>Hi Bob, it seems that you might be able to provide me some assistance. I
>would like to start wedding photography and have has some disappointing
>situations when it comes to finding the right medium format camera vs.
>expense. I don't want to go buy Hassleblads and then decide 3 years later
>this isn't my "cup-o'-tea". I have researched this and now know I do not
>want 6x6 format and that 6x7 is more ideal. However, I would need a monopod
>at the least to carry a RB67 Pro on the job. I like this camera because of
>the leaf shutter lenses, interchangeable backs, and film negative size. The
>weight is a major drawback. I have decided to delay this purchase and see if
>my 35mm system would be suitable instead. I have two Minolta 9000s w/motor
>drives, 24, 50, and 100mm lenses and am looking to buy a control grip and a
>80-200 f2.8 to replace my 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 zoom. Is the extra speed REALLY
>necessary or should I purchase a 200mm f2.8 instead? When on the job doing
>weddings, when do you find the need to use your 80-200mm?
>RGBROWN@aol.com

I much prefer 35mm for weddings, since mobility is important. I also try for
available light (which most people don't - weird!), which makes the 35mm
more desireable. Adding a 6x7 (or 6x4.5) for groups and portraits MAY make
sense (I just drop film speed with 35 instead), but adds considerably to the load to carry and keep track of. The 80-200mm f2.8 has been essential for me
for the from-the-balcony ceremony photos (and for some outdoor weddings).
A fast 35mm is my most used lens, followed by the 20mm, and then 85/80-200mm.
(One could probably get away with two bodies with identical flashes, a fast
35mm and a fast 85mm - but I would miss the 80-200mm and 20/16mmm for some
weddings. Occasionally I use little but the excellent Tamron 28-135mm SP
for outdoor weddings.) If I were going to 120 film, I would consider lighter
equipment, like the Mamiya 7 or a couple of Fuji fixed-lens cameras.
David Ruether