What to get next?

[sam_rose2]

I currently have a D40x with the standard 18-55, 70-300VR, and the 18-200VR. I have a decent tripod that

was handed down to me and thats about it. I was thinking about upgrading to the d300 but im not too sure

about it. should I get a new lens first ?

 

Sam

[ShunCheung]

Do you feel that you have out-grown the D40x so that it is limiting your photography? If you cannot easily explain why the D40x is not sufficient for you, I would say hold onto it until you can.

 

Do you have a good flash yet? If not, can you use one? Can you use a wide-angle lens?

 

Clearly it is your money to spend, but my suggestion is that you should be able to explain easily why you need to add a certain piece of equipment. At least that is the buying guideline I use.

[Peter_in_PA]

Shun is right! If you don't know what you need, you don't need anything.

 

A good flash would be next.

[User_276104]

You're not too heavily laden with gear yet, but there will probably come a day that you realize that the more you have, the less you realize you absolutely need.

 

If you're itching for a new lens, I'd suggest examining what type of photo you take the most - wide angle or telephoto. You're well covered in the telephoto range, but a wider zoom may fit the bill if you're shooting at 18mm a lot.

 

An external flash is also a fine suggestion.

 

But, you could also just spend some money on gas/travel and go someplace interesting with what you have...

[._._z]

Sam, you give no indication that you've outgrown your current camera. Is there a specific reason to buy more stuff, or are you trying to help stimulate the economy on your own, or what?

[victorwei]

Sam, if you're into landscape photography, you may want to consider getting a wider lens like the Sigma 10-20 which is compatible with your D40X. Most of my landscape shots were captured with this lens which is quite sharp for scenic shots. Your gear is missing the ability to shoot in this focal range. If you're not into bird photography, you may also want to consider selling the 15-55 and 70-300 lenses to get the Sigma instead as I see there is redundancy in your lens focal lengths. Just a suggestion - without knowing what you enjoy shooting.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "18-55, 70-300VR, and the 18-200VR."

 

That combination of lenses is somewhat strange. Perhaps the fund used to purchase them could have been better spent on something else.

 

I realize that you don't have a 50 1.8 lens yet, I guess that will be a nice lens for you to have.

 

You haven't mentioned what you like to shoot, what you feel is inadaquet about the D40x, and your budget.

[bmm]

I am with the previous poster in noting the overlap in your lens focal range, especially given that they are all in the f/3.5 to f/5.6 consumer range in terms of aperture.

 

My suggestions are:

 

1. A flash - SB600 or SB800 - which you can bounce and/or use off camera. This will give you an incomparable difference in your photos when compared to the built-in flash on your camera.

 

2. I agree with the previous mention of the 50mm f/1.8 prime. $100 is a small investment to make for a lens with great image quality, and that will give you a first taste of a faster lens that you can use in low available light levels. HOWEVER I believe (and someone please confirm this) that on a D40x this lens would need to be manually focussed as it doesn't have the AF motor required - the 'lowest' model on which it could autofocus is the D80.

 

Further... If I were you I would be tempted to trade in the 18-200VR for one or both of the above items. the 18-55 and 70-300 combination gives you more range (albeit a small gap from 50 to 70), and same or better optics.

 

The only tradeoff would be having to switch between two lenses. Given that my current preference is to carry 3 primes in my bag - which I switch between all the time - and no zoom at all, this IMHO is not a major negative.

 

The opposite to my preference, that is, sell/trade the 18-55 and the 70-300 would also be worth considering if you prefer just one do-it-all lens. Underlying message is that there is a lot of redundancy in your lens lineup.

[squiggs77]

If it was me I would sell the 18-200mm VR, unless you really really like the all in one solution, and get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It will autofocus on your D40x, and it's an awesome lens to have for any lowlight situation. I love mine and I think it's my favorite lens. But then again I take a lot of indoor natural light shots.

 

Please tell us what you like to take photos of, or where your current gear is lacking for your needs.

[Two23]

Another agreement with Shun. Just buying photo gear willy nilly is a very fast way to go broke. Note you gave us NO info about what you like to photo. You gave NO info about what your current gear isn't doing for you. Don't buy photo gear because of posts on internet forums. None of us has a clue of what you "need," if anything. I totally disagree that a 50mm f1.8 lens would be a good choice for you, mainly because I have NO idea what it would do for you. Odds are if you "needed" it you would know it. A flash would be great IF you like to take family snapshots, but you didn't say you did.

 

After learning the hard way myself, here's how I now buy gear. I look at my photos and analyze them. Then, I do research. Let's say I want to get more into architectural photography. I look at my photos and don't like the distortion I see in many of them. The distortion is caused by having to angle the camera/lens backwards to "look" up at the building. The solution is to buy a 24mm tilt/shift lens. What I'm getting at is you must have a specific shortcoming in mind that your photos have. Don't just buy a lens because someone on a message board says, "Oh, you need a XX lens!" Odds are it will just sit your closet and be money tied up in something that you don't use. This has happened to most of us at one point. Not sure why you have both the 18-55mm lens/70-300mm lens AND the 18-200mm. Seems like some expensive duplication to me. Do you use them for entirely different things???

 

I've owned quite a few cameras by now, and I have to say that never once has a camera body improved my images. The images you take with a D300 will look exactly like the ones you take with your D40x.

 

As Peter Hamm said, "If you don't know what you need, you don't need anything." Analyze your photos. They talk if you listen.

 

 

Kent in SD

[d_smith12]

Shuo I don't think the 50mm 1.8 will work on his camera cause it's AF it wont auto focus.

 

I upgraded from my D40 two main reason LENS. Two commander mode CLS.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "Shuo I don't think the 50mm 1.8 will work on his camera cause it's AF it wont auto focus.

 

I upgraded from my D40 two main reason LENS. Two commander mode CLS."

 

It actually works on the D40 fine (it meters), of course it's MF only, which is an annoying handicap. But as long as you're shooting at a static subject, it's an excellent low-light/portrait lens for a very cheap price.

[russ_konrad]

Sell both of your lenses and get the new Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens that has the built in motor so it will work wonderfully on your D40x. This lens is the poor man's version of the legendary Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lens and can produce outstanding images.

 

We use the Tamron lens on our second body (D300) for our wedding work and can highly recommend it.

 

Then also buy the low cost Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G lens. It will give you the same reach that you have now with the 18-200, yet at a lower cost. It is also very small and compact.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...I've owned quite a few cameras by now, and I have to say that never once has a camera body improved my images...."</b>

<p>

Obviously posted by someone who has never owned the Nikon D3!

<p>

Go try it Kent. You can see the improved images even in a short camera store trial/test.

[peter_nelson1]

I know regular readers have heard this rant from me before . . .

 

but WHY do people post questions like this, asking what gear to buy, without offering a CLUE what kind of photography they like to do? Would you use the same gear to shoot nudes in the studio as you would to shoot birds in a meadow? Would you use the same lenses to shoot flowers and caterpillars as you would to shoot architectural interiors?

 

It's like posting a question to Motor Trend asking what sort of vehicle to buy without offering any clue about whether you wanted it to commute to work, drive your family to a ski resort, tow a boat, or race in solo events at your local SCCA meets. Or without offering any sign of priorities WRT fuel economy, reliability, budget, etc.

 

The thing that gets me is that none of this seems obvious to the OP's. We get questions framed this way over and over again. Why IS that?

 

When I buy a lens or other piece of gear I do so with a particular use in mind.

[carl_becker2]

Since different camera bodies have different sensors and processors they can deliver different results. Maybe not the difference between the kit lens and a Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 but maybe not far from it either. Lower noise, better dynamic range, better control layout, better view finder and ability to use older lenses can be reasons for a body upgrade.

 

You do have quite a bit of overlap in your lense selection and they are all slow. Answer the question - what can I not do with my current equipment and you will know what it is that you need. Otherwise its just a case of NAS.

[Two23]

Russ--

 

No, I've not used a D3. It tempts me because of the high ISO capability, but here's how I'm looking at it. I spend about $3K on photo gear a year. I like to photo things at night, after dark. To do that I need copious amounts of light portable light power. We all know this is not cheap! If I had a D3 plus whatever lens only, I could NOT take the kind of photos I want. With a D80 and $4K worth of lights I can. Thus, I am better off with a cheap camera and put money into lights, which do make a difference for me. You can't take the kind of photos I do without massive lighting, but you CAN easily take them without a D3. A D3 will not improve my shots nearly as much as another $5K in lights/triggers will.

 

This is another example of what I mean by carefully analyze your photos and think about what you want your photo gear to accomplish. There are lots of people who hear I like to take night photos and immediately tell me to buy a D3 or D300. The correct answer is to spend that money on high powered portable lights and radio triggers, in this example. I know I have a very specific use here, but I do think in general people pay FAR too much attention to camera bodies and far too LITTLE attention to lighting. It is lighting that often separates a pro's photo from an amatuer's.

 

 

Kent in SD

[russ_konrad]

Kent,

 

The point is that you already have your $4K worth of lighting equipment.

 

If you switched out your D80 for a D3, you would see a definite improvement in your images. And with the excellent low light capabilites of the D3 - you could probably get rid of some of your lighting equipment and still get excellent results.

 

And for anyone who uses a camera for more general uses than you do - the overall performance under almost ALL conditions will be GREATLY improved with a D3 compared to your D80.

[elliot1]

<<Russ stated... Obviously posted by someone who has never owned the Nikon D3!>>

 

I am guessing you don't own it either, because if you did you would understand that in good light or with flash, IQ between the D40X and the D3 is virtually identical (or perhaps even identical). And yes, I briefly owned the D3 and tested it side-by-side against my D40.

 

Here is a link to crops of the test photos I did (probably 5% to 10% of the original files) comparing the 5D, D3 and D40

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=789917

 

There is an obvious advantage to the D3 when it comes to low light ability and advanced features but I don't believe the person who made the comment you commented on was referring to this.

 

Sam, unless you are shooting in low light conditions regularly or fast action sports, you really don't need another lens or camera. Invest in a good book or two dealing with advanced photography techniques and your pictures will likely improve substantially.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...I am guessing you don't own it either,..."</b>

<p>

Wrong again Elliot!

<p>

<b>"... IQ between the D40X and the D3 is virtually identical (or perhaps even identical). And yes, I briefly owned the D3 and tested it side-by-side against my D40...."</b>

<p>

And I do remember your "tests" of the various camera bodies in bright light outdoors. Pushing a camera in more challenging situtations makes a huge difference in what is possible. In our wedding business we are currently using a D200, D300, and the D3.

<p>

And my "tests" are shooting in dark churches, varying lighting conditions in many different reception areas, as well as outdoors every weekend have shown that the D3 definitely produces a much better image that requires less post processing than even the D300 and D200.

<p>

Perhaps if you used the D3 more extensively than a "brief" time, you would learn to appreciate what it is truly capable of doing.

<p>

Here is an image taken with the D3 from a recent wedding - shot in RAW - simply converted to JPEG and resized for the web:

<p>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2287/2525063566_5e4d238a5d.jpg?v=0">

<p>

We shot this wedding with a total of three photographers and the shots taken at the same time with the D200 and D300 needed more work in post processing to get the same image quality that the D3 got straight out of the camera.

[Two23]

Russ--

 

Not to hijack the thread, but if I had another $5k to spend, I would spend all of it on more high powered monolights/triggers/battery packs. My eventual goal is to light up Crawford Hill, on the BNSF/Union Pacific triple track (railroad) in western Nebraska. It's essentially a small mountain. Camera body won't help me at all. My point is, we need as much info as possible about what a person wants to do in order to give suggestions that will help.

 

 

Kent in SD

[ShunCheung]

Kent, Russ and Elliot, I am afraid that all of you are getting somewhat off topic.

 

The D3's excellent low-light capability certainly helps wedding photographers. Most of us were well aware of that when the D3 was introduced as both Nikon as well as some third parties posted a lot of samples. As part of photo.net's D3 review, I arranged to shoot a wedding with it, and the D3 indeed changes the way I would shoot a wedding because I can depend a lot more on indoor, available light.

 

However, using a D3 won't automatically improve your composition and your knowledge about photography. An average photographer can take equally mediocre images with a point and shoot camera as well as a D3.

 

In any case, Sam Rose is not asking about the D3. Again, for anybody who would like to upgrade, I would first ask what is the limitation of your current equipment.

[russ_konrad]

Shun,

 

While I agree that a person should have an idea "why" he wants to upgrade - but we are not his mother.

 

If he feels that he wants to buy something better (for whatever reason) - it should be up to him. I did post a few lens suggestions earlier in this thread that will allow him more creative freedom with an f/2.8 lens.

 

I do apologize if I got off-topic concerning the D3 - but it is truly an amazing piece of technology that has given me more opportunities to "get the shot" under difficult situations.

[peter_nelson1]

<i>My point is, we need as much info as possible about what a person wants to do in order to give suggestions that will help.

</i>

<br><br>

Agreed, but no one answered my earlier question about why this isn't <b>obvious</b> to people who post these questions.<br><br>

 

This happens SO OFTEN around here (and on other photo forums) - people ask what gear to get without saying what they want to do with it - that there must be some fundamental aspect of the psychology of these folks that I (or we) don't get. <br><br>

 

Is it the difference between serious photographers and casual snapshooters? I'm 55 and I took my first photo for pay (a publicity shot for a town politician) at 15 with a Zeiss Contaflex and I've never looked back. I'm only an amateur but a very serious one who does studio figure, fashion, dance, and still-life work and wildlife photography. I used to do PJ work years ago and I'm trying edge back into it - I've had some recent publication credits in local papers.<br><br>

 

But I don't usually do snapshots - it drives my wife nuts that I don't bring a camera to family or social gatherings, or even on vacations unless there's something on the vacation that's of special photographic interest to me, like a trip to the Everglades. So is that's what's going on here? I do photography in a very puposeful, deliberate way, so I can't imagine the idea of buying gear without some pupose in mind?

[elliot1]

Russ, I agree with pretty much everything you state, which is pretty much in agreement with what I stated. I especially agree with your comment that with post processing you can get the same IQ from your other cameras as from the D3, which is basically what I said.

 

Responding to Sam's inquiry, he will likely not benefit from a more expensive camera or more expensive lenses.