Pro with D40

[Dominantly]

There are also reasons the pro bodies exist. For one, better focusing systems, much much much better low light performance, more FPS, etc.

If you are in a dim church where the pastor tells you no flash is allowed and you're shooting the bride walking down the isle with your D40 and kit lens, are you really going to be able to get the same quality images someone would with a D3x and a Nikkor 14-24mm lens? You could hand that setup to a random joe and they'll get you great technical images.

 

[Felix 222]

you're right....but if the d40 owner has a fast lens, he can dial down the iso and take comparable photos. the FPS can't be disputed though.

your last point seems contradictory. if a random joe will get me great technical images, there would be no need for expensive pro photographers. just like if a d40 would get me pro-worthy images, there would be no need for a pro-d3 body. equipment + photographer is important; however, a photographer > equipment.

 

[Dominantly]

But I said Technical images, meaning the exposure, sharpness, etc. This doesn't really take into account the artistic aspect of composition. They may just shoot the brides butt, and they would probably be great butt shots.

Okay, lets say you grabbed a 50mm f/1.4 and shot it wide open. You have a meager AF system with 3 points, a razor thing focal plane, you're probably moving, and so is your subject. You've now raised your ISO on a CCD sensor, and are taking shots.
That sounds like a whole lot of fun.

As a Pro you need to be able to nail consistency, your images need to surpass those of the uncle in the 3rd row with the D60, and you need to have the experience to be able to put your equipment to best use. If you are taking on a gig with low low consumer grade gear, you have shown you are willing to accept risks, limit your abilities, and try to pass by with pure phenomenal photographic skills.

You have also denied the clients your best, because if you're so good you can shoot a wedding with a D40, one could only imagine what you could do with a Pro camera.

 

[Overread]

Professional - definition in the photographic world- someone who earns over 50% (amount debatable depending on the source) of their income from their photography

Professional camera body - a camera body used by someone who earns ove 50% of their income from photography using that camera as well as possible others

Professional grade camera body as defined by amateurs/pros on a forum - you'll never get a clear answer and the debate will rage for eternity. At some point you can garantee that some will be religating anything but a 1D line camera body to the trash bin; others will have ressurected Ansel Adams to shoot Pultizers with a point and shoot disposable; and the medium format lot will probably sneak around the outside to poke jokes at the 35mm and crop sensor nutters

If the word wedding is involved the debate will rage even more uncontrolably

 

[Felix 222]

But I said Technical images, meaning the exposure, sharpness, etc. This doesn't really take into account the artistic aspect of composition. They may just shoot the brides butt, and they would probably be great butt shots.

Okay, lets say you grabbed a 50mm f/1.4 and shot it wide open. You have a meager AF system with 3 points, a razor thing focal plane, you're probably moving, and so is your subject. You've now raised your ISO on a CCD sensor, and are taking shots.
That sounds like a whole lot of fun.

As a Pro you need to be able to nail consistency, your images need to surpass those of the uncle in the 3rd row with the D60, and you need to have the experience to be able to put your equipment to best use. If you are taking on a gig with low low consumer grade gear, you have shown you are willing to accept risks, limit your abilities, and try to pass by with pure phenomenal photographic skills.

You have also denied the clients your best, because if you're so good you can shoot a wedding with a D40, one could only imagine what you could do with a Pro camera.

yep, i don't disagree with you. personally, i would never hire a wedding photographer that uses a d40 but it made for a fun debate!

 

[Dominantly]

Twas fun.

 

[ghpham]

But I said Technical images, meaning the exposure, sharpness, etc. This doesn't really take into account the artistic aspect of composition. They may just shoot the brides butt, and they would probably be great butt shots.

Okay, lets say you grabbed a 50mm f/1.4 and shot it wide open. You have a meager AF system with 3 points, a razor thing focal plane, you're probably moving, and so is your subject. You've now raised your ISO on a CCD sensor, and are taking shots.
That sounds like a whole lot of fun.

As a Pro you need to be able to nail consistency, your images need to surpass those of the uncle in the 3rd row with the D60, and you need to have the experience to be able to put your equipment to best use. If you are taking on a gig with low low consumer grade gear, you have shown you are willing to accept risks, limit your abilities, and try to pass by with pure phenomenal photographic skills.

You have also denied the clients your best, because if you're so good you can shoot a wedding with a D40, one could only imagine what you could do with a Pro camera.

yep, i don't disagree with you. personally, i would never hire a wedding photographer that uses a d40 but it made for a fun debate!

Only a camera geek like us would ever ask what camera the photographer is using. The average citizen care not. As long as they see a big bad black camera with a huge lens at the end of it, they'll think it's a pro camera

 

[Hamtastic]

If you were doing portraits in bright light outdoors the high flash sync speed of the d40 (higher than many more expensive models) could be quite an advantage.

What if the "pro" showed up with an old Leica? Then the gear heads would all be oohing and ahhhing even though it's lists of weaknesses for event shooting would be ten times longer than a list of weaknesses of a modern entry level DSLR (this from someone who actually used to shoot weddings with Leicas and other old film cameras). I'd take a Nikon d40 over a Hassy 500 c/m (sold mine 3 years ago) any day for my next wedding shoot.

 

[Hamtastic]

From the Canon website:

The Rebel XS is "a beginner's dream come true."

The T1i is "is simple and easy even if you are a beginner."

The 50D "bridges the gap between the novice and the seasoned pro."

The 7D is "the tool of choice for serious photographers and semi-professionals."

The 1D mk IV is " the perfect choice for professional photographers."


Hmmm... the 50D is for seasoned pros but the 7D only for semi-professionals? They didn't say who the 5D mk II was for, but the word professional was never mentioned in the description. Someone should write Ron Howard and let him know. I heard he's been filming with 5D mkIIs. It's surprising that a famous Hollywood director would choose a DSLR with video capability over real Hollywood cameras. Doesn't he know it's not professional?!?

 

[NateWagner]

Yes, but by "today's standards" the d40 would steal not typically be the best choice, whereas by the standards of the day in which the leica or hassalblad 500 was produced it probably was a great choice.

Things are typically measured by the best of the current time period, anything else doesn't really work. It would be silly argument to say that a honda civic is a better race car than a race car from the 1911 Indianapolis 500, the car then was bred to be a race car, they just didn't have nearly the technology they have now, such that subcompacts of today have much more reliability and speed than even the race cars of the early 1900's

Similarly, camera technology has greatly improved with digital high ISO, portability, speed etc. over those of yesteryear.

 

[Mike_E]

I can't believe this thread is still around.

So, do you hire the photographer or the camera?

 

[NateWagner]

both

 

[LBPhotog]

Only a camera geek like us would ever ask what camera the photographer is using. The average citizen care not. As long as they see a big bad black camera with a huge lens at the end of it, they'll think it's a pro camera

"She's doesn't know what you are using, it's a camera, a black camera, a Canon REBEL"

Just to quote that Judge Joe Brown video in the other thread ... this is a great point, only those of us in the know actually care. Your clients care about the END product, not how you get there.

 

[NateWagner]

Your clients care about the END product, not how you get there.

While true, this doesn't give the people in the know the right to use the worst product available that will do a mediocre job in covering the event.

The reason is that they don't care how you got there, cause they don't know better. They are trusting you as the professional to know how to get there. Thus, because we know the difference we should be using the better equipment.

Let me ask you this, if you went to the clients, and asked them if they thought you should use high quality equipment meant for professionals or lower quality equipment meant for consumers what would they say? Most likely, they just assume you're using the equivalent to a 1DIV, because they assume you are a professional and you are letting them down.

 

[LBPhotog]

I'm not disagreeing with you Nate; and I agree with you on the fact that the onus is on the photographer to have gear adequate to do their jobs; but, a camera body just captures light, while the lenses and post production knowledge contribute more to the image.

A D40 body (shot in RAW and then expanded out to 8 bit TIFF in PS) can produce stunning 16 X 20's (I do it all the time, my D70s is the same sensor as a D40) with the right lenses and the proper know how ...

Would I love to have a D300s or a D700 - in a heartbeat yes! But, right now, that's not a feasible option, so I have to make do with what I have, and what I have is adequate to do what I need to do.