You think mirrorless cameras can’t handle wedding shots? Think again!

Dec 22, 2016

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

You think mirrorless cameras can’t handle wedding shots? Think again!

Dec 22, 2016

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

Most professional wedding photographers are not thrilled when someone brings up mirrorless cameras. I understand – the concept is relatively new, and there may be some distrust towards these cameras’ performance. Especially in demanding conditions such as shooting a wedding. But an example by Kevin Mullins proves them wrong. He shot an entire wedding with a Fujifilm X-Pro2 and published a video which may break down misconceptions.

YouTube video

Kevin is a UK-based documentary wedding photographer. He published a short stop motion video composed of his wedding shots from the South of France. The entire wedding was shot using two Fujifilm X-Pro2 cameras. So, no DSLRs whatsoever. What’s more, the photos are completely unedited. This way you can see the real results of mirrorless cameras without the help of post-processing programs. Some photos are fantastic, some are average, but remember – there are around 4000 shots. And none of us ever delivers all the shots we took, we only choose the best ones.

In my opinion, the mirrorless camera attributed to the technical quality of the images. I’m not sure I could tell if they were taken by a DSLR or a mirrorless. Also, Kevin captured really wonderful moments and made photos that look like a set of frames from a movie. When all this is brought together, the couple got some fine photos to remember their special day. And the rest of us got a proof that a mirrorless camera can handle wedding shots really well.

[Full Wedding Fuji X Pro2 via The Phoblographer]

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

29 responses to “You think mirrorless cameras can’t handle wedding shots? Think again!”

  1. Brian Stalter Avatar
    Brian Stalter

    I haven’t heard this.

  2. Stephan Hughes Avatar
    Stephan Hughes

    I’ve taken stills with a GH4 at a wedding. So yes, they can.

  3. cbenci Avatar
    cbenci

    Articles about mirrorless cameras being ‘able to do it too’ and ‘why I switched’ are becoming the new ‘open letters to’ articles.

  4. ettventer Avatar
    ettventer

    2000 years ago, Peter remembered how Jesus had told him that he would betray Jesus before the rooster crowed three times. Peter denied his affiliation to Jesus, three times, and when the rooster crowed the 3rd time, Peter realised that it was already accepted and established that mirrorless cameras are more than enough for a wedding.

    Why are we still writing articles that make it sound like we don’t fully believe mirrorless cameras can do it?

    “And the rest of us got a proof that a mirrorless camera can handle wedding shots really well”.

    Proof that Kevin Mullins, and 15 million other guys shooting weddings with mirrorless cameras, have been giving out forever.

    The “DLSR vs Mirrorless for weddings” debate is long gone. A better way to structure an article like this would’ve been to just point out what an amazing photographer Kevin is, and just encourage readers to check him out, instead of using him to push an argument to a debate that isn’t happening.

  5. Vanitas Foto Avatar
    Vanitas Foto

    The main problem of mirrorless for weddings: Battery life.

    These cameras have reached the point in which the only thing hindering them is their tiny batteries.

    1. BlueBomberTurbo Avatar
      BlueBomberTurbo

      Grips or USB batteries.

    2. cbenci Avatar
      cbenci

      Agreed.

      Sure grips and USB power banks are an option – Add a grip to a DSLR and you’re shooting all day, add one to a mirrorless and you’re shooting for a few hours.

      But all in all, when my L lenses and autofocus work flawlessly on a mirrorless, I’ll consider changing. It’s more about reliability and workflow rather than the latest technology and a slightly better sensor for me.

    3. ettventer Avatar
      ettventer

      Spare camera in the pocket, and it takes 7 seconds to change the battery, which you MIGHG have to do. I shot a wedding last weekend on 2 X-T2s and didn’t change the batteries in either camera.

      Granted, it was only a 6 hour wedding, but still.

      1. Michael Avatar
        Michael

        No issue at all really. I have a GH3 that will survive an 8 hour wedding. But the GX85 will need a few battery changes. Still not an issue as its so quick and painless.

    4. umptious Avatar
      umptious

      When people say things like, I have to wonder how long it takes them to change a battery…

  6. Gabs Avatar
    Gabs

    Nice photos. But they are absolutely not “unedited”. Choosing a profile incamera for jpeg is an edit. And really, that’s not a problem.

    1. Gabs Avatar
      Gabs

      And a wedding can be professionaly covered with a compact camera…of even an instant film camera…

      EDIT : the real problem is the client. It’s a an education to do with the client. Making him understand than the camera is not that relevent.

      1. umptious Avatar
        umptious

        >> And a wedding can be professionaly covered with a compact camera.

        “Professionally” is a meaningless term.

        I can’t think of a compact that has the low light ability and mixture of focal lengths I’d want to shoot a wedding **competently** as a sole camera. It would certainly possible to build one, but no one has.

        1. Gabs Avatar
          Gabs

          you could also shoot an entire wedding wide angle
          choosing a telephoto, is a…choice
          Everything you tell is Your definition of a “high-end wedding”.
          And what is a “high-end wedding” afterall ? Nonsense

          1. umptious Avatar
            umptious

            >> you could also shoot an entire wedding wide angle

            Yes. Or with a macro lens concentrating on eyeballs. Or an x-ray camera or a drone… It was to preclude this type of idiocy that I specified “In the current style etc”.

            >>And what is a “high-end wedding” afterall ?
            They start at about $3000-5000 for the photographers’ bill. Really, is this hard? For you it obviously is…

    2. WKYA_Radio Avatar
      WKYA_Radio

      Thats not an edit…what nonsense. Editing is in post…stop acting ignorant. Its SOC. You can spin it however you want, you already know how you are misconstruing the term.

      Sheesh

    3. umptious Avatar
      umptious

      That’s a setting, not an edit. All cameras have profiles… even if they have only one. If you’re going to be this silly you can even call choosing a lens or an aperture setting “an edit”. But people will point and laugh at you.

      1. Gabs Avatar
        Gabs

        an aperture, the white balance are settings, so edits
        absolutely no picture is unedited imo

        1. umptious Avatar
          umptious

          >> an aperture, the white balance are settings, so edits

          Everyone knows those things are settings, sugar plum. No one (?) agrees with you that they are edits. You’re entitled to disagree, but you’ll look like an idiot if you try to convince everyone that settings are edits just by repeating that they are. Which is what you are doing.

          Intelligent people generally consider an edit as a **modification of the original.** Because that’s the word means.

          1. Gabs Avatar
            Gabs

            You are a troll.

  7. Ziggy Avatar
    Ziggy

    Images are automatically edited (ie. lens corrected) in camera these days.

  8. Jyi Offer Avatar
    Jyi Offer

    Why couldn’t you use a mirrorless?
    What qualities does a camera need to have to be worthy of using at a wedding?
    Presence is something lacking with mirrorless, but that’s about it

  9. Socaltyger Avatar
    Socaltyger

    The issue isn’t so much quality, because the quality is definitely there now. My issue is durability. You have to baby mirrorless cameras. Case in point, my A7ii toppled over on tripod onto grass. It errored out and wouldn’t come back to life without a service trip -Even though it is marketed as having a tougher magnesium alloy body. I’ve dropped dslrs on concrete without issue. Accidents happen, I just can’t trust a fragile mirrorless camera as my workhorse camera.

    1. umptious Avatar
      umptious

      This is stupid. An A7 is a particular camera and Sony’s are notoriously delicate. It has nothing to with cameras of any type made by anybody else.

    2. Robin Avatar
      Robin

      The answer is in the camera name, Sony are crap, electronic company not camera company, take a look at the angry photographer to see whats inside a Sony.

    3. Seldom Scene Photography Avatar
      Seldom Scene Photography

      I’m with Robin & umptious — if your A7ii is too fragile for you, there are plenty of more-durable mirrorless cameras to choose from. I’ve got an Oly E-M1 that I slipped and fell on (and I’m not petite) — buggered myself up, got a bit of mud into some of the camera trim’s crevices, but it’s still working away for me 3 years later…

  10. offandon Avatar
    offandon

    Don’t you mean the mirrorless camera CONTRIBUTED to the quality of the photos? Or, alternatively, “the quality of the images was attributed to the mirrorless camera.”

  11. nacezavrl Avatar
    nacezavrl

    Since the quality of photos at the wedding is so much raised, I don’t think we must raise also the quantity. We must lower it, and that is another plus side of the mirrorless cameras, they force the photographers to take less photos.

  12. Adriano To'Agui Avatar
    Adriano To’Agui

    Amen! John Doe. I agree with you – ettventer – times 10. This post is a contradictory contradiction. Everyone says :’tis the shooter NOT the camera gear.” Now you – the article writer – find arguments; some wiewers attempt to make excuses to go for or against this brand or the other. Comply with composition.Later, break the rules. Nikon or Canon?, first. Secondly, SLR’s or DSLR’s, Mirrorless or DSLR’s. So, what is next? Old school, drone photohraphy, or millenial photographer, 12 megapixels or 40 megapixels… Come on you snowflakes, puritans , and moralists stop debaying. Be passionate about photography, simply enjoy the art of it NOT the gear. Learn and unlearn. Grow up! . And please, continue to photograph and be creative with whatever you have on hand but shoot, shoot, and shoot until you die. Let there be light and shoot. By the way, this presentatiom of the UK photographer – Kevin Mullins – is great. Thank y’ll and have a nice shooting!