Possibly a dumb question, don't shoot me...

[elifant]

First and foremost, photography is my hobby, I earn my living in an unrelated field, and plan to do so for a while, and I am still very early on in the learning process....

So I bought a Nikon D5000 in March. After doing research on line, and messing around with several different cameras I believed that this would be the best bang for my buck, even though it was a camera no longer being maufactured (probably why I got a good price). And I am completely happy with my purchase for what I do. However I was talking to a friend who is a photographer (newly in business) and he told me that some cameras would not be good for use in a photography business because of some reasons that didn't make sense to me at the time (I don't know if he knows what he's talking about or just blowing smoke).

So, in short, my question is, if I get to the point where I am good enough to charge for my services, can I use the Nikon D5000, or am I looking at having to go up to a higher level camera in order to be able to sell my images?

 

[480sparky67 67]

The gear you use makes little difference in the success of a business venture. What is important is to find your target market and provide them with a product/service they need at a price they're willing to pay.

 

[elifant]

The gear you use makes little difference in the success of a business venture. What is important is to find your target market and provide them with a product/service they need at a price they're willing to pay.

I understand that, I actually own my own business now, just not photography related. My question was the technical aspect of, can my camera produce quality images for enlargements and resale or would I need to look into getting something else before I began to sell them. Specifically he told me

"The higher quality of camera isn't necessarily megapixels. It is the number of colors a camera can process. The high megapixels is good, and I am sure you can print what you shoot at larger than that. It is the fine quality of colors and detail that come through. The better camera body and the better lenses are the big difference."

and "Many cameras are excluded from being able to be used for production..."

When I asked him if that would apply to mine he said he didn't know, he didn't have a list of them. So I don't know if he was full of ****, or if I should start saving for a new camera, or if mine would do fine.

 

[tirediron]

I'm going to disagree with Sparky; at least to a point. The D5000 is a perfectly good body, BUT it is a very basic, entry-level consumer body. The problem(s) with using a body like this for full-time work: It's build quality isn't up to it. It has a plastic chassis, no weather-sealing and lacks the ability of higher quality units to withstand the inevitable bumps and bangs. It lacks many of the dedicated controls which allow a pro to make quick changes. It's image quality at higher ISOs will be lacking, and it has no internal focus motor, limiting the types of lenses which will auto-focus on it.

It will be perfectly adequate for the occasional senior shoot, family portrait, etc, but for any sort of regular use, it's not going to hold up.

 

[elifant]

I'm going to disagree with Sparky; at least to a point. The D5000 is a perfectly good body, BUT it is a very basic, entry-level consumer body. The problem(s) with using a body like this for full-time work: It's build quality isn't up to it. It has a plastic chassis, no weather-sealing and lacks the ability of higher quality units to withstand the inevitable bumps and bangs. It lacks many of the dedicated controls which allow a pro to make quick changes. It's image quality at higher ISOs will be lacking, and it has no internal focus motor, limiting the types of lenses which will auto-focus on it.

It will be perfectly adequate for the occasional senior shoot, family portrait, etc, but for any sort of regular use, it's not going to hold up.

Thanks for the response, I think that answers my question. I can use this as a starting place, and then if I ever do begin to make money I could then invest in a more solid camera. I don't want to shell tons of money if this is just going to continue being a hobby.

 

[tirediron]

My question was the technical aspect of, can my camera produce quality images for enlargements and resale or would I need to look into getting something else before I began to sell them.

This camera will produce perfectly good enlargements up to 11x14 under most conditions.

Specifically he told me: "The higher quality of camera isn't necessarily megapixels. It is the number of colors a camera can process. The high megapixels is good, and I am sure you can print what you shoot at larger than that. It is the fine quality of colors and detail that come through. The better camera body and the better lenses are the big difference."

His idea was right (more or less), but his explanation isn't quite technically correct. There are a number of factors which contribute to the final quality of the image. They include sensor and pixel size, number of pixels, and dynamic range among others. All cameras only see three colours though.

and "Many cameras are excluded from being able to be used for production..."

NO idea what this means, unless it was a way to try and up-sell you later...

 

[KmH]

"The higher quality of camera isn't necessarily megapixels. It is the number of colors a camera can process. The high megapixels is good, and I am sure you can print what you shoot at larger than that. It is the fine quality of colors and detail that come through. The better camera body and the better lenses are the big difference."

As mentioned digital cameras only see 3 colors; Red, Green, amd Blue - also known as RGB.

The RGB color model is an additive color model. If you add red and green, you get yellow. Add blue and red, you get magenta. Add green and blue, you get cyan.
Which is why most printers use the CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black) subtractive color model, but lets stick with digital cameras. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RGB_color_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK_color_model

The image sensor in a digital camera is actually an analog device, and the analog voltages the image sensor produces based on how much light hits each pixel gets conveted to a digital number.
The more digits that digital number has, the more distinct tones of color that can be represented, and a digital digit is called a bit.
If you look closely at the specifications for your D5000, you could note that it makes images that have a 12-bit long number:

File Format
Compressed 12-bit NEF (RAW)

12 digital bits - 111111111111 - can represent 4096 gradations of color tone in each of the three RGB color channels, and is known as the image bit-depth. Higher end Nikon cameras offer the choice of 12-bit or 14-bit NEF files. (14 bits can represent 16,384 gradations of color tone in each of the three RGB color channels)

A photo made at a 12-bit color depth, and a photo of the same exact scene made at a 14-bit color depth would not look any different on a computer display, or as a print, but the 14-bit depth image would have a little bit more editing headroom.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/bit-depth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth

Lens optical quality can have a positive impact on image quality, and the higher the quality the lens optics are, the more a lens costs.

The Nikon Trinity of pro zoom lenses is: ($6000 retail, new for the 3 lenses)
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

However, you can have very nearly the same optical quality by choosing different, much less expensive lenses.

So I don't know if he was full of ****,

No! He's not full, but he left out some details.

Image quality has always been more about the knowledge and skill the photographer has, than what gear the photographer is using. A knowledgeable, skilled photographer will be able to work within the limits of whatever gear used.

 

[elifant]

"The higher quality of camera isn't necessarily megapixels. It is the number of colors a camera can process. The high megapixels is good, and I am sure you can print what you shoot at larger than that. It is the fine quality of colors and detail that come through. The better camera body and the better lenses are the big difference."

As mentioned digital cameras only see 3 colors; Red, Green, amd Blue - also known as RGB.

The RGB color model is an additive color model. If you add red and green, you get yellow. Add blue and red, you get magenta. Add green and blue, you get cyan.
Which is why most printers use the CMYK (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black) subtractive color model, but lets stick with digital cameras. RGB color model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CMYK color model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The image sensor in a digital camera is actually an analog device, and the analog voltages the image sensor produces based on how much light hits each pixel gets conveted to a digital number.
The more digits that digital number has, the more distinct tones of color that can be represented, and a digital digit is called a bit.
If you look closely at the specifications for your D5000, you could note that it makes images that have a 12-bit long number:

File Format
Compressed 12-bit NEF (RAW)

12 digital bits - 111111111111 - can represent 4096 gradations of color tone in each of the three RGB color channels, and is known as the image bit-depth. Higher end Nikon cameras offer the choice of 12-bit or 14-bit NEF files. (14 bits can represent 16,384 gradations of color tone in each of the three RGB color channels)

A photo made at a 12-bit color depth, and a photo of the same exact scene made at a 14-bit color depth would not look any different on a computer display, or as a print, but the 14-bit depth image would have a little bit more editing headroom.

Bit Depth
Color depth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lens optical quality can have a positive impact on image quality, and the higher the quality the lens optics are, the more a lens costs.

The Nikon Trinity of pro zoom lenses is: ($6000 retail, new for the 3 lenses)
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

However, you can have very nearly the same optical quality by choosing different, much less expensive lenses.

So I don't know if he was full of ****,

No! He's not full, but he left out some details.

Image quality has always been more about the knowledge and skill the photographer has, than what gear the photographer is using. A knowledgeable, skilled photographer will be able to work within the limits of whatever gear used.

Thank you for filling in the gaps! Some of that looks Greek to me, but not all of it, which makes me think I am actually learning something with all these books and websites I've been reading. I kind of got that impression, that a good photographer can get a great shot out of almost any functioning camera, so it's more about know what you're doing than having the best of everything. Thanks so much for clearing this all up!

 

[HalftoneStudio]

I think everyone here is pointing you in the right direction on the tech side of things, however I'd like to add a bit.

The D5000 Is a perfectly capable camera for most applications. I don't believe you specified what type of photography you were wanting to produce and sell. With all the talk of megpaixels and bit depth and such that may be overkill for your specific type of photography. If you are only going to be producing images for the web/screen and not planning on making large prints as your bread & butter you'll be fine. I think you'd be hard pressed to see a significant image quality difference between your D5000 or say a D700 unless you go really large or pixel peep on screen. Even if you want to make the occasional large print, your D5000 is very capable especially when used with a program such as Perfect Resize.

The only exception one may argue is that if you have to meet your clients resolution requirements, say if you shoot for stock or magazine work (hence the cameras being excluded statement). In that case however, if you're getting the clients and work you can justify the cost of better gear. Just don't get fooled into the "camera x will make me a better photographer" mindset.

In my opinion hold off on upgrading your body until it is holding you back technically (not necessarily in image quality wise). For example if you NEED to shoot ultra-wide for landscapes or architecture go full frame, or you need snappier auto-focus for sports look at a D700 or D3. As far as durability goes, if you treat your gear well and know it's limits it will work just fine. You just can't treat it like you could a D3, but it dosn't make it less capable. Overall glass is way more important than what body you have, and in my opinion lighting and seeing light and composition is incredibly more important than any equipment you can have. An amazing image is just that, no matter what camera it's taken with.

When you reach a level that you're confidant and technical enough with your current body to truly appreciate what the next greatest new body will offer you, you'll know it, and you'll be inspired to use your new cameras abilities, not overwhelmed by the features and options. So if you're there, go for it. If you're not, refine your craft until it pushes the limits of your current gear and you'll know when you're ready.

 

[elifant]

I think everyone here is pointing you in the right direction on the tech side of things, however I'd like to add a bit.

The D5000 Is a perfectly capable camera for most applications. I don't believe you specified what type of photography you were wanting to produce and sell. With all the talk of megpaixels and bit depth and such that may be overkill for your specific type of photography. If you are only going to be producing images for the web/screen and not planning on making large prints as your bread & butter you'll be fine. I think you'd be hard pressed to see a significant image quality difference between your D5000 or say a D700 unless you go really large or pixel peep on screen. Even if you want to make the occasional large print, your D5000 is very capable especially when used with a program such as Perfect Resize.

The only exception one may argue is that if you have to meet your clients resolution requirements, say if you shoot for stock or magazine work (hence the cameras being excluded statement). In that case however, if you're getting the clients and work you can justify the cost of better gear. Just don't get fooled into the "camera x will make me a better photographer" mindset.

In my opinion hold off on upgrading your body until it is holding you back technically (not necessarily in image quality wise). For example if you NEED to shoot ultra-wide for landscapes or architecture go full frame, or you need snappier auto-focus for sports look at a D700 or D3. As far as durability goes, if you treat your gear well and know it's limits it will work just fine. You just can't treat it like you could a D3, but it dosn't make it less capable. Overall glass is way more important than what body you have, and in my opinion lighting and seeing light and composition is incredibly more important than any equipment you can have. An amazing image is just that, no matter what camera it's taken with.

When you reach a level that you're confidant and technical enough with your current body to truly appreciate what the next greatest new body will offer you, you'll know it, and you'll be inspired to use your new cameras abilities, not overwhelmed by the features and options. So if you're there, go for it. If you're not, refine your craft until it pushes the limits of your current gear and you'll know when you're ready.

Great response! Thanks for taking the time to write it. I am not looking to do anything overly complex such as shooting for magazines or stock. I enjoy natural light photography doing landscapes, and taking family photos. I'm hoping some day way in the future I could at least make enough taking photos to pay for my photography addiction

 

[jgooz]

ya what they said, but all that techy crap aside. get out there, take a few snaps and post a few for composition C&C. all that technical stuff is great but the eye is your strongest ally.

 

[levinest]

Regarding your camera, I think it's a good start. I started out with a D90 and just recently moved up to a D7000. They're all in the same "family" within Nikon's camera repertoire, and any would give you an excellent feature set to learn photography and grow your skills. As KMH said, a good photographer will make the most of the capabilities/limitations of their camera. KMH gave you a lot of very useful information, but it's also dependent on your knowing a lot more about the basics before some of it becomes useful. Regarding lenses on the D5000, as he mentioned your camera has no internal focus motor, meaning it depends on the lens having a motor to focus. If you look at Nikon's list of lenses Camera Lenses | All NIKKOR Lenses for Digital SLR Cameras| Nikon you will be unable to use any that is listed as AF with your camera, only AF-S. That doesn't necessarily limit you that much, in fact all of the ones most appropriate for your camera will be AF-S anyhow.

I'd highly recommend getting some books appropriate for your camera that will explain it in detail as well as give some examples about how to apply the camera to the kinds of pictures you want to take. David Busch makes a series of books, one for each Nikon camera as well as other models, that I found very helpful when learning about my D90 and now my D7000. Another book, Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson, which I'm reading now, gives a very good instructional and is applicable to any camera. I'm sure a ton of people here can recommend many more sources of knowledge and instruction than I ever could, but at least my list provides a start. Dive in with both feet, read everything you can, first about the basics about aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and the like, and most importantly about how to use your particular camera, then go for the deeper subjects about composition of your photos and the like. Take a class if you have the time. Depends of what method of learning works best for you - instructor-led, self-taught through reading, or a combination of the two. Use the photo forums such as this one for good advice as well.

Good luck!

 

[adversus]

A camera is a tool. While there's going to be differences between a $5 hammer and a $25 hammer, for 90% of the time they will be interchangeable.

That's a simplistic example, but there you go. Unless you need specific requirements (like high frames per second for action, weather sealing for shooting in the desert/rain/snow), a D5000 can take just as good pictures as a D300 in a lot of situations.

The whole "Is this camera good enough for commercial work" debate is sort of silly. For reference, http://fstoppers.com/iphone.