Re: Wedding photography

"Caesar" <caesar@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:MPG.20fb46b0e7a3d3a9989682@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi,
>
> I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
> years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
> photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
> I have to attend to the weddings anyway.
>
> I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
> option and would be only a back-up.
>
> I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
> why go "backwards" and not digital.
> Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
> (price, time consumption and quality).
>
> I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
> use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
> Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
> Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
> it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
> shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
> light and sand).
> Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
> be sufficient?
> No s****ts photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
> (minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).
>
> Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?
>
> Thank you for your input.
>
> Cheers
> Caesar

Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than 
digital... 



-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com