Pro with D40

kundalini · Nov 11, 2008

I don't think the powers-that-be at Nikon, Canon or any other manufacturer are idiots. They develop different levels of cameras, lenses and accessories for a reason. Certainly we can circumvent those reasons, but that does not diminish the facts.

Kegger · Nov 11, 2008

Hey Jerry, play nice, no need to bash the D300, lol. It may not be FX, but she's pretty damn good as a camera.

AduNeButt · Nov 11, 2008

If the photographer's abilities allow him to take professional looking photos with a D40, then there is no issue in my opinion. It really seems that simple to me. I'd take the quality of the pictures over the quality of the camera the photographer is using any day.

JerryPH · Nov 11, 2008

Kegger said:
Hey Jerry, play nice, no need to bash the D300, lol. It may not be FX, but she's pretty damn good as a camera.

Oh heck did you ever misunderstand me... lol I guess that I should not tell you then, that the noise on a D300 is slightly lower at ISO 1600 than a D3.

I meant zero disrespect against D300 owners and indeed meant to say that the D40s are going to have to go head to head against D300s and as a lower end camera that is very popular vs the D700/D3, it *still*gets it's butt kicked!

Now add the other performance enhancements that a well equipped professional will have with the D700/D3... how can anyone tell me that a D40 can match results?

Please, no insult intended anywhere.

Kegger · Nov 11, 2008

Oh believe me I know that little tid bit of info, one of the reasons I bought it instead of the D#.(I wish)

And of course it's gonna get its butt kicked, the thing is a toy, at least to me it is.

JerryPH · Nov 11, 2008

AduNeButt said:
If the photographer's abilities allow him to take professional looking photos with a D40, then there is no issue in my opinion. It really seems that simple to me. I'd take the quality of the pictures over the quality of the camera the photographer is using any day.

And you are selectively reading. Place equally talented photographers in the same room, give one a D40 with a kit lens, the other a D3 with pro level glass... who do you think will win the contract? At these quality level differences, I would even hazzard to say that a less talented photographer coul dhave the D3 and the more talented photographer would have to be DAMN good to come close, but still not match, the results of the D3... lol

AduNeButt · Nov 11, 2008

JerryPH said:
And you are selectively reading. Place equally talented photographers in the same room, give one a D40 with a kit lens, the other a D3 with pro level glass... who do you think will win the contract?

But it wasn't a question of comparing two cameras, it was a question of if a talented photographer can shoot with a D40 why not hire him?

Sure there are better cameras than the D40, but if the photographer chooses to use one for whatever reason, why not hire him? Are you saying you'd only hire a photographer with the best possible upgrades on every portion of his camera?

JerryPH · Nov 11, 2008

AduNeButt said:
But it wasn't a question of comparing two cameras, it was a question of if a talented photographer can shoot with a D40 why not hire him?

The answer was... because no matter how good he is, his lens cannot get the shot in a dark church. No matter how good the photographer is, he cannot erase the noise caused by his camera enough without destroying detail. No matter how good he is, he cannot stand at the back of a 300 foot church and get a clear shot of the first kiss. That no matter how good he is, F.5.6 at 2 seconds is not fast enough to prevent a picture from being tremendously blurred with even the slightest motion from the subject.

I could go on with at least a hundred more exact examples... but the point has been made. Even the best photographer in the world will not do anywhere near as well as a properly equipped professional will.

IMHO, a *major* part of being a professional... is knowing that its NOT good enough and having professional equipment that does things that the outdated $300 camera cannot. If it is not an issue, why not hand that D40 "professional" a $50 P&S camera, he can out perform any good pro with $10,000 equipment, is that the consensus? We all know that it is not.

benhasajeep · Nov 11, 2008

For me it really depends on what the situation is. If its something where the client only needs pictures to post on a web site. Who need's a 24 mp shot thats just going to get reduced way way down anyway? How about shooting a luncheon party for a corporate clients to put pics in a brochure. Again 8x10 or so in size if its a full page pic. The fact is alot of commercial work can easily be provided by a D40. But it does have its limitations. As someone mentioned above, low light situations. Output size of files for enlargements.

Part of being professional is knowing what equipment to use at the appropriate time! Part of being a pro is to know the limitations, and instead of pushing the limits and taking chances. You instead get new equipment, or something that I have done and thousands before me, and thats rent the appropriate equipment.

I also disagree with saying you have to have expensive pro equipment to charge appropirate prices. You can have expensive equipment and sell cheap shots. And cheap equipment and sell expensive shots. It's all dependent if that particular client is happy with the output! Everyone has to start with a budget. Everyone has to stick with a budget. The camera doesn't sell a thing! It's the final picture that sells! People at high end art stores don't ask what grade the canvas is. They don't ask what brand brushes were used. They don't ask if the stretcher boards are pine or some fancy hardwood. They buy the art based on how the actual art apeals to them and if they have an appreciation for the artist themselves. They don't adjust the price for the items used in making that art. So why should photography?

I travel a lot and get to see quite a few high end art stores all over the world. I have never ever seen equipment used on a place card by high priced photo art! Reason is, it doesn't matter to the buying public! The end result is the only qualifier!!! If its good work, it sells for a good price. If its bad work, then it doesn't sell.

Photographers are the only one's who care what equipment is used to make a print. The general public could care less! And their opinion wins as they are the ones paying the bills!

JerryPH · Nov 11, 2008

benhasajeep said:
Photographers are the only one's who care what equipment is used to make a print. The general public could care less! And their opinion wins as they are the ones paying the bills!

They really should care, because they are limited to the capabilities and capacities of their equipment. A different brush will not affect how the final painting looks, however a different camera DRASTICALLY changes how that picture comes out.

I must admit, comparing a painting to a digitally produced picture is a good argument, but only to a point. A $3 brush will get one painting done as well as a $30 brush... but that $3 brush is done after 1 painting. It is also not a limiting factor when it comes time to create. If you paint 50 paintings in your life, you can use one $30 brush or fifty $1 brushes.

But a more accurate way of thinking would be... can you as a painter sell enough 1 inch X 1 inch paintings at $500 each when your competitor is out there using 24 X 48 inch canvas and paints JUST as well as you do, and sells the painting at $750... who is going to sell more at the end of the day? Now we are closer to comparing apples to apples. How about if I take the oils and paints away and give that same artist $10 in wax crayons?

From my point of view, a professional should paint with oils... but there are a few out there that call themselves artists and are painting with crayons on canvas... lol

bhop · Nov 11, 2008

To expand on benhasajeep's point. It depends on the need IMO. Still subjects or studio work would probably be ok for a camera like the d40 to handle, but what if the photographer's shooting something that's constantly changing? Like sports for example? One minute you might be shooting a close up still subject, the next minute you might be panning on a fast moving subject in the distance. Being able to quickly flip a switch to change your focus or metering settings, instead of digging in button menus, can keep you from missing shots.

TamiyaGuy · Nov 11, 2008

DRoberts said:
Go buy a $10,000 set of golf clubs and I'll bet that Tiger Woods can still beat you with nothing but a $30 3 iron and a $20 putter.

Bingo! You have summed up exactly what I wanted to say in one and a bit lines. I just think that, so long as they can take good photos, I'd hire them any day. The only thing that will change depending on the camera would be the high-ISO grain and the resolution. And let's face it, how many wedding couples complain that the photo of them standing by the river/deck/whatever looks pixellated?

I say, so long as they have proof that they are a pro, gimme their contact details straight away

Parkerman · Nov 11, 2008

TamiyaGuy said:
Bingo! You have summed up exactly what I wanted to say in one and a bit lines. I just think that, so long as they can take good photos, I'd hire them any day. The only thing that will change depending on the camera would be the high-ISO grain and the resolution. And let's face it, how many wedding couples complain that the photo of them standing by the river/deck/whatever looks pixellated?

I say, so long as they have proof that they are a pro, gimme their contact details straight away

Hmm.. what you and the other guy say.. has no relevance here.

This guy is a "pro" photographer with a D40... If he takes good pictures with a D40.. He will only take better pictures with a D90 and above. For a wedding, having something that can handle a high iso is a must. And yes.. a couple would complain. The ones that wouldn't.. are the ones who didn't pay much for their photographer, who was also their cousin.

Think about this.. 2 friends are both getting married around the same time.

Friend A books a photographer who shoots with a D40, kit lens, 55-200mm, and the 50mm.

Friend B books a photographer who shoots with a D700, 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, and a 70-200mm 2.8.

Both pay around the same price for the photographer. They get their pictures back and of course they want to show them to each other. Once friend A notices the clarity and sharpness of Friends B's pictures.. she is no longer satisfied with her grainy pictures.

Since yall made a golf comparison. How about this.. since some others touched on cars earlier. Give the worlds most decorated formula 1 driver.. michael schumacher... a prius... and whoever came in dead last year in the F1 season a Ferrari F1 Car...

Schumacher would lose.

usayit · Nov 11, 2008

Parkerman said:
Since yall made a golf comparison. How about this.. since some others touched on cars earlier. Give the worlds most decorated formula 1 driver.. michael schumacher... a prius... and whoever came in dead last year in the F1 season a Ferrari F1 Car...

Not really a sound argument given that a Prius is not a sound race car and a D40 is a sound camera. You might as go further and put michael schumacher on a tricycle....

Think of it this way.... the different levels of equipment "enable" a great photographer but don't necessarily limit them.

I'm in the agreement that if the portfolio shows quality work, who cares how or what they used to accomplish the final result. I'm surprised RMThompson hasn't chimed in.... IIRC he finished a paid shoot with a P&S with very good results.