A canon 40D is enough for wedding shoots and 95% of the clients?

Hi,

 

I'm looking since few months for a dSLR camera...Actually, i will use the camera for my personal use (so i don't

need the top of thge top, because i've used a little nikon D40 and was very pleased with the image quality,

quite enough for my personal use) but also for wedding shoot (i would like to start profesionnaly this activity).

As a professional use, it will be used only for wedding shoots (won't do as a professional fashion photos,

animals, sports etc. just weddings)...so i was thinking about buying a canon 40D but....

 

I can see here and there people telling there using canon 5D, nikon D3, canon markIII etc.for their wedding shoot

... so very expensive cameras...

Why people buy that kind of cameras? is it really a + to buy that kind of expensive camera for wedding shoot?

When i look a photo from a 40D/D300 and a photo from a bigger camera like the one i said, with the same lens, i

don't see any noticeable difference, just sometimes that seems a bit sharper or something like that, and

sometimes nothing at all (don't know if i'm crazy hehe)...and when i see the difference, it's only comparing 2

photos...i'm unable to say from which camera is a photo. Sometimes the photo is a bit noisy or seems darker, have

less sharp etc. and so i imagine it's from a novice camera (and most of the time i am right) but i have seen lot

and lot of samples from 40D/D300 and 5D/D3 and most of time, i can't say if the photo is from 40d, 5d etc. (when

i think that the photo is amazing and must be from D3 or 5D actually it's from a 40D or D300 for example. (and i

see most of the time the difference between a 450D and a 40D for example).

 

But if people buy that kind of expensive camera for wedding shoots, there must be a logical reason no? What is it?

Could my clients be disapointed by image quality (im not talking about how i take my pictures, but the original

image quality we get from camera)? Could they be able watching the photos, and guess im not working with a

"professional" camera (such as 5D, D3 etc.)

Do you think a 40/D300 give enough image quality (still not talking about how i take picture) for most of the

lcients (at least 95%)

If a 40D or D300 give enough image quality for 95% of clients eyes (i don't know, i would liek to know if people

are working withg afordable camera and do real professional wedding and live from that)...why people buy 5D, D3

etc. to do wedding shoots? do we feel more professional shooting with expaensive camera? do we feel more

professional, having a bigger camera than another guy who shoot wedding with a more afordable camera (40D/D300)?

 

Sorry for my english

thx for the answers

A 40D is fine for shooting weddings professionally. Photographers use the very expensive cameras primarily because of the features they have. They are expensive because they are pro cameras and they are pro cameras because they have the features pros make use of, appreciate, and use to best advantage, such as fast focusing, to name one. Of course, being pro level cameras, they offer the best in image quality as well, but not that much better than the mid range cameras. Canon, in particular, tends to put their latest technological developments in their mid range cameras.

 

By the way, a 5D is not really a pro camera--however, many professional photographers use one. In the case of a D3, the low noise, high ISO feature is one large reason pros like it. I suppose some photographers may feel more professional carrying the latest, expensive pro camera, but that doesn't concern me at all. I use the best tool, for me, for the work I want to do, and you should too.

do you think i could miss some photos due to the slower focusing of the 40D compared to pro cameras? (i'll use only prime lenses with my 2 bodies)

The 40D is a fine camera and will not be responsible for missing anything.

We still use the Canon 20d --- its not the camera. A decent used 20d is under $400 --- When the 40d is $500 this time next year >> you will be looking for something else. Learn the art & craft of photography >> first .....

I doubt that the focusing speed of the 40D would be solely responsible for your missing pictures. A lot of the success of getting pictures is due to the photographer's skills--ability to use the gear plus anticipation skills. The latter has nothing to do with physical gear.

Maikeul,

 

I use two Nikon D80s and have shot over 30 weddings with them. I would love a D3 od D700, but because I have become so used to the D80 I know how it's going to react.

 

I shoot local news, marathons and presidential candidates with my D80s. Don't worry about what the next guy or gal has just buy what feels good to you.

As long as you have backup's the 40d should suffice. I prefer a larger file (12MP) as it yields cropping area that works for me.

 

What about waiting for the 50D or getting a D300/D90?

BTW, having had both the 40D's and D300's, the D300 is notably better for both the files it produces and the functionality. Lots better.

Yes a 40D is good enough. Why use a pro 1D series camera? I use a 1D MARK III.

Because the 1D has dual memory card slots to write simultainously to both cards for safety. You only get one chance at a wedding. The rugged build quality and weather sealing (I work in the UK). Built-in portrait grip for taking portrait shots with the same comfortable position as when taking landscape shots. With a flash and lens on-camera I find I don't have enough grip on the camera so it's uncomfortable and top heavy for me. An add-on battery grip flexes and is not as good. Superb battery life. Superb large viewfinder showing all required information. Superb in low light. Extremely fast focusing (even in low light). Extra features like highlight tone priority (useful for white wedding dresses), faster 1/300 sec flash sync etc etc.