Is an M9 a good wedding camera ?

Roger Hicks said:
Or, as far as I am concerned, rather more difficult.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more perhaps of needing longer lenses, or macro lenses. I don't generally use long lenses, but I have one in my bag for when there's no alternative, which is usually when you are only allowed at the back of a big church. I'm not opposed to using M lenses for weddings, I'd love an M9 for just such a use.
 
Back in the day, I shot a few weddings with a Leica IIIf. It is obviously a slow working camera, and that, coupled with the squinty viewfinder caused me to be more deliberate with my picture selection, and more mentally involved with the social situation in front of me, and less aware of the camera itself.

I would guess that the M9 would impose some of the same qualities on working style that would result in enhanced results for some photographers, in spite of and perhaps because of the technical limits.
 
Sean Reid, of Reid Reviews, has an article on his site about using an M9 with the Leica SF58 flash on a Nikon SC-28 cord for wedding candids, at least. He illustrated the article with a number of shots. It is a paid site, but worth the subscription, if you like to read thoughtful reviews of Leica and Leica compatible equipment. http://www.reidreviews.com/ It is a very clunky website though.
The article where he describes and illustrates his method is labelled "Leica SF 58 Flash" that also links to another article on using flash.
 
bobbyrab said:
I'm thinking more perhaps of needing longer lenses, or macro lenses. I don't generally use long lenses, but I have one in my bag for when there's no alternative, which is usually when you are only allowed at the back of a big church. I'm not opposed to using M lenses for weddings, I'd love an M9 for just such a use.
Click to expand...

Macro weddings? Sounds kinky!

And how often do you need even a 135mm lens at a wedding?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Macro weddings? Sounds kinky!

And how often do you need even a 135mm lens at a wedding?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you want me to say Roger, not very often, but if you need a 200mm lens you can't do it with an M9. Besides I was more concerned that the OP might be someone without enough experience to be setting out to photograph some unsuspectings wedding. You get them on various forums asking what's a good focal length to cover weddings, if you have to ask then I don't feel you know enough to be taking on the responsibility.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Or, as far as I am concerned, rather more difficult.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


There's no doubt in my mind that at a wedding a D700 with the 24-70 f2.8 G series Nikkor and the camera set to 3200 ISO will kick an M9's arse every time. Add matrix metering and the equation's complete.

The only penalty would be the size and weight IMO ... and being noticed more with the DSLR is not an issue because you're 'the photographer' after all!

I'm not bagging the Leica here or praising the DSLR because both have their place in the minds of those who prefer one over the other in a wedding or any situation ... but I can't help noticing that you never miss an opportunity to slip a knife into the ribs of the DSLR Roger!
 
bobbyrab said:
Not quite sure what you want me to say Roger, not very often, but if you need a 200mm lens you can't do it with an M9. Besides I was more concerned that the OP might be someone without enough experience to be setting out to photograph some unsuspectings wedding. You get them on various forums asking what's a good focal length to cover weddings, if you have to ask then I don't feel you know enough to be taking on the responsibility.
Click to expand...

Quite often people go off on spurious tangents with their own agenda and don't even attempt to answer the original question. Infact they give answers to questions which weren't even asked. Somehow we got onto 135 and 200 lenses and whether dslrs are better for weddings. Not sure what any of that has to do with moire except a dslr may well have an AA filter.
 
M9 wonderful wedding camera!

M9 wonderful wedding camera!

The M9, or any M, will shoot wonderfully at a wedding. You need to know your tools, but it will give you images unique to that tool. Learn it, Love it!

See my M9 wedding post.
Cheers,
Denton
 
Of course. A Leica M can even go on a wild life safari and photograph a pack of lions hunting at night. With you, of course.

It depends on how confident you are of your M, your skills with it and its
capabilities.
 
braver said:
Annoying that both photogs mentioned in this thread have the most irritatingly slow flash websites ever. I can take only so much of looking at 'loading 12%....' if I want to look at pictures.... what's taking them so long? If anything is wrong with the whole wedding photography business it's the crappy websites. grrrr!

Ok, done, thanks 🙂
Click to expand...


😱😱/????????
 
Keith said:
... but I can't help noticing that you never miss an opportunity to slip a knife into the ribs of the DSLR Roger!
Click to expand...

Eh? I just said that I find 'em harder to use than Ms. How is that slipping a knife into the ribs of the DSLR? Someone else said that DSLRs were easier: I said I find 'em more difficult. Why do you have a problem with the latter statement but not the former?

Cheers,

R.
 
bobbyrab said:
Not quite sure what you want me to say Roger, not very often, but if you need a 200mm lens you can't do it with an M9. Besides I was more concerned that the OP might be someone without enough experience to be setting out to photograph some unsuspectings wedding. You get them on various forums asking what's a good focal length to cover weddings, if you have to ask then I don't feel you know enough to be taking on the responsibility.
Click to expand...

My point was simply that you are unlikely ever to need a macro lens for a wedding, and that I can't really imagine why you'd need a 200 either. All I can think is that I have misunderstood you: you were making a general point, and I understood you to be talking about weddings.

Cheers,

R.
 
willie_901 said:
Aliasing caused by incomplete sampling of an analog space to create a discrete model of that space is not relevant to human vision which is (as far as we know) a purely analog process. Moire' is an artifact of caused by digitization. Humans do not digitize spatial information.

On the other hand constructive and destructive wave interference caused by light passing through layers of screen-like fabrics would be observed by humans and recorded by both film and digital imaging.

Morie' in spatial digitization depends on many factors including the pixel spacing, the angle of the light and focus. Defocusing barely visible to the human eye and invisible in prints caused by motion, miniscule DOF degradation or diffraction can reduce morie' levels.
Click to expand...

I think you're much too technical here. Much of what is called "moiré" by laymen when talking about wedding veils etc. is simply the overlay of two grids, say the veil and its shadow, or two layers of veil. Those usually aren't exactly parallel, and so between them you'll often see some kind of pattern emerge. For that it's irrelevant how the sensor works, you see it already with the naked eye.
 
Roger Hicks said:
My point was simply that you are unlikely ever to need a macro lens for a wedding, and that I can't really imagine why you'd need a 200 either.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that making a living from photographing weddings is quite a different experience to covering a few weddings as a gift to friends. You have a shot on your site of a couple at the alter, we see the brides back and a partially obscured groom, might I suggest a long lens from the back of the aisle would have been useful.
 
I've just re read my post and apologies if it seems rude of me. I get irked that whenever weddings come up, everyone seems to be an expert even when they have little experience, and it does sometimes feel like a slap in the face when you've been doing it for fourteen years.
 
bobbyrab said:
I think you'll find that making a living from photographing weddings is quite a different experience to covering a few weddings as a gift to friends. You have a shot on your site of a couple at the alter, we see the brides back and a partially obscured groom, might I suggest a long lens from the back of the aisle would have been useful.
Click to expand...

No explanation needed (your subsequent post). Of course I defer to your superior experience, but given that weddings were shot for years on medium format, and that 300-350mm lenses were (as far as I am aware) never seen at weddings, I still can't help feeling that it's very much a matter of style, and of course practice.

You, with 14 years' professional experience of shooting lots of weddings, certainly should be a better wedding photographer than I. But that should also be the case regardless of the equipment you choose to use.

And I'd still like to know what the macro is for! (Insert smiley of choice.)

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
My point was simply that you are unlikely ever to need a macro lens for a wedding, and that I can't really imagine why you'd need a 200 either. All I can think is that I have misunderstood you: you were making a general point, and I understood you to be talking about weddings.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

In the US, ring shots and certain other detail subjects typically shot with a macro lens or with extension tubes are very common in wedding albums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom