Pro with D40

[sabbath999]

People have shot weddings with much worse.

In the "film days," do you realize how many people went out to shoot weddings with 35mm cameras? I think THAT was a far greater injustice.

-Pete

+1

I wasn't a better photographer than the guys shooting 35mm's just because I owned a couple of Hasselblad 500's, but I darned sure ended up with better quality negatives due to the huge differences in the quality of the formats.

 

[CSR Studio]

People have shot weddings with much worse.

In the "film days," do you realize how many people went out to shoot weddings with 35mm cameras? I think THAT was a far greater injustice.

-Pete

+1

I wasn't a better photographer than the guys shooting 35mm's just because I owned a couple of Hasselblad 500's, but I darned sure ended up with better quality negatives due to the huge differences in the quality of the formats.

I still shoot with those Hasseys and I would put it up against any camera made today!

 

[NateWagner]

Come on. That is just ridiculous. You haven't given me a shot, you have given me a situation. I can shoot anything with a D40 or a F3 that you can with a D3X. And I mean a photograph. A portrait, wedding, product, architecture, etc.

No, it is not ridiculous. yes you can shoot with the same camera, approximately the same frame, but it will not yield the same results. These results will depend on the camera, the sensor, the lens, the settings, and the processing.

I have given a situation and an example of a shot. Ok, bride walking down the aisle, moving at all. boom, that 2 second shot results in a very blurry image. bride and groom kissing at the front of the church, even this much movement at 2 seconds of shutter speed is not doable. If you really want to test it, then do so. Take a picture of somebody walking at 2 second shutter speed, and then take a picture of them walking at 1/50th of a second.

Tons of photographs have been taken, since cameras have been invented. at the same time styles have changed as technology has advanced. In the past shots that were not possible to take well, were often just not taken, because people knew enough not to waste their film. They posed their images around the limitations of their equipment. As those limitations erode we are able to explore some of those options not done in the past.

Finally you can
A good person to message for comparison shots is Tsalreski (I think that's the spelling of his name on here) he has given examples in the past of images that can not be duplicated with lesser equipment.

 

[CSR Studio]

Come on. That is just ridiculous. You haven't given me a shot, you have given me a situation. I can shoot anything with a D40 or a F3 that you can with a D3X. And I mean a photograph. A portrait, wedding, product, architecture, etc.

No, it is not ridiculous. yes you can shoot with the same camera, approximately the same frame, but it will not yield the same results. These results will depend on the camera, the sensor, the lens, the settings, and the processing.

I have given a situation and an example of a shot. Ok, bride walking down the aisle, moving at all. boom, that 2 second shot results in a very blurry image. bride and groom kissing at the front of the church, even this much movement at 2 seconds of shutter speed is not doable. If you really want to test it, then do so. Take a picture of somebody walking at 2 second shutter speed, and then take a picture of them walking at 1/50th of a second.

Tons of photographs have been taken, since cameras have been invented. at the same time styles have changed as technology has advanced. In the past shots that were not possible to take well, were often just not taken, because people knew enough not to waste their film. They posed their images around the limitations of their equipment. As those limitations erode we are able to explore some of those options not done in the past.

Finally you can
A good person to message for comparison shots is Tsalreski (I think that's the spelling of his name on here) he has given examples in the past of images that can not be duplicated with lesser equipment.

Problem is you are setting the situation up for failure. I have never had a wedding ceremony dark enough to have a 2 second exposure. 1/2 at 5.6 works really well, 100 ISO. And no I have never posed my images around the limitations of my equipment. Never would. I would find a way. That is what I'm talking about and you don't want to be true. There are ways around what you are talking about, no it may take longer than a nanosecond but there are ways around it.

Granted it is easier with the latest and greatest but not impossible with the lesser equipment as you call it. It is the same as photoshop, it is easier to have lasers coming out of a bottle with photoshop but it not impossible to do it without, it's called in camera masking.

Haven't pages and pages of people telling you that the equipment doesn't make that big of a difference told you something. Buying the latest and greatest camera doesn't make you a great photographer.

 

[schumionbike]

Tons of photographs have been taken, since cameras have been invented. at the same time styles have changed as technology has advanced. In the past shots that were not possible to take well, were often just not taken, because people knew enough not to waste their film. They posed their images around the limitations of their equipment. As those limitations erode we are able to explore some of those options not done in the past.

I agree with the statement but posing your images around your limitations doesn't make them bad images nor does it tell the story of the wedding any less. Beside, a D40 with 35 f1.8 and off camera flashes would solve a lot of the problems that you mentioned.

 

[CSR Studio]

Tons of photographs have been taken, since cameras have been invented. at the same time styles have changed as technology has advanced. In the past shots that were not possible to take well, were often just not taken, because people knew enough not to waste their film. They posed their images around the limitations of their equipment. As those limitations erode we are able to explore some of those options not done in the past.

I agree with the statement but posing your images around your limitations doesn't make them bad images nor does it tell the story of the wedding any less. Beside, a D40 with 35 f1.8 and off camera flashes would solve a lot of the problems that you mentioned.

I disagree with it. It is why we have the cameras we have today. People wanted an easier way of doing it.

 

[dhilberg]

I am saying that there are shots that cannot be done with a given camera set up.

for example, the DOF at 10 feet cannot be achieved with a 50mm 1.2 at 1.2 can not be achieved with a 18-55 3.5-5.6 at 5.6 (the normal kit lens). There is a difference.

There is also 4 stops of difference in lighting. This means that if you're shooting at an ISO of 6400 and you can achieve 1/50 ss then at 5.6 you can achieve approximately 1/3rd of a second if you are maintaining the 6400. if however you're using the 400iso(asa) that was mentioned earlier this shutter speed would become about a 2 second shutter speed which will be blurry unless posed. any movement will be blurry and this is why better equipment is advantageous and necessary for certain images in certain situations.

So yes, there are images that are impossible with a given camera. You can to an extent mimic it, but..

Come on. That is just ridiculous. You haven't given me a shot, you have given me a situation. I can shoot anything with a D40 or a F3 that you can with a D3X. And I mean a photograph. A portrait, wedding, product, architecture, etc.

I understand that you like the latest and greatest but the truth is, it is all about the photographer and if they have the eye. I believe some people have it and some don't. You can teach it to a certain extent but not all of it. Some of it is just plain God given talent. Doesn't matter what camera you have.

Sports photography is an excellent example of where equipment matters. Get a shot like this with a D40 and kit lens:
Baseball Photos: Pat Burrell

I can tell you now it wouldn't be usable.

In some situations, equipment does matter, mostly when pushing the limits. Otherwise pros wouldn't be buying the best of the best if they could get by with less expensive equipment.

Some situations require the use of specialized equipment--or you don't get a shot, period. Others don't.

The need for talent is evident, but all the talent in the world won't get you frozen action under the lights--unless you have the right equipment.

 

[CSR Studio]

Sports photography is an excellent example of where equipment matters. Get a shot like this with a D40 and kit lens:
Baseball Photos: Pat Burrell

I can tell you now it wouldn't be usable.

In some situations, equipment does matter, mostly when pushing the limits. Otherwise pros wouldn't be buying the best of the best if they could get by with less expensive equipment.

Some situations require the use of specialized equipment--or you don't get a shot, period. Others don't.

The need for talent is evident, but all the talent in the world won't get you frozen action under the lights--unless you have the right equipment.

The opposite can be said as well. There are things that can be done with older or lesser equipment that can't be done with the latest and greatest camera on the market today. That is not the point.

 

[Buckster]

It's all about the results for me.

that's because you're unwilling to admit that certain shots are impossible to get with lesser equipment.

No, it's because the results really are all that matter to me, and I can't think of any reason in the world why it should make any difference to me what they use to achieve acceptable results.

Anything that's not possible for that photographer to achieve, for any reason, be it skill or equipment, won't be in his or her portfolio. Would you agree with that basic premise?

If their portfolio shows that they can meet my expectations, then whatever equipment they have and use is obviously adequate to the task, and so are their skills with it.

You give the possibility that if they can achieve these things then you'll be thrilled.

Yep. Shouldn't I be?

But this is leaving out the obvious that there are things that can not be accomplished and your fantasy scenario that anything can be accomplished with any equipment is ludicrous.

Sorry, but I never said that, nor even implied it. Perhaps you've misunderstood, but I've tried to clearly communicate that whatever is in their portfolio is what matters, because it clearly shows what they are able to achieve, no matter what equipment it is that they have and use. That's no fantasy - it's the evidence in the form of the portfolio they're able to present.

This ain't rocket science to figure out: Either they can or they cannot meet my expectations as a client, and it will be in their portfolio. If it's not there, they don't get the job. If it is, they do. And either way, it doesn't matter to me at all what equipment they have and use, as long as they have demonstrated that they can get the job done.

I don't really know how I can be more clear about what I'm trying to say.

 

[Buckster]

I am saying that there are shots that cannot be done with a given camera set up.

for example, the DOF at 10 feet cannot be achieved with a 50mm 1.2 at 1.2 can not be achieved with a 18-55 3.5-5.6 at 5.6 (the normal kit lens). There is a difference.

There is also 4 stops of difference in lighting. This means that if you're shooting at an ISO of 6400 and you can achieve 1/50 ss then at 5.6 you can achieve approximately 1/3rd of a second if you are maintaining the 6400. if however you're using the 400iso(asa) that was mentioned earlier this shutter speed would become about a 2 second shutter speed which will be blurry unless posed. any movement will be blurry and this is why better equipment is advantageous and necessary for certain images in certain situations.

So yes, there are images that are impossible with a given camera. You can to an extent mimic it, but..

Come on. That is just ridiculous. You haven't given me a shot, you have given me a situation. I can shoot anything with a D40 or a F3 that you can with a D3X. And I mean a photograph. A portrait, wedding, product, architecture, etc.

I understand that you like the latest and greatest but the truth is, it is all about the photographer and if they have the eye. I believe some people have it and some don't. You can teach it to a certain extent but not all of it. Some of it is just plain God given talent. Doesn't matter what camera you have.

Sports photography is an excellent example of where equipment matters. Get a shot like this with a D40 and kit lens:
Baseball Photos: Pat Burrell

I can tell you now it wouldn't be usable.

In some situations, equipment does matter, mostly when pushing the limits. Otherwise pros wouldn't be buying the best of the best if they could get by with less expensive equipment.

Some situations require the use of specialized equipment--or you don't get a shot, period. Others don't.

The need for talent is evident, but all the talent in the world won't get you frozen action under the lights--unless you have the right equipment.

I think this still misses the point.

First, just to stay on track with the thread's premise, the scenario was "a dinner party, dance, even a wedding", not the cover of Sports Illustrated. Even so...

Go to Sports Illustrated and show them that you have the best camera and lens in the world. Does that get you the job?

Now go in with a portfolio of great sports shots. Do they care what your gear is?

The point, once again, is that if it's not achievable by someone, whatever the reason, then it's not gonna be in their portfolio, and the client takes their business elsewhere.

If it is in their portfolio however, it ultimately doesn't matter to the client what gear they use - their portfolio shows they're able to deliver to the client's expectations, and that's the bottom line.

 

[dhilberg]

Sports photography is an excellent example of where equipment matters. Get a shot like this with a D40 and kit lens:
Baseball Photos: Pat Burrell

I can tell you now it wouldn't be usable.

In some situations, equipment does matter, mostly when pushing the limits. Otherwise pros wouldn't be buying the best of the best if they could get by with less expensive equipment.

Some situations require the use of specialized equipment--or you don't get a shot, period. Others don't.

The need for talent is evident, but all the talent in the world won't get you frozen action under the lights--unless you have the right equipment.

The opposite can be said as well. There are things that can be done with older or lesser equipment that can't be done with the latest and greatest camera on the market today. That is not the point.

If a situation presented itself where "older or lesser equipment" would be the better choice for the shot, wouldn't that be "the right equipment?"

Your basic premise is that equipment doesn't matter. And in my opinion it doesn't...to some extent. I simply pointed out an example where equipment does matter, or you don't get a shot (my point). I'm not quite sure how you can refute that point by diverting attention to old equipment (classic Red Herring fallacy).

 

[dhilberg]

Sports photography is an excellent example of where equipment matters. Get a shot like this with a D40 and kit lens:
Baseball Photos: Pat Burrell

I can tell you now it wouldn't be usable.

In some situations, equipment does matter, mostly when pushing the limits. Otherwise pros wouldn't be buying the best of the best if they could get by with less expensive equipment.

Some situations require the use of specialized equipment--or you don't get a shot, period. Others don't.

The need for talent is evident, but all the talent in the world won't get you frozen action under the lights--unless you have the right equipment.

I think this still misses the point.

First, just to stay on track with the thread's premise, the scenario was "a dinner party, dance, even a wedding", not the cover of Sports Illustrated. Even so...

I realize that. My only reason to join this thread was to point out that there are indeed situations where the equipment does matter, as someone suggested otherwise. I'm not going to speak for Nate, but I think that's his point also.

Go to Sports Illustrated and show them that you have the best camera and lens in the world. Does that get you the job?

Doubtful. However, if you waltz into SI with a D40 and kit lens looking for a job, they'll probably think you're crazy.

Now go in with a portfolio of great sports shots. Do they care what your gear is?

They probably wouldn't. However, I would think that the magazine's editors know the technical aspects of photography well enough to realize that shots like that can't come out of entry-level equipment, and therefore they don't need to inquire about it. Or maybe they do inquire about equipment. I really don't know, I'm not a sports photographer for SI.

The point, once again, is that if it's not achievable by someone, whatever the reason, then it's not gonna be in their portfolio, and the client takes their business elsewhere.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, that's common sense.

If it is in their portfolio however, it ultimately doesn't matter to the client what gear they use - their portfolio shows they're able to deliver to the client's expectations, and that's the bottom line.

I understand that part, which is why I haven't addressed it.

 

[CSR Studio]

Your basic premise is that equipment doesn't matter. And in my opinion it doesn't...to some extent. I simply pointed out an example where equipment does matter, or you don't get a shot (my point). I'm not quite sure how you can refute that point by diverting attention to old equipment (classic Red Herring fallacy).

My point was to say that no one single camera or piece of equipment can do it all. Therefore, equipment is not the be all end all, which I have been saying all along.

I think some people are getting a little sensitive about not having the eye and are therefore trying to over compensate with equipment.

 

[CSR Studio]

Your basic premise is that equipment doesn't matter. And in my opinion it doesn't...to some extent. I simply pointed out an example where equipment does matter, or you don't get a shot (my point). I'm not quite sure how you can refute that point by diverting attention to old equipment (classic Red Herring fallacy).

Fallacy huh?

Then what about infared? Better with film than digital. Is that a fallacy too?

Second example, extremely long exposures. Not good with digital, too much noise.

Third example, scheimpflug, swing, tilt and shift.

 

[JamesMason]

Two words.

Ken Rockwell

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

'nuff said.

Rofl. And a d3 and 37 leicas and canon on days nikon makes him angry.

Ken is relevant to the arguement tho, he knows more about camreas than nikon (in the same way sci-fi buffs know more than the film maker) and little about taking photos.