Pro with D40

[joeywpc]

Ummmm... not to intrude on this love fest, but...

Has anyone considered that, in large part, it's not going to a photographer (or wanna-be) doing the hiring, so the whole equipment posturing thing is pretty much mute?

-Pete

I agree with Christie Photo, however a passionate photographer will spend time with the potential client explaining why their pro equipment will produce better results than Johnny's pro-sumer model and why they are worth the extra $$.

 

[Village Idiot]

well, I honestly should have stopped disagreeing with you before, I just hadn't looked at your portfolio yet which fully explains why you hold so strongly to your position CSR (inaccurate though it may be).

^So, what is this supposed to mean?


Regarding your latest post. Yes, there is different equipment for different situations, which is part of what we have been talking about. There isn't one camera that is good for everything so therefore it goes back to the photographer.

The original question was would you hire a pro with a D40. I said the gear that the photographer has doesn't matter as long as he has the eye. Therefore, the type of gear doesn't matter. If he is able to get the image then it is good.

Which would you rather hire? A pro with a d40 or a pro with a d700, provided skill sets were the exact same? If you say d40, then you're just being difficult.

 

[schumionbike]

Which would you rather hire? A pro with a d40 or a pro with a d700, provided skill sets were the exact same? If you say d40, then you're just being difficult.

Pro with D700. Skill sets are never the same though nor are styles between photographers are ever the same. Oh and we haven't mention lens yet lol. Essentially, the OP want to know if the D40 can produce pro-quality image at a wedding, and the answer is yes, given the the right photographer. The problem with the D3 and the D700 when they came out is everyone think you need to shoot at 6400 ISO all the time or that it's the defining moment in photography. It's nice to have and I wish I have it but people don't realize that for the longest time, 1600 ISO was the max you go before everything look like a mess but you can still get good pictures. You just have to use the noise or the grain (in the case with film) to your advantage .

 

[Mystwalker]

Was he charging "pro level price" for his service?

Have never used a D40, but know that I chose 30D over D40 as my first DSLR. Now if the pro was using an TLi or Nikon's model, I would not know what to think.

If pro using entry level equipment is charging same as pro using pro equipment, and both have similar portfolios, I go with pro using better equipment. In this case, maybe price is a consideration? For me event is also a consideration. If this were a wedding, I would expect to pay $3K-$5K and would expect pro to have top of line equipment. If this were a kid's 16th birthday in the park, I'm guessing any DSLR will do a good job. But I will also not expect to pay anywhere near price of wedding.

 

[NateWagner]

The D40 is way below the T1i. The D40 is roughly on par with a Rebel 300 or maybe 350(xt) (meaning it's consumer line DSLR that is about 3 years old).

 

[CSR Studio]

well, I honestly should have stopped disagreeing with you before, I just hadn't looked at your portfolio yet which fully explains why you hold so strongly to your position CSR (inaccurate though it may be).

^So, what is this supposed to mean?


Regarding your latest post. Yes, there is different equipment for different situations, which is part of what we have been talking about. There isn't one camera that is good for everything so therefore it goes back to the photographer.

The original question was would you hire a pro with a D40. I said the gear that the photographer has doesn't matter as long as he has the eye. Therefore, the type of gear doesn't matter. If he is able to get the image then it is good.

Which would you rather hire? A pro with a d40 or a pro with a d700, provided skill sets were the exact same? If you say d40, then you're just being difficult.

Of course the pro with the d700 but as schumionbike pointed out skill sets are never the same. However, that wasn't the question.

 

[CSR Studio]

Which would you rather hire? A pro with a d40 or a pro with a d700, provided skill sets were the exact same? If you say d40, then you're just being difficult.

Pro with D700. Skill sets are never the same though nor are styles between photographers are ever the same. Oh and we haven't mention lens yet lol. Essentially, the OP want to know if the D40 can produce pro-quality image at a wedding, and the answer is yes, given the the right photographer. The problem with the D3 and the D700 when they came out is everyone think you need to shoot at 6400 ISO all the time or that it's the defining moment in photography. It's nice to have and I wish I have it but people don't realize that for the longest time, 1600 ISO was the max you go before everything look like a mess but you can still get good pictures. You just have to use the noise or the grain (in the case with film) to your advantage .

I completely agree!

 

[dhilberg]

Actually, the red herring is the one that says some shots can only be gotten with certain gear adequate to the task, and was introduced to divert attention from the actual topic and question, which is "would you hire/not hire someone based on their gear?"

Your argument would be fine here, except for the fact that I didn't join this thread on the subject of whether or not a photographer would be hired based on his/her gear or portfolio, and then avoid the issue by diverting to a discussion on how gear matters. I only joined this thread on page 8 (link) with the intent on pointing out how I disagree with CSR_Studio's blanket viewpoint that the "equipment doesn't matter." I disagree with that statement (nothing else), which I've said time, and time again. That's it, no more, no less.

The thing is, it wasn't a blanket statement, but was predicated on the discussion up to that point, and specifically on the attempted red herring slanted question as it pertains to the original question of the thread.

I would like to see this so-called red herring which attempts to deviate the discussion from the original question of the thread, which is, "Why not hire a pro with a D40?" That's a discussion about gear. Continuing with a discussion about gear isn't deviating from the "original question of the thread."

CSR_Studio insisting gear doesn't matter is a blanket statement, period. It's only later on that she said certain situations call for certain types of gear. This implies that the gear does matter, which conflicts with her earlier statement, hence the confusion. I thought the gear didn't matter? Wait, now it does matter? Which is it? You can't have both!

I haven't diverted attention from anything, and have already addressed the issue of demonstrated abilities (last two paragraphs here). I'm simply asking for CSR_Studio to explain why she thinks the gear doesn't matter. However, now it appears she agrees with my viewpoint, which is why I'm asking for additional clarification.

Quite true that you didn't introduce the red herring. That was done by someone else. That said, your decision to ignore the discussion that preceded it and run with the red herring instead seems to have led to the confusion you're having with the answer from CSR_Studio.

I think you misunderstand what a red herring is. Since this thread originated on a question about gear, my assertion that the gear matters is quite on topic, as are all other posts concerning gear. Moreover, I haven't ignored anything. I've addressed everything relevant to the discussion, including talent and portfolio. Again, the confusion arises from her assertion that gear doesn't matter, to then suggesting that certain situations call for certain types of gear, which implies that gear does matter.

Again, it's explained simply by noting that the statement was made in relation to the discussion that precedes it, and specifically to the question raised by the thread's premise question.

"Equipment doesn't matter" when it's the portfolio that demonstrates if a photographer is up to the task a client desires.

Again, the thread originated on the question, "Why not hire a pro with a D40?" That's a question about gear. CSR_Studio responded to Nate's question, "so therefore gear makes no difference?" with "When it comes right down to it, no it doesn't," which is what prompted me to join this discussion because I disagree. Like I said before, all the talent in the world isn't going to help you when your gear isn't up to the task. The gear matters.

Hopefully, that clears up the misunderstanding.

Only her explanation will be able to.

At this point it's clear that both you and CSR_Studio are disagreeing with me simply for the sake of disagreement. Unfortunately, the time I've invested in this thread seems to have gone to waste (darn it!).

No one will ever convince me that gear doesn't matter, because it does (sorry Ken Rockwell). Otherwise pros would be walking around with a $100 P&S (as an example). There's a time and a place for certain gear (the gear matters), my original point upon entering this discussion, which originated as a discussion about gear in the first place.

 

[Plato]

Your argument would be fine here, except for the fact that I didn't join this thread on the subject of whether or not a photographer would be hired based on his/her gear or portfolio, and then avoid the issue by diverting to a discussion on how gear matters. I only joined this thread on page 8 (link) with the intent on pointing out how I disagree with CSR_Studio's blanket viewpoint that the "equipment doesn't matter." I disagree with that statement (nothing else), which I've said time, and time again. That's it, no more, no less.

The thing is, it wasn't a blanket statement, but was predicated on the discussion up to that point, and specifically on the attempted red herring slanted question as it pertains to the original question of the thread.

I would like to see this so-called red herring which attempts to deviate the discussion from the original question of the thread, which is, "Why not hire a pro with a D40?" That's a discussion about gear. Continuing with a discussion about gear isn't deviating from the "original question of the thread."

CSR_Studio insisting gear doesn't matter is a blanket statement, period. It's only later on that she said certain situations call for certain types of gear. This implies that the gear does matter, which conflicts with her earlier statement, hence the confusion. I thought the gear didn't matter? Wait, now it does matter? Which is it? You can't have both!



I think you misunderstand what a red herring is. Since this thread originated on a question about gear, my assertion that the gear matters is quite on topic, as are all other posts concerning gear. Moreover, I haven't ignored anything. I've addressed everything relevant to the discussion, including talent and portfolio. Again, the confusion arises from her assertion that gear doesn't matter, to then suggesting that certain situations call for certain types of gear, which implies that gear does matter.

Again, it's explained simply by noting that the statement was made in relation to the discussion that precedes it, and specifically to the question raised by the thread's premise question.

"Equipment doesn't matter" when it's the portfolio that demonstrates if a photographer is up to the task a client desires.

Again, the thread originated on the question, "Why not hire a pro with a D40?" That's a question about gear. CSR_Studio responded to Nate's question, "so therefore gear makes no difference?" with "When it comes right down to it, no it doesn't," which is what prompted me to join this discussion because I disagree. Like I said before, all the talent in the world isn't going to help you when your gear isn't up to the task. The gear matters.

Hopefully, that clears up the misunderstanding.

Only her explanation will be able to.

At this point it's clear that both you and CSR_Studio are disagreeing with me simply for the sake of disagreement. Unfortunately, the time I've invested in this thread seems to have gone to waste (darn it!).

No one will ever convince me that gear doesn't matter, because it does (sorry Ken Rockwell). Otherwise pros would be walking around with a $100 P&S (as an example). There's a time and a place for certain gear (the gear matters), my original point upon entering this discussion, which originated as a discussion about gear in the first place.

 

[dhilberg]

Ok, I will give this one more shot.

By the way, Thank you again Buckster.

It's only you and Nate, Dennis, that have difficulty understanding what I am saying. But I will try to walk you through it. You are disecting every word I say and Nate just likes being vague. But I am the one that you have problems with, go figure.

That's because I'm not disagreeing with Nate, I'm disagreeing with you.

Dissecting every word is what happens (should happen) in a good discussion. It forces you think and choose your words very carefully.

When you get right down to it, gear doesn't matter. It is the photographer that matters. However you do have to have some gear to create the image, I think this is where the problem comes in. Just because I mention equipment doesn't mean that I am saying it matters but you do have to have it to take a photograph. That is all, the photographer is the variable that matters, not the gear. If it mattered then we would all have the same gear. This is not a blanket statement, it is about gear versus photographer which is what the thread is about.

Actually the thread originated as a discussion about gear, with the question, "Why not hire a pro with a D40?"

Anyway, your above explanation is exactly the information I was looking for. I was simply waiting for you to elaborate on your opinion. Thank you for finally doing so.

Also, as far as my comment:
I think some people are getting a little sensitive about not having the eye and are therefore trying to over compensate with equipment.
Only you can determine if that is true of yourself, however there are quite a few photographers that it is very true of.

A comment like that has no place in a respectable discussion. It's a mild personal attack, and it attempts to deviate from the discussion. It's also a hasty generalization, classifying those who have purchased expensive equipment as "unskilled."

It seems to me that we have now ironed out this discussion (thankfully), and we are apparently in somewhat of an agreement in the end. Talent is important of course, and the portfolio would be the first thing I would be interested in when choosing a photographer. However, that doesn't change the fact that gear is a necessity. Talent won't get you what your gear can't accomplish.

 

[Dao]

.... Unfortunately, the time I've invested in this thread seems to have gone to waste (darn it!)....

I do not think it is waste of time. At least, I do agree with you and others that gears do matter.

 

[Buckster]

Your argument would be fine here, except for the fact that I didn't join this thread on the subject of whether or not a photographer would be hired based on his/her gear or portfolio, and then avoid the issue by diverting to a discussion on how gear matters. I only joined this thread on page 8 (link) with the intent on pointing out how I disagree with CSR_Studio's blanket viewpoint that the "equipment doesn't matter." I disagree with that statement (nothing else), which I've said time, and time again. That's it, no more, no less.

The thing is, it wasn't a blanket statement, but was predicated on the discussion up to that point, and specifically on the attempted red herring slanted question as it pertains to the original question of the thread.

I would like to see this so-called red herring which attempts to deviate the discussion from the original question of the thread, which is, "Why not hire a pro with a D40?" That's a discussion about gear. Continuing with a discussion about gear isn't deviating from the "original question of the thread."

Watch closely:

Q:"Why not hire a pro with a D40?"

A:"Because he may be THAT GOOD that he can use it to the client's satisfaction, depending on what the client needs. Refer to his portfolio to see if he can meet that expectation."

After that, all the comments about how it won't do this or do that are moot, because if the photographer can use it to do what his potential client wants, then the "equipment doesn't matter".

If you disagree, that's fine - feel free to hire photographers based on what gear they have instead of their demonstrated ability with that gear. Feel free to dismiss them from a dinner party shoot because they don't have the gear to get a Sports Illustrated cover shot. Feel free to base you decisions in that regard on whatever criteria works best for you. I promise, I won't interfere at all.

Meanwhile, I will continue to say that I would not discount a photographer based on the gear alone.

Enjoy life.

CSR_Studio insisting gear doesn't matter is a blanket statement, period.

Only if you choose to read it that way, out of context from the rest of the discussion, which you clearly insist upon. Feel free, but I've no interest in chasing this monkey around the tree any longer.

It's only later on that she said certain situations call for certain types of gear. This implies that the gear does matter, which conflicts with her earlier statement, hence the confusion. I thought the gear didn't matter? Wait, now it does matter? Which is it? You can't have both!

The gear doesn't matter if the photographer has demonstrated that he can use it AND satisfy the client's expectations. That was clearly the context of the phrase, as has been explained to you already. Clearly you don't accept the explanation given, preferring some other answer. Sorry 'bout your luck with that, but it is what it is.

I think you misunderstand what a red herring is.

I assure you, I know what a red herring is.

Since this thread originated on a question about gear, my assertion that the gear matters is quite on topic, as are all other posts concerning gear.

It's a thread, a question and a discussion about whether one would hire someone based on gear.

Moreover, I haven't ignored anything. I've addressed everything relevant to the discussion, including talent and portfolio. Again, the confusion arises from her assertion that gear doesn't matter, to then suggesting that certain situations call for certain types of gear, which implies that gear does matter.

You've actually gone out of your way to ignore everything but the gear part, including the explanations already given you on the context of the statement. It's frankly getting kinda childish at this point, don't you think?

Again, it's explained simply by noting that the statement was made in relation to the discussion that precedes it, and specifically to the question raised by the thread's premise question.

"Equipment doesn't matter" when it's the portfolio that demonstrates if a photographer is up to the task a client desires.

Again, the thread originated on the question, "Why not hire a pro with a D40?" That's a question about gear.

I disagree. I say it's a question about whether to HIRE SOMEONE based on gear.

CSR_Studio responded to Nate's question, "so therefore gear makes no difference?" with "When it comes right down to it, no it doesn't," which is what prompted me to join this discussion because I disagree.

Nate asked that question of me. And if you look the discussion that led up to it as well as what followed, you can see it in context. Nate tried to sideline the hiring part by focusing exclusively on the gear part, and framed it in a way that turned it into the red herring. You took the bait and have been working that little red fish ever since. We didn't.

Like I said before, all the talent in the world isn't going to help you when your gear isn't up to the task. The gear matters.

And the portfolio shows if THAT gear in THAT photographer's hands can meet the client's expectations or not, which is why we focused on the portfolio over the gear as the thing that should be the determining factor. Put THAT gear in Joe McNally's hands, along with a light or two and some simple modifiers and tell me he won't get the job done.

Again, if you want to blow off Joe McNally because he happens to have a D40 in his mitts, that's your prerogative, and more power to you my friend. I simply prefer not to dismiss someone based on the gear. I'd rather base my decision on what they can do with it.

Hopefully, that clears up the misunderstanding.

Only her explanation will be able to.

I look forward to it, if she decides it's not a waste of time. I'm getting to the point where I'm pretty sure it is. It seems really simple to me, but it apparently isn't, or you'd 'get it' by now.

At this point it's clear that both you and CSR_Studio are disagreeing with me simply for the sake of disagreement. Unfortunately, the time I've invested in this thread seems to have gone to waste (darn it!).

No, no, no! Please sir, give me more credit than that! I assure you, I'm sincere in my replies and mean you no disrespect. It is my contention that hiring a photographer should be based on whether their portfolio shows they can meet my expectations as a client, not on the gear they use to do it.

No one will ever convince me that gear doesn't matter, because it does (sorry Ken Rockwell). Otherwise pros would be walking around with a $100 P&S (as an example). There's a time and a place for certain gear (the gear matters), my original point upon entering this discussion, which originated as a discussion about gear in the first place.

Again, it is my sincere contention that it doesn't matter, as long as the photographer using it can meet the client's expectations. Whether he can or can't, it should be reflected in his portfolio, sample packages and even references from satisfied clients. If those meet spec, he's hired. If they don't, he's not. That simple - regardless of his gear.

From your point of view: If his gear is truly inadequate to the task, regardless of his skill, it simply won't be in his portfolio, and that's what we're saying. But if it is adequate to the task because he's that good, as demonstrated in his product made with it, why should we pre-judge based on the gear and not hire him? I think that was the real original question: "Why not?"

Again, I hope that helps clear the fog away. No hard feelings here man, and I hope you don't think this is meant in any way to be antagonistic.

Say "cheese"!

 

[Derrel]

If equipment truly did not matter, then every one of us could simply walk outside and look at a subject, and then we could all,at the proper moment of course, press our thumbs and index fingers together and say, "Click!". And with that, we would all capture a great photograph. But photography does not work that way; no, photography requires a camera and a lens and a capture medium, and therefore the equipment that is used actually has a significant bearing on the results.

If equipment truly did not matter, we could all be out getting fantastic results with 30-year old Kodak 110 Instamatics. We could hire professionals that were using 110 Instamatics. And fantastic sports photographs would regularly be shot with $299 point and shoot cameras. NASA would take Digital Rebels on the Space Shuttle flights. Pros would shoot weddings with D40s. Sports Illustrated photographers would be raving about the Canon T1i's impressive AF system and incredible firing rate over beers after work.

Thumb. Index Finger. Press together,forming circle, bring up to eye, press together and loudly say, "Click!" There's your equipment.

 

[Buckster]

If equipment truly did not matter, then every one of us could simply walk outside and look at a subject, and then we could all,at the proper moment of course, press our thumbs and index fingers together and say, "Click!". And with that, we would all capture a great photograph. But photography does not work that way; no, photography requires a camera and a lens and a capture medium, and therefore the equipment that is used actually has a significant bearing on the results.

If equipment truly did not matter, we could all be out getting fantastic results with 30-year old Kodak 110 Instamatics. We could hire professionals that were using 110 Instamatics. And fantastic sports photographs would regularly be shot with $299 point and shoot cameras. NASA would take Digital Rebels on the Space Shuttle flights. Pros would shoot weddings with D40s. Sports Illustrated photographers would be raving about the Canon T1i's impressive AF system and incredible firing rate over beers after work.

Thumb. Index Finger. Press together,forming circle, bring up to eye, press together and loudly say, "Click!" There's your equipment.

If your portfolio demonstrates that you can meet my expectations as a client , you're hired, Mr. Magic Fingers!

HOW you get it done, including the gear you choose to use, is up to you. Just meet my expectations as a client.

 

[Plato]

If equipment truly did not matter, then every one of us could simply walk outside and look at a subject, and then we could all,at the proper moment of course, press our thumbs and index fingers together and say, "Click!". And with that, we would all capture a great photograph. But photography does not work that way; no, photography requires a camera and a lens and a capture medium, and therefore the equipment that is used actually has a significant bearing on the results.

If equipment truly did not matter, we could all be out getting fantastic results with 30-year old Kodak 110 Instamatics. We could hire professionals that were using 110 Instamatics. And fantastic sports photographs would regularly be shot with $299 point and shoot cameras. NASA would take Digital Rebels on the Space Shuttle flights. Pros would shoot weddings with D40s. Sports Illustrated photographers would be raving about the Canon T1i's impressive AF system and incredible firing rate over beers after work.

Thumb. Index Finger. Press together,forming circle, bring up to eye, press together and loudly say, "Click!" There's your equipment.

Be careful now...
You dared to disagree with the great and wonderful Buckster. He sees all and knows all and he makes no bones about it. He also seems to think that the portfolio would never be fraudulent.