Pro with D40

[DRoberts]

Maybe he has used the D40 so much that he has "perfected" it...I know of people with top end cameras that can only produce crap, and people who have "prosumer" cameras that produce great shots every time.
A very familiar camera (even a "starter" camera) with some high end glass can work very well.
I think its funny how people are judging him without knowing anything about him, or without seeing any of his work. Just because you heard he has a D40 you automatically assume he is not as good as you are with your D3s or D700s (or Canon Ms)
Go buy a $10,000 set of golf clubs and I'll bet that Tiger Woods can still beat you with nothing but a $30 3 iron and a $20 putter.

 

[PatrickHMS]

Won't any of these DSLR's like the D40 produce a high quality 8 x 10 print? I understand why a "Pro" couldn't use a point-and-shoot, not saying that at all.

I know that a D40 isn't a high end DSLR, but isn't any DSLR a higher-end Digital camera?

Like mentioned just above this, where the guy who comes to the gym, tennis court, or Country Club with all the newest and bestest stuff that he doesn't know how to use any of it.

I can almost feel some snobbery towards those who don't have "better" camera bodies, while I look at those here on TPF who appear to be "Pros" and note from some of their profiles or signatures that they don't always have the higher-end camera bodies either.

Yeah, I have a Nikon D40 (and I really like it), but I also have a D200 not mentioned in my profile or sig. at this point When I am staging shots, using tripod or lights, or I
need a faster shutter speed I will use the heavier D200 with the manual capabilities, but when I am out just enjoying taking photographs I prefer to use my lighter, fewer settings to fiddle with D40. Most any lens I have will work on either camera, which is a definite plus.

And when holding prints side-by-side, these old eyes can't see very much difference (if any at all) between photographs taken by either of the two camera in a print
unless maybe one larger than 8 x 10.

In the film world of 35mm I used Nikkormat FTN, or the Olympus OM1 compatible equipment, and to me, either of these digital cameras produce prints that look just as good, or better, than what the film gear could ever do with the technology that was available at that time.

On my Flickr page, all of those photos were shot with PnS like a 2mp Fuji 2650 or a Nikon 990, and there are plenty of photos either there or on my PC taken with those kinds of cameras that I am proud to have taken.

We all love to take photographs, some of use can afford better gear than others, but we are all here for the pure joy of taking pictures, and learning more about something we all love so much and have in common.

 

[K_Pugh]

Well if i knew about photography and was hiring someone i'd probably get chatty in the first place and ask about his gear etc, we're all into our gear right?.. I'm sure he's got an 'explanation' why he uses a D40.

I think a real pro should ideally use real pro equipment, if a real pro was making a living from it and making a good living from it then surely good pro equipment would be a good investment anyway - plus it gives the clients more confidence in them etc..

saying that if a pro is just starting out, struggling to pay bills etc, just taken the big leap then maybe he can only afford or justify buying lesser cameras.. i mean having a D40 as a 2nd/backup camera is better than having no 2nd/backup camera. If it was his main camera though i think it would put a little doubt in your mind, not saying that his results will be anything less than brilliant but i don't think it says a lot in front of clients - No matter where you go there's people there who have DSLR's, and you usually get asked about your equipment etc, and a lot of the time they have better gear than you! lol

I don't have pro equipment, i have a D80 and i bought a D200 because i needed a 2nd/backup. I still use the D80 if i'm doing portrait work as i don't need the high speed shooting etc of the D200.. plus i know my D80 well enough to change most things without looking (unless i have to go into the menu).

But yeah i think my point is you'd research your photographer a little before hiring (i'd hope).

 

[JodieO]

Some clients would never notice what type of camera the pro is using... however, I would personally have to question why a pro would use a D40. I'd be guessing a pro using a D40 would also be charging a cheap session fee and cheap prints (but I could be wrong).... which is just overall bad for this industry.

 

[ksmattfish]

Say you want to hire someone for a job, like a dinner party, dance, even a wedding; when you meet the guy, he has a D40, SB whatever, and maybe a few lenses. Do you keep him? Why not?

No, I do not hire him. He needs at least 2 cameras, and back-ups for the rest of the gear.

I don't really care what gear the photog is using. I want to see the portfolio. A competent photographer should be able to cover a wedding, dance, or dinner party with D40s or Rebels. If they can't take decent photos with a cheap DSLR then a D3 or 1Ds isn't going to make the photos any better.

I stopped worrying about what other people thought about my gear when after the family portraits at a wedding a guy berated me for using a camera he'd never heard of. He sneered "I thought pros used Canon!" I was using a Hasselblad.

Don't listen to the photo geeks and gear dorks. Let your portfolio speak for itself, and let the troublesome clients find someone else to bother.

 

[roadkill]

I wouldn't hire someone with the D40 simply for resolution purposes

 

[travelerb]

When my wife and I got married in 2003 our photographer used a Canon 10D. As I understand (not having been into photography since a child at the time), pretty high end during that time - it had just come out 2 months before.

I've always considered the deal we got on the photography a steal, and have never had any issues with the pictures we received. (We got a cd of all the original shots). Of course, it was just a 6mp camera, like the D40.

My amateur assessment would have to be that the D40 is better than the D10 that was used for my wedding pictures, and I have no complaints about them (easy button access aside).

So I suppose from my perspective the answer to your implied question is a pro can do just fine with a D40 (depending on what they are shooting). Your specific question, why not hire a pro with a d40, would be that it depends on why the "pro" is using a d40. There are cameras that are much better for a relatively small investment if the camera is, in fact, your business.

If a business, even a solo person, could greatly improve his or her product for a $1000-$2000 investment, why haven't they?

 

[Tolyk]

Depends on the portfolio and how much they were charging

I've had someone that uses a 1Ds Mark III offer to do my wedding for free, and I've seen some of his photos, he's pretty good, but he's not a pro. He just really enjoys photography.

According to Canon, you need to own two bodies (of at least a certain point or higher) and a certain amount of lenses and earn at least 51% of your income from photography before you are considered a Pro and get their pro rates (on pro bodies and L series glass, as well as the Macro lenses)

So.. someone shotting with just a D40.. Um.. not considered a pro by Canon's standards (Not that a Nikon shooter cares about that *chuckle* but you get the point)

Anyways, in my opinion a pro isn't determined by their camera. Or by their income. And it's obviously not determined by the quality of their photos, cause I've seen some pro's photos that are horrible. So, what makes a person a pro? Knowledge? Self-titling? *shrug* Who knows..

But, for me it'd really depend on what I thought of their work, and probably their confidence and professionalism. Knowledge builds confidence, experience builds professionalism, and good quality pictures can be taken with any camera.

 

[Jedo_03]

Coincidental - yes - but true...
Went up to the local shopping plaza/mall this morning and there was yet another traveling photo booth... went over for a look... and was shocked to see a D40 on the tripod.. Not only that - there was a coil of ugly duct tape (it was grey..) wrapped around the lens barrel (?keep the lens on the body) and a piece of tattered black tape (half) stuck over the shutter release button..
Sheesh - talk about "professional" - and the queue was about a dozen deep waiting for their kids to photographed...
And then to read this here...
Jedo

 

[BTilson]

I think my only issue with a pro using a D40 would be the resolution of the camera. I might want some big enlargements, and while the D40 can manage it, higher res shots from a pro body would be much better suited to the task.

 

[JerryPH]

Professional... there are are as many definitions as there are people, but let's ask a few questions about professionals and their tools.

- Does Tiger Woods use 1950s wooden golf clubs?
- Did Mario Andretti use a Ford Pinto to drive in his races?
- Did Frank Lloyd Wright design on papyrus or build with straw?

No.

The dictionary defines a professional as someone who gets paid performing an activity. To me, morally, a professional photographer to me is NOT someone that is just charging money for his pics, it is a person who has paid their dues, has knowledge and experience superior to the average person and has the appropriate level of quality equipment to back it all up. Why would I want to pay someone with substandard knowledge to use substandard equipment to take pictures for me?

An experienced professional will not be using tools that will give him mediocre results and is of mediocre quality. Can you get identical results with a D40 with a kit lens as you could a D700 or D3 and an 85mm F/1.4? No not even close, not unless you can bend the laws of physics.

A "professional" with a D40 to me screams inexperience, sub-standard knowledge and inability to get the shot. In a day and time when anyone can purchase equipment far superior to that camera for a minor increase in cost, this is another factor. A professional, in his desire to deliver professional results, will be using equipment that is as close to the top of the line, if not the top of the line... they certainly will not be using the very bottom of the line camera equipment.

We all say that it's not the camera that makes a difference, its the photographer. Fact of the matter is that its both. Give a moderately experienced photographer a D40 and a D700, give them 1 week to play with both and then tell me which scenario will give you superior results. I can promise you it will not be the D40. Which camera would you want to own?

If a "pro" came to me stating that all they had was a single D40, I would not walk away... I would run.

 

[ksmattfish]

Can you get identical results with a D40 with a kit lens as you could a D700 or D3 and an 85mm F/1.4? No not even close, not unless you can bend the laws of physics.

It just depends on whether the point is to match resolution tests, or is it to create good photos? My experience is that clients are going to be much more concerned about art than the laws of physics.

I am confident that I could shoot a wedding with D40s (at least 2), and the clients would be just as happy as when I shoot with my 5D. I wouldn't enjoy it as much, but the D40 is more sophisticated than many of the "pro" cameras of 5 or 10 years ago. It's a much fancier camera than the film cameras I used to shoot with. If my choices to shoot a wedding were a D3 with only the 85mm f/1.4, or the D40 with the kit lens, I'd choose the kit lens. I want the flexibility.

Off camera flash will do more to make the photos look professional than a fat price tag on the body.

Ask the tax man what a professional is. They have a clear definition.

Get over the hype, people. Canon and Nikon spend more money convincing you the gear is what's important than they spend on creating the gear in the first place. The pros of the recent past would kill for today's entry level DSLRs. They rock! Geez Louise man, I used to have to shoot weddings with film; talk about primitive and limiting!

 

[Parkerman]

If the guy doesn't atleast have prograde glass... steer away from him. I shoot with a D40.. And wouldn't dare shoot a wedding with one. You need something that can handle iso's better than the D40.. and something that has more than 3 focus squares [not points]

 

[christm]

It comes down to his portfolio. Personally I could care less what equipment you use. But it is kind of irksome when someone says they are a pro, which to me means they make 51% or better of their income from photography, and has beginner equipment. Yeah even low grade stuff can make excellent photos. But if you don't have a portfolio worth a damn, I wouldn't hire you.

I agree,

Its not the equipment, its what they can offer you and is what they are offering suitable ?

 

[JerryPH]

My experience is that clients are going to be much more concerned about art than the laws of physics

I am confident that I could shoot a wedding with D40s (at least 2), and the clients would be just as happy as when I shoot with my 5D.

I agree that they are not concerned about physics, however , physics will define the quality of your pictures! Can that D40 take clean ISO 1600 images? A D300 is good to 3200, a D700/D3 are EXCELLENT at ISO 6400 and produce less noise at 12,800 than the D40 does at ISO 1600. ... I challenge any D40 to come into any local church in the area that require ISO 3200 just to get a shutter speed of 1/60th and try to get the same quality shots that a D700 could get at ISO 3200, 6400 or higher. I challenge any kit lens to show me equal distortion, CA and pin cushioning numbers as a Nikkor 70-200 or Nikkor 85mm F/1.4 lens. We're not even in the same country, much less the same ball park... lol.

I challenge any D40 in camera processing to match the quality of output of the in camera processor and the full frame sensor of the D700 (same as the D3). I challenge any kit lens to be as clear and distortion free as a quality L or "gold ring" lens.

If we are of about the same technical and creative level and I carry in my D700 and 4 lens collection (14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 85mm) into the same wedding as you do with your D40 and kit lens, and we go side by side through the whole process... and then show both results to the same client, I sincerely wonder which set of pictures would make the client happy and which would make them frown?

It really is a lot more going on inside the camera than just high ISO and low noise, though that is a big part of it.

Not even discussing the D40, if you join the D700 flickr group or read the D700 Nikonians forums, you will hear how people are even loathe to pick up their D200s and D300s after playing with the D700s, and we are not even talking about how much further behind the D40 is.

A D40 at a wedding against proper equipment is like trying to race a stock Yugo in a Formula F1 race. Not only are you not in the race, you are not even able to keep up to the pace car! Can the Yugo run on the track? Sure, but it's not competitive and sure as heck NOTHING it can do to win that race. That is a D40 in a wedding environment against even a D300, and the D700/D3 are above that level by a far margin... those are the real competitors in the wedding field.

If there were no differences between a 5D (or any professional level camera), and a D40... why would any professional ever need waste more than the price of a D40 and kit lens? Because there are differences and major ones at that.