Pro with D40

[Village Idiot]

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.

So if you're hired to shoot an indoor even with bad lighting and you have a Rebel XT, you're not going to be at a disadvantage and you're going to be able to get as good of shots as some one with a 5D and a 580EX?

 

[NateWagner]

So if you're hired to shoot an indoor even with bad lighting and you have a Rebel XT, you're not going to be at a disadvantage and you're going to be able to get as good of shots as some one with a 5D and a 580EX?

+1

 

[J Hobson]

If you are shooting under contract ( wedding, etc.) and you market yourself as a "Professional", you should be using "Professional" equipment.
If not and something goes wrong, it may be viewed as negligence in a court of law, or at least misrepresentation.

That said, if you are not under contract, and you can provide professional results, who cares what you use. As long as you get the required results.

 

[Village Idiot]

If you are shooting under contract ( wedding, etc.) and you market yourself as a "Professional", you should be using "Professional" equipment.
If not and something goes wrong, it may be viewed as negligence in a court of law, or at least misrepresentation.

That said, if you are not under contract, and you can provide professional results, who cares what you use. As long as you get the required results.

But with companies like Canon, their professional line is considered the 1D. If you're shooting weddings with a 40D, it's a completely acceptable camera but it's not marketed as a professional 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.

So if you're hired to shoot an indoor even with bad lighting and you have a Rebel XT, you're not going to be at a disadvantage and you're going to be able to get as good of shots as some one with a 5D and a 580EX?

Yes, because I have equipment that I would loan to the photographer that I hired. It is hard to find someone with the eye.

 

[NateWagner]

Yes, because I have equipment that I would loan to the photographer that I hired. It is hard to find someone with the eye.

Wow, is that a cop-out or what. VI was saying that if you're using an XT you'll be at a disadvantage in getting shots that higher level equipment is built to let you get.

And of course lending the equipment has some problems, because if this poor soul has no idea how to use the nicer equipment he will quite possibly have no idea how to make what his "eye" sees turn into reality.

 

[CSR Studio]

Yes, because I have equipment that I would loan to the photographer that I hired. It is hard to find someone with the eye.

Wow, is that a cop-out or what. VI was saying that if you're using an XT you'll be at a disadvantage in getting shots that higher level equipment is built to let you get.

And of course lending the equipment has some problems, because if this poor soul has no idea how to use the nicer equipment he will quite possibly have no idea how to make what his "eye" sees turn into reality.

A cop out? Are you kidding? Have you hired a photographer to work for you? You had rather have someone with equipment but no eye than someone with the eye and no equipment? That is just stupid. I would rather teach someone how to use equipment than how to have the eye.

 

[JamesMason]

I would hire a pro with a sausage and a hockey stick if their portfolio was good enough

 

[Village Idiot]

Yes, because I have equipment that I would loan to the photographer that I hired. It is hard to find someone with the eye.

Wow, is that a cop-out or what. VI was saying that if you're using an XT you'll be at a disadvantage in getting shots that higher level equipment is built to let you get.

And of course lending the equipment has some problems, because if this poor soul has no idea how to use the nicer equipment he will quite possibly have no idea how to make what his "eye" sees turn into reality.

A cop out? Are you kidding? Have you hired a photographer to work for you? You had rather have someone with equipment but no eye than someone with the eye and no equipment? That is just stupid. I would rather teach someone how to use equipment than how to have the eye.

Let's just say that I wouldn't hire a landscaper if I had to provide the mower, rakes, hoes, wheel barrow, and shovels.

Oh, and I wouldn't hire some one to do a job that I could do better where I would have to teach them, unless it was specifically for a company where I was looking for an apprentice, and that's completely different situation than hiring a photographer to shoot your parent's 50th wedding anniversary.

 

[SpeedTrap]

There is no real end to this augment.
Are there people out there calling themselves pros and only shoot with one D40 body, sure there are!

I like to think of it as a self correcting situation, these same people usually do not charge enough to cover the costs of shooting, they typically do not charge enough for prints or just give away CD’s and are usually out of business in less than 2 years.

I have seen it happen over and over again.

I like to think that those of us who train and invest in our skills and equipment have a distinct advantage over the D40 pros and really do not compete for the same clientele.

I am sure they would like to have our clientele, and on occasion will convince one of them to try them out, but they always come back in the end.

You may want to think you can compete with a D40 and an SB600 flash, but when it comes right down to it, you need the right equipment for any situation or sooner or later it will bite you.

 

[Christie Photo]

What is a D40?

-Pete

 

[NateWagner]

A cop out? Are you kidding? Have you hired a photographer to work for you? You had rather have someone with equipment but no eye than someone with the eye and no equipment? That is just stupid. I would rather teach someone how to use equipment than how to have the eye.

I would rather have a hired photographer with an eye and his own quality equipment, than a photographer with an eye and just a d40 or Rebel XT particularly in a situation that had challenging lighting levels.

the cop out was introducing that you would lend the photographer with the poor level equipment better equipment, thus he is no longer using the poor equipment and thus you are admitting that quality equipment is required in certain situations...

put this way
bad photographer, limited equipment = 0
bad photographer, good equipment = 1
good photographer, limited equipment = 2
good photographer, good equipment = 3

3>2>1>0

 

[Christie Photo]

I would hire a pro with a sausage and a hockey stick if their portfolio was good enough

This sounds right to me.

The VAST majority of my customers wouldn't know one camera from another.

Hell, I seldom know one camera from another. They're TOOLS. That's all. Just tools.

I suspect I could work with one.

-Pete

 

[NateWagner]

sure they are just tools, but if I'm carving a turkey or a ham, I would rather have a sharp knife than a dull knife.

If I'm tasked with cutting a tree I would rather have a chain saw than a steak knife.

Yes they are just tools, but the quality of the tools, and how well they fit with the given need is important.

 

[PhotoXopher]

People have shot weddings with much worse. Just because there are better models out now doesn't make it invalid to think one could be successful with something less.

One day, not many years from now - are there going to be people posting something like:

"Would you hire someone who called himself a pro who had nothing but a D700 for a camera?"

Before anyone jumps on me, I do realize the D40 was never the D700 of its time - however its image quality does rival and in some cases exceed that of 'pro' cameras that precede it.