Pro with D40

[fiveoboy01]

Tharsmen actually had me going there... for a moment:lmao:

 

[fiveoboy01]

Damnit, change your name back to what it was!!

 

[djacobox372]

Hmmm... I would question any pro that would choose to use small format film/digital for anything other then snap/action shots. Any seasoned pro should wield some medium format gear.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Hmmm... I would question any pro that would choose to use small format film/digital for anything other then snap/action shots. Any seasoned pro should wield some medium format gear.

:lmao:

This thread gets even better!

 

[Hobbes]

@ intempus

Nice comparison
LMFAO!!!

Hmmm... I would question any pro that would choose to use small format film/digital for anything other then snap/action shots. Any seasoned pro should wield some medium format gear.

:lmao:

This thread gets even better!

yeah probably the funniest thread in this whole forum

 

[roadkill]

I like eggs.

 

[Hobbes]

forgot to mention that it's kinda like an pest controller/exterminator equipped with a swatter sure he would get the job done, more or less, but no one would hire him or take him seriously

 

[CSR Studio]

If you disagree, that's fine - feel free to hire photographers based on what gear they have instead of their demonstrated ability with that gear. Feel free to dismiss them from a dinner party shoot because they don't have the gear to get a Sports Illustrated cover shot. Feel free to base you decisions in that regard on whatever criteria works best for you. I promise, I won't interfere at all.

Only if you choose to read it that way, out of context from the rest of the discussion, which you clearly insist upon. Feel free, but I've no interest in chasing this monkey around the tree any longer.

The gear doesn't matter if the photographer has demonstrated that he can use it AND satisfy the client's expectations. That was clearly the context of the phrase, as has been explained to you already. Clearly you don't accept the explanation given, preferring some other answer. Sorry 'bout your luck with that, but it is what it is.


The gear doesn't matter if the photographer has demonstrated that he can use it AND satisfy the client's expectations. That was clearly the context of the phrase, as has been explained to you already. Clearly you don't accept the explanation given, preferring some other answer. Sorry 'bout your luck with that, but it is what it is.

And the portfolio shows if THAT gear in THAT photographer's hands can meet the client's expectations or not, which is why we focused on the portfolio over the gear as the thing that should be the determining factor. Put THAT gear in Joe McNally's hands, along with a light or two and some simple modifiers and tell me he won't get the job done.

This entire discussion is getting childish. Buckster has summed it up with the above comments. The photographer matters, not the gear. You can dislike it or not. At this point I really don't care. Name calling is very unattractive, and shows me there is more to this discussion than would you hire a pro with a D40. That is all I have to say on the subject.

Thank you once again Buckster!

 

[RacePhoto]

@ intempus

Nice comparison
LMFAO!!!

Hmmm... I would question any pro that would choose to use small format film/digital for anything other then snap/action shots. Any seasoned pro should wield some medium format gear.

:lmao:

This thread gets even better!

yeah probably the funniest thread in this whole forum

Wow, best troll question I've seen in at least a year. People won't bite on Canon/Nikon, or Mac vs PC, someone came up with the camera snob approach to a subjective generalization and hit a home run.

Yes, the converse would be, does someone hire a photographer just because he/she has expensive pro equipment or because of the results.

I've seen weddings shot with a 2 1/4 where the photographer didn't know how to use the equipment, couldn't get a clean shot focused or lighted right, and produced shots that didn't equal guest snapshots.

But he did have Pro equipment.

Short answer? The photographer takes the photos, not the camera. Sure you can't make chocolate cake with mud, but a 40D is a high quality camera that can take wonderful photos in the right hands.

It's just turning two years old right now, Introduced Sept. 2007, released Oct. 1st. Might as well get the facts straight. Not quite an antique Instamatic.

 

[NateWagner]

Again, Racephoto, the topic is about the D40, and not the 40D which are two entirely different cameras. That being said, I have also seen a great deal of weddings shot with a xt, or d40 +kit lens in which the shots looked no better than if they had been snapshots taken with a P&S by a 10 year old with no skill just a happy trigger finger. (just look at the weddings posted frequently on facebook or craigslist if you're curious).

by the way, the D40 (a consumer grade plastic body) was released Dec 1, 2006. The 40D (which is a higher level prosumer type body) was released in 2007 as you said.

 

[Hobbes]

@ intempus

Nice comparison
LMFAO!!!

:lmao:

This thread gets even better!

yeah probably the funniest thread in this whole forum

Wow, best troll question I've seen in at least a year. People won't bite on Canon/Nikon, or Mac vs PC, someone came up with the camera snob approach to a subjective generalization and hit a home run.

Yes, the converse would be, does someone hire a photographer just because he/she has expensive pro equipment or because of the results.

I've seen weddings shot with a 2 1/4 where the photographer didn't know how to use the equipment, couldn't get a clean shot focused or lighted right, and produced shots that didn't equal guest snapshots.

But he did have Pro equipment.

Short answer? The photographer takes the photos, not the camera. Sure you can't make chocolate cake with mud, but a 40D is a high quality camera that can take wonderful photos in the right hands.

It's just turning two years old right now, Introduced Sept. 2007, released Oct. 1st. Might as well get the facts straight. Not quite an antique Instamatic.

lol sarcasm.....

hmm and where on earth did Canon EOS 40D get in here? well if you don't like anything I said in the PC vs Mac thread feel free to post a reply there instead of trying to start another argument here. geez I don't have that much time to argue with people in every single thread :mrgreen:

 

[Village Idiot]

This entire discussion is getting childish. Buckster has summed it up with the above comments. The photographer matters, not the gear. You can dislike it or not. At this point I really don't care. Name calling is very unattractive, and shows me there is more to this discussion than would you hire a pro with a D40. That is all I have to say on the subject.

Thank you once again Buckster!

They effect each other equally. What's a car without a good engine? It can make it from point A to point B, but not with as much effeciency or as good results. Builder without a level? He can eye it, but your house might slant a bit.

Gear matters completely. The quality of photos will not be the same between a guy shooting with a d40 and 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 (or whatever the aperture is) vs. the same person shooting with a D700 and a 70-200 f/2.8 VR, even if he is just taking snapshots of the transformers in his living room.

 

[Dao]

Like in this situation.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/141553-anyone-shot-candle-lit-wedding.html

If the photographer shows up with a D40 and kit lens ..... hum .....

 

[schumionbike]

Again, Racephoto, the topic is about the D40, and not the 40D which are two entirely different cameras. That being said, I have also seen a great deal of weddings shot with a xt, or d40 +kit lens in which the shots looked no better than if they had been snapshots taken with a P&S by a 10 year old with no skill just a happy trigger finger. (just look at the weddings posted frequently on facebook or craigslist if you're curious).

by the way, the D40 (a consumer grade plastic body) was released Dec 1, 2006. The 40D (which is a higher level prosumer type body) was released in 2007 as you said.

so you're telling me that a D40 or an XTI is the same as a p&s? The reason why you see crappy picture with D40 because those people are beginner. No beginner is going to drop $5K on a body but most will be able to get a D40. Doesn't mean that a D40 can't produce quality images in the hand of a pro-shooter.

 

[Garbz]

I see here a discussion about the quality of the photos. That has less to do with camera, but more so the skill of the photographer. But here is something I haven't seen posted yet:


I wouldn't ever hire a Pro with a D40 for a one time event like a wedding. I WOULD hire a pro with 2 D40s for a one time event. I guarantee that a D40 wouldn't survive half the abuse my D200 has been through simply because it's plastic. I guarantee that a D40 would survive at all for a as long as the D2x from a wedding photographer I know simply because the shutter isn't rated as much.

So looking back at the photographer. A pro with 1 D40 regardless of the portfolio says to me, here is someone who either doesn't shoot enough since a D40 still cuts it for his "pro" work, and here is someone who may falter at a critical moment not because of his fault, but because his consumer grade camera just couldn't handle it.

Conversely someone with 2 D40s says to me, here is someone with the forethought that his camera may fail and he is prepared for the worst, a true professional.