And they say the D40 is 'entry level'...

[ChristopherCoy]

Check out this guys photostream. Done completely with a D40. AMAZING!!!

Flickr: Ian Bramham's Photostream

[Coogie]

A little too much photoshopping for my taste (not a big fan of BW), and he's got a lot of generic scenery and candids where there is little pressure to get a shot, but I'll give him credit he's good photographer.

As for the D40, I had the camera for almost a year and it WAS a great camera. I think it was pretty much the first Nikon to be around $500 (the D50 was like $700 when it came out) and compared to the Rebel XT it was a much more solid camera so it was why I chose it and it was my first big boy DSLR. I loved the pictures it took but after about 3 months I felt very limited because of its lack of the AF motor. I wanted to get a prime lens and got the 50mm 1.8 thinking I could manually focus with it and during the day at f/5.6 and above it was ok, but for low light (main reason I got it) it was useless with such a small DOF at f/1.8.

At the time I didn't know what a flash sync speed was but having the CCD sensor and the hybrid electronic shutter, it would give me 1/500 sync speed in iTTL mode so I would get better pictures than guys with huge cameras in harsh bright lighting conditions so I do miss that part, but when I tried to get into off camera flash, not having a flash commander mode like the D80 was a big limitation for me too since I'd have to play around with that strobist BS.

But anyway, that's why it's an entry level camera. I got the D90 as soon as it came out (ok a month later) and except for times where I wish I had the D3's high ISO capabilities (don't we all? lol) it has done everything I've asked it to do and I haven't felt like I'm missing anything.

[ChristopherCoy]

Originally Posted by Coogie

I got the D90 as soon as it came out (ok a month later) and except for times where I wish I had the D3's high ISO capabilities (don't we all? lol) it has done everything I've asked it to do and I haven't felt like I'm missing anything.

I concur... although I wouldn't know what the hell a D3 felt like even if you planted it on my forehead.

[shutterfire]

Of course you know Chris that you are only a craigslist pro with a D40 according to another thread, LOL goes to show its the person behind the camera.

[Coogie]

Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy

I concur... although I wouldn't know what the hell a D3 felt like even if you planted it on my forehead.

I got to hold one with the 24-70mm lens on it for a minute and I could hear the angels singing!

[srwatters]

I don't want to sound jaded, but pretty much anyone can make a 800x800 pixel image look impressive. Before proclaiming Clapton was God, he proved he could play.

I'm just saying...

[digidawg87]

Clapton could make a Walmart guitar sound great. However if you asked him what he would want to play every day I have a good idea what he'd say.

[snydersnapshots]

I saw an interview a few years back with a guy who had put together a coffee-table type book of celebrity portraits. Absolutely fantastic photos, all done with disposable film cameras.

Any idiot can click a shutter button, but it takes an artist to make a good photograph.

[texxter]

I believe these statements below to be true.

Any camera in the right hands can be used to create superb images, within the technical limitations of a given camera.

The technical limitations of a camera do not limit your imagination.

Some photos cannot be created with just any camera. Yet, that fact doesn't necessarily make them good images.

Some photographers will create uninteresting images no matter how good their camera is.

A more capable camera can make a good photographer better.

The technical quality of an image does not translate into aesthetic value, uniqueness, or creative realization.

An image with strong aesthetic value, uniqueness or creative realization can be technically good or not, doesn't matter.

[ChristopherCoy]

Originally Posted by texxter

IThe technical quality of an image does not translate into aesthetic value, uniqueness, or creative realization.

Who wrote/spoke this?

[texxter]

Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy

Who wrote/spoke this?

I did about 30 minutes ago. I mean I didn't copy it from some other place.

Also, to clarify what I meant by "within the limitations of a given camera" on my first point - you cannot take underwater images with a paper disposable camera, for example. but if you don't get the disposable camera wet, there is enough light to register on the film,etc, etc, it's possible to create superb images. Obviously a very limited camera limits the type of images you can make - out of those, some can be superb if the camera is used by a good photographer.

[shutterfire]

It goes back to that 10 page thread of the great art debate chris.

[boldimagery]

Thanks for sharing! That's great! I LOVE black and white. Those have such a timeless feel.

As for camera selection.... Let me tell a story. I use to teach a couple of photography courses. In the intro to digital photography course I would bring my SLR with my 70-200 2.8L and a P&S. I would raise the SLR and ask, "who thinks they can take good photos with this?" Everyone would raise there hand. Then I would show them what I could do with that P&S.

The tools help the artist do their job and achieve their vision in a more effective manner, however it doesn't prevent the artist from creating.

[Wil_Bloodworth]

I agree Chris... he's doing some excellent work. Like is almost always the case... it's more about the guy behind the camera than the camera itself.

- Wil

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by texxter

I believe these statements below to be true.

Any camera in the right hands can be used to create superb images, within the technical limitations of a given camera.

The technical limitations of a camera do not limit your imagination.

Some photos cannot be created with just any camera. Yet, that fact doesn't necessarily make them good images.

Some photographers will create uninteresting images no matter how good their camera is.

A more capable camera can make a good photographer better.

The technical quality of an image does not translate into aesthetic value, uniqueness, or creative realization.

An image with strong aesthetic value, uniqueness or creative realization can be technically good or not, doesn't matter.