135format
Established
Just thinking that if moire is more probable with an M9 than it is with cameras with an anti aliasing filter, then given that brides have veils and/or delicate fabric patterns which are likely to produce moire, it makes me think that an M9 would not be a good choice for a wedding camera. Am I right in thinking it's not the right tool for weddings?
Araakii
Well-known
It's a good wedding camera if the bride and the groom want to go for the Leica style shots. It's not a good wedding camera if they want, say, video.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
I'm not sure how many people choose video for weddings anyway. I know it's all personal opinion, but I think video seems tacky for it.
I used my M8 to shoot a friends wedding. It's hard work. Fast moving and not great in low light.
However, if it is outdoors during the day it could work very well.
magicianhisoka
Well-known
It would be struggling a lot in low light situations. Quality of photos will also be dependent on how well you can focus.
I'd say it is a nice wedding camera for the planned or emotional shots of the event. Other than that, I'd rather use a DSLR.
I'd say it is a nice wedding camera for the planned or emotional shots of the event. Other than that, I'd rather use a DSLR.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
If you are worried about a moire, shoot film! BW film is really nice for something like a wedding.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I don't think moiré on wedding veils is a good reason to discard a camera, there are probably other, more pressing criteria.
The most frequent case seems to be that where you have two layers of fabric overlapping each other, and there the moiré is already visible to the naked eye and has nothing to do with the sensor.
armanius
Member
I've seen some amazing wedding photos with a M9. So I'm sure it can be done.
Moire would be the least of my concerns though, if I were to ever use a M9 to shoot a wedding. Not that I would ever shoot a wedding to begin with, because I'm just an enthusiast that would not want to screw up someone's wedding photos. But I imagine that the wedding photographer must have one amazing ability to manually focus that rangefinder accurately and quickly. And to move around quickly to get close to the action, while lugging at least two if not three M9's with different lenses.
Moire would be the least of my concerns though, if I were to ever use a M9 to shoot a wedding. Not that I would ever shoot a wedding to begin with, because I'm just an enthusiast that would not want to screw up someone's wedding photos. But I imagine that the wedding photographer must have one amazing ability to manually focus that rangefinder accurately and quickly. And to move around quickly to get close to the action, while lugging at least two if not three M9's with different lenses.
kzphoto
Well-known
You should be asking yourself if the M9 is the right camera *for your needs.* I shoot film / digital at weddings with mixed results. I have photographed a wedding with an M8.2 and I had a blast, I have also used a D3/D200/D700 and had equal success. It all depends on what works best for you.
In all honesty, RF focusing is pretty fast. Having AF is really handy though in a fast moving situation like a wedding. I use the M camera for candids and the SLR during the ceremony and for details.
In all honesty, RF focusing is pretty fast. Having AF is really handy though in a fast moving situation like a wedding. I use the M camera for candids and the SLR during the ceremony and for details.
braver
Well-known
The distinction lies in the fact that those who want to shoot weddings with an M9 are shooting weddings with an M9, those that post on forums pondering the pros and cons are on a forum not on a wedding. People are doing it so it can be done. Focussing is not so hard, I've done it (just for fun at a friend's wedding) and only missed a few. On film, which limited me to iso1600 which could have been a stop faster but it worked.
People used to shoot warzones with M cameras, I bet they can handle a party.
People used to shoot warzones with M cameras, I bet they can handle a party.
Spicy
Well-known
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
There you have it. Photographers can handle it, but the style would be more reportage than you average wedding shoot.
Google fellow RFF member Riccis Valladares, you'll see what I mean.
Someday I hope to carve out a niche market in reportage wedding photography in my neck of the woods...
canetsbe
Well-known
it's adequite
valdas
Veteran
armanius
Member
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not 'really amazing', no. I've never shot many weddings (I do it only when I can't get out of it) but I've used Leicas each time for 20 years or more. Always film so far (thank God, no-one has asked me since digi-Ms came out), but an M9 is no harder or easier to focus than any other M. Nor are two Ms hard to carry. This is not idle speculation: I've done it.
As for ISO concerns, well, in film days, ISO 400 was regarded as fast. Um...
Cheers,
R.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've never shot a wedding but I photograph gallery openings regularly and have to deal with extreme light variations and moving subjects. When I had my M8 focusing was the least of the issues I faced ... in fact I seldom missed focus and it was the poor high ISO performance of the M8 that eventually led me to get a D700. The D700 has been far easier to use in regards to dealing with the light I shoot in but I do miss focus more often than I did with the Leica ... so I'd have to say an M9 would be a pretty decent tool for shooting weddings!
thegman
Veteran
Personally, if I was a shooting weddings for money, then I'd want a camera I could afford two of. Also, you have to be OK with a limited number of focal lengths. I saw a wedding shoot whilst I was out and about at the weekend, the guy had two big DSLRs with two big lenses. He was shooting from a distance of maybe 50 yards, so I guess he was after a certain "look". Is that really viable with a range finder? Also, I see lot of shots, close ups of the bride and groom holding hands, so you just see the hands and the ring, is a range finder ideal for that sort of thing?
Maybe you don't like those sorts of photos, and maybe you'll tell clients you can't/won't do them, but that's up to you.
As a hobbyist, I can afford to say "Woo! Pretty cameras!", as a professional, taking money for services, I'd have to think about what is best for the job. For a certain style, a range finder may well be best for the job, but from what I see around the web these days, I think an SLR (film or digital) should certainly be considered, at least as camera no. 2.
Maybe you don't like those sorts of photos, and maybe you'll tell clients you can't/won't do them, but that's up to you.
As a hobbyist, I can afford to say "Woo! Pretty cameras!", as a professional, taking money for services, I'd have to think about what is best for the job. For a certain style, a range finder may well be best for the job, but from what I see around the web these days, I think an SLR (film or digital) should certainly be considered, at least as camera no. 2.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Well, the fashion these days seems to shoot everything with razor thin DOF at close range. The sad state of our hobby/art.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Unless you have a particular reason to use a manual focus rangefinder for wedding shooting and are good, fast and reliable at it, then I think it is a good camera as a guest but bettered by a modern pro dslr with a fast zoom for getting paid.
Mike
Mike
overtoom
Established
I have shot many weddings and I am using mainly two Canon 5d MII. They are in my mind the perfect tool for it. Fast, reliable and I even use them up to iso6400 with no hesitation. But even they become very heavy after 10-15hours... Therefore, I would love to have an (ideally two) M9 for the preparations and/or the ceremony. I dont care about things like moiré etc.
In the evening I would still use the 5d though. I already shoot with primes since a few years now, so my style will of course be just the same. But I am very used to shoot with two identical bodies (usually with the combo 35-85mm or, depending on the location, 24-50-135mm) and I could not afford two M9 and Lenses.
I am not sure how the M9 with one lens and the Canon with the longer lens attached, perform next to each other. If I could afford the noctilux and the M9, I probably would give it a go. But for my preparation and ceremony shots I mainly use my 35mm 1.4 and this Canon version is a beauty...
So I am still looking for an excuse to buy a M9...
In the evening I would still use the 5d though. I already shoot with primes since a few years now, so my style will of course be just the same. But I am very used to shoot with two identical bodies (usually with the combo 35-85mm or, depending on the location, 24-50-135mm) and I could not afford two M9 and Lenses.
I am not sure how the M9 with one lens and the Canon with the longer lens attached, perform next to each other. If I could afford the noctilux and the M9, I probably would give it a go. But for my preparation and ceremony shots I mainly use my 35mm 1.4 and this Canon version is a beauty...
So I am still looking for an excuse to buy a M9...