EM1 or D600, for Weddings?

Hello all, 
My Nikon D300 was recently stolen. (Not the Issue) 
Thanks to a handsome payout from the insurance company I've received a good chunk of cash in order to replace the body and a few lenses. I currently have an EM5 with a few lenses, I absolutely adore it! Great camera, provides the absolute freedom I love for street and candid shots. However I'm looking to get more into Wedding photography and I've wanted a Full Frame camera for the job. For the money I'll be receiving my choices remain the D600(610) or EM1. 
Now my question is which to choose, is the EM1 capable of proper wedding photography? I felt confident using the EM5 as a secondary camera, but I've never given much thought to two M4/3rds cameras for Professional Wedding Photography.

Thanks for your time!

I appreciate any input. 
Samuel Gauthier

PhotoSFG wrote:

Hello all,
My Nikon D300 was recently stolen. (Not the Issue)
Thanks to a handsome payout from the insurance company I've received a good chunk of cash in order to replace the body and a few lenses. I currently have an EM5 with a few lenses, I absolutely adore it! Great camera, provides the absolute freedom I love for street and candid shots. However I'm looking to get more into Wedding photography and I've wanted a Full Frame camera for the job. For the money I'll be receiving my choices remain the D600(610) or EM1.
Now my question is which to choose, is the EM1 capable of proper wedding photography? I felt confident using the EM5 as a secondary camera, but I've never given much thought to two M4/3rds cameras for Professional Wedding Photography.

Thanks for your time!

I appreciate any input.
Samuel Gauthier

When it comes to weddings and Olympus (m43) I never get tired of referring Dirk Weber as an inspiration.

Take a look:

brautrausch

I have seen pro here using GH3 with two f2.8 zooms for wedding. With GH4 coming out, AF in dim light should be no problem, plus the silent shutter. Add a few primes and flash, you are ready to go.

However, if you want to photograph with available light, when the ambient light is nice and cozy, you need a FF.

I have mostly backed out of the wedding photography business to focus (no pun intended) on corporate event photography. However, I have shots several weddings with the E-M5 and have shot a ton of corporate events using both my E-M5's and E-M1's.

There is absolutely no valid reason that m4/3's cameras are not totally capable of providing outstanding results from a wedding. The issue to totally dependent on the person holding the camera. As another poster pointed out, a very good example is Dirk Weber, who shoots amazing wedding images using m4/3's.

Since an E-M1 is totally capable of producing outstanding 30X40 in. prints, I don't think 8X10 or even 12X24 double-page album prints would be any problem.

Another big advantage to mirrorless cameras for event photography is the ability of EVF's to give you a bright viewfinder image even in the darkest reception/dance situation. I was reminded of this excellent advantage last night as I shot about 100 dance candids at a corporate awards banquet. I had no problem focusing or composing shots with my E-M1 in very dark conditions.

In addition, the CDAF nailed focus on all but a couple shots which were clearly OOF -- no in between soft focus.

Your comments strike me as those of someone who is not a professional, but somehow knows what professional photographers need.

What benefit would it be for a professional wedding photographer who uses m4/3's system to "always have a FF camera as a back up, just in case"? In case of what?

I shoot corporate events and weddings professionally, and never carry a FF, "just in case". I use two E-M1's, and they not only are perfectly adequate to provide my client with high quality images, but they offer advantages that a FF DSLR does not.

There are types of photography that definitely call for FF 35mm, just as there are for medium format -- event photography is not one of those types.

That's just the reality.

I'd say the suggestion to rent a D610 is a good one, with a 24-70 f2.8 if you don't have one already.

For m43 you should probably look at the new 42.5mm (85mm equiv) f1.2 lens.

Also I suspect the GH4 is the best at focusing in low light of the m43 cameras, based on reviews/comments (mine isn't quite here yet... this week hopefully). Hence I'd suggest trying one of those too.

BTW my Nikon using Professional Wedding Photographer friend just bought a Fuji X-T1 to replace his backup Nikon (for weight reduction) and seems very happy indeed. Worth a look too. (The 56/1.2 is its 85mm equivalent.)

I used to shoot weddings/church events with FF

Now I shoot mainly with MFT

The system's mature and good enough for weddings

And It won't kill my neck /shoulders after a long shooting day

As to DOF it's easier to isolate the subject with FF and bright lenses but you can still do it with MFT brighter primes

The DOF of MFT works to its advantage on group shots though

ISO is slightly better with FF but if you can live with ISO 6400, MFT is good enough; or use fill in flash

With MFT you'll need to carry more batteries

Best wishes,

daddyo wrote:

Your comments strike me as those of someone who is not a professional, but somehow knows what professional photographers need.

What benefit would it be for a professional wedding photographer who uses m4/3's system to "always have a FF camera as a back up, just in case"? In case of what?

I shoot corporate events and weddings professionally, and never carry a FF, "just in case". I use two E-M1's, and they not only are perfectly adequate to provide my client with high quality images, but they offer advantages that a FF DSLR does not.

Other then size what advantages are there?

There are types of photography that definitely call for FF 35mm, just as there are for medium format -- event photography is not one of those types.

That's just the reality.

-- hide signature --

God Bless,
Greg
www.imagismphotos.com
www.mccroskery.zenfolio.com
www.pbase.com/daddyo

dv312 wrote:

I used to shoot weddings/church events with FF

Now I shoot mainly with MFT

The system's mature and good enough for weddings

And It won't kill my neck /shoulders after a long shooting day

As to DOF it's easier to isolate the subject with FF and bright lenses but you can still do it with MFT brighter primes

The DOF of MFT works to its advantage on group shots though

ISO is slightly better with FF but if you can live with ISO 6400, MFT is good enough; or use fill in flash

Good enough at 6400?  There is no m4/3 body that's good enough at 6400. 800 maybe.

With MFT you'll need to carry more batteries

Best wishes,

Any modern camera is capable of wedding photography, literally. The issues arise with how you are going to shoot, and what your IQ standards are. If you don't use flash and will be shooting in dim light, and if you insist on having very little noise, it's obvious you should get the largest physical aperture lenses you can find and those are in FF. If you are shooting in bright light such as sunshine, or if you plan to set up a flash system, im sure anything will work well. More importantly is which you like shooting with, because if you enjoy it along with getting good results, that's always better.

To summarize, i have yet to see a photographer who can shoot a wedding well with a D600, botch the same task with a EM1. Just think about how you will be using the gear and pick the suitable body.

turbsy wrote:

dv312 wrote:

I used to shoot weddings/church events with FF

Now I shoot mainly with MFT

The system's mature and good enough for weddings

And It won't kill my neck /shoulders after a long shooting day

As to DOF it's easier to isolate the subject with FF and bright lenses but you can still do it with MFT brighter primes

The DOF of MFT works to its advantage on group shots though

ISO is slightly better with FF but if you can live with ISO 6400, MFT is good enough; or use fill in flash

Good enough at 6400? There is no m4/3 body that's good enough at 6400. 800 maybe.

Not true. It's true the larger sensors' lenses have larger apertures per any given F stop, and this simply means they are gathering more light, but to say any system's ISO performance is "not good enough" would suggest everybody has the same standards and skill. With careful technique and some PP you can still get nice looking files even at ISO 6400.

No you will not want to crop as much or that noise will show, but if you compose carefully you won't have to. Thanks to the 2x crop of MFT, reach is rarely an issue. Whether they are good enough for a wedding client remains to be seen, but i know people who wouldn't be happy with ISO 6400 on a D800 either.