The New Fujifilm X-T1 | My Initial Thoughts On This Great Little Camera

March 11, 2014

Over this last week, I've been changing the way I document not only weddings but my personal work in the form of a beautifully engineered mirrorless camera from Fuji. Before I write an in-depth article on this clever little camera, which will discuss it's the ability as a camera for professional documentary wedding photography amongst other things, I wanted to share a few initial thoughts after a week of both professional wedding photography and personal use.

Firstly, it's a beautiful thing!

I've never suffered from so called 'gear lust' and have always been a firm believer in a camera simply being a tool for the job, nothing more. But there's just something about the new Fuji X-T1 that inspires you to create images, it has huge character and likability, much more so than your run of the mill Canon or Nikon, as efficient as they are.

Ok, it's certainly got it's weak points which I'll go into more detail about in my full review. I'll also be the first to admit that I did not like this camera to start with, in fact I was certain it was going back to the shop. In a matter of days I realised that I could not stop using the thing and I'm now completely hooked, especially having seen the incredible files the X-T1 produces.

How does the Fuji X-T1 fair professionally? I wouldn't hesitate to use it on a commission - wedding or commercial, and a high pressure one at that. In my opinion it's the best X Series camera Fuji have made to date. The build quality of the bodies and lenses is second to none.

Full article will be on here shortly, so keep posted!

Here are a few family images made over the weekend, shot in JPEG mode (I've never seen a camera produce such nice JPEGs as the Fuji X-T1). All created on the Fujinon 23mm 1.4.

Canon 5D 3 v Nikon D700 for Wedding Photography

October 3, 2012

Without being too technical and from a genuinely unbiased perspective, here's a little article on the Canon 5D Mark 3 and why we produce all of our reportage wedding photography on it. This article will go over the heads of the majority of our customers, so please feel free to click to the next post. However, we document quite a few weddings each year where the bride or groom are themselves photographers and some even specialising in wedding photography, as scary as that sounds!

We also train and mentor other wedding photographers, so we know it's important to give this side of the business a brief mention.

Just over two years ago I made the decision to completely switch from the Canon 5D Mark 2 to the Nikon D700. At the time it was a big deal as I had been using Canon EOS since my first wedding in the very early noughties, so I was not only very familiar with the system but also felt I had some kind of allegiance with the brand.

Having made the switch, I realised how stupid a thought process this was and a trap that many of us fall into. I shot just shy of one hundred thousand frames with the Nikon D700 system, together with a couple of prime lenses. It was the next step for me in terms of low light performance and a more intuitive system.

The D700 is a small, discrete system with the ability of the revered Nikon D3 and yet with the discretion of a modest, prosumer sized body. It allowed me to evolve my style further and work in some particularly intimate and close environments. It came with incredible advances in terms of high ISO performance and auto focus over my old Canon system which would produce banding surprisingly easily in certain lighting conditions.

The 5D Mark 2 auto focus system was shockingly poor and its well known for it's inability to lock focus in low contrast environments - not ideal for a documentary wedding photographer who avoids using flash.

Prompted by the days getting noticeably shorter and my Nikons being pushed to their very limits and beyond, I took the decision to return to Canon. This time, for the 5D Mark 3.

Many wedding photographers who have nailed their flag on Nikon's pole are obviously going to be reluctant to admit to the obvious benefits of Canons latest 5D, often upgrading instead to the Nikon D4 or D800. At the time of writing this article though, Nikon do not have an answer to the 5D Mark 3. There simply isn't another camera like it on the market.

Allow me to explain...

The Canon 5D Mark 3 is the only small bodied DSLR offering the three key points that I personally feel aid a particular style and approach to documentary wedding photography, both in terms of shooting and post:

1. Prosumer sized body for discretion yet with the durability of the 1 series for clumsy people like me

2. Exceptional high ISO image quality, workable 12,800 ISO files

3. Small to medium sized RAW files - realistically suiting social photography requirements

For me it was a no brainer. The D800, which we trialled, was not a serious contender because the file sizes are unnecessarily large for a social photographer. I completely understand an advertising photographer buying into the system but when would a wedding photographer ever need files this big and detailed? It's extreme and excessive. Ask yourself, how many weddings do you shoot a year and how many RAW files do you typically produce during the average wedding? Does the additional cost in time and money required to back up, edit, process, upload and archive this additional data justify the extra detail you can achieve in the file?

Next is the Nikon D4 with a £5000 price tag, arguably it's simply not enough of an improvement over the D3s to justify the cost. I always work with two cameras and prefer them to be small, so this system was never really a consideration. Unfortunately, and possibly because the D700 damaged D3 sales so much, Nikon no longer cater for my needs, as well as many others social photographers seeking the three key points.

During the switch, and I remember it well from my initial Canon to Nikon changeover, there was significant criticism from other photographers perplexed at how I could just migrate systems. In fact, some of the more 'fanboy' responses were a little on the psychotic side!

Thanks DP Review.

It always amazes me how personally insulted some people are when a flaw is highlighted with their camera model. It shouldn't need to be emphasised but these are tools, just as a paint brush is to an artist or a spanner to a mechanic - choose the most appropriate type for you. The Canon 5D Mark 3 was the only system that meant I didn't need to change my process.

It's that simple.

The camera works for me, I don't have to compensate for its flaws.

Key Pros

- Very useable high ISO (25,600 ISO images happily sit alongside 3200 ISO ones) - Superb auto focus, this is a different camera to the 5D Mark 2 which was a poor performer in this field - Lightweight, ideal for lengthy commissions - Great ergonomics and an intuitive layout - Quiet shutter which is a welcome break from our noisy Nikons! - Build quality is again far superior to the 5D Mark 2, this is made like a 1 series

Key Cons

- Wheels and buttons are easy to knock, shutter is VERY sensitive - The grid lines and focus points are impossible to see in some conditions and you have to just guess!

In an age where technology is significantly more advanced with every update, to stick with a brand purely because of an emotional tie, brand loyalty or a so called 'investment', as I heard it called the other day, is just plain dumb. For me, Canon has opened up another set of opportunities. I can now work in environments that I simply couldn't with Nikon, a similar leap that the D700 gave me all those weddings ago.

One of the other reasons people recoil at a complete brand switch is financial. So, to look at things in a more straightforward format and completely disregard any brand or preference for just a second…

A busy wedding photographer should be updating their kit every two seasons, three at a stretch. A social photographers cameras have a rough life. They're dropped and kicked and rained on and like any other electronic instrument, won't last forever. Camera technology is now at a level where it is not completely written off during this two year period, it has a healthy resale value.

I always look to spend around £5000 every two years on camera kit, coincidently the price of just one Nikon D4 body. My latest Nikon to Canon switch cost £7500 for two bodies, three lenses and two speedlights.

I part exchanged my identical Nikon kit for £3700, bringing my two yearly update cost to £3800.

It's more achievable than you think.

The next switch...

When we review our system again in two years time, it will be very interesting to see how manufacturers have evolved. Presently, we're all witnessing the likes of Canon, Nikon and Fuji pushing each other forward and the initial signs are very promising, especially with the likes of the Fuji X Pro 1 which Andy already uses alongside his 5D cameras.

Whatever the move and whatever the technology, our system will always be carefully chosen to aid our style, not orchestrate it.

What’s in the kit bag and why?

January 26, 2011

Before I go into the equipment I use during commissions, I would like to stress that the creation of a good photograph, on the whole, has very little to do with the equipment that is used. Many wedding photographers and enthusiasts get completely held up on equipment, commonly known as ‘gear lust’, which sees them buy just about whatever their favourite camera manufacturer makes.

This regular switching can be quite detrimental to a photographer's development; not only in terms of their portfolio but financially too, continually believing that the more expensive or 'professional' the camera and lens, the better the image. Instead, the camera and lens are merely a tool to serve the artist – as I mentioned in part two.

The amount of weddings I attend where the guests are using cameras two and a half times the size of mine, plus a ‘rocket launcher’ lens, is scary. Quite funny too, until I get the bride phoning me up because she has seen the poor quality photography, probably on Facebook, that these amateurs produce and I then have to reassure her that my photography will be in a different league.

There's an old saying that only amateurs can afford the professional kit. Well, I'll give you one piece of advice that I rarely see on the blogs or forums and might just save you a penny or two:

Get ONE camera and ONE prime lens. Buy nothing else until you are so familiar with them that, even without the camera to your eye, you start to see the world in a series of 35mm/50mm images (or whatever focal length you invest in).

This industry is simply full of too many ex-IT professionals obsessed with these tiny little computer thingies that make images. The photographer's ability, or opinion and stance on image-making, is an absolute priority and should not be underestimated. If you don't know how to practice your craft or haven't spent the time learning what makes a good photograph and applying your own unique style, no amount of kit is going to help you.

As mentioned in previous posts I am asked during a wedding, on a flatteringly frequent number of occasions, how I know the bride and groom. This is perfect. Being ‘accepted’ at a wedding is key to creating highly personal photography for your clients. I choose to shoot with small cameras and small, prime lenses and this is mostly so I can blend in with the wedding guests. These are the tools that suit the task I am performing (other photographers may vary) but they don't form the foundation of my ability.

I can, and have often, used different types of kit and equipment but still produced images that are unique to my approach. By being very ‘non-wedding photographer’ I can get in very close without making people feel awkward, to capture those incredibly unique images. For instance, one thing I like to do is shoot from people’s perspectives – over shoulders or close in and along a sightline perhaps – which gives the image an additional layer of interpretation. I’m not sure I could achieve this with a big 70-200 telephoto zoom.

I believe many zoom-based photographers, certainly not all, but the majority, get lazy and fail to maintain the discipline needed to establish and hold on to a rapport with their subjects. It’s easy to stand at a distance to get shots but the issue is that you become detached from the wedding and then, when you do actually need to move in closer for an image, your failure to maintain rapport prevents you from getting a convincing and quality reportage image. Essentially you’re not accepted as part of the wedding and remain to be seen as a ‘supplier’.

Seriously, it's easy to lambast these lenses because they are probably the most popular lenses in the wedding industry. They are mostly exceptional in terms of optics and build quality and in the right hands, they can be used to capture some stunning imagery – including reportage wedding photography. However, because they encourage laziness they’re probably the single biggest contribution to ‘snapshot wedding photography’; the industry’s vast quantities of isolated headshots devoid of any narrative or soul. People need to simplify their set up. I know many a wedding photographer that has a kit bag, and car boot, full of ‘just in case’ equipment; lenses covering every mm from 16 through to 200. I'll be bold here and say this is simply unnecessary and actually clouds the whole point of what it is to be a reportage photographer; simple storytelling. By simplifying your kit you take this unwanted emphasis away from the equipment and place it exactly where it should be, on producing exceptional images.

During a typical commission, I use a 50mm and a 24mm. Over time I have mastered these single focal distances and perspectives to the point where I can see the image without lifting the viewfinder to my eye. I’m not constantly walking back and forth either, which I get asked frequently by photographers considering a switch to primes. Instead, because I’m completely tuned into the event, as opposed to standing on the sidelines picking people off with a telephoto, I can predict when things are going to happen, when the ‘decisive moment’ will occur and ultimately when to create the best, most thought-provoking and inspiring photograph for my customers. For reference, Part Two of this series features 31 images and of this 31, 17 were taken with the 50mm lens and 14 with the 24mm.

The two Nikon D700 cameras that I’ve been using for the best part of a year have been, on the whole, pretty faultless. I’ve dropped them, kicked them, used them at their absolute maximum capabilities and they’ve still produced the goods. To my amazement, I produced a shot at 12,800 ISO during a winter wedding and in the final cut, it sat side by side with 1600 ISO images, with no significantly noticeable differences. I couldn’t have dreamt of this back in the days of film, or when using the Canon 5D Mark 2 at 6400 ISO, for that matter. They are excellent tools and I am totally convinced that I took the right decision to make the switch from Canon last May.

In addition to the 24mm and 50mm, I do possess a 135mm however it rarely comes out of the bag, probably one in ten weddings. I mainly use the 135mm for portraiture commissions, often alongside the 50mm. But portrait commissions are in no way, shape or form like weddings as they’re fairly one dimensional in terms of narrative and context.

I do have a 16-35mm zoom that I use as a backup. Very occasionally I need to go down to one camera, one lens setup. City weddings for instance often require me to be on foot; in and out of taxis, Route Masters, tube stations – the 16-35 helps me to remain inconspicuous and my way of working remains unchanged. If I’m using flash I may also go down to the one camera and the 16-35. Whenever I do use the 16-35 I always try and use set focal ranges to retain consistency within a body of work, for instance, 24mm and 35mm.

There is without a doubt a lot of good quality, affordable equipment out there. I fully appreciate that this perhaps creates a particularly daunting task for someone looking to start up, even just to upgrade. So just remember, the key to all of this, the bottom line - they're just tools. They should enable photographers to work how they want, they should complement a photographic approach, nothing more. The sooner you learn as a photographer that the key is your 'eye' and not your kit, the better.