Wedding Photos 12th April

[alexisonfire]

i have used 17 for a wedding as well and if you have a large group you either stack them 10 deep or 3 to 4 deep and wide to make sure you can see every person in the group shot.
17 is not wide enough for large groups especially if you get bad weather and are confined to the inside of the church.

You must photograph some bloody big groups!
Can't say i had a problem photographing around 15 people at 24mm. Was probably standing about 12-15ft away.

i have the SB800 which has a higher guide number than the 430 and that struggled to light a large group inside a church, i could have done with another one or two!

Again, i can't say i had a problem with the SB600, but then i didn't use flash in the church. The main room where the dinner and disco took place was huge though.

you said you used the 24-70 most, is not a £200 lens.

The sigma 24-70mm You don't need expensive equipment to take good photos. My entire lens collection cost less than £1k, and perform basically the same as the Nikon flagship equivalents.

 

[gadgets]

You must photograph some bloody big groups!
Can't say i had a problem photographing around 15 people at 24mm. Was probably standing about 12-15ft away..

ha ha 15 people, was it a billy no mates wedding!?!

with family and friends every wedding i have been to has been 40 or more

Again, i can't say i had a problem with the SB600, but then i didn't use flash in the church. The main room where the dinner and disco took place was huge though..

if you have a large group in a church which are not the brightest of places the 430 or a 600 will not give you the results you need, you might be able to overexpose or will have to spend days in photoshop.

like i said you are recording that one day and should go equipped not on a wing and a prayer!

The sigma 24-70mm You don't need expensive equipment to take good photos. My entire lens collection cost less than £1k, and perform basically the same as the Nikon flagship equivalents.

Sigma will be proud to here you say that but i'll think you'll find there is quite a big difference between the Sigma 24-70 and the Nikon 24-70 other than £800!

i have 2 Sigma Lens the 18-50 f2.8 and the 10-20, and while they give really good photo's there is a significant difference between the Sigma and Nikon 18-50.

my friend has the Nikon and i have played with it quite a lot and the pictures are amazing.

 

[alexisonfire]

ha ha 15 people, was it a billy no mates wedding!?! With family and friends every wedding i have been to has been 40 or more

I was referring to the staged group shots, which normally consist of family and close friends. (Bride, Groom, parents of each, wedding party, brothers/sisters etc.)

if you have a large group in a church which are not the brightest of places the 430 or a 600 will not give you the results you need, you might be able to overexpose or will have to spend days in photoshop.

like i said you are recording that one day and should go equipped not on a wing and a prayer!

You are probably right there, neither of those flashguns would be good for inside a church photographing large amounts of people, but i can't really see this happening? I've never been to a wedding where theres more than 15ish people in one group photo.

Sigma will be proud to here you say that but i'll think you'll find there is quite a big difference between the Sigma 24-70 and the Nikon 24-70 other than £800!

I beg to differ, you pay a considerable amount more for the name, and the fact that its Nikon's newest flagship model designed for the D3 (inevitable scene tax). Take the 28-70 f/2.8 which was the flagship model before, it was pretty much perfect and was selling at almost half of what the 24-70 does. Im not saying the sigma will perform the same, but 5 times worse? No way.

i have 2 Sigma Lens the 18-50 f2.8 and the 10-20, and while they give really good photo's there is a significant difference between the Sigma and Nikon 18-50. My friend has the Nikon and i have played with it quite a lot and the pictures are amazing.

This confuses me quite a bit, you slate using budget equipment for a wedding, yet you use it yourself? Also i've never heard of the nikon 18-50?

 

[mrk]

i have used 17 for a wedding as well and if you have a large group you either stack them 10 deep or 3 to 4 deep and wide to make sure you can see every person in the group shot.

17 is not wide enough for large groups especially if you get bad weather and are confined to the inside of the church.

i have the SB800 which has a higher guide number than the 430 and that struggled to light a large group inside a church, i could have done with another one or two!

Like I said, I use the 17-55 for wedding group shots and have no problems combined with the 430EX, I do not struggle for light whether in a church or in a reception, my clients also have no issues with the results.

17-55 quick example of a big group shot:

 

[colinuk]

Let me know if they pick any of the pics in the church for the album then

Only way i have found to get good pics in the church is to use a tripod really as they dont like flash going at all lol...

Picked up a new lens, nikon 16-80mm - will test it out this weekend on the next wedding but the test shots look good.

Its all a learning game and as long as you have fun, thats what matters as it shows in the pictures.

 

[gadgets]

I was referring to the staged group shots, which normally consist of family and close friends. (Bride, Groom, parents of each, wedding party, brothers/sisters etc.)

You are probably right there, neither of those flashguns would be good for inside a church photographing large amounts of people, but i can't really see this happening? I've never been to a wedding where theres more than 15ish people in one group photo.

I beg to differ, you pay a considerable amount more for the name, and the fact that its Nikon's newest flagship model designed for the D3 (inevitable scene tax). Take the 28-70 f/2.8 which was the flagship model before, it was pretty much perfect and was selling at almost half of what the 24-70 does. Im not saying the sigma will perform the same, but 5 times worse? No way.

This confuses me quite a bit, you slate using budget equipment for a wedding, yet you use it yourself? Also i've never heard of the nikon 18-50?

there is a difference between stage group shots and the group shot

when i bought the Sigma 10-20 there was no (still not) Nikon alternative.

i could have bought the Nikon 17-55 but it would not fit in the dive housing so again at the time (2004) the best f2.8 zoom i could get in that range was the Sigma.

i meant 18-70 Nikon not 18-50

unfortunately we can't control the weather yet so you have to be a boy scout and go prepared for the worst not hope for the best.