Hi, My name is Will and I am a wedding photographer. I shoot with Bronica and Nikon and was thinking of getting a M6. Is this a good camera or bad camera for weddings? If it is a good camera, why is it good? What is the best lens to get if I only can get one? Thanks Will

-- Will Staples (wis11@hotmail.com), December 19, 2000

Answers

This is a joke, right?!?

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), December 19, 2000.

I've heard of several wedding photographers using the Leica M. I myself have used the M in weddings, but not for the formals. I think it makes a great camera for the casual shots which, in many cases, are even more important than those boring formals. I wouldn't switch from your medium format for the formal shots, though.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), December 19, 2000.

What I meant when I asked if this was a joke: How is it possible that someone who shoots weddings for a living, using Bronica and Nikon equipment, would be unaware of the basic specs of a Leica M6? While I am certainly aware that M6s can be, and are, used for informal shots at weddings (and so are many, many other cameras), I can't believe that any wedding pro would seriously consider an M6 as part of his arsenal. The other thing I found odd about this post is the manner in which the question was asked: “If it is a good camera, why is it good?” Now let's get blatantly honest here, at the risk of being rude: this has to be the most juvenile question asked in a long time. Again, this working pro MUST BE semi-knowledgeable about the pros/cons of rangefinder cameras versus SLRs. He MUST BE capable of applying that knowledge to determine if his working requirements would be met, at least in part, by using an M6. So what is there for us to tell him? How can anyone say what is "good" or "not good" for him? What he is really asking for is an extended essay about RF systems. Or maybe I'm just feeling ornery today... but I still think this question, if not a joke, demonstrates a lack of know-how that can't/shouldn't be addressed on this forum.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), December 19, 2000.

As I have never shot a wedding I am not really qualified on that genre. But, it seems to me that you may be using the Bronica for the formals and the Nikon for casuals. So when you ask what lens to get for an M6 I would recomend your favourite focal length you use on the Nikon. As for a Leica M6 to shoot weddings this topic comes up regularily on the Leica Users Group (LUG) seems like several photographers have taken to shooting the candids with the Leica, many of them in B&W. Best M6 lens would probably be the Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH.

-- Steve LeHuray (icommag@toad.net), December 19, 2000.

I would agree with Steve that, if you're gonna shoot some casuals with an M6, the 35/1.4 ASPH would be the lens of choice.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), December 19, 2000.

Not having the blacked out image when the mirror flips up as in any format SLR gives the Leica or other rangefinder system an advantage in a multitude of situations but especially in conjunction with strobe in poorly lit places. Focusing is faster and more precise in very low light with the Leica. Of course you can't pre-visualize depth of field with the Leica M. With few exceptions the optics are superior with the Leica. Assuming your clients don't need anything larger than 8x10's, the Leica, with an appropriate focal length lens, might well serve as an alternative Wedding camera system, including, "for the formals". You may have to overcome skepticism fueled by the inertia of medium format being the most frequent choice of pros. In the end it is really about preconceived notions of what wedding photos have to look like. In any event the Leica M is superb for the candids.

-- MIchael Johnson (mdjohnsonphoto@hotmail.com), December 19, 2000.

There are no dumb questions, just remember all of the answers will be an opinion unless you ask something along the lines of what is 2 plus 2?

I have shot weddings and used medium format for the formals as well as Nikons for candids at the reception and during other aspects other than the actual ceremony. I love Leicas, and believe them to be unmatched for surreptitious photography. If you are the official wedding photographer, this benefit will not be that important... you simply will not "blend in". Additionally, Leicas are somewhat limited for flash, at least with any bright ambient light, due to the anemic flash sync. If I was happy with my Nikon, I'd keep using it.

That said, I have attended several weddings as a guest, and brought my Leica M6 with 35mm lens. This camera almost looks like the point and shoots that the rest of the crowd is using. This anonymity allows for true candids due to the lack of attention. I love it when some helpful person tells me my flash didn't fire... must have been looking at the frameline illumination window. The best thing is when you casually hand some prints to the wedding party later and they think they are better than the "official" shots. Sometimes it is good to be the photographer... and other times, just a guy with a "point and shoot".

If you are a photographer, the addition of a Leica can be a good thing, not always for what it does, but sometimes what it doesn't do.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), December 19, 2000.

I have only shot a couple of weddings, and only with a Hasselblad, but I have seen many wedding pros using 35mm for the candid shots. I've never had success with the M for fast-paced candids, I'd prefer an AF SLR or perhaps a Contax G2. I have taken the M to weddings as a guest, mostly because I can get the body into one suit pocket and the lens in the other without looking like a clown. But in my hands any decent point-and-shoot would be faster focusing and faster to re- load. For me the M is the ultimate walking travel outfit, I've just never been able to exploit its prowess as a candid camera the way so many others do.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), December 19, 2000.

A few years ago I brought my M3 and the 50 and 90 with some 400 speed film to an Eastern Indian wedding of one of my wife's cousins. Lots of colorful clothing made for some great existing light shots. I was told later that her cousin liked some of the images I took the best out of any they got from the ceremony. Even so, I think if I was the one actually responsible for the wedding images, I'd have had my Pentax 645 and TTL flash loaded up with Fuji NPH and/or a Nikon AF SLR. I guess I am not as confident with my Leica to be able to work fast and the 1/50 second flash would limit outdoor fill flash work--a must for many wedding shots in my opinion.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), December 19, 2000.

Personally, I think that an M Leica would make a very fine wedding camera. Its only drawback being its slow flash sync. This could be a serious limitation. It depends a bit on the photographer. I agree with the others that say its main strength would be for candid shots taken in available light. For formal shots a leaf shutter MF camera or a fast sync camera would probably be more acceptable for the average purchaser. I would second the suggestion that a 35mm would be excellent with the 50mm Summilux or Summicron as a second.

I don't really find this question stupid, to many the world of Leica is a mystery so I am not surprised by Will's question.

-- Robin Smith (rsmith@springer-ny.com), December 19, 2000.

http://www.dunas.com/wedding1.html

Take a look and see what Jeff Dunas can do with m6.

-- thomas marker (thomas@advokat-marker.dk), December 20, 2000.

I've seen pros use M3s for existing light work during the ceremony: there's often no flash allowed anyway and it's nice to be quiet then. Personally I think a Rollei 2.8 TLR would have worked just as well and would be even quieter. Plus the Rollei'd be cheaper and a real backup camera for your MF gear.

Antedeluvian film handling would axe the M for me --- if I was still shooting weddings.

-- John O'Connell (boywonderiloveyou@hotmail.com), December 20, 2000.

Will,

Here's the deal:

If you show up at a wedding as the pro with an instamatic, you'll elicit loughs. "Perception is reality," remember? If on the other end you suck at photography and show up with a foot-square mamiya 6x7, you have the croud. So unless you are brilliant at photography, don't show up with less than a Rollei 6x6 with all the whistles (TTL flash, fill flash, etc.). Then you can rest assured, you have the client, croud and the cash.

On the other hand, if you know something about photography and your clients are the kind that relly appreciate creativity, get yourself two Licas with say a 24, a 35 and a 90, load one with Fuji 400 the other with good ol' Trix or Afga 400, get a small portable flash and you'd never need to look back.

wlad

-- Wladimir Schweigert (sgert@golden.net), December 20, 2000.

Here we go again Will,

Check out David Allan Harvy's equipment requirements in a link next below to your posting. Less equipment, more photography!

-- Wladimir Schweigert (sgert@golden.net), December 20, 2000.

With all due respect to David Alan Harvey, I doubt his minimalist method would be consistently fruitful in the wedding business. Aside from the rare avante-garde client who wants B&W prints taken with a Leica (does the average bride-to-be even KNOW what a Leica is? 99% of the posters on photo.net are men), most work will be done with medium format and large strobes because the clients want well-lit, sharp color prints. They also want to be assured that the photographer knows what he/she is doing. The last thing you want to do is make the bride nervous at her wedding. If you're shooting with a Leica, without flash, she's going to be nervous. If you're shooting with a Hasselblad and a large Metz unit, she won't be (at least not about YOU). That's the simple reality about the wedding business. Denis Reggie didn't get to the top of the heap in the wedding business by using a Leica. Look, I love my M6, but I won't be using it to shoot NCAA basketball, and I won't be using it to shoot weddings. Neither will most wedding pros.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), December 21, 2000.

With all due respect to David Alan Harvey, I doubt his minimalist method...

Not too sure if I follow. I read:

99% of photo.net posters are men
therefore
brides-to-be don't know what a Leica is or are not interested in B&W< br> therefore
they won't be nervous if they see a Hasselblad and a Metz flash unit.

I'm amazed at the importance people place on eqpt to impress the wedding couple (as if the couple were photo.net posters...?). All my friends who've gotten married just point to the pix., and more and more of them are photojournalistic, often B&W prints. Even one wedding had prints in IR (B&W). In the dozen or so weddings I've been to, I've only seen one or two MF rigs. The rest are SLRs.

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 21, 2000.

oops- in the last sentence, I meant, "the rest are 35mm SLRs."

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), December 21, 2000.

Well, let me make it clearer: 99% of photo.net posters are men. To me, this fact [which I intended as a bit of hyperbole, but I haven't heard anyone dispute the figure] leads to several conclusions: (1) women are less inclined than men to take an interest in photography, whether it be professionally or on an amateur basis; (2) even if women have such an interest, they are less enamored of discussions about equipment and technique than men are. That's what we're discussing here, aren't we?!? EQUIPMENT: whether to use Bronica or Nikon or Leica at a wedding. My point, first, is that most women couldn't care less about photo equipment, and the fact that most photo.net posters are men bears this out. That's NOT to say, however, that women (and men) who are uninvolved in photography don't have some idea of what they think is appropriate equipment for a wedding. After all, images of working photographers fill the media and entertainment biz. You don't have to have an M.F.A. to conclude, correctly, that the wedding pro using a disposable camera for formals is a dolt. And since everyone and their brothers have a 35mm camera, the working pro needs to distinguish himself, in part through his equipment, to inspire confidence in the client. If you deny this need, you're living in a dream world. But you needn't confine yourself to photography when looking for examples where someone's professional image/appearance plays a role in attracting business and inspiring confidence. The appearance of confidence, expertise, and success leads to a conclusion of confidence, expertise, and success. I'm not saying that a pro should never use an M6 at a wedding; I'm simply saying that someone who uses ONLY an M6 is not going to exude professionalism from every pore among his client base. You may disagree with that, but it's the truth.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), December 21, 2000.

As a working commercial and editorial photographer who also does weddings with 35mm exclusively, I can tell you I've never needed to use medium format equipment to impress the bride. The only ones who are impressed with a photographer's equipment are other photographers. If the pictures are good, the bride is pleased. If they aren't, it wouldn't matter if they had been made with an 8x10.

If anyone would like a copy of the text of my article "The Case for the 35mm Wedding," which ran in the March, 2000 issue of The Rangefinder magazine, please send me an e-mail off-list.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), December 22, 2000.

To John Costo's post above, let me say very kindly but very clearly: baloney! I'm complimented at almost every wedding I do for my professionalism. People at weddings frequently tell me they know the pictures will be great because in their eyes I'm doing a great job. It's my professional demeanor and conduct that convinces them -- not the size of my camera.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), December 22, 2000.

Dave, I've re-read my posts and I believe I said nothing about "size" of the camera. And I don't believe I said that 35mm should not be used at weddings. I spoke only about the M6. I'm sure you occasionally hear, while you're shooting a wedding, some guy saying "I could do that; what's so special about him?" And it's because that guy has a 35mm camera. You and I both know the prevalence of that attitude: "why hire a pro photographer when "___" can do it?; he has a Nikon". I'm glad you distinguish yourself through your conduct, dress, and attitude (not to mention results)... but I doubt you're using an M6. The camera is just not designed for wedding work. And be honest: YOU'RE not impressed by equipment because you're a pro. However, many people ARE impressed by equipment. I simply said, and I believe it's true, that in professional photography, like any other endeavor, equipment can and does contribute to the impression, however unfounded, that someone is competent and experienced. That is simply basic PSYCH-101 material. And I believe it's a widespread attitude. Perhaps your own clients are more sophisticated, or you simply like to believe that you're judged only on your merits. But human nature dictates otherwise.

-- john costo (mahler@lvcm.com), December 22, 2000.

Jason posted a related question on this subject last Nov 1st, which noone responded to. He includes other related links in his posting, which I've pasted below. Food for thought.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0040Ku

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), December 23, 2000.

Actually, John, I do the majority of my wedding work with Canon EOS A2s. My Leica is an M3 and I use it for available-light black & white. I do agree that the sophistication of the bride is a major factor. Upscale clients are more able to buy my wares and less likely to be concerned with how I produce them.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), December 24, 2000.

like the initial respondant, i'm puzzled that you have to ask this question -- the answer though, is that the m6 can be a fine camera for weddings. just don't take it as your only camera. make sure you give them the formals they're looking for, in glorious 6x7 suitable for 8 foot enlargements, or that they've seen your b&w leica-only portfolio before you go in.

i wouldn't shoot weddings for a million dollars, it's too much responsiblity, but i have brought my m6 to a couple and ran around behaving like a retired dentist:

http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/pix/5-12-01-wedding/ http://www.asc.upenn.edu/scrapbook/1999/richandmaureen/

fwiw,

kc

p.s. leica lenses are rediculously expensive. i recommend you get a couple of 3rd party knock-offs -- the voigtlander 35 and 50 are both very fast and not expensive and will fit your leica for about 30% of the price of a "real" leica lens.

-- kyle cassidy (cassidy@netaxs.com), July 20, 2001.