On 2008-02-13 10:40:46 -0500, Ben Micklem <benmicklem@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
> in article 2008021301034175249-adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael at
> adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 13/2/08 06:03:
>
>> On 2008-02-12 11:33:56 -0500, Ben Micklem <benmicklem@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
said:
>>
>>> To the OP: using a wider lens will make these "all in focus" shots a
lot
>>> easier. With lenses wider than 20mm it will be easy- f/8 should be
enough,
>>> unless there is something in frame very near the camera. The 300v has
a
>>> depth of field preview button, so you can check in the viewfinder what
will
>>> be in focus (at really small apertures, it will get pretty dark, so be
>>> prepared to wait a while for your eyes to adjust).
>>>
>>> Ben
>>
>> Yes, but wider than 20mm on a 35mm camera is very expensive. And I
>> doubt anyone taking serious wedding pictures would be using a superwide
>> angle lens on a 35mm SLR.
>
> I picked up a brand new Tokina 17mm f3.5 Nikon AIS old stock for £65. A
> wedding photographer can charge in the region of £500 an hour, so I
don't
> think this is a lot of money.
>
> If you have not seen excellent superwide wedding shots, you have not
seen
> very many contem****ary wedding ****tfolios.
>
> E.g. Stephen Swain's website has good examples:
> http://www.stephenswain.com/wa4/index.html
> The black and white confetti shots, and a couple of overhead group
shots-
> probably a 17mm.
>
> I have used a 10mm lens on DX format for overhead group shots from a
ladder.
>
> A lot of clients today want shots that don't look like those of their
guests
> who use compact cameras. Compact camera zooms are lucky if they go wider
> than 38mm equivalent, so it is easy to get an unusual wow factor image
by
> going superwide. The other end of the spectrum are very fast lenses, or
> longer lenses, that reduce the DOF, something that compact cameras again
> cannot do.
>
> Ben
Sorry but I am not accustomed to seeing weddings shot on 35mm film
cameras at all. I am accustomed to seeing weddings done on MF or now on
digital, but not on 35mm.
--
Michael
|
