Pro with D40

[doug_a]

Pro and semi-pro cyclists have a saying..."90% Rider..."

Meaning that, theoretically, the best bicycle will only give you a 10% advantage when compared to even a very basic bicycle setup.

Yet all pro and most semi-pro and most wealthy intermediate and n00b cyclists opt to get near the best bike they can possibly afford...! Whether that 10% matters, or does not mean anything at all.


Love this thread! It brought me out from being a long-time lurker. I have the Nikon d40. I ditched the kit lens and went with mid-range Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM that was less than $400. I am not a pro photographer.

First off, are we talking kit lens or other, as this is everything.

The same photographer might get as good, or even better sharper shots with my setup than they would get from a D60, D90, or Dxxx, and their respective kit lenses.

Imagine same photographer with a d40 and these lenses:
1. AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
2. AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
3. AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED

vrs a "pro" with a D3 or a D700 and just the kit lens that came with it.

Is the "pro" shooting for final output of "large prints" or final output of "website images"...?

...extreme scenario, but, you get the point.

Also, d40 has a great sensor size to pixel ratio! Quality pixels.

However, we all know the d40 will not do large prints well...some skilled up-resing in PS will get you to 11x14, but that is it.

Also, the d40 is very light weight.
Also, the d40 body is throw-away cheap (to some)



with only my d40 body and my mid-range Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 "do-it-all" lens (including macro), I still see my next $250, $500, or even $1,000 going into glass, and not a better body. ( I do mostly shoot for the screen and not for large prints, or many prints at all)

great thread...long live the D40:thumbup:



But really, in all reality, someone with a d40 and the kit lens will 98% of the time equal a picture taker that will not deliver consistent, high-quality photography.

 

[Fusion]

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.

Its all about the pictures, the equipment used is a secondary issue. If you see pictures he has taken and like them what does it matter what camera he uses as long as he/she produces the goods. :thumbup::thumbup:

 

[kkamin]

I'm posting again because the principal at the core of this debate bugs me so much.

The pyramids were built with primitive technology. Reims Cathedral in France was built with primitive technology. Does Microsoft Word, with all its bells and whistles, make anyone a better writer? No, it corrects their punctuation and spelling, and guides their syntax but does nothing for their content. It is sort of analogous to a camera safeguarding against focus, exposure and white balance. But this is the ABC's, the foundation of photography. I know it can take years to get down DOF, FOV, f/stops, white balance, mixed lighting situations, shutter speed considerations, etc. But it is all still ABC. This is the technical backbone of an artistic medium--but means little to the realized photograph, unless, it is not understood, then it can hurt the photograph by being of arbitrary nature. To paraphrase David duCheim, a famous contemporary photographer, "the technical considerations should be a silent partner in a photograph."

I believe photography is 5% technical and 95% conceptual or creative. I really don't know when photography became this scientific, technical preoccupation. Who cares if your photograph is technically perfect and 21 MP if it is not engaging and compelling. The ability to create anything of creative power takes most thousands of hours of practice and research--just like being good at anything else. But to focus solely on the "tool" and not the "work" becomes almost a replacement for actually making something, right? Or thousands of hours discussing photography becomes a replacement for taking pictures. Since the joint introduction of the D-SLR and the proliferation of internet forums, the technical aspects of photography have been given an almost unhealthy amount of weight. There is a feeling amongst a surprising many, that expensive D-SLR=professional photography. My feelings have been confirmed by visiting countless websites of people charging money for what I feel are basically high resolution snap shots.

Photography doesn't have to be birds in your backyard, high school seniors (nothing wrong with those first two at all and they can be artistic), or perverts trying to get TFP shoots with models in their basement, but it can be Man Ray, Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Frank Capa, or Sandy Skogland, and affect how people see the world. There is tremendous power in the camera. For the technophiles, I invite you to explore the other 95%.

 

[Fusion]

I'm posting again because the principal at the core of this debate bugs me so much.

The pyramids were built with primitive technology. Reims Cathedral in France was built with primitive technology. Does Microsoft Word, with all its bells and whistles, make anyone a better writer? No, it corrects their punctuation and spelling, and guides their syntax but does nothing for their content. It is sort of analogous to a camera safeguarding against focus, exposure and white balance. But this is the ABC's, the foundation of photography. I know it can take years to get down DOF, FOV, f/stops, white balance, mixed lighting situations, shutter speed considerations, etc. But it is all still ABC. This is the technical backbone of an artistic medium--but means little to the realized photograph, unless, it is not understood, then it can hurt the photograph by being of arbitrary nature. To paraphrase David duCheim, a famous contemporary photographer, "the technical considerations should be a silent partner in a photograph."

I believe photography is 5% technical and 95% conceptual or creative. I really don't know when photography became this scientific, technical preoccupation. Who cares if your photograph is technically perfect and 21 MP if it is not engaging and compelling. The ability to create anything of creative power takes most thousands of hours of practice and research--just like being good at anything else. But to focus solely on the "tool" and not the "work" becomes almost a replacement for actually making something, right? Or thousands of hours discussing photography becomes a replacement for taking pictures. Since the joint introduction of the D-SLR and the proliferation of internet forums, the technical aspects of photography have been given an almost unhealthy amount of weight. There is a feeling amongst a surprising many, that expensive D-SLR=professional photography. My feelings have been confirmed by visiting countless websites of people charging money for what I feel are basically high resolution snap shots.

Photography doesn't have to be birds in your backyard, high school seniors (nothing wrong with those first two at all and they can be artistic), or perverts trying to get TFP shoots with models in their basement, but it can be Man Ray, Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Frank Capa, or Sandy Skogland, and affect how people see the world. There is tremendous power in the camera. For the technophiles, I invite you to explore the other 95%.

WELL PUT SIR :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: