After reading all the responses it occurred to me that the OP may benefit from understanding how a light meter works, how it measures light and produces a reading, and how and when that reading requires "compensation" in different Camera modes.

A few tips from a long time wedding photographer who has trained quite a few assistants:

Keep it simple: use gear you are familiar with, do not introduce unfamiliar gear, borrowed, rented or bought. If you do not have a back-up camera and want one, rent the same camera that you already have. If not, do you have a family compact camera? Take it also. The 70-200 is a staple for many wedding shooters ... it will help you get shots of everyone at play especially in the water. The 70 to 110 focal lengths of that lens will work for 2 person posed shots and closer portraits. a wide zoom like the 24-105 will do for all the rest. In fact, you could shoot the entire wedding with the 24-105!

Prep, prep, prep! Put together your kit the day prior, and test it. Charge all batteries, reformat all cards, test your flash, pack for action (put the 24-105 on the camera so it is ready to go immediately).

Practice, practice, practice. Is your niece near you? If so, shoot an engagement session with them which gets them used to you, and you can determine how to best photograph them. If not, recruit another "similar" couple to practice on. Keep in mind what body type your subjects are, and only study other posed shots with a similar body type.

What to practice: shoot a couple walking at you like a processional. DO NOT set your camera on continuous focus unless you are expert at it. I've found that these type of wedding shots unnerve most beginners because the original expressions cannot be re-staged later, and practice helps with feeling easier about them. Practice timing shots like the ring exchange and first kiss. These shots also happen once in real time, however if you miss them, these shots can be re-staged ... a couple in love will take any excuse to kiss : -)

Scout, scout, scout: Try to arrive earlier and become familiar with the location and more importantly how the wedding ceremony is situated in relation to the sun, or what the reception area looks like.

General tips:

Do not shoot larger group shots @ 24mm ... it distorts people at each end and makes them look fatter ... try to stay with-in 35mm focal length or longer if possible.

Where possible, seek shade ... shade without dappling or hot spots ... if in a wooded area use your flash to keep the green ambient shadows off the skin.

Key Tip:

Practice with your speed-light. Think of it as a supplement to the ambient outdoors and indoors, not as a main light. Outdoors it will fill shadows caused by downward sun that causes "Raccoon Eyes" ... indoors in lower light, set your camera to manual exposure and a higher ISO like ISO 800 or 1,000, and flash to TTL. As a basic starting point, set the shutter speed to the focal length of the lens : 50mm = 1/50th. This is called "Dragging The Shutter" and it allows the camera to record the lower indoor ambient while the speed-light freezes the foreground subject action because the flash duration is so fast (usually 1/1000 or faster). This method avoids the black background with over-exposed foreground subject so prevalent with beginner wedding shooters. Trust me on this, and give it a try to become comfortable with the technique.

Lastly, if or when you experience "brain freeze" or you become over-whelmed by some situation that you can't seem to solve immediately ... set the camera to "Program" and keep shooting. I tell my students that "P" on the camera stands for "Panic".

Best of luck ... and LUCK favors the prepared!

Marc Williams
FOTOGRAFZ, LLC

https://fotografz.smugmug.com/Fotografz-Weddings-Events/Wedding-Samples/Wedding-Samples/

No, I do not post process every image I shoot. I do not edit in camera because it is possible to make an irretrievable error, or corrupt the card.

I place all the images into LightRoom (which backs itself up) and uncheck any images I do not want to load into that LR Library catalog for further consideration (the obvious culls or images I shot over to fix something wrong like a bad facial expression or poor exposure).

I then can view each keeper image full screen to determine if it is worthy of work in the Develop module of LR.

As I do that I can select any image for inclusion in a Quick Collection that segregates it from the main body of keeper images without removing it from that library catalog, Then I have different plug-ins for LightRoom, like Photoshop CC and Nik software which allows me open the image in them, do further work unavailable in LR, and then save it back to that same LR Library Quick collection next to the original.

It is a simple process of elimination and refinement. It is common to end up with 1 out of 10 making it to the quick collection and 1 out of 50 making it to print (unless it is a wedding).

- Marc

I think you are mixing up some actual processes. Most competent professionals prep, prep, prep ... and check work when possible, NOT always while shooting. Professional photo shoots start with pre-production meetings and detailed planning well ahead of a shoot. Little is left to chance. What IS left is room for spontaneity and intuitive creativity during the actual shoot.

Fashion shooters don't stop to check every shot. Sports and action shooters don't check every shot. Wedding shooters don't check every shot ... and so on. Usually, a series of shots is reviewed after the fact during a break and that feedback is used to adjust the intent of the next series of shots. A race driver may have feedback from the pit, but the pro shooting the race needs to concentrate on a 200mph subject where chimping excessively could lead to a major "money shot" being missed.

By the way, many amateurs are just as good as many professional photographers when it comes to processes, prep, and actual results. Many questions on this site are from non-professionals looking to prep for a trip, etc.,

- Marc

I'm a wedding/event/portrait shooter, as well as a studio/location commercial advertising photographer. 40 years doing it. My credentials are the work itself: www.fotografz.smugmug.com

Digital image review is neither professional, nor unprofessional. Actually, the term "Chimping" was coined in reference to excessive mindless image review ... it conjures up an image of a simian like head down, slacked lipped reliance on seeing most every shot taken, or standing there reviewing a series of shots while the action was still going on ... which is born from lack of confidence and/or experience.

That said, instant image review is one reason digital photography thrived. It was extremely important because shooting digital tended to be more like shooting less forgiving slide film verses negative film which offered far more latitude during processing (especially in the highlight areas).

In the commercial studio with clients present, paid models and stylist, rented props, PAs etc. we used to shoot polaroids to check the set design, lighting and so on. With digital, the camera is often tethered, or the LCD checked, to assure a reshoot won't be necessary because clients can approve on the spot, rather than having to wait until the lab processed the film, after the set was struck, models gone, props returned etc.

Wedding and event work also benefited from instant review ... however, "chimping excess" is often impossible and/or detrimental during a typical hectic and frenetic wedding shoot. Where it is beneficial is to refine settings before a series of shots. For example, during the processionals timing is everything ... so I take a few test shots prior to the processionals beginning, then refine flash settings and exposure ... then shoot freely. Same with group shots ... one wants to retain the attention of the subjects rather than gazing at every shot and breaking contact with them.

I've seen my assistants chimping while a magical wedding moment was unfolding right in front of them. I use that to break them of the BAD HABIT before it becomes ingrained and eventually a crutch.

- Marc

IMHO Yes, Mirror-less will over-shadow DSLRs and eventually replace them. DSLRs will probably become a niche product ... keeping in mind that there is always a market for legacy type photo gear trading on steadfast preferences and the lure of nostalgia.

I still have a foot in both camps. Personally and professionally I use both type cameras. I have a Digital Rangefinder that only shoots B&W (speaking of steadfast preferences); a digital Medium Format kit with a big, bright OVF and leaf-shutter lenses; and a Sony FF mirror-less digital system.

The Sony mirror-less kit replaced a traditional DSLR/SLT system. That transition was NOT without its challenges at first, but was made easier because almost ANY lens ever made can be adapted to my new Sony mirror-less camera ... and most adapters allow full functions and communication with the camera including AF. So, a favorite Nikon lens can be used one minute, and a great Canon T/S lens the next, or a old Minolta gem. I can even use my manual focus Leica M rangefinder lenses with a TechArt adapter and they Auto Focus! Then to top it all off, any lens I mount to the Sony A7R-II is in-body 4 axis stabilized!

The size advantage of mirror-less is obvious, but often exaggerated. If you use faster aperture lenses or f/2.8 zooms designed for a mirror-less camera, they are no smaller than similar lenses for a DSLR.

Native lenses for the Sony were slow coming but that is in the past. There are all sorts of choices of native FE lenses now available. I chose the Zeiss/Zeiss Batis series that now includes a 18/2, 25/2, 55/1.8, 85/1.8 and 135/2.8 ... a series of smaller, lighter optics designed for current Sony mirror-less cameras that remarkably includes 5 axis image stabilization with ANY native FE mount lens.

IMO and experience there are a few remaining points of contention regarding mirror-less cameras for those used to a DSLR.

Some of them (mostly Sony) are overly complex ergonomic nightmares bristling with buttons better suited for video game players than traditional photographers (especially older ones like me). The Sony menu system is widely regarded as horrid-terrible ... a true dog's breakfast of controls thrown in helter-skelter. I learned to ignore 90% of it and memorized the location of the 3 essential menu commands I needed access to. Others I assigned to instant access buttons which takes some dedicated practice to memorize (not that DSLRs do not have similar customizable button arrays, but their's are generally more intuitive and ergonomically thought out. The new Leica SL mirror-less camera is much simpler and intuitive and shows that all this complexity is not due to mirror-less design, but just bad design.

The electronic viewfinder will remain a key point of debate. The very first thing you notice is that you have to turn on the camera to see anything. One other thing I had to get used to was that IF you have auto-review set to ON, the last image shot appears in the viewfinder ... which is un-nerving ... to avoid that you have turn off auto-review and press a review button to see the last shot taken. I suspect that will eventually change when they get around to it. With a DSLR you can quickly check the LCD anytime with just a quick glance (which is how I worked while shooting something like a wedding).

While it is increasingly difficult to see the optical difference between OVF and EVF when shooting in normal light, EVF can get contrasty in very bright ambient, or digital gain (noisy and movement-smear) in very low light. That will be mitigated as the pixel count and refresh rate increases. Also, when you work in low light your eyes adjust to the ambient, but when you are looking at a brighter electronic image in the viewfinder, then take your eye away you can experience some night blindness.

There are two basic ways of setting up the viewfinder ... "Setting Effect On" and "Setting Effect Off".

"On" allows you to see the actual effect of your settings ... I shoot using manual exposure with this setting, and "What You See Is What You Get" ... DOF, W/B, aperture/shutter-speed exposure level as it all will be captured.

If you turn setting effect Off it is more like a traditional OVF ... with the cavates of contrast and digital gain mentioned above. BTW, if you shoot with strobes in a studio or dark location using a stopped down aperture, you have to turn the setting effect off or you will be looking through a pitch black viewfinder. At first, that one threw me more than once.

The end image quality is no different between either type of system. Now with the Sony A9 "Speed Demon" the dominance of Pro level DSLRs for sports and such is being seriously challenged. It is just a matter of time.

- Marc

Love this subject!

There are two key aspects dealing with the palette for digital color management: bit depth and color gamut (aka: color space) ... generally for photography, 16 bit and ProRGB color space produce the most comprehensive color gamut for Post Production prior to output (some of which is beyond human perception*). 16 bit Adobe RGB 1998 is the most comprehensively used color space used for more color critical final output. 8 bit sRGB color space produces a less comprehensive color gamut, but is the most practical for the widest viewing applications today.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-spaces.htm

However, as mentioned already, it depends on the practicality of end use AND the specified file format ... i.e., Jpeg, Tiff, PS Documents, RAW.

Jpeg is a lossy compression file format that reduces data so it can easily be used in data intense, device dependent applications such as the internet seen on a backlit computer screen, tablet, or smart phone. Practically meaning that in most circumstances the viewers are overwhelmingly seeing a photo on a lower bit depth, smaller color gamut device that best corresponds to 8 bit sRGB files.

Data rich file formats such as Tiff and PS provide advantages when using a Wide Gamut computer monitor, or when working with a printer that accepts 16 bit Adobe RGB 1998 (like my Epson 3880). Note: most higher end 16 bit able cameras actually produce either 12 or 14 native bit depth which is then interpolated up to 16 bit via software. I have printed test images using the same adjusted RAW image outputted as 16 bit Adobe 1998 and 8 bit sRGB and there is a VISIBLE difference in tonal/hue reproduction. However, that visible difference is negligible with smaller prints like 4X5 or 5X7s ... then becomes more and more visible as the print size increases.

*In theory, for the most accurate color 16 bit ProRGB should be used in Post Production ... not because we can even see such a wide gamut or that our monitor could either ... but because it provides the most data when the gamut is reduced to a usable color space like 16 bit Adobe RGB1998, or conceivably even 8 bit sRGB. It provides the computer algorithm the widest choice when compressing the gamut for actual output finished files ... think of choosing matching color from a small basic box of crayons verses one of those big fat, multilayered boxes we all loved as kids : -)

Choosing the final output is a device dependent question. For images that are transient and likely not to be repurposed (like billions of Facebook snaps), 8 bit sRGB is your choice. However, if you store images and may use them later for prints, or plan on further retouching, or in case PP software improvements happen, then 16 bit Adobe RGB 1998 is the better "practical" choice.

I use LightRoom not just because it is fast (it is!), but because it integrates other software as plug-ins so I can work back-and-forth between Photoshop or Nik software and the result is saved as a 16bit Adobe RGB 1998 separate file in the same LightRoom catalog next to the adjusted RAW original.

This allows me to output an entire group of selects in 8 bit sRGB at a more modest size to a SmugMug Pro web gallery for client review, download or smaller print purchases, then output client special selects as larger, 16 bit Adobe RGB 1998 file for large prints I personally do. I archive most important work as a larger 16 bit Adobe 1998 files because storage is inexpensive these days.

Marc Williams
FOTOGRAFZ, LLC

IMO, most folks that can separate one brand from another, and which model camera of a brand is supposedly "better", are shutter-bugs themselves. The general public probably vaguely knows the more famous brand names like Nikon/Canon. Certain brands have honestly earned a reputation for some sort of performance attribute(s) ... and some folks tend to subscribe a photographer wielding such gear with those performance attributes .... which is the basis of "impressing others" ... i.e., I have this, therefore I can do that ...

I've spend a fortune on cameras/lenses and lighting over the years ... mostly to satisfy specific professional needs. Cameras like the more expensive pro level Nikons and Canons I've owned were selected for rugged reliability and speed under duress ... with good image quality (camera/media/lens combination) being a given. Medium Format Digital has been part of my gear bag for a long time, not because I like spending a ton of money on it, but because it does what other cameras cannot. For over 40 years I've consistently used a Leica Rangefinder. I like the rangefinder way of making images where visual distractions are less than other types of cameras ... but it certainly isn't for everyone. Leica prices tend to shove the brand into the exclusive strata of camera gear ... but the general public doesn't have a clue who or what Leica is. One time while shooting in NYC, a nice couple quipped to me that it was nice to see an old camera being used ... referencing my new Leica MM B&W Digital Rangefinder ... LOL!

I have some friends and acquaintances that are envious or even jealous of my gear closet. I couldn't care less. When some fancy photo item outlives its' usefulness, it goes bye-bye.

I love the quote ... "Good cameras don't take good photos, good photographers take good photos". While appearing to be quite true, it also implies that a good photographer could take a specific sort of photo with any camera ... which is quite untrue. Gear can, and often does, make a difference in many instances ... and a good photographer knows this.

One of the coolest things demonstrating optical compression is the use of it as a motion picture technique ... where you can see it happen right before your eyes.

I believe it was Alfred Hitchcock that first used it in a major motion picture as a psychological effect in the film "Rebecca" ... when Rebecca suddenly realizes something terrifyingly profound, the lens zooms to a longer focal length while the camera dollies back to keep her the same size ... the visual result is that the background looms up behind her ... a very unsettling sort of effect. Can you imagine the precision required on the part of the camera operators?

Depth of Field can easily be demonstrated even without a lens. Sometimes when I forget my glasses and have to see something small ... I make small circle with my thumb and finger and look closely through it ... effectively "stopping down" my finger aperture to make the object I'm viewing sharper. You can do the same thing with a piece of cardboard and a nail hole. The smaller the hole the more Depth of Field. However, the smaller the hole the more light you need coming through it ... or in the case of photography the longer the shutter has to stay open to record the image.

IMO and experience ...

Raw statistics say you are right. History says you are right. There are exceptions of course, but in the aggregate cameras as "we" know them" are eroding away like a beach being pounded by each new storm-wave of technology.

The key phrase is "as we know them". However, this revolution of image making technology shouldn't be confused with the demise of photography, which is all pervasive in today's society, far more democratic and available.

What has changed is how images are used and how they are valued ... and the consequences of "how they are used" has directly impacted the traditional camera industry. The public internet isn't in need of 20 to 36 meg files, where a vast majority of files are reduced to jpeg compression and truncated color space (sRGB) measured in sub 1 meg to 5 meg sizes.

What has become dominate is "content" over "craftsmanship". Cell phones are there always and get the pic of aunt Jane falling in the kiddie pool, or a pet stunt ... and no matter how crappy the shot it gets a trillion "likes" and compliments ... so the value of well crafted images takes a hit because the content of the image is the treasure.

What is also being threatened (even dying off) is the use of prints as the final product of photography. Among the general public, digital files have taken over as the final form, and they are treated in a fleeting manner. Here today, gone tomorrow. So much so that archivists and historians are worried that "common man" images (such as family prints stored away in boxes and albums of the past), which are the bell-weather of understanding "the way we were", are not being preserved.

Prints, especially wall prints, also show-case the properties of cameras more capable than current cell phone stuff that looks good on face-book, not so good as a framed 11 X 14 print.

Again, while there are notable exceptions, I've watched the tapering off of prints as the final medium for photos. I photographed weddings for decades, and as digital took over, fewer and fewer clients ordered prints, and album sales fell off a cliff. Toward the end of my run, a few clients who even paid for the album in advance didn't have me print them!

I use high end MF DSLRs and Mirrorless 35mm cameras with top optics. However, I can justify it because I still do professional advertising photography (albeit less than in past). The final use of these high end images warrants the equipment I use. For example this past week-end I did a studio shoot of a model wearing jewelry for a trade show which is being printed 7" tall ... and the product had to be finely resolved for close up inspection. I have a lot of work like that where the images will be used on the web and are printed for posters, displays, or cropped.

I also use that gear for my personal work which I DO print and frame. Interestingly, most of my "younger" semi-pro photo friends with high-end gear rarely make any prints, some never do ... which makes me scratch my head in bewilderment.

The photo communities on the web are ubiquitous, and it seems like sales of gear should be off-the hook, but it is not. Probably because we are narrowly focused on the subject, and participants are additive from all over the world , not just our local community like in the past. We photographers tend to talk to each other on sites like this, and it seems like there is an intense level of activity ... but it is not a true reflection of the world at large.

I think the traditional camera industry is moving toward higher cost, more capable tools to satisfy an ever growing attempt to compensate for smaller numbers of sales. A Sony FE:70-200/2.8 G Master zoom for $2,600! In my semi-retired state, I could no longer afford the gear I currently have ... LOL!

Oh, I am 72 and have been shooting for over 50 years.

It depends on the purpose of the update. Many updates are important to get the most from your camera, but not all of them.

For example, one of my cameras needed a firmware update to use a Profoto TTL/HSS transmitter (or any other brand TTL/HSS strobe transmitter). Otherwise, I didn't need the update.

It is easy to determine by reading the update notes usually supplied as a separate document.

I've skipped some firmware updates in past, or wasn't aware of them, because everything was working fine.

However, they usually do not issue a firmware update for no reason. Most of the time some bug or whatever has been addressed.

This tends to more important at the start of a new camera's life-cycle because the manufacturer uses firmware to correct or improve a newer camera model's performance (better color rendering, faster/more accurate AF, etc.).

Thank you for your kind words.

What I was trying to say is that the choice of tool can and does make a difference. It is somewhat naive to think professionals do not think, or even obsess, about equipment, and that a "master" is somehow immune to it all. Not only have I done a lot of work myself, but as a professional advertising creative director for ad agencies, I've also had the good fortune to work with many of the best photographers in the world. They may not spend much time on the web discussing gear, nor is it the center of their universe, but they are quite aware of what is what, and how it can advance their creative agenda. The difference is their range of interests can be different than the average photographer ... encompassing specialized photographic hardware, exotic lighting options, and so on. Many of the larger successful studios even employ a technical mavin, partially who's job is to stay abreast of equipment and software innovations and catalog them as solutions to "opportunities" that may arise.

While certain types of paid photography may lend itself to the smaller mirror-less systems ... travel documentation being one of them (i.e., writer/photographer), most pros that travel to shoot for clients often rent gear needed for a specific assignment. The old saying "Horses For Courses" is still very much at play in the professional world.

Probably the most focused way I could put it is that (ideally) ... Ideas/Vision/Purpose comes first ... then the tool is selected to accomplish it. The cart should not be placed before the horse. We don't buy gear and go in search of how to apply it. We start with a purpose in mind and apply the best gear for that task that is available, or that we can afford.

While anyone with talent, experience and training could do a decent photo with a disposable camera, most of the photos on my site could not be accomplished with one. I could not be competitive, nor solve many client problems by severely limiting my gear bag.

In short, don't be ashamed of liking gear, new stuff invigorates a lot of pros just as much as anyone. Figure out how to get the most out of what you have in hand, and when the time comes you'll know when you have outgrown it. Just keep it all in perspective, and spend time accessing your reasons for using your gear ... but most of all, try to improve your work with ideas and vision.

Marc Williams
Fotografz, LLC

Not to single out this post, but use it as an example of generalities that could confuse certain issues ... at least from one professional's point of view.

While the "finger pushing the button" is most important, that has been true since the advent of photography. Photography is part science and part artistic endeavor. You cannot take a photograph without some sort of machine and capture media ... be it a pin-hole camera and photo sensitive plate, film, or today's digital sensor and computer designed optics.

The size of the media in tandem with the field-of-view of lenses used has a direct effect on the characteristics of the image captured. The smaller the media the more depth-of-field per f/stop compared to the same f/stop using larger media. Any given field-of-view of a lens @ f/2 captured on 35mm full frame media has less depth-of-field than the same field-of-view at f/2 on a 4/3s sensor. Same field-of-view using a Medium Format sensor has even less depth-of-field. No "finger" is going to change that, it is physics.

The assumption that computers have equalized optical design is only partly true. It has also propigated homogenization. Many older lenses are prized for their characteristics or character by those that lean toward the artistic part of the science/art equation of photography. In addition, companies such as Leica are renowned for lenses that perform wide open better than so called mediocre optics. At f/8 one is hard pressed to separate many lenses from their competitors ... f/1.4 is a different matter altogether.

You can have lenses that produce extremely sharp images but the over-all impression is lack-luster ... where some lens systems may be equally as sharp but also have a certain impact (look and feel) that is anything but lack-luster ... Zeiss is particularly known for this. I personally have a fondness for the way fast aperture Canon lenses render light and color ... but prefer Nikon optics when doing B&W. It's a matter of taste and one's personal artistic vision.

Citing professional use, and use by increasing numbers of pros is a misleading. It assumes that the quality and characteristics of smaller sensors and performance of optics have leveled the playing field. The true mitigating factor is that professional end use has become less demanding. Printed matter is diminishing and electronic end use has become dominate.

Even though I more recently shot Sony DSLR and SLT cameras for professional work such as weddings/events/portraits, and do not own Canon or Nikon anymore, I would still tout them as "owning" the professional systems market. Just saying they do not doesn't make it true. Look up DSLR sales statistics or ask rental places. Wedding/event photography is dominated by Canikon ... so is portrait, sports, racing, and wildlife ... and for good reason.

Smaller formats, and alternative cameras such as mirror-less have their place IF the photographer ascertains that their needs do not warrant more choice, or faster, or more secure capture. I once owned and used a multi-shot Hasselblad kit that produced breathtaking professional results ... results for clients that required the best color fidelity and resolution possible. Nothing on the market today save the new Phase One 100 meg monster could even come close. When I stopped doing that sort of work, I moved to a lesser kit, but one that was highly capable at the new requirements.

BTW, exaggerating ISOs may make a point, but if there is anything that has distinguished modern sensor design is it increased abilities in lower light. However, I would agree that IF one doesn't need such performance, be it ISO or faster aperture lenses for less DOF, or dual card capture or whatever, then why pay for it? I feel that way about paying for video capture on cameras I only use for still capture.

Marc Williams
Fotografz, LLC
http://fotografz.smugmug.com

There are pros and cons with either choice. I work with both.

The viewing experience of a mirrorless camera is electronic. The camera can be set to show you a simulation of existing ambient light, or can be set to show exactly what you get (overexposure camera and lens settings = overexposed viewfinder image, same with underexposure, etc.). As the ambient light gets lower, the viewfinder exhibits the effects of "gain" and can cause distracting video smear when the camera is moved from subject to subject (which will eventually be overcome when the resolution and re-fresh speeds are improved).

One advantage/disadvantage of mirrorless is that when the camera is set to automatically replay the last shot, it also appears in the viewfinder. This can be good if you want to see your last shot immediately without taking your eye from the viewfinder, or good when shooting in very bright conditions that makes review on the LCD more difficult. It also can be terribly distracting if you are shooting multiple images in a row. To eliminate that potential distraction, you have to turn off the automatic review altogether, and press a button to access the review on the LCD and in the viewfinder.

Obviously, the mirrorless cameras are smaller because they do not require a mirror box. However, in the case of comparing apples-to-apples (such as full frame sensor cameras), comparable lenses are generally the same size because they all have to cover the FF sensor. So, if you like f/1.4 lenses, the weight/bulk saving may not be as great as one would expect. I personally found that some of the smaller mirrorless cameras become unbalanced with the larger lenses.

What is really nice about mirrorless is the ability to mount almost any brand lens on the camera via a wide array of adapters. A Nikon owner can buy a mirrorless Sony and mount many, if not all, of their existing lenses on it ... and retain AF, etc.

Despite the hype and internet chatter, what I have found is that after a good amount of use with Sony mirrorless cameras to shoot weddings and events in widely varying conditions, the midrange DSLRs (even from 5 or 6 years ago), are faster, more intuitive, and easier to operate under pressure ... and in no way is mirrorless in the same universe as the Pro DSLRS.

However, in most everyday situations the mirrorless cameras with the smaller, less fast aperture lenses are great all around tools ... easy to carry and fun to use.

My ideal mirrorless is the one I have ... a Sony A7R-II with a TechArt AF adapter that allows me to use my manual focus Leica M lenses with AF! If I were to get a DSLR, it would be the latest Canon or Nikon Pro model with an array of their best fast aperture lenses. My current ideal DSLR is a Leica S(006), (although I'm not happy with the AF motor issue with this system right now).

- Marc

Do I have a "style"? Yes, in the literal sense of the word, I do ... or at least try to.

"Style" as it relates to art, photography, or writing is defined as more about form, appearance, or character ... more having to do with the form of expression than the content of the thought(s) being expressed. So, one can imbue style to an image that has weak content, or have content that is unsupported, or is even subverted by, the style being used to express it. Style is a very important aspect of the visual arts because it is so personal and can even make a mundane subject take on new life.

For example, Impressionist painting could be defined as a style that moved from classical depiction of subjects to convey more of the emotional aspects of the subject that the artist personally felt about the content. Same content could be presented differently though the style used.

Therefore, it seems that a proclivity to photograph people, industrial, nature, etc. would not be a style ... it is how one depicts those subjects that would define style.

It is also quite possible for individuals to have more than one style if they have an interest in many different subjects. Or one could have one style to depict a range of subjects (people, landscapes, places, things) ... like the Impressionist and Post Impressionists tended to do. Cubism is interesting because it took basic subject matter and dissected it into time/space segments and showed it all on one flat surface. Nude Descending Stairs by Duchamp shows how depiction of a mundane everyday subject can take on new energy and meaning.

I didn't invent the photographic style I gravitate to ... but I try to personalize it to my journey and environment. "Decisive Moment" photography interests me most because it was the type or style of photography that spoke to me even before I took up photography. In fact, it is why I took up photography.

Of the moment images have unfailingly intrigued me through nearly 5 decades of camera work. For me it is intertwined with the mechanics of photography ... because the explicit objective is to snatch a tiny individual sliver of time measured in fractions of a second and freeze that one moment forever. No other visual art does that. It is unique to still photography.

As the French photographer Robert Doisneau said in his book "Three seconds of Eternity", the sum total of all his curated work amounted to less than three seconds of time ... 1/500th here 1/250 there, etc.

I do make photos in other styles depending on what and why ... but it is the Decisive Moment that holds the most interest for me, and has been part of my photographic journey for my whole adult life.

- Marc