It's all about the white lens + misc wedding photo musings
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:10 amYesterday, I went to a mate's wedding. The official photographer had a long white lens, and at first glance I though "ah, another Canon shooter". However, upon closer inspection, I realised it was actually a grey Nikkor 70-200
I had a chat to him a bit later on, and he was saying that he wanted to get the 17-55 (which was mounted on his other camera) in grey too, but couldn't get hold of one.
Is it just a case of trying to keep up with the Canonites and their distinctive white lenses? I reckon the black lenses look better, but who knows?
Anyway, I had a ball taking pics at the wedding myself (I will post some pics later, once I've shown the couple what I've done). I tried to stay out of the official photog's way as much as possible, and concentrate on candid shots (any of the formal posed shots wouldn't have worked as well, as their eyes should be on him, not me). I hope I didn't get too annoying, but he was pretty cool with it (was even nice enough to offer to take a shot on my D200 when he did the group shot with the bride and groom and our table).
Hopefully I was able to grab some shots from different angles that they like. I can see why a lot of wedding photogs go with Canon, or are raving about the new Fuji S5, in many cases you are shooting in low-light conditions, and the noise is a bitch to remove. You can do great things with programs like Noise Ninja, but there are always compromises involved with that method, like losing sharpness etc.
I'm likely to stick with my D200 for a great while yet as I don't do wedding stuff often, but if I did, I would definitely be considering other gear (more likely the Fuji than a complete switch to Canon). PS: VR is an absolute godsend, I had the 18-200 and 70-200 with me, and I got a lot more "usable" shots than I might have done otherwise. Also suprised at just how good the 18-200 is in situations like a wedding. Apart form a couple of times shooting long-range portraits when I needed the 2.8 aperture of the 70-200, I mostly used the 18-200. Versatile as hell (mega range, and much closer focusing than the 70-200), and to be honest, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference in quality.
I had a chat to him a bit later on, and he was saying that he wanted to get the 17-55 (which was mounted on his other camera) in grey too, but couldn't get hold of one.
Is it just a case of trying to keep up with the Canonites and their distinctive white lenses? I reckon the black lenses look better, but who knows?
Anyway, I had a ball taking pics at the wedding myself (I will post some pics later, once I've shown the couple what I've done). I tried to stay out of the official photog's way as much as possible, and concentrate on candid shots (any of the formal posed shots wouldn't have worked as well, as their eyes should be on him, not me). I hope I didn't get too annoying, but he was pretty cool with it (was even nice enough to offer to take a shot on my D200 when he did the group shot with the bride and groom and our table).
Hopefully I was able to grab some shots from different angles that they like. I can see why a lot of wedding photogs go with Canon, or are raving about the new Fuji S5, in many cases you are shooting in low-light conditions, and the noise is a bitch to remove. You can do great things with programs like Noise Ninja, but there are always compromises involved with that method, like losing sharpness etc.
I'm likely to stick with my D200 for a great while yet as I don't do wedding stuff often, but if I did, I would definitely be considering other gear (more likely the Fuji than a complete switch to Canon). PS: VR is an absolute godsend, I had the 18-200 and 70-200 with me, and I got a lot more "usable" shots than I might have done otherwise. Also suprised at just how good the 18-200 is in situations like a wedding. Apart form a couple of times shooting long-range portraits when I needed the 2.8 aperture of the 70-200, I mostly used the 18-200. Versatile as hell (mega range, and much closer focusing than the 70-200), and to be honest, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference in quality.