Choosing film cameras, now there's a dilemma. There's so many fun ones from which to choose! But reliability is a concern when it comes to shooting a wedding, as well as flexibility (to some degree), and so here are some of my favourite options:

Rolleiflex

Aah the Rolleiflex, the most beautiful camera ever made. You can keep your Leicas - this is the camera that people love to have their photo taken by. Owning a Rolleiflex makes you a more likeable person.

For myself, I love the 3.5F, which itself has a few variants. The 2.8F is the most sought-after model but prices are extremely high for a gain of 2/3rds of a stop of light extra. The 3.5F is compact, wonderfully engineered, and produces sublime photos. I have both Planar and Xenotar variants, and though they do have somewhat different renderings they are both excellent. Many of my favourite photos have been taken on a Rolleiflex, and for good reason.

If you're on a budget, then the Tessar 3.5 models, the T, and the Rolleicords are all great options. For non-Rollei models, I can personally recommend the Minolta Autocord (get the focus hellicoid serviced) and the Ricoh Diacord, both of which have excellent and underrated lenses.

The square aspect ratio can be divisive but it's perfect for weddings - particularly small groups and candid shots. The waist-level finder makes for an interesting perspective too. Not the fastest cameras to load, but that's just an excuse to buy yourself a second one.

Mamiya 645 1000s

When it comes to medium format system cameras, my weapon of choice is the Mamiya 645 1000s. Some people will tell you that 645 isn't "medium format enough". They are wrong. They just need to buy the brighter lenses. And oh boy, what lenses they are on this system.

I love how approachable the Mamiya 645 system is - some of the lenses are downright cheap considering their quality. The 210mm f/4 (roughly 135mm full-frame equivalent) can be had for under £90, for example.

There are two 80mm "standard" lenses, an f/2.8 and an f/1.9. I own both and love both for different reasons; the f/2.8 is compact and has beautiful bokeh, the f/1.9 just blows the background away.

Why not go for a later model, like the 645 Pro? Honestly, it's just not as well-made. It's very plastic-feeling, and I've repaired a few backs that had developed cracks. It's a more flexible camera than the 1000s, but the 1000s is a tank. Not the quietest thing in the world (especially with a motor drive attached), but superb.

The 4:3 aspect ratio of 645 is very forgiving, and one of my personal favourites. More vertical height than the 3:2 of 35mm, and fits well on many modern devices like iPads.

Minolta SR-T 101/303

While I love medium format film, 35mm certainly has its place when things are moving quickly. I do not enjoy rapidly swapping out 120 roll film. And in those situations there are many, many options available. So why then would I choose a 1960s camera from Minolta? Two reasons: reliability, and lenses.

Many of the most popular 35mm cameras right now are not what I would call reliable, or easy to repair. There are a couple of exceptions that I would personally trust:

1. Leica. Solid, if fiddly to service, and great lens availability. But as someone who wears glasses, I've never found their viewfinders very usable, and the prices are prohibitively expensive.
2. Nikon. Excellent, reliable cameras, mostly. Models from the F3 onwards become more challenging to repair (the F3 circuit board is not my favourite thing in the world), but the lens selection is excellent and prices fairly reasonable. I'd probably go for an F or F2, for manual focus, or a late F3 if I'm feeling fancy and want a better viewfinder, and an F5 for autofocus.

But the Minolta MD system is interesting. I would skip anything past the SR-T if reliability is a concern - the X300/500/700 are prone to capacitor failures, as are numerous models before those. The SR-T is basic, but it is beautifully engineered. It has resilience built-in, by how half the camera is operated by flexible pulleys. The meter is simple but extremely accurate (I don't really get bad exposures on mine), and sips battery power. The viewfinder is easy to see through with glasses and it's so solid you can use it to bash in tent pegs.

You have a good, if not quite as wide, a selection of lenses as with Nikon's F mount - the MD mount covers from the 60s until the 80s, with some absolute gems hidden in there, very few of which are prohibitively expensive. Everyone owes it to themselves to pick up a ROKKOR-PG 50mm f/1.4 at some point.

There's not much by way of accessories, like motor drives, available, but this is a camera that will last. Or squeak - they are prone to that, if left unused and unserviced for a long time.

And finally; they're cheap. A good SR-T can be had for under £100, and I've had good ones as low as £20. Physical condition doesn't matter, sometimes the more beaten up, the better they run. Feature differences between the different models are very minor, mostly coming down to different focus screens and info in the viewfinder.

Honourable mentions

6:7 cameras are very in with the hip film crowd these days, notably the Pentax 6x7 and the Mamiya 7. I'd skip both of those, personally - the Pentax is far too heavy, and has a terrible viewfinder for glasses-wearers, and the Mamiya 7 far too expensive and also slightly fragile in design. Instead, I'd go for the Mamiya RB67. It's a big lump but somehow lighter than the Pentax, and the rotating back is magic for portrait shots when using the waist-level finder. No upside-down back-to-front composition here. I personally opt for the 645 most of the time, just as I prefer the lighter weight, but this is a good option.

Need something bigger? 6:9 is always fun if you want to watch your money evaporate as you click the shutter, and the Fujifilm GSW690 range of cameras are solid, basic things that can take a beating. I have a model III which I repaired myself, and it's a fun thing to have lying around. Great for group shots in particular with its massive resolution and 3:2 aspect ratio, but it's not something I tend to shoot non-stop. Its lens works out to a 28mm equivalent so it can be really fun in crowded groups.

Further reading

I'm now semi-regularly posting new content around wedding photography, and if you're looking to hire a wedding photographer then check out what I offer.