After 50 weddings with the R3's

sunPin wrote:

Hey noggin2k1, thanks for sharing your R3 experience shooting weddings, perhaps one of the most run-and-gun types of photography there is (besides perhaps war photography).

I've been shooting a Sony A9 for 5+ years and am considering switching to the R3. Since you're a previous A9II shooter, I'd love your thoughts on how the R3's physical size has affected your shooting, if at all.

How have you found the R3's size when it comes to moving and shooting? Do you ever find it unwieldy or cumbersome? Do you ever wish it were more nimble, or has it been nimble? I tend to shoot in situations requiring a lot of movement, such as following cheetahs on the hunt through the bush, or climbing up the side of a waterfall to get a shot.

How has the R3's size been when you want to be careful not to make your subjects self-conscious? I primarily shoot documentary-style photography when people are not necessarily expecting to be photographed, so being able to shoot discretely is important. I realize you're shooting weddings where people expect to be photographed, but I imagine there are certain situations in which you want to be more discrete in order to get the shot.

The A9 is small, light, and nimble, but it's not rugged and is uncomfortable in my hands. I'm wondering what it has been like to shoot with a much larger camera in a dynamic situation.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I'd make a guess that you're probably very similar to my thoughts from an ergonomics perspective.

I will say I only ever shot Sony bodies with the battery grip attached - partly for the extra longevity, and partly because I tend to prefer shooting in portrait (hence wanting the grip/shutter release).

The R3 is actually slightly smaller than a gripped Sony body, which was a big surprise, and the grip feels infinitely better in the hand, for me at least.

I can't say I've ever wished for the bodies to be bigger or smaller, they just "feel right" from a sizing perspective.