Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

You have the only correct answer, Goofy! Why am I not surprised?

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

Obviously, the best choice would be to buy, borrow, or rent what you had lost, stolen, or destroyed, because you will be using the same pro equipment you had before and were familiar with. However, to anyone on this post who suggested that, you are CHEATING, and I am telling my Mommy. The point of this post is twofold. With the demise of local full service camera stores, this might not be feasible, especially at the last minute in a small town. One might have to settle for borrowing cameras from family/friends to going to the local Walmart/Target where one would be lucky to find even a Nikon D7100 on the shelves. The other point I am bringing up is the very nature of wedding photography. Unlike sports, fashion, or wildlife photography, the subjects in wedding shoots are their clients, as well as prospective clients, and as such, the photographer has to look professional. Part of that is to have equipment that looks the part. In the bright light of a sunny outdoor wedding, one might not notice the entry DSLR, but in an indoor or evening ceremony, that REBEL label would stand out like a sore thumb. If I had just paid $4000.00 to have my wedding photographed, I would be a little sore to see it done with a $400.00 camera, possbily the same one I bought for my honeymoon or one of my guests brought along.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Different answers from pros who have actually shot weddings vs amateurs. Luckily, I have a rental place here in town.

Not to say there aren't any good amateurs here.
I've been absolutely blown away by the work I've seen from some of them.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I missed this one.
Great advice!


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I would pick what I thought I could do the best job with. In over 40 years of doing weddings at least half the time one or more of the guests have had a newer or better camera than I have. All of today's DSLR are good enough. - Dave

David Dennis Loc: West Palm Beach, Florida

I think most people who are not fully involved with photography find pretty much any DSLR impressive, even the cheap ones.

I know that people were always impressed by my relatively inexpensive D300. When I moved to the D4 (more than triple the price), nobody noticed much change. Of course the massive 24-70 f/2.8 lens probably didn't hurt.

I certainly would not want to shoot a wedding with a compact or mirrorless camera, even a Sony RX1 :).

D

ioptfm Loc: Isle of Palms, SC

Even though many are offering substitute scenarios and getting different equipment, I thought the question was what if these were your only choices. If that is the case then I would suggest the photographer is going to make the difference vs which camera choice as all of those should be fairly equal in quality

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

I shot my bosses wedding with an Minolta SRT 102. 28mm and 135 lens and Minolta flash. 1974. Worked out well only because I had enough notice to plan, study and talk to every wedding shooter I could find. The Chapel was well lit, and it was summer, the weather was gorgeous.
We had a B&W photo craft shop on post so I was able to develop and print myself. Boss and new wife were happy with the results.

If you are prepared and work with in the limits of your gear you will produce high quality images

Tina

I agree with GoofyNewfie, I would strongly consider renting the same camera I had. You have one opportunity to shot this wedding for the couple and your repetition as a photographer rides on it. Besides, if you have to ask which camera to choose you're better off sticking with the brand and model that you are most familiar with.

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

B%H will delivery overnight. Go for the good stuff.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

If you have to ask, you shouldn't be shooting the wedding at all!!

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Buying is a great option, as bobmcculloch stated earlier.

usteel Loc: South West PA

When I shot weddings back in the days of film and little brat ring bearers who would do their best to ruin shots with stuff like peanut butter on their noses that you didn't notice, I would be in a panic in the scenario posed here. BUT, give me a decent lens with a dedicated flash on any DSLR, Nikon, Canon or Sony that shoots RAW and a couple of hours of post production and all is good. I believe the reason uncle Harry isn't doing the wedding photos with his Canon T3i is because he takes snapshots on auto setting, not wedding photographs well posed and properly lit. SO, in a pinch, an accomplished amateur and certainly a pro should be able to do the job properly with a decent lens attached to any of the current crop of $400-$600 consumer level DSLRs.

GrahamS Loc: Hertfordshire, U.K

I would hire a replacement from a rental company. If the rental company burned down, I would borrow whatever was closest to the brand that I normally use. A professional camera may make things easier and take more punishment, but I would still deliver the the best that I could out of any "consumer" camera.

breck Loc: Derbyshire UK

rent or replace, a wedding is no time to be trying out unfamiliar equipment

Xantoz Loc: Delaware

Bob I have to agree with you. Is the only option

Game over!