Does anyone here use a Nikon D40 for professional use?

[Lorielle99]

man when i come on this site it makes me feel all crappy about my nikon d40 oh well we still love eachother

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I kinda disagree with that. If I slap that same lens on a D40 and and then use the same lens on a D300 (for example), the pictures are going to be night and day different. There is a ton of processing that is done in camera that we often take for granted. The sensor quality is also a huge factor.

I was thinking about that as I was looking at 2 vastly different quality pictures on flickr's D200/D300 forum of the same subject, same lens, same settings in both cameras. The only difference were the cameras... D200 vs D300. My first thought was... wow.

A D40, IMHO, is not going to give you professional level resuts (then again, its not designed or meant to). It will give you acceptable results, but if you compare side by side, with an eye towards professional level quality differences, they will be painfully obvious.

Please illustrate. It makes no sense how sensor resolution would put an effect on the physics of how light is projected. the bokeh and DOF are going to be exactly the same on either body.

 

[dpolston]

man when i come on this site it makes me feel all crappy about my nikon d40 oh well we still love eachother

I don't think it matters. In the right hands, a disposable 35mm plastic camera can shoot masterpieces. Keep shooting that D40 until it blows up in your hands!

 

[Trish1977]

If the D1x is too big and heavy for you I think you might be getting into the wrong business. While photography is not the most physical if jobs pro glass and bodies are heavy and you just can't get around it. A tripod might help you get around this but you will be alot less mobile methink you need to start lifting some weights or something. And as far as the D40 goes it may seem economical now to buy a D40 but how soon do you think you are going to grow out of it if you really get into shooting portraits professionally and then you are into buying a third body and now it is not so economical.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't trying to be a complete jerk with this post. I'm not going to let the weight of a camera keep me from going into the business, give me a break. :er:

 

[jols]

When someone comes to your door for a portrait session, i do not believe anybody will ask what your camera is.

All they will be interested in is yout portfolio.

So set yourself some targets o getting say 25 or 50 phortraits in your portfolio.

Rope in friends and family to help.
Then you will be on your way.

Some of the photos displayed on this forum and others are taken with VERY EXPENSIVE cameras and the photos are not that good.

Learn your stlye first then maybe go up a degree in camera gear.

 

[dipstick]

When someone comes to your door for a portrait session, i do not believe anybody will ask what your camera is.

All they will be interested in is yout portfolio.

So set yourself some targets o getting say 25 or 50 phortraits in your portfolio.

Rope in friends and family to help.
Then you will be on your way.

Some of the photos displayed on this forum and others are taken with VERY EXPENSIVE cameras and the photos are not that good.

Learn your stlye first then maybe go up a degree in camera gear.

Exactly! The only people that are gonna judge you by your equipment is other photographers who build their confidence through buying equipment, and not through their work.

I have actually taken my wifes digital rebel out on a few jobs when I wanted to keep a low profile and not draw too much attention or intimidate my subjects. No client ever called me back and said "we cant use this cause its taken with a consumer camera".

What you gain in a professional camera is build quality, speed and flexibility, and not so much image quality, as the image sensors in consumer cameras are very good. A D300 will of course beat a D40, being that there are two generations between them. But I am not convinced that the victory would be so clear if you compared raw files from a D200 and a D40x with the same lens.

Its better to get a D40 now and use it some much that you eventually beat it up, instead of getting a D300 and then find out that photography was not your thing after all.

Good luck!

 

[Garbz]

No, im going to have to call you on that one. The D1x I believe is a dx cropped sensor. However the new D3 is the first Nikon DSLR fullframe sensor camera.

I'll counter call you on that one. The Nikon DCS-100 made in 1989 was the first Nikon DSLR with a full frame sensor

 

[Mike_E]

I know a Wedding Tog that uses one.

He uses it along with the 18-200 VR to do engagement shoots outdoors. Gets really nice stuff out of it.

 

[JerryPH]

Please illustrate. It makes no sense how sensor resolution would put an effect on the physics of how light is projected. the bokeh and DOF are going to be exactly the same on either body.

Bokeh and DOF are indeed going to be exactly the same, but why are pictures coming out so much different (ie: massively better) with exactly the same settings on a D200 and D300? The differences between a D40 and a D1x would also have to be very different.

I sincerely wish I could do the test, but I don't own either a D40 or a D1x, but if there were no differences in pics between different bodies with the same lens, why are there 5000, 10,000 and 15,000 dollar cameras, since a $480 camera would give me identical results? The answer is... becuase though a lens is a major contributor to the quality of a picture (I am not disagreeing with you there), but its not the only factor to consider. In camera processing and sensor quality also add more than their fair share to the end results.

As far as Ken Rockwell is concerned, anything he says I take with a massive grain of salt. Though his pics are nice, he is out of his gourd if he thinks that a $480 camera can compete with a D1X and give superior results. He is already known for not being the sharpest tool in the shed on the net in terms of many of his opinons.

 

[Trish1977]

I'm glad this question has resulted in some great discussion. After talking with my husband last night and looking at more photos on Flickr I was convinced even more that I should get the D40 AND the things needed to get the D1X going. One more (very important) reason is that my husband said last night that he is also interested in learning to use an SLR and using one. I am very selfish when it comes to photography and I just know myself. If we were out somewhere and I was using my D1X and he asked to "see it for a second" and then held on to it for longer than I could stand and I miss shots that I would have wanted to get I would have a temper tantrem inside like a little child. While this might allow me to grow and mature as a person... no thanks! Haha. I have experienced this already with my Canon S3 IS and it sucked (because my husband doesn't have a camera). If we BOTH have an SLR to use things will be better. One toy for 2 kids=no good. Every camera I have had I have either saved for myself or gotten as a birthday or Christmas gift because I wanted it more than anything else. So, I sometimes feel like saying, if you want to take photos so bad than let's get you a camera. Sorry, but I guess I'm VERY selfish in this area. I'm pretty selfLESS in other areas though.

And the Flickr thing - I have used the camera finder on there before for several types of cameras and did it again last night for the D40, D1X, and the D200. Honestly, I think if I took the best photos in all categories for these cameras, mixed them up, and showed them to someone who wasn't a photographer they would not be able to tell me 100% which ones where from the cheapest camera and which were from the most expensive. Actually, I can't even tell. It comes down to composition for me and I'm sure post production has a lot to do with it. That's why I know I also need to learn Photoshop.

So, this is were I stand now - I will get the D40 and the battery and charger for the D1X and then hopefully within a month get a good flash I/we can use for both and a Nikon 70-300mm VR lens.

 

[Trish1977]

Oh yeah, and in the meantime I will save up for a D300 and if I decide I want to do photoagraphy as a business I will purchase it when I have enough, and if not my husband and I will use the money to go on vacation and take some great photos with our D40, D1X and Canon S3IS while there.

 

[dipstick]

Bokeh and DOF are indeed going to be exactly the same, but why are pictures coming out so much different (ie: massively better) with exactly the same settings on a D200 and D300? The differences between a D40 and a D1x would also have to be very different.

I sincerely wish I could do the test, but I don't own either a D40 or a D1x, but if there were no differences in pics between different bodies with the same lens, why are there 5000, 10,000 and 15,000 dollar cameras, since a $480 camera would give me identical results? The answer is... becuase though a lens is a major contributor to the quality of a picture (I am not disagreeing with you there), but its not the only factor to consider. In camera processing and sensor quality also add more than their fair share to the end results.

As far as Ken Rockwell is concerned, anything he says I take with a massive grain of salt. Though his pics are nice, he is out of his gourd if he thinks that a $480 camera can compete with a D1X and give superior results. He is already known for not being the sharpest tool in the shed on the net in terms of many of his opinons.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LooH

This guy did the test for you.

But even though differences in sensors exists, there is no doubt that any of todays dslrs are capable of creating professional results. The D300 is outperforms the D200 on higher ISO, and the sensor is an upgraded one, so of course it will perform better than the D200.

The price difference between a consumer and a pro camera does not reflect the difference in sensor quality, as the quality is very similar. The difference is in build quality, speed, durability and other functions on the body that is not related to sensor quality.

The d40x has no problem keeping up with a d200 in image quality if shoot raw with both cameras.

So why dont professionals all shot with consumer cameras? Well, like I mentioned earlier, I actually did a few times when I wanted to keep a low profile, but the reason why Im not using a D40 is that it is too small, to slow, it does not have seperate dials for shutter and aperture, it has no AF motor and the build quality is to poor for heavy everyday use.

All these things will help you getting your shots and make your day easier, but with everything else being equal, the difference in image quality between a d40x and d200 would not be very different.

 

[Trish1977]

Or I might go ahead and do this if I get a Christmas bonus this week: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/532255-REG/Nikon__D40_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

My fingers are crossed!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I sincerely wish I could do the test, but I don't own either a D40 or a D1x, but if there were no differences in pics between different bodies with the same lens, why are there 5000, 10,000 and 15,000 dollar cameras, since a $480 camera would give me identical results? The answer is... becuase though a lens is a major contributor to the quality of a picture (I am not disagreeing with you there), but its not the only factor to consider. In camera processing and sensor quality also add more than their fair share to the end results.

$5000 cameras are $5000 because of speed, durability, functionality, and sensor resolution. None of which affect composition.

If you shoot RAW, the only real difference between images is noise, you do the processing yourself.

We're not talking about jpegs, because anybody that wants to take advantage of their camera doesn't shoot jpeg. And all that in camera processing you're talking about is on jpegs.

The camera body has no effect on the physics of light going through the lens. A photograph using any lens on a D40 will look exactly the same on any other Nikon DX body. If you shoot a car using a D2x, and a D40, both with the same lens, both RAW, both at their base ISO, same shutter speed and aperture, and both using the same post-processing, on print, you will not see a difference unless it's 20x30 and looked at from 2 inches away.

 

[Stranger]

Ok, i didnt read everyones post so this may have been mentioned but know that the d40 can not command a flash off camera, which may be important for portrait shots.