Pro with D40

[ghpham]

Your clients care about the END product, not how you get there.

While true, this doesn't give the people in the know the right to use the worst product available that will do a mediocre job in covering the event.

The reason is that they don't care how you got there, cause they don't know better. They are trusting you as the professional to know how to get there. Thus, because we know the difference we should be using the better equipment.

Let me ask you this, if you went to the clients, and asked them if they thought you should use high quality equipment meant for professionals or lower quality equipment meant for consumers what would they say? Most likely, they just assume you're using the equivalent to a 1DIV, because they assume you are a professional and you are letting them down.

My only comment would be if the photog can't produce great enough prints with the camera he have, than he won't last very long.

I don't really care what camera he is shooting with as long as he provide references, I get to see the actual product from the references. No references, no go, no matter what camera he has.

 

[RONDAL]

i cant believe this thread is still going

 

[innocent smith]

I used a d40 and the tiny 35 f/1.8 to shoot a fancy fund-raising event for a local non-profit at a really nice reception venue, and no one was the wiser. In fact the venue asked for some of the pictures afterward because they were impressed with them. Granted, it wasn't my first choice, but I was in a bind since I had just sold my d200. It worked great though.

 

[Dominantly]

Is it the people who own D40's and D60's that insist the camera wouldn't be a factor when choosing a Pro?

 

[NateWagner]

seems like it.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Haven't read every response in this thread, but one comment: One pro I know uses a D40 and a small speed light. He is Berlin's most prolific event photographer. He knows his stuff doesn't get printed larger than glossy magazine size, so the files coming from the camera are more than enough. He doesn't shoot RAW anymore, his exposures are more than good enough for events and journalism. Most importantly, carrying a camera at eye-level for up to eight hours at a time means it has to be LIGHT. A heavy weather-sealed body and big lenses would make it hard on the arms, and sometimes impossible to get the shot.

He gets paid a lot. He can afford any gear he wants, but as a professional he know exactly what gear he needs to get paid.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Whoa, didn't realize it was a zombie thread.

 

[ghpham]

Is it the people who own D40's and D60's that insist the camera wouldn't be a factor when choosing a Pro?

No. I own a D90. That said, if I put gaffer's tape over the brand name, and cover up the model number who would know and if someone ask, I wouldn't tell them. If the picture come out as good as a D300 or D700 who would care.

Again, only photo geek like us would care what model and make of camera are used.

I once seen a series photo's by a renown photographer using a point and shoot and without an exif, none of us would be the wiser.

Why don't you ask someone that's about to have a wedding and see if they ever even question what make and model of camera the photographer have? chances are, they could careless.

 

[Dominantly]

Look, I really don't care what anyone says about this. To me it is absolutely absurd to think someone would shoot a wedding with a D40. It's like telling me you would want to shark dive in a meat suit. Just doesn't make sense, and nothing anyone says will make it click.


Yeah yeah, I get it, some people think you could shoot a wedding with a Kodak Disposable camera (it's not about equipment right?!?), or a Sony Cybershot. It's all about the photographer and how he composes the shot and uses his vast settings to nail the exposure.
Equipment is all the same, lower end gear has no shortfalls, or if it does; those features are useless anyways so no loss there.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs]YouTube - Judge Joe Brown - Cheap wedding photographer[/ame]

 

[kkamin]

I agree with the point that you should have gear that looks somewhat decent and professional. It falls under the principle of professional practice. It would look fairly retarded to bust out a DIY foam core soft box held together by duct tape and expect to make a good impression. But on the other hand, I don't think an entry level D-SLR should matter if it isn't inhibiting the photographer in any way. Like others have said, it looks professional still, and it kicks the crap out of DSLRs made 15 years ago that "pros" were using.

People who are in the know, realize that gear is solely meant to get the job done and bring some type of vision to fruition. It stops there. But I sense that a lot of people are really into their gear and place more importance on it than it actually holds in reality. An observation from a photo professor I had at art school who had taught an adult hobbyist class: it was the men in the class that were preoccupied purchasing a ton of gear, but it was the women who were more into learning how to take pictures. I'll expand by saying that men are always fighting for hierarchical position or status with one another, and trying to impress women--and owning a bunch of fancy photography equipment and being able to rattle off the technical feats that it can do and showing off its bells and whistles is a way to achieve that. This is human nature. People do this with all sorts of things. But the odd thing to me about this dynamic in reference to photography, is that photography is meant to produce something, it is a means to an end; it's not a gold chain. It is far more easier and comfortable for many to learn the tech specs of their lenses or feel good about the fact that their camera can shoot x number of frames a second, but it is far more difficult to consistently produce compelling and engaging photos. Or to get beyond the 'snap shot' aesthetic. I think the people who are sitting on some expensive gear, but are not the best image makers, could be the ones insisting on the status of the camera being of supreme importance, perhaps out of defensiveness or out of justification for having a potential $2500 paper weight.

Personally, I'm more interested in the photographer's portfolio. Some of the coolest photos I've seen are Deguerrotypes taken over 100 years ago with primitive cameras. If they don't have anything like the aforementioned foam core soft box to embarrass me, I really don't care what brand of anything they are using.

I've just started working as a freelance photographer. I was in a position where I didn't have a ton of start up capital, but I wanted to start shooting. I distributed my money rather evenly over camera, lenses, grip gear, studio pieces, computer/software. But 95% of the images on my site now were taken with a Rebel. I find it is good enough for what I have been doing. When I need a better body and lens, I'll rent one for now.

 

[ANDS!]

That video is ridiculous. Chick got the quality she paid for. I hate situations like that were the defendant is obviously partially correct, yet doesn't know how to keep their cool. Defendants let the plantiffs paint them as rednecks and won. 2500 my ass. I wouldn't pay them ****; the producers I mean as anyone who appears on these shows isn't actually out any money. Still, if people recognize these folks in real life, that can be seriously damaging.

 

[Felix 222]

Look, I really don't care what anyone says about this. To me it is absolutely absurd to think someone would shoot a wedding with a D40. It's like telling me you would want to shark dive in a meat suit. Just doesn't make sense, and nothing anyone says will make it click.


Yeah yeah, I get it, some people think you could shoot a wedding with a Kodak Disposable camera (it's not about equipment right?!?), or a Sony Cybershot. It's all about the photographer and how he composes the shot and uses his vast settings to nail the exposure.
Equipment is all the same, lower end gear has no shortfalls, or if it does; those features are useless anyways so no loss there.

YouTube - Judge Joe Brown - Cheap wedding photographer

loved every minute of it! funny video

 

[Rosshole]

That video was ridiculous... I mean, if Judge Joe Brown says that you have to have expensive exuipment to take good pictures then I guess I should throw out my whole setup because all of my pictures will be garbage.

but i digress...

I am not sure if I missed it, but did anyone mention how the D40 excells at high speed flash sync??

 

[ghache]

NOT.

 

[Aayria]

I agree with the point that you should have gear that looks somewhat decent and professional. It falls under the principle of professional practice. It would look fairly retarded to bust out a DIY foam core soft box held together by duct tape and expect to make a good impression. But on the other hand, I don't think an entry level D-SLR should matter if it isn't inhibiting the photographer in any way. Like others have said, it looks professional still, and it kicks the crap out of DSLRs made 15 years ago that "pros" were using.

People who are in the know, realize that gear is solely meant to get the job done and bring some type of vision to fruition. It stops there. But I sense that a lot of people are really into their gear and place more importance on it than it actually holds in reality. An observation from a photo professor I had at art school who had taught an adult hobbyist class: it was the men in the class that were preoccupied purchasing a ton of gear, but it was the women who were more into learning how to take pictures. I'll expand by saying that men are always fighting for hierarchical position or status with one another, and trying to impress women--and owning a bunch of fancy photography equipment and being able to rattle off the technical feats that it can do and showing off its bells and whistles is a way to achieve that. This is human nature. People do this with all sorts of things. But the odd thing to me about this dynamic in reference to photography, is that photography is meant to produce something, it is a means to an end; it's not a gold chain. It is far more easier and comfortable for many to learn the tech specs of their lenses or feel good about the fact that their camera can shoot x number of frames a second, but it is far more difficult to consistently produce compelling and engaging photos. Or to get beyond the 'snap shot' aesthetic. I think the people who are sitting on some expensive gear, but are not the best image makers, could be the ones insisting on the status of the camera being of supreme importance, perhaps out of defensiveness or out of justification for having a potential $2500 paper weight.

Personally, I'm more interested in the photographer's portfolio. Some of the coolest photos I've seen are Deguerrotypes taken over 100 years ago with primitive cameras. If they don't have anything like the aforementioned foam core soft box to embarrass me, I really don't care what brand of anything they are using.

I've just started working as a freelance photographer. I was in a position where I didn't have a ton of start up capital, but I wanted to start shooting. I distributed my money rather evenly over camera, lenses, grip gear, studio pieces, computer/software. But 95% of the images on my site now were taken with a Rebel. I find it is good enough for what I have been doing. When I need a better body and lens, I'll rent one for now.

This was a great post, I agree with everything you said... However it was a little difficult to take "Spongebob" seriously

On a side note though - If I was attempting to take up photography "professionally" by any stretch of the word, I would feel somewhat obligated to provide the best equipment I could and to give it my best "shot" (pun intended) no matter what gear I could afford. People want memorable photos, they shouldn't have to worry that their photographer isn't giving it his or her best effort.