Pro with D40

[J Hobson]

If you're shooting weddings with a 40D, it's a completely acceptable camera but it's not marketed as a professional body.

Acceptable by who? The people using them?
It's not marketed as a professional body for a reason. It is not as reliable nor is it built to do such work on a regular basis and when if fails, it's your butt not Canons. They warned you.
I will agree that most customers would not be able to tell the difference between images created by a D40 or 1d.

 

[NateWagner]

I do want to mention that there is a large difference between a D40 and a 40D, in case you just misread it.

As you said, it is your butt if it fails when you're using it (which is why it's important to always have backup's). but, I highly doubt that it's Canon's butt if you're using their 1D and it fails.

Similarly the 5d (both of them) are geared heavily towards wedding photographers, and yet are not listed as professional cameras.

That being said, if I were to choose I would definitely prefer to use a 1Ds3 over a 40D any day.

 

[J Hobson]

Nate,
My comments were made with the intent to protect the photographer, if the OP was talking about him/her self. In a court case I saw last year a wedding photographer was sued because the B&G didn't like the job he did. The fact he used a non professional camera became an issue, they used to show he was not really a professional. He (the photographer) lost and had to return the B&G their money, along with the bad press. And no it was not the cameras fault. His photos were OOF and many eyes closed, still it was a defense that worked for them.
I know there is a difference between a 40D & D40. It got twisted somewhere.:blushing:
Like I said before, use what gets the job done. I just wouldn't use it under contract.

 

[Village Idiot]

That's definitely the dumbest thing I've heard. There's lots of gear that companies don't specify as professional that is used on a day to day basis by professionals every where.

 

[CSR Studio]

A cop out? Are you kidding? Have you hired a photographer to work for you? You had rather have someone with equipment but no eye than someone with the eye and no equipment? That is just stupid. I would rather teach someone how to use equipment than how to have the eye.

I would rather have a hired photographer with an eye and his own quality equipment, than a photographer with an eye and just a d40 or Rebel XT particularly in a situation that had challenging lighting levels.

the cop out was introducing that you would lend the photographer with the poor level equipment better equipment, thus he is no longer using the poor equipment and thus you are admitting that quality equipment is required in certain situations...

put this way
bad photographer, limited equipment = 0
bad photographer, good equipment = 1
good photographer, limited equipment = 2
good photographer, good equipment = 3

3>2>1>0

Actually, you don't seem to understand. 2 is far far better than 1 and 3 is only a little better than 2.

You never answered my question. Have you hired a photographer to work for you? I didn't know we were limiting it to hiring a photographer to shoot my parents 50th wedding anniversary. What about hiring a photographer for your studio?

 

[Village Idiot]

A cop out? Are you kidding? Have you hired a photographer to work for you? You had rather have someone with equipment but no eye than someone with the eye and no equipment? That is just stupid. I would rather teach someone how to use equipment than how to have the eye.

I would rather have a hired photographer with an eye and his own quality equipment, than a photographer with an eye and just a d40 or Rebel XT particularly in a situation that had challenging lighting levels.

the cop out was introducing that you would lend the photographer with the poor level equipment better equipment, thus he is no longer using the poor equipment and thus you are admitting that quality equipment is required in certain situations...

put this way
bad photographer, limited equipment = 0
bad photographer, good equipment = 1
good photographer, limited equipment = 2
good photographer, good equipment = 3

3>2>1>0

Actually, you don't seem to understand. 2 is far far better than 1 and 3 is only a little better than 2.

You never answered my question. Have you hired a photographer to work for you? I didn't know we were limiting it to hiring a photographer to shoot my parents 50th wedding anniversary. What about hiring a photographer for your studio?

If I hired a photographer to work for me in my studio, it would be a lot different than hiring a photographer for a one time deal. They would be using my equipment and that's definitely better than entry level gear.

But that's the whole point to this thread is does gear matter? Yes! If I hire a photographer, I'm definitely going to make sure that they have the skills, but that's completely different than some one hiring some one to take pictures at an event who is using their own gear that you have no control over.

 

[NateWagner]

I believe the OP was about hiring a pro photographer generally the idea being that it is somebody to shoot an event. I.E. if I were to hire somebody to shoot my wedding or my parents 50th anniversary.

It seems this is where the confusion came in. If I were to be hiring somebody for my studio then I might consider bringing somebody in who clearly had an eye for it and teaching them to use the better equipment.

However, if I were hiring somebody to shoot my wedding or anniversary and they had a low level of equipment then I would absolutely have a problem with that particularly if I were in a difficult lighting situation.

Actually, you don't seem to understand. 2 is far far better than 1 and 3 is only a little better than 2.

Here I would somewhat agree with you. I would definitely prefer 2 over 1.
I think between these numbers there is a law of diminishing returns. The better the photographer (and the better the equipment) the premium is a little bit better for a lot more cost.

That being said, limited equipment will still keep a good photographer from being able to achieve things that they could. I think the difference between 2 and 3 depends primarily on the situation (location, lighting, etc.), and how limited the gear is.

 

[NateWagner]

Nate,
My comments were made with the intent to protect the photographer, if the OP was talking about him/her self. In a court case I saw last year a wedding photographer was sued because the B&G didn't like the job he did. The fact he used a non professional camera became an issue, they used to show he was not really a professional. He (the photographer) lost and had to return the B&G their money, along with the bad press. And no it was not the cameras fault. His photos were OOF and many eyes closed, still it was a defense that worked for them.
I know there is a difference between a 40D & D40. It got twisted somewhere.:blushing:
Like I said before, use what gets the job done. I just wouldn't use it under contract.

ahh yes, I believe I have heard of that court case. and if I remember correctly in that court case he had a little point and shoot camera and the judge asked him what kind of lens he was using, and he had no idea.

Also, that is where liability insurance comes in handy, and is really what it is there for.

 

[inTempus]

Two words.

Ken Rockwell

He's the consummate professional and he shoots a D40.

'nuff said.

 

[Buckster]

Only 3 AF focus points?!! NO WAY!! A pro MUST have more AF focus points!! Won't go to ISO 3200?!! OMG!! What pro would dare shoot with a camera that is only loaded with ASA 400 film??!! For crying out loud, they'd need an assistant holding a light with an umbrella or at least a light on a stroboframe type arrangement!!! What kind of 'pro' would DO that???!!! Only 3 frames per second??!! Gotta be kidding!! No pro would shoot with something where you have to take the time and make the effort to wind a crank in between each shot!!! Do you have any idea how slow that is and how long it would take???!!! Next, someone will claim there have been weddings shot with cameras that didn't have an LCD and a histogram to preview the shots to be sure they were gotten and correctly exposed!!! NO pro in the history of photography could get away with such a thing!

LOL! Funny thread!

I side with the "portfolio decides" people, based on the history of photography wherein photographers using gear with a lot less ability than the camera in question have produced amazing and consistent work (they even shot weddings! gasp!!).

Still, as someone else mentioned, I'd like to see a couple of packages that were actually sold, rather than just a sample gallery of possibly 'lucky shots', but I'd want that no matter what gear they used.

To each his own though...

 

[CSR Studio]

Only 3 AF focus points?!! NO WAY!! A pro MUST have more AF focus points!! Won't go to ISO 3200?!! OMG!! What pro would dare shoot with a camera that is only loaded with ASA 400 film??!! For crying out loud, they'd need an assistant holding a light with an umbrella or at least a light on a stroboframe type arrangement!!! What kind of 'pro' would DO that???!!! Only 3 frames per second??!! Gotta be kidding!! No pro would shoot with something where you have to take the time and make the effort to wind a crank in between each shot!!! Do you have any idea how slow that is and how long it would take???!!! Next, someone will claim there have been weddings shot with cameras that didn't have an LCD and a histogram to preview the shots to be sure they were gotten and correctly exposed!!! NO pro in the history of photography could get away with such a thing!

LOL! Funny thread!

I side with the "portfolio decides" people, based on the history of photography wherein photographers using gear with a lot less ability than the camera in question have produced amazing and consistent work (they even shot weddings! gasp!!).

Still, as someone else mentioned, I'd like to see a couple of packages that were actually sold, rather than just a sample gallery of possibly 'lucky shots', but I'd want that no matter what gear they used.

To each his own though...

Great post!!!:mrgreen:

 

[NateWagner]

Well, see buckster there you go overgeneralizing the argument. In the posts it has always been about difficult lighting conditions. In those conditions with poor lighting you want the most recent camera equipment. Could you shoot the wedding with less? absolutely. Have weddings been shot with the equipment you mentioned absolutely, but in poor lighting situations these images often turn out to have poor image quality.

You are greatly overgeneralizing a statement and suggesting that we are saying something that none of us would say. If you want to respond with a statement with less obtrusive fallacies I would be glad to hear them.

 

[Derrel]

This entire thread is an old one, dug up for a revival. But already, the flesh has started rotting off of the bones, and it's pretty ugly and stinky. The premise of the thread seems a bit odd; what kind of "professional" photographer are we talking about, and why would said "professional" be using an entry-level, stripped-down, 6-megapixel Nikon that costs under $400? The thread might as well be called, "professional using a Canon Rebel 350-would you hire her?"

A "professional" who could afford only entry-level equipment like a D40 would cause me to wonder why his equipment was so basic. The entire thread is sort of a silly premise, but maybe it's a way to point out the increasing trend of newcomers starting photo businesses with little experience and minimal equipment. Good equipment is useless without training,skill,and experience. And without good equipment, training,skill,and experience become even MORE important. A good shooter can overcome modest equipment under *most* circumstances, but not all. Under tough conditions, like low light,or fast action, or demanding speciality shooting, the proper (read *really expensive*) equipment can mean getting good shots, or just making due and getting not-really-professional level shots.

My wife shoots a D40,and I have shot it too. It's not good enough for a lot of specialty work. It's a beginner's camera, like a Rebel 350. Which would you rather have to shoot a wedding--a D40 or a D700? How about a horse race--a D40 or a D300 with grip? Night baseball--D40 or D3?

 

[Buckster]

Well, see buckster there you go overgeneralizing the argument. In the posts it has always been about difficult lighting conditions. In those conditions with poor lighting you want the most recent camera equipment. Could you shoot the wedding with less? absolutely. Have weddings been shot with the equipment you mentioned absolutely, but in poor lighting situations these images often turn out to have poor image quality.

You are greatly overgeneralizing a statement and suggesting that we are saying something that none of us would say. If you want to respond with a statement with less obtrusive fallacies I would be glad to hear them.

It's simple, really. A good or even great photographic package can be produced with cameras that have less ability than the one in question, as proven by actual history that shows it has been done with cameras that have less ability than the one in question throughout much of the history of photography. Therefore, to dismiss any photographer's ability to produce a good or even great photographic product based on that particular camera alone is a fallacy.

For every "but, but, buuuuut..." raised throughout the thread involving pixel-peeping, lighting, ISO, frames-per-second rates and all the rest, there are literally 100's of thousands of professional shots made throughout the history of photography that prove it's not essential to have those particular features, nor is it necessary to have the very latest, greatest, state of the art gear to produce a good or great product for one's clients.

All it really takes is a real photographer who knows how to work his or her gear - no matter what that gear is.

I don't see that as overgeneralizing at all. I see it as the fact of the matter; The photographer's actual ability with his or her gear, whatever that gear is, as shown in the packages he or she sells, is the final word on that photographer's abilities and whether they should be hired.

Easy, actually.

 

[NateWagner]

so therefore gear makes no difference?