D40 w/good lens or D3200

<p>I have a D40 with the original lens (which is generally considered an inferior lens). Would I be wise to either:<br /> a. Purchase a quality glass lens for the D40 at 10mp or<br /> b. Purchase a refurb 3200 with their standard lens?<br /> c. Purchase the 3200 and buy a good lens?</p>

<p>We have a restaurant and brewery and want the camera for print-ready publications, so hi-res quality is important. The 24mp 3200 looks like a perfect fit, but would a quality lens on the 10mp D40 accomplish the same good pix or close?<br /> Secondly, if I did purchase the 3200, what would you recommend for a good lens to shoot food, beer, bottles, etc.? We do use it for interior shots, etc., but making the food and beer look good is our main priority.<br /> I've searched the forums and read about the AF-S lenses that people recommend. However, I am a neophyte and still don't understand the fine details of each lens and therefore seek advice.<br /> Thanks so much for everyone's input. And drink Michigan craft brew beers!</p><div></div>

<p>The D40 has terrible low light performance which simply means by the time you get to ISO 800, things aren't looking good. Too much noise and less dynamic range. <em>Resolution</em>isn't going to be that big of an issue. A D40 can create an 8x10 print just fine. The main issue is going to be your quality of light. Neither the D40 or the D3200 or even the D4 is going to be able to change the quality and/or intensity of your light. The D3200 will have better high ISO performance. So, less noise and better DR at ISO 800 and above. Better lenses will tend to have better contrast and sharpness, but good lenses can cost well above what the camera costs and it sounds as if you have a limited budget? And while, IMHO, the lens is even more important than the camera, even more important than the lens is the quality of your light! Because even a good lens can't change the quality of your light. So, I would recommend sticking with the D40 and whatever lens you have now but start learning everything you can about lighting. Only when you /know/ what a new piece of gear will do for you, should you buy that new piece of gear. In other words, improve the photographer, not the gear. My last suggestion would be to do a cost-benefit analysis and consider hiring a pro who already has the knowledge/gear to get some shots. Print advertising usually isn't cheap and you may want to maximize your investment.<br>

Here are the usually places to start for learning about light:<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0240812255/?tag=nmphotonet-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a> Personally I think this is a must read for any photographer.<br>

And for flash:<br>

<a href="http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/</a><br>

<a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html</a></p>

<p>For a shot such as you've shown a tilt/shift lens would be the best choice James. It would keep both the bottles and barperson in sharp focus while allowing the "busy" background to be thrown out of focus. Such a lens would<em> only</em> cost 3 to 4 times the price of a D3200.</p>

<p>Sometimes just throwing money at gear doesn't produce a better result. Why not consider hiring a competent professional photographer for the few times a year that you need pictures? A pro photographer would bring the right choice of lens, camera and lighting, as well as technical expertise and compositional flair to the party. Usually as a tax-deductable expense as well.</p>

<p>Usually when shooting food camera and lens makes almost no difference to the end result. It is all about arranging the food, lighting it and selecting camera viewpoint to make it all look tasty and fit whatever mood you want.</p>

<p>So it's all about the photographers skill and very little about what equipment is used. With a few small halogen spotlights and bits of pieces of black and white foamcore and some aluminumfoil you can get the images you want.</p>

<p>Even the best camera equipment money can buy can't produce a good looking food shot without any of the above.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just in case of confusion, I assume we're talking about the D40x (10MP), not the plain D40 (6MP). Not that it has much of an effect on this discussion. Unless you're actually making posters of food, I'd not worry about having insufficient resolution.<br />

<br />

If you're planning on natural light interior images with the same camera, I'd vote for the D3200 or possibly D5100 (depending on your local prices). The D5100 is lower resolution, but possibly a little better in low light, and handles a little better. Either has live view, which may be very helpful for food shots. Lens-wise, your budget option is either a 50mm f/1.8 AF-S (which would let you isolate what you're pointing at a bit) or a 35mm f/1.8 DX AF-S (which would give you a wider angle) - these both have the aperture to shoot in lower light than the kit lens, and you can isolate the background.<br />

<br />

For making the food look perfect, as others have said, lighting matters, and a pro may either use a tilt-shift as RJ suggests, or possibly a macro lens combined with focus stacking, along with a lot of custom lighting. Hiring someone (or, if you're keen, hiring the kit) may be worthwhile - it'll come down to how much you value ability to take more images (e.g. if you want to photograph the day's special or seasonal offers) compared with absolute image quality.<br />

<br />

Pete's suggestion of halogens - or possibly LED lamps if you want to keep the salad from wilting - is a good one. If you want to do it yourself, get a cheap - possibly table-top - tripod (for a light lens and occasional use, spending a fortune on a high end one is a waste) and experiment. Tip: small lights can be good for making food look moist, since they add highlights. Oh, and it's worth playing with the results in image editing software (the Gimp is free and powerful, other options may be easier to use). Good luck.<br />

<br />

(Disclaimer: I'm not a professional photographer, let alone a professional food photographer, but I'd like to think I can do better than some of the images I see in small restaurants...)</p>

<p>I agree that lighting and composition are far more important issues. For example (yes, I know the OP did not request any critique on the attached image) I wouldn't place that very bright light in the background directly above the head of the waitress/bartender.</p>

<p>How big are the prints you are making in your publications and what is the page size?</p>

<p>Ultimately the D3200 with a high quality lens may produce slightly improved IQ to a D40 with the same lens, but whether you could see the difference or not depends on print size.</p>

<p>Between Shun and Pete, your probably have your answer.</p>

<p>first, the 18-55 that comes with the d40 is an AF-S lens. and the 10 mp CCD of the d40x isn't low-res, it's just challenged in high-ISO situations. so it's not just a matter of resolution. as others have suggested, the biggest limitations here are technique and lighting. if you want to take available light shots, a d5100 would give you far better low-light performance. not sure the 24mp of the d3200 is the answer here, unless you are doing oversize commercial prints, since noise is also an issue with a high-mp camera at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>with lighting, there are a number of different approaches. relying strictly on available light means you're at the mercy of artificial lighting. learning how to use flash would help, as well as contouring the light with external lighting sources.</p>

<p>as far as lenses, i'd recommend a 35/1.8 over a 50/1.8 for interior shots as the 50 may be too tight. either will give you a wider aperture and the ability to blur backgrounds for subject isolation. that should work for beer shots. for food, i'd suggest a macro lens which has more close-focus ability. most of the food shots you see in magazines are shot with macro lenses. if you go this route, then there's a question of which macro lens to get, which usually boils down to working distance from your subject. a good lens for this purpose is the tokina 35 macro, which is the closest focusing macro with the widest angle of view available for DX cameras. it's also relatively inexpensive and can be used for handheld product shots, whereas longer lenses might need a tripod due to lens vibration at high magnifications. taking a photography class or hiring a pro to give you instructions isn't a bad idea, either.</p><div></div>

<p>The 35mm/f1.8 DX AF-S is a good suggestion. I would use a flash to light up the foreground (including the drinks), perhaps f2.8 or f4 to blur out the background, and use the fastest flash sync speed to reduce ambient light so that the background does not over-power the foreground.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone again. Very helpful comments and suggestions.<br>

<br />JS</p>

<p>I personally have found the 18-55mm kit lens to be way sharper than it has any business being. I use a 50/1.8 as well, but only for when I want the shallow DOF. The kit lens will do quite well on a D3200 as a decent piece of general purpose glass, especially if budget is an issue. </p>

Yes I do agree the kit lens is a good lens to start with but if you in dim light, Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is an option too. I got for

my canon 7D and it is sharp lens and it will cost you apprx 350$ which will make good combination with your d40x or

3200.

<p>I really think, if you want to shoot in natural light in a brewery, the zooms are out. I've taken a lot of shots in pubs, and wide open at f/1.8 is pushing it - even f/2.8 is a significant backward step. I'd almost suggest looking at f/1.4 lenses (like the Sigma 50mm f/1.4), though the improvement over a 50 f/1.8 AF-S is incremental.<br />

<br />

If you're using external lighting, that's not such a problem - but arguably neither is using an f/2.8 lens in the first place, so you may as well use the kit zoom...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>wide open at f/1.8 is pushing it - even f/2.8 is a significant backward step. I'd almost suggest looking at f/1.4 lenses (like the Sigma 50mm f/1.4), though the improvement over a 50 f/1.8 AF-S is incremental.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, i own the sigma 50, but that's not my recommendation. there's no 1.4 lens i know of which is tack sharp at 1.4. also, we're not talking about candid shots in dim lighting (in which a little bit of softness might be acceptable), we're talking about product shots for print ads, which could presumably taken at any time of the day. looking at the OP's sample shot, the lighting doesn't seem that poor -- positioning is a bigger problem.</p>

<p>the reason to use a prime over the kit lens is subject isolation and better sharpness at wide apertures. a 1.8 prime lens shot at 2.8 will be sharper than a kit zoom at f/4. also, for a no-flash shot, they allow a higher ISO setting.</p>

<p>Eric wrote:</p>

<blockquote>we're not talking about candid shots in dim lighting (in which a little bit of softness might be acceptable), we're talking about product shots for print ads, which could presumably taken at any time of the day</blockquote>

 

<p>James wrote:</p>

<blockquote>We do use it for interior shots, etc., but making the food and beer look good is our main priority.</blockquote>

 

<p>So I thought we were talking about <i>both</i>. For the product shots, any sharpness increase over the kit lens will be incremental - I certainly wouldn't argue against your 35mm micro suggestion for staged food and beer (except possibly with a 60mm micro to give a little more room to play with the light). I'd suggest that the primary reason to use a fast zoom or fast prime rather than a macro and the kit lens would be to cope with candid interiors - you have pretty good subject isolation already at macro ranges. I agree that the sample image doesn't look too bad, and the venue seems a lot lighter than many I've attended - although it's typical for the bar to be better lit than the rest of the pub, and there seems to be light coming through the door. Without seeing the image parameters, I can't tell whether this was a long exposure of a very still subject - I don't know whether candids are considered to be important, but if they are, I stand by my fast prime suggestion (even if it's only a 35mm or 50mm f/1.8).</p>

<p>A halfway decent tripod is a lot cheaper (and easier to use) than any f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens.</p>

<blockquote>A halfway decent tripod is a lot cheaper (and easier to use) than any f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens.</blockquote>

 

<p>Absolutely - I consider some sort of tripod a good investment for the food and drink photography. However, if you want candid pictures in dim light, a tripod is of relatively limited use because the subjects will be moving (as with VR); other than a sensor with good low-light characteristics (i.e. something newer than the D40x), there's no substitute for aperture. Of course, you could just turn the lights up or use flash, but that tends to ruin the ambiance in a way that you may or may not find acceptable. Again, I'm only suggesting fast primes if you want images of customers enjoying themselves and if the lighting isn't strong. If you <i>just</i> want the food and drink, a macro lens, a tripod and some lights are your friends.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I thought we were talking about <em>both</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this may be splitting hairs, but in my mind there's a difference between a candid shot of Joe Beerdrinker on pint #3 and a promo pic which specifically highlights food and beverages. there could be some overlap, sure but most of the food photogs i know dont take food porn/beer porn pics in bad lighting. a fast prime isnt a bad idea -- but the idea that you're going to get amazing sharpness at 1.4 is just not true -- and, like Andrew says, macro lenses are great at subject isolation and usually have pretty decent sharpness at open apertures (stopping down typically increases depth of field). the tokina 35 is very sharp in the center at 2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A halfway decent tripod is a lot cheaper (and easier to use) than any f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>really? let's think about that. a tripod can't achieve subject isolation (by itself) and is terrible for candid shots. and the 35/1.8 is $200, about the price of a halfway decent tripod (sans head). sure,it's possible to position a tripod next to a serving dish, but that takes a lot more effort to set up than just snapping a handheld pic with a macro lens, and also more effort to reposition the shot from other angles. tripods are great for long exposures with stationary subjects, though, like a row of beer bottles, so getting one isn't a bad idea.</p>

<blockquote>but the idea that you're going to get amazing sharpness at 1.4 is just not true</blockquote>

 

<p>That's very true (although it can vary vastly by lens), and apologies if I'd given an alternative impression. It depends what you're after. I use my 200 f/2 with VR in dim lighting in pubs, and - with luck and a static subject - I can get "acceptably" sharp (to me, on a D700) at f/2. A 50mm f/1.8 AF-D wide open, not so much, but it'll do for small output.</p>

 

<blockquote>really?</blockquote>

 

<p>Actually, as someone who's just dropped 800ukp+ on a D4 (head, not camera) and am still looking wistfully at a 5-series Gitzo, I almost called this one too. For the camera and lenses we're talking about, though, a $60 tripod (like the Manfrotto Modo, when they made it) would be a pretty good investment; I'm sure others can suggest better. We're talking a pretty wide range between an E-series 50mm f/1.8 and an AF-S 85mm or 24mm f/1.4 (or 200 f/1.8, or the new Zeiss 50mm f/1.4), though, so I'll take the generalization in the spirit intended.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I use my 200 f/2 with VR in dim lighting in pubs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the upside to the weight and heft being, it can double as a cudgel if some hooligans get rowdy, i suppose. all kidding aside, with 1.4 lenses--i have several--i usually shoot at f/2-2.8 in dim environments. the 35/1.8 is sharper wide open than the 50/1.8 D but i prefer to close down the aperture at least a bit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>a $60 tripod (like the Manfrotto Modo, when they made it) would be a pretty good investment</p>

</blockquote>

<p>correct me if i'm wrong but i believe the (discontinued) modo was intended for P&S cameras. the weight rating on the 785b is only 2.2 lbs, which wouldnt give me confidence with a DSLR at all.i'm sure there are some ok tripods for inexpensive prices, but i was thinking about the manfrotto 190 series, which is basically entry-level pro grade. a kit with a head runs around $200 USD. i generally dont use tripods for indoor shooting, but YMMV.</p>

<p>If you shop around, I think you could easily find a suitable tripod and head for about $100. KEH was clearing out (new) previous generation Benro tripods a while back. Dunno if they have any in stock, but they're a nice piece of kit. For that price you don't get anything fancy like balsa or carbon fiber, but for foot shots with a fairly wide-angle lens, you don't need a super light weight tripod. Pair that with a decent pan/tilt head and you're good to go.</p>

<p>I agree that a big aperture is nice, and any fast zoom or prime will definitely provide some needed background separation. But would product shots really work well wide open? I suspect that regardless of the lens, you'd be stopping it down a bit. It looks like, in the US at least, the D3200 is only sold paired with the 18-55mm lens for about $650. For that much money, a decent tripod, the 30/1.8, and maybe one of the strobist starter kits, would potentially provide a lot more utility.</p>

<blockquote>correct me if i'm wrong but i believe the (discontinued) modo was intended for P&S cameras. the weight rating on the 785b is only 2.2 lbs, which wouldnt give me confidence with a DSLR at all.</blockquote>

 

<p>I had one, although one of its leg clamps has since died, and it behaved quite well with a D700 as a travel tripod - I like the combination pan-tilt/ball head. Not so much the pistol grip though. No, it's not terribly rigid, especially with the last leg section extended, but for the price it held everything up reasonably well without creep, and with passable technique didn't oscillate too badly with shortish lenses. Trying to dangle a 150-500 off it for astrophotography (it sank very gently into a "pointing straight up" position) was the thing that made me go shopping for the Giottos head and 055CXPro3 that were my next step up Thom Hogan's "things you buy before spending $700 on the right tripod gear" list. (Hence the D4, 5-series Gitzo and Burzynski plans; never say "I'll never buy a 500mm prime".) I recently took some okay - considering - images with a D800E and a 14-24 precariously balanced on a ZipShot. Sometimes "small and cheap" can be quite a lot "better than nothing". Which is probably the only part of this paragraph which is of any use to the original poster. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>i'm sure there are some ok tripods for inexpensive prices, but i was thinking about the manfrotto 190 series, which is basically entry-level pro grade. a kit with a head runs around $200 USD. i generally don't use tripods for indoor shooting, but YMMV.</blockquote>

 

<p>I like the 190 series - the carbon ones are scarily featherweight, not that I suggest them for this task. If they're in James's budget, they'd do a good job - though, because of subject movement, I still think the tripod may be more valuable for the consumables (as much for control as for hand tremor) than for the customers. For that role, a decent table-top tripod may be a better choice.</p>

 

<blockquote>I agree that a big aperture is nice, and any fast zoom or prime will definitely provide some needed background separation. But would product shots really work well wide open?</blockquote>

 

<p>I feel I'm failing to communicate, if we're talking about <i>my</i> suggestion of fast lenses. While the subject separation is nice, I was really talking about fast lenses mostly as a means of gathering light for candids in dim conditions - <i>if</i> that's desirable. For the product shots, I'd really go with plenty of light, low ISOs, and you'll get decent separation at short ranges anyway. The kit lens or your choice of prime may suffice for product shots, but the "right" option (ignoring tilt-shift) is a macro, which would only be medium-fast and probably used stopped down anyway. If we're talking about someone else suggesting fast conventional lenses <i>for food/drink</i>, I'm dubious about their economy and the need to use them wide open - unless you just want an arty (and not sharp) mostly-out-of-focus image of empty pint glasses...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>would product shots really work well wide open?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i didn't suggest shooting wide open.</p>

I used to have a Modo tripod. It was way too flimsy for DSLR use. Sold it to a guy who had a high end P&S.

 

James, what are you thinking of as a "good" lens?

<blockquote>

<p>the "right" option (ignoring tilt-shift) is a macro, which would only be medium-fast and probably used stopped down anyway.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>which brings us back to the tokina 35...i see a lot of food shots with partially defocused backgrounds, i.e. not closed down all the way, more like f/4-5.6, although you can make 2.8 work. i like that look, though it takes a bit of practice. the tokina has better close-focusing distance than the nikon 60 and the wider focal length is less subject to vibration. it's less expensive, too. AF speed is much snappier than the Tokina 100 macro, although with a D40x, it would be MF only, which isn't a big deal for static subjects.</p>