# Having a Camera and a Website



## bennielou (Jan 25, 2010)

Having a camera and a website does NOT make you a professional photographer.  Being PROFESSIONAL makes you a professional photographer.

And that means...knowing how to put your big panties on, and run a business.   Not just taking some "snaps" that in your opinion are killer insane.  It's not about putting up a "myspace" or even a real to God website of your favorite photos of bands, sunset, flowers, and your besties besties.

Why do I keep going on about this?  Am I worried about you?  Crazy Jealous?  You judge that for yourself.  Should I be crazy insane jeaolus?

Or maybe MAYBE I just don't want to see you guys go down the tubes in more way than a million.  I could tell you allllllll the many ways your posting your bravado on the interent is going to put you in hock for infinity.

I could for instance, tell you how going into business before you are ready will hurt not only but your clients and open you up to lawsuits.

I could futher state, how when your competitors see you fail, they will take it to eveywhere the internet goes.

Don't.  Be. Stupid.

Do it right.  All of it.  Make the photographic community proud.  You need that community to do well.  Be respected.  

I know two things in life.

If you take shortcuts you will fail.  Withou doubt.

If you do things the way they should be done, you at least have a chance.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 25, 2010)

And where did this come from? 
And Why?


----------



## bennielou (Jan 25, 2010)

Hi Daniel,
I guess it came from experience and frustration.  

I've been doing photography professionally only 7 years, (sole income), so I'm not like some old foggie.  But I am seeing some really dangerous trends going on.

Believe it or not, I'm not going on about this because I'm worried that anyone will take my business away.  I am very established.

However, I got my start on this forum.  Back then, a person was advised to apprentice.

Now, it you have a shoot and point you bought at Walmart, you are ready to go and shoot everything.

What I want to let people know about is alllllllllll the legal stuff you aren't considering.
I've seen major photogs go out of business because they don't pay taxes.  (There is a bounty out there if you didn't already know.  It's like the SS.  Turn in your competitor and you get off cheap.  Did you know that?)

I've seen others go down in lawsuits.  Lose a good one and lose everything you own.

Some people go out of business even when they are the best shooters ever?  Why?  They can't sell?

Soooo, I see all these people jumping in head first, not knowing what the heck they are getting into, and I worry.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 25, 2010)

^^^^
I think it comes from seeing people such as you who think they are God's gift to photography.

As for the why, to help you realize you are not. But that you could have a career if you were willing to listen.


----------



## bennielou (Jan 25, 2010)

Be nice Cloud.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 25, 2010)

Yes ma'am!


----------



## rallysman (Jan 25, 2010)

This got me thinking. I want to be a divorce photographer


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 25, 2010)

^^^^

:lmao:


----------



## Mulewings~ (Jan 25, 2010)

rallysman said:


> This got me thinking. I want to be a divorce photographer



There could be a niche for that!

:lmao::lmao:


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 25, 2010)

BennieLou.............

I see what you mean. I understand everything you are saying. While I have been a photographer for 13 years I have been shooting Professionally for less than 3. I know more about running a business than I do shooting photography. I have been self employed for the greater part of the last 4 years and understand the issues that may arise for the uneducated. I do agree that most people should learn how o run a business first. And yes it does irritate me that people with a D40 and 1 kit lens think they can shoot a wedding professionally for $300 and then wonder why the people are pissed that they got crap photos. So all in all.... I agree with you...


----------



## themedicine (Jan 25, 2010)

Just to throw this out there, seeing as I have been photographing seriously for eight years, do you think it's wrong for someone like me who has finally started getting a paying gig here and there for whatever reason that I shouldn't? From my understanding I have to claim taxes and such if I make a thousand dollars or more, and this past year, I didn't, so I'm safe there. But this year is already turning into a more productive year and I will probably have to pay taxes next year on this years income from my photography. I personally understand that I will be putting 30% of my earnings away in a savings account so tax time doesn't come as a surprise and I should be covered. 
I agree that every John or Joan out there with a d40 or P&S camera shouldn't be starting up businesses necessarily but someone like myself, who has suddenly gotten to a point where I am comfortable charging SOMETHING for my services should. Right? 
I guess that's what I'm getting at is approached carefully and with some help I've had from a more seasoned professional photographer I think someone in my position has no other option but to just do it. ya know? I might be blabbering, sorry. 
And I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong here, I was more just curious as to people's thoughts on this.


----------



## JLEphoto (Jan 25, 2010)

Really, it is all how you go about it and your level of professionalism....  Themedicine....you have to start somewhere and it sounds like you have a good starting point.  Be patient and when all else fails seek help with the business aspects from reputable sources.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 25, 2010)

themedicine said:


> Just to throw this out there, seeing as I have been photographing seriously for eight years, do you think it's wrong for someone like me who has finally started getting a paying gig here and there for whatever reason that I shouldn't? From my understanding I have to claim taxes and such if I make a thousand dollars or more, and this past year, I didn't, so I'm safe there. But this year is already turning into a more productive year and I will probably have to pay taxes next year on this years income from my photography. I personally understand that I will be putting 30% of my earnings away in a savings account so tax time doesn't come as a surprise and I should be covered.
> I agree that every John or Joan out there with a d40 or P&S camera shouldn't be starting up businesses necessarily but someone like myself, who has suddenly gotten to a point where I am comfortable charging SOMETHING for my services should. Right?
> I guess that's what I'm getting at is approached carefully and with some help I've had from a more seasoned professional photographer I think someone in my position has no other option but to just do it. ya know? I might be blabbering, sorry.
> And I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong here, I was more just curious as to people's thoughts on this.



Go for it. IF you have been serious for 8 years then you should know whats what. My point I was trying to make was that those mediocre people usually have inadequate equipment for the job they shoot. I do not care what Kockwell says.. a D40 is not a good camera for some one making money. You need at least a d90 level on up. The diff with you is you have learned and basically apprenticed with some one. That is what you should do. Or go to school.


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 25, 2010)

If I was giving advice, I would at least do some Q.A. on the post to make sure I was coming off the right way


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 25, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> If I was giving advice, I would at least do some Q.A. on the post to make sure I was coming off the right way



HUH?


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 25, 2010)

Sachphotography said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> > If I was giving advice, I would at least do some Q.A. on the post to make sure I was coming off the right way
> ...


Not you, the OP.


----------



## themedicine (Jan 25, 2010)

Sachphotography said:


> Go for it. IF you have been serious for 8 years then you should know whats what. My point I was trying to make was that those mediocre people usually have inadequate equipment for the job they shoot. I do not care what Kockwell says.. a D40 is not a good camera for some one making money. You need at least a d90 level on up. The diff with you is you have learned and basically apprenticed with some one. That is what you should do. Or go to school.


^^ haha, I've also gone to school. haha. granted, the program i went too (minored in that is) wasn't all that awesome. I made the very best I could out of it but our instructor seriously hated photography and wanted to teach graphic design instead. haha. Not to say I learned much about graphic design.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 25, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Sachphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Dominantly said:
> ...



I see. Had me confused.


----------



## IgsEMT (Jan 25, 2010)

Ben...
It's called BiG Camera  and ability to sell bull ****.
I do agree with you though. However, didn't we cover this topic last year?


----------



## jackieclayton (Jan 26, 2010)

Sachphotography said:


> I do not care what Kockwell says.. a D40 is not a good camera for some one making money. You need at least a d90 level on up.



I agree.. it is however a wonderful camera to _learn_ on, if you use it to its potential. (i.e., get it off the auto mode, read the friggin manual and practice).  Once you feel comfortable enough to start charging for gigs and starting a business, hopefully you've realized that you need more than what the D40 can give you... hopefully...


----------



## bennielou (Jan 26, 2010)

themedicine said:


> Just to throw this out there, seeing as I have been photographing seriously for eight years, do you think it's wrong for someone like me who has finally started getting a paying gig here and there for whatever reason that I shouldn't? From my understanding I have to claim taxes and such if I make a thousand dollars or more, and this past year, I didn't, so I'm safe there. But this year is already turning into a more productive year and I will probably have to pay taxes next year on this years income from my photography. I personally understand that I will be putting 30% of my earnings away in a savings account so tax time doesn't come as a surprise and I should be covered.
> I agree that every John or Joan out there with a d40 or P&S camera shouldn't be starting up businesses necessarily but someone like myself, who has suddenly gotten to a point where I am comfortable charging SOMETHING for my services should. Right?
> I guess that's what I'm getting at is approached carefully and with some help I've had from a more seasoned professional photographer I think someone in my position has no other option but to just do it. ya know? I might be blabbering, sorry.
> And I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong here, I was more just curious as to people's thoughts on this.


 
Hi, I'm glad you responded, and I'm also happy that you have an up and coming business.

I don't know if you have state sales taxes in your area, but if you do, regardless of what you charge, even under a grand, you have to pay that portion to the state.  A lot of people confuse state and federal.
Wishing you all the best this year.  I'm glad things are looking up!


----------



## bennielou (Jan 26, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> If I was giving advice, I would at least do some Q.A. on the post to make sure I was coming off the right way


 
So shoot a question my way.  If I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm sure I will have tons of people tell me so.


----------



## bennielou (Jan 26, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Sachphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Dominantly said:
> ...


 
If I tried to make it any more simple, I would have to resort to sign langauge.

Some people are interested in doing things right, but they don't know all the rules.  I don't want these people to fail.

Get it?


----------



## bennielou (Jan 26, 2010)

IgsEMT said:


> Ben...
> It's called BiG Camera  and ability to sell bull ****.
> I do agree with you though. However, didn't we cover this topic last year?


 

I just love you.
I didn't cover it last year, but I'm sure some other pro did.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 26, 2010)

Sachphotography said:


> I do not care what Kockwell says.. a D40 is not a good camera for some one making money. You need at least a d90 level on up.



I consider that a blanket statement that isn't necessarily true at all. The D40 is plenty capable, and light years ahead of what some 'pro' cameras were years ago.

2 years ago it was 'you need at least a D80 level on up', in two years it will be what?

It really depends on what you are shooting... and how, as well as who you ask. You can get roughly 8-10 D40's for the cost of one D700, so at this point I don't see the 'build quality' argument since it could be replaced or have 2-3 spares and still be ahead of the game. If you talk off camera lighting, it seems most pros aren't using the built in abilities some Nikon's have but more likely to use Cybersyncs, or the like.

But this has been argued to fatigue many times I'm sure.


----------



## ChasK (Jan 26, 2010)

Want to know how to make a small fortune in photography?  Start with a large fortune!

If your thinking about starting a business the odds are against you.  95% of all new business startups fail within the first year, and of the 5% that make it the first year 90% of them fail within 5 years.  

One small word of advice, the ability to take great pictures is only the tip of the iceberg!  It won't guarantee your success.  I've seen many of really awful prints delivered by very successful studios.  Some say salesmanship or marketing skills out weight artistic ability 100 to 1.


----------



## bennielou (Jan 26, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> Sachphotography said:
> 
> 
> > I do not care what Kockwell says.. a D40 is not a good camera for some one making money. You need at least a d90 level on up.
> ...


 
Agreed.  It's not alway the camera.  A crapload of my port is from a 20D.


----------



## bennielou (Jan 26, 2010)

ChasK said:


> Want to know how to make a small fortune in photography? Start with a large fortune!
> 
> If your thinking about starting a business the odds are against you. 95% of all new business startups fail within the first year, and of the 5% that make it the first year 90% of them fail within 5 years.
> 
> One small word of advice, the ability to take great pictures is only the tip of the iceberg! It won't guarantee your success. I've seen many of really awful prints delivered by very successful studios. Some say salesmanship or marketing skills out weight artistic ability 100 to 1.


 
Ok, I wanted to go off on your post, because I don't want to discourage peeps, but in the end I agree.  

Facts are facts.  But if people would LISTEN they could do it.  But they don't.

Regarding sales.  You can be the bestie photog ever.  If you can't sell your work, then you aren't  the whole pizza, right?  You will not book.  Things don't end when you take the best photo ever.  That is the beginning.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 26, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Having a camera and a website does NOT make you a professional photographer.  Being PROFESSIONAL makes you a professional photographer.


I disagree.  I have a camera AND a website and I AM a professional.  I take amazing pictures.  People like my mom and other family members remind me every day just how amazing I am.

I bet if push came to shove, I could take a cooler picture than you could.


----------



## bennielou (Jan 26, 2010)

I'm here to take you up on your offer.  What should we shoot?  Ready to go.  And please, no flower shots.  I'm sure you have something better.

I know your mom loves your photos.  I'm sure you are totally awesome, like your mom says.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 26, 2010)

I vote for cat photos!


----------



## inTempus (Jan 26, 2010)

bennielou said:


> I'm here to take you up on your offer.  What should we shoot?  Ready to go.  And please, no flower shots.  I'm sure you have something better.


What?  So you want to stack the deck in your favor, eh?  No flower shots?  I'm a professional flower photographer.  What would have have me shoot, people?



> I know your mom loves your photos.  I'm sure you are totally awesome, like your mom says.


Yeah, my mom is my biggest customer.  I sell her prints almost every week.  She rocks.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 26, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> I vote for cat photos!


You vote for cat pictures over nudie pics?

What kind of man are you?


----------



## bennielou (Jan 26, 2010)

So lets go. We could actually have fun. You could show me why you are so awesome. If you are kidding, we could still have fun.
BTW, I CAN BLOW YOU OUT OUT OF THE WATER WITH FLOWER SHOTS. LOL


----------



## ChasK (Jan 26, 2010)

inTempus said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > Having a camera and a website does NOT make you a professional photographer.  Being PROFESSIONAL makes you a professional photographer.
> ...



I sorry I disagree, just by virtue of the fact that your from Indiana.  Everybody know there's nothing but corn and basketball in Indiana.  You know how they define a pervert in Indiana?  That's someone who likes sex better than basketball!


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jan 26, 2010)




----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 26, 2010)

inTempus said:


> PhotoXopher said:
> 
> 
> > I vote for cat photos!
> ...



You're the flower photographer!


----------



## themedicine (Jan 26, 2010)

but everyone knows flowers are just representations of a certain female form...

BTW InTempus: I was going to make myself a kid peeing on a canon logo avatar since you canon guys are getting wild with yours, but i decided I didn't want to get into a...wait for it...PISSING CONTEST! 
Rim Shot? 

yes


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 26, 2010)

themedicine said:


> but everyone knows flowers are just representations of a certain female form...



So is cat


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 26, 2010)

> but everyone knows flowers are just representations of a certain female form...


Actually, flowers are also rather representative of males in many ways.  

After all, flower are just the reproductive organs of plants.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 26, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> Sachphotography said:
> 
> 
> > I do not care what Kockwell says.. a D40 is not a good camera for some one making money. You need at least a d90 level on up.
> ...



The difference was that year ago the "PRO's" were not switching to digital and were still using film. It wasn't until the advent of the D2 lines and the mid M1 lines that pros really started to switch. An NO a D40 is not capable of shooting most pro shoots. While ANY camera can shoot a good studio portrait that is about the only thing a D40 would be good at. SO don't play the Devil's advocate for the D40.

Mr Ben... The 20d is not a bad camera at all. I used one when I worked in a small studio in OKC It is a solid build and can hold its own. For years Canon was ahead with their products. It was only recently IE D300/D90... that Nikon really caught up to be competitive.



inTempus said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > Having a camera and a website does NOT make you a professional photographer.  Being PROFESSIONAL makes you a professional photographer.
> ...



You Rock don't let anybody tell you different. Im sure you have more than dear old mum telling you how amazing you pictures are.  :lmao:


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 26, 2010)

I'd like to know what you think the D40 is not capable of, and why.

I'm not saying it's the best choice, but there is very little the D40 cannot do in the right hands and with the right equipment (lenses and lighting), both of which you would have with any other camera body.

Short of using no flash (some weddings), and reduced focal points (action) I don't see what the limitations would be. Even with the limitations, an experienced photographer (pro) could do quite well with the body.

How many thousands of weddings were shot on equipment that was inferior to what the D40's feature set offers?

Digital has come a long way, but oddly enough people got great shots with 100% manual camera bodies and lenses... yet somehow you don't think the D40 is capable of doing professional photography, that's what I find odd and somewhat intriguing since I have yet to hear any reasoning behind your statement.

A D40 with the holy trinity paired to it would be quite deadly in my opinion, and you could have a D40 on every lens saving the time to swap. 

In my experience the D40 had better high ISO ability than the D200, however the D200 simply rocked at 100-200 ISO.

I'll continue to play Devil's Advocate for the D40 until someone can prove me wrong, and I'll admit it if it ever happens.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 26, 2010)

PhotoXopher, do you shoot with a d40?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 26, 2010)

Not anymore, but it was my first DSLR so I do have quite a bit of experience with it.

The limitations that spawned my 'need' for an upgrade weren't photography related, but rather other bodies having the ability to encode GPS data on the fly, which I enjoy.

I have owned and used the N75, D40, D60, D80, D200, D5000, D90 and D300s. There are things about each of these camera bodies that I love, and the D300s is the closest to having all of them.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 26, 2010)

themedicine said:


> but everyone knows flowers are just representations of a certain female form...
> 
> BTW InTempus: I was going to make myself a kid peeing on a canon logo avatar since you canon guys are getting wild with yours, but i decided I didn't want to get into a...wait for it...PISSING CONTEST!
> Rim Shot?
> ...


LOL

But seriously, you need to make a Nikon peeing on a Canon logo.  We need a few more, I think it's funny.   And we all know, you're all here for my entertainment.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 26, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> > but everyone knows flowers are just representations of a certain female form...
> 
> 
> Actually, flowers are also rather representative of males in many ways.
> ...


This conversation is beginning to scare me.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 26, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> Not anymore, but it was my first DSLR so I do have quite a bit of experience with it.
> 
> The limitations that spawned my 'need' for an upgrade weren't photography related, but rather other bodies having the ability to encode GPS data on the fly, which I enjoy.
> 
> I have owned and used the N75, D40, D60, D80, D200, D5000, D90 and D300s. There are things about each of these camera bodies that I love, and the D300s is the closest to having all of them.



Then why are you worried about making a point that the D40 is just fine? If it is why don't you use one? Do you really need GPS encoding to take a great picture?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 26, 2010)

Because it is quite capable... that's the only argument I'm making. I also said it wasn't necessarily the best choice, but it can deliver - you're saying it cannot, that's the difference between our arguments.

I don't need geotagging for photography, I already stated that - it's just something I enjoy, and if there's a way to make it easier, I'm all for it. 

I do enjoy the 51 focal points when attempting birds in flight or trying to keep up with my kids running around, there ARE benefits to more expensive bodies - but I've already stated that as well.

Capable vs Mandatory = 2 different things.

You're saying the D40 simply cannot be a professional camera, I'm saying yes it can.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 26, 2010)

The D40 is the camera to have according to Ken Rockwell.  Just as soon as you accomplish as much in photography as Ken has, then we'll listen to you.  Meanwhile, PJ's, wedding photogs and serious hobbyists alike flock to the D40.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 26, 2010)

I think 'someone' had an extra dose of sarcasm in their venison sausage this morning.


----------



## bennielou (Jan 26, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> > but everyone knows flowers are just representations of a certain female form...
> 
> 
> Actually, flowers are also rather representative of males in many ways.
> ...


----------



## inTempus (Jan 26, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> You're saying the D40 simply cannot be a professional camera, I'm saying yes it can.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 26, 2010)

Now you hurt my feelings...


----------



## jackieclayton (Jan 26, 2010)

Chris of Arabia said:


>



ditto, this is getting entertaining!


----------



## jackieclayton (Jan 26, 2010)

inTempus said:


> PhotoXopher said:
> 
> 
> > You're saying the D40 simply cannot be a professional camera, I'm saying yes it can.



lol


----------



## inTempus (Jan 26, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> I think 'someone' had an extra dose of sarcasm in their venison sausage this morning.


I'm being serious.

I have one on order from Amazon.  I found a link through Ken's site.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 26, 2010)




----------



## jackieclayton (Jan 26, 2010)

^^^^ :lmao:


----------



## themedicine (Jan 26, 2010)

love that comic.


----------



## mom2eight (Jan 26, 2010)

Reminds me of my little boys fighting over who peed farther!


----------



## Heretotherephoto (Jan 26, 2010)

bennielou said:


> Having a camera and a website does NOT make you a professional photographer. Being PROFESSIONAL makes you a professional photographer.
> 
> And that means...knowing how to put your big panties on, and run a business. Not just taking some "snaps" that in your opinion are killer insane. It's not about putting up a "myspace" or even a real to God website of your favorite photos of bands, sunset, flowers, and your besties besties.
> 
> ...


 
I read your post a couple of days ago and at first was pretty put off by it.  I have followed the thread over the last couple of days and am now curious what pitfalls you are referring to.  Are you thinking of "professional" photographers who shoot weddings, events, and such, or simply anyone with a website and a camera.  

I ask because we fall into the second category.  We have website and cameras but we are definetely not professionals.  We just have had a little success in seeling our work.  The only reason we would call it a business is that the State requires it for the collection of sales taxes and the feds require it for filing income taxes, as does the state on that one too.  We also have very little money invested into it as we are not pros.

We also don't shoot people or anything for pay.  Its not where our skill set allows us to be at this point.  Maybe someday but not now.  I ask mainly because at first your post seemed like a harsh critique of anyone in our shoes.  Now it seems like more of an advice from someone with experience and I am curious what advice you would offer folks like us?  Other than take better photos


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 27, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> Because it is quite capable... that's the only argument I'm making. I also said it wasn't necessarily the best choice, but it can deliver - you're saying it cannot, that's the difference between our arguments.
> 
> I don't need geotagging for photography, I already stated that - it's just something I enjoy, and if there's a way to make it easier, I'm all for it.
> 
> ...





Truth be told any camera can get good results in anybodies hands.. OK you win that one... My point is that the D40 simply is not the camera to shoot anything "professional" with. I moved up to the D300 because I needed better High ISO capabilities... The D40 sucks above 400... I know this because I had one. I moved to the D80....Sucked at 800.... Te d300 Awesome at 1600.. It was what I could afford right now...Yes there are better cameras out there( INTEMPUS INPUT HERE)

My point is this. Even when I had a D80..I had offers for jobs. During a couple of the sit downs to talk about the jobs the asked what Equipment I used.. After learning  had a D80 they told me my Equipment was not "PRO" grade. They knew nothing about photography but knew that my equipment was not what they were looking for. As I stated... YES ANY camera can look good in a studio with expensive lights and good gear, but I would love to see you shoot a D40 in a darker church during a wedding where they would like you NOT to use a flash. It is not going to happen. most sports event do not allow flashes and ost anything professional (besides portraits and simple freelance work) will almost always ban the use of flashes. A friend of mine shoots OU football for a local mag and he has to use ISO 800+ on his 1d MII (I think) to get good shots... The D40 would look like crap. The d40 will only provide pro results in one setting where every camera in the world could provide the same results.... STUDIO PORTRAIT WORK. Thats it!


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 27, 2010)

Alright, whatever man... We disagree.

I had already mentioned the no flash wedding being one limitation.

Landscapes, sports (not necessarily all sports/conditions), wildlife, street, portraiture, senior photos, studio work, weddings (not necessarily all weddings/conditions), strobist work, automotive, product photography, food photography, real estate photography, macro photography...


----------



## mom2eight (Jan 27, 2010)

I say you both just buy canons and shut up!:smileys:
Canon power!lol


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 27, 2010)

We might not agree on everything, but we're not stupid!


----------



## mom2eight (Jan 27, 2010)

:thumbdown:
lol


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 27, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> We might not agree on everything, but we're not stupid!



LOL I like my Nikon too. My biggest selling point is that I can use just about Any Nikon Lens out there. Canon I think kinda hurt themselves by changing the mounting type. 
AS far as the D40 eh... Whatever.... To each there own..We may not agree but I know we can both agree that the D300 line is a sweet camera. 

CHEERS


----------



## PhotoXopher (Jan 27, 2010)

Sachphotography said:


> PhotoXopher said:
> 
> 
> > We might not agree on everything, but we're not stupid!
> ...



CHEERS to that! :thumbup:


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 27, 2010)

> Canon I think kinda hurt themselves by changing the mounting type.


That was 23 years ago...we are over it.  :er:

You could also say that Nikon hurt themselves by not putting AF motors in their entry level cameras (D40, D60 etc)....which is the result of not switching their mount back when they introduced AF into the mix.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 27, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> > Canon I think kinda hurt themselves by changing the mounting type.
> 
> 
> That was 23 years ago...we are over it.  :er:
> ...



I agree totally. They did.


----------



## juddpainter (Jan 28, 2010)

Having the right kit for the job is very important.... but maybe we should not totally discount users of cameras such as the "Canon d40" as being "not worthy" to enter the professional arena.  With a good selection of lenses, there is no reason why someone with a professional attitude and a highly artistic eye cannot produce imagery that paying clients will push over each other to book for good money.

The Progression of Jasmine Star, who has become a bit of a rock star in wedding photography circles, shot her whole first year of weddings in 2006 with a D20... I guess sometimes its not "what you've got", but "what you do with it"  that counts.


----------



## Sachphotography (Jan 28, 2010)

juddpainter said:


> Having the right kit for the job is very important.... but maybe we should not totally discount users of cameras such as the "Canon d40" as being "not worthy" to enter the professional arena.  With a good selection of lenses, there is no reason why someone with a professional attitude and a highly artistic eye cannot produce imagery that paying clients will push over each other to book for good money.
> 
> The Progression of Jasmine Star, who has become a bit of a rock star in wedding photography circles, shot her whole first year of weddings in 2006 with a D20... I guess sometimes its not "what you've got", but "what you do with it"  that counts.



LOL:thumbdown::chatty: whatever.... Canon d40...... LOL...

Canon 40D vs Nikon D40.... HUGE difference buddy.


----------



## coreduo (Jan 28, 2010)

LOL! No Comment. I am a public figure. I am fair game too. LOL


----------



## RyanLilly (Jan 31, 2010)

You guys do realize that Ken Rockwell is exactly that, just a guy with a camera and a website.:lmao:


----------

