Pro with D40

[lids369]

not in a slow track, if the f1 car cannot get enough downforce, he cannot get his power down so he just spins out.

 

[DRoberts]

The OPs question was based entirely on one piece of equipment, with no details on anything else. Therefore each of us can, and will, read more into this than needed to answer the question. In short, regardless of what he is using the decision to hire him should be based on quality of work he does, not what he does it with.
All these other arguments is what has no relevance here.

 

[Mystwalker]

With most people, the DSLR is impressive enough. Unless they know something about photography, they probably will not realize the D40 is a "lower end DSLR".

My wedding, the photog had one of those "boxy cameras" where he looks down to focus - he hand cranked to film advance (I'm not sure about this) and I think the film roll was like 7-10 shots because he sure changed often - also, I think the film was squarish, not rolls. He still charged "an arm and a leg" though, but the shots came out wonderful.

For I know, he was using some home made contraption. BUT when we were "shopping around" all that mattered was his portfolio. Didn't even think to ask about his equipment.

To answer the OP - I do not see a reason "not to hire someone with a D40". It's the results that count. But someone slinging two 1Ds, one with white lens (70-200?) and another with probably a 24-70, plus some kind of battery pak - IMPRESSIVE!! Saw this at a friend's wedding

 

[usayit]

btw...

There are a lot of good paid photographers that are starting out a new business.... most of them are better than I AND cannot afford all high end equipment. Yet they do just fine.... Everyone has to start somewhere.

On the flip side...... I am fortunate enough to afford more than a car's value in camera equipment. I guarantee that I have more sitting at my disposal than 90% of the professional photographers in the market. Does that make me a better photographer more capable at portraits and weddings??? Nope.

...

With enough money and people, I'm sure they can make an F1 car perform on a slow track...

 

[usayit]

My wedding, the photog had one of those "boxy cameras" where he looks down to focus - he hand cranked to film advance (I'm not sure about this) and I think the film roll was like 7-10 shots because he sure changed often - also, I think the film was squarish, not rolls. He still charged "an arm and a leg" though, but the shots came out wonderful.

He was probably shooting a TLR Rollieflex.... arguably one of the best cameras for a wedding. (and still darn expensive... I'm hoping to purchase one for my collection).

To tell you the truth... If I were to get married again, I would LOVE for the photographer to do a few B&W shots on MF Rollieflex. There's a quality in the negatives that is not easily reproduced. (yes.. I'd pay that extra bit if it means owning the negatives)

 

[JerryPH]

Hassalbald has them also. as did a Kowa that I saw this Sunday past.

 

[benhasajeep]

Definately MF camera. Using 120 roll film. Of which I still have 3 (one is a brand new one sitting in a box for future use ) amazing what you can get deals on now a days. :mrgreen:

 

[PatrickHMS]

I don't really know where to "draw the line".

Photography is hopefully at least a hobby to most of us, if not even a love or a deep passion for many. Go out and shoot with whatever you have, and enjoy the heck out of what you see of God's AWESOME nature through your viewfinder.

BOTH Canon AND Nikon (and others) make exceptional quality cameras nowadays, in all levels, and in many price ranges. Some of them are affordable to many, others of them are affordable to almost nobody.

I am a Nikon guy since 1969, know little about Canon 35mm film, and even less about Canon 35mm DSLR's. My brother wouldn't have anything but a Canon, but I still speak to him.

lol

I do know that any current generation DSLR from either one of those Manufacturers will outperform almost anything made 5, 3, maybe even 2 years ago, and there are some wonderful cameras out there.

I see those who I believe to be "Pros" (from looking either at their postings, or their websites) using all kinds of Nikon bodies, from the lowly D40 to the D70/70S to the D60, D80, D200, D90 and D300.

Having both D40 and D200 (and free use of a D70S anytime I want to use it), to me, the D40 is a joy to just go out and shoot with (and I get some very very nice 8" X 10" 's from it), while I use the D200 for staged stuff, or requiring studio lighting, slower shutter speeds, etc.

After seeing (if not using) so many of them, for my money, a D90 is my next Nikon body, and if it isn't capable of producing professional quality work, then none of them are.

Happy picturetaking!

 

[Village Idiot]

For anyone whining about snobbery, go suck it.

Some one shooting a wedding with a 5D, 5DMKII, 1D MKII, 1Dn MKII, 1Ds MKII, 1D MKIII, 1Ds MKIII, D700, or D300 is going to have an inherent advantage over some one using an entry level DSLR provided both know the ins and outs of photography. I mean, being able to shoot keepers at 6400 ISO while something like a D40 could only dream of having 6400 ISO on the menu, let alone having it as anything besides a snow storm one reason. Sure, there's times when you won't have that much of an upper hand, but better cameras mean better IQ and in some situations, they allow you to get a shot you wouldn't with a lesser camera.

Is that saying people trying to run a business based off a D40 is a bad thing? No. It's just saying that yes, they'd be disadvantaged compared to some one with a better camera. But then again, try finding a pro with a 1Ds MKIII to shoot a wedding for $300.

 

[The Dane]

Good topic here. In my opinion all that really matters is that the photographer has a satisfactory Portfolio that justifies his/hers hiring fees, acts in a professional manner and of course has a backup body.

 

[CSR Studio]

It's not about equipment, it's about the photographers eye. If he can shoot great images and is professional looking and acting, I would hire him.

 

[Goontz]

How is it that noobs (not that I'm an old-timer around here by any means) always manage to find the oldest possible topic to revive? Truly baffling.

 

[UUilliam]

Well.. I suppose they are making use of the search function... but on the dumbest things...

 

[kundalini]

Well.. I suppose they are making use of the search function... but on the dumbest things...[/QUOTE]

Likely on what sparks their interest, rather than your interpretation of what's "hot". :geek:

 

[Village Idiot]

Well.. I suppose they are making use of the search function... but on the dumbest things...

You're dumb colonel sanders /water boy.