Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: A Japanese headfier's monologue (Sasaki)
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
Headphoneus Supremus: Loyal member of Team Useful Post.
Focus is more important than lack of grain. Film is not bad at 800 or 1600...it's above that where things get bad. Don't get me wrong, modern APS-C and full frame DSLR's will usually strongly outperform film at high ISO's, but modern films still do reasonably well...and when they go bad, they just get grainy...when digital fails, you get things like banding, ugly mottled noise, and color noise.
Weddings move so fast, you don't have time to be changing lenses while the cats get herded. The 18-200 is perfect for that. As for faster lenses that do similar things... not at the price you are looking at. Add a fill flash. That will be as flexible a rig as you could hope for.
See ya
Steve
Cheers. I keep thinking to get a Tamron 24-70 2.8 but i really dont see me using this lens outside of events (general walkabout). Maybe when i have more money i can get something decent. But for now i geuss its an upgrade to a 18-200 since im not expecting to get the main shots from the wedding anyway :P
__________________
Meizu M6 || Laptop || Ipod Classic 80gb -> LDM+ (for sale if anyone wants) -> K81DJ || CX300
Previously used:
30g Ipod Vid *Now dead due to ONE LITTLE DROP*
Cheers. I keep thinking to get a Tamron 24-70 2.8 but i really dont see me using this lens outside of events (general walkabout). Maybe when i have more money i can get something decent. But for now i geuss its an upgrade to a 18-200 since im not expecting to get the main shots from the wedding anyway :P
In all honesty, if you are on a tight budget and need a fast lens for a DX camera, I would probably go with the 85mm for 400$us. It is pretty fast, and nice for tight shots of people at close distances, or body shots at far distances. For a wedding on a budget, the 50mm and 85mm F/1.8 would be a cheap way to go for getting some really nice pictures.
The typical pro wedding setup is one camera with a 70-200 F/2.8, and another camera with a 24-70mm F/2.8. That's typical.
A 24-70 wouldn't be a bad choice for mingling at close quarters at the reception, but you might need something longer for the ceremony itself. They usually stick you up in the choir loft if you're packing. A fixed length long fast lens would be ideal for shooting from the boonies. But for the grab shots at the reception, a zoom is important. Do you have a good flash? You'll need that for the grab shots too.
I see the point that film is a good way to learn... and that's where I learned with both 35 and medium format- both B&W and color darkroom work. But I've never found that restrictions and difficulties lead to a better grade of thinking. They just slow thinking down. Sitting there with my stopwatch and bucket of water at the precise temperature taught me nothing. Neither did having to wait several days to see what I had shot. I learn a lot more when I'm shooting and reviewing pictures than I do when I'm thinking out all the settings.
I've shot since I was a teenager, and the things I've learned that are the most important involve composition, lighting and how to be in the right time and place to push the button. Those things are infinitely more complex than depth of field, reciprocity or adjusting color balances subtractively.
Cameras have progressed from something you have to think and labor over to tools that fit your workflow so seamlessly, they make the adjustments you would make a hundred times faster than you would be able to. I think that's a great thing, because it frees the photographer up to do the thing that machinery will never be able to do... capture light in a beautiful way.
The difference between film and digital is an entirely different story though. If you are a professional shooting landscape, high end studio or architectural shots, you won't be using digital. Nothing can touch medium and large format view cameras for that sort of thing. Digital is more of a replacement for amateur uses and news photographers.
See ya
Steve
I find that film allows me to consider the composition more. I really need to focus more on lighting, but I just don't have the money for a commander and more flashes so I can use some off-camera light.
Originally Posted by meat01
OverlordXenu, Please tell me where I said film was better!
"Not everyone upgrades their bodies to the latest and greatest. People still actually use film cameras."
I took that to mean that film bodies are not as "great" as digital bodies. (I suppose that's correct, they're not as technologically advanced.) I did overreact, and I'm sorry for that.
Linear Mode
