# Does anyone here use a Nikon D40 for professional use?



## Trish1977 (Dec 6, 2007)

Would I be able to do some portrait photography with a D40, or would I have to have a D80 or even D200/300 to get shots that "look professional"?  I know that even with the best camera you can buy that some shots won't "look professional" because either the person using the camera doesn't know how to properly use it or they just don't have a "good eye", so let's assume that's not the case.


----------



## sabbath999 (Dec 6, 2007)

I know a sports shooter who uses it outside for football with a flash because it has a 1/500th sync rate without having to use FP (not that you COULD use FP on a D40, not an option)

Do yourself a favor and get a D80, D200 or D300 and skip the D40 for professional use... 

D80 is the MINIMUM I would consider.


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 6, 2007)

I agree, the D40 while capable of great images is too limited in features and build quality to use at the Pro level. It may work, but I doubt it would hold up for long.


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 6, 2007)

if you have it already...then I'm sure you could adapt it to some low level professional stuff.  You could do indoor studio type work with it fine...

But I certainly wouldn't count on it in a high stakes situation like a wedding or a one chance model shoot.

I would say the D80 is a minimum if you're gonna buy a new camera.

Just like I have a rebel XT, which I'm sure I could get away with in a studio...I would not want to get into any serious pro stuff, cause I know there's cameras that are more durable, more reliable, and with better picture quality...for Canon I would say a D30/D40 is a minimum...

There are always those that will prove me wrong though...because I know lots of people use lesser cameras for much better results and higher pay.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Dec 6, 2007)

I have a D80, and I'd say the built quality is pretty decent. I'm not sure if it'd stand up to repeated professional-level use. Especially if you were a nature shooter, the body doesn't seem that well-sealed. I mean, I love my D80, don't get me wrong, but I'd be kidding myself if I said it strikes me as a 'professional' lens. And if the D80 isn't 'pro', the D40 sure isn't.


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 6, 2007)

Trenton Romulox said:


> I have a D80, and I'd say the built quality is pretty decent. I'm not sure if it'd stand up to repeated professional-level use. Especially if you were a nature shooter, the body doesn't seem that well-sealed. I mean, I love my D80, don't get me wrong, but I'd be kidding myself if I said it strikes me as a 'professional' lens. And if the D80 isn't 'pro', the D40 sure isn't.



I agree, and would recommend probably a D200 or 300 over it...but some people just can't afford it.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 6, 2007)

You could easily produce professional results with a D40. 

Is it as fast, or durable as a more expensive body? no.

But an 85mm f/1.4 looks exactly the same on a D40 as it does on a D2x. 

For professional operation, i'd be more concerned about the lenses than the body.

The lighting, lenses, and how you take advantage of them are what's going to make professional looking images.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Dec 6, 2007)

Sw1tchFX said:


> You could easily produce professional results with a D40.
> 
> Is it as fast, or durable as a more expensive body? no.
> 
> ...



Actually, I'm gonna have to agree even though just above I said D40 for a 'pro' would be tough to do. A D40 with 'pro' lenses would produce 'pro' images.


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 6, 2007)

Thanks so much!!!!!!  I'm finally getting really serious about learning more about photography so that I can start doing some "shoots" for friends and family (for experience, practice, and fun) and see if it's something I want to do for a living.  Even if I never do it professionally I want to be able to take better photos than the average person who has just a p&s.

*Can I get good lenses that will work on the D40, D1X, and the D300?  Is the lens that comes with the D40 a good enough lens to start with and does it also work with a D300 and D1X?*

I have a D1X that was just given to me.  It was my father's back-up camera and he did professional children's photography.  The problem is - it's very heavy, it's a bit overwhelming for someone just learning, it has no built-in flash (and I have no flash for it), and the battery is dead and I have no charger for it.  I want to keep it and eventually learn how to use it, but I think for now instead of spending a lot of money on the things I would need to buy to get it "up and running" I'm thinking about getting a D40 for Christmas.  Plus, I figure I can learn on the D40 and take some great photos right away and if I do decide to go professional in the future I can invest in a D300 or better.  Plus, if I get a better camera in the future I can still use the D40 for some things and my husband can use it.

I just hate sometimes that there are SO many choices and things to consider.  

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for reading and offering advice!


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 6, 2007)

The D40 kit lens will work on the other cameras, but it's quality is really sub par. IMHO, you would be MUCH better off getting a battery charger, a couple batteries and the Thom Hogan e-book for the D1X. I have 3 D1X's and think they are still an outstanding camera. I think that even though I now own a D3. The D1X is not in the same league as the D3, but IMO it's a better camera than the D40 ever could be. A big advantage to the D1 series is you can use older manual focus lenses if you like and they will meter. Also, a used SB-80DX or new SB-800 flash will work much better than the built in flash on any DSLR. The D40 flash is really only good for about 10 feet. The cost of 2 new batteries, a used charger and a used flash should be cheaper than a D40. If you need a lens, pick up a 50mm f/1.8 for around $60-110 (used-new) and you are set. Believe me, you will have a much better camera that can do a lot more. As for the D1X's weight, my wife has small hands and does not mind the D1. Se does not like the "feel" of the all plastic D40, said it felt like a kids toy. (Before I tick off someone, her words, not mine. Even if I do agree with her.  )

P.S.
To save money, you could get a SB-600, it will work on the D1X and D3/D300. It just is a lower powered flash than the SB-800. 
SB-800 new $320
Battery new on ebay $30.00 X 2. (I have used these for a while and they work fine)
Used battery charger on ebay $50.00
Uesd 50mm f/1.8 on ebay $60.00

total $490.00 or so.


----------



## Snyder (Dec 6, 2007)

When I shoot weddings and portraits in my free time I use a Nikon D200 and a D40 as my backup camera.


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 6, 2007)

Thanks jstuedle for giving me hope for the D1X and to Snyder for giving me hope for the D40.

I think what I'll probably end up doing is getting the D40 mainly because it seems easier to use (for me=beginner) AND soon get all the stuff I need for the D1X.  I'm going to try to get a second job at a portrait studio or camera store so I can have more money to do this stuff and learn at the same time.  I think the Sears portrait studio is kinda lame, but they're hiring and I could get PAID (even though very little) to take pictures.

Plus, all the serious photographers I know have SEVERAL cameras anyway, so it can't hurt to have both, right?  AND, nothing I have or get is ever just mine anyway because my husband has at least a small interest in photography and it would be great if we BOTH had good cameras to use.


----------



## monkeykoder (Dec 6, 2007)

I'll pay the shipping if you want to just send me that D1X you don't seem to want to use .


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 6, 2007)

Haha...  I DO want to use it, I just have NO IDEA how and it has no power or flash right now.  I don't think I'll ever get rid of it because it was my father's and he died a year ago after a horrible 8 month battle with cancer.

So, no I won't be sending my D1X anybody's way.  I WILL learn to use it within the nest few months and I will cherish it for the rest of my life since it's the only thing I really have to remember my father with.

The thing is... I went into Best Buy tonight, picked up the D40, turned it on and started taking decent photos with it.  NO TRAINING, NO READING THE MANUEL, NO INSTRUCTION.  Maybe I have no reason to be overwhelmed by the D1X, but I am.  But in a few months I hope to be taking some great photos with it that would make my father proud.


----------



## emogirl (Dec 7, 2007)

yes, it will be fine...as long as you have good lens....will you have some limitiations?, yes....especially if you are shooting sports, as it doesnt have the frames/second as a pro body does...... the only difference between d80 & d200 is $1000 and a more rugged build....if you arent standing in the rain shooting and arent rough with your gear, you will be fine with a d80/d40.  The d40 is smaller than a d80 and you will find the weight of it nicer to handle, especially if this is your first slr. 

Knowing how your camera operates, knowing the ins & outs of producing a good photograph depend far more on you than the body you choose.  

good luck!


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 7, 2007)

Sw1tchFX said:


> But an 85mm f/1.4 looks exactly the same on a D40 as it does on a D2x.


 
I kinda disagree with that. If I slap that same lens on a D40 and and then use the same lens on a D300 (for example), the pictures are going to be night and day different. There is a ton of processing that is done in camera that we often take for granted. The sensor quality is also a huge factor.

I was thinking about that as I was looking at 2 vastly different quality pictures on flickr's D200/D300 forum of the same subject, same lens, same settings in both cameras. The only difference were the cameras... D200 vs D300. My first thought was... wow.

A D40, IMHO, is not going to give you professional level resuts (then again, its not designed or meant to). It will give you acceptable results, but if you compare side by side, with an eye towards professional level quality differences, they will be painfully obvious.

EDIT:

Ok, I totally missed your second post about the D1X and it's origins.  I can easily imagine how you feel about it's sentimental value.  Basically, to you that camera is priceless.  It would be for me too if I was in your shoes,

You are a beginner... and feel very intimidated.  Heck, I was very intimidated with my D200 initially and the first week thought that I had made a terrible mistake taking that camera, and even considered returning it.  I am glad that I stuck it through, becuase after making the decision to learn the basics and understand what I am doing, the quality of the pics shot up a lot... and still is climbing.

However, I am not you and our needs are different.  Reality is that you could use a plastic throw-away camera in a professional session if you wanted.  The results are obviously not going to be the same, but you could do it none the less.  I still fee strongly about the fact that the quality of the pictures between the D40 and D1x would be vastly different, and if you do plan to turn professional, there are some concessions to make (like lugging around that big camera), however you are not at that level and do not have to be for quite some time.

There will come a time, however, that if you really want to go pro, you will invest in equipment that is representative of professional level quality.  There is a reason for all that $$ and there is a reason why pro cameras are heavier.  If there wasn't all the professionals out there would be running around wth D40's.


----------



## aperture monologue (Dec 7, 2007)

Diane Arbus didn't really start photographing until she got a lightweight camera that was easy for her to carry around, but once she got started, she did quite well. Of course it's a huge generalisation to say that girls don't like gadgets and heavy things to the same degree boys do, but more often than not, this is the case.
What I'm trying to say is that you can get great pictures with a d40 and if you feel more comfortable with it than you do with the D1X you should probbably make the best out of the d40. If that's not good enough then you should consider an upgrade. The D1X isn't actually that much harder to use, but it's certainly much heavier. 
Of course, a better camera will enable you to do more things, especially in difficult coditions. But, it's not something you need to do, and besides, good lenses will work wonders on a d40. 
Even at it's highest level photography is about the picture; if the picture is good then nothing else matters.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 7, 2007)

Trish1977 said:


> *Can I get good lenses that will work on the D40, D1X, and the D300? Is the lens that comes with the D40 a good enough lens to start with and does it also work with a D300 and D1X?*


 
If I am not mistaken, I think the D1x is a full frame camera.  The D40, D300, D200 are all cropped sensor cameras.

DX lenses will work fine on all the cropped sensor cameras, but not with full frame cameras.

Stay away from DX lenses and use ones designed for full frame cameras, those will work 100% with both.

Note:  D40 has no internal focusing motor... there are very few "full frame" compatible lenses made out there with focusing motors in them, and that is a MAJOR limitation of the D40.  What does that mean to you?  You can put any lens on your D40 you want... but if that lens has no focusing motor in the lens, you are stuck focusing it manually.


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 7, 2007)

Thanks for the replies.  I really apreciate the input because all these choices are hard for me and it doesn't help that I'm a perfectionist and I hate to make mistakes or the wrong choices.  It keeps me from taking risks a lot of the time and I hate that.

*One more question (for now) - Does the camera "wear out" more and more with every picture taken?  If so, that's another reason I'd rather learn the basics on a D40 first before "wasting" shots on my more sentimental D1X.  When I get to taking pictures I tend to take A LOT of pictures, but I've only had p&s up until now.  Should I be more conservative in my shooting with an SLR?*

I just have a lot of fear in this area that I'm trying to shake but it's hard.  I fear that I'll spend all this time, energy and money on this stuff and then not be any good at it.  I know that is ridiculous because I've taken some really amazing photos with my Canon S3 IS on just an automatic setting.  Before I got that camera I took THOUSANDS of photos on my Kodak DX7590 and I loved most of them and have been told countless times that I have a "good eye".  I have the passion for it and now finally have the motivation to move forward, I just need to stop being paralyzed by my fear.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 7, 2007)

Nikon cameras, especially the semi-pro and pro level ones are made to last a lot longer. The general consensus is that they are made to take at least 100,000 shutter actions. There are people out in the D200 community that are well past 200,000 shutter actions and they are working as well now as when they were new.

I would tend to expect that about any new mid-level and up camera can touch 100,000 pics nowadays.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 7, 2007)

I read the D40 has a shutter life of 50000 actuations but I can't back that up at the moment. Mind you as Jerry said this is a guide only some will last longer and unfortunately a few will die early. And even after it's dead it can be fixed for cheap, however on the D40 this would not be worth it considering the repair vs cost of a new camera. The D1X on the other hand...

Regarding the OP, you can get professional looking results. It depends entirely on what you class as professional. Unfortunately too many people some even on this forum class professional as 100% noise free and infinitely sharp. This is simply not the case. There are plenty of spectacular shots which are neither taken by professionals from the likes of National Geographic etc. 

That said you won't look professional to customers because quite frankly the camera is small and that is all they will see, and you won't look professional to other professionals because of the camera design. There's much more to a professional camera than quality and features, usually the biggest being build quality. Regardless of how good you may get some people just won't consider it professional if the camera is plastic.


----------



## monkeykoder (Dec 7, 2007)

The D1X is not a full frame camera (I checked dpreview.com).  If I'm not mistaken there are actually very few AF-S lenses that are DX because AF-S lenses are made to focus faster and were originally meant to be top of the line lenses (I may be wrong about the lenses I forget my source there).


----------



## Snyder (Dec 7, 2007)

JerryPH said:


> If I am not mistaken, I think the D1x is a full frame camera. The D40, D300, D200 are all cropped sensor cameras.
> 
> DX lenses will work fine on all the cropped sensor cameras, but not with full frame cameras.


 
No, im going to have to call you on that one. The D1x I believe is a dx cropped sensor. However the new D3 is the first Nikon DSLR fullframe sensor camera.


----------



## aperture monologue (Dec 7, 2007)

There will always be wear and tear, but just sitting in a closet won't do much good for a camera either; It'll gather dust, and mechanical things in general get clanky if you don't use them. 
Everything is moving forward and technology gets old pretty fast. In a couple of years the d1x will be very outdated technically, but the emotional value will still be there. I think you should try and get the most out of it as a camera while you can. DSLRs are not vintage wines and their value in money and their usefullness drop quickly compared to film cameras. Therefore, you shouldn't be scared of using the d1x, it's certainly a good camera to "practice" with. 
But, if you prefer your d40, then I don't think you need bother with the d1x. Learn the d40 inside out and then get something better if you feel like you need to. The d40 enables you to practice all the essentials like exposure, focus, composition, etc....


----------



## XJBaylor (Dec 7, 2007)

monkeykoder said:


> The D1X is not a full frame camera (I checked dpreview.com).  If I'm not mistaken there are actually very few AF-S lenses that are DX because AF-S lenses are made to focus faster and were originally meant to be top of the line lenses (I may be wrong about the lenses I forget my source there).



Actually, all Nikon DX lenses are also AF-S lenses with the exception on the 10.5 fish.  That way, they can be fully functional with the bread and butter of the Nikon DSLR line, the D40.

Keith


----------



## sabbath999 (Dec 7, 2007)

Another thing to keep in mind that the only thing that will really wear out is the shutter, and those can be replaced by a repair shop.

I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 7, 2007)

Not often, but in this case, I am happy I was wrong about the sensor size on the D1x... and I did mention that I was not sure in the flirst place. 

Trish1977, I think you are looking at the D40 mainly becuase the D1x is kinda scarey for you more than anything else.  Maybe you could find a local camera friend who can walk through the basics with you and also show you how to work that D1x of yours so you could start having some fun with it, things would be better?


----------



## dipstick (Dec 7, 2007)

Yes, you can get pro looking results with a d40. I would however recommend at least getting the d40x or the d80 if you can afford it. 7 years ago, images created with the 2,6MP D1 was accepted in the professional world, so there is no doubt that any of todays digital dslr's can create professional looking images.

If your starting out with photography, get what you can afford. I would also strongly recommend spending some money on a better lens than the kit lens.

A D3 or a D300 is of course a better camera, but wait with upgrading until you know that the investment really will be worth it. If your gonna start working professionally, you would want equipment that can keep up with pro work, but if you wanna do professional looking pictures for your friends and family, any dslr would do. Your skills as a photographer will have much more impact on the result than the camera.

Improving your technical and creative skills will improve your overall image quality a lot more than what upgrading your camera body will.

Edit: forgot to mention the D1x: if you can get that up and running without it costing a fortune, I would go for it. Using a professional camera is not mor complicated than using a consumer dslr. Sometimes it is actually easier to understand, as it is stripped for a lot of confusing options and programs that professionals never use. The D1x would be a great camera to start with, and finding a second hand charger and battery for it shouldnt be to hard or expensive.


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 7, 2007)

Thanks for ALL the feedback.  I believe I will be getting a D40 soon because the more I think about it the more I want to have 2 DSLRs so that my husband can have one to use as well.  Plus, there are benefits to having both.  I will also soon get a couple of batteries and a charger for the D1X and start saving for a flash and lens that I can use with both.

The reason I started this topic and wanted other opinions is because I got this response from Ken Rockwell when I e-mailed him to ask advice on the D1X:

*D1X is a dog, mostly because of the size, weight and the batteries  
dying every 100 shots.

I'd rather use a D40, new, for $480!

See **http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/go-pro.htm*

*http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/pro-not.htm*

*http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/pro-camera.htm*

*and

**http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dslr.htm*

*Ken
*


----------



## JIP (Dec 7, 2007)

If the D1x is too big and heavy for you I think you might be getting into the wrong business.  While photography is not the most physical if jobs pro glass and bodies are heavy and you just can't get around it.  A tripod might help you get around this but you will be alot less mobile methink you need to start lifting some weights or something.  And as far as the D40 goes it may seem economical now to buy a D40 but how soon do you think you are going to grow out of it if you really get into shooting portraits professionally and then you are into buying a third body and now it is not so economical.


----------



## Lorielle99 (Dec 7, 2007)

man when i come on this site it makes me feel all crappy about my nikon d40  oh well we still love eachother


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 7, 2007)

JerryPH said:


> I kinda disagree with that. If I slap that same lens on a D40 and and then use the same lens on a D300 (for example), the pictures are going to be night and day different. There is a ton of processing that is done in camera that we often take for granted. The sensor quality is also a huge factor.
> 
> I was thinking about that as I was looking at 2 vastly different quality pictures on flickr's D200/D300 forum of the same subject, same lens, same settings in both cameras. The only difference were the cameras... D200 vs D300. My first thought was... wow.
> 
> A D40, IMHO, is not going to give you professional level resuts (then again, its not designed or meant to). It will give you acceptable results, but if you compare side by side, with an eye towards professional level quality differences, they will be painfully obvious.



Please illustrate. It makes no sense how sensor resolution would put an effect on the physics of how light is projected. the bokeh and DOF are going to be exactly the same on either body.


----------



## dpolston (Dec 7, 2007)

Lorielle99 said:


> man when i come on this site it makes me feel all crappy about my nikon d40  oh well we still love eachother



I don't think it matters. In the right hands, a disposable 35mm plastic camera can shoot masterpieces. Keep shooting that D40 until it blows up in your hands!


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 8, 2007)

JIP said:


> If the D1x is too big and heavy for you I think you might be getting into the wrong business. While photography is not the most physical if jobs pro glass and bodies are heavy and you just can't get around it. A tripod might help you get around this but you will be alot less mobile methink you need to start lifting some weights or something. And as far as the D40 goes it may seem economical now to buy a D40 but how soon do you think you are going to grow out of it if you really get into shooting portraits professionally and then you are into buying a third body and now it is not so economical.


 
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't _trying_ to be a complete jerk with this post.  I'm not going to let the weight of a camera keep me from going into the business, give me a break.  :er:


----------



## jols (Dec 8, 2007)

When someone comes to your door for a portrait session, i do not believe anybody will ask what your camera is.

All they will be interested in is yout portfolio.

So set yourself some targets o getting say 25 or 50 phortraits in your portfolio.

Rope in friends and family to help.
Then you will be on your way.

Some of the photos displayed on this forum and others are taken with VERY EXPENSIVE cameras and the photos are not that good.

Learn your stlye first then maybe go up a degree in camera gear.


----------



## dipstick (Dec 8, 2007)

jols said:


> When someone comes to your door for a portrait session, i do not believe anybody will ask what your camera is.
> 
> All they will be interested in is yout portfolio.
> 
> ...



Exactly! The only people that are gonna judge you by your equipment is other photographers who build their confidence through buying equipment, and not through their work.

I have actually taken my wifes digital rebel out on a few jobs when I wanted to keep a low profile and not draw too much attention or intimidate my subjects. No client ever called me back and said "we cant use this cause its taken with a consumer camera".

What you gain in a professional camera is build quality, speed and flexibility, and not so much image quality, as the image sensors in consumer cameras are very good. A D300 will of course beat a D40, being that there are two generations between them. But I am not convinced that the victory would be so clear if you compared raw files from a D200 and a D40x with the same lens.

Its better to get a D40 now and use it some much that you eventually beat it up, instead of getting a D300 and then find out that photography was not your thing after all.

Good luck!


----------



## Garbz (Dec 8, 2007)

Snyder said:


> No, im going to have to call you on that one. The D1x I believe is a dx cropped sensor. However the new D3 is the first Nikon DSLR fullframe sensor camera.



I'll counter call you on that one. The Nikon DCS-100 made in 1989 was the first Nikon DSLR with a full frame sensor


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 8, 2007)

I know a Wedding Tog that uses one.

He uses it along with the 18-200 VR to do engagement shoots outdoors. Gets really nice stuff out of it.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 8, 2007)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Please illustrate. It makes no sense how sensor resolution would put an effect on the physics of how light is projected. the bokeh and DOF are going to be exactly the same on either body.


 
Bokeh and DOF are indeed going to be exactly the same, but why are pictures coming out so much different (ie: massively better) with exactly the same settings on a D200 and D300? The differences between a D40 and a D1x would also have to be very different.

I sincerely wish I could do the test, but I don't own either a D40 or a D1x, but if there were no differences in pics between different bodies with the same lens, why are there 5000, 10,000 and 15,000 dollar cameras, since a $480 camera would give me identical results? The answer is... becuase though a lens is a major contributor to the quality of a picture (I am not disagreeing with you there), but its not the only factor to consider. In camera processing and sensor quality also add more than their fair share to the end results.

As far as Ken Rockwell is concerned, anything he says I take with a massive grain of salt. Though his pics are nice, he is out of his gourd if he thinks that a $480 camera can compete with a D1X and give superior results. He is already known for not being the sharpest tool in the shed on the net in terms of many of his opinons.


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 8, 2007)

I'm glad this question has resulted in some great discussion. After talking with my husband last night and looking at more photos on Flickr I was convinced even more that I should get the D40 AND the things needed to get the D1X going. One more (very important) reason is that my husband said last night that he is also interested in learning to use an SLR and using one. I am very selfish when it comes to photography and I just know myself. If we were out somewhere and I was using my D1X and he asked to "see it for a second" and then held on to it for longer than I could stand and I miss shots that I would have wanted to get I would have a temper tantrem inside like a little child. While this might allow me to grow and mature as a person... no thanks! Haha. I have experienced this already with my Canon S3 IS and it sucked (because my husband doesn't have a camera). If we BOTH have an SLR to use things will be better.  One toy for 2 kids=no good.  Every camera I have had I have either saved for myself or gotten as a birthday or Christmas gift because I wanted it more than anything else. So, I sometimes feel like saying, if you want to take photos so bad than let's get you a camera. Sorry, but I guess I'm VERY selfish in this area. I'm pretty selfLESS in other areas though.

And the Flickr thing - I have used the camera finder on there before for several types of cameras and did it again last night for the D40, D1X, and the D200. Honestly, I think if I took the best photos in all categories for these cameras, mixed them up, and showed them to someone who wasn't a photographer they would not be able to tell me 100% which ones where from the cheapest camera and which were from the most expensive. Actually, I can't even tell. It comes down to composition for me and I'm sure post production has a lot to do with it. That's why I know I also need to learn Photoshop.

*So, this is were I stand now - I will get the D40 and the battery and charger for the D1X and then hopefully within a month get a good flash I/we can use for both and a Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. *


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 8, 2007)

Oh yeah, and in the meantime I will save up for a D300 and if I decide I want to do photoagraphy as a business I will purchase it when I have enough, and if not my husband and I will use the money to go on vacation and take some great photos with our D40, D1X and Canon S3IS while there.


----------



## dipstick (Dec 8, 2007)

JerryPH said:


> Bokeh and DOF are indeed going to be exactly the same, but why are pictures coming out so much different (ie: massively better) with exactly the same settings on a D200 and D300? The differences between a D40 and a D1x would also have to be very different.
> 
> I sincerely wish I could do the test, but I don't own either a D40 or a D1x, but if there were no differences in pics between different bodies with the same lens, why are there 5000, 10,000 and 15,000 dollar cameras, since a $480 camera would give me identical results? The answer is... becuase though a lens is a major contributor to the quality of a picture (I am not disagreeing with you there), but its not the only factor to consider. In camera processing and sensor quality also add more than their fair share to the end results.
> 
> As far as Ken Rockwell is concerned, anything he says I take with a massive grain of salt. Though his pics are nice, he is out of his gourd if he thinks that a $480 camera can compete with a D1X and give superior results. He is already known for not being the sharpest tool in the shed on the net in terms of many of his opinons.



http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LooH

This guy did the test for you. 

But even though differences in sensors exists, there is no doubt that any of todays dslrs are capable of creating professional results. The D300 is outperforms the D200 on higher ISO, and the sensor is an upgraded one, so of course it will perform better than the D200. 

The price difference between a consumer and a pro camera does not reflect the difference in sensor quality, as the quality is very similar. The difference is in build quality, speed, durability and other functions on the body that is not related to sensor quality.

The d40x has no problem keeping up with a d200 in image quality if shoot raw with both cameras.

So why dont professionals all shot with consumer cameras? Well, like I mentioned earlier, I actually did a few times when I wanted to keep a low profile, but the reason why Im not using a D40 is that it is too small, to slow, it does not have seperate dials for shutter and aperture, it has no AF motor and the build quality is to poor for heavy everyday use.

All these things will help you getting your shots and make your day easier, but with everything else being equal, the difference in image quality between a d40x and d200 would not be very different.


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 8, 2007)

Or I might go ahead and do this if I get a Christmas bonus this week:  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/532255-REG/Nikon__D40_SLR_Digital_Camera.html

My fingers are crossed!


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 8, 2007)

JerryPH said:


> I sincerely wish I could do the test, but I don't own either a D40 or a D1x, but if there were no differences in pics between different bodies with the same lens, why are there 5000, 10,000 and 15,000 dollar cameras, since a $480 camera would give me identical results? The answer is... becuase though a lens is a major contributor to the quality of a picture (I am not disagreeing with you there), but its not the only factor to consider. In camera processing and sensor quality also add more than their fair share to the end results.



$5000 cameras are $5000 because of speed, durability, functionality, and sensor resolution. None of which affect composition. 

If you shoot RAW, the only real difference between images is noise, you do the processing yourself. 

We're not talking about jpegs, because anybody that wants to take advantage of their camera doesn't shoot jpeg. And all that in camera processing you're talking about is on jpegs. 

The camera body has no effect on the physics of light going through the lens. A photograph using any lens on a D40 will look exactly the same on any other Nikon DX body. If you shoot a car using a D2x, and a D40, both with the same lens, both RAW, both at their base ISO, same shutter speed and aperture, and both using the same post-processing, on print, you will not see a difference unless it's 20x30 and looked at from 2 inches away.


----------



## Stranger (Dec 8, 2007)

Ok, i didnt read everyones post so this may have been mentioned but know that the d40 can not command a flash off camera, which may be important for portrait shots.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 8, 2007)

Well neither can the D1X but the pros have been doing well in this field for years without CLS . There are many workarounds for this.

AJ and Jerry you're arguing apples and oranges here. Indeed the physics of of light will produce two identical images you are 100% right. On the other token it is wrong that when shooting in RAW the only difference between the sensors is noise. Pretty much every aspect of image quality is affected by the sensor too including to a degree the limits of sharpness, noise, colour depth, bit depth, and you will indeed still see a difference. A small one granted, but it is still very significant when the camera is pushed to the limits in terms of post processing and shooting in crap conditions.


----------



## Lorielle99 (Dec 8, 2007)

dpolston said:


> I don't think it matters. In the right hands, a disposable 35mm plastic camera can shoot masterpieces. Keep shooting that D40 until it blows up in your hands!




hahah will do


----------



## Helen B (Dec 8, 2007)

I've used my D40x for a few jobs so far: mainly photogrammetry, some portraiture and product photography.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 14, 2007)

Thanks again to everyone for their feedback!

Well, earlier this week I bought a battery charger for the D1X from eBay and I hope it will be delivered by Saturday.

and

Today I got my Christmas bonus and bought an awesome D40 kit with 2 lenses (18-55 and 55-200), a Nikon bag, and 2 Nikon DVDs for $599 from Ritz Camera (in store).  I also got filters for each lens and a remote.  I've already taken 414 photos with it!!!!!!!!!  I love it so far!

What's cool is that this morning I got free tickets to the Houston Texans/Denver Broncos football game so I took my husband and my new D40.  I'm loading my photos now, but I think I'm going to be pretty happy with what I got.  It's a little weird transitioning from a p&s to a DSLR, but I can already tell it is worth it!

I'll post some of my favorite shots later.  I'M SO EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## monkeykoder (Dec 14, 2007)

Congratulations I don't get my D50 until Christmas


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 14, 2007)

Glad you are a happy camper Trish. Now start posting some pix from that new camera!


----------



## RyanLilly (Dec 15, 2007)

Trish1977 said:


> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you weren't _trying_ to be a complete jerk with this post.  I'm not going to let the weight of a camera keep me from going into the business, give me a break.  :er:



No, JIP's not trying to be a jerk thats just how he is, he is not afraid to sensor his thoughts. I usually like JIP's comments because they are kind of gut reactions, and not to be taken personally, just points thing out honestly. :thumbup:

I take all comments from anyone with a grain of salt.


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 18, 2007)

jstuedle said:


> Glad you are a happy camper Trish. Now start posting some pix from that new camera!


 

I posted some of my first photos here:  http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104189


----------



## Trish1977 (Dec 19, 2007)

Even though I thought I was making the right decision to go with the D40 I ended up taking it back last night and getting a Canon Rebel XTi. I'm still not sure if that was even the right choice, but I hope it was. My main reason for doing with Nikon in the first place was because I have my father's D1X and one lens so I wanted to get a camera that could use the same lenses, flashes, etc. BUT, yesterday I found out that the D1X is broken (which was extremely dissapointing). I also bought a used 50mm 1.8 lens and realized what it's like to have to manual focus on the D40. I wasn't pleased with that.

So, after all my defending of the D40 I took it back. We'll see how it goes with the XTi!


----------



## Highlanderfilm (May 16, 2009)

Trish1977 said:


> Would I be able to do some portrait photography with a D40, or would I have to have a D80 or even D200/300 to get shots that "look professional"?  I know that even with the best camera you can buy that some shots won't "look professional" because either the person using the camera doesn't know how to properly use it or they just don't have a "good eye", so let's assume that's not the case.




A Nikon d 40 is just as better than the higher number cameras.


----------



## JerryPH (May 16, 2009)

I did a fast look and I am surprised that no one caught it... the Nikon D1x is a cropped sensor camera (1.5).

Another factor that has not come up about using  D40 for professional usage is the simple fact that you are going to be up against other professionals.  Those professionals will *not* be using D40s, they will be using the D700s, D3s, D3x's and equivalents from the Canon side.

Now, if you think that you can match a professional's results with an inferior camera, that's not saying much about that pro, is it?  

We always say that a knowledgeable person with a P&S can out-shoot a newbie with pro level equipment, however, in this case, this is not happening... we are a less experienced person with a lower end dSLRs up against people with decades of experiences and tens of thousands of dollars of equipment.  The odds don't stack up well in your favor.


----------



## epp_b (May 16, 2009)

Holy old thread, batman!


----------

