Nikon D40: good for my needs?

[Bob98SR5]

I'd like to pursue something I sorta fell into: food photography. Here's a pic of something I did 2 years ago for a client:



full menu here: http://foodkinginternational.com/churro_menu.htm

So yeah, I've been doing a lot of reading and holy s###, there are so many choices. i had no idea how expensive this could be. Along w/ close ups, I'd like something versatile enough to take advantage of longer lenses that can take somewhat long range sports photos...but i dont need a motor to take a bunch of rapid fire shots.

So I found this to be a good compromise of what i want to spend...good bang for the buck:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...Tpk=30-113-037

does anyone have this? Is this too basic to address my needs? I like the price and that it comes with just the body and a lense which i think might be able to handle the close ups but maybe not as much as the long range shots.

opinions and other options greatly appreciated

edit: forgot to mention: the pics will mainly be for a website but i need it to be of sufficient quality to have printed on color brochures and photos. will 6 MP be enough? and it can save as RAW Format. i bleieve thats what you need in a camera

thanks,
bob

[4x4mike]

Everyone and their mom will have something to say about this and if you don't believe me google your question. Nikon guys love nikon and Canon guys love Canon. IMO to get a decent Canon you've got to drop down some coin. If you're into that go for it. The Canons did not fit my hand, were expensive (and I spent a lot of my setup because it was brand spanking new at the time) and were heavy. Having said that I've got a Nikon D50. It's not around anymore because right after it came out the D80 came out (better) and then less than a year later they came out with the D40 and D40X. The D40's have a smaller body than the other Nikons so handle them. If you wanted to you could put a $1000 lens on a D40 and it'll work and take excellent pictures. If you have old SLR lenes this my sway your purchase as well because the lenes maybe used on the DSLR. If you go to flickr you can browse pics by the camera that took them. People shoot some amazing pictures with lower priced entry level cameras and honestly that maybe all the camera you need. I shoot 99% of my pictures in AUTO and I'm fine with that. I don't have the time or patience to hassel with too much as it takes the fun out of it for me. No matter what camera you use the lighting and subject can make all the difference.

Ken got a D90 and loves it. It's scored really well but for me it's way more camera than I need and wouldn't use it to it's full potential. I think you can pick one up for what I paid for mine. Something to consider when buying these cameras is kit lenses. There are a lot of lenses out there and it can be really easy to spend $500 or more. The kit lenses are usually a little lower quality but take decent photos. The 18-200 VR Nikkor lens is a good all around lens. I have an 18-135 walk around lens, an 18-55 kit lens with a fish eye and a 70-300 lens for long range stuff. It all fits in a Lowe Runabout (or run around or something like that).

Hope this helps. Just keep in mind it's like anything else where people have their opinions and it's easy to get in over your head (lenses, flashes, bags, straps, batteries, filters, etc).

[4x4mike]

BTW I'm craving a churro ala mode right now.

[Bob98SR5]

mike

great advice. yeah, one thing i read is that with this camera, there's no motor to do the autofocus so you must buy lenses w/ the autofocus in. that doesnt sound lke a good thing, right?

[CYi5]

If you want your lenses to auto focus on the D40, they must be AF-S (motor is inside the lens.) To keep the cost of the D40 down there is no motor inside the camera. This isn't a huge problem, however, the motor inside my 18-55 lens stripped out somehow and there goes my autofocus. I still haven't replaced the lens yet, it's just sitting in my closet.

Guess bob beat me to that piece of info .

[4x4mike]

Oh yeah I forgot about that. I'd find a deal on a 40X body. BTW my d50 is a 6.1 MP and it's been great for everything big and small. I had a couple of pictures purchased from me to be used online, travel brochures and a poster in NZ. They said the RAW format of the 6.1 was enough. Anyways, get the body (the 40x can use the regular lenses I think) and look into an 18-135 or 18-200 Nikon lens separate.

[Bob98SR5]

sounds like i should find a 40X. while im a total noob, the sound of a motor in the lense rendering autofocus useless does not sound like a good thing

[4x4mike]

The 40x's are different than the 40's in that respect, right? If they are the same I'd get something else for that reason alone. A good condition 50 or 80 would be worth the price as long as they weren't over used. I'd have to say my 50 has at least 18,000 shutter releases, has been dropped, wet and overall man handled and it's still going strong. All I do to it is charge the batteries and wipe the lens glass every now and again (Maggie likes to lick it). Once you go higher in the models the price goes way up. The newer models have the menu on the screen which is a feature I do not like. I've got a dial and screen up top and viewable in the view finder. With the newer ones you have to take the camera away from your face, adjust your eyes and look at the back of the screen to toggle through everything. I like to do it on the fly while keeping my eye in the view finder.

[Bob98SR5]

actually after further reading, both D40 and D40X require the AF-S lense to have the auto focus feature. the D40X's big upgrade is that its a 10MP camera. Many forum post I read last night say that they prefer the 6MP.

time for some more reason and possbily expanding my brand search

[oly884]

bob, I suggest looking at www.dpreview.com to get a good idea about what will suit your needs. I'll follow up with a more detailed post later.