Pro with D40

[Christie Photo]

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

 

[Derrel]

My buddy Steve started shooting minor league baseball in 2003 with a first generation Digital Rebel and Canon's 70-300 IS lens, the "old" one with the purple fringing. He played baseball in high school,and was a catcher, and came from a real baseball family. He did pretty well, since he knew the sport extremely well,and most games began at 5:30, but some started at 6:30 PM. Later inning stuff looked crappy in 2003,2004,and 2005,and the lens's optics at longer FL's gave a lot of purple fringing visible on the uniform whites.

Then, he got a Rebel 400, and it had a bit better image quality,but the 70-300 IS lens still had purple fringing,and was a bit too short,and that body was not too good at high ISO. The lens was also slow,both aperture wise,and focusing wise.

In the summer of 2007, I got a great deal on a used Sigma 80-400 OS lens, which I loaned to him that summer,and in the summer of 2008,and also this summer of 2009. IMMEDIATELY, the first GAME of the summer of 2007, Steve's baseball images improved substantially due to the 80-400 OS lens instead of the older Canon designed lens. Faster focusing, and a better zoom range. Both he and I could see the immediate gains in results with the new lens.

This summer, I shot a game with him using my Nikon equipment, and brought my 70-200 2.8 IS Canon lens for him to try instead of the Sigma 80-400 OS, which he used after the sun went down. After putting on the 70-200 2.8 he IMMEDIATELY was able to jack up his shutter speeds,and was able to shoot the entire game, which was not possible with the 80-400 Sigma as the light of day faded and the stadium lighting took over around the 4th inning. He used the 70-200/2.8 throughout the entire playoffs,and got shots that he said, "I never could have got without a 2.8 lens." f/5 at 200mm is about where the 80-400 Sigma tops out between focal length reach and f/stop; with the Canon, it's 2.8 at 200mm.

Same stadium, same lights, same ballclub, but much better pictures with EACH step up the equipment scale, and with almost no learning curve, just immediately better results, as soon as the equipment was notched up. Night baseball is a good example of where faster lenses and better camera bodies with better High-ISO performance makes a big difference in what the same guy can capture.

 

[Christie Photo]

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

And there it is.

-Pete

 

[NateWagner]

well, there it is, depending on what "it" is.

If it is being able to achieve the best he can achieve with a given piece of equipment then sure.

but, as Derrel pointed out, better equipment can allow you to take images that lesser equipment won't allow. This is not to suggest that just getting better equipment makes you a better photographer, it just opens up possibilities that were not there before.

 

[CSR Studio]

so therefore gear makes no difference?

When it comes right down to it, no it doesn't. It is about having the eye to see the light. That is what we should be bragging about, not the latest greatest camera or equipment.

 

[Buckster]

so therefore gear makes no difference?

To me, it doesn't. To me, all that matters is the end product.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[NateWagner]

To me, it doesn't. To me, all that matters is the end product.

mmk, let me clarify what I am stating, are you saying that gear has no influence on the images created?

Let me postulate something. I think the main cause of this disagreement is a continuing case of miscommunication.

Your statement is that the portfolio should speak for itself, if a person has a great portfolio etc. then you would consider hiring them as a pro.

Here we are in agreement.

My argument is saying, if for example the portfolio contains no images of quality in lighting conditions similar to the one that I will have at the event for which I am hiring I may be wary. If I then find out he has only low level equipment which I do not believe can handle the lighting etc. then that would further put me off from hiring him.

Similarly if I want t particularly low DOF shots as a part of my wedding and he is unable to provide those or examples of them because he either doesn't know how to control the necessary factors, or doesn't have the proper equipment then I may consider looking somewhere else.

And of course, if he wasn't insured etc. and was not a legal business that would push me away (personally)

I agree that the photographer is the most important part.

I think that equipment can open doors to shots that would be impossible otherwise.

I think that both a good photographer, and good equipment is ideal.

 

[Christie Photo]

Once friend A notices the clarity and sharpness of Friends B's pictures.. she is no longer satisfied with her grainy pictures.

I'm not a betting man, but I've got $20 that says "friend A" wouldn't notice.

In fact, all other things equal (and presuming the images were properly exposed) I'm not sure I'd notice.

-Pete

 

[Buckster]

To me, it doesn't. To me, all that matters is the end product.

mmk, let me clarify what I am stating, are you saying that gear has no influence on the images created?

No, I'm clearly saying that the gear has no influence on whether or not I'll hire the photographer, which is the theme's opening question and subject of the resulting discussion.

Let me postulate something. I think the main cause of this disagreement is a continuing case of miscommunication.

Your statement is that the portfolio should speak for itself, if a person has a great portfolio etc. then you would consider hiring them as a pro.

Here we are in agreement.

Pretty simple. And that, to me, is the end of the issue.

My argument is saying, if for example the portfolio contains no images of quality in lighting conditions similar to the one that I will have at the event for which I am hiring I may be wary.

And it doesn't matter WHAT equipment or gear they have or use, right?

If I then find out he has only low level equipment which I do not believe can handle the lighting etc. then that would further put me off from hiring him.

It's a moot point because neither of us is going to hire him based on the portfolio, as stated above in your point just before this one, which means we're not even going to get to step two: reviewing what equipment he uses - it simply doesn't matter what equipment he uses to make the crappy portfolio we viewed.

Similarly if I want t particularly low DOF shots as a part of my wedding and he is unable to provide those or examples of them because he either doesn't know how to control the necessary factors, or doesn't have the proper equipment then I may consider looking somewhere else.

And you should, but again, that's based on what you see in his portfolio. If it looks good to you, he has demonstrated that he is capable of doing the job with the gear he uses.

And of course, if he wasn't insured etc. and was not a legal business that would push me away (personally)

Which has nothing at all to do with what gear he uses.

I agree that the photographer is the most important part.

Cool.

I think that equipment can open doors to shots that would be impossible otherwise.

That's between the photographer and his gear. I don't care what he uses, as long as he uses it well enough to meet my needs as a client, which I will decide based on his portfolio.

I think that both a good photographer, and good equipment is ideal.

The only "ideal" I need met is that the photographer can deliver to me a product that is acceptable to me. Obviously, if I have a wedding in mind, I want to see his wedding portfolio and a couple of sample packages for actual clients. If it is acceptable to me, he's hired, and I don't care what he uses to do it, other than the fact that I'm a camera gear-head myself and have an interest from that perspective.

If he's doing insanely incredible work with a pinhole camera made from a shoebox with a magnifying glass duct taped to the front, I'll get on my knees and kiss his ring as I hire him.

It's all about the results for me.

Again, your mileage may vary, and you can feel free to turn down the next budding Dean Collins or Joe McNally because you don't think his camera is good enough, if that's what you want to base it on. That's entirely up to you, and more power to you my friend. I'm just voicing what I personally would do, and why. I don't expect anyone else to follow suit.

 

[NateWagner]

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.

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

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.

 

[CSR Studio]

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.

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

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.

What shot is impossible? Are you saying that some shot has never been done before because of a camera?

 

[NateWagner]

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..

 

[CSR Studio]

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.

 

[schumionbike]

I'll look at the portfolio and hire the photographer base on his portfolio. If he can make a noisy image look cool, then more power to him. You know, a D2X isn't good at low light either, it's probably worst than the D40 actually but that won't stop wedding photographers from using them and the pictures are incredible. True, a photographer probably would do better if he uses a D3 but the fact that he is using a D40 doesn't mean his pictures are crap, if it's good enough for the clients, it's good enough. So what if he could have done better, who cares, that's not what he advertised in his portolio and that not what you pay for either.
Also, I don't know why everyone is going on and on about shooting in dark churches, not all churches are dark and not all of the weddings pictures are gonna be in the church. There are a variety of shots and not all of them requires 6400 ISO. Even if you are in dark church, there's other alternative to 6400 ISO capability such as bouch flash or get really good at holding the camera and not shake or just nail the exposure and work on it in post. Now if he show you a portfolio taken by a D3 and he show up with a D40, that's a different story but if you're happy with his portfolio, then you should be happy with him.

 

[SushiWarrior]

Wow that was a lot of reading. I think I can sum it up in a couple of sentences.

A person with a good eye but limited equipment is only good to a point. In low light a poor little D40 can only do so much. The composition and settings can all be as good as they should but he can't make the camera go any faster. In bright light and good conditions the D40 will do well but the limited megapixels will be a huge drawback when you want a big print. Yes, he's better than a guy with good stuff and no skill but it all depends on the conditions.

Also this is simply about USABILITY, not image quality. All that really matters is fast speed and resolution. It does not have to be taken with a super sharp lens and noise-free, but it has to not be blurry and usable in a rather large print.



PS: If this guy is so good, why is he shooting with a D40? Someone as good as him must be able to afford a better camera. That's just unfair profits.