Pro with D40

[TiCoyote]

I wouldn't hire a carpenter because he uses a California framing hammer instead of a 16-oz claw, but I might be disappointed if he uses a miter box and hand saw instead of an electric miter saw. I'd be disappointed because my cabinets wouldn't be ready until next June, not because he's using inferior equipment.

Point is, I'd hire a photographer based upon (1) his portfolio (2) the recommendations I get about him from others (3) his fees.

Everyone agrees that a photag's skill is way more important than his equipment. Some shooters make use of all their settings, others are all manual all the time. I would expect a pro to have a nice camera, but I wouldn't hire him because of it.

 

[Garbz]

Bad comparison. We're talking time critical cases. In the above example I said I wouldn't hire for a one time event. I would have no problem hiring such a person for studio work since it's not timecritical.

To compare:
Would you hire a carpenter with a nasty old Black & Decker jig with only one blade that looks like it may cut for another five minutes and then snap, if you know that your cabinet must be finished tonight or else your life would be ruined?
Or someone with a shiny Hitachi complete with a complete set of spare blades, and quite possibly a Black & Decker as a backup unit incase the Hitachi craps itself?


I'm not contesting the quality of the result. I'm only contesting the preparedness for a very very important job. It's like a racing driver without a pit crew. Sure he may finish the race on the same set of tyres, but what if one blows out? There is a lot to be said about the professionalism of someone who is prepared for some bad disasters.

 

[NateWagner]

Again, Racephoto, the topic is about the D40, and not the 40D which are two entirely different cameras. That being said, I have also seen a great deal of weddings shot with a xt, or d40 +kit lens in which the shots looked no better than if they had been snapshots taken with a P&S by a 10 year old with no skill just a happy trigger finger. (just look at the weddings posted frequently on facebook or craigslist if you're curious).

by the way, the D40 (a consumer grade plastic body) was released Dec 1, 2006. The 40D (which is a higher level prosumer type body) was released in 2007 as you said.

so you're telling me that a D40 or an XTI is the same as a p&s? The reason why you see crappy picture with D40 because those people are beginner. No beginner is going to drop $5K on a body but most will be able to get a D40. Doesn't mean that a D40 can't produce quality images in the hand of a pro-shooter.

Did I say the D40 or the XTI is the same as a point and shoot? You quoted my text so you should be able to look and see that I specifically said, "he shots looked no better than if they had been snapshots taken with a P&S by a 10 year old with no skill just a happy trigger finger."
In other words Just because you have a D40 doesn't mean you have any skill.

Secondly, I have never said, nor will I say that a D40 nor an XTI will not produce quality images. Some of the images on my site were taken with an old Rebel XT. Just because I think that there are advantages to higher level cameras doesn't mean I think lower level cameras can not take good images.

 

[schumionbike]

Again, Racephoto, the topic is about the D40, and not the 40D which are two entirely different cameras. That being said, I have also seen a great deal of weddings shot with a xt, or d40 +kit lens in which the shots looked no better than if they had been snapshots taken with a P&S by a 10 year old with no skill just a happy trigger finger. (just look at the weddings posted frequently on facebook or craigslist if you're curious).

by the way, the D40 (a consumer grade plastic body) was released Dec 1, 2006. The 40D (which is a higher level prosumer type body) was released in 2007 as you said.

so you're telling me that a D40 or an XTI is the same as a p&s? The reason why you see crappy picture with D40 because those people are beginner. No beginner is going to drop $5K on a body but most will be able to get a D40. Doesn't mean that a D40 can't produce quality images in the hand of a pro-shooter.

Did I say the D40 or the XTI is the same as a point and shoot? You quoted my text so you should be able to look and see that I specifically said, "he shots looked no better than if they had been snapshots taken with a P&S by a 10 year old with no skill just a happy trigger finger."
In other words Just because you have a D40 doesn't mean you have any skill.

That's my point all along. It's the photographer that count the most. You can say what you said above for just about every single camera on the market today. Nobody say you were any good because you have a D40 but the same can be said about the D3 or D700. I'm just saying you can hire a pro if you like his portforlio and his particular style of photography. If he used a D40, he used a D40. The D40 is no prize to be won but even an entry DSLR would be able satisfy the need of a wedding. I do agree with Garbz that he does need to have a backup. I've seen D40 used as a back up to a D200 and things like that at weddings.

 

[schumionbike]

Oh, and compare to today standard, the D200 is no prize to be won either, nor is the D2x when it come to wedding but oh well, it's the digital age

 

[NateWagner]

Yes, the photographer matters the most. However, as I have said all along, better equipment does matter as well. Better equipment allows for images that otherwise would not have been possible (whether that be the cleanness, the sharpness, etc.)

Can a lesser camera capture good images? of course. I would never say otherwise, however, it is limited compared to other, higher quality cameras.

I also agree with Garbz, redundancy of equipment is highly important in a professional setting, particularly in one time events.

 

[schumionbike]

Yes, the photographer matters the most. However, as I have said all along, better equipment does matter as well. Better equipment allows for images that otherwise would not have been possible (whether that be the cleanness, the sharpness, etc.)

Can a lesser camera capture good images? of course. I would never say otherwise, however, it is limited compared to other, higher quality cameras.

I also agree with Garbz, redundancy of equipment is highly important in a professional setting, particularly in one time events.

I agreed!

 

[SNAPaPHOTO]

Sabbath9999

Quote: Originally Posted by PatrickHMS
Is there THAT much difference in the actual RAW data stored on the memory card from a shot taken with a D40 vs one of the other Nikon DSLRS, say in the range of the D60 / D80 / D90 / D200 ?

What about the D300 ??
Yes, there is a LOT less data on the D40 vs. the D90 or... besides, these are not pro cameras either... the Nikon Pro cameras are the D700 & D3, the D200 and D300 really are just prosumer models.

Why would you say the d300 is not a pro camera. While not full frame, it is still a pro camera in my mind. I would love to know your thoughts.

 

[Dominantly]

FK no I wouldn't hire a "Professional" with a D40 to shoot something for me. I would be taken back if the assistant was running around with a D40, even if the Pro had a Pro body.

 

[Montana]

Sabbath9999

Quote: Originally Posted by PatrickHMS
Is there THAT much difference in the actual RAW data stored on the memory card from a shot taken with a D40 vs one of the other Nikon DSLRS, say in the range of the D60 / D80 / D90 / D200 ?

What about the D300 ??
Yes, there is a LOT less data on the D40 vs. the D90 or... besides, these are not pro cameras either... the Nikon Pro cameras are the D700 & D3, the D200 and D300 really are just prosumer models.

Why would you say the d300 is not a pro camera. While not full frame, it is still a pro camera in my mind. I would love to know your thoughts.

FOr the same reasons a D40 isn't, it just isn't. Its in the middle.

 

[NateWagner]

Well, I'm not sure if the D700 would technically count as a pro camera either. It's more of a full frame prosumer camera, same as the D300 is a crop prosumer.

The only reason it isn't a "pro" camera is because of the designation by Nikon/Canon. Can and are these camera's used by pros? absolutely.

Besides, the definition of a prosumer is that it is used both by pros and consumers. It fits into both markets.

 

[Hamtastic]

Say you want to hire someone for a job, like a dinner party, dance, even a wedding; when you meet the guy, he has a D40, SB whatever, and maybe a few lenses. Do you keep him? Why not?

I want to see an online portfolio with examples from many events. I want to see a print portfolio with at least 2 dozen prints. I want to talk to previous clients. If those all pass muster I would be interested in hiring, and will trust the photographer to choose the equipment that works best for them.

 

[Felix 222]

who cares about the equipment as long as he takes better shots than the guy with the d3. judge based on his portfolio, not camera. photographer > equipment....but i do understand the issue.

 

[Dominantly]

Because equipment matters. If it didn't there would be no reason for multi-thousand dollar camera bodies or expensive glass.

 

[Felix 222]

Because equipment matters. If it didn't there would be no reason for multi-thousand dollar camera bodies or expensive glass.

the equipment is as effective as the photographer makes it. i'm not disputing that more expensive bodies, lenses, and lighting equipment will produce better results. i'm saying its the photographer's ability with the equipment that decides the quality of each photo. a d40 owner may utilize his cheaper camera body better than a d700 or d3 owner, especially if he has a better understanding of what little equipment he may have and more experience.

i know where you're coming from though: a professional photographer, if given an introduction dslr body and pro dslr body, will produce better photos with the pro dslr.