can be better for certain situations, but the D700 beats it by a might on AF and frame rate. The D300 is just overall a better camera than the 50D.

That being said, both systems have great lenses and tend to leapfrog each other with the cameras. Is Nikon ahead now? Yes. Could Canon take back the lead it had 2 years ago two years from now? Absolutely. A camera system is an investment. Choose your brand based on flashes (Nikon wins), lenses (tie) and other accessories. Cameras come and go. SLR systems don't.

[Matthew Saville]

Matt -

You don't find that mixing JPG and RAW throughout a shoot slows you down more than you gain from the faster/less processing you do on the JPGs? On other words: isn't your workflow harmed by not having a homogeneous set of files?As David Manning pointed out, when you use any of the current generation editing tools, (Bridge, LR, Aperture) ...you can edit RAW and JPG images side by side without any issues at all. I can literally open up two images at once, one JPG and the other RAW, and perform edits on both of them with one click, in Bridge.

The difference lies only in the default starting points- My RAW files automatically get a huge boost in contrast, a custom curve, and some black, shadow, brightness, and highlight adjustments. And my JPG files start with all adjustments at zero, of course...

=Matt=

[bendruckerphoto]

Not with Lightroom. Although it's not something I do often.

Although I'm a 100% RAW shooter (storage is cheap, as is computing power). Reshoots and time in PS aren't. Lightroom automatically stacks the RAW and JPG, so you don't need to see the JPG if you don't want. Never have used this feature, but I know it's in there.

[rokklym]

Thought I would throw a wrench into the works.
I am using Olympus E3's with f2.0 glass.
No issues whatsoever. Yes more noise at Higher ISO, but I rarely need to go above 1200.

I'm also using an E3, but I don't have the F2.0 glass. I have the 2.8 11-22 and 50-200 and I have to say I get more noise than what I'm happy with. If I get a big shoot I might rent a 35-100 F2 and see how much it helps. If I'm not overly impressed with the 2.0 glass I'll probably jump ship.

[hoghead]

I just talked to a wedding photographer today and she told me more photographers use Nikon for their wedding photography. Just wondering what you use as your primary camera body and backup.

I only shoot 6-8 weddings a year but I shoot them with a Pentax K20D and a Pentax K10D as a second body with lots of really good fast Pentax glass.