Is the Nikon D40x "enough" camera for a wedding?

I'm my own worst enemy I think! I just booked my 1st wedding, and now I'm

doubting my equipment. I love my D40x...I'm comfortable with it and I think it gives

great shots. But, it's a consumer camera, which makes me think I'm a bit amiss

shooting a wedding professionally with a consumer camera.

 

Thoughts?

Assuming you have the skill, the right lenses, flash, experience, and a BACKUP the camera is fine and up to the task. <p>Do you?

It's tough to answer without knowing your capabilities. There's a lot of photographers that take on weddings and other work with a D300 in A and P mode. The actual D40x raw files will be fine. But I'd think a bigger concern, and priority, is your quality of lenses and proficiency of fill flash.

Skill- Getting there...I'd like to think I'm good. I have been told by photographers I've been "shadowing" or showing my work to that I have an "eye"

 

Right lenses: I have two back up lenses...an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. I'd like to get a fisheye before the wedding.

 

Flash: I have a Nikon external flash on order.

 

Experience: Well, its my first wedding. So, nope...I'm a bit lacking there.

 

Backup: Yup. And a 2nd shooter.

Interesting. A couple days ago I watched a lady photographer, actually a photo-journalist, shoot some handheld pics at a local church event. She told me she had been doing that kind of work for a long time. She was using a D200 with 2 lenses. No flash, but then most of the pics were outside where the lighting was already OK. She had one of those Domke (sp?) gadget bags, which she kept slung pretty low over her right hip. I saw her do one lens change the whole time. There was another guy there also shooting the event. He was using an Olympus and a handheld light meter clipped to his belt. Thats all.

I'd say that LONG before you get a fisheye, you need need to get some faster normal lenses. The fisheye effect is only helpful as a bit of a lark... whereas a rectilinear ultra-wide (say, the Sigma 10-20 HSM, or Tokina's 12-24) would be far, far more useful in a social event setting (and for a jillion other things at which a fisheye is useless). But not as useful - given what you have now - as something like a 17-55/2.8. Your other lenses are just too slow, and too unable to isolate your subjects from a busy background through depth of field control. They'll be OK if you have good control over your flash technique (what external flas are you using... SB600? SB800), but not so much for those available light shots, unless you're outdoors in daylight.

 

Alan: you don't mention WHICH lenses you saw those other folks using. A lot of weddings could be done in their entirety with a 17-55 or a 24-70. Or not. Too many variables to really talk about it without more understanding of what was going on.

The D40x by itself isn't going to shoot the wedding--you are. So if you are good enough to shoot a wedding, it is too. The fact that it doesn't have some of the features of a "pro" camera should not hold you back from doing a good job. Those features certainly help a good photographer get great pictures, but don't, by themselves, create the pictures. Getting back to whether you are good enough to shoot a wedding--having an 'eye' also doesn't, by itself, guarantee you will do a good job. Ideally, before you actually book your first wedding, you should be prepared, know what you are getting into, have the gear you need (such as complete backups), and be confident you can fulfill the responsibility of shooting a milestone event for people.

You probably should practice using that brand new flash well before the actual event. And make sure that you have the tools, and the knowledge, to use off-camera flash.

Previously I used the D40 as my back-up...but now I use it 50% of the time for

weddings because I like the weight (light) and the way it handles low light. I do have a

great lens (18-200 VR) attached to it. If you are already comfortable, everything will go

well.

Yes - provided you can use it well. I'm not sure what you have offered as your maximum print size but just think carefully on that one (not sure what the sensor size offers in a D40 - but I'd imagine it will be good up to A3 - 15x12 inches - at 300 dpi).

 

It's worth remembering - and I know wedding photography is more dynamic now - but photographers in the past have relied on much more basic equipment in relative terms with excellent results.... it's all about knowing what you and your equipment are capable of doing and using this knowledge to its full potential.

How have you prepared to make sure you handle all the obligatory shots you must take?

Wow! Lot's to consider here.

 

Eric-- I will be shadowing at a few weddings prior to doing the one I'm doing, and also I'm planning 2-3 meetings with the bride to discuss important images she would like captured. In addition, she knows this is my first wedding and the price I'm offering her reflects that. She liked my other work and wanted me to apply that to her day.

 

I am considering a faster lens now that someone has mentioned it. I never seemed to have issue with the two I work with but I know weddings go so fast and the action may be hard to capture.

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8--they are supposed to be coming out with one that works with the D40x--don't know if it is out yet.

I'm glad you are shooting the wedding for your friend. I'm just throwing some thoughts out to you so you will be prepared and the wedding will be one of the best times and pleasent experiences you will ever have.

 

I don't think it really matters that the bride knows it is your first wedding. So put yourself in her shoes for just a second. If you are the bride, would it be OK if something went dreadfully wrong and you as a bride didn't have one single image good enough to enlarge over a 4X6? For example a framed, textured, retouched, canvas mounted 16X20 print hanging in the bedroom or wherever.

 

I'm not trying to scare you, just a reality check.

 

Looking at the camera situation, the camera will work. A few questions though. What kind of flash will you use? The built in flash is not powerful enough and will most likely cause red eye. Are you shooting RAW or jpeg? How many memory cards are you bringing? Do you have a tripod? Do you understand basic posing? Are you setting your camera on AUTO everything? The list continues. So not only should you follow these photographers before your wedding, but get some books on posing. Do a lot of reading on this site and look at lots of wedding postings. Please practice a lot. Practice everyday so you are ready.

<p>The camera is broadly irrelevant as long as you know how to use it, assuming

that it can at least record images with a minimum level of quality. The D40X is

reasonable enough - 10 MP and same processing engine as the D80.</p>

 

<p>Far more important are your lenses - you need glass with wide apertures,

minimal distortion and good contrast. I'd suggest nothing slower than 2.8, and settle

on a range of focal lengths that complement your sensor's crop factor. If you've got

kit lenses you'll probably find that at the short end they're liable to some distortion,

and at the longer end the working aperture will be too slow.</p>

 

<p>I don't use a Nikon myself, but my co-shooter gets splendid results with a Nikkor

50mm 1.4 and a Sigma 20mm 1.8 -- both excellent and affordable lenses. The

combination works well with two bodies to avoid changing lenses, and can be

supplemented with a macro/zoom as you need.</p>

amanda - if you are shooting this wedding professionally, it really would be best to at least have one 2.8 zoom, or a few 1.4 primes. if you don't have the $$ yet, that's fine, but as soon as you can, get some faster glass.

I agree with Conrad. I shoot with a D200 which has the EXACT same image sensor as the D40x, so your camera body will not be the issue here although the D200 has a bit higher "IQ" than the D40x.

 

 

Glass,Glass,Glass

 

Regards

 

Michael

Amanda,

I did my first wedding last weekend. It went alright. The D40x will be fine for a wedding but fast (small f/stops) lenses is what you need, and that means expensive glass. I used a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, Tokina 12-24 f/4 for the wide shots and a Nikon 50 f/1.8. It did good. I would defianatly get a fast lens before getting a fisheye. I had no use WHAT-SO-EVER for a fisheye at a wedding. I would also suggest in the future a 70-200 f/2.8 on a separate body. If you will be using your "kit" lenses I suggest using a sb-600 or 800 and boosting your ISO. But not too high because I dont think that the bride and groom want noisey (grainey) photos. As for what photos to look for make sure you talk to the bride/groom about what wedding party group photos she/he want done.

I would recommend a couple things regardling lenses. if budget is a concern 1. get a prime f2.8. I picked up a 28mm f2.8 for only $100 from craigslist. it will help you understand shooting with a narrower DoF,. 2. Rent a good lens for the wedding. 17-55 2.8 is a common choice. This will keep your costs low. If budget is less of a concern. take Nadine's lens suggestion. If its no concern, well then you would have already bought a d300=) You could also burn $1200 on the nikon 17-55.

 

If its outdoors, well then you can *cringe* get away with the lenses you have. But the flash is a must in either situation. Take practice photos like crazy outdoors . put your kids/friends outside with black and white clothes.

 

Everything else has been said. Good Luck, and post your photos for critique!

<p>What Matt said. You need faster glass. Get yourself a 70-200 2.8 stabalized and the new Nikon 50 1.4 (I'm a canon guy so sorry, don't know the IS equiv, lol). I would never shoot a wedding without those two lenses, AT LEAST have the 50 1.4. You have absolutely no need to buy yourself a fisheye until you've got those lenses. As well, get yourself at least a D300 asap. The D40 just isn't going to cut it.</p>

<p>This was posted a year ago, I bought a D300 quite some time ago...but thanks!</p>