Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List
  

FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5              7       8       end
  

Archive 2017 · 6DmkII

  
 
LeeSimms
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · 6DmkII


I'm of the thinking that a scant few wedding couples know there's a risk with film. Doesn't enter their mind for a second — maybe because the community of digital photographers have never pointed it out. When hipsters talk about the virtues of film, there's never an opposition voice about risk. It's just not common thought.




Jun 24, 2017 at 11:03 AM
MRomine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · 6DmkII


Mikehit wrote:
Negligent? No. Its all about assessing risk and no two professionals assess risk the same way.For a professional, do you put cashflow at risk by buying a more expensive body simply for 2 card slots?


Negligence would be hard for me to apply to this situation because it implies some level of deliberateness. I suppose that could be the case but I would think that to be really rare.

Regarding the cash flow argument of buying a more or less expensive body that either does or does not feature two card slots. Well in 2017 there are all kinds of dual card slot bodies in just about any price range. Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony and Olympus all make them now and you have either your choice of FF or cropped bodies. As an example, Nikon offers the D600, D610, D750, D800, D810, D3, D3s, D4, D4s, D5, D7100, D7200 to name just a few. So I don't think that is really an argument any more, maybe when the very first two card bodies came out, ... maybe. But a pretty weak argument either way when you are talking about protecting the interests of your client.

Mikehit wrote:
When turning professional do you buy into a new and unfamiliar system (or one whose ergonomics you are uncomfortable with) simply to have 2 card slots at the same price point? I would say both of those are a greater risk and more likely to lead to missed shots.


Missing a few shots on the day of the wedding due to unfamiliar ergonomics is much different than loosing everything you have on a card that covers several hours or the entire day of the wedding.

Additionally, if you are going out to shoot a wedding with new gear that you are not familiar with or comfortable with then I would say that you are unprofessional and unfair to your clients before we even get to the topic of single or dual cards.

If necessary, yes. Buy the equipment to be and run a business professionally. If you can't afford it then wait to either you can afford it or get a loan. I think it is a very unprofessional thing to shoot a wedding and charge clients for our services when we do not have the reasonably approbate gear to protect their interests. I.E. - multiple dual card bodies, multiple lenses, multiple flashes, business insurance etc.

Mikehit wrote:
As a professional you should have the best possible chance of getting the highest quality raw data to give you more options to crop/allow for errors etc. So why do not all professionals shoot medium format? Because they assess the risks.


Sorry but creative cropping due to having a larger size file is not the same argument as a single or dual card body that protects the client's interests. What we are talking about here is doing the reasonable thing to protect the interests of our clients. Today it does not cost any more to have a dual card body than it does a single card body but it offers your clients protection, or insurance as someone else called it.

Mikehit wrote:
It is patronising and ignorant to make a sweeping statement like 'negligent' or 'unprofessional'


As I mentioned above I would be hard pressed to call it negligence but I have no problem calling it unprofessional in this day and age and I will stand by that.

I'll ask again, what possible professional reason can you come up with for not having a dual card body?



Jun 24, 2017 at 02:24 PM
MRomine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · 6DmkII


LeeSimms wrote:
> In the days of film there were no dual roll cameras. If there were I'm sure many would have taken advantage of them.

Mark, of course you're aware film is not a dead wedding format. Jose Villa, Jonathan Canlas, Enrich McVey (and more than my small brain could ever remember - including a few in my own market) in 2017 all shooting film at high dollar weddings with no instant back-up. Most film shooters don't own a Fuji Frontier. They have to put the sole copy of the shoot in a box and put it in a motor vehicle traveling
...Show more

Yes, I'm well aware of their existence. I will also say that their creative ability is not the argument here. Creative ability does not necessarily make one a professional or run a business professionally.

I would never do what those guys/gals are doing. Plain and simple, film is too risky and I think they are taking a huge risk with their high end clients that I would classify as unprofessional even foolish. All for the name of an esoteric style or look that can often be replicated digitally anyway. If their clients really understood (and I doubt few of them do. These clients are hiring these shooters based upon their creative ability and word of mouth not upon their risk management abilities) the risks involved they might not hire them or at least insist that they shoot digitally.

have you ever had to explain to a client that all or a portion of their wedding photos were ruined by the photo lab? have fun with that. In fact most clients will not believe you, instead they will blame you as the one being at fault.

Before I started shooting weddings a spent a good 20 years of shooting film commercially for ad agencies, design firms, corporate clients and architects. I can tell you all kinds of hair raising stories that I personally had with ruined film with various labs from NYC to Miami to San Diego. Once I got burned enough times I got smart enough to either shoot extra film, hold some back and then have it processed in two or more runs.

In this day and age there is no good reason no professional reason to photograph a wedding without using a dual card body.



Jun 24, 2017 at 02:45 PM
MRomine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · 6DmkII


LeeSimms wrote:
I'm of the thinking that a scant few wedding couples know there's a risk with film. Doesn't enter their mind for a second — maybe because the community of digital photographers have never pointed it out. When hipsters talk about the virtues of film, there's never an opposition voice about risk. It's just not common thought.



This is exactly true. Very few if any clients really understand the risks involved. Nor are film shooters are not going to point it out to a potential client whom they are trying to book.




Jun 24, 2017 at 02:47 PM
MRomine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · 6DmkII


But the clients of those said shooters are most likely aware of the risk.

I would highly doubt that.



I would agree. Unless it is well explained to them or they personally have experience shooting film they probably do not know.


Jun 24, 2017 at 02:49 PM
Mikehit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · 6DmkII


MRomine wrote:
I'll ask again, what possible professional reason can you come up with for not having a dual card body?


Because they have assessed the risks and have different priorities. I can't speak on their behalf about what their different priorities are, but if they do not use dual-card recording it is clearly the case.




Jun 24, 2017 at 04:33 PM
flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · 6DmkII


What interests me here is that Canon somehow don't think that putting a single slot into a mid/high end consumer camera wouldn't affect sales. Regardless of my personal opinion, the market has spoken loudly that they consider dual slots important. A year ago this was one of the rally cries of the anti-mirrorless. "Mirrorless are stupid because they only have one card slot and no pros will use them". Now almost every mirrorless coming out has dual slots and Canon in their infinity stupidity give ANOTHER reason for their buyers to look at another brand. It's almost like they want to give up the number one spot for camera sales.

As for risk. There's always risk. Last year I did a couple of weddings for a guy who'd walked backwards and put one foot down a hole. His knee reacted badly. He was a solo shooter so missed the rest of the day. Dual slots didn't help there. But if you are a solo shooter then card failure probably is higher on the list than it is for me. I never shoot alone or with one camera. So we have a minimum of 4 cameras running. Can't lose a section of a wedding if we tried. I've had one card fail during a wedding (and a couple in other uses) but only lost 4 images (all my failures have been initial failures). And bizarrely as a mirrorless shooter my cameras have dual slots now so I use them. But as part of a team I don't consider dual slots as important as a car accident, where we are together or a camera failure. Personally I wouldn't shoot with a camera I hate just because it has dual slots. It's a consideration in the purchasing process but not the only one.

Gordon



Jun 24, 2017 at 04:57 PM
LeeSimms
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · 6DmkII


Tonight the step father of the bride dumped water on my sling bag — drenching my 135L, 16-35 and 100L.

I've got your risk right here.



Jun 25, 2017 at 12:50 AM
jeremy_clay
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · 6DmkII


I don't understand how 'BUT PROS EVERY DAY SHOOT 1 CARD ONLY". How does that counter, in any way, the fact that cards *do* die and if you don't have a dual card body, writing twice, you're screwing yourself and your clients? Why are people so "hardcore" to insist that 1 card is plenty? Drive without a seatbelt, skip the baby seat too because chances are pretty low you'll get into an accident, right? Even pro racecar drivers donb't wear seatbelts when they run to the store now and then, right? Jesus, ****ing ridiculous non-logic.


Jun 25, 2017 at 07:15 PM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · 6DmkII


jeremy_clay wrote:
Why are people so "hardcore" to insist that 1 card is plenty?


The only hardcore opinions and those insisting anything along with doing all the personal name calling, are the ones that are in the 2 card camp.
They are also the ones proving what I said from the start about blowing things out of proportion.

Having said that,I'm sure it be proven correct yet again.




Jun 26, 2017 at 01:47 AM
MRomine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · 6DmkII


Mikehit wrote:
Because they have assessed the risks and have different priorities. I can't speak on their behalf about what their different priorities are, but if they do not use dual-card recording it is clearly the case.


Like I said before, they are not treating their clients as professionally as they could. Sure they maybe willing to live with the higher risk factor but would their clients feel the same way if they really understood the risks involved?

So your professional reason for not using a dual card system is...?

1.) Single card bodies are not less expensive.

2.) They do not have faster or more accurate AF.

3.) They don't have better color.

4.) They don't weigh less?

5.) They do not have a lower risk factor, in fact they are a higher risk factor in comparison to dual card bodies.

6.) They do not have better warranties.

7.) They do not have better batteries.

8.) They do not have better ergonomics.

9.) They do not hold their resale value better or higher when it comes time to sell them off or trade them.

10.) They are not prettier.

So what professional reason is there in 2017 for choosing to use a single card body over a dual card body?



Jun 26, 2017 at 08:06 AM
MRomine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · 6DmkII


glort wrote:
The only hardcore opinions and those insisting anything along with doing all the personal name calling, are the ones that are in the 2 card camp.
They are also the ones proving what I said from the start about blowing things out of proportion.

Having said that,I'm sure it be proven correct yet again.



So you do not have an answer for Jeremy's question?



Jun 26, 2017 at 08:07 AM
gnjphotography
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · 6DmkII



I understand that dual slot is insurance to ensure you have a back up of the shoot. For most, that back up is jpegs which are lower quality than raw and may not give the intended result, though you really should not push images so hard anyways.

About car seats, you should try driving in Naples, Italy. They don't use car seats and you will see a family of 5 on a moped or Vespa.

If single card works for you, great camera. If does not, then it is not the camera for you. No need to debate, it is that simple.

-Greg
jeremy_clay wrote:
I don't understand how 'BUT PROS EVERY DAY SHOOT 1 CARD ONLY". How does that counter, in any way, the fact that cards *do* die and if you don't have a dual card body, writing twice, you're screwing yourself and your clients? Why are people so "hardcore" to insist that 1 card is plenty? Drive without a seatbelt, skip the baby seat too because chances are pretty low you'll get into an accident, right? Even pro racecar drivers donb't wear seatbelts when they run to the store now and then, right? Jesus, ****ing ridiculous non-logic.




Jun 26, 2017 at 08:48 AM
gnjphotography
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · 6DmkII


Nikon is in the same boat with the D7500 and Sony with the 7 series. Be prepared to spend money to upgrade or prepare for risks.

-Greg

flash wrote:
What interests me here is that Canon somehow don't think that putting a single slot into a mid/high end consumer camera wouldn't affect sales. Regardless of my personal opinion, the market has spoken loudly that they consider dual slots important. A year ago this was one of the rally cries of the anti-mirrorless. "Mirrorless are stupid because they only have one card slot and no pros will use them". Now almost every mirrorless coming out has dual slots and Canon in their infinity stupidity give ANOTHER reason for their buyers to look at another brand. It's almost like they want
...Show more



Jun 26, 2017 at 08:51 AM
jecottrell
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · 6DmkII


MRomine wrote:
So what professional reason is there in 2017 for choosing to use a single card body over a dual card body?


Maybe because the systems that allow the photographer to achieve their vision are single card... Phase One XT, Leica M10 and Fuji X100F.

The photographer mitigates the threat of card failure by, using only high end cards specifically listed as compatible by the manufacturer. He/she rotates cards in service. He/she replaces cards with new ones on a time schedule, not on a failure basis.

If there were to be a card failure, the photographer has minimized the impact by rotating cameras throughout each shot, scene and sub event. He/she regularly pulls, archives and replaces cards during an event.

Just because you have determined that card failure is number one on your system selection criteria, doesn't mean it's number one on everyone else's. System selection criteria is subjective, period.


Let's try this exercise... I drive a vehicle with front, side and curtain air bags. It also has automatic braking and lane departure alert, radar assisted cruise control, etc. Anyone that would drive a vehicle without every safety option currently available is negligent and obviously doesn't care about the safety of their children.


Binary thinking in a subjective world...




Jun 26, 2017 at 10:11 AM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · 6DmkII


MRomine wrote:
So you do not have an answer for Jeremy's question?


There was no question. He expressed an opinion which I believe is flawed and untrue.



Jun 26, 2017 at 11:08 AM
LeeSimms
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · 6DmkII


If you're just joining this thread after a commercial break, let me summarize ...

Upon hearing that the soon-to-be-relased Canon 6DmkII will contain only a single memory slot (SD), many forum members expressed outrage and this spec will prevent it from being used professionally. No professional would ever use a camera without redundant card writing, as the risk for data failure is too high. Furthermore, those engaging in shooting events with single-slot bodies are guilty of professional negligence.

An equal number of members pour water on all of the above, siting the professional acceptance of film shooting, as well large & small format digital cameras used everyday for professional work — all without redundant capture. They also site the low failure rate of modern digital card/cameras.

It's doubtful this tread will offer any significant points beyond this summary, but grab some popcorn while this tired old horse gets beat to death.



Jun 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM
MRomine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · 6DmkII


jecottrell wrote:
Maybe because the systems that allow the photographer to achieve their vision are single card... Phase One XT, Leica M10 and Fuji X100F.


How do each of these three cameras allow the photographer to achieve their vision that can not be replicated or duplicated by another system? Remember this is a discussion under the parameters of shooting weddings.

The X100F, what can it do that can not be done with another 2 card small mirrorless body?

Same with the Leica 10? There is not anything that these two can achieve that can not be achieved by other similar systems.

Phase One (any of their bodies) can obviously give outstanding results with 16 bit files. But who is really using any Phase One to shoot an entire wedding? The cost, size, AF speed, Hi-ISO, storage requirements do not make it practical in any sense of the word 'practical'.

All three of these cameras are great cameras but to use them to shoot an entire wedding is not doing anything to benefit the client and in reality, they are actually unnecessarily. The reality is that they are putting the client at greater risk to potential file loss.

There is nothing that these three cameras can do that can not be done with a dual card system.

jecottrell wrote:
The photographer mitigates the threat of card failure by, using only high end cards specifically listed as compatible by the manufacturer. He/she rotates cards in service. He/she replaces cards with new ones on a time schedule, not on a failure basis.

If there were to be a card failure, the photographer has minimized the impact by rotating cameras throughout each shot, scene and sub event. He/she regularly pulls, archives and replaces cards during an event.


I do most of these things already but I minimize the risk of a card failure even further by shooting with two card bodies. In fact shooting with a two card system makes some of your suggestion unnecessary.

jecottrell wrote:
Just because you have determined that card failure is number one on your system selection criteria, doesn't mean it's number one on everyone else's. System selection criteria is subjective, period.


And I realize that it is not the first item on everyone's selection criteria and I also realize everyone has the right to do what they either feel or think is best for them. Just as I have to right to view those who choose not to shoot weddings with a dual card system as being less professional than those that do.

jecottrell wrote:
Let's try this exercise... I drive a vehicle with front, side and curtain air bags. It also has automatic braking and lane departure alert, radar assisted cruise control, etc. Anyone that would drive a vehicle without every safety option currently available is negligent and obviously doesn't care about the safety of their children.

Binary thinking in a subjective world...



I agree to a point with what you are saying but their is one very large difference in your comparison. Photographers today can buy a dual card camera system for the same cost as a single card system and have the significant added insurance/protection. Your comparison of cars with various safety features are not available at all price points are they? Not everyone can afford a vehicle with all these safety features can they? If anyone is to be charged with negligence in the example of cars with safety features, it would have to be the manufactures for not making these features available to all their clients on all makes and models. The argument can actually be made that if they (the manufactures) really cared about their customers safety they would not profit from the implementation of safety features. They would make each new safety innovation available to all for no or little cost. Automobile safety involves the health and life of humans, taking photos does not, huge difference.



Jun 26, 2017 at 11:37 AM
glort
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · 6DmkII


jecottrell wrote:
Let's try this exercise... I drive a vehicle with front, side and curtain air bags. It also has automatic braking and lane departure alert, radar assisted cruise control, etc. Anyone that would drive a vehicle without every safety option currently available is negligent and obviously doesn't care about the safety of their children.



Oh Dear!

That horribly poignant little detail is going to leave some welts on a few arses!

Can't wait to hear the spin doctoring and attempts at deflecting that shot between the eyes! It's an incredibly valid and relevant point.
Pretty Funny too! I Just bought my Dad's GLA Merc for my wife which has all those latest safety features! Daughters car has the highest safety rating as well.

Can't imagine how some people would buy old shitboxes for their family members to drive. They must not love them very much to put them at such risk and in this day and age not have them in the safest vehicle possible?

Similarly, those that don't have the very highest health care plan that covers private hospitals and the best specialists are putting their family's well being at risk should they ever need medical treatment.

Cuts not only both ways but all ways doesn't it?





Jun 26, 2017 at 11:38 AM
MRomine
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · 6DmkII


glort wrote:
There was no question. He expressed an opinion which I believe is flawed and untrue.


Don't you even remember what you did? If you look at your post pg #4 post #10 you quoted his question. Is that not a question?



Jun 26, 2017 at 11:38 AM
1       2       3      
4
       5              7       8       end




FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5              7       8       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.