Fuji X Wedding Photography Chat

[pizzaman]

I used to shoot weddings on occasion and would not dream of using my Fuji gear for one at this point unfortunately. Maybe as a backup 3rd body to use when the 2nd slr isn't needed. I am very much a less is more person, but I don't see how I could come up with a kit that would do the job. When it is a day of this magnitude I would only use an SLR (canon/nikon) - there is nothing faster still. 

 

I got married last year. If the photographer we hired showed up with Fuji stuff I would have sent them packing. That sounds harsh but having been on the other side of the situation and knowing the type of photography we preferred it just would not have been the best tool for the job.

That said, we hired photographers who shoot with a decidedly photojournalist style (and that used to be my 2nd shooters), and so I know they wouldn't have done that anyways. I guess if you're going for the more traditional portraits, details etc it could be fine.

 

I love my Fuji stuff, but you're definitely missing moments with it, especially moments in low light that are fast moving - at least as it is now. If this ever changes I will get rid of my Nikon stuff. I haven't seen anyone do reportage with it as well yet. 

[ryan]

I used to shoot weddings on occasion and would not dream of using my Fuji gear for one at this point unfortunately. Maybe as a backup 3rd body to use when the 2nd slr isn't needed. I am very much a less is more person, but I don't see how I could come up with a kit that would do the job. When it is a day of this magnitude I would only use an SLR (canon/nikon) - there is nothing faster still. 

 

I got married last year. If the photographer we hired showed up with Fuji stuff I would have sent them packing. That sounds harsh but having been on the other side of the situation and knowing the type of photography we preferred it just would not have been the best tool for the job.

That said, we hired photographers who shoot with a decidedly photojournalist style (and that used to be my 2nd shooters), and so I know they wouldn't have done that anyways. I guess if you're going for the more traditional portraits, details etc it could be fine.

 

I love my Fuji stuff, but you're definitely missing moments with it, especially moments in low light that are fast moving - at least as it is now. If this ever changes I will get rid of my Nikon stuff. I haven't seen anyone do reportage with it as well yet. 

 

Well, here's my last 3 with Fuji. No one has complained about me missing key moments. In fact they've been saying the opposite.  It all depends on style of shooting I suppose - I never was into rapid fire shooting even when I shot mostly w DSLRs. I can't fathom shooting in the way that some photographers do - shooting 7-10,000 images at a wedding. It's just not my style. Mine is much more of an "be there, be ready, anticipate, then click" approach. But I don't disregard that it works for some - to each his own. There are many different tools capable of producing fine images on a wedding day, just like there's many different photographers.

 

http://www.ryandavisphotography.com/Featured-Weddings/Lily-Tito-Tampa-Destination-Wed/

 

http://www.ryandavisphotography.com/Featured-Weddings/Bethany-Tom-Mayne-Stage

 

http://www.ryandavisphotography.com/Featured-Weddings/Tabatha-Shawn-Midway-Village

 

Of course full disclosure I also use a Ricoh GR a lot when it comes to the "party dancing" because I like the look. And occasionally a Nikon D750 although not much these days - maybe a few shots here and there on those weddings from my second shooter.

[CRAusmus]

There are quite a few documentary wedding photographers rocking the Fuji cameras, and creating amazing moments with them.

 

I'd suggest you take a look at Kevin Mullins and Paul Rodgers, just to name a couple off the top of my head.

[Marc G.]

I love my Fuji stuff, but you're definitely missing moments with it, especially moments in low light that are fast moving - at least as it is now. If this ever changes I will get rid of my Nikon stuff. I haven't seen anyone do reportage with it as well yet. 

That's total bollocks.

 

Just because you obviously lack the knowledge to properly use a Fuji at weddings doesn't mean it's a total failure as a tool.

 

I suppose you're talking about the wedding dance, where the dance floor is usually dimly lit and the couple moves quite fast. This is where I, personally, used to use the 16/23/35 primes (now adding the 90). Manual focus with the wides, AF with the 35/90. Works a treat, believe it or not.

 

I've shot weddings with Fuji, usually with another shooter. When the X-T1 failed due to too low light, the 6D or 5D III failed, too.

 

If you, as a photographer, know your tools and are prepared for the situations and know how to best use your tools in different situations, then you don't miss anything.

 

If people complain about the Fujis, it's usually due to their own inability. When you're used to DSLRs and start trying to use the Fujis as a DSLR, the whole attempt is destined for failure. It's not a DSLR. Using another system requires time and effort to get the most out of it. But thats often forgotten.

 

Besides: hiring a photographer (or firing in your theoretical case) for his/her gear is superficial nonsense. You hire a photographer for the style, the portfolio and maybe the approach but not for the gear. That's like saying to the catering team: which brand of pots do you use?

[Antony]

I got married last year. If the photographer we hired showed up with Fuji stuff I would have sent them packing.

 

Well as an experienced wedding photographer I would have said, "thanks for the day off, and for paying me to not work!". Seriously, your comment shows that you obviously don't understand how to get good results from your gear. The X-T1 is just as capable as a DSLR when used properly. So much so that I sold my 1Dx a month after getting my first X-T1. Since then the camera has only got better. Here's a recent Fuji wedding: http://chasingsummerphoto.com/general/kirsty-and-tims-wedding-echidna-gully-armidale-wedding-photography-nsw/

[pizzaman]

That's total bollocks.

 

Just because you obviously lack the knowledge to properly use a Fuji at weddings doesn't mean it's a total failure as a tool.

 

I suppose you're talking about the wedding dance, where the dance floor is usually dimly lit and the couple moves quite fast. This is where I, personally, used to use the 16/23/35 primes (now adding the 90). Manual focus with the wides, AF with the 35/90. Works a treat, believe it or not.

 

I've shot weddings with Fuji, usually with another shooter. When the X-T1 failed due to too low light, the 6D or 5D III failed, too.

 

If you, as a photographer, know your tools and are prepared for the situations and know how to best use your tools in different situations, then you don't miss anything.

 

If people complain about the Fujis, it's usually due to their own inability. When you're used to DSLRs and start trying to use the Fujis as a DSLR, the whole attempt is destined for failure. It's not a DSLR. Using another system requires time and effort to get the most out of it. But thats often forgotten.

 

Besides: hiring a photographer (or firing in your theoretical case) for his/her gear is superficial nonsense. You hire a photographer for the style, the portfolio and maybe the approach but not for the gear. That's like saying to the catering team: which brand of pots do you use?

 

Yea, but when you hire someone based on their style and then they show up with equipment that is not best suited for that style, I would question it when it is such an important day. No one ever said it is a total failure of a tool. It's just not the optimal tool for certain types of wedding photography. Big difference between total failure. You can relax. 

 

To say people complain about the Fuji's being based on their own inability is to say that they have no shortcomings, which is nonsense. Maybe for you they don't, but I would prefer to use stuff that just works in the most direct way possible. Unfortunately, Fuji doesn't hit that mark in many situations as well the traditional brands. I can't wait til this changes. And yes, some people may not get on with them correctly and of course they are not and should not be used like an SLR. Which is one reason that I don't think they are the best for a photojournalist type wedding, because I still think the SLR is the best tool for that. 

 

I can agree to disagree, but I don't see how the Fuji is as responsive all around as a Nikon/Canon. It just isn't. AF in general, low light AF, lens options, DOF choices, file sizes, buffer write times and other instances that are real world issues on wedding day the Fujis fall short in. Sure you can learn to work around it, but that's not optimal when there is a better (less sexy and heavier I know) tool for the job. 

And until that happens, it's not best for certain types of weddings, in my opinion. Sure you can shoot all the premeditated stuff with them but it is the unexpected that is tougher to get and more often missed. Unless you are an absolute wizard - I don't understand why you would begin with a handicap on such a day.

 

I love the Fujis and they are better for some types of work, but none of the weddings I've seen have convinced me they are better for weddings. I see a lot of good imagery of expected scenarios and choreographed moments. I don't see much beyond that. As a client, I would hope for more. But I also have the curse of being a photographer hiring one. Good thing I hired my friends I guess. 

[abjurina]

Look, I'm not going to bash you for your opinion, but it is confusing to me while somebody would seek out a forum post dedicated to shooting wedding photography with Fuji gear only to tell people that Fuji cameras are incapable of shooting weddings. Particularly when it's been proven all over the world that this has and is being done.

[Marc G.]

Yea, but when you hire someone based on their style and then they show up with equipment that is not best suited for that style, I would question it when it is such an important day. No one ever said it is a total failure of a tool. It's just not the optimal tool for certain types of wedding photography. Big difference between total failure. You can relax. 

 

It's up to the photographer to choose the tools they think are best suited for their kind of work. It's not your job or duty to agree or disagree with their tools. And please be precise: for which types of wedding photography is the Fuji not the optimal tool? Would you require a photographer to use digital medium format because it is obviously best suited for portraits and group shots? This nonsense just leads to... nowhere.

 

To say people complain about the Fuji's being based on their own inability is to say that they have no shortcomings, which is nonsense. Maybe for you they don't, but I would prefer to use stuff that just works in the most direct way possible. Unfortunately, Fuji doesn't hit that mark in many situations as well the traditional brands. I can't wait til this changes. And yes, some people may not get on with them correctly and of course they are not and should not be used like an SLR. Which is one reason that I don't think they are the best for a photojournalist type wedding, because I still think the SLR is the best tool for that. 

 

Then I wonder why you are even in a Fuji X Forum if you prefer your other gear anyway and only think of the shortcomings of the Fuji? And it only doesn't hit that mark FOR YOU (!!!!). I also read other posts you published and this is where I got the impression that you're not even interested to get the most out of the Fuji because you just want it to work like your DSLR. It's DIFFERENT.

 

Besides, I do shoot documentary style weddings. The Fuji is far superior to these huge black boxes and giant lenses simply because people behave differently in front of smaller cameras and lenses. You're more inconspicuous which leads to people not posing as much in front of the camera. Thats basically the definition of documentary photography. At least to me, it seems.

 

I can agree to disagree, but I don't see how the Fuji is as responsive all around as a Nikon/Canon. It just isn't. AF in general, low light AF, lens options, DOF choices, file sizes, buffer write times and other instances that are real world issues on wedding day the Fujis fall short in. Sure you can learn to work around it, but that's not optimal when there is a better (less sexy and heavier I know) tool for the job. 

And until that happens, it's not best for certain types of weddings, in my opinion. Sure you can shoot all the premeditated stuff with them but it is the unexpected that is tougher to get and more often missed. Unless you are an absolute wizard - I don't understand why you would begin with a handicap on such a day.

 

I can only shake my head when I read some of your complaints. "buffer write times" leads me to think you often use maximum FPS. This in combination of a noisy DSLR would be a reason (for me) to talk to the photographer to be more discreet. I have no issues with my X-T1s with FW4.0, not even in low light. I find the lens options to be the best in a mirrorless system. The only real lack for some wedding photogs could be a 2.8 wide angle zoom and tilt/shift lenses. "handicap on such a day" just leads me to think you just don't know what you're doing with the Fuji. I suppose this is due to the X-Pro1's (IIRC you do use the first X camera) age and lack of up-to-date AF but then just don't generalize this into "Fujis". Again: the X-T1 with the current firmware is more than up to the task of shooting weddings and excels in a wide range of situations. 

 

I love the Fujis and they are better for some types of work, but none of the weddings I've seen have convinced me they are better for weddings. I see a lot of good imagery of expected scenarios and choreographed moments. I don't see much beyond that. As a client, I would hope for more. But I also have the curse of being a photographer hiring one. Good thing I hired my friends I guess. 

 

Nobody said they are, in general, better for weddings. It's just you who constantly bashes Fujis used for wedding photography. Without any good evidence or reason. Just because you obviously fail at photographing spontaneous moments with the Fujis, does NOT mean that the tool sucks for the job.

Answer in bold.

[pizzaman]

Look, I'm not going to bash you for your opinion, but it is confusing to me while somebody would seek out a forum post dedicated to shooting wedding photography with Fuji gear only to tell people that Fuji cameras are incapable of shooting weddings. Particularly when it's been proven all over the world that this has and is being done.

Good point.

I was just going through the forums and looking at/reading about how other people use their tools and had a strong enough opinion on said topic to say something. Bad idea I guess and I apologize if I rubbed some the wrong way.  

But to clarify, I never said they were incapable, just not the best tool, not to me at least, which obviously is just one stupid opinion in a vast world of image makers. 

 

But I'd still like to see a wedding shot with a Fuji or a demonstration of how Fuji's are as responsive for reportage work as SLR's. I haven't seen it yet. I guess this is a matter of taste when it comes to the work being done though. 

[pizzaman]

Answer in bold.

I gave you my reason/evidence. You just don't like it. That's okay. 

[abjurina]

Ring shots? What does everyone use for those? I'm avoiding the 60mm because I have the 56 and only need macro for the rings. As of now I use a close-up lens on my 18-55 with so-so results. Anybody else?

[Marc G.]

16 or 90mm. 0.2x magnification is plenty for me. The final result of each lens is different enough to use both at each wedding for ring shots.

[ryan]

Ring shots? What does everyone use for those? I'm avoiding the 60mm because I have the 56 and only need macro for the rings. As of now I use a close-up lens on my 18-55 with so-so results. Anybody else?

I use the 18mm f/2 usually. It focuses very close and doubles as a great, light party dancing lens once I'm using manual focus for zone focusing shooting.

[Dis]

Ring shots? What does everyone use for those? I'm avoiding the 60mm because I have the 56 and only need macro for the rings. As of now I use a close-up lens on my 18-55 with so-so results. Anybody else?

90mm. It's a new gem. It allows to have one lens for details and compressed background portraits at last. That's amaizing!

[Trenton Talbot]

Ring shots? What does everyone use for those? I'm avoiding the 60mm because I have the 56 and only need macro for the rings. As of now I use a close-up lens on my 18-55 with so-so results. Anybody else?

 

56 does a terrific job as a semi-macro, "ring" lens. Just add an extension tube 

[hrk]

90mm. It's a new gem. It allows to have one lens for details and compressed background portraits at last. That's amaizing!

 

Yes exactly. I got closer shots of the rings with my 90mm than the 35 and they looked great

[Marc G.]

If you got the 16mm, try that for ring shots. Let's you get a bit more background into the photo which can be nice. Even rings are suited for environmental close up "portraits"

[abjurina]

Can anyone post some examples of their ring shots as well as the lens that they are using? I'm looking to have a decent distance from the rings so that I'm not creating shadows or having too extreme shallow DOF.

[Marc G.]

The DOF problem is inevitable. To get the magnification, you have to get close. Only way out is to get the tripod and shoot at a slow shutter speed and close the aperture down to f/8-f/16.

 

I tested ring shots with our own wedding bands with the 56 1.2 with 11mm extension tube on a tripod and it worked out okay but I'd definitely recommend going for the 90.

 

Big pro for the 90 is the fact that it focuses fast, is ultra sharp at any aperture and is the ideal mate for my 16-55 as I'm using 2 bodies. As others stated: the 90 basically does the job of 3 lenses (general telephoto, longer portrait lens, detail/close-up lens) for me and I'm very happy with it.

[Dis]

The DOF problem is inevitable. To get the magnification, you have to get close. Only way out is to get the tripod and shoot at a slow shutter speed and close the aperture down to f/8-f/16.

That's right. And thus the main drawback of this lens is the lack of OIS.

[abjurina]

I've recently purchased the 11mm extension tube to use with the 55-200mm fuji lens. That way I'd get OIS, plus, working distance, plus decent sharpness and magnification. Anyone else doing something like this?

[Marc G.]

That's right. And thus the main drawback of this lens is the lack of OIS.

The OIS would help with shutter speeds of about 1/125-1/15 but you'd probably need to stop down to f/11 or f/16... that's too much to handle without a tripod, at least if you want a good quality at lower ISOs out of the shots.

[bradleyhanson]

I've been shooting weddings with the Fuji X-System for almost 3 years, and I'm still using 2 X-Pro1 bodies and the X100s. This wedding was just published on Minnesota Bride, and also included a LOT of low light at the reception. 

 

http://www.bradleyhanson.com/blog/2015/8/10/christina-and-bens-wedding-at-the-bachelor-farmer-published-by-minnesota-bride

[Marc G.]

How dare you use a tool that's totally not the best tool for the job       

[Tom H.]

How dare you use a tool that's totally not the best tool for the job

LOL, this