Just wondering how many Pro Photographers use a Nikon D40 as one of their cameras?

[NateWagner]

really, the only way I could see one using something on that level it would have to be as a backup camera or something like that. Sure a pro could use one of the intro level DSLR's, but I for one wouldn't want to use it for fear of it breaking or failing on me, in addition the lack of features would bother me.

Also to the earlier poster that mentioned a pro camera needing to be at least 12MP I disagree. I don't think the camera needs to have 12MP for a pro, I think the 40d by Canon at only 10MP works just fine.

 

[Humboldt]

Think this could be worth reading.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

I think the issue of making "professional" photos has very little to do with the equippment used. "Proffesionals" are producing "fine art" with Holgas.

I also think the value of 10 or 12 million pixels instead of 6 millons are just a marketing myth.

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Of course, professional don´t use Nikon D40:s - normally, but this is for other reasons than the quality of the pictures the D40 is capable of.

 

[roadkill]

I also think the value of 10 or 12 million pixels instead of 6 millons are just a marketing myth.

There are those who still believe the earth is flat too...

 

[SpeedTrap]

I know people like to say it is the photographer, not the gear and that is partly true.

But………

When I am on a shoot I would never consider using a D40, it is just too slow. There is only one command dial and when you shoot in full manual it is simply not fast enough.
I need to be able to make adjustment on the fly and while I am looking through the viewfinder (Which is much smaller on a D40).

I need to be able to change settings without digging into menus; I need to be able to enact custom commands on the fly. The D40 just does not support the features that are required for a demanding workload.

As well the construction of the higher line cameras can just take more abuse. You need to remember, the camera is a tool and you need to invest in the right tools that will stand up to the abuse they will get.

As well the mega pixel thing is not the end all when choosing a camera, but why choose a camera for pro work that is already several years old.

 

[dEARlEADER]

I know people like to say it is the photographer, not the gear and that is partly true.

But………

When I am on a shoot I would never consider using a D40, it is just too slow. There is only one command dial and when you shoot in full manual it is simply not fast enough.
I need to be able to make adjustment on the fly and while I am looking through the viewfinder (Which is much smaller on a D40).

I need to be able to change settings without digging into menus; I need to be able to enact custom commands on the fly. The D40 just does not support the features that are required for a demanding workload.

As well the construction of the higher line cameras can just take more abuse. You need to remember, the camera is a tool and you need to invest in the right tools that will stand up to the abuse they will get.

As well the mega pixel thing is not the end all when choosing a camera, but why choose a camera for pro work that is already several years old.

not to mention higher frame rates for action/sports photographer, higher iso latitude for lowlight/wedding shooters, higher bit rates for post processing, better resolution for cropping, better lens compatibility, longer shutter rating, weather sealing, tougher construction for reliability.


this argument is really just silly....

 

[Humboldt]

There are those who still believe the earth is flat too...

Well...I was actually referring to an article about a "test". I was not first and foremost believing anything.
And yes, some people believe the earth is flat....read this...

http://www.quazen.com/Shopping/Consumer-Electronics/Too-Many-Pixels-for-a-Good-Image.326677

http://www.quazen.com/Arts/Photography/How-Many-Megapixels-Do-I-Need-for-my-Prints.329299/2

I think some of you people miss the point - I still think it is possible to produce "pro quality" pictures with a D40, but I also know it´s not the normal choice for a "pro".

(Being a pro by the way can be a lot of different things, with very different equipment needs. When for example shooting for a daily newspaper, considering the size and quality of the prints, any digital DLSR would be good enough what picture quality matters.)

Of course a D300 or D3 or D700 can do things a D40 can´t do, but the question was if a D40 could be used by a pro (or a D60 for that matter). As I said, if you speak to pros you will find they usually use some of the moore advanced/expensive/capable cameras - but there are situations where a D40 could be a better choice.

Se for example the following under [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Going Light—Travel Kits[/FONT]

http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm

A D40 is 470 gram or something, a D300 is 825 gram, and that can in some situations make a BIG difference.