# Pro with D40



## VADER1775 (Nov 9, 2008)

Why not hire a pro with a D40?


----------



## Kegger (Nov 9, 2008)

Well here's the first question, why would they be calling themselves a pro? What context would they be using the word?


----------



## kundalini (Nov 9, 2008)

Why hire a Pro with a D40?


----------



## VADER1775 (Nov 9, 2008)

Kegger said:


> Well here's the first question, why would they be calling themselves a pro? What context would they be using the word?



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?


----------



## VADER1775 (Nov 9, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Why hire a Pro with a D40?



Thanks for the input, dude.


----------



## Kegger (Nov 9, 2008)

It comes down to his portfolio. Personally I could care less what equipment you use. But it is kind of irksome when someone says they are a pro, which to me means they make 51% or better of their income from photography, and has beginner equipment. Yeah even low grade stuff can make excellent photos. But if you don't have a portfolio worth a damn, I wouldn't hire you.


----------



## VADER1775 (Nov 9, 2008)

good point kegger.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist (Nov 9, 2008)

A better question might be what kind of pro would use a D40 as a main camera. It would be a major pain in the a$$ to use for almost everything I shot because I need to be able to change settings and such on the fly. You can take great photos with a D40 but I would more likely assume them to be to inexperienced to probably even know about all the options their camera has.

It could be seen as an ignorant thing. They don&#8217;t know about the available settings there for they must not exist.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Nov 9, 2008)

I think a lot depends on the portfolio, but I would ask to see a whole shoot-- as in, what he gave to the clients. It's easy for someone to pick out a couple of good shots from a mass of crap to make a nice or decent portfolio. There is nothing wrong *per se* with someone using a D40 but it says that they are not particularly invested photography, or that they are a beginner who has not made a lot of money in the field to be able to upgrade their equipment. But on the other hand, they may simply have found that the D40 works for them, and have stuck with what works.


----------



## MelodySoul (Nov 9, 2008)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, someone calling themselves a pro and charging accordingly should have pro equipment.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 9, 2008)

Okay, say you are shooting RAW, using good quality lenses, light, and staging that is appropriate for whatever you are shooting.

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 ??


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 9, 2008)

PatrickHMS said:


> 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.

Besides, that's not really the issue... the issue is that the D40 isn't built to do the things pros need to do. It doesn't have auto bracketing. It doesn't have depth of field preview. I has a very crude focusing system (three AF points leads to composition issues and is clunky as all getout... IMHO it is the main 'flaw' with the D40). The menu system is crude and clunky and takes forever to use... there's no top LCD for checking settings. It also doesn't have a commander mode for shooting multi flash setups using Nikon flashes.

None of this stuff really affects the customer the camera is designed for, the entry level person, but pretty much ALL of it will affect a "Pro" user.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 9, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> ...None of this stuff really affects the customer the camera is designed for, the entry level person, but pretty much ALL of it will affect a "Pro" user.


 
Thanks for the information - I realize that the D3 and D700 are the REAL Pro DSLR's in the Nikon range of cameras, but I do seem to see a lot of people who appear to be professional using a D200, D90, a D300 or something equivalent to those.


----------



## Mike_E (Nov 9, 2008)

You didn't say why he/she only has a D40. Did they loose their other equipment  for some reason? Decide they wanted out then changed their mind?

If you are going to hire any contractor for something important, you need to do a little more research than just meeting them.


----------



## Kegger (Nov 10, 2008)

Man if I see a pro with a 70's era Pro film SLR, I stop what I'm doing and watch the master ply his trade.


----------



## DRoberts (Nov 10, 2008)

Maybe he has used the D40 so much that he has "perfected" it...I know of people with top end cameras that can only produce crap, and people who have "prosumer" cameras that produce great shots every time.
A very familiar camera (even a "starter" camera) with some high end glass can work very well.
I think its funny how people are judging him without knowing anything about him, or without seeing any of his work. Just because you heard he has a D40 you automatically assume he is not as good as you are with your D3s or D700s (or Canon Ms)
Go buy a $10,000 set of golf clubs and I'll bet that Tiger Woods can still beat you with nothing but a $30 3 iron and a $20 putter.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 10, 2008)

Won't any of these DSLR's like the D40 produce a high quality 8 x 10 print?  I understand why a "Pro" couldn't use a point-and-shoot, not saying that at all.

I know that a D40 isn't a high end DSLR, but isn't any DSLR a higher-end Digital camera?

Like mentioned just above this, where the guy who comes to the gym, tennis court, or Country Club with all the newest and bestest stuff that he doesn't know how to use any of it.

I can almost feel some snobbery towards those who don't have "better" camera bodies, while I look at those here on TPF who appear to be "Pros" and note from some of their profiles or signatures that they don't always have the higher-end camera bodies either.

Yeah, I have a Nikon D40 (and I really like it), but I also have a D200 not mentioned in my profile or sig. at this point  When I am staging shots, using tripod or lights, or I 
need a faster shutter speed I will use the heavier D200 with the manual capabilities, but when I am out just enjoying taking photographs I prefer to use my lighter, fewer settings to fiddle with D40.  Most any lens I have will work on either camera, which is a definite plus.

And when holding prints side-by-side, these old eyes can't see very much difference (if any at all) between photographs taken by either of the two camera in a print 
unless maybe one larger than 8 x 10.

In the film world of 35mm I used Nikkormat FTN, or the Olympus OM1 compatible equipment, and to me, either of these digital cameras produce prints that look just as good, or better, than what the film gear could ever do with the technology that was available at that time.

On my Flickr page, all of those photos were shot with PnS like a 2mp Fuji 2650 or a Nikon 990, and there are plenty of photos either there or on my PC taken with those kinds of cameras that I am proud to have taken.

We all love to take photographs, some of use can afford better gear than others, but we are all here for the pure joy of taking pictures, and learning more about something we all love so much and have in common.


----------



## K_Pugh (Nov 10, 2008)

Well if i knew about photography and was hiring someone i'd probably get chatty in the first place and ask about his gear etc, we're all into our gear right?.. I'm sure he's got an 'explanation' why he uses a D40.

I think a real pro should ideally use real pro equipment, if a real pro was making a living from it and making a good living from it then surely good pro equipment would be a good investment anyway - plus it gives the clients more confidence in them etc..

saying that if a pro is just starting out, struggling to pay bills etc, just taken the big leap then maybe he can only afford or justify buying lesser cameras.. i mean having a D40 as a 2nd/backup camera is better than having no 2nd/backup camera. If it was his main camera though i think it would put a little doubt in your mind, not saying that his results will be anything less than brilliant but i don't think it says a lot in front of clients - No matter where you go there's people there who have DSLR's, and you usually get asked about your equipment etc, and a lot of the time they have better gear than you! lol

I don't have pro equipment, i have a D80 and i bought a D200 because i needed a 2nd/backup. I still use the D80 if i'm doing portrait work as i don't need the high speed shooting etc of the D200.. plus i know my D80 well enough to change most things without looking (unless i have to go into the menu).

But yeah i think my point is you'd research your photographer a little before hiring (i'd hope).


----------



## JodieO (Nov 10, 2008)

Some clients would never notice what type of camera the pro is using... however, I would personally have to question why a pro would use a D40.  I'd be guessing a pro using a D40 would also be charging a cheap session fee and cheap prints (but I could be wrong).... which is just overall bad for this industry.


----------



## ksmattfish (Nov 10, 2008)

VADER1775 said:


> 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?



No, I do not hire him.  He needs at least 2 cameras, and back-ups for the rest of the gear.

I don't really care what gear the photog is using.  I want to see the portfolio.  A competent photographer should be able to cover a wedding, dance, or dinner party with D40s or Rebels.  If they can't take decent photos with a cheap DSLR then a D3 or 1Ds isn't going to make the photos any better.

I stopped worrying about what other people thought about my gear when after the family portraits at a wedding a guy berated me for using a camera he'd never heard of.  He sneered "I thought pros used Canon!"  I was using a Hasselblad.

Don't listen to the photo geeks and gear dorks.  Let your portfolio speak for itself, and let the troublesome clients find someone else to bother.


----------



## roadkill (Nov 10, 2008)

I wouldn't hire someone with the D40 simply for resolution purposes


----------



## travelerb (Nov 10, 2008)

When my wife and I got married in 2003 our photographer used a Canon 10D.  As I understand (not having been into photography since a child at the time), pretty high end during that time - it had just come out 2 months before.  

I've always considered the deal we got on the photography a steal, and have never had any issues with the pictures we received.  (We got a cd of all the original shots).  Of course, it was just a 6mp camera, like the D40.  

My amateur assessment would have to be that the D40 is better than the D10 that was used for my wedding pictures, and I have no complaints about them (easy button access aside).

So I suppose from my perspective the answer to your implied question is a pro can do just fine with a D40 (depending on what they are shooting).  Your specific question, why not hire a pro with a d40, would be that it depends on why the "pro" is using a d40.  There are cameras that are much better for a relatively small investment if the camera is, in fact, your business.  

If a business, even a solo person, could greatly improve his or her product for a $1000-$2000 investment, why haven't they?


----------



## Tolyk (Nov 11, 2008)

Depends on the portfolio and how much they were charging 

I've had someone that uses a 1Ds Mark III offer to do my wedding for free, and I've seen some of his photos, he's pretty good, but he's not a pro. He just really enjoys photography.

According to Canon, you need to own two bodies (of at least a certain point or higher) and a certain amount of lenses and earn at least 51% of your income from photography before you are considered a Pro and get their pro rates (on pro bodies and L series glass, as well as the Macro lenses)

So.. someone shotting with just a D40.. Um.. not considered a pro by Canon's standards  (Not that a Nikon shooter cares about that *chuckle* but you get the point)

Anyways, in my opinion a pro isn't determined by their camera. Or by their income. And it's obviously not determined by the quality of their photos, cause I've seen some pro's photos that are horrible. So, what makes a person a pro? Knowledge? Self-titling? *shrug* Who knows..

But, for me it'd really depend on what I thought of their work, and probably their confidence and professionalism. Knowledge builds confidence, experience builds professionalism, and good quality pictures can be taken with any camera.


----------



## Jedo_03 (Nov 11, 2008)

Coincidental - yes - but true...
Went up to the local shopping plaza/mall this morning and there was yet another traveling photo booth... went over for a look... and was shocked to see a D40 on the tripod.. Not only that - there was a coil of ugly duct tape (it was grey..) wrapped around the lens barrel (?keep the lens on the body) and a piece of tattered black tape (half) stuck over the shutter release button..
Sheesh - talk about "professional" - and the queue was about a dozen deep waiting for their kids to photographed...
And then to read this here...
Jedo


----------



## BTilson (Nov 11, 2008)

I think my only issue with a pro using a D40 would be the resolution of the camera. I might want some big enlargements, and while the D40 can manage it, higher res shots from a pro body would be much better suited to the task.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 11, 2008)

Professional... there are are as many definitions as there are people, but let's ask a few questions about professionals and their tools.

- Does Tiger Woods use 1950s wooden golf clubs?
- Did Mario Andretti use a Ford Pinto to drive in his races?
- Did Frank Lloyd Wright design on papyrus or build with straw?

No.  

The dictionary defines a professional as someone who gets paid performing an activity.  To me, *morally*, a professional photographer to me is NOT someone that is just charging money for his pics, it is a person who has paid their dues, has knowledge and experience superior to the average person and has the appropriate level of *quality* equipment to back it all up.  Why would I want to pay someone with substandard knowledge to use substandard equipment to take pictures for me?

An experienced professional will not be using tools that will give him mediocre results and is of mediocre quality.  Can you get identical results with a D40 with a kit lens as you could a D700 or D3 and an 85mm F/1.4? No not even close, not unless you can bend the laws of physics.

A "professional" with a D40 to me *screams *inexperience, sub-standard knowledge and inability to get the shot.  In a day and time when anyone can purchase equipment far superior to that camera for a minor increase in cost, this is another factor.  A professional, in his desire to deliver professional results, will be using equipment that is as close to the top of the line, if not *the* top of the line... they certainly will not be using the very bottom of the line camera equipment.

We all say that it's not the camera that makes a difference, its the photographer.  Fact of the matter is that its both.  Give a moderately experienced photographer a D40 and a D700, give them 1 week to play with both and then tell me which scenario will give you superior results.  I can promise you it will not be the D40.  Which camera would you want to own?

If a "pro" came to me stating that all they had was a single D40, I would not walk away... I would run.


----------



## ksmattfish (Nov 11, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Can you get identical results with a D40 with a kit lens as you could a D700 or D3 and an 85mm F/1.4? No not even close, not unless you can bend the laws of physics.



It just depends on whether the point is to match resolution tests, or is it to create good photos?  My experience is that clients are going to be much more concerned about art than the laws of physics.   

I am confident that I could shoot a wedding with D40s (at least 2), and the clients would be just as happy as when I shoot with my 5D.  I wouldn't enjoy it as much, but the D40 is more sophisticated than many of the "pro" cameras of 5 or 10 years ago.  It's a much fancier camera than the film cameras I used to shoot with.  If my choices to shoot a wedding were a D3 with only the 85mm f/1.4, or the D40 with the kit lens, I'd choose the kit lens.  I want the flexibility.  

Off camera flash will do more to make the photos look professional than a fat price tag on the body.    

Ask the tax man what a professional is.  They have a clear definition.

Get over the hype, people.  Canon and Nikon spend more money convincing you the gear is what's important than they spend on creating the gear in the first place.  The pros of the recent past would kill for today's entry level DSLRs.  They rock!  Geez Louise man, I used to have to shoot weddings with film; talk about primitive and limiting!


----------



## Parkerman (Nov 11, 2008)

If the guy doesn't atleast have prograde glass... steer away from him. I shoot with a D40.. And wouldn't dare shoot a wedding with one. You need something that can handle iso's better than the D40.. and something that has more than 3 focus squares [not points]


----------



## christm (Nov 11, 2008)

Kegger said:


> It comes down to his portfolio. Personally I could care less what equipment you use. But it is kind of irksome when someone says they are a pro, which to me means they make 51% or better of their income from photography, and has beginner equipment. Yeah even low grade stuff can make excellent photos. But if you don't have a portfolio worth a damn, I wouldn't hire you.



I agree,

Its not the equipment, its what they can offer you and is what they are offering suitable ?


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 11, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> My experience is that clients are going to be much more concerned about art than the laws of physics
> 
> I am confident that I could shoot a wedding with D40s (at least 2), and the clients would be just as happy as when I shoot with my 5D.



I agree that they are not concerned about physics, however , physics will define the quality of your pictures!  Can that D40 take clean ISO 1600 images?  A D300 is good to 3200, a D700/D3 are EXCELLENT at ISO 6400 and produce less noise at 12,800 than the D40 does at ISO 1600.    ... I challenge any D40 to come into any local church in the area that require ISO 3200 just to get a shutter speed of 1/60th and try to get the same quality shots that a D700 could get at ISO 3200, 6400 or higher.  I challenge any kit lens to show me equal distortion, CA and pin cushioning numbers as a Nikkor 70-200 or  Nikkor 85mm F/1.4 lens.  We're not even in the same country, much less the same ball park... lol.

I challenge any D40 in camera processing to match the quality of output of the in camera processor and the full frame sensor of the D700 (same as the D3).  I challenge any kit lens to be as clear and distortion free as a quality L or "gold ring" lens.

If we are of about the same technical and creative level and I carry in my D700 and 4 lens collection (14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and 85mm) into the same wedding as you do with your D40 and kit lens, and we go side by side through the whole process... and then show both results to the same client, I sincerely wonder which set of pictures would make the client happy and which would make them frown?

It really is a lot more going on inside the camera than just high ISO and low noise, though that is a big part of it.

Not even discussing the D40, if you join the D700 flickr group or read the D700 Nikonians forums, you will hear how people are even loathe to pick up their D200s and D300s after playing with the D700s, and we are not even talking about how much further behind the D40 is.

A D40 at a wedding against proper equipment is like trying to race a stock Yugo in a Formula F1 race.  Not only are you not in the race, you are not even able to keep up to the pace car!   Can the Yugo run on the track?  Sure, but it's not competitive and sure as heck NOTHING it can do to win that race.  That is a D40 in a wedding environment against even a D300, and the D700/D3 are above that level by a far margin... those are the real competitors in the wedding field.

If there were no differences between a 5D (or any professional level camera), and a D40... why would any professional ever need waste more than the price of a D40 and kit lens?  Because there are differences and major ones at that.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't think the powers-that-be at Nikon, Canon or any other manufacturer are idiots.  They develop different levels of cameras, lenses and accessories for a reason.  Certainly we can circumvent those reasons, but that does not diminish the facts.


----------



## Kegger (Nov 11, 2008)

Hey Jerry, play nice, no need to bash the D300, lol. It may not be FX, but she's pretty damn good as a camera.


----------



## AduNeButt (Nov 11, 2008)

If the photographer's abilities allow him to take professional looking photos with a D40, then there is no issue in my opinion.  It really seems that simple to me.  I'd take the quality of the pictures over the quality of the camera the photographer is using any day.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 11, 2008)

Kegger said:


> Hey Jerry, play nice, no need to bash the D300, lol. It may not be FX, but she's pretty damn good as a camera.



Oh heck did you ever misunderstand me... lol  I guess that I should not tell you then, that the noise on a D300 is slightly lower at ISO 1600 than a D3.   

I meant zero disrespect against D300 owners and indeed meant to say that the D40s are going to have to go head to head against D300s and as a lower end camera that is very popular vs the D700/D3, it *still*gets it's butt kicked!    Now add the other performance enhancements that a well equipped professional will have with the D700/D3... how can anyone tell me that a D40 can match results?

Please, no insult intended anywhere.


----------



## Kegger (Nov 11, 2008)

Oh believe me I know that little tid bit of info, one of the reasons I bought it instead of the D#.(I wish)

And of course it's gonna get its butt kicked, the thing is a toy, at least to me it is.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 11, 2008)

AduNeButt said:


> If the photographer's abilities allow him to take professional looking photos with a D40, then there is no issue in my opinion.  It really seems that simple to me.  I'd take the quality of the pictures over the quality of the camera the photographer is using any day.



And you are selectively reading.  Place equally talented photographers in the same room, give one a D40 with a kit lens, the other a D3 with pro level glass... who do you think will win the contract?  At these quality level differences, I would even hazzard to say that a less talented photographer coul dhave the D3 and the more talented photographer would have to be DAMN good to come close, but still not match, the results of the D3... lol


----------



## AduNeButt (Nov 11, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> And you are selectively reading.  Place equally talented photographers in the same room, give one a D40 with a kit lens, the other a D3 with pro level glass... who do you think will win the contract?



But it wasn't a question of comparing two cameras, it was a question of if a talented photographer can shoot with a D40 why not hire him?

Sure there are better cameras than the D40, but if the photographer chooses to use one for whatever reason, why not hire him?  Are you saying you'd only hire a photographer with the best possible upgrades on every portion of his camera?


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 11, 2008)

AduNeButt said:


> But it wasn't a question of comparing two cameras, it was a question of if a talented photographer can shoot with a D40 why not hire him?



The answer was... because no matter how good he is, his lens cannot get the shot in a dark church.  No matter how good the photographer is, he cannot erase the noise caused by his camera enough without destroying detail.  No matter how good he is, he cannot stand at the back of a 300 foot church and get a clear shot of the first kiss.  That no matter how good he is, F.5.6 at 2 seconds is not fast enough to prevent a picture from being tremendously blurred with even the slightest motion from the subject.

I could go on with at least a hundred more exact examples... but the point has been made.  Even the best photographer in the world will not do anywhere near as well as a properly equipped professional will.

IMHO, a *major* part of being a professional... is knowing that its NOT good enough and having professional equipment that does things that the outdated $300 camera cannot.  If it is not an issue, why not hand that D40 "professional" a $50 P&S camera, he can out perform any good pro with $10,000 equipment, is that the consensus?  We all know that it is not.


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 11, 2008)

For me it really depends on what the situation is. If its something where the client only needs pictures to post on a web site. Who need's a 24 mp shot thats just going to get reduced way way down anyway? How about shooting a luncheon party for a corporate clients to put pics in a brochure. Again 8x10 or so in size if its a full page pic. The fact is alot of commercial work can easily be provided by a D40. But it does have its limitations. As someone mentioned above, low light situations. Output size of files for enlargements. 

Part of being professional is knowing what equipment to use at the appropriate time! Part of being a pro is to know the limitations, and instead of pushing the limits and taking chances. You instead get new equipment, or something that I have done and thousands before me, and thats rent the appropriate equipment. 

I also disagree with saying you have to have expensive pro equipment to charge appropirate prices. You can have expensive equipment and sell cheap shots. And cheap equipment and sell expensive shots. It's all dependent if that particular client is happy with the output! Everyone has to start with a budget. Everyone has to stick with a budget. The camera doesn't sell a thing! It's the final picture that sells! People at high end art stores don't ask what grade the canvas is. They don't ask what brand brushes were used. They don't ask if the stretcher boards are pine or some fancy hardwood. They buy the art based on how the actual art apeals to them and if they have an appreciation for the artist themselves. They don't adjust the price for the items used in making that art. So why should photography? 

I travel a lot and get to see quite a few high end art stores all over the world. I have never ever seen equipment used on a place card by high priced photo art! Reason is, it doesn't matter to the buying public! The end result is the only qualifier!!! If its good work, it sells for a good price. If its bad work, then it doesn't sell.

Photographers are the only one's who care what equipment is used to make a print. The general public could care less!  And their opinion wins as they are the ones paying the bills!


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 11, 2008)

benhasajeep said:


> Photographers are the only one's who care what equipment is used to make a print. The general public could care less!  And their opinion wins as they are the ones paying the bills!



They really should care, because they are limited to the capabilities and capacities of their equipment.  A different brush will not affect how the final painting looks, however a different camera DRASTICALLY changes how that picture comes out.

I must admit, comparing a painting to a digitally produced picture is a good argument, but only to a point.  A $3 brush will get one painting done as well as a $30 brush... but that $3 brush is done after 1 painting.  It is also not a limiting factor when it comes time to create.  If you paint 50 paintings in your life, you can use one $30 brush or fifty $1 brushes.

But a more accurate way of thinking would be... can you as a painter sell enough 1 inch X 1 inch paintings at $500 each when your competitor is out there using 24 X 48 inch canvas and paints JUST as well as you do, and sells the painting at $750... who is going to sell more at the end of the day?  Now we are closer to comparing apples to apples.  How about if I take the oils and paints away and give that same artist $10 in wax crayons?

From my point of view, a professional should paint with oils... but there are a few out there that call themselves artists and are painting with crayons on canvas... lol


----------



## bhop (Nov 11, 2008)

To expand on benhasajeep's point.   It depends on the need IMO.  Still subjects or studio work would probably be ok for a camera like the d40 to handle, but what if the photographer's shooting something that's constantly changing?  Like sports for example?  One minute you might be shooting a close up still subject, the next minute you might be panning on a fast moving subject in the distance.  Being able to quickly flip a switch to change your focus or metering settings, instead of digging in button menus, can keep you from missing shots.


----------



## TamiyaGuy (Nov 11, 2008)

DRoberts said:


> Go buy a $10,000 set of golf clubs and I'll bet that Tiger Woods can still beat you with nothing but a $30 3 iron and a $20 putter.


 Bingo! You have summed up exactly what I wanted to say in one and a bit lines. I just think that, so long as they can take good photos, I'd hire them any day. The only thing that will change depending on the camera would be the high-ISO grain and the resolution. And let's face it, how many wedding couples complain that the photo of them standing by the river/deck/whatever looks pixellated?

I say, so long as they have proof that they are a pro, gimme their contact details straight away


----------



## Parkerman (Nov 11, 2008)

TamiyaGuy said:


> Bingo! You have summed up exactly what I wanted to say in one and a bit lines. I just think that, so long as they can take good photos, I'd hire them any day. The only thing that will change depending on the camera would be the high-ISO grain and the resolution. And let's face it, how many wedding couples complain that the photo of them standing by the river/deck/whatever looks pixellated?
> 
> I say, so long as they have proof that they are a pro, gimme their contact details straight away





Hmm.. what you and the other guy say.. has no relevance here. 

This guy is a "pro" photographer with a D40... If he takes good pictures with a D40.. He will only take better pictures with a D90 and above. For a wedding, having something that can handle a high iso is a must. And yes.. a couple would complain. The ones that wouldn't.. are the ones who didn't pay much for their photographer, who was also their cousin. 

Think about this.. 2 friends are both getting married around the same time. 

Friend A books a photographer who shoots with a D40, kit lens, 55-200mm, and the 50mm. 

Friend B books a photographer who shoots with a D700, 24-70mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, and a 70-200mm 2.8. 

Both pay around the same price for the photographer. They get their pictures back and of course they want to show them to each other. Once friend A notices the clarity and sharpness of Friends B's pictures.. she is no longer satisfied with her grainy pictures. 



Since yall made a golf comparison. How about this.. since some others touched on cars earlier. Give the worlds most decorated formula 1 driver.. michael schumacher... a prius... and whoever came in dead last year in the F1 season a Ferrari F1 Car... 

Schumacher would lose.


----------



## usayit (Nov 11, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> Since yall made a golf comparison. How about this.. since some others touched on cars earlier. Give the worlds most decorated formula 1 driver.. michael schumacher... a prius... and whoever came in dead last year in the F1 season a Ferrari F1 Car...



Not really a sound argument given that a Prius is not a sound race car and a D40 is a sound camera.  You might as go further and put michael schumacher  on a tricycle.... 

Think of it this way....  the different levels of equipment "enable" a great photographer but don't necessarily limit them.

I'm in the agreement that if the portfolio shows quality work, who cares how or what they used to accomplish the final result.  I'm surprised RMThompson hasn't chimed in.... IIRC he finished a paid shoot with a P&S with very good results.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 11, 2008)

TamiyaGuy said:


> The only thing that will change depending on the camera would be the high-ISO grain and the resolution.



This is simply not true.


----------



## lids369 (Nov 11, 2008)

not in a slow track, if the f1 car cannot get enough downforce, he cannot get his power down so he just spins out.


----------



## DRoberts (Nov 11, 2008)

The OPs question was based entirely on one piece of equipment, with no details on anything else. Therefore each of us can, and will, read more into this than needed to answer the question. In short, regardless of what he is using the decision to hire him should be based on quality of work he does, not what he does it with.
All these other arguments is what has no relevance here.


----------



## Mystwalker (Nov 11, 2008)

With most people, the DSLR is impressive enough. Unless they know something about photography, they probably will not realize the D40 is a "lower end DSLR".

My wedding, the photog had one of those "boxy cameras" where he looks down to focus - he hand cranked to film advance (I'm not sure about this) and I think the film roll was like 7-10 shots because he sure changed often - also, I think the film was squarish, not rolls. He still charged "an arm and a leg" though, but the shots came out wonderful.

For I know, he was using some home made contraption. BUT when we were "shopping around" all that mattered was his portfolio. Didn't even think to ask about his equipment.

To answer the OP - I do not see a reason "not to hire someone with a D40".  It's the results that count.  But someone slinging two 1Ds, one with white lens (70-200?) and another with probably a 24-70, plus some kind of battery pak - IMPRESSIVE!!  Saw this at a friend's wedding


----------



## usayit (Nov 11, 2008)

btw...

There are a lot of good paid photographers that are starting out a new business.... most of them are better than I AND cannot afford all high end equipment.  Yet they do just fine....   Everyone has to start somewhere.

On the flip side...... I am fortunate enough to afford more than a car's value in camera equipment.  I guarantee that I have more sitting at my disposal than 90% of the professional photographers in the market.  Does that make me a better photographer more capable at portraits and weddings???  Nope.    

...

With enough money and people, I'm sure they can make an F1 car perform on a slow track...


----------



## usayit (Nov 11, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> My wedding, the photog had one of those "boxy cameras" where he looks down to focus - he hand cranked to film advance (I'm not sure about this) and I think the film roll was like 7-10 shots because he sure changed often - also, I think the film was squarish, not rolls.  He still charged "an arm and a leg" though, but the shots came out wonderful.



He was probably shooting a TLR Rollieflex.... arguably one of the best cameras for a wedding.   (and still darn expensive... I'm hoping to purchase one for my collection).

To tell you the truth... If I were to get married again, I would LOVE for the photographer to do a few B&W shots on MF Rollieflex.   There's a quality in the negatives that is not easily reproduced. (yes.. I'd pay that extra bit if it means owning the negatives)


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 11, 2008)

Hassalbald  has them also. as did a Kowa that I saw this Sunday past.


----------



## benhasajeep (Nov 11, 2008)

Definately MF camera.  Using 120 roll film.  Of which I still have 3 (one is a brand new one sitting in a box for future use  ) amazing what you can get deals on now a days.  :mrgreen:


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 11, 2008)

I don't really know where to "draw the line".

Photography is hopefully at least a hobby to most of us, if not even a love or a deep passion for many. Go out and shoot with whatever you have, and enjoy the heck out of what you see of God's AWESOME nature through your viewfinder.

BOTH Canon AND Nikon (and others) make exceptional quality cameras nowadays, in all levels, and in many price ranges. Some of them are affordable to many, others of them are affordable to almost nobody.

I am a Nikon guy since 1969, know little about Canon 35mm film, and even less about Canon 35mm DSLR's. My brother wouldn't have anything but a Canon, but I still speak to him.

lol

I do know that any current generation DSLR from either one of those Manufacturers will outperform almost anything made 5, 3, maybe even 2 years ago, and there are some wonderful cameras out there.

I see those who I believe to be "Pros" (from looking either at their postings, or their websites) using all kinds of Nikon bodies, from the lowly D40 to the D70/70S to the D60, D80, D200, D90 and D300.

Having both D40 and D200 (and free use of a D70S anytime I want to use it), to me, the D40 is a joy to just go out and shoot with (and I get some very very nice 8" X 10" 's from it), while I use the D200 for staged stuff, or requiring studio lighting, slower shutter speeds, etc.

After seeing (if not using) so many of them, for my money, a D90 is my next Nikon body, and if it isn't capable of producing professional quality work, then none of them are.

Happy picturetaking!


----------



## Village Idiot (Nov 12, 2008)

For anyone whining about snobbery, go suck it.

Some one shooting a wedding with a 5D, 5DMKII, 1D MKII, 1Dn MKII, 1Ds MKII, 1D MKIII, 1Ds MKIII, D700, or D300 is going to have an inherent advantage over some one using an entry level DSLR provided both know the ins and outs of photography. I mean, being able to shoot keepers at 6400 ISO while something like a D40 could only dream of having 6400 ISO on the menu, let alone having it as anything besides a snow storm one reason. Sure, there's times when you won't have that much of an upper hand, but better cameras mean better IQ and in some situations, they allow you to get a shot you wouldn't with a lesser camera.

Is that saying people trying to run a business based off a D40 is a bad thing? No. It's just saying that yes, they'd be disadvantaged compared to some one with a better camera. But then again, try finding a pro with a 1Ds MKIII to shoot a wedding for $300.


----------



## The Dane (Sep 24, 2009)

Good topic here. In my opinion all that really matters is that the photographer has a satisfactory Portfolio that justifies his/hers hiring fees, acts in a professional manner and of course has a backup body.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 24, 2009)

It's not about equipment, it's about the photographers eye. If he can shoot great images and is professional looking and acting, I would hire him.


----------



## Goontz (Sep 24, 2009)

How is it that noobs (not that I'm an old-timer around here by any means) always manage to find the oldest possible topic to revive? Truly baffling.


----------



## UUilliam (Sep 24, 2009)

Well.. I suppose they are making use of the search function... but on the dumbest things...


----------



## kundalini (Sep 24, 2009)

UUilliam said:


> Well.. I suppose they are making use of the search function... _*but on the dumbest things...*_[/QUOTE]
> 
> Likely on what sparks their interest, rather than your interpretation of what's "hot". :geek:


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 25, 2009)

UUilliam said:


> Well.. I suppose they are making use of the search function... but on the dumbest things...


 
You're dumb colonel sanders /water boy.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 25, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> It's not about equipment, it's about the photographers eye. If he can shoot great images and is professional looking and acting, I would hire him.


 
So if you're hired to shoot an indoor even with bad lighting and you have a Rebel XT, you're not going to be at a disadvantage and you're going to be able to get as good of shots as some one with a 5D and a 580EX?


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> So if you're hired to shoot an indoor even with bad lighting and you have a Rebel XT, you're not going to be at a disadvantage and you're going to be able to get as good of shots as some one with a 5D and a 580EX?



+1


----------



## J Hobson (Sep 25, 2009)

If you are shooting under contract ( wedding, etc.) and you market yourself as a "Professional", you should be using "Professional" equipment.
If not and something goes wrong, it may be viewed as negligence in a court of law, or at least misrepresentation.

That said, if you are not under contract, and you can provide professional results, who cares what you use. As long as you get the required results.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 25, 2009)

J Hobson said:


> If you are shooting under contract ( wedding, etc.) and you market yourself as a "Professional", you should be using "Professional" equipment.
> If not and something goes wrong, it may be viewed as negligence in a court of law, or at least misrepresentation.
> 
> That said, if you are not under contract, and you can provide professional results, who cares what you use. As long as you get the required results.


 
But with companies like Canon, their professional line is considered the 1D. If you're shooting weddings with a 40D, it's a completely acceptable camera but it's not marketed as a professional body.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 25, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about equipment, it's about the photographers eye. If he can shoot great images and is professional looking and acting, I would hire him.
> ...


 
Yes, because I have equipment that I would loan to the photographer that I hired. It is hard to find someone with the eye.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Yes, because I have equipment that I would loan to the photographer that I hired. It is hard to find someone with the eye.



Wow, is that a cop-out or what.  VI was saying that if you're using an XT you'll be at a disadvantage in getting shots that higher level equipment is built to let you get. 

And of course lending the equipment has some problems, because if this poor soul has no idea how to use the nicer equipment he will quite possibly have no idea how to make what his "eye" sees turn into reality.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 25, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, because I have equipment that I would loan to the photographer that I hired. It is hard to find someone with the eye.
> ...


 
A cop out? Are you kidding? Have you hired a photographer to work for you? You had rather have someone with equipment but no eye than someone with the eye and no equipment? That is just stupid. I would rather teach someone how to use equipment than how to have the eye.


----------



## JamesMason (Sep 25, 2009)

I would hire a pro with a sausage and a hockey stick if their portfolio was good enough


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 25, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> NateWagner said:
> 
> 
> > CSR Studio said:
> ...


 
Let's just say that I wouldn't hire a landscaper if I had to provide the mower, rakes, hoes, wheel barrow, and shovels.

Oh, and I wouldn't hire some one to do a job that I could do better where I would have to teach them, unless it was specifically for a company where I was looking for an apprentice, and that's completely different situation than hiring a photographer to shoot your parent's 50th wedding anniversary.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Sep 25, 2009)

There is no real end to this augment.
Are there people out there calling themselves pros and only shoot with one D40 body, sure there are!

I like to think of it as a self correcting situation, these same people usually do not charge enough to cover the costs of shooting, they typically do not charge enough for prints or just give away CD&#8217;s and are usually out of business in less than 2 years.

I have seen it happen over and over again.

I like to think that those of us who train and invest in our skills and equipment have a distinct advantage over the D40 pros and really do not compete for the same clientele.  

I am sure they would like to have our clientele, and on occasion will convince one of them to try them out, but they always come back in the end.

You may want to think you can compete with a D40 and an SB600 flash, but when it comes right down to it, you need the right equipment for any situation or sooner or later it will bite you.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 25, 2009)

What is a D40?

-Pete


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> A cop out? Are you kidding? Have you hired a photographer to work for you? You had rather have someone with equipment but no eye than someone with the eye and no equipment? That is just stupid. I would rather teach someone how to use equipment than how to have the eye.



I would rather have a hired photographer with an eye and his own quality equipment, than a photographer with an eye and just a d40 or Rebel XT particularly in a situation that had challenging lighting levels. 

the cop out was introducing that you would lend the photographer with the poor level equipment better equipment, thus he is no longer using the poor equipment and thus you are admitting that quality equipment is required in certain situations... 

put this way
bad photographer, limited equipment = 0
bad photographer, good equipment = 1
good photographer, limited equipment = 2
good photographer, good equipment = 3

3>2>1>0


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 25, 2009)

JamesMason said:


> I would hire a pro with a sausage and a hockey stick if their portfolio was good enough



This sounds right to me.

The VAST majority of my customers wouldn't know one camera from another.

Hell, *I* seldom know one camera from another.  They're TOOLS.  That's all.  Just tools.

I suspect I could work with one.

-Pete


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

sure they are just tools, but if I'm carving a turkey or a ham, I would rather have a sharp knife than a dull knife. 

If I'm tasked with cutting a tree I would rather have a chain saw than a steak knife. 

Yes they are just tools, but the quality of the tools, and how well they fit with the given need is important.


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 25, 2009)

People have shot weddings with much worse. Just because there are better models out now doesn't make it invalid to think one could be successful with something less.

One day, not many years from now - are there going to be people posting something like:

"Would you hire someone who called himself a pro who had nothing but a D700 for a camera?"

Before anyone jumps on me, I do realize the D40 was never the D700 of its time - however its image quality does rival and in some cases exceed that of 'pro' cameras that precede it.


----------



## J Hobson (Sep 25, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> If you're shooting weddings with a 40D, it's a completely acceptable camera but it's not marketed as a professional body.


  Acceptable by who? The people using them?
It's not marketed as a professional body for a reason. It is not as reliable nor is it built to do such work on a regular basis and when if fails, it's your butt not Canons. They warned you.
I will agree that *most* customers would not be able to tell the difference between images created by a D40 or 1d.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

I do want to mention that there is a large difference between a D40 and a 40D, in case you just misread it. 

As you said, it is your butt if it fails when you're using it (which is why it's important to always have backup's). but, I highly doubt that it's Canon's butt if you're using their 1D and it fails. 

Similarly the 5d (both of them) are geared heavily towards wedding photographers, and yet are not listed as professional cameras. 

That being said, if I were to choose I would definitely prefer to use a 1Ds3 over a 40D any day.


----------



## J Hobson (Sep 25, 2009)

Nate,
My comments were made with the intent to protect the photographer, if the OP was talking about him/her self. In a court case I saw last year a wedding photographer was sued because the B&G didn't like the job he did. The fact he used a non professional camera became an issue, they used to show he was not really a professional. He (the photographer) lost and had to return the B&G their money, along with the bad press. And no it was not the cameras fault. His photos were OOF and many eyes closed, still it was a defense that worked for them.
I know there is a difference between a 40D & D40. It got twisted somewhere.:blushing:
Like I said before, use what gets the job done. I just wouldn't use it under contract.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 25, 2009)

That's definitely the dumbest thing I've heard. There's lots of gear that companies don't specify as professional that is used on a day to day basis by professionals every where.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 25, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > A cop out? Are you kidding? Have you hired a photographer to work for you? You had rather have someone with equipment but no eye than someone with the eye and no equipment? That is just stupid. I would rather teach someone how to use equipment than how to have the eye.
> ...


 
Actually, you don't seem to understand. 2 is far far better than 1 and 3 is only a little better than 2.

You never answered my question. Have you hired a photographer to work for you? I didn't know we were limiting it to hiring a photographer to shoot my parents 50th wedding anniversary. What about hiring a photographer for your studio?


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 25, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> NateWagner said:
> 
> 
> > CSR Studio said:
> ...


 
If I hired a photographer to work for me in my studio, it would be a lot different than hiring a photographer for a one time deal. They would be using my equipment and that's definitely better than entry level gear. 

But that's the whole point to this thread is does gear matter? Yes! If I hire a photographer, I'm definitely going to make sure that they have the skills, but that's completely different than some one hiring some one to take pictures at an event who is using their own gear that you have no control over.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

I believe the OP was about hiring a pro photographer generally the idea being that it is somebody to shoot an event. I.E. if I were to hire somebody to shoot my wedding or my parents 50th anniversary. 

It seems this is where the confusion came in. If I were to be hiring somebody for my studio then I might consider bringing somebody in who clearly had an eye for it and teaching them to use the better equipment. 

However, if I were hiring somebody to shoot my wedding or anniversary and they had a low level of equipment then I would absolutely have a problem with that particularly if I were in a difficult lighting situation. 



> Actually, you don't seem to understand. 2 is far far better than 1 and 3 is only a little better than 2.



Here I would somewhat agree with you. I would definitely prefer 2 over 1.
I think between these numbers there is a law of diminishing returns. The better the photographer (and the better the equipment) the premium is a little bit better for a lot more cost. 

That being said, limited equipment will still keep a good photographer from being able to achieve things that they could. I think the difference between 2 and 3 depends primarily on the situation (location, lighting, etc.), and how limited the gear is.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

J Hobson said:


> Nate,
> My comments were made with the intent to protect the photographer, if the OP was talking about him/her self. In a court case I saw last year a wedding photographer was sued because the B&G didn't like the job he did. The fact he used a non professional camera became an issue, they used to show he was not really a professional. He (the photographer) lost and had to return the B&G their money, along with the bad press. And no it was not the cameras fault. His photos were OOF and many eyes closed, still it was a defense that worked for them.
> I know there is a difference between a 40D & D40. It got twisted somewhere.:blushing:
> Like I said before, use what gets the job done. I just wouldn't use it under contract.



ahh yes, I believe I have heard of that court case. and if I remember correctly in that court case he had a little point and shoot camera and the judge asked him what kind of lens he was using, and he had no idea. 

Also, that is where liability insurance comes in handy, and is really what it is there for.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 25, 2009)

Two words.

Ken Rockwell

He's the consummate professional and he shoots a D40.

'nuff said.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 25, 2009)

Only 3 AF focus points?!!  NO WAY!!  A pro MUST have more AF focus points!! Won't go to ISO 3200?!!  OMG!!  What pro would dare shoot with a camera that is only loaded with ASA 400 film??!!  For crying out loud, they'd need an assistant holding a light with an umbrella or at least a light on a stroboframe type arrangement!!!  What kind of 'pro' would DO that???!!!  Only 3 frames per second??!!  Gotta be kidding!!  No pro would shoot with something where you have to take the time and make the effort to wind a crank in between each shot!!!  Do you have any idea how slow that is and how long it would take???!!!  Next, someone will claim there have been weddings shot with cameras that didn't have an LCD and a histogram to preview the shots to be sure they were gotten and correctly exposed!!!  NO pro in the history of photography could get away with such a thing!

LOL!  Funny thread!  

I side with the "portfolio decides" people, based on the history of photography wherein photographers using gear with a lot less ability than the camera in question have produced amazing and consistent work (they even shot weddings!  gasp!!).

Still, as someone else mentioned, I'd like to see a couple of packages that were actually sold, rather than just a sample gallery of possibly 'lucky shots', but I'd want that no matter what gear they used.

To each his own though...


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 25, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Only 3 AF focus points?!! NO WAY!! A pro MUST have more AF focus points!! Won't go to ISO 3200?!! OMG!! What pro would dare shoot with a camera that is only loaded with ASA 400 film??!! For crying out loud, they'd need an assistant holding a light with an umbrella or at least a light on a stroboframe type arrangement!!! What kind of 'pro' would DO that???!!! Only 3 frames per second??!! Gotta be kidding!! No pro would shoot with something where you have to take the time and make the effort to wind a crank in between each shot!!! Do you have any idea how slow that is and how long it would take???!!! Next, someone will claim there have been weddings shot with cameras that didn't have an LCD and a histogram to preview the shots to be sure they were gotten and correctly exposed!!! NO pro in the history of photography could get away with such a thing!
> 
> LOL! Funny thread!
> 
> ...


 
Great post!!!:mrgreen:


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

Well, see buckster there you go overgeneralizing the argument. In the posts it has always been about difficult lighting conditions. In those conditions with poor lighting you want the most recent camera equipment. Could you shoot the wedding with less? absolutely. Have weddings been shot with the equipment you mentioned absolutely, but in poor lighting situations these images often turn out to have poor image quality. 

You are greatly overgeneralizing a statement and suggesting that we are saying something that none of us would say. If you want to respond with a statement with less obtrusive fallacies I would be glad to hear them.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2009)

This entire thread is an old one, dug up for a revival. But already, the flesh has started rotting off of the bones, and it's pretty ugly and stinky. The premise of the thread seems a bit odd; what kind of "professional" photographer are we talking about, and why would said "professional" be using an entry-level, stripped-down, 6-megapixel Nikon that costs under $400? The thread might as well be called, "professional using a Canon Rebel 350-would you hire her?"

A "professional" who could afford only entry-level equipment like a D40 would cause me to wonder why his equipment was so basic. The entire thread is sort of a silly premise, but maybe it's a way to point out the increasing trend of newcomers starting photo businesses with little experience and minimal equipment. Good equipment is useless without training,skill,and experience. And without good equipment, training,skill,and experience become even MORE important. A good shooter can overcome modest equipment under *most* circumstances, but not all. Under tough conditions, like low light,or fast action, or demanding speciality shooting, the proper (read *really expensive*) equipment can mean getting good shots, or just making due and getting not-really-professional level shots.

My wife shoots a D40,and I have shot it too. It's not good enough for a lot of specialty work. It's a beginner's camera, like a Rebel 350. Which would you rather have to shoot a wedding--a D40 or a D700? How about a horse race--a D40 or a D300 with grip? Night baseball--D40 or D3?


----------



## Buckster (Sep 25, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> Well, see buckster there you go overgeneralizing the argument. In the posts it has always been about difficult lighting conditions. In those conditions with poor lighting you want the most recent camera equipment. Could you shoot the wedding with less? absolutely. Have weddings been shot with the equipment you mentioned absolutely, but in poor lighting situations these images often turn out to have poor image quality.
> 
> You are greatly overgeneralizing a statement and suggesting that we are saying something that none of us would say. If you want to respond with a statement with less obtrusive fallacies I would be glad to hear them.


It's simple, really. A good or even great photographic package *can* be produced with cameras that have less ability than the one in question, as proven by actual history that shows it *has* been done with cameras that have less ability than the one in question throughout much of the history of photography.  Therefore, to dismiss any photographer's ability to produce a good or even great photographic product based on that particular camera alone is a fallacy.

For every "but, but, buuuuut..." raised throughout the thread involving pixel-peeping, lighting, ISO, frames-per-second rates and all the rest, there are literally 100's of thousands of professional shots made throughout the history of photography that prove it's not essential to have those particular features, nor is it necessary to have the very latest, greatest, state of the art gear to produce a good or great product for one's clients.

All it really takes is a real photographer who knows how to work his or her gear - no matter what that gear is.

I don't see that as overgeneralizing at all.  I see it as the fact of the matter; The photographer's *actual* ability with his or her gear, whatever that gear is, as shown in the packages he or she sells, is the final word on that photographer's abilities and whether they should be hired.

Easy, actually.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

so therefore gear makes no difference?


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 25, 2009)

N0YZE said:


> People have shot weddings with much worse.



In the "film days," do you realize how many people went out to shoot weddings with 35mm cameras?  I think THAT was a far greater injustice.

-Pete


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2009)

My buddy Steve started shooting minor league baseball in 2003 with a first generation Digital Rebel and Canon's 70-300 IS lens, the "old" one with the purple fringing. He played baseball in high school,and was a catcher, and came from a real baseball family. He did pretty well, since he knew the sport extremely well,and most games began at 5:30, but some started at 6:30 PM. Later inning stuff looked crappy in 2003,2004,and 2005,and the lens's optics at longer FL's gave a lot of purple fringing visible on the uniform whites.

Then, he got a Rebel 400, and it had a bit better image quality,but the 70-300 IS lens still had purple fringing,and was a bit too short,and that body was not too good at high ISO. The lens was also slow,both aperture wise,and focusing wise.

In the summer of 2007, I got a great deal on a used Sigma 80-400 OS lens, which I loaned to him that summer,and in the summer of 2008,and also this summer of 2009. IMMEDIATELY, the first GAME of the summer of 2007, Steve's baseball images improved substantially due to the 80-400 OS lens instead of the older Canon designed lens. Faster focusing, and a better zoom range. Both he and I could see the immediate gains in results with the new lens.

This summer, I shot a game with him using my Nikon equipment, and brought my 70-200 2.8 IS Canon lens for him to try instead of the Sigma 80-400 OS, which he used after the sun went down. After putting on the 70-200 2.8 he IMMEDIATELY was able to jack up his shutter speeds,and was able to shoot the entire game, which was not possible with the 80-400 Sigma as the light of day faded and the stadium lighting took over around the 4th inning. He used the 70-200/2.8 throughout the entire playoffs,and got shots that he said, "I never could have got without a 2.8 lens." f/5 at 200mm is about where the 80-400 Sigma tops out between focal length reach and f/stop; with the Canon, it's 2.8 at 200mm.

Same stadium, same lights, same ballclub, but much better pictures with EACH step up the equipment scale, and with almost no learning curve, just immediately better results, as soon as the equipment was notched up. Night baseball is a good example of where faster lenses and better camera bodies with better High-ISO performance makes a big difference in what the same guy can capture.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 25, 2009)

Buckster said:


> All it really takes is a real photographer who knows how to work his or her gear - no matter what that gear is.



And there it is.

-Pete


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

well, there it is, depending on what "it" is. 

If it is being able to achieve the best he can achieve with a given piece of equipment then sure. 

but, as Derrel pointed out, better equipment can allow you to take images that lesser equipment won't allow. This is not to suggest that just getting better equipment makes you a better photographer, it just opens up possibilities that were not there before.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 25, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> so therefore gear makes no difference?


 
When it comes right down to it, no it doesn't. It is about having the eye to see the light. That is what we should be bragging about, not the latest greatest camera or equipment.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 25, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> so therefore gear makes no difference?



To me, it doesn't.  To me, all that matters is the end product.

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

Buckster said:


> To me, it doesn't.  To me, all that matters is the end product.



mmk, let me clarify what I am stating, are you saying that gear has no influence on the images created? 

Let me postulate something. I think the main cause of this disagreement is a continuing case of miscommunication. 

Your statement is that the portfolio should speak for itself, if a person has a great portfolio etc. then you would consider hiring them as a pro. 

Here we are in agreement. 

My argument is saying, if for example the portfolio contains no images of quality in lighting conditions similar to the one that I will have at the event for which I am hiring I may be wary. If I then find out he has only low level equipment which I do not believe can handle the lighting etc. then that would further put me off from hiring him. 

Similarly if I want t particularly low DOF shots as a part of my wedding and he is unable to provide those or examples of them because he either doesn't know how to control the necessary factors, or doesn't have the proper equipment then I may consider looking somewhere else. 

And of course, if he wasn't insured etc. and was not a legal business that would push me away (personally)

I agree that the photographer is the most important part. 

I think that equipment can open doors to shots that would be impossible otherwise. 

I think that both a good photographer, and good equipment is ideal.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 25, 2009)

Parkerman said:


> Once friend A notices the clarity and sharpness of Friends B's pictures.. she is no longer satisfied with her grainy pictures.



I'm not a betting man, but I've got $20 that says "friend A" wouldn't notice.

In fact, all other things equal (and presuming the images were properly exposed) I'm not sure I'd notice.

-Pete


----------



## Buckster (Sep 25, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > To me, it doesn't.  To me, all that matters is the end product.
> ...


No, I'm clearly saying that the gear has no influence on whether or not I'll hire the photographer, which is the theme's opening question and subject of the resulting discussion.



NateWagner said:


> Let me postulate something. I think the main cause of this disagreement is a continuing case of miscommunication.
> 
> Your statement is that the portfolio should speak for itself, if a person has a great portfolio etc. then you would consider hiring them as a pro.
> 
> Here we are in agreement.


Pretty simple.  And that, to me, is the end of the issue.



NateWagner said:


> My argument is saying, if for example the portfolio contains no images of quality in lighting conditions similar to the one that I will have at the event for which I am hiring I may be wary.


And it doesn't matter *WHAT* equipment or gear they have or use, right?



NateWagner said:


> If I then find out he has only low level equipment which I do not believe can handle the lighting etc. then that would further put me off from hiring him.


It's a moot point because neither of us is going to hire him based on the portfolio, as stated above in your point *just before this one*, which means we're not even going to get to step two: reviewing what equipment he uses - it simply doesn't matter what equipment he uses to make the crappy portfolio we viewed.



NateWagner said:


> Similarly if I want t particularly low DOF shots as a part of my wedding and he is unable to provide those or examples of them because he either doesn't know how to control the necessary factors, or doesn't have the proper equipment then I may consider looking somewhere else.


And you should, but again, that's based on what you see in his portfolio.  If it looks good to you, he has demonstrated that he is capable of doing the job with the gear he uses.



NateWagner said:


> And of course, if he wasn't insured etc. and was not a legal business that would push me away (personally)


Which has nothing at all to do with what gear he uses.



NateWagner said:


> I agree that the photographer is the most important part.


Cool.



NateWagner said:


> I think that equipment can open doors to shots that would be impossible otherwise.


That's between the photographer and his gear.  I don't care what he uses, as long as he uses it well enough to meet my needs as a client, which I will decide based on his portfolio.



NateWagner said:


> I think that both a good photographer, and good equipment is ideal.


The only "ideal" I need met is that the photographer can deliver to me a product that is acceptable to me.  Obviously, if I have a wedding in mind, I want to see his wedding portfolio and a couple of sample packages for actual clients.  If it is acceptable to me, he's hired, and I don't care what he uses to do it, other than the fact that I'm a camera gear-head myself and have an interest from that perspective.

If he's doing insanely incredible work with a pinhole camera made from a shoebox with a magnifying glass duct taped to the front, I'll get on my knees and kiss his ring as I hire him.

It's all about the results for me.

Again, your mileage may vary, and you can feel free to turn down the next budding Dean Collins or Joe McNally because you don't think his camera is good enough, if that's what you want to base it on.  That's entirely up to you, and more power to you my friend.  I'm just voicing what I personally would do, and why.  I don't expect anyone else to follow suit.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

> It's all about the results for me.



that's because you're unwilling to admit that certain shots are impossible to get with lesser equipment. 

You give the possibility that if they can achieve these things then you'll be thrilled. 

But this is leaving out the obvious that there are things that can not be accomplished and your fantasy scenario that anything can be accomplished with any equipment is ludicrous.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 25, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> > It's all about the results for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
What shot is impossible? Are you saying that some shot has never been done before because of a camera?


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 25, 2009)

I am saying that there are shots that cannot be done with a given camera set up. 

for example, the DOF  at 10 feet cannot  be achieved with a 50mm 1.2 at 1.2 can not be achieved with a 18-55 3.5-5.6 at 5.6 (the normal kit lens). There is a difference. 

There is also 4 stops of difference in lighting. This means that if you're shooting at an ISO of 6400 and you can achieve 1/50 ss then at 5.6 you can achieve approximately 1/3rd of a second if you are maintaining the 6400. if however you're using the 400iso(asa) that was mentioned earlier this shutter speed would become about a 2 second shutter speed which will be blurry unless posed. any movement will be blurry and this is why better equipment is advantageous and necessary for certain images in certain situations.  

So yes, there are images that are impossible with a given camera. You can to an extent mimic it, but..


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 25, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> I am saying that there are shots that cannot be done with a given camera set up.
> 
> for example, the DOF at 10 feet cannot be achieved with a 50mm 1.2 at 1.2 can not be achieved with a 18-55 3.5-5.6 at 5.6 (the normal kit lens). There is a difference.
> 
> ...


 
Come on. That is just ridiculous. You haven't given me a shot, you have given me a situation. I can shoot anything with a D40 or a F3 that you can with a D3X. And I mean a photograph. A portrait, wedding, product, architecture, etc.

I understand that you like the latest and greatest but the truth is, it is all about the photographer and if they have the eye. I believe some people have it and some don't. You can teach it to a certain extent but not all of it. Some of it is just plain God given talent. Doesn't matter what camera you have.


----------



## schumionbike (Sep 26, 2009)

I'll look at the portfolio and hire the photographer base on his portfolio. If he can make a noisy image look cool, then more power to him. You know, a D2X isn't good at low light either, it's probably worst than the D40 actually but that won't stop wedding photographers from using them and the pictures are incredible. True, a photographer probably would do better if he uses a D3 but the fact that he is using a D40 doesn't mean his pictures are crap, if it's good enough for the clients, it's good enough. So what if he could have done better, who cares, that's not what he advertised in his portolio and that not what you pay for either.
Also, I don't know why everyone is going on and on about shooting in dark churches, not all churches are dark and not all of the weddings pictures are gonna be in the church. There are a variety of shots and not all of them requires 6400 ISO. Even if you are in dark church, there's other alternative to 6400 ISO capability such as bouch flash or get really good at holding the camera and not shake or just nail the exposure and work on it in post.  Now if he show you a portfolio taken by a D3 and he show up with a D40, that's a different story but if you're happy with his portfolio, then you should be happy with him.


----------



## SushiWarrior (Sep 26, 2009)

Wow that was a lot of reading. I think I can sum it up in a couple of sentences.

A person with a good eye but limited equipment is only good to a point. In low light a poor little D40 can only do so much. The composition and settings can all be as good as they should but he can't make the camera go any faster. In bright light and good conditions the D40 will do well but the limited megapixels will be a huge drawback when you want a big print. Yes, he's better than a guy with good stuff and no skill but it all depends on the conditions.

Also this is simply about USABILITY, not image quality. All that really matters is fast speed and resolution. It does not have to be taken with a super sharp lens and noise-free, but it has to not be blurry and usable in a rather large print.



PS: If this guy is so good, why is he shooting with a D40? Someone as good as him must be able to afford a better camera. That's just unfair profits.


----------



## sabbath999 (Sep 26, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> N0YZE said:
> 
> 
> > People have shot weddings with much worse.
> ...



+1

I wasn't a better photographer than the guys shooting 35mm's just because I owned a couple of Hasselblad 500's, but I darned sure ended up with better quality negatives due to the huge differences in the quality of the formats.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 26, 2009)

sabbath999 said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > N0YZE said:
> ...


 
I still shoot with those Hasseys and I would put it up against any camera made today!


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 26, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Come on. That is just ridiculous. You haven't given me a shot, you have given me a situation. I can shoot anything with a D40 or a F3 that you can with a D3X. And I mean a photograph. A portrait, wedding, product, architecture, etc.



No, it is not ridiculous. yes you can shoot with the same camera, approximately the same frame, but it will not yield the same results. These results will depend on the camera, the sensor, the lens, the settings, and the processing.  

I have given a situation and an example of a shot. Ok, bride walking down the aisle, moving at all. boom, that 2 second shot results in a very blurry image. bride and groom kissing at the front of the church, even this much movement at 2 seconds of shutter speed is not doable. If you really want to test it, then do so. Take a picture of somebody walking at 2 second shutter speed, and then take a picture of them walking at 1/50th of a second. 

Tons of photographs have been taken, since cameras have been invented. at the same time styles have changed as technology has advanced. In the past shots that were not possible to take well, were often just not taken, because people knew enough not to waste their film. They posed their images around the limitations of their equipment. As those limitations erode we are able to explore some of those options not done in the past. 

Finally you can 
A good person to message for comparison shots is Tsalreski (I think that's the spelling of his name on here) he has given examples in the past of images that can not be duplicated with lesser equipment.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 26, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > Come on. That is just ridiculous. You haven't given me a shot, you have given me a situation. I can shoot anything with a D40 or a F3 that you can with a D3X. And I mean a photograph. A portrait, wedding, product, architecture, etc.
> ...


 
Problem is you are setting the situation up for failure. I have never had a wedding ceremony dark enough to have a 2 second exposure. 1/2 at 5.6 works really well, 100 ISO. And no I have never posed my images around the limitations of my equipment. Never would. I would find a way. That is what I'm talking about and you don't want to be true. There are ways around what you are talking about, no it may take longer than a nanosecond but there are ways around it. 

Granted it is easier with the latest and greatest but not impossible with the lesser equipment as you call it. It is the same as photoshop, it is easier to have lasers coming out of a bottle with photoshop but it not impossible to do it without, it's called in camera masking. 

Haven't pages and pages of people telling you that the equipment doesn't make that big of a difference told you something. Buying the latest and greatest camera doesn't make you a great photographer.


----------



## schumionbike (Sep 26, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> Tons of photographs have been taken, since cameras have been invented. at the same time styles have changed as technology has advanced. In the past shots that were not possible to take well, were often just not taken, because people knew enough not to waste their film. They posed their images around the limitations of their equipment. As those limitations erode we are able to explore some of those options not done in the past.


 
I agree with the statement but posing your images around your limitations doesn't make them bad images nor does it tell the story of the wedding any less.  Beside, a D40 with 35 f1.8 and off camera flashes would solve a lot of the problems that you mentioned.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 26, 2009)

schumionbike said:


> NateWagner said:
> 
> 
> > Tons of photographs have been taken, since cameras have been invented. at the same time styles have changed as technology has advanced. In the past shots that were not possible to take well, were often just not taken, because people knew enough not to waste their film. They posed their images around the limitations of their equipment. As those limitations erode we are able to explore some of those options not done in the past.
> ...


 
I disagree with it. It is why we have the cameras we have today. People wanted an easier way of doing it.


----------



## dhilberg (Sep 26, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> NateWagner said:
> 
> 
> > I am saying that there are shots that cannot be done with a given camera set up.
> ...



Sports photography is an excellent example of where equipment matters. Get a shot like this with a D40 and kit lens:
Baseball Photos: Pat Burrell

I can tell you now it wouldn't be usable.

  In some situations, equipment _does_ matter, mostly when pushing the limits. Otherwise pros wouldn't be buying the best of the best if they could get by with less expensive equipment.

 Some situations require the use of specialized equipment--or you don't get a shot, period. Others don't.

The need for talent is evident, but all the talent in the world won't get you frozen action under the lights--unless you have the right equipment.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 26, 2009)

dhilberg said:
			
		

> Sports photography is an excellent example of where equipment matters. Get a shot like this with a D40 and kit lens:
> Baseball Photos: Pat Burrell
> 
> I can tell you now it wouldn't be usable.
> ...


 
The opposite can be said as well. There are things that can be done with older or lesser equipment that can't be done with the latest and greatest camera on the market today. That is not the point.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 26, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> > It's all about the results for me.
> 
> 
> that's because you're unwilling to admit that certain shots are impossible to get with lesser equipment.


No, it's because the results really are all that matter to me, and I can't think of any reason in the world why it should make any difference to me what they use to achieve acceptable results.

Anything that's not possible for _*that*_ photographer to achieve, for *any* reason, be it skill or equipment, won't be in his or her portfolio.  Would you agree with that basic premise?

If their portfolio shows that they *can* meet my expectations, then whatever equipment they have and use is obviously adequate to the task, and so are their skills with it.



NateWagner said:


> You give the possibility that if they can achieve these things then you'll be thrilled.


Yep.  Shouldn't I be?



NateWagner said:


> But this is leaving out the obvious that there are things that can not be accomplished and your fantasy scenario that anything can be accomplished with any equipment is ludicrous.


Sorry, but I never said that, nor even implied it.  Perhaps you've misunderstood, but I've tried to clearly communicate that whatever is in their portfolio is what matters, because it clearly shows what they are able to achieve, no matter what equipment it is that they have and use.  That's no fantasy - it's the evidence in the form of the portfolio they're able to present.

This ain't rocket science to figure out: Either they can or they cannot meet my expectations as a client, and it will be in their portfolio.  If it's not there, they don't get the job.  If it is, they do.  And either way, it doesn't matter to me at all what equipment they have and use, as long as they have demonstrated that they can get the job done.

I don't really know how I can be more clear about what I'm trying to say.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 26, 2009)

dhilberg said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > NateWagner said:
> ...


I think this still misses the point.

First, just to stay on track with the thread's premise, the scenario was "a dinner party, dance, even a wedding", not the cover of Sports Illustrated.  Even so...

Go to Sports Illustrated and show them that you have the best camera and lens in the world.  Does that get you the job?

Now go in with a portfolio of great sports shots.  Do they care what your gear is?

The point, once again, is that if it's not achievable by someone, whatever the reason, then it's not gonna be in their portfolio, and the client takes their business elsewhere.

If it *is* in their portfolio however, it ultimately doesn't matter to the client what gear they use - their portfolio shows they're able to deliver to the client's expectations, and that's the bottom line.


----------



## dhilberg (Sep 26, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If a situation presented itself where "older or lesser equipment" would be the better choice for the shot, wouldn't that be "the right equipment?" 

Your basic premise is that equipment doesn't matter. And in my opinion it doesn't...to some extent. I simply pointed out an example where equipment _does_ matter, or you don't get a shot (my point). I'm not quite sure how you can refute that point by diverting attention to old equipment (classic Red Herring fallacy).


----------



## dhilberg (Sep 26, 2009)

Buckster said:


> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> > Sports photography is an excellent example of where equipment matters. Get a shot like this with a D40 and kit lens:
> ...



I realize that. My only reason to join this thread was to point out that there are indeed situations where the equipment does matter, as someone suggested otherwise. I'm not going to speak for Nate, but I think that's his point also.



Buckster said:


> Go to Sports Illustrated and show them that you have the best camera and lens in the world.  Does that get you the job?



Doubtful. However, if you waltz into SI with a D40 and kit lens looking for a job, they'll probably think you're crazy.



Buckster said:


> Now go in with a portfolio of great sports shots.  Do they care what your gear is?



They probably wouldn't. However, I would think that the magazine's editors know the technical aspects of photography well enough to realize that shots like that can't come out of entry-level equipment, and therefore they don't need to inquire about it. Or maybe they do inquire about equipment. I really don't know, I'm not a sports photographer for SI.



Buckster said:


> The point, once again, is that if it's not achievable by someone, whatever the reason, then it's not gonna be in their portfolio, and the client takes their business elsewhere.



I'm not disagreeing with you here, that's common sense.



Buckster said:


> If it *is* in their portfolio however, it ultimately doesn't matter to the client what gear they use - their portfolio shows they're able to deliver to the client's expectations, and that's the bottom line.



I understand that part, which is why I haven't addressed it.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 26, 2009)

dhilberg said:


> Your basic premise is that equipment doesn't matter. And in my opinion it doesn't...to some extent. I simply pointed out an example where equipment _does_ matter, or you don't get a shot (my point). I'm not quite sure how you can refute that point by diverting attention to old equipment (classic Red Herring fallacy).


 
My point was to say that no one single camera or piece of equipment can do it all. Therefore, equipment is not the be all end all, which I have been saying all along.

I think some people are getting a little sensitive about not having the eye and are therefore trying to over compensate with equipment.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 26, 2009)

dhilberg said:


> Your basic premise is that equipment doesn't matter. And in my opinion it doesn't...to some extent. I simply pointed out an example where equipment _does_ matter, or you don't get a shot (my point). I'm not quite sure how you can refute that point by diverting attention to old equipment (classic Red Herring fallacy).


 
Fallacy huh?

Then what about infared? Better with film than digital. Is that a fallacy too?

Second example, extremely long exposures. Not good with digital, too much noise.

Third example, scheimpflug, swing, tilt and shift.


----------



## JamesMason (Sep 26, 2009)

inTempus said:


> Two words.
> 
> Ken Rockwell
> 
> ...



Rofl. And a d3 and 37 leicas and canon on days nikon makes him angry.

Ken is relevant to the arguement tho, he knows more about camreas than nikon (in the same way sci-fi buffs know more than the film maker) and little about taking photos.


----------



## robdavis305 (Sep 26, 2009)

My uncle is a pro and makes 6 figures a year doing special events and everything and he has never picked up a digital camera. But I must say that a D90 should still be considered as a pro camera but also agree that the portfolio is what gets you hired.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 26, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> And no I have never posed my images around the limitations of my equipment. Never would. I would find a way. That is what I'm talking about and you don't want to be true. *There are ways around what you are talking about, no it may take longer than a nanosecond but there are ways around it.*


This is exactly what I am saying. You cannot take the shot, you have to find a *Way around it*. you have to do something different in order for the shot to work. In some cases that may be moving it to a different location, or using a faster lens, or on the variable aperture lenses zooming out so you can use a faster aperture. In any event you're working around the problem of not being able to take the same shot. 



CSR Studio said:


> Haven't pages and pages of people telling you that the equipment doesn't make that big of a difference told you something. *Buying the latest and greatest camera doesn't make you a great photographer.*



*DUH!!! *I have agreed with this numerous times. It is the photographer, but even being a great photographer. However, a great photographer with great equipment is going to generally come out with better shots than an equally great photographer with poor equipment. I have said this numerous times as have others and  yet you still don't seem to be catching it.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 26, 2009)

robdavis305 said:


> My uncle is a pro and makes 6 figures a year doing special events and everything and he has never picked up a digital camera. But I must say that a D90 should still be considered as a pro camera but also agree that the portfolio is what gets you hired.



Absolutely. 

I will also say that a digital camera does not necessarily make a camera great... There were and still are some amazing film cameras that have a much higher resolution than any digital camera around. There were amazing lenses created in the 80's that many (for example the big beer can) still use today. 

For weddings it's a little uncommon for people to use film cause of the cost. but it can be done. I am not in any way saying that it can't. However, I am stating that there are restrictions to the film cameras including primarily the cost of film and the length of developing time. Both can be worked around but are a negative.


----------



## dhilberg (Sep 26, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> > Your basic premise is that equipment doesn't matter. And in my opinion it doesn't...to some extent. I simply pointed out an example where equipment _does_ matter, or you don't get a shot (my point). I'm not quite sure how you can refute that point by diverting attention to old equipment (classic Red Herring fallacy).
> ...



No. Your general premise is that equipment doesn't matter, which is what prompted me to join this thread. Quote to support my claim:



CSR Studio said:


> NateWagner said:
> 
> 
> > so therefore gear makes no difference?
> ...


 


CSR Studio said:


> I think some people are getting a little sensitive about not having the eye and are therefore trying to over compensate with equipment.



That is a hasty generalization (a conclusion based on insufficient evidence), another logical fallacy. I'm not going to get sucked into that one.



CSR Studio said:


> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> > Your basic premise is that equipment doesn't matter. And in my opinion it doesn't...to some extent. I simply pointed out an example where equipment _does_ matter, or you don't get a shot (my point). I'm not quite sure how you can refute that point by diverting attention to old equipment (classic Red Herring fallacy).
> ...



Yes, fallacy. As in logical fallacy (see Red Herring Fallacy).



CSR Studio said:


> Then what about infared? Better with film than digital. Is that a fallacy too?
> 
> Second example, extremely long exposures. Not good with digital, too much noise.
> 
> Third example, scheimpflug, swing, tilt and shift.



You are now supporting my argument by saying that there are situations where you need the right equipment (my argument all along), instead of your "equipment doesn't matter" argument.

Whose point are you trying to prove here?


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 26, 2009)

Nate keeps saying that I am repeating myself and don't get it and Dennis keeps asking what is my point. Come on, if you can't figure it out by now, you never will. Sad, sad, sad.

And Dennis, a red herring is different from a red herring fallacy. You need to understand what you are saying.


----------



## dhilberg (Sep 27, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Nate keeps saying that I am repeating myself and don't get it and Dennis keeps asking what is my point. Come on, if you can't figure it out by now, you never will. Sad, sad, sad.
> 
> And Dennis, a red herring is different from a red herring fallacy. You need to understand what you are saying.



Me asking you which point you're trying to prove is perfectly understandable because I'm confused about your exact viewpoint. The confusion is a result of some conflicting statements you've made, which I clearly identified in my previous post, with quotes.

To address your entire post, I never said Red Herring, I said Red Herring Fallacy. Not that it matters, because they're the same thing--unless you thought I was talking about a fish.  Click the link I provided about the red herring fallacy and read up on it, or Google for some other explanations. Clearly, you don't understand what it is.

You're still dodging the issue by pointing the argument in yet another direction. It's apparent you're simply grasping for straws in an attempt to get the last word in.

Furthermore, I'm not sure what is "sad, sad, sad" about my previous post. The reason I can't identify your viewpoint is because you haven't presented it clearly. I hope you are not resorting to personal attacks here.

I'm still waiting on your explanation as to why your viewpoint changed from insisting the equipment doesn't matter, to saying that equipment does matter (which has been my viewpoint all along). Even though I dislike repeating myself, I'll quote you again to eliminate any possible ambiguity.

Here is where you say the gear doesn't matter:



CSR Studio said:


> NateWagner said:
> 
> 
> > so therefore gear makes no difference?
> ...



Then you make the following statement, suggesting that the gear matters in the first sentence. However, in the second sentence you then refute your own suggestion by saying the gear doesn't matter:



CSR Studio said:


> My point was to say that no one single camera or piece of equipment can do it all. Therefore, equipment is not the be all end all, which I have been saying all along.



You further confuse the issue by then citing specific examples of specialized photography equipment that only would be used in situations where the gear matters:



CSR Studio said:


> Fallacy huh?
> 
> Then what about infared? Better with film than digital. Is that a fallacy too?
> 
> ...



As I mentioned in my previous post, the reason I joined this thread was because you said that equipment doesn't matter, which--as a blanket statement--I disagree with. My viewpoint (as it has been all along) is that equipment does matter--in certain situations, which you seem to agree with all of a sudden.

Can you explain why your viewpoint has changed?


----------



## Buckster (Sep 27, 2009)

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

Some of us said no, we'd base that decision on their abilities as demonstrated in their portfolio.

Then the red herring of "but some shots can't be got without certain gear" was introduced, which we've been saying over and over and over again doesn't matter because the portfolio STILL shows what that photographer can do with the gear they have.  If they can do the job they're being asked to do, then they and their gear, whatever it is, must be adequate to *that* job, and that should be all that matters, not whether they have the gear that can do some other job that's unrelated, like a sports illustrated cover, IR, or deep sea shots.

Then that all gets ignored again with the repeat, "but some shots can't be got without certain gear", which is the excuse in this thread for basing the hiring/not hiring of a photographer on their gear rather than their demonstrated abilities.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Actually, the red herring is the one that says some shots can only be gotten with certain gear adequate to the task, and was introduced to divert attention from the actual topic and question, which is "would you hire/not hire someone based on their gear?"
> 
> Some of us said no, we'd base that decision on their abilities as demonstrated in their portfolio.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you Buckster.


----------



## JamesMason (Sep 27, 2009)

I love these endless discusions on TPF, every week the same questions are asked and the same responses given.

Can anybody tell me if i should buy a canon or a nikon ?


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 27, 2009)

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


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 27, 2009)

JamesMason said:


> I love these endless discusions on TPF, every week the same questions are asked and the same responses given.
> 
> Can anybody tell me if i should buy a canon or a nikon ?



Neither... Get Sony


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

NateWagner said:


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


 
What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## dhilberg (Sep 27, 2009)

Buckster said:


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



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

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



Buckster said:


> Some of us said no, we'd base that decision on their abilities as demonstrated in their portfolio.



I understand that, and I already addressed it by agreeing with your viewpoint that what's contained in the portfolio is what matters, as far as hiring a photographer (again, last two paragraphs, here). However, I'll elaborate at this time so we can get it out of the way.

Hiring a photographer simply because they're carrying around a D3 with a 70-200 f/2.8 on the front--without looking at their work--would be just silly.  Although, as strange as it sounds to me, I bet this happens occasionally with clients who don't have any photography experience. They may think he/she has a big camera, so he/she must be a professional who takes fabulous photos.

On the other hand, I'd personally be wary of someone claiming to be a premier wedding photographer whose equipment consists of a D40 and a couple of kit lenses, but that is where my technical understanding of photography takes over. Even so, I'd still be interested in viewing their portfolio because if they can attain premier wedding photographer status with _that_ gear, then they probably have copious amounts of skill.



Buckster said:


> Then the red herring of "but some shots can't be got without certain gear" was introduced, which we've been saying over and over and over again doesn't matter because the portfolio STILL shows what that photographer can do with the gear they have.  If they can do the job they're being asked to do, then they and their gear, whatever it is, must be adequate to *that* job, and that should be all that matters, not whether they have the gear that can do some other job that's unrelated, like a sports illustrated cover, IR, or deep sea shots.
> 
> Then that all gets ignored again with the repeat, "but some shots can't be got without certain gear", which is the excuse in this thread for basing the hiring/not hiring of a photographer on their gear rather than their demonstrated abilities.



Again, I'm not ignoring anything. I've already addressed the viewpoint of hiring a photographer based on their demonstrated abilities (again, last two paragraphs here), and elaborated on above. I'm simply asking CSR_Studio to explain why she thinks that the gear doesn't matter (as a blanket statement irregardless of circumstances) because I respectfully disagree.

I'm assuming she doesn't wish to address either as she hasn't even even made an attempt. All she has done is point her argument with me in a separate direction, here, and the first paragraph here. She even attempts a mild personal attack in the second paragraph here, implying that those who have purchased expensive gear lack skill.

Then, strangely, she seems to agree with me here by citing specific situations in which shots wouldn't be attainable without the right equipment, implying that the equipment matters (the complete opposite of her original blanket statement). That's why I'm asking for the additional clarification.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 27, 2009)

dhilberg said:


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


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



dhilberg said:


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


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

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

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

Hopefully, that clears up the misunderstanding.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 27, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> Ok, bride walking down the aisle, moving at all. boom, that 2 second shot ...




2 second shot?  Boom is right....  that "boom" is her ass hitting the floor.  Somebody put the friggin' lights on before someone really gets hurt.

-Pete


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Ok, I will give this one more shot.

By the way, Thank you again Buckster.

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

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

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


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 27, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> It is the photographer that matters. However you do have to have some gear to create the image,


Agreed, it is the photographer that matters, and you do have to have gear to create the image. 



CSR Studio said:


> I think this is where the problem comes in. Just because I mention equipment doesn't mean that I am saying it matters but you do have to have it to take a photograph.


No, that is not entirely correct. You mentioned how different gear was required for different things. I believe your example was extremely long exposures being better with film than digital, which goes to prove the point that certain types of equipment are needed or better for certain types of images



CSR Studio said:


> That is all, the photographer is the variable that matters, not the gear. If it mattered then we would all have the same gear.


Your statement is rather illogical for a number of reasons. 
1. Financially, it is not always economical to purchase the most expensive equipment that will work best, so we make compromises. 
2. often goes back to the debate of primes and zooms, zooms are good, and much more useful as far as composition is concerned, but primes are generally much faster. and sometimes people don't want to switch back and forth. 
Compromises must be made. The gear any one chooses to bring with them limits that person in some way. There are always compromises and that should be why a professional chooses the equipment they choose. The gear affects the way they shoot the event, if you're using mostly fast primes you're quite possibly going to be moving around a lot more, perhaps going for greater bokeh etc. if you're using the zooms then perhaps you're trying to lay low and catch the mood more. 

Also, consider the differences between wildlife photography and wedding photography (is this a red herring? I don't think so... but maybe).in wildlife photography (I'm thinking birds) people often use focal lengths of 400mm and higher, in weddings rarely does it go beyond 200 and usually it's more in the 24-70mm range. it would be asinine to shoot a wedding with a 400mm lens (unless it's one huge wedding) and it would be ridiculous to shoot wildlife with a 24-70 unless you're planning getting really really close to them. 



CSR Studio said:


> This is not a blanket statement, it is about gear versus photographer which is what the thread is about.



I think the thread is more about gear plus photographer.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 27, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Also, as far as my comment:
> I think some people are getting a little sensitive about not having the eye...



"Having the eye"?

ewww...  That's a creepy way of describing people who know what they're doin'.  I usually just call 'em "pros."

-Pete


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

NateWagner said:


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


 
^So, what is this supposed to mean?


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

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


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > Also, as far as my comment:
> ...


 
I usually say can see the light, because there are too many 'pros' that can't see the light so I don't call them pros.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 27, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Regarding your latest post. Yes,* there is different equipment for different situations*, which is part of what we have been talking about. There isn't one camera that is good for everything so therefore it goes back to the photographer.
> 
> The original question was would you hire a pro with a D40. I said the gear that the photographer has doesn't matter as long as he has the eye. Therefore, the type of gear doesn't matter. If he is able to get the image then it is good.



note bolded text

If he doesn't have the type of gear that is needed for the given situation then that is a problem. That is *exactly* what I am saying.

because if you have the "eye" and have the wrong equipment for the given situation (ex. 400mm telephoto lens at a small intimate banquet) then you'll have a problem.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 27, 2009)

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

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

-Pete


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> note bolded text
> 
> If he doesn't have the type of gear that is needed for the given situation then that is a problem. That is *exactly* what I am saying.
> 
> because if you have the "eye" and have the wrong equipment for the given situation (ex. 400mm telephoto lens at a small intimate banquet) then you'll have a problem.


 
Why will you not explain your other post?


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 27, 2009)

Christie, you're absolutely right, as far as whether or not a photographer with a D40 is going to get hired is probably just going to be up to an uninformed consumer. 

Of course, most 'love fests' like these are pretty mute, because very few people ever get convinced one way or the other from such discussions. If they have already made up their minds, their minds will be the same after the discussion. If they haven't yet made up their minds they will probably leave as muddled or more so than they were to begin with.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Nate, is it really that hard for you to say that I'm a better photographer than you thought I was?


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 27, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Nate, is it really that hard for you to say that I'm a better photographer than you thought I was?



Yeah...  go with that.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > Nate, is it really that hard for you to say that I'm a better photographer than you thought I was?
> ...


 
So witty you are.


----------



## Plato (Sep 27, 2009)

Since no one seems to be listening to anyone else anyway, I figure that I'll throw my opinion into the mix.

I'm a potential customer.
I see an absolutely stunning portfolio.
In leafing through the portfolio, it's patently obvious that the bulk of the shots required a medium or even large format camera with multiple light sources.
The photographer shoots with the digital equivalent of a Kodak Brownie and a popup flash.
The portfolio is now meaningless because it's a fraud.

Conclusion: The portfolio is NOT the only basis on which I will make my decision.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Plato said:


> Since no one seems to be listening to anyone else anyway, I figure that I'll throw my opinion into the mix.
> 
> I'm a potential customer.
> I see an absolutely stunning portfolio.
> ...


 
Unfortunately that does happen as does the person with all the equipment and they have no clue how to use it. Buyer beware.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 27, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Unfortunaltely that does happen as does the person with all the equipment and they have no clue how to use it. Buyer beware.



huh? 

oh yeah, I hear stories quite frequently about photographers who steal other photographers images from the web and post them as their own images. It is exceptionally easy to do so, and unlikely that they will be caught. 

So yes, buyer beware, don't just buy on portfolio alone, and don't just buy on equipment alone.


----------



## joeywpc (Sep 28, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> Ummmm...  not to intrude on this love fest, but...
> 
> Has anyone considered that, in large part, it's not going to a photographer (or wanna-be) doing the hiring, so the whole equipment posturing thing is pretty much mute?
> 
> -Pete


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


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 28, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


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


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


----------



## schumionbike (Sep 28, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


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


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


----------



## Mystwalker (Sep 28, 2009)

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

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

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


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 28, 2009)

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


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 28, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > NateWagner said:
> ...


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


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 28, 2009)

schumionbike said:


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


 
I completely agree!


----------



## dhilberg (Sep 28, 2009)

Buckster said:


> dhilberg said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



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

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



Buckster said:


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



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



Buckster said:


> Again, it's explained simply by noting that the statement was made in relation to the discussion that precedes it, and specifically to the question raised by the thread's premise question.
> 
> "Equipment doesn't matter" when it's the portfolio that demonstrates if a photographer is up to the task a client desires.



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



Buckster said:


> Hopefully, that clears up the misunderstanding.



Only her explanation will be able to.

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

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


----------



## Plato (Sep 28, 2009)

dhilberg said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > dhilberg said:
> ...


----------



## dhilberg (Sep 28, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Ok, I will give this one more shot.
> 
> By the way, Thank you again Buckster.
> 
> It's only you and Nate, Dennis, that have difficulty understanding what I am saying. But I will try to walk you through it. You are disecting every word I say and Nate just likes being vague. But I am the one that you have problems with, go figure.



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

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



CSR Studio said:


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


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

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



CSR Studio said:


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



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

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


----------



## Dao (Sep 28, 2009)

dhilberg said:


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



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


----------



## Buckster (Sep 28, 2009)

dhilberg said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > dhilberg said:
> ...


Watch closely:

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy life.  



dhilberg said:


> CSR_Studio insisting gear _doesn't_ matter is a blanket statement, period.


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




dhilberg said:


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


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



dhilberg said:


> I think you misunderstand what a red herring is.


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



dhilberg said:


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


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



dhilberg said:


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


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



dhilberg said:


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


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



dhilberg said:


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


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



dhilberg said:


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


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

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



dhilberg said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully, that clears up the misunderstanding.
> ...


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



dhilberg said:


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


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



dhilberg said:


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


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

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

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

Say "cheese"!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 28, 2009)

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

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

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


----------



## Buckster (Sep 28, 2009)

Derrel said:


> If equipment truly did not matter, then every one of us could simply walk outside and look at a subject, and then we could all,at the proper moment of course, press our thumbs and index fingers together and say, "Click!". And with that, we would all capture a great photograph. But photography does not work that way; no, photography requires a camera and a lens and a capture medium, and therefore the equipment that is used actually has a significant bearing on the results.
> 
> If equipment truly did not matter, we could all be out getting fantastic results with 30-year old Kodak 110 Instamatics. We could hire professionals that were using 110 Instamatics. And fantastic sports photographs would regularly be shot with $299 point and shoot cameras. NASA would take Digital Rebels on the Space Shuttle flights. Pros would shoot weddings with D40s. Sports Illustrated photographers would be raving about the Canon T1i's impressive AF system and incredible firing rate over beers after work.
> 
> Thumb. Index Finger. Press together,forming circle, bring up to eye, press together and loudly say, "Click!" There's your equipment.


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

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


----------



## Plato (Sep 28, 2009)

Derrel said:


> If equipment truly did not matter, then every one of us could simply walk outside and look at a subject, and then we could all,at the proper moment of course, press our thumbs and index fingers together and say, "Click!". And with that, we would all capture a great photograph. But photography does not work that way; no, photography requires a camera and a lens and a capture medium, and therefore the equipment that is used actually has a significant bearing on the results.
> 
> If equipment truly did not matter, we could all be out getting fantastic results with 30-year old Kodak 110 Instamatics. We could hire professionals that were using 110 Instamatics. And fantastic sports photographs would regularly be shot with $299 point and shoot cameras. NASA would take Digital Rebels on the Space Shuttle flights. Pros would shoot weddings with D40s. Sports Illustrated photographers would be raving about the Canon T1i's impressive AF system and incredible firing rate over beers after work.
> 
> Thumb. Index Finger. Press together,forming circle, bring up to eye, press together and loudly say, "Click!" There's your equipment.



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


----------



## Buckster (Sep 28, 2009)

Plato said:


> Be careful now...
> You dared to disagree with the great and wonderful Buckster.  He sees all and knows all and he makes no bones about it.


That's uncalled for.  You can stop being mad because I called your bluff and you couldn't deliver on your non-factual statement any time now.  Be an adult.



Plato said:


> He also seems to think that the portfolio would never be fraudulent.


If it is, then there's no saving the client anyway, especially when I also called for sample packages and references.  Time for some law suits and bad reputation for that "photographer" if they go to that degree of fraud.

What's the next excuse?  Meteors?  Flood?  Locusts?


----------



## Plato (Sep 28, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > Be careful now...
> ...



Damn, he's sensitive!  Does that go with being perfect?


----------



## Foques (Sep 28, 2009)

its not the CAMERA that makes pro a pro, its the MAN who makes the difference.

camera is there to make life of a pro easier. that is all.

I don't care how much money joe shmoe has spent on his gear, I know what I can do with my gear.. I have heard many times people complain that my shot taken d40 (or d300s) looks better then their taken with a pro grade shots. that said, I hope, some day, i'll get to teh level some of you are at right now...

now, that said, its not an attack on anyone here.. I'm just saying what I truly do believe.
BTW, wait till the 2016 olympics flyer... there will be 2 pictures that were taken by "amateur" equipment...  (one d40 and one d90 if i recall right). 



Gah.. to the main question.

I would want to see the portfolio, as it was already said. But I know what to look for at this point.. Many people don't. this weekend I witnessed a wedding being shot by coolpix.. cost was 400$.. lol

the wedding I saw being shot a month ago, was shot by 1 (ONE) photog, running 2(two) 40ds... father of the bride (guy who paid photog's bill) said they paid him well over 30K.. Go figure.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 28, 2009)

Plato said:


> Damn, he's sensitive!  Does that go with being perfect?


----------



## inTempus (Sep 28, 2009)

Foques said:


> its not the CAMERA that makes pro a pro, its the MAN who makes the difference.
> 
> camera is there to make life of a pro easier. that is all.


Spoken like a man with a consumer body.

I used to take mediocre images.  I couldn't figure out why, then I bought a 1DMk3.  My life changed completely.  I went from a happy snapper shooting poorly framed and out of focus shots of my pets and family to being a highly sought after professional photographer.

The difference?

The hardware.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


----------



## schumionbike (Sep 28, 2009)

Derrel said:


> If equipment truly did not matter, then every one of us could simply walk outside and look at a subject, and then we could all,at the proper moment of course, press our thumbs and index fingers together and say, "Click!". And with that, we would all capture a great photograph. But photography does not work that way; no, photography requires a camera and a lens and a capture medium, and therefore the equipment that is used actually has a significant bearing on the results.
> 
> If equipment truly did not matter, we could all be out getting fantastic results with 30-year old Kodak 110 Instamatics. We could hire professionals that were using 110 Instamatics. And fantastic sports photographs would regularly be shot with $299 point and shoot cameras. NASA would take Digital Rebels on the Space Shuttle flights. Pros would shoot weddings with D40s. Sports Illustrated photographers would be raving about the Canon T1i's impressive AF system and incredible firing rate over beers after work.
> 
> Thumb. Index Finger. Press together,forming circle, bring up to eye, press together and loudly say, "Click!" There's your equipment.


 
First, we have to assume that you have a camera of some kind to take pictures, that's a given.  It''s a complete different thing to say that some gears give you more advantages in a certain type of photography than to say some kind of photography would required only a certain gear (with the exception of X-ray lol).  
Can you get good sport picture in a low light with a D40 and a kit lens or some old film camera with manual focus? Of course you can.  You can always look at sport pictures from the 1960's  for a reference when everyone was still manual focusing and film got grainy by 800 ISO.  Does a D3 with a 400 f2.8 give you an advantage over a old film camera with manual focus? yes.   Is it required to have that D3? Nope, but would preferred a D3 though, definitely make life a little easier.    So does equipment really matter? I don't know, never got that far. Would you hire a pro with a D40 for a wedding if his name is Joe McNally?  Yup.


----------



## schumionbike (Sep 28, 2009)

inTempus said:


> Foques said:
> 
> 
> > its not the CAMERA that makes pro a pro, its the MAN who makes the difference.
> ...


How did a 1DMk3 fixed the poorly frame pictures problem???  That just sound fraudulent. lol


----------



## inTempus (Sep 28, 2009)

schumionbike said:


> How did a 1DMk3 fixed the poorly frame pictures problem???  That just sound fraudulent. lol


You can hate the game but don't hate on the player.


----------



## schumionbike (Sep 28, 2009)

inTempus said:


> schumionbike said:
> 
> 
> > How did a 1DMk3 fixed the poorly frame pictures problem??? That just sound fraudulent. lol
> ...


 I'm just saying, that's a rediculuous statement.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 28, 2009)

schumionbike said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > schumionbike said:
> ...


It's a fact, Jack.

My shots are now perfectly framed, in focus, flawless execution and even the lighting is perfect.  I never would have believed it had I not seen it with my own eyes.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 28, 2009)

Here's an example.

I took this shot with my buddies Rebel on a model shoot:







Then I took a shot with my 1DMk3:






You tell me there's not a difference.


----------



## Plato (Sep 28, 2009)

inTempus said:


> Here's an example.
> 
> I took this shot with my buddies Rebel on a model shoot:
> 
> ...



That certainly proves that even a Canon can do well with the right subject.


----------



## NateWagner (Sep 28, 2009)

inTempus, you're cracking me up.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 28, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> inTempus, you're cracking me up.


----------



## schumionbike (Sep 28, 2009)

inTempus said:


> Here's an example.
> 
> I took this shot with my buddies Rebel on a model shoot:
> 
> ...


 
The second is very nice.  The first one is better compose though even though it's quite quite noisy and look like it was taken while it's on a computer screen by cell phone   The grain does add character to the shot though


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 28, 2009)

Tharsmen actually had me going there...  for a moment:lmao:


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 28, 2009)

Damnit, change your name back to what it was!!


----------



## djacobox372 (Sep 29, 2009)

Hmmm... I would question any pro that would choose to use small format film/digital for anything other then snap/action shots.  Any seasoned pro should wield some medium format gear.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 29, 2009)

djacobox372 said:


> Hmmm... I would question any pro that would choose to use small format film/digital for anything other then snap/action shots. Any seasoned pro should wield some medium format gear.


 
:lmao:

This thread gets even better!


----------



## Hobbes (Sep 29, 2009)

@ intempus 

 Nice comparison
 LMFAO!!!  



fiveoboy01 said:


> djacobox372 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm... I would question any pro that would choose to use small format film/digital for anything other then snap/action shots. Any seasoned pro should wield some medium format gear.
> ...



yeah probably the funniest thread in this whole forum


----------



## roadkill (Sep 30, 2009)

I like eggs.


----------



## Hobbes (Sep 30, 2009)

forgot to mention that it's kinda like an pest controller/exterminator equipped with a swatter sure he would get the job done, more or less, but no one would hire him or take him seriously


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 30, 2009)

Buckster said:


> If you disagree, that's fine - feel free to hire photographers based on what gear they have instead of their demonstrated ability with that gear. Feel free to dismiss them from a dinner party shoot because they don't have the gear to get a Sports Illustrated cover shot. Feel free to base you decisions in that regard on whatever criteria works best for you. I promise, I won't interfere at all.
> 
> Only if you choose to read it that way, out of context from the rest of the discussion, which you clearly insist upon. Feel free, but I've no interest in chasing this monkey around the tree any longer.
> 
> ...


 
This entire discussion is getting childish. Buckster has summed it up with the above comments. The photographer matters, not the gear. You can dislike it or not. At this point I really don't care. Name calling is very unattractive, and shows me there is more to this discussion than would you hire a pro with a D40. That is all I have to say on the subject.

Thank you once again Buckster!


----------



## RacePhoto (Oct 1, 2009)

Hobbes said:


> @ intempus
> 
> Nice comparison
> LMFAO!!!
> ...



Wow, best troll question I've seen in at least a year. People won't bite on Canon/Nikon, or Mac vs PC, someone came up with the camera snob approach to a subjective generalization and hit a home run.

Yes, the converse would be, does someone hire a photographer just because he/she has expensive pro equipment or because of the results.

I've seen weddings shot with a 2 1/4 where the photographer didn't know how to use the equipment, couldn't get a clean shot focused or lighted right, and produced shots that didn't equal guest snapshots.

But he did have Pro equipment. 

Short answer? The photographer takes the photos, not the camera. Sure you can't make chocolate cake with mud, but a 40D is a high quality camera that can take wonderful photos in the right hands.

It's just turning two years old right now, Introduced Sept. 2007, released Oct. 1st. Might as well get the facts straight. Not quite an antique Instamatic.


----------



## NateWagner (Oct 1, 2009)

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.


----------



## Hobbes (Oct 1, 2009)

RacePhoto said:


> Hobbes said:
> 
> 
> > @ intempus
> ...



lol sarcasm.....

hmm and where on earth did Canon EOS 40D get in here? well if you don't like anything I said in the PC vs Mac thread feel free to post a reply there instead of trying to start another argument here. geez I don't have that much time to argue with people in every single thread :mrgreen:


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 2, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> This entire discussion is getting childish. Buckster has summed it up with the above comments. The photographer matters, not the gear. You can dislike it or not. At this point I really don't care. Name calling is very unattractive, and shows me there is more to this discussion than would you hire a pro with a D40. That is all I have to say on the subject.
> 
> Thank you once again Buckster!


 
They effect each other equally. What's a car without a good engine? It can make it from point A to point B, but not with as much effeciency or as good results. Builder without a level? He can eye it, but your house might slant a bit.

Gear matters completely. The quality of photos _will not_ be the same between a guy shooting with a d40 and 70-300 f/3.5-5.6 (or whatever the aperture is) vs. the same person shooting with a D700 and a 70-200 f/2.8 VR, even if he is just taking snapshots of the transformers in his living room.


----------



## Dao (Oct 2, 2009)

Like in this situation.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/141553-anyone-shot-candle-lit-wedding.html

If the photographer shows up with a D40 and kit lens .....  hum .....


----------



## schumionbike (Oct 2, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> 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.


----------



## Garbz (Oct 3, 2009)

I see here a discussion about the quality of the photos. That has less to do with camera, but more so the skill of the photographer. But here is something I haven't seen posted yet:


I wouldn't ever hire a Pro with a D40 for a one time event like a wedding. I WOULD hire a pro with 2 D40s for a one time event. I guarantee that a D40 wouldn't survive half the abuse my D200 has been through simply because it's plastic. I guarantee that a D40 would survive at all for a as long as the D2x from a wedding photographer I know simply because the shutter isn't rated as much.

So looking back at the photographer. A pro with 1 D40 regardless of the portfolio says to me, here is someone who either doesn't shoot enough since a D40 still cuts it for his "pro" work, and here is someone who may falter at a critical moment not because of his fault, but because his consumer grade camera just couldn't handle it.

Conversely someone with 2 D40s says to me, here is someone with the forethought that his camera may fail and he is prepared for the worst, a true professional.


----------



## TiCoyote (Oct 3, 2009)

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 (Oct 3, 2009)

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 (Oct 3, 2009)

schumionbike said:


> NateWagner said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...



*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 (Oct 3, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> schumionbike said:
> 
> 
> > NateWagner said:
> ...


 
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 (Oct 3, 2009)

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 (Oct 3, 2009)

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 (Oct 3, 2009)

NateWagner said:


> 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 (Mar 10, 2010)

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 (Mar 10, 2010)

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 (Mar 11, 2010)

SNAPaPHOTO said:


> Sabbath9999
> 
> 
> 
> ...




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


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 11, 2010)

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 (Mar 11, 2010)

VADER1775 said:


> 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 (Mar 11, 2010)

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 (Mar 11, 2010)

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


----------



## Felix 222 (Mar 11, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> 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.


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 11, 2010)

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 (Mar 11, 2010)

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 (Mar 11, 2010)

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 (Mar 11, 2010)

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 (Mar 11, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 11, 2010)

Twas fun.


----------



## ghpham (Mar 12, 2010)

Felix 222 said:


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


 

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 (Mar 12, 2010)

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 (Mar 12, 2010)

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 (Mar 12, 2010)

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 (Mar 12, 2010)

I can't believe this thread is still around.

So, do you hire the photographer or the camera?


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 12, 2010)

both


----------



## LBPhotog (Mar 12, 2010)

ghpham said:


> 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 (Mar 12, 2010)

> 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 (Mar 12, 2010)

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.


----------



## ghpham (Mar 12, 2010)

NateWagner said:


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


 
My only comment would be if the photog can't produce great enough prints with the camera he have, than he won't last very long.  

I don't really care what camera he is shooting with as long as he provide references, I get to see the actual product from the references.  No references, no go, no matter what camera he has.


----------



## RONDAL (Mar 12, 2010)

i cant believe this thread is still going


----------



## innocent smith (Mar 12, 2010)

I used a d40 and the tiny 35 f/1.8 to shoot a fancy fund-raising event for a local non-profit at a really nice reception venue, and no one was the wiser. In fact the venue asked for some of the pictures afterward because they were impressed with them. Granted, it wasn't my first choice, but I was in a bind since I had just sold my d200. It worked great though.


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 12, 2010)

Is it the people who own D40's and D60's that insist the camera wouldn't be a factor when choosing a Pro?


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 12, 2010)

seems like it.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Mar 13, 2010)

Haven't read every response in this thread, but one comment: One pro I know uses a D40 and a small speed light. He is Berlin's most prolific event photographer. He knows his stuff doesn't get printed larger than glossy magazine size, so the files coming from the camera are more than enough. He doesn't shoot RAW anymore, his exposures are more than good enough for events and journalism. Most importantly, carrying a camera at eye-level for up to eight hours at a time means it has to be LIGHT. A heavy weather-sealed body and big lenses would make it hard on the arms, and sometimes impossible to get the shot. 

He gets paid a lot. He can afford any gear he _wants_, but as a professional he know exactly what gear he _needs _to get paid.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Mar 13, 2010)

Whoa, didn't realize it was a zombie thread.


----------



## ghpham (Mar 13, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Is it the people who own D40's and D60's that insist the camera wouldn't be a factor when choosing a Pro?


 
No.  I own a D90.  That said, if I put gaffer's tape over the brand name, and cover up the model number who would know and if someone ask, I wouldn't tell them.  If the picture come out as good as a D300 or D700 who would care.

Again, only photo geek like us would care what model and make of camera are used.  

I once seen a series photo's by a renown photographer using a point and shoot and without an exif, none of us would be the wiser.

Why don't you ask someone that's about to have a wedding and see if they ever even question what make and model of camera the photographer have? chances are, they could careless.


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 13, 2010)

Look, I really don't care what anyone says about this. To me it is absolutely absurd to think someone would shoot a wedding with a D40. It's like telling me you would want to shark dive in a meat suit. Just doesn't make sense, and nothing anyone says will make it click.


Yeah yeah, I get it, some people think you could shoot a wedding with a Kodak Disposable camera (it's not about equipment right?!?), or a Sony Cybershot. It's all about the photographer and how he composes the shot and uses his vast settings to nail the exposure.
Equipment is all the same, lower end gear has no shortfalls, or if it does; those features are useless anyways so no loss there.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs]YouTube - Judge Joe Brown - Cheap wedding photographer[/ame]


----------



## kkamin (Mar 13, 2010)

I agree with the point that you should have gear that looks somewhat decent and professional.  It falls under the principle of professional practice.  It would look fairly retarded to bust out a DIY foam core soft box held together by duct tape and expect to make a good impression.  But on the other hand, I don't think an entry level D-SLR should matter if it isn't inhibiting the photographer in any way.  Like others have said, it looks professional still, and it kicks the crap out of DSLRs made 15 years ago that "pros" were using.  

People who are in the know, realize that gear is solely meant to get the job done and bring some type of vision to fruition.  It stops there.  But I sense that a lot of people are really into their gear and place more importance on it than it actually holds in reality.  An observation from a photo professor I had at art school who had taught an adult hobbyist class: it was the men in the class that were preoccupied purchasing a ton of gear, but it was the women who were more into learning how to take pictures.  I'll expand by saying that men are always fighting for hierarchical position or status with one another, and trying to impress women--and owning a bunch of fancy photography equipment and being able to rattle off the technical feats that it can do and showing off its bells and whistles is a way to achieve that.  This is human nature.  People do this with all sorts of things.  But the odd thing to me about this dynamic in reference to photography, is that photography is meant to produce something, it is a means to an end; it's not a gold chain.  It is far more easier and comfortable for many to learn the tech specs of their lenses or feel good about the fact that their camera can shoot x number of frames a second, but it is far more difficult to consistently produce compelling and engaging photos.  Or to get beyond the 'snap shot' aesthetic.  I think the people who are sitting on some expensive gear, but are not the best image makers, could be the ones insisting on the status of the camera being of supreme importance, perhaps out of defensiveness or out of justification for having a potential $2500 paper weight.

Personally, I'm more interested in the photographer's portfolio.  Some of the coolest photos I've seen are Deguerrotypes taken over 100 years ago with primitive cameras.  If they don't have anything like the aforementioned foam core soft box to embarrass me, I really don't care what brand of anything they are using.

I've just started working as a freelance photographer.  I was in a position where I didn't have a ton of start up capital, but I wanted to start shooting.  I distributed my money rather evenly over camera, lenses, grip gear, studio pieces, computer/software.  But 95% of the images on my site now were taken with a Rebel.  I find it is good enough for what I have been doing.  When I need a better body and lens, I'll rent one for now.


----------



## ANDS! (Mar 13, 2010)

That video is ridiculous.  Chick got the quality she paid for.  I hate situations like that were the defendant is obviously partially correct, yet doesn't know how to keep their cool.  Defendants let the plantiffs paint them as rednecks and won.  2500 my ass.  I wouldn't pay them ****; the producers I mean as anyone who appears on these shows isn't actually out any money.  Still, if people recognize these folks in real life, that can be seriously damaging.


----------



## Felix 222 (Mar 15, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Look, I really don't care what anyone says about this. To me it is absolutely absurd to think someone would shoot a wedding with a D40. It's like telling me you would want to shark dive in a meat suit. Just doesn't make sense, and nothing anyone says will make it click.
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah, I get it, some people think you could shoot a wedding with a Kodak Disposable camera (it's not about equipment right?!?), or a Sony Cybershot. It's all about the photographer and how he composes the shot and uses his vast settings to nail the exposure.
> ...



loved every minute of it! funny video


----------



## Rosshole (Mar 16, 2010)

That video was ridiculous...   I mean, if Judge Joe Brown says that you have to have expensive exuipment to take good pictures then I guess I should throw out my whole setup because all of my pictures will be garbage.

but i digress...

I am not sure if I missed it, but did anyone mention how the D40 excells at high speed flash sync??


----------



## ghache (Mar 16, 2010)

NOT.


----------



## Aayria (Mar 16, 2010)

kkamin said:


> I agree with the point that you should have gear that looks somewhat decent and professional.  It falls under the principle of professional practice.  It would look fairly retarded to bust out a DIY foam core soft box held together by duct tape and expect to make a good impression.  But on the other hand, I don't think an entry level D-SLR should matter if it isn't inhibiting the photographer in any way.  Like others have said, it looks professional still, and it kicks the crap out of DSLRs made 15 years ago that "pros" were using.
> 
> People who are in the know, realize that gear is solely meant to get the job done and bring some type of vision to fruition.  It stops there.  But I sense that a lot of people are really into their gear and place more importance on it than it actually holds in reality.  An observation from a photo professor I had at art school who had taught an adult hobbyist class: it was the men in the class that were preoccupied purchasing a ton of gear, but it was the women who were more into learning how to take pictures.  I'll expand by saying that men are always fighting for hierarchical position or status with one another, and trying to impress women--and owning a bunch of fancy photography equipment and being able to rattle off the technical feats that it can do and showing off its bells and whistles is a way to achieve that.  This is human nature.  People do this with all sorts of things.  But the odd thing to me about this dynamic in reference to photography, is that photography is meant to produce something, it is a means to an end; it's not a gold chain.  It is far more easier and comfortable for many to learn the tech specs of their lenses or feel good about the fact that their camera can shoot x number of frames a second, but it is far more difficult to consistently produce compelling and engaging photos.  Or to get beyond the 'snap shot' aesthetic.  I think the people who are sitting on some expensive gear, but are not the best image makers, could be the ones insisting on the status of the camera being of supreme importance, perhaps out of defensiveness or out of justification for having a potential $2500 paper weight.
> 
> ...




   This was a great post, I agree with everything you said... However it was a little difficult to take "Spongebob" seriously 

   On a side note though - If I was attempting to take up photography "professionally" by any stretch of the word, I would feel somewhat obligated to provide the best equipment I could and to give it my best "shot" (pun intended) no matter what gear I could afford.   People want memorable photos, they shouldn't have to worry that their photographer isn't giving it his or her best effort.


----------



## doug_a (Mar 22, 2010)

Pro and semi-pro cyclists have a saying..."90% Rider..." 

Meaning that, theoretically, the best bicycle  will only give you a 10% advantage when compared to even a very basic bicycle setup.

Yet all pro and most semi-pro and most wealthy intermediate and n00b cyclists opt to get near the best bike they can possibly afford...! Whether that 10% matters, or does not mean anything at all.


Love this thread! It brought me out from being a long-time lurker. I have the Nikon d40. I ditched the kit lens and went with mid-range Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro HSM that was less than $400. I am not a pro photographer.

First off, are we talking kit lens or other, as this is everything.

The same photographer might get as good, or even better sharper shots with my setup than they would get from a D60, D90, or Dxxx, and their respective kit lenses.

Imagine same photographer with a d40 and these lenses:
1. AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II 
2. AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
3. AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED

vrs a "pro" with a D3 or a D700 and just the kit lens that came with it.

Is the "pro" shooting for final output of "large prints" or final output of "website images"...?

...extreme scenario, but, you get the point.

Also, d40 has a great sensor size to pixel ratio! Quality pixels.

However, we all know the d40 will not do large prints well...some skilled up-resing in PS will get you to 11x14, but that is it.

Also, the d40 is very light weight. 
Also, the d40 body is throw-away cheap (to some)



with only my d40 body and my mid-range Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 "do-it-all" lens (including macro), I still see my next $250, $500, or even $1,000 going into glass, and not a better body. ( I do mostly shoot for the screen and not for large prints, or many prints at all)

great thread...long live the D40:thumbup:



But really, in all reality, someone with a d40 and the kit lens will 98% of the time equal a picture taker that will not deliver consistent, high-quality photography.


----------



## Fusion (Mar 22, 2010)

Kegger said:


> It comes down to his portfolio. Personally I could care less what equipment you use. But it is kind of irksome when someone says they are a pro, which to me means they make 51% or better of their income from photography, and has beginner equipment. Yeah even low grade stuff can make excellent photos. But if you don't have a portfolio worth a damn, I wouldn't hire you.



Its all about the pictures, the equipment used is a secondary issue. If you see pictures he has taken and like them what does it matter what camera he uses as long as he/she produces the goods. :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## kkamin (Mar 22, 2010)

I'm posting again because the principal at the core of this debate bugs me so much. 

The pyramids were built with primitive technology.  Reims Cathedral in France was built with primitive technology.  Does Microsoft Word, with all its bells and whistles, make anyone a better writer?  No, it corrects their punctuation and spelling, and guides their syntax but does nothing for their content.  It is sort of analogous to a camera safeguarding against focus, exposure and white balance.  But this is the ABC's, the foundation of photography.  I know it can take years to get down DOF, FOV, f/stops, white balance, mixed lighting situations, shutter speed considerations, etc.  But it is all still ABC.  This is the technical backbone of an artistic medium--but means little to the realized photograph, unless, it is not understood, then it can hurt the photograph by being of arbitrary nature.  To paraphrase David duCheim, a famous contemporary photographer, "the technical considerations should be a silent partner in a photograph."  

I believe photography is 5% technical and 95% conceptual or creative.  I really don't know when photography became this scientific, technical preoccupation.  Who cares if your photograph is technically perfect and 21 MP _if it is not engaging and compelling_.  The ability to create anything of creative power takes most thousands of hours of practice and research--just like being good at anything else.  But to focus solely on the "tool" and not the "work" becomes almost a replacement for actually making something, right?  Or thousands of hours discussing photography becomes a replacement for taking pictures.  Since the joint introduction of the D-SLR and the proliferation of internet forums, the technical aspects of photography have been given an almost unhealthy amount of weight.  There is a feeling amongst a surprising many, that expensive D-SLR=professional photography.  My feelings have been confirmed by visiting countless websites of people charging money for what I feel are basically high resolution snap shots.  

Photography doesn't have to be birds in your backyard, high school seniors (nothing wrong with those first two at all and they can be artistic), or perverts trying to get TFP shoots with models in their basement, but it can be Man Ray, Robert Frank, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Frank Capa, or Sandy Skogland, and affect how people see the world.  There is tremendous power in the camera.  For the technophiles, I invite you to explore the other 95%.


----------



## Fusion (Mar 22, 2010)

kkamin said:


> I'm posting again because the principal at the core of this debate bugs me so much.
> 
> The pyramids were built with primitive technology.  Reims Cathedral in France was built with primitive technology.  Does Microsoft Word, with all its bells and whistles, make anyone a better writer?  No, it corrects their punctuation and spelling, and guides their syntax but does nothing for their content.  It is sort of analogous to a camera safeguarding against focus, exposure and white balance.  But this is the ABC's, the foundation of photography.  I know it can take years to get down DOF, FOV, f/stops, white balance, mixed lighting situations, shutter speed considerations, etc.  But it is all still ABC.  This is the technical backbone of an artistic medium--but means little to the realized photograph, unless, it is not understood, then it can hurt the photograph by being of arbitrary nature.  To paraphrase David duCheim, a famous contemporary photographer, "the technical considerations should be a silent partner in a photograph."
> 
> ...



WELL PUT SIR :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------

