Just how proffesional is the Nikon D40?

<p>Im thinking of buying a Nikon D40 with a 18-55mm lense and a 80-250mm lense - which flash should i consider getting and will i be able to produce images such as :<br>

<a href="http://jasonchristopher.com/photography/fashion">http://jasonchristopher.com/photography/fashion</a><br>

with the camera or should i consider something else?<br>

Also,today while telling a friend of my plans he asked "why nikon instead of canon" ..what would you suggest?<br>

I am an amateur</p>

 

<p>

 

<p>Remember, shots like that involve great models with great clothes and professional makeup and a lot of time spent on lighting, not to mention the Photoshop work. Then there are the lenses. All this stuff is more important than the camera body.</p>

<p>But the D40 doesn't have built in remote commander mode, so you need a hot shoe flash that does commander mode to use off-camera wireless flash, which can be useful for this sort of work. Also, a lot of the people you'd be selling the images to will balk at 6MP images and it doesn't have a professional "look". Aside from all that, yes, you can be using a D40 when taking shots like that.</p>

<p>If you're looking at DX cameras a D300 would be more appropriate or at least a D90, with good lenses (a 17-55 would be nice) and an SB600 or better yet SB900 or better yet both.</p>

<p>WRT Nikon v. Canon, it doesn't really matter that much. Both companies make great stuff.</p>

 

</p>

<p>A D40 is not profesional at all. It will make nice prints to 8x10. It is rather cheaply constructed compared to better cameras but is sufficient for family photos.<br>

Its construction is strictly consumer grade as is the 18/55 which will make decent pics at 5.6 amd 8. Pro lens are larger, heavier, more expensive, will last longer, have far fewer plastic parts, and will make decent pictures at 2.8 to 11.</p>

<p>Canon models in the same price range are the same.</p>

<p>It is not the model of flash, but knowing how to use it that makes the pic. These are off camera studio lights. No flash attached to the camera will produce that light.<br>

The scene is an early 1950`s Cadillac parked over a dirt covered solid floor with a sunset backdrop. There appears to be mostly overhead light but some more added to light the front of the model.<br>

Photography is all about light and controling it and ideas. Cameras are secondary once you get past a certain minimum quality level. A D40 could produce this photo to a certain size, probably 8x10. A client would want better quality ( larger file) today if they paid for this work to be done. The lights to do this are worth 4X the price of a D40 + lens, probably more.<br>

If you wanted, you could buy a better body like a D300 and use some older Nikon manual focus prime lenses which are pretty cheap. There are no old Canon lenses that fit a Canon digi body. I use a 50 2.0 and 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 on a D700. The camera was $2700, the lenses were from $50 to $100 . Image quality is no worse than with new auto focus lenses. You don`t neet AF or VR lenses to make a photo like this. A tripod to help compose for sure.</p>

<p>If you think a D40 is too much, buy a film camera. I can produce the same with a film body as a digi body. Remember LIGHTS are the key. </p>

<p>No Canon is not better than Nikon or the reverse. The only clearly superior 35mm size camera system is Leica at 10X the cost of a D40 and it is only marginally better.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>hello vic,<br>

the d40 is just an entry level camera. it is poor by all consideration. however, if you have the patience and can spend a year or two learning about photographic light, i am sure you could improvise something close to your favourire website. do remember that more often than not, the photographer is more important than the camera.</p>

<p>the real question is, how professional do you want to be?</p>

<p>a nikon d40 isnt a bad investment, in fact, if you are limited in experience, an entry-level model makes more sense, since you will have to master a learning curve before you can take anything approaching pro-level photos. it would make no sense to drop 8 grand on a nikon d3x and another 4 grand on lights, for instance, if you are coming from a point and shoot.</p>

<p>i've seen some good pics taken with a d40, but that camera also has limitations. however, if you dont know what those are going into it, then a better camera might not be the answer, at least for the first 6 months or year.</p>

<p>good luck!</p>

The D90 is the top-rated DSLR by an independent consumer reporting organization. With the excellent new Nikon 50/1.4 lens, you should be able to do top-notch fashion photography, if you understand lighting. On a DX (APS-C) camera this is equivalent to a 75mm lens for 35mm film, a good focal length for portraits. I would skip those kit lenses you mentioned. The Nikon 18-55 is very sharp but has horrible bokeh (background blur).

<p>It is really not the camera that is professional or not. It is up to the photographer. I am sure if you give the Jason Christopher person a Nikon D40 during one of his photo shoot he can create images similar to what you linked. However if you put a D40 in the hands of the uninitiated they will have no clue how to create the images your linked. As many mentioned it is not all about the camera it has a lot to do with lighting, makeup, the model and the location.</p>

<blockquote>"It is really not the camera that is professional or not. It is up to the photographer."</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<blockquote>I agree 100 % with Hansen,the professionalism is not up to the camera(mostly) but to the photographer ability to work with certain camera.</blockquote>

<blockquote>To me it is more important the role of the lenses than the roles of the camera.</blockquote>

<blockquote>The D40 have only 3 metering areas?Use an economical but effective light meter to properly expose your photos.</blockquote>

<blockquote>I do not get convince by the more mega pixels is better myth,6 mega pixels are plenty to produce nice photos of 8x10 and even bigger,you don't need a poster-at least frequently-size photo in fashion.</blockquote>

<blockquote>The D40 light meter exposure is great,work with it at your advantage.</blockquote>

<blockquote>At any given time I will prefer to have a less sophisticated camera with a couple of great lenses.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Enjoy it,</blockquote>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<p> RPA</p>

 

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>The 'secret' to great photos is great lighting. </p>

<p>The Nikon D40 is the possibly the best value in DSLR today. When it comes to IQ, it produces images pretty much equal (at lower ISOs) to ANY Nikon DSLR camera except perhaps the D3X. While features vary from body to body, IQ basically does not.</p>

<p>I suspect those that make comments like " it is poor by all consideration" have never used one. </p>

<p>I have the D40, and I hate it! I wish I had stuck to my guns and got either the D80, or waited until the D90 came out.;I would like to be able to use a large assortment of Nikon lenses, but am limited to slow lenses with the D40, or having to pay a arm and leg for lenses that fit the D40.<br>

I may just go back to shooting film again<br>

Save up and get a D9o or a D200.</p>