Camera Help

[Utah]

Hey guys, I need a little bit of Camera help. My dad is getting ready to buy a new camera. Up until this point he has always used point and shoot cameras. But with this new one, he will primarily be shooting wildlife shots (i.e. Deer, Turkey, Bear, etc...). He lives in TN not far from Cades Cove in the National Park, and anyone who has ever been there knows how close you can get to the animals there, but regardless, he is still going to need a decent zoom lense. As it stands now, he is looking at the Nikon D40. He found this deal through Wolf Camera. It appears to be a good deal based on other websites, but I can't help but think that there has gotta be a better deal through some exclusive Photo Website that I'm not familar with... So my questions are:

* Is the D40 with only 6.1 MP a good enough body to allow him take wildlife shots that he could blow up to 10"x12" or a similar size while still being clear crisp shots? Or would it be necessary to go up to a D90 or something? Obviously a D90 would be better, but will the D40 accomplish this?

* What size zoom lense should he be looking for?

* Is this a good deal: http://www.wolfcamera.com/product/SL...igital-cameras

Thanks all

[Seanaldinho10]

I have a D40 and ive printed out 8.5x11 pictures that look very nice.
but the d40 only has 3 auto focus points, and only has 2.5-3 FPS so if he wants to shoot like birds flying or deer running it may not be the best choice.
As for a lens id get at least the 70-300 or maybe the 80-400 if he has the money. THe only problem with the 80-400 is it does not have an af motor so it wont af on the d40 or the d90. It will still meter, but not af
edit- i think the 80-400 will not af I cant remember if the d90 has a screw drive or not. It will defenately not work on the d40

he may want to look into super-tele primes aka 400mm fixed, 500mm fixed etc, but those are really expensive

[Sandskimmernewbie]

D40 will work nicely with a 70-300mm VR. You will be able to make prints up to 11x14 easily. That 55-200mm will not be long enough.

If you want a body that will autofocus with lenses that don't have motors, a used D50 will save you a considerable amount of money and will do exactly the same thing. If I were in your situation, I'd get a D50, 70-300mm VR, and 18-70mm AF-S. Those lenses are significantly better than the "kit" lenses such as the 18-55 or 70-300mm VR. It is possible to keep that all under a thousand as well.

Canon might have some better offerings, but I know nothing about Canon.

[DT]

You should be able to get 8x12" easily out of a 6.1MP camera. I've seen larger with little-to-no post proc work, though it's dependent on the original PQ. You can even go pretty huge with a good raw source and some decent photoshop tweaks. I printed some 11x17" from our D40 through Shutterfly and they were pretty outstanding, and even with close inspection still very sharp, and certainly at a short "regular" viewing distance, plenty perfect.

I'd shop at:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

http://www.adorama.com/

Adorama has a good print service (and you get a ton for free if you purchase equipment)

Beware good deals that deviate beyond 15-20%, there's a ton of sketchy outfits online.

The D40 is a great camera because it's fairly cheap, has excellent PQ, it's pretty compact for a DSLR, and has a decent amount of manual control. However, like Newbie said, the AF is only 3-point, and the D40/D40X/D60 don't have internal drive motors so they require lenses with built in AF motors - this does limit you to newer lenses (and there are some excellent older lenses you can score used). That being said, if you're starting from scratch, i don't think it's that big of a deal. The D80/D90 chassis has internal AF drive. The D90 also has some slick new features like DOF preview.

re: vs. Canon. I used to shoot with Nikon film cameras years ago and just sort of chose them because the D40 was such a great intro level camera, the kit lenses are pretty decent and the comparable Canon (at the time) were using CF based memory vs. SD and I'm partial to SD because we have a ton of them and it's what everything uses (from this PC to our PS3), though I think their newer gear finally switched over. As far as brand, I think it's more random personal preference to be honest.

[keilsoX]

Hey guys, I need a little bit of Camera help. My dad is getting ready to buy a new camera. Up until this point he has always used point and shoot cameras. But with this new one, he will primarily be shooting wildlife shots (i.e. Deer, Turkey, Bear, etc...). He lives in TN not far from Cades Cove in the National Park, and anyone who has ever been there knows how close you can get to the animals there, but regardless, he is still going to need a decent zoom lense. As it stands now, he is looking at the Nikon D40. He found this deal through Wolf Camera. It appears to be a good deal based on other websites, but I can't help but think that there has gotta be a better deal through some exclusive Photo Website that I'm not familar with... So my questions are:

* Is the D40 with only 6.1 MP a good enough body to allow him take wildlife shots that he could blow up to 10"x12" or a similar size while still being clear crisp shots? Or would it be necessary to go up to a D90 or something? Obviously a D90 would be better, but will the D40 accomplish this?

* What size zoom lense should he be looking for?

* Is this a good deal: http://www.wolfcamera.com/product/SLR1172.htm?bct=t13031003%3Bcidigital-cameras-and-accessories%3Bcislr-digital-cameras

Thanks all

Nikon d90 the way, you cant go wrong. they work perfectly.
on the d40 your going to have slower lenses. It all depends on were you are in photography, and how much your into it and going to use it... Since it sounds like your dads serious about this wildlife photography id choose the d90. more MP=better quality of course. Also d90 hell be able to snap shots rapidly, which willl allow him to have better pictures cause he can quickly change angles.
ive also notice d90 has better color and white balance than then the 40. You willl have to ajust alot on the 40 than the 90. Its worth your dads money for the D90. The pictures will come out amazing.


dont get me wrong D40 is nice but if you really want to get it good D90 is where its at if the price is in your range.

[Sandskimmernewbie]

Nikon d90 the way, you cant go wrong. they work perfectly.
on the d40 your going to have slower lenses. It all depends on were you are in photography, and how much your into it and going to use it... Since it sounds like your dads serious about this wildlife photography id choose the d90. more MP=better quality of course. Also d90 hell be able to snap shots rapidly, which willl allow him to have better pictures cause he can quickly change angles.
ive also notice d90 has better color and white balance than then the 40. You willl have to ajust alot on the 40 than the 90. Its worth your dads money for the D90. The pictures will come out amazing.


dont get me wrong D40 is nice but if you really want to get it good D90 is where its at if the price is in your range.

I bolded every point that was wrong.

[keilsoX]

I bolded every point that was wrong.

LOL, too bad its all facts ive had experience with both. D90 is better, they are very similar, yet different.

[DT]

I was confused by the "having slower lenses on the D40". Obviously the body doesn't affect this, unless the implication is the range of AF-S based lenses (for D40/60 auto focus) are more limited (assuming you're not going to MF), which is possible I suppose.

Speaking of, Nikon has a nice new[er] prime, fast, cheap full AF on all D bodies. It's a 35mm f/1.8G (AF-S) runs about $199 retail I believe.

[keilsoX]

I was confused by the "having slower lenses on the D40". Obviously the body doesn't affect this, unless the implication is the range of AF-S based lenses (for D40/60 auto focus) are more limited (assuming you're not going to MF), which is possible I suppose.

Speaking of, Nikon has a nice new[er] prime, fast, cheap full AF on all D bodies. It's a 35mm f/1.8G (AF-S) runs about $199 retail I believe.

what i ment was with faster lens on the d 90 will let you use quicker shutter speed at any given ISO setting, ISO 800 is always ISO 800, that doesnt change.

well with the nikon d 40 your going to have to buy lens that will zoom to 200mm or 300m which is a couple hundred added on.
D90 is better than the D40 in high ISO settings.
the low light difference between the 2 iin pictures is a stunning change
with the d40 your going to need good lighting for a perfected picture, but you have to know what your doing.
you get what you pay for. D90 has way better technology then the 40. D90 uses way different class of equipment, And the 90 has very nice video mode.
If your going to settle for less than the 90 atleast make it a D60
the d60 is almost like the d40X, but better it has way more accessories dealing with the camera and its shots


you dad seems serious about this so once again go with the d90 its worth your money

[DT]

I think you're mental.

[Yoshi]

Canon 5d Mk2 and a 400mm L series lens

with a bushhawk gunstock
http://www.bushhawk.com/Home.htm

thats for afar though

[Sandskimmernewbie]

LOL, too bad its all facts ive had experience with both. D90 is better, they are very similar, yet different.

on the d40 your going to have slower lenses.

Every lens ever made by Nikon, with a few exceptions, will work on the newer digital bodies. Feel free to bring in the manual focus point, but there are still multiple fast AF-S primes. The new 35/2 and 50/1.4 are both AF-S. Either of which will be more than adequate for most work you need primes for.

more MP=better quality of course.

This is the main selling point of digital cameras. More MP = better quality. Most people believe this to be the case, which is why point and shoots are 10+ MP now. It's the opposite, in fact. Although you technically have more detail, there is a point in which you can't possibly fit any more pixels in a given area. Because point and shoot sensors are as small as they are, more noise in introduced as more megapixels are added. 6 is more than enough for most of what he is asking. 10 is a slight upgrade. From 10 to 12 is almost negligible.

Also d90 hell be able to snap shots rapidly, which willl allow him to have better pictures cause he can quickly change angles.

I don't even know what you're saying. The D40 has 2.5 FPS. You can change your position in less than a half of a second?

ive also notice d90 has better color and white balance than then the 40. You willl have to ajust alot on the 40 than the 90.

These kind of blend together. The main point is that the D40 has enough in-camera processing power to match both color and white balance of the two cameras with a few minutes of time when you first get the camera.


My overall point: I don't see the point of a D90 in UItah's Dad's case unless he is interested in video. Many of the features offered in the D90 are not important enough to be brought into the decision. The money saved is much better invested in good lenses which will always have more impact on image quality then megapixels ever could.

[keilsoX]

Every lens ever made by Nikon, with a few exceptions, will work on the newer digital bodies. Feel free to bring in the manual focus point, but there are still multiple fast AF-S primes. The new 35/2 and 50/1.4 are both AF-S. Either of which will be more than adequate for most work you need primes for.



This is the main selling point of digital cameras. More MP = better quality. Most people believe this to be the case, which is why point and shoots are 10+ MP now. It's the opposite, in fact. Although you technically have more detail, there is a point in which you can't possibly fit any more pixels in a given area. Because point and shoot sensors are as small as they are, more noise in introduced as more megapixels are added. 6 is more than enough for most of what he is asking. 10 is a slight upgrade. From 10 to 12 is almost negligible.



I don't even know what you're saying. The D40 has 2.5 FPS. You can change your position in less than a half of a second?



These kind of blend together. The main point is that the D40 has enough in-camera processing power to match both color and white balance of the two cameras with a few minutes of time when you first get the camera.


My overall point: I don't see the point of a D90 in UItah's Dad's case unless he is interested in video. Many of the features offered in the D90 are not important enough to be brought into the decision. The money saved is much better invested in good lenses which will always have more impact on image quality then megapixels ever could.

why not just buy a d60 then?
its in between the both of them.
Im not gonna sit here n argue, im just saying i have a d90 it works great, i haven't had one disappointment.
That's all.
Get the sand out of your vagine. jesus

[Sandskimmernewbie]

why not just buy a d60 then?
its in between the both of them.
Im not gonna sit here n argue, im just saying i have a d90 it works great, i haven't had one disappointment.
That's all.
Get the sand out of your vagine. jesus

I'm not trying to shut down the option of a D90/D60/D40, rather, why not leave it up to Utah? I'm just disqualifying your points because they aren't doing anything but helping you justify your purchase.

[keilsoX]

I'm not trying to shut down the option of a D90/D60/D40, rather, why not leave it up to Utah? I'm just disqualifying your points because they aren't doing anything but helping you justify your purchase.

im just giving advice from experience comparing the 2.
My bad if it came out as something else. oh well......

[Utah]

Thanks for all the feedback guys!! I'm sure my dad will appreciate it. One question unanswered though, if after I share all this with my dad, if he still chooses to go forward with the D40, is the deal in that link a good deal?

[keilsoX]

Thanks for all the feedback guys!! I'm sure my dad will appreciate it. One question unanswered though, if after I share all this with my dad, if he still chooses to go forward with the D40, is the deal in that link a good deal?

yep, check around.
internet isn't always the key.
i know that best buy will do a credit thing, where you pay monthly. I do not know if they charge interest. But defiantly check it out.
I wouldnt buy off the internet unless its a really known site, because some can scam, or charge hidden fees.
Plus always look for the return policy & the warranty.
I believe at best buy you may be able to insure it? not sure though.

[Yoshi]

lol nikon

[beachbum]

Being a wildlife major I am getting into shooting a lot more photography.

I have a D40 with the 18-55 and the 55-200. The 18-55 is worthless for wildlife shooting...and im very limited with my 55-200. I have to do a lot of cropping with pictures of deer, birds...but the camera is a big step up from my point and shoot and I feel its not holding me back at this point. Im still learning new stuff about the camera.

Definately get a 70-300 VR. Thats going to be my next lens and I know it still wont be able to handle some of the shots I want to take. And make sure it is a VR lens. your dad probably wont be using a tripod and the vibration reduction is a big help.

[DT]

* Is this a good deal: http://www.wolfcamera.com/product/SL...igital-cameras

Thanks all

is the deal in that link a good deal?

I don't know if anyone ever answered about that specific deal, but just cross shop B&H and Adorama (both are legit and highly regarded in the camera scene), and see who has the best deal.

The thing is you're not going to see more than like a 10-15% variant, but sometimes you can score free shipping or like a freebie bag or filters, etc. I'd say not to buy one of those uber-packages because much of the "value" is for a bunch of random crap you'll never use.

I saw Adorama/B&H had D40 kits with the 18-55 VR and the 55-300VR, body, SD card (maybe something other little accessories) for ~$950.

[wardovision]

This is the main selling point of digital cameras. More MP = better quality. Most people believe this to be the case, which is why point and shoots are 10+ MP now. It's the opposite, in fact. Although you technically have more detail, there is a point in which you can't possibly fit any more pixels in a given area. Because point and shoot sensors are as small as they are, more noise in introduced as more megapixels are added. 6 is more than enough for most of what he is asking. 10 is a slight upgrade. From 10 to 12 is almost negligible.

A 6MP to 10MP jump is more than a slight upgrade in resolution, heck I noticed a huge improvement just going from 6MP to 8MP. It's true that's there is a point where more MP means lower image quality but 10MP isn't quite at that point. It's generally accepted that 12MP on a APS-C sensor is hitting the wall.

Another major plus of more resolution for shooting wildlife is the ability top crop and still produce a usable image. Sometimes even a 400mm lens isn't enough to get a good shot.