A few weeks ago, I wrote an article pitting the venerable Nikon D800 against a lowly Nikon D40x in a portrait shoot. The purpose of the article wasn’t to see if the D40x was as good as the D800 (it obviously isn’t), but to ascertain whether a beginner would be better off getting something cheap to start out with than starting with a behemoth of a camera.
I suspected that for web purposes, the D40x would be more than adequate. I was right. Of course the elephant in the room was, “Wouldn’t the D40x fall apart when it came to comparing prints?” I was truly shocked at the answer.
It was a resounding “meh.”
I printed out the six shots used to compare the cameras at 12"x18" using my printer of choice, ProDPI. I figured at that size I should be able to see the difference. Also, for my needs — magazine covers, headshots, model portfolios, weddings, and engagements — that size would cover 90 percent of my gigs. For the odd blown up wedding portrait, I knew that a 10-megapixel image would stand up just fine.
In a completely unscientific way, I showed the images to about 20 random people. Not one of them could say with certainly which print belonged to which camera. Most got one right, and statistically speaking that was bound to happen. By and large, though, when it came time to make their choices, most people just guessed.
What about an industry professional?
For that I turned to my colleague, Georgia Benjou. Benjou has worked in the fashion industry for almost 20 years, starting as a buyer and merchandiser for Hermes, Dolce & Gabbana, Christian Dior, and Chanel. She’s styled campaigns for Hyde Park Jewelers, The Brown Palace Hotel, and American Crew among others. She’s also the fashion editor for 5280 Magazine, one of the top five city publications in the country. Hundreds of images go through her on a weekly basis. She also receives many, many submissions every month for consideration in the magazine.
She couldn’t tell the difference.
And, here’s the important part: she didn’t care. The images were so close at that size that any difference was insignificant.
So what does this all mean? Get the camera that’s right for your budget. Don’t feel the need to save up for the be-all and end-all of cameras when you’re starting out. It just isn’t needed.
Aftermath
I really was surprised by these results. After all, the D800 was my camera. What should I do about it? I put my money where my mouth is: I sold the D800. I found a used Nikon D3 with low mileage on it, snapped it up, and haven’t looked back. My workflow has sped up, battery life is stupidly good, each file is 85 percent smaller, the camera is ridiculously fast, and I’m not choking trying to keep up with hard drive space. Life is good. If, for whatever reason, I need an ultra high megapixel camera, I’ll rent it. But for my day-to-day shooting, a 12-megapixel workhorse will do me just fine, thank you very much.
Perhaps more people need to evaluate their needs and determine if the camera they're using is really necessary. It wasn’t for me.
I admire your ambition for these posts, Hans.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks man! I appreciate it.
I shoot 90% of my work with Canon 5D bodies. Not MK II, not MK III. They are ancient by digital standards. And they are dead reliable. About 6 months ago, I bought a 6D, and finally started using it more recently. Last night, I checked the shutter count on my two year old 60D. A whopping 1706 actuations. Clearly, I prefer familiarity over pixel count.
In other words, I agree. We used to say that a camera was just a box for exposing film. Learn the craft first. All those features can get in the way. You don't need 20MP to post images on the web. But don't skimp on glass.
And for Canon fans, some lens porn shot with the everyman camera, my phone.
It still is. I continue to shoot film with my Canon A-1 that I bought new in 1980; I don't know how many shutter actuations that it's had, but I shoot over 60 rolls of film in 2012. I also bought another film SLR and a DSLR in 2013.
I'm a beginner which you can tell by looking at my profile picture but I sincerely disagree. The pixel count and MP make a huge difference even on the web. I was fortunate enough to get hold of a raw file of one of my favorite photographers and he uses a Nikon d800 and even the file resized for web is 100x sharper without any sharpening applied than my pictures EDITED. I'm usig an old rebelt2i body by the way. If you shoot in natural light only you need the dynamic range the contrast and the richness a better camera produces. For instance my Rebel body doesn't focus as soon as there is a little change in contrast and the dynamic range is shitty meaning pictures in bad lighting are a pain in the ass because you get a lot of noise with higher ISO's ( even 200 is too much ). Also when taking pictures at night ( cityscapes etc.) you get a lot of color noise. Comparing my raw files with the raw files of a better camera clearly shows a difference.
Sh**. I've been thinking of selling the D800 for a D3 for this exact reason. Maybe now is the time.
Another article worth reading. Thank you.
For me, the biggest factor that makes those newer "behemoths" worth it is how much better dynamic range they have. I remember when moving from a D90 to a D700 and then to a D800 the final images didn't really change all that much in terms of output quality, after all it was the same guy using the camera. But what did change was how much freedom I had to recover shadows and highlights as well as how well the camera handled high ISO situations.
(That said I wouldn't suggest any new photographer jump into a D800 out of the gate)
Agree with you totally. I need dynamic range more than anything else. I used to print images up to 40 inches on the D1X so know you can get great results on the D40X, but the dynamic range on modern cameras is so much better for image quality.
absolutely. Like I said to a later commenter, it's the one thing I miss about the D800. The dynamic range was phenomenal. But I'll use it as an excuse to tighten up my technique so I'm not so dependent on software.
One other big thing with the D800 is crop ability. Don't have the perfect focal length lens with you, or can't get in just the right spot to frame the photo perfectly? Step back and crop it in post. Yes, makes you a little lazy as a photographer, but when you can crop high res online size headshots out of a full length shot, it allows a bunch of flexibility.
I also agree with the DR too. I had a shoot where my lights wouldn't fire consistently no matter what I did (strong backlight situation). Expose for the sky/background, underexpose subject and bring up in post (roughly 2 stops).
My D800 has saved my rear many a times with the ability to fix something I wasn't absolutely perfect on in post. I do my best not to rely on it, but it's nice to have it as a worst case option.
Awesome Post!
I would say the focus system, dynamic range and editing latitude from using newer bodies(especially Canon) are better reasons to upgrade than MP count.
Honestly, that's the one thing I miss about the D800: the dynamic range. I do have to be a bit more careful with my lights because I can't recover as much should I goof up. But hey, that's just another excuse to tighten up my technique! Thanks for reading
Perhaps one of the first "you don't need all the gear to produce quality workmanship" articles that has been worth the read. Very solid, sir.
You did not mention how many PPI you chose before sending the image to be printed, or did you resample to make them both 300 ppi?
yes, both at 300
Bicubic smoother in photoshop? Or did you use something else?
Nope. Just uploaded the full resolution files to my printer
It's great that you're making calculated decisions based on your needs. That's what I'm trying to encourage here. You obviously have a well established business. For my needs, the D3 is fine. If I start landing more commercial work, I'll have to reevaluate, but it's working great for me now.
I can chime in as a very amateur photographer. I bought a d3100 about 2 years ago. I have recently been looking at possibly upgrading. One reason is I'm not a fan of the crop sensor. But I always wondered if perhaps getting a d800 would really make that much of a difference...and articles like this lead me to believe "not that much".
I can certainly see why buying the D8x is a great thing for a professional who can really use and recognize the difference, but for someone like me, it probably won't do much.
So I'm still looking to upgrade, but don't think I need to jump to a d800. On the flip side, I'm going to spend a chunk of the money I would save on the camera upgrade, and buy my first professional lens (which I am thinking will make a noticeable difference in my pictures).
To summarize - it is great to hear from professionals that while there is undoubtedly SOME difference, for someone like me, it is unlikely it is worth the price jump.
The D3x00 series blows, I had a D3200 for a bit - I bought it as an 'upgrade' for my aging Canon 10D for better DR more than anything, but compared to the Canon, the image quality sucked. I ended up going back to the Canon and using that until I bought my 6D a few months later. I chalked it up to the fact that the 10D was a ~$2500 camera when new, and the D3200 was ~$500 new....differing quality levels. If you're looking at entry/pro-sumer level Nikons, look at the D7000 or D7100....don't waste your time with anything lower (D3x00 or D5x00 series). On top of better image quality, you'll also gain the focusing drive in the body and will have a wider lens selection to use with AF than with a 3k or 5k series (focus drive is in the lens, so any lenses other than G-series can't AF). Probably the only downside of the 7k series bodies compared to the D800, etc. is that those are FF sensors, and the 7k is still a crop sensor.
Our ideas differ on what "amateur" is. I'm not looking to spend $2,500 on a camera...
I applaud your common sense!
I have an original Canon 5D and it produces amazing images. You can't do much shadow/highlight recovery but beyond that, IQ is spectacular.
Cameras don't go obsolete until they break.
one of my favorite cameras! This was taken with the original 5D. My camera at the time (The Mark II) was on the fritz and I borrowed it from a friend.
No argument here - my old Canon 10D still takes fantastic photos....as long as there's plenty of light...lol. That camera though, is a whopping 6.3MP...
This is such a sensible article! It's true, cameras 1-2 generation back is enough for a lot of the work in the market. Having said this, I am not saying photographers should stop spending and that older or lower end cameras can cover it all. By all means if you can afford it, if experimenting all sorts of camera is your joy and of course other jobs will require higher end cameras. But this article encourages the rest to make practical decisions.
Just gave up my canon 20d for a 100d but still keeping my FF beauty canon 1 ds mark 1, 12 years old and still going strong.
I want a 16mp sensor in the D810 body.
That's easy, just activate DX crop mode - bam! 16MP (and more reach from your lenses too!). J/K
Sorru but I do not agree at all in the conclusions of this article. I have been shooting, post producing and printing with D5000 (12 Mpixel very good entry level camera) and now with D800 (36 Mpixel excellent for professional use). The differences are very big! The way to intervene in post prodction is completely different between the two camera and with a file prepared for prints I can see the differences starting from 13x18 cm print, A4 prints are completely differents. When post producing landscape I see an abyss due to extended dynamic range of D800 and possibility to work on shadows to recover them with no noise at all! I expect that, a parte of the professional body of D3, the final file produced is similar as the D5000.
This is why I don't upgrade my camera every time a new one comes out, I went from a 10D to a 30D then to a 5DII and the only real reason for me to upgrade the 5DII is for a better AF system. Clients are happy with the quality of the images, and I know many pro wedding photographers who still use this camera.
This incessant demand to upgrade to the newest body is fostered by the camera manufacturers. The price of developing these cameras is astronomical and if they have a duff release cycle then that has untold ramifications down the line. In the old days manufacturers didn't worry about a duff cycle as it was all mechanical and not as much R&D was required. Whilst some people do benefit from upgrading every cycle, most people would be bettered served to learn their camera and leverage it's full potential as many people I see upgrading isn't because the camera has reached EOL but more to compensate for their weakness and sloppy techniques.
Although I agree that more megapixels isn't always better, just so we are clear.....A used D3 is about $1000 more expensive than a used d800. Nevertheless I enjoy your posts.
You're buying used gear from the wrong site. The D3 can be had easily for $1200. The D800 used regularly goes for between $1500 and $1700
You'd recommend ebay, amazon? I know B&H/Adorama would charge much more than ebay or amazon would.
I don't want to endorse anyone in particular, but I did a quick google search of "Used Nikon D3" and quite a few reasonable options pulled up on the first page
The other factor (d800 vs d40x) could be an ISO performance.
I think the "bang for your buck" on more expensive bodies comes with high ISO performance, build quality, and functionality. Under great conditions such as outdoor with strobes i would would expect such results. Take both bodies inside in a somewhat dim location with no strobes/speedlights the difference would be more stark probably.
It seems that a lot of folks are kind of missing the point of the article(s). They are for focused on beginners and enthusiasts. That's not to say that pros can't take something away from it, but I'd like to think that a pro would understand their needs and know what they do and don't need out of their gear, whether that be lenses, bodies, lighting, etc. For those learning, however, get something affordable to learn on. It may come as a shock, but people used to take photographs in low light before these low light monsters came out. They problem solved, used supplemental lighting, and used their environment to their advantage. I'd argue that they became better photographers that weren't so gear dependent because of it. If you're learning, the worst thing to do is get a camera that does all the heavy lifting for you. That's no way to learn.
I don't think I agree. If you a pro with a bad camera you can take a good picture. If you are an amateur with a bad camera you are most likely going to take really bad pictures and stop doing photography because you think you have no eye. Sometimes pro equipment gives newbies the enthusiasm and quality to continue long enough to develop their eye. I know I spent years buying new glass and learning how they changed how I can shoot. Now that I have a lot of gear I can slim down to what I really use and want. God I wish I had bought a higher end camera earlier.
Cheap does not equal bad. I guess we'll have to disagree on the other points. I think teaching a person to become gear dependent early is a mistake. I think you take bad pictures because you're new, not because of what you're shooting with. I've seen plenty of new people take bad pictures with great cameras, then start the incessant hunt for the next lens, and the next, and the next to get that look they want rather than working on their skill levels first. It's putting the cart before the horse.
Being gear dependent isn't good but being frugal and spending all your time trying to get a camera which gives you the right bang for you bucks seems to take just as much time. I've spend countless hours fixing cheap when I should have spent money to get reliability and quality. Saying it isn't the gear the matters seems like another way of mocking beginners for taking bad pictures because they are beginners and don't know how to make a good picture with little.
again, it isn't about being frugal...it's about getting the right camera for you at a price you can afford. You seem to be stuck on cheap being somehow of lesser quality. That just isn't the case. Cameras have gotten so good the past ten years that you can get real bargains for some high quality equipment. The last thing I would do is mock a beginner for learning. I've been doing this a while now and I still take bad pictures sometimes. In my opinion, if you can't take a good picture on a 5D, then you still can't take a picture on a 5D mark III. It's that simple. Newer gear doesn't make a better photographer.
I don't think new gear makes you a good photographer but it does make you a better photographer. If I was shooting a wedding I would get more keepers with the higher buffer and low light sensitivity in the 5D mark III than the 5D. it also gives me the extra megapixels to crop out Uncle Fred who is scowling directly at the camera. If I was choosing a camera to shoot in absolutely ideal conditions than I could skate by with a 5D. Newer gear makes me a better photographer because I can concentrate on doing my job instead of making sure my camera will be just enough.
right. and as a professional, that's a decision you can make based on your needs. However, this article is aimed at beginners and enthusiasts...so...
Yeah which is why I wish there was more writing about the cons of your camera choice. How that camera body might limit what you are able to shoot well. A more balanced article instead of rehashing the whole belief that good gear isn't important. Of course it is important. It just one of the important things.
ok, I'll have to leave this here. You seem to be stuck on semantics. Cheap does not = low quality. No one said anything about good gear not being important. This whole time I've been talking about getting good gear at a reasonable price, used. Which is exactly what the D3 is FOR ME. This isn't a camera review. I'm not endorsing a particular brand/camera/gear/lens. So going into the ins and outs of the D3 is silly. My choice in camera is just me evaluating my needs. Yours will be different, as will the beginners and enthusiasts that this article is aimed at.
Fair enough. Cheap doesn't mean low quality but I want people to understand that cheap does come with its trade offs and I feel that your article only talks about the pros of your switch. I think it is very limited in its scope because of that and I wanted to push you to write more in depth articles in the future.
I'd love to see some camera tests where you point out when and why you would choose a specific camera. For instance take a beginner canon rebel camera and shoot some action sports and than compare it to the 7D mark II to show what you are missing. Perhaps while also comparing how close they are in things like taking portraits like you did above.
Something seems to get lost in translation here. If you know you want to shoot action sports, and you're a beginner on a budget pick up a 40D. If you have a bit more to spend, grab a 7D. More? 7D Mark II. A lot? 1DX, and so on...