Film camera for weddings (as guest)

ChrisR

ChrisR

I'm a well known grump...
Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,730
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
OK let's be clear, this is about me being a wedding guest, not the wedding photographer! We have a couple of family weddings in the next few weeks, and I've started thinking about what to wear camera(s) to take. The obvious in terms of recording the event would be a digital one; I've only got the X10 but it's more than capable. A reasonable size, can hang on my wrist or even possibly slip into a coat pocket. But if I want to use a film camera, there's a choice of the suit-pocket-friendly Oly mju II (full auto, basically even less engaging than the X10), or one of the MXs, or the Autocord. Neither of the latter two is the least bit inconspicuous! If the MX I think I'd stick the SMC-M 85mm f/2 on it...

I'm guessing for film I'm better off with one of the 400 ISO black and whites, or Portra 400.

The first wedding is my wife's niece, so we really are just guests. The second one is our son, so rather more calls for photo participation as subject rather than behind the lens. I dunno, I'm confused (and have to bear in mind the possibility of a veto on preferred choice anyway, on a wide variety of possible grounds, from Higher Authority!). So, great minds, what should I do?
 
The Autocord might not be visually inconspicuous, but I'm guessing it's quiet. Also, I bet it'd look pretty classy round your neck if you're all dressed up for a wedding.
 
You could take both i.e. digital and MX... the 85mm is handy for inside and outside the church esp for altar shots from back of the church along the aisle (well it's not polite to step into the aisle amongst the congregation and start snapping), but you really need a bright day for light to flood into the church thru' the windows for DOF and to avoid camera shake. Also a 24mm and powerful flashgun is very handy for group shots. At one wedding I had a few rolls of Fuji 1600 ISO and set the SLR camera for 800 ISO for inside the church and reception shots. I've used Fuji 800 press film and the results were good but Fuji 800 x-tra might be the same or better as I haven't tried it....wow it's cheap in the USA http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Superia-800-Speed-Exposure/dp/B00004TWM0
 
I'd take the TLR for the neice's wedding but the digital for your son's. The chances of you having much time to shoot anything, nevermind film, at your son's wedding are small so a quick digi shot would be the best bet. But you can be the eccentric uncle at the other wedding with a quirky old film camera around your neck, people will be queing up to be snapped. :D
 
+1 to Andy, you'll likely not have time at your sons but you can make time to be uncle bob Chris. :D
 
I'm not sure that everyone will agree with this, but as someone who has recently gotten married, it drove my crazy that everyone spent half the day playing with their cameras and phones. We hired a photographer to worry about the photographs, we invited our guests to enjoy the day with us. Maybe I'm in the minority on this one though?

Anyway, if I had to take any of the cameras you've mentioned, I would be taking the Autocord without question. At least you'd be offering something different than the hired photographer, it's very quiet, and it has serious charm.
 
I don't disagree Rj, though some of my favourite shots were taken by guests who were friends and half decent photographers. On the other hand, as a guest a wedding can get frankly dull; taking pictures is a way of passing the time.
 
Well the autocord is the worst camera unless you are the official photographer as IMO if your serious about photography you want to take shots that no one thinks of and not loads of boring formal shots....and you can't beat a film SLR or digital camera for moving around and quick informal shots.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well the autocord is the worst camera unless you are the official photographer as IMO if your serious about photography you want to take shots that no one thinks of and not loads of boring formal shots....and you can't beat a film SLR or digital camera for moving around and quick informal shots.
Click to expand...

Errr... I completely disagree. No one knows that you're even using your camera with the WLF on the Autocord, so it's great for getting candid shots. I guess I'm not serious about my photography though, as I only use manual focus medium format cameras?
 
skysh4rk said:
Errr... I completely disagree. No one knows that you're even using your camera with the WLF on the Autocord, so it's great for getting candid shots. I guess I'm not serious about my photography though, as I only use manual focus medium format cameras?
Click to expand...


Horses for courses ? Mind you, you could use the old dodge of putting the tLR above everyone's heads to get an interesting shot ;)
 
excalibur2 said:
Horses for courses ? Mind you, you could use the old dodge of putting the tLR above everyone's heads to get an interesting shot ;)
Click to expand...

I don't understand what is so novel about using a film/digital SLR with eye level viewfinder? That's what everyone else is using. Surely a waist level finder provides opportunities for more unique angles than anyone else would be getting?
 
Thanks for the thoughts, folks. I think I agree about m,y son's wedding, plus of course having a camera on a wrist strap means it can be discretely hidden when I need to be IN the photos, whereas a neck/shoulder strap just looks silly. Can't quite make up my mind on the Autocord, though; I'd have to meter with sunny 16 11, which I'm not very good at, and it'll treble my reputation for weird eccentricity... o_O
 
skysh4rk said:
I don't understand what is so novel about using a film/digital SLR with eye level viewfinder? That's what everyone else is using. Surely a waist level finder provides opportunities for more unique angles than anyone else would be getting?
Click to expand...

A fixed lens TLR is never going to be as versatile as a SLR and also unless you have a flashgun attachment you'd be stuck on a dull day or for indoor shots. But did take my ETRS (with speed grip) to Ireland once and you can't beat the quality of MF, so that's the only reason I can think of for using the Autocord. :(
 
Nothing wrong with a reputation for weird eccentricity...its not done me any harm. :thinking:
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
excalibur2 said:
A fixed lens TLR is never going to be as versatile as a SLR and also unless you have a flashgun attachment you'd be stuck on a dull day or for indoor shots. But did take my ETRS (with speed grip) to Ireland once and you can't beat the quality of MF, so that's the only reason I can think of for using the Autocord. :(
Click to expand...

Who cares about versatility? He's not shooting the wedding as a pro.

miss-the-point.png


Sometimes I think you do this on purpose.
 
robhooley167 said:
Who cares about versatility? He's not shooting the wedding as a pro.

miss-the-point.png


Sometimes I think you do this on purpose.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: All you are doing its criticizing without giving any advice or an opinion to Chris's post :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
My advice and opinion is implied.
 
robhooley167 said:
My advice and opinion is implied.
Click to expand...

Would that be:- As a guest at a wedding, forget my suggestion of using a SLR for getting those unusual\different shots and join the crowd with those common shots all looking the same. ;)
 
excalibur2 said:
Would that be:- As a guest at a wedding, forget my suggestion of using a SLR for getting those unusual\different shots and join the crowd with those common shots all looking the same. ;)
Click to expand...

Why would using a certain type of camera mean you get certain types of shots? The person using the camera takes the photo, the resulting images will be as creative or 'different' as the photographer wants them to be. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of camera being used.
 
But shooting a TLR through a waist level finder at a wedding would get you different shots, shooting with an SLR, whether it be film or digital would not implicitly get you anything different than uncle Bob with his cheapo compact. It is the photographer that gets the shot, the camera only records it.....sheesh....:facepalm:

Damn you Paul and your speedy typing....
 
Andysnap said:
Damn you Paul and your speedy typing....
Click to expand...

I know, it's literally the only thing I do fast! Well, unless we're talking about drinking and eating...

You only have to look at the number of different cameras and formats people here on F&C shoot with, their images still look like theirs regardless of the camera being used.

As a musician I still play like me on a Fender Precision or an Ibanez BTB, I may sound a little different but I still play like me. I could play a Pearl Export or Sonor Designer drum kit, again, I'll play both like me. Photos I take on my iPhone and my RB67 still look like my photos despite the vast differences in format.

I have no idea where these bizarre gear-centric ideas come from, it's like some people think humans have absolutely no influence over what they're doing and the gear does absolutely everything. It's a concept I find deeply, deeply puzzling.
 
PMN said:
Why would using a certain type of camera mean you get certain types of shots? The person using the camera takes the photo, the resulting images will be as creative or 'different' as the photographer wants them to be. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of camera being used.
Click to expand...

As in my post #3 if you want to enjoy the wedding ceremony instead of moving around the church taking shots then Ok. It's just my opinion on what I do and have suggested it e.g. when people that you know are making a speech inside the church I usually usie a tele lens to capture that moment, same for altar shots, other e.g. A complete shot inside a small church would need a 24mm lens......I'm just a film shooter and Chris might think well my digital camera can do all that so my opinion is obsolete anyway. :(
 
Andysnap said:
But shooting a TLR through a waist level finder at a wedding would get you different shots, shooting with an SLR, whether it be film or digital would not implicitly get you anything different than uncle Bob with his cheapo compact. It is the photographer that gets the shot, the camera only records it.....sheesh....:facepalm:

Damn you Paul and your speedy typing....
Click to expand...

Well formal shots at a wedding and there is nothing wrong in the old days using a TLR, but in the same era how many war, sports photographers etc used a TLR...it's no good saying "use your feet" when you can't and need a tele lens...so the camera\lens you use does make a difference.
 
Andysnap said:
But shooting a TLR through a waist level finder at a wedding would get you different shots
Click to expand...

Yes... it could get you the sort of shots which people used to get when they used TLRs for weddings!

My vote is for the TLR.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes... it could get you the sort of shots which people used to get when they used TLRs for weddings!

My vote is for the TLR.


Steve.
Click to expand...

..or better still a Mamiya c330 so you can change the lenses ;)
 
PMN said:
What on Earth does that have to do with anything whatsoever in this thread? :facepalm:
Click to expand...

Proof that a SLR is more versatile than a TLR in any situation..even weddings. Anyway if anyone is happy with a TLR with a fixed lens then that's all that matters. :exit:
 
excalibur2 said:
Proof that a SLR is more versatile than a TLR in any situation..even weddings. Anyway if anyone is happy with a TLR with a fixed lens then that's all that matters. :exit:
Click to expand...

At what point was this discussion ever about the general versatility of TLRs vs SLRs? We've been discussing what cameras to bring as a guest at a wedding.
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
At what point was this discussion ever about the general versatility of TLRs vs SLRs? We've been discussing what cameras to bring as a guest at a wedding.
Click to expand...

Because Chris has a choice of his Autocord or MX and because of his choice it would affect the type of shooting he might want to do....horses for courses.
 
I think we should ignore the technical questions and be concentrating on my point above - a TLR would look bitchin' when you're all dressed up in a nice whistle. I guarantee it'll be a talking point at the wedding. (That's a point for and against, of course)
 
excalibur2 said:
Because Chris has a choice of his Autocord or MX and because of his choice it would affect the type of shooting he might want to do....horses for courses.
Click to expand...

Brian, truth be told, I'm very glad that you weren't a guest at my wedding. Sheesh.

abdoujaparov said:
I think we should ignore the technical questions and be concentrating on my point above - a TLR would look bitchin' when you're all dressed up in a nice whistle. I guarantee it'll be a talking point at the wedding. (That's a point for and against, of course)
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly! As I mentioned in post no. six, the Autocord is a very charming looking camera. In fact, my avatar is a photo of me using the Autocord at my own wedding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
skysh4rk said:
Brian, truth be told, I'm very glad that you weren't a guest at my wedding. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

...and I probably annoyed the vicar\priest going around the church taking shots esp with the noise of a Canon SLR ;) and I got banned from my grandson's school for taking shots at the Xmas nativity play :(
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
Brian, truth be told, I'm very glad that you weren't a guest at my wedding.
Click to expand...

Judging from the above, Brian's photos would have made your wedding look something like that Christmas football match on the Somme.

And who wouldn't want a guest digging their own trench system at the reception? Certainly a talking point for those awkward moments.
 
excalibur2 said:
..or better still a Mamiya c330 so you can change the lenses ;)
Click to expand...

I'm not a wedding photographer but I have photographed weddings for friends. Always with film and usually with a Mamiya RB67. Although I had 50mm, 90mm and 180mm with me, I only used the 90mm.

My father used to photograph weddings professionally with just a couple of Rolleiflexes.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I'm not a wedding photographer but I have photographed weddings for friends. Always with film and usually with a Mamiya RB67. Although I had 50mm, 90mm and 180mm with me, I only used the 90mm.

My father used to photograph weddings professionally with just a couple of Rolleiflexes.


Steve.
Click to expand...

He could have had one wide angle Rollei and other normal. I had a Tele Rollei about 28 years ago and for me it was useless and was so pleased it went wrong with the fairly common fault and swapped it for a RB67.... lucky I bought it from Fox Talbot shop and had no problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top