So I just shot a wedding - Leica M9 and Panasonic G9

[Archiver]

This is the sixth wedding I've shot in all the years I've been shooting, and the third which was primarily stills. Everything else has been video oriented. No flash, relied on ambient light and postprocessing.

The reception venue was very dark, with lots of mood lighting but not much in the way of flattering light. I used the Distagon 35 on my M9 and the Olympus 17 and 45 f1.2 Pro primes on the G9. Both had their drawbacks. The M9 was very limited in terms of high ISO performance, and manually focusing in such dim light was a hassle. The G9 locked on very quickly and accurately, but did not have anywhere near the vibrance and 'look' of the M9 files.

The G9 images, even at moderate ISO values like 1250, seemed to degrade quite quickly with heavier processing, whereas the Leica files could take it and deliver a very stylish look. G9 files look great in good to moderate lighting, but in very dim indoor lighting they aren't up to scratch.

Typically, I don't do weddings, and this is the first which had such dim lighting. I feel I could have used my 5D Mark II which does reasonable shooting up to ISO 3200. I've done my best with the G9 files and I'm sure the couple will be pleased, but I'm back to thinking about a high ISO beast like a Sony A7 III, Leica SL2-S or similar. And although the last time I used flash was 13 years ago with very unpleasant results, I'm wondering if flash might provide a solution for similar future situations.

Just wanted to rant a bit and sort out my thoughts.

 

[Evergreen States]

I somehow got ahold of a compact Rollei E15B that I pair with my 2.8/14 Fuji in close quarters event shooting. Wide angle black and white with a flash makes me feel alternately like a press photographer or Daido Moriyama. Usually one part of the event will be slow shutter speed without flash and another part will be with flash. Unfortunately I can't post pictures at this time due to my hard drive with my pictures being at my old house.

And the dial that lets you calculate your distance and aperture broke off when I moved earlier this year and I haven't used it since.

 

[sevres_babylone]

The only wedding I’ve ever shot was a pretty informal outdoor wedding for a relative of mine. I chose my A7SII over my M9 primarily because I could focus even my manual m-mount lenses with more confidence (using focus peaking which I usually hate) and because of the buffer. I also used my GR. In the evening, an even more informal reception in a restaurant, I used mainly the GR. I don’t have the Panasonic, but I am surprised that the files at 1250 would not hold up. My m4/3 is the first E-M5, and I think it holds up higher than that. I did switch to Sony for higher ISOs, but that was because I needed 12800 and above for the music photography I was doing. I recently bought the A7C, in part for its excellent autofocus. Not that I’ve had many people to photograph during the lockdown which started the day I bought it. I think criticism of the EVF is unduly harsh, but if you are planning to do more wedding or wedding-type photography, the larger EVF of the A7III would be preferable. If you are going Sony, I would wait for the A7IV, because it will have the better autofocus that the A7C has.

My recollection is that on the Sony I used the M-mount Planar 50mm and the ltm heliar 75mm f2.5. I also used the Batis 25mm, but I don’t think all that much.

As for M9 files, I agree they hold us very well, and the colours are so good.

 

[Archiver]

My m4/3 is the first E-M5, and I think it holds up higher than that. I did switch to Sony for higher ISOs, but that was because I needed 12800 and above for the music photography I was doing. I recently bought the A7C, in part for its excellent autofocus. Not that I’ve had many people to photograph during the lockdown which started the day I bought it. I think criticism of the EVF is unduly harsh, but if you are planning to do more wedding or wedding-type photography, the larger EVF of the A7III would be preferable. If you are going Sony, I would wait for the A7IV, because it will have the better autofocus that the A7C has.

My recollection is that on the Sony I used the M-mount Planar 50mm and the ltm heliar 75mm f2.5. I also used the Batis 25mm, but I don’t think all that much.

As for M9 files, I agree they hold us very well, and the colours are so good.

I've been looking at the A7C lately, how do you find it compared with a camera with more custom buttons and a front control dial? It seems great on paper, although I'm used to cameras like the G9 which has loads of custom buttons and dials.

The issue for me with the G9 files is that they feel somehow more brittle or thin than M9 files. They lack a depth or tonal variation in the colours, I don't quite know how to describe it. It's especially apparent when pushing exposure on underexposed files (trying to capture movement at higher shutter speeds). They just don't look as good to me as M9 files when given heavier post work.

I've written earlier about doing more and more sports work for brands which requires high frame rates and good autofocus tracking, and the A7 III, A7R III and A9 seem to be the best cameras for this right now. The A7R IV isn't making the cut at\s the enormous files would be ridiculous to work with (and costs a bomb), and the lossless compressed raw from the A7R III would be manageable. The only other problem is lenses which take advantage of the AF speed, which means native mount lenses = $$$. We shall see.

 

[Musashi1205]

Well, I can only speak for myself but I enjoy shooting the A7riii for my professional work very much. Once I got accustomed to the menus and buttons I think that it is not in the way but supporting my shooting style.
I’m using manual glass like the Canon ltm 50mm 1.2, Leica Tele-Elmarit-M 90mm f2.8 or the Voigtländer 35mm Nokton Classic 1.4 E-Mount, all mostly wide open, as well as as adapted Canon 16-35mm f4, as well as my three native AF lenses (28mm f2, 55mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8) together with great output. Focusing the manual lenses is easy with the right settings.
I find the files (mostly working with compressed RAW in Capture One Pro) and
also the whole camera much better than my former 5Dmk2 or mk3. Better high ISO, croppability, handling. It’s highly customizable so I almost never need to dive into the menu. My most common settings are easily dialed in.
I never use flash for event work, only available light. It just kills the ambiance for me and disturbs the surrounding.
Hope that helps you a little bit for your decision.

 

[Archiver]

@Musashi1205 - yes, it does help. The current plan is to get something like the A7R III for stills work, and occasionally use it for a secondary video camera. With the right lenses, it will replace my 5D Mark II, my almost antique 30D, and (gasp) my M9 for paid work. You have no idea what kind of emotional twinge I had when I said that! Hahaha.

I like to travel light, and I don't need a huge focal length range, so a Sigma 28-70 f2.8 and a 35mm G Master would handle most stills situations. Considering that the Distagon 35 has taken over my M9 because of the way it handles and renders, and the A7R III files will crop like crazy, I don't need much more than the 35 GM. Maybe a 24 GM and 55 Z for variety? If my Distagon works well on the Sony, I might not need the G Master at all. If the Metabones EF-E adapter works well, I could use my Canon 35L.

I like that you don't use flash for event work. Like you, I think it disturbs the ambience and is distracting. One wedding I shot had a stills photographer, and she sat on the sidelines and sniped the dancefloor with a 70-200 and flash, while I was weaving through the dancefloor with the guests. Very different approaches to event work, I guess.


Now that I think of it, if the EF-E adapter works properly, I can use any of my Canon lenses with a Sony, including the 24-105, Sigma 18-35, 35L, etc. This could work.

 

[keytarjunkie]

First of all, I use a Sony A7RII and kind of hate it. The sensor is great. The camera is painfully frustrating to use, both in the menu and just the overall button layout. Both have been improved in the newer cameras.

The camera you should be looking at is the A7SIII (or A7SII). 12mp stills are not great for landscape photography, but they're enough for wedding photos. This camera can see into the black night! If you are doing candid low-light photography and/or video, the S series is the one to get. Avoid the R series unless you are doing landscape photography, as they are significantly worse at video and low-light shooting. The A7III is a good tradeoff between the two, but the new A7IV is just a few months away with 4K60 and a 30mp sensor so I would not buy the A7III right now.

The A7C looks good on paper. But in reality, it is uncomfortable to hold with a very shallow grip, loses nearly all the custom function buttons and the front dial and joystick, has a tiny viewfinder, and is marketed as a vlogging camera. I want to like it, but I can't come around on it.

For video with autofocus, the native lenses are worlds away from adapting DSLR lenses. The latest GM lenses are particularly amazing. If there is one lens to get, I think it is the 24GM. I love the 35mm focal length with analog photography but could honestly skip it for video, just 24 and 50/85 works (or 20 and 35/50). If you are doing video with manual focus, an adapted manual focus lens using focus peaking is the best solution. The electronic lenses are not fun for manual focusing, it's kind of like driving a boat.

PS the Distagon works okay on Sony cameras, but you will want to get a PCX filter. See here.

 

[gavinlg]

I just picked up a Nikon Z6 after something like 8 years with Fuji digital cameras. I had similar reasons to you - the fuji files were starting to feel a bit limited in certain areas, and I can really use the higher malleability and IQ of the full frame sensor.
No regrets so far, the camera feels good, handles wonderfully, and has been a noticeable step up in IQ. I also use my M mount Voigtlander 35 f2 ultron on it and it works surprisingly well. As far as low light performance goes, I'm happy with ISO 12800 in a pinch and the EVF is huge and clear. The AF is exceptional. I'm not entirely sure why the camera hasn't been super popular - it really is a lovely thing to use.
With the 40mm and 28mm pancakes due out this year, plus sigma supposedly making Z mount lenses soon, the system is starting to fatten out.

I considered going sony for a few minutes but was put off by the bodies ergonomics and sony's sometimes shonky design/build that I've experienced with their products in the past. There's no doubting the power of their system however.

 

[sevres_babylone]

...
The camera you should be looking at is the A7SIII (or A7SII). 12mp stills are not great for landscape photography, but they're enough for wedding photos. This camera can see into the black night! If you are doing candid low-light photography and/or video, the S series is the one to get. Avoid the R series unless you are doing landscape photography, as they are significantly worse at video and low-light shooting. The A7III is a good tradeoff between the two, but the new A7IV is just a few months away with 4K60 and a 30mp sensor so I would not buy the A7III right now.

The A7C looks good on paper. But in reality, it is uncomfortable to hold with a very shallow grip, loses nearly all the custom function buttons and the front dial and joystick, has a tiny viewfinder, and is marketed as a vlogging camera. I want to like it, but I can't come around on it.

For video with autofocus, the native lenses are worlds away from adapting DSLR lenses. The latest GM lenses are particularly amazing. If there is one lens to get, I think it is the 24GM. I love the 35mm focal length with analog photography but could honestly skip it for video, just 24 and 50/85 works (or 20 and 35/50). If you are doing video with manual focus, an adapted manual focus lens using focus peaking is the best solution. The electronic lenses are not fun for manual focusing, it's kind of like driving a boat.

PS the Distagon works okay on Sony cameras, but you will want to get a PCX filter. See here.

The Sony A7SII is a good suggestion, especially if you can find a good one used. I have seen a couple going for $1500 used in Canada. Coincidentally, that is what I was hoping to pay for a used A7S before I ended up buying a new A7SII when combination of sale/rebate made it affordable. The new A7SIII is quite expensive, although perhaps worth it if one does a lot of professional video. I don’t shoot video. It has three big advantages over the A7SII, from what I’ve read: better EVF, much better autofocus, both in tracking and dim light, and a better menu system.

I bought the A7SII in March 2017 for a couple of reasons (or rationalization). For lowlight band photography and I wanted to photograph the last few shows in my favourite club that was closing, and I knew my M9 was going to be going in for sensor replacement, and I wanted a camera I could use my m-mount lenses on (other than my E-M5). I am mostly a 50mm shooter, and the lens I’ve used most on it is my ZM50mm Sonnar. My second most used lens on it at first was the CV75mm Heliar F2.5. Ltm. I have over time purchased, used, 3 autofocus lenses: the 35mm ZA, the Batis 25mm, and most recently, towards the end of last year, the Sony 85mm F1.8.

I agree with the comment about manual focus on these autofocus lenses being subpar. For me, in part that is because I am fidgety with my lenses, and its too easy to accidentally move the focus rings. For my m-mounts, I prefer magnification to peaking. I find peaking too often distracts me from catching the expression I am looking for.

The A7C was my second Sony. If I had to make a choice of only one, I would choose the A7SII. Although bigger, it is not a heavy camera. It feels really comfortable in the hand. I used Gordy’s wrist straps, and the grip on the A7SII is better than that of the A7C for two reasons. Not only is it deeper, but the camera covering is not as smooth as on the A7C.

My comments about the A7C are constrained in that I’ve only had it for a little over a month, and have not been able to use it in situations I was usually in before the lockdowns: band photography in dim clubs and street photography with people. I can’t really compare the lowlight capability of it with the A7SII, but I assume about a two stop difference. That is while I was shooting the older camera at 25600 and 51200 when I was shooting a friend’s deejay dance parties, I would expect to comfortably use the A7C for my live music shooting put to 12800 with good results. I don’t think my photographing my cat is telling me a whole lot.

I think the A7C is a fine stills camera, whatever it’s vlogging attributes may be. I almost never used the front dial on the A7SII, and don’t miss the dropping of buttons too much. I do know that for manual exposure shooting, some people liked to use one dial for shutter speed and one for aperture. I mostly shoot in aperture priority. The old Sony menu system that it uses is a bit of a pain, though I don’t think it’s any worse than that on my E-M5. My joke about the Sony is that it’s almost impossible to accidentally format an SD card, because it’s so hard to find where on the menu formatting is. The A7c is a comfortable size with smaller lenses. I’ve been using the Jupiter 3 with it for the past couple of days. Aside from taking pictures in my house of my cat, I haven’t used the A7c that much with larger lenses like the 25mm or 85mm. Size is relative of course. I grew up as a photographer with the Olympus OM system, almost never using lenses longer than 100mm. I then switched to the R-D1 and M9. The Sony 85mm seems like a giant compared to the Zuiko 85mm F2, and the Batis similarly huge compared with my old Olympus 28mm. But neither of these autofocus lenses is heavy, by any means. I’ve got a credit for my plane ticket for last year’s cancelled trip to Japan, which I plan to use to go somewhere this fall. Unless something changes, it will be the A7C I will be packing.

 

[Richard G]

Archiver, i can’t believe you did that. If ever I got close to thinking about agreeing to do a wedding I’d go to the photo.net wedding forum and would soon cure myself.

And I do say well done. What ISO did you use on the M9 and what did you do in Lightroom with the files. (Just asking for a friend.)

 

[Corran]

Used to do a lot of weddings. For a time, I had a Nikon D700 and D800 on a double strap rig, one with 14-24mm or a fast 35mm, the other with 80-200mm usually, or switching between 85/1.4 and 135/2DC. And then around my neck was my old Leica M9 with 50mm f/1.1 (Voigtlander).

Was happy with that setup except the Leica lens focuses the wrong way, which threw me off sometimes, but oh well, they aren't perfect .

IMO I'm not sure why you didn't use your 5D2, which was one of the premier wedding cameras not too long ago. You don't need ISO 574862, really. Just learn how to use flash (hint - aim up) or crank the ISO as needed and don't worry about it. Trust me, no one cares about the noise, they just want images. Worst case scenario, I would resize images to about 6-8mp for delivery if I had to really push it. Folks don't print low-light reception photos more than 4x6 usually, if at all. Of course your big show images - formal portraits - you should have more available resolution for a 16x20 print.

That said if you want to do weddings seriously, buy reasonable equipment, and ditch the M43 for sure.

 

[Bill Clark]

What really helped me get going with the wedding portion of my photography business was to find a person who was a seasoned photographer and saw the world as I do. He became my coach and mentor. With his help, I was able to charge a fee much higher than most photographers.

And nothing was finer than to have satisfied clients.

Dean Collins put it succiently when he said, “beauty is in the eye of the check book holder.”

 

[Archiver]

Archiver, i can’t believe you did that. If ever I got close to thinking about agreeing to do a wedding I’d go to the photo.net wedding forum and would soon cure myself.

And I do say well done. What ISO did you use on the M9 and what did you do in Lightroom with the files. (Just asking for a friend.)

Hahaha, normally I don't do weddings, never advertise myself for weddings. These were for sports or corporate clients or friends of clients who specifically requested that I shoot their wedding (usually video, occasionally for stills). It's not a skillset that I have ever pursued, but shooting events and documentary in general means that I have some rudiments of it.

M9 was at ISO 1250 and processed in Lightroom. My general approach to M9 files is to lower contrast, black point and highlights; boost whites, clarity and saturation; and tweak some colours like reds and blues. This becomes a preset which I apply in general, then tweak to taste. I can send you the preset if you DM me with an email address.

For the wedding reception, I left it at ISO 1250 and let shutter speed ride up and down. A number of images were underexposed, but pushing M9 files usually works out okay. Almost all photos on the M9 were shot with the Distagon 35 wide open, which helped a lot in terms of letting in light, and giving a certain look that I really enjoy.

 

[Archiver]

Used to do a lot of weddings. For a time, I had a Nikon D700 and D800 on a double strap rig, one with 14-24mm or a fast 35mm, the other with 80-200mm usually, or switching between 85/1.4 and 135/2DC. And then around my neck was my old Leica M9 with 50mm f/1.1 (Voigtlander).

Was happy with that setup except the Leica lens focuses the wrong way, which threw me off sometimes, but oh well, they aren't perfect .

IMO I'm not sure why you didn't use your 5D2, which was one of the premier wedding cameras not too long ago. You don't need ISO 574862, really. Just learn how to use flash (hint - aim up) or crank the ISO as needed and don't worry about it. Trust me, no one cares about the noise, they just want images. Worst case scenario, I would resize images to about 6-8mp for delivery if I had to really push it. Folks don't print low-light reception photos more than 4x6 usually, if at all. Of course your big show images - formal portraits - you should have more available resolution for a 16x20 print.

That said if you want to do weddings seriously, buy reasonable equipment, and ditch the M43 for sure.

Yeah, I didn't use the 5D2 because in previous weddings, I was fine with the G9 and the f1.2 primes. Stupid me, I hadn't reckoned on it being almost winter over here, and the reception being at night time, whereas previous weddings were done either during the day, or well lit situations. This is my inexperience showing.

Good tips about resizing at lower resolution and just learning to use flash, thank you. That could be helpful if I'm in this situation again, which isn't unlikely. I don't actively chase weddings, but clients seem to want me to do their personal work as well as their corporate/TVC/doc work. Not a bad thing to have more work, certainly in today's post pandemic climate, but you know how it is.

 

[Archiver]

Just got feedback from the client. They are thrilled with how natural the images are, and they are way better than what they thought they would get, even though they know my work already. One image is of the groom's nephew, he's only 3 or 4 and never stays still for pictures. But I've managed to get a picture of him and they will have it printed large. They want to pay me more! And here I am, fussing over high ISO noise, file malleability and focus! I guess we have different priorities, hahaha.

Through the night, I took about 1200 images and delivered 140. Not a bad keeper rate. I could have culled even more, but there were people in some images who weren't in others. And now he says there will be other family functions coming, and can I do those...

 

[Richard G]

Hahaha, normally I don't do weddings, never advertise myself for weddings. These were for sports or corporate clients or friends of clients who specifically requested that I shoot their wedding (usually video, occasionally for stills). It's not a skillset that I have ever pursued, but shooting events and documentary in general means that I have some rudiments of it.

M9 was at ISO 1250 and processed in Lightroom. My general approach to M9 files is to lower contrast, black point and highlights; boost whites, clarity and saturation; and tweak some colours like reds and blues. This becomes a preset which I apply in general, then tweak to taste. I can send you the preset if you DM me with an email address.

For the wedding reception, I left it at ISO 1250 and let shutter speed ride up and down. A number of images were underexposed, but pushing M9 files usually works out okay. Almost all photos on the M9 were shot with the Distagon 35 wide open, which helped a lot in terms of letting in light, and giving a certain look that I really enjoy.

Very good. Thanks for the offer but my command of Lightroom might defeat adding a preset. I'll fiddle in line with your indications. There was a line here a couple of years ago that the M9 is best at ISO 640 and then increase exposure in Lightroom. I have had some success too at 1250 and Icebear before moving to the Monochrom had some great night shots at 1250.

On that wedding forum there were pros who said that they could shoot a whole weeding with a 35 1.4. The most common admonition of the amateur there at p.net is not scouting the location. Many other hair-raising tales there. Flash emphasised as indispensable for day time.

 

[Archiver]

I just picked up a Nikon Z6 after something like 8 years with Fuji digital cameras. I had similar reasons to you - the fuji files were starting to feel a bit limited in certain areas, and I can really use the higher malleability and IQ of the full frame sensor.
No regrets so far, the camera feels good, handles wonderfully, and has been a noticeable step up in IQ. I also use my M mount Voigtlander 35 f2 ultron on it and it works surprisingly well. As far as low light performance goes, I'm happy with ISO 12800 in a pinch and the EVF is huge and clear. The AF is exceptional. I'm not entirely sure why the camera hasn't been super popular - it really is a lovely thing to use.
With the 40mm and 28mm pancakes due out this year, plus sigma supposedly making Z mount lenses soon, the system is starting to fatten out.
I considered going sony for a few minutes but was put off by the bodies ergonomics and sony's sometimes shonky design/build that I've experienced with their products in the past. There's no doubting the power of their system however.

The Nikon Z6 has also been on the contender list, although I'm put off by a couple of things. One is that I'm getting this body as a potential lead in to a new system, so one body can do video duties and the other does stills. If I get into Sony, the A7R III can be stills focused and later down the track I can get an A7S III or FX3 for video.

At the moment, I use the Panasonic G9 for video, which is perfectly adequate, although the m43 system currently does not produce the higher quality stills work I want to do. If I stick with Panasonic, the full frame S cameras don't have autofocus like Sony, Canon or Nikon. Leica isn't up to those standards, either, and the cost/benefit ratio of a SL2-S is a bit skewed towards cost, shall we say.

As far as Nikon goes, I'm hesitant because while the stills capabilities look great, and the Z6 seems to do really well with M mount lenses (another bonus), the video capabilities aren't up to Sony or Panasonic standards. Since I'm aiming to eventually consolidate into one mount system to maximise lens usage, the Nikon Z system isn't quite there yet. That, and the use of XQD cards, which means spending a ton of money on memory.

The other option is to continue with two or more mount systems for work, which has been okay, but I find it cumbersome and not streamlined. If m43 had the still image quality I'm after, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[gavinlg]

As far as Nikon goes, I'm hesitant because while the stills capabilities look great, and the Z6 seems to do really well with M mount lenses (another bonus), the video capabilities aren't up to Sony or Panasonic standards...

While I'm not much of a video guy, I understand (possibly mistakenly) that the Z6 is supposed to be one of the better hybrids - possibly the lack of 10 bit n-log is an issue, but the 4k internal looks good to my noob eyes.
Yup the XQD thing killed me a little however I managed to find a nikon 64gb card at Teds for 200... not too bad.

Pity I'm not in Melbourne at the moment otherwise I'd lend you mine to play with - maybe spend a few days with some rented sony's and nikons and see how they work in use for you?

 

[Corran]

Flash emphasised as indispensable for day time.

This is true, especially when a wedding is unfortunately done in the middle of the afternoon on a sunny and clear day.

Here's a fun story that relates to flash. I once was given a job by a friend to cover a wedding as second shooter since she had something come up, and the primary shooter who I met there was pretty novice. She had nothing but a 5D2 and a 50mm f/1.8, no flash. I ended up being the primary shooter basically, but the real fun started later...

The whole wedding was a family affair and done at the family farm. Someone was supposed to put up lanterns in a big oak tree the couple were getting married under. Due to various scheduling issues, instead of the ceremony starting near sunset, the sun was well and truly set when it started and everyone was sitting in basically pitch-black conditions (way out in the country) and they hadn't ever gotten those lanterns put up. These are important shots! I couldn't even see the bride and groom once the ceremony started!

So I aimed in the general direction, flipped the camera to manual focus, and started popping flashes. Every flash I adjusted the focus and framing until I had something usable. Once I had the image lined up and focus acceptable I simply shot an image with the flash every 5-10 seconds and then a bunch of images at the end when they kissed. Enough of them came out okay to save the day for the other photographer (it was her gig).

ALWAYS have a flash!!

 

[SirGin]

I recommend DxO PhotoLab 4 (DeepPRIME noise reduction) for tackling the high ISO noise of M9 and G9. You should be able to download a trial version of the DxO software. Suggested steps:
- Open file in DxO PhotoLab, select DeepPRIME
- Export as DNG (Denoise & Optical Corrections Only)
- Continue processing in Adobe or C1 (or whichever app supports linear DNGs)