Photography - Wedding photography

On Jul 11, 7:59 pm, Caesar wrote:
In article ,
says...

"Caesar" wrote in message
etworks.com...
Hi,

I shot film (35mm) for many years, had my own dark room and stopped 10
years ago. Now I want to jump back shooting weddings. Since my
photographer is leaving us and the area, I better do it now myself since
I have to attend to the weddings anyway.

I still have a Canon 10D which I bought 5 years ago. This is not an
option and would be only a back-up.

I'm thinking of buying two new Canon EOS 3 film cameras. You might think
why go "backwards" and not digital.
Well I thought about it and I believe film is still the better option
(price, time consumption and quality).

I have 2 lenses (I have more but these are the two which I intend to
use)- the 24-70/2.8 L USM and the 70-200/2.8 L USM IS.
Would you recommend to get a fixed 85/1.2 L lens too?
Since it is hard to get the Fuji 100 films (only 200 are available here)
it might be too bright for this lens and the type of weddings I will
shoot with this lens (mostly beach and island weddings with bright sun
light and sand).
Would you recommend to get an EOS 3 and an EOS 1 or would the two EOS 3
be sufficient?
No sports photography here so I don't even want to bother with the PBE2
(minimizing weight since these lenses are already quite heavy).

Would this setup be ok or do you have any other suggestions?

Thank you for your input.

Cheers
Caesar

Just curious as to how film photography is more cost effective than
digital...

Our lab charges $0.70 per print (5x7) and this works out nearly the same
as the developing cost of a 36 film plus the cost of the film.

Cheers