Hey everyone this is my first time posting (although I'v been reading the forums for the past 2 weeks). You guys are awesome, this is one of the few communities where everyone is high spirited and helpful (I guess thats just the way photographers are)I have gotten into wildlife photography over the past few months. It started out as a hobby but I feel its quickly turning into something more than that. I havn't taken any classes but I am teaching myself little by little (mostly through experiences, a lot of mistakes, and a lot of great pictures down the tube) I have some question I hope some poeple can answer or maybe through their past experiences can help point me in the right direction.
1) I am graduating college in a year with a degree in Biology with no photography courses under my belt. I am pretty sure I want to go to graduate school. I am either thinking of trying to get into a photography or photojournalism program or going into wildlife or conservational biology. So if I pursue a career in photography would it be worth it to go to try and get into a graduate program for it or go to school for biology and possibly pursue photography afterwords. (Maybe I should point out I don't really care about being famour or have my pictures on every magazine. As long as I am travelling and taking pictures I'll be happy)
2)I am using a Nikon D40 with the lense that came with the camera, I think its 18-55mm or something like that. I am mostly interested in Macro (I think that's the right terminology, I like insects and flowers and anything small) and also landscape. What equipment and lenses should I be investing in in the future. I am thinking of a Neutral Grade Density filter (I think thats right), maybe a lens that can go up to 400mm max and a wide angle lens (I might get all this in 10 years at the salary I am at right not).
Whoever looks at this and replies thanks in advance.
-Jason-
(sorry if there are typos and some poor sentence structure I'm writing this real fast so my boss doesn't come in and see me on the internet)
Jason, welcome to NPN. Great to have you here. It sounds like you're doing things right to this point. This is a great place to learn. Lots of tremendously experienced teachers on NPN, and they are nice people, too.
While 20 years ago I might have recommended someone pursue a post-grad degree in photography, there is so much learning available online now that it's a pretty simple matter to become an active participant in an online forum or two and learn from those who have gone before, and for a lot less money than a degree would cost. All learning is self-learning, anyway.
Will your degree in biology make it likely you'll be able to get a decent job in your field? If so, and if your love of photography is true love, you may be better off getting the job and devoting your free time and what money you can to picking up a few more lenses and really sinking your teeth into it. Graduate school is pretty intensive and will leave less time for photography.
Photography is one of those careers (you did mention the possibility of making a career out of it), that sometimes is best pursued as a sideline to a good-paying job until enough gear, experience and clients are amassed to allow you to cut the cord to your regular job with some confidence you'll be able to feed yourself.
If you want to go to grad school, I'm not trying to talk you out of it. If you pursue wildlife biology you'll have a solid grounding in the subjects you're photographing.
For folks who will be doing a lot of people photography, I generally say photojournalism and five years as a photographer at a solid mid-size daily newspaper will be a tremendously valuable experience, but for nature photographers it isn't necessarily true.
You probably will come up against the limitations of your D40 before too long. I'm a Canon guy, but some of my clients use the D40 and it doesn't work with all lenses. A Nikonian can explain this better than I can. As for lenses, I'm told the 18-55 you have is pretty good. Nikon, Tamron and Sigma all make excellent sharp macro lenses, and there are quite a few zooms out there to 400mm that are quite good. Nikon's own 80-400 VR has excellent image quality. But I'm not sure if these lenses will work on the D40, so someone else should chime in on that.
There are a variety of styles of neutral density filters, each one designed for different things. For example, a typical ND filter used by landscape photographers would be a graduated ND, with the darkest filtering in the top part of the filter to darken the sky to about the same exposure value as the land below it. But even within the graduated ND subset there are several key variations that apply to different situations.
I'd say it's wiser to stick with biology, and pursue photography as a hobby and let it grow that way. Quite simply, having a graduate degree in biology means more than a graduate degree in photojournalism.
However, it ultimately depends on what you want to do for the next 30+ years of your life. A steady income from a biology-related job will help pay off debts and allow you to acquire equipment. As your portfolio and talent grows, perhaps you'll eventually find that you can drop the biology and go full-time into photography. Realistically though, very few people manage to make a comfortable living solely from nature photography. You'd likely have to branch into the more lucrative areas like doing weddings, portraits, and those sorts of things.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about equipment, especially for macro, but there are a few basic things to get. A circular polarizer reduces glare and makes colours more vibrant, and is one of the most common/useful filters to get. Graduated Neutral Density filters are good for landscape shots (hard gradient for flat horizons like seascapes, soft gradient for uneven horizons like mountains) as they bring out more detail in the sky. Also, Photoshop is a very worthwhile program to invest in if you haven't already...
Hi Jason,
I agree with Steve. Take a look here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=30993&CGISESSID=07f119a5a9dfd1cfb7a33db9cc0721e7&u=7059
You can see that the majority of photographers here do it as a sideline or as a hobby. Good camera equipment is expensive and the field is full of great photographers. I'd expect it to be only more so in the future. Many of us went through the same dilemma as you at one time. Besides, you can get really good by being out there taking photos without all of the coursework. Get some books, learn here on NPN, but mainly get out there and use your camera.
Welcome to NPN. Get your biology graduate degree. I have a lot of friends who are career Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologists and nature (mostly wildlife) photographers, and things have worked out really well for them. While in grad school, I'd take some Photoshop classes in the use of PS in photography, and get the best computer and Adobe package you can afford while the student discounts are still available. A career in biology will likely get you nature shots you'd otherwise never see. Stick with it.
Congratulations on having come so far toward earning your degree, and on discovering photography. Your situation sounds a lot like mine many years ago. I just retired after 30+ years working as a wildlife biologist for a state conservation agency, and before that, 9 years in ecological research in the entomology department of a large university. Due to the fact that I enjoy photography, I managed to make it a small part of my work all those years, as well as a big part of my leisure time. Your degrees and passion for your “regular” job can allow you to have a rewarding career, and enjoy photography at the same time. But that is merely one path that you can follow. You could become a professional photographer, and possibly find a way to incorporate your interest in biology and nature in your job, too.
Of course, that’s just one way to approach life – combining personal interests with making a living. Others are very happy making money at something that provides great financial rewards and enough time off to enjoy family and personal interests. Some people are happy with a job at the center of their lives, but many people need leisure activities that get their minds OFF work! We each need to decide what fulfills our own needs and desires.
You are now making decisions that will determine what choices you will have in the future to make a living. You have already taken a giant step in nearly completing your degree in biology. Assuming that you personally enjoy biology, you will never regret earning that degree, no matter what you decide to do in the future. So, first things first: Concentrate on completing your degree. During the next several months you can explore more degrees and job possibilities in both fields, and look into the many different branches of both fields.
If nature and biology is your passion, there are lots of different paths to take with your education and career. One field you may want to look into is environmental education. In that field, there are more opportunities to combine photography with your knowledge and interest in biology.
What kinds of jobs are there, and what are your chances of making a living in one of those fields? Start with web searches for terms like “jobs in wildlife biology” or “jobs in environmental education” or other fields, including photography, and talk to the advisors at college about career choices. No matter what direction you choose, remember that your ability to write and communicate effectively are likely to make a huge difference in your success.
Good Luck!
Posted by Basil Greber on June 26, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Ok, you've received a lot of suggestions from the photographers on how to go about your photography. Now, I'll be the gearhead here (so I'm not necessarily a good photographer, but I've read a bit about gear... ). I'm sure that others will correct things I'm missing, or aspects that I got wrong alltogether.
Camera body: Your D40 only autofocuses with AF-S and AF-I Nikkors (the latter usually being older, huge and very expensive professional lenses, while the former now also include some budget options) as well as Sigma HSM lenses, and a couple of lenses from other manufacturers that have internal motors (Tamron has made a few). The D40 is also limited in some other areas. There are only three focus points, and as far as I know it doesn't do exposure bracketing. Should you upgrade the body right now? I don't think so, but you may want to keep in mind that you may have to do so at some later stage, particularly if you need better AF (however, for landscape and macro, it's not all that important - manual focused is used often for these). Can the D40 take great images? Sure.
Tripod: This comes even before new lenses, in my opinion. You need a good, solid tripod that you like working with, that's comfortable to use, and that doesn't get in your way. There are a lot of options. I use a Manfrotto 190 XPROB tripod with a small Manfrotto 486RC2 ball head. It's probably one of the lighter and cheaper setups around here. Many will use heavier and more expensive tripods, particularly with long telephoto lenses, since those are more sturdy. But even the setup I listed above does cost some money. But IMO, it's well invested.
Lenses: There are loads of great Nikkor lenses, and another load of great 3rd party lenses. You should have no problem getting what you want (except for money, that's always a problem). But first are foremost, you need to know what you want - otherwise, you'll be wasting money, which is something you don't want to do if budget is tight (for example, what you don't want to do is go out and buy a 17-55/2.8 AF-S DX - yes, it's great, many will recommed it, but it's not necessarily the greatest for what you want to do). I have similar interests as you do - landscape and macro. My workhorse lenses are the Tokina 12-24/4 DX (which does not AF on the D40 - the Nikon 12-24/4 DX AF-S will do so, as well as the Sigma 10-20 DC HSM) and the Nikon 105/2.8 AF-S VR Micro (which does AF on your camera). Furthermore, I have a Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR, a Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro and the Nikon 18-135 DX AF-S. The specific lenses are not that important - more important is their function.
So, what is their function? I can only give you a "crash course" here, and I can't tell you what to buy. For macros, there's a variety of lenses that's used ([n] = no AF on D40):
1) Short macro lenses: 60/2.8 AF-S, 60/2.8 AF-D [n], Sigma 50/2.8 [n] - In my opinion too short for shooting bugs, and controlling what's in the background is difficult due to their short focal length.
2) Medium macro lenses: 105/2.8 AF-S VR, 105/2.8 AF-D [n], Tokina 100/2.8 AT-X [n], Tamron 90/2.8 Di [n], Sigma 105/2.8 [n] - in my opinion a good compromise between weight and performance (and can serve double duty for portraits). I think the 105/2.8 AF-S VR is a brilliant lens. The budget king is the Tamron 90/2.8 Di.
3) Long macro lenses: 200/4 AF-D [n], Sigma 150 and 180 EX HSM - I've never shot one of those, but they're supposedly excellent. They offer large working distances (so you don't scare away bugs) and offer excellent control over what's in the background.
4) Long telephoto primes: 300/4 AF-S and 300/4 AF-D [n], Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro. They're not really macro lenses, but some excellent macro photographers use those combined with teleconverters and extension tubes (look for Ronnie Gaubert's excellent work with his 300/4 AF-S and AF-D lenses).
Landscape lenses are even more difficult to describe - simply because different people have different styles. Some shoot ultrawide "from feet to infinity", others like isolating elements with normal lenses or short telephotos.
1) Ultrawide zooms: Nikon 12-24/4 DX, Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, Tokina 12-24/4 DX [n] - they offer extremely wide fields of view, and allow for dramatic perspective.
2) Normal zooms: There's simply a huge amount of lenses. They cover the middle ground and come in all flavours - from cheap (e.g. the Nikon 18-55 DX which you have), to medium priced (e.g. the Nikon 16-85 DX VR) and very expensive (e.g. the Nikon 24-70/2.8 and 17-55/2.8 DX). They also come in superzoom variants - one lens trying to do it all, often also considered "travel lenses" (e.g. the Nikon 18-135 DX and 18-200 DX VR). The most expensive lenses here offer fast apertures and outstanding image quality - they are what event shooters and photojournalists often use. However, your budget being limited, and landscapes not needing fast shutter speeds (remember the tripod?) or shallow DoF, I'd recommend going with something cheaper. Your 18-55 DX is a good start (really, I mean it - it's surprising what this little plastic lens delivers in terms of image quality). A very good update may be the 16-85 DX VR.
3) Telephotos: Used to isolate elements in landscapes and compressed perspective. You can use zooms or primes, expensive and less expensive. I use the 70-300 AF-S VR Nikkor. Other may use completely different lenses.
So, after reading through all this, you should be able to figure out why the lenses I own (listed above) have their place in my bag, and hopefully also which lenses will find a way into your bag. This list above may be very intimidating to somebody who's just starting and only has a body with one lens. I'm not saying you should go out and buy all of them, and I'm not saying you can't take great images if you don't have all of them. What I wanted to try is to give you an idea of which categories of lenses there are that may be useful to you, and which niches you may want to fill with new lenses. Knowing which niche to fill, and what capabilities your lenses need to have, is the most important thing when shopping for gear, IMO.
What I did not mention here are long telephotos. If you want to do wildlife, you need such a lens (400 mm and above). My experience there is very limited, so I better don't say too much to avoid embarassing myself. However, you should be aware of the 80-400 VR Nikkor doesn't AF on your D40. There's a number of Sigma offerings (80-400 EX OS, 50-500 and the just released 150-500 OS and 120-400 OS) that should AF on your camera. There are also super telephoto primes (600/4, 500/4, 400/2.8) and the excellent 200-400/4 VR Nikkor - however, they'll cost you as much as a small car.
Awesome guys! I wasn't expecting so many detailed replies so fast. It is really helpful to hear everyones opinion and this has helped me put some things into perspective. Thanks Steve, Kenn, Charlie, Jim, and Wayne for the advice and information as well as Basil, and Buck for the technical help (Basil your post was a bit intimidating but it will be some useful information that I can constantly be looking back on so thanks).
Cheers and Best Regards,
Jason
PS Wayne it says your from Upstate. I'm not sure where your from around there but I'm up in Syracuse and if I do go to get my master in Biology it will probabaly be at SUNY ESF.
Good luck, Jason, and don't let the technical stuff seem too intimidating. It all comes over time. If I think of photography less as a destination and more a VERY extended road trip, I have a lot more fun with the learning moments along the way.
ESF - - THE BEST! ( ...and my Alma Mater, from way back when they called us "Stumpies" as SU. I moved away from Syracuse in 1978, and now live near Saratoga Springs.)
If you go the graduate biology route and are serious about pursuing the photography in the long run, take EVERY opportunity you can to photograph while still making good progress towards your degree.
If a professor is leading an undergrad reptile trip, try to get yourself on the bus there. If someone is doing microscope work, learn how to do that and offer to trade your services for image rights (other than what the prof needs for his work). If there is a specialized collection of (anything), photograph that. See who is doing fieldwork and try to get yourself there. Don't forget model releases while you are at it. When you do eventually get out, you'll have a lot more in your portfolio than a lot of other people starting out.
Grad school allows you a bit more time flexibility than a day job, you'll hopefully see other things than your primary interest and the contacts you'll make will pay off 5-10 years down the road.
Best of luck to you Jason and hope to see you around NPN as you develop your photography skills. Besides I wanna see all the photos from field studies if you take up Dan's advice.
Get your biology degree. This will open doors for your career which will place you in areas you would like to photograph...and they pay you to be there! And continue to think about the graduate degree. This may get you involved with endangered things you would like to photograph...and as before, you get paid while doing it. And if you really learn to be a fantastic photographer, you will have images that not many people have...which will translate into sales of the photographs.
And having your degree and especially your masters in biology, you will find opportunities to get into places that the general public (us) will never get into. This will put you in the driver's seat for getting those seldom taken photos.
If you LOVE biology and you LOVE photography, then do both - not one or the other. Already explained why to get the degrees. And if you can afford the masters and actually GET it, all the better. Or you can learn photography and hope you "have the eye for light" that is hard to simply "learn" by taking classes. Then, specialize in biology photography. Make it all you do. Develop a major portfolio or stock of all biology. You will then be known as a "go to" photographer for biology images. It would be better if you were also already known for being a working biologist in your field.
Moose Peterson focused (sorry) on endangered species and became famous for it. He learned all about the biology of what he was going after. This made it easier for him to know "when and where" to find his targets. Finally, he became famous enough to turn pure Pro and then Nikon helps him out. He also now helps other people out by holding classes. You might want to go on one of his outings.
As for equipment: Buy as much "pro" or semi-pro equipment as you can as soon as you can that relates to the kind of biology you want to shoot. If you spend the big bucks, you might find that you will use it more to get back some of that investment. This can be monetary or by gaining skills and experience. If two people go somewhere and want to get behind the scenes for some private shooting and one has pro equipment and one doesn't, who do you think they just might let in? And if you have the right "pro" equipment for the job, you might find you can capture images that non-pro-gear will not get (at least not in the quality that would get you recurring sales). Yes, folks get great shots with their D40's. But there actually IS a reason that the makers of the equipment make "pro" and semi-pro models - the D40 is neither.
Hope this belated entry is useful to you. I kick myself every day for not getting into photography as young as you are having the opportunity!!
Troup Nightingale
Posted by Basil Greber on June 27, 2008 at 5:23 PM
With all the enthusiasm for photography, I feel obliged to jump in once again. I've just recently received my MSc in molecular biology. After having spent 9 months doing basic research in a rather good research lab, I feel that you should also give science a chance if you're really interested. I love photography, and I love spending my time taking photographs. But - science can be a fantastic experience, too (and yes, I'll be back in the lab soon). However, it is my feeling that you need to jump in with full effort (science is no 9am to 5pm job, and yes, I know that photography isn't either), and it'll be hard to pursue a real photographic career at the same time (however, counterexamples seem to exist - see Bjorn Rorslett's curriculum vitae).
This may receive some disagreement here (and it's obvious that I might not be very well informed about professional photographic careers) - but I think that you can still start your photographic career at the age of 30. You can't start a scientific career at that time (or you'll have a really hard time at least) - you'll want to have a PhD at that time, or even be some time into your post doc work. So my impression (correct me if I'm wrong, pro photographers!) is that delaying your photographic career until you're 25 won't harm it all that much. Not getting a scientific degree will most likely kill your career in science very soon, however.
Discussion
16 replies1) I am graduating college in a year with a degree in Biology with no photography courses under my belt. I am pretty sure I want to go to graduate school. I am either thinking of trying to get into a photography or photojournalism program or going into wildlife or conservational biology. So if I pursue a career in photography would it be worth it to go to try and get into a graduate program for it or go to school for biology and possibly pursue photography afterwords. (Maybe I should point out I don't really care about being famour or have my pictures on every magazine. As long as I am travelling and taking pictures I'll be happy)
2)I am using a Nikon D40 with the lense that came with the camera, I think its 18-55mm or something like that. I am mostly interested in Macro (I think that's the right terminology, I like insects and flowers and anything small) and also landscape. What equipment and lenses should I be investing in in the future. I am thinking of a Neutral Grade Density filter (I think thats right), maybe a lens that can go up to 400mm max and a wide angle lens (I might get all this in 10 years at the salary I am at right not).
Whoever looks at this and replies thanks in advance.
-Jason-
(sorry if there are typos and some poor sentence structure I'm writing this real fast so my boss doesn't come in and see me on the internet)
While 20 years ago I might have recommended someone pursue a post-grad degree in photography, there is so much learning available online now that it's a pretty simple matter to become an active participant in an online forum or two and learn from those who have gone before, and for a lot less money than a degree would cost. All learning is self-learning, anyway.
Will your degree in biology make it likely you'll be able to get a decent job in your field? If so, and if your love of photography is true love, you may be better off getting the job and devoting your free time and what money you can to picking up a few more lenses and really sinking your teeth into it. Graduate school is pretty intensive and will leave less time for photography.
Photography is one of those careers (you did mention the possibility of making a career out of it), that sometimes is best pursued as a sideline to a good-paying job until enough gear, experience and clients are amassed to allow you to cut the cord to your regular job with some confidence you'll be able to feed yourself.
If you want to go to grad school, I'm not trying to talk you out of it. If you pursue wildlife biology you'll have a solid grounding in the subjects you're photographing.
For folks who will be doing a lot of people photography, I generally say photojournalism and five years as a photographer at a solid mid-size daily newspaper will be a tremendously valuable experience, but for nature photographers it isn't necessarily true.
You probably will come up against the limitations of your D40 before too long. I'm a Canon guy, but some of my clients use the D40 and it doesn't work with all lenses. A Nikonian can explain this better than I can. As for lenses, I'm told the 18-55 you have is pretty good. Nikon, Tamron and Sigma all make excellent sharp macro lenses, and there are quite a few zooms out there to 400mm that are quite good. Nikon's own 80-400 VR has excellent image quality. But I'm not sure if these lenses will work on the D40, so someone else should chime in on that.
There are a variety of styles of neutral density filters, each one designed for different things. For example, a typical ND filter used by landscape photographers would be a graduated ND, with the darkest filtering in the top part of the filter to darken the sky to about the same exposure value as the land below it. But even within the graduated ND subset there are several key variations that apply to different situations.
Lots to learn, always! And it's fun learning.
However, it ultimately depends on what you want to do for the next 30+ years of your life. A steady income from a biology-related job will help pay off debts and allow you to acquire equipment. As your portfolio and talent grows, perhaps you'll eventually find that you can drop the biology and go full-time into photography. Realistically though, very few people manage to make a comfortable living solely from nature photography. You'd likely have to branch into the more lucrative areas like doing weddings, portraits, and those sorts of things.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about equipment, especially for macro, but there are a few basic things to get. A circular polarizer reduces glare and makes colours more vibrant, and is one of the most common/useful filters to get. Graduated Neutral Density filters are good for landscape shots (hard gradient for flat horizons like seascapes, soft gradient for uneven horizons like mountains) as they bring out more detail in the sky. Also, Photoshop is a very worthwhile program to invest in if you haven't already...
I agree with Steve. Take a look here:
http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=30993&CGISESSID=07f119a5a9dfd1cfb7a33db9cc0721e7&u=7059
You can see that the majority of photographers here do it as a sideline or as a hobby. Good camera equipment is expensive and the field is full of great photographers. I'd expect it to be only more so in the future. Many of us went through the same dilemma as you at one time. Besides, you can get really good by being out there taking photos without all of the coursework. Get some books, learn here on NPN, but mainly get out there and use your camera.
Welcome to NPN. Get your biology graduate degree. I have a lot of friends who are career Alaska Department of Fish & Game biologists and nature (mostly wildlife) photographers, and things have worked out really well for them. While in grad school, I'd take some Photoshop classes in the use of PS in photography, and get the best computer and Adobe package you can afford while the student discounts are still available. A career in biology will likely get you nature shots you'd otherwise never see. Stick with it.
Congratulations on having come so far toward earning your degree, and on discovering photography. Your situation sounds a lot like mine many years ago. I just retired after 30+ years working as a wildlife biologist for a state conservation agency, and before that, 9 years in ecological research in the entomology department of a large university. Due to the fact that I enjoy photography, I managed to make it a small part of my work all those years, as well as a big part of my leisure time. Your degrees and passion for your “regular” job can allow you to have a rewarding career, and enjoy photography at the same time. But that is merely one path that you can follow. You could become a professional photographer, and possibly find a way to incorporate your interest in biology and nature in your job, too.
Of course, that’s just one way to approach life – combining personal interests with making a living. Others are very happy making money at something that provides great financial rewards and enough time off to enjoy family and personal interests. Some people are happy with a job at the center of their lives, but many people need leisure activities that get their minds OFF work! We each need to decide what fulfills our own needs and desires.
You are now making decisions that will determine what choices you will have in the future to make a living. You have already taken a giant step in nearly completing your degree in biology. Assuming that you personally enjoy biology, you will never regret earning that degree, no matter what you decide to do in the future. So, first things first: Concentrate on completing your degree. During the next several months you can explore more degrees and job possibilities in both fields, and look into the many different branches of both fields.
If nature and biology is your passion, there are lots of different paths to take with your education and career. One field you may want to look into is environmental education. In that field, there are more opportunities to combine photography with your knowledge and interest in biology.
What kinds of jobs are there, and what are your chances of making a living in one of those fields? Start with web searches for terms like “jobs in wildlife biology” or “jobs in environmental education” or other fields, including photography, and talk to the advisors at college about career choices. No matter what direction you choose, remember that your ability to write and communicate effectively are likely to make a huge difference in your success.
Good Luck!
Camera body: Your D40 only autofocuses with AF-S and AF-I Nikkors (the latter usually being older, huge and very expensive professional lenses, while the former now also include some budget options) as well as Sigma HSM lenses, and a couple of lenses from other manufacturers that have internal motors (Tamron has made a few). The D40 is also limited in some other areas. There are only three focus points, and as far as I know it doesn't do exposure bracketing. Should you upgrade the body right now? I don't think so, but you may want to keep in mind that you may have to do so at some later stage, particularly if you need better AF (however, for landscape and macro, it's not all that important - manual focused is used often for these). Can the D40 take great images? Sure.
Tripod: This comes even before new lenses, in my opinion. You need a good, solid tripod that you like working with, that's comfortable to use, and that doesn't get in your way. There are a lot of options. I use a Manfrotto 190 XPROB tripod with a small Manfrotto 486RC2 ball head. It's probably one of the lighter and cheaper setups around here. Many will use heavier and more expensive tripods, particularly with long telephoto lenses, since those are more sturdy. But even the setup I listed above does cost some money. But IMO, it's well invested.
Lenses: There are loads of great Nikkor lenses, and another load of great 3rd party lenses. You should have no problem getting what you want (except for money, that's always a problem). But first are foremost, you need to know what you want - otherwise, you'll be wasting money, which is something you don't want to do if budget is tight (for example, what you don't want to do is go out and buy a 17-55/2.8 AF-S DX - yes, it's great, many will recommed it, but it's not necessarily the greatest for what you want to do). I have similar interests as you do - landscape and macro. My workhorse lenses are the Tokina 12-24/4 DX (which does not AF on the D40 - the Nikon 12-24/4 DX AF-S will do so, as well as the Sigma 10-20 DC HSM) and the Nikon 105/2.8 AF-S VR Micro (which does AF on your camera). Furthermore, I have a Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR, a Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro and the Nikon 18-135 DX AF-S. The specific lenses are not that important - more important is their function.
So, what is their function? I can only give you a "crash course" here, and I can't tell you what to buy. For macros, there's a variety of lenses that's used ([n] = no AF on D40):
1) Short macro lenses: 60/2.8 AF-S, 60/2.8 AF-D [n], Sigma 50/2.8 [n] - In my opinion too short for shooting bugs, and controlling what's in the background is difficult due to their short focal length.
2) Medium macro lenses: 105/2.8 AF-S VR, 105/2.8 AF-D [n], Tokina 100/2.8 AT-X [n], Tamron 90/2.8 Di [n], Sigma 105/2.8 [n] - in my opinion a good compromise between weight and performance (and can serve double duty for portraits). I think the 105/2.8 AF-S VR is a brilliant lens. The budget king is the Tamron 90/2.8 Di.
3) Long macro lenses: 200/4 AF-D [n], Sigma 150 and 180 EX HSM - I've never shot one of those, but they're supposedly excellent. They offer large working distances (so you don't scare away bugs) and offer excellent control over what's in the background.
4) Long telephoto primes: 300/4 AF-S and 300/4 AF-D [n], Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro. They're not really macro lenses, but some excellent macro photographers use those combined with teleconverters and extension tubes (look for Ronnie Gaubert's excellent work with his 300/4 AF-S and AF-D lenses).
Landscape lenses are even more difficult to describe - simply because different people have different styles. Some shoot ultrawide "from feet to infinity", others like isolating elements with normal lenses or short telephotos.
1) Ultrawide zooms: Nikon 12-24/4 DX, Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, Tokina 12-24/4 DX [n] - they offer extremely wide fields of view, and allow for dramatic perspective.
2) Normal zooms: There's simply a huge amount of lenses. They cover the middle ground and come in all flavours - from cheap (e.g. the Nikon 18-55 DX which you have), to medium priced (e.g. the Nikon 16-85 DX VR) and very expensive (e.g. the Nikon 24-70/2.8 and 17-55/2.8 DX). They also come in superzoom variants - one lens trying to do it all, often also considered "travel lenses" (e.g. the Nikon 18-135 DX and 18-200 DX VR). The most expensive lenses here offer fast apertures and outstanding image quality - they are what event shooters and photojournalists often use. However, your budget being limited, and landscapes not needing fast shutter speeds (remember the tripod?) or shallow DoF, I'd recommend going with something cheaper. Your 18-55 DX is a good start (really, I mean it - it's surprising what this little plastic lens delivers in terms of image quality). A very good update may be the 16-85 DX VR.
3) Telephotos: Used to isolate elements in landscapes and compressed perspective. You can use zooms or primes, expensive and less expensive. I use the 70-300 AF-S VR Nikkor. Other may use completely different lenses.
So, after reading through all this, you should be able to figure out why the lenses I own (listed above) have their place in my bag, and hopefully also which lenses will find a way into your bag. This list above may be very intimidating to somebody who's just starting and only has a body with one lens. I'm not saying you should go out and buy all of them, and I'm not saying you can't take great images if you don't have all of them. What I wanted to try is to give you an idea of which categories of lenses there are that may be useful to you, and which niches you may want to fill with new lenses. Knowing which niche to fill, and what capabilities your lenses need to have, is the most important thing when shopping for gear, IMO.
What I did not mention here are long telephotos. If you want to do wildlife, you need such a lens (400 mm and above). My experience there is very limited, so I better don't say too much to avoid embarassing myself. However, you should be aware of the 80-400 VR Nikkor doesn't AF on your D40. There's a number of Sigma offerings (80-400 EX OS, 50-500 and the just released 150-500 OS and 120-400 OS) that should AF on your camera. There are also super telephoto primes (600/4, 500/4, 400/2.8) and the excellent 200-400/4 VR Nikkor - however, they'll cost you as much as a small car.
Best regards, and good luck!
Basil
With regard to your query about the filter, it's a graduated neutral density filter, GND, and generally used for landscape photography.
Cheers and Best Regards,
Jason
PS Wayne it says your from Upstate. I'm not sure where your from around there but I'm up in Syracuse and if I do go to get my master in Biology it will probabaly be at SUNY ESF.
ESF - - THE BEST! ( ...and my Alma Mater, from way back when they called us "Stumpies" as SU. I moved away from Syracuse in 1978, and now live near Saratoga Springs.)
Best Wishes, whatever path you choose!
Wayne Jones ( ESF, Class of '69)
If a professor is leading an undergrad reptile trip, try to get yourself on the bus there. If someone is doing microscope work, learn how to do that and offer to trade your services for image rights (other than what the prof needs for his work). If there is a specialized collection of (anything), photograph that. See who is doing fieldwork and try to get yourself there. Don't forget model releases while you are at it. When you do eventually get out, you'll have a lot more in your portfolio than a lot of other people starting out.
Grad school allows you a bit more time flexibility than a day job, you'll hopefully see other things than your primary interest and the contacts you'll make will pay off 5-10 years down the road.
Best of luck to you Jason and hope to see you around NPN as you develop your photography skills. Besides I wanna see all the photos from field studies if you take up Dan's advice.
Get your biology degree. This will open doors for your career which will place you in areas you would like to photograph...and they pay you to be there! And continue to think about the graduate degree. This may get you involved with endangered things you would like to photograph...and as before, you get paid while doing it. And if you really learn to be a fantastic photographer, you will have images that not many people have...which will translate into sales of the photographs.
And having your degree and especially your masters in biology, you will find opportunities to get into places that the general public (us) will never get into. This will put you in the driver's seat for getting those seldom taken photos.
If you LOVE biology and you LOVE photography, then do both - not one or the other. Already explained why to get the degrees. And if you can afford the masters and actually GET it, all the better. Or you can learn photography and hope you "have the eye for light" that is hard to simply "learn" by taking classes. Then, specialize in biology photography. Make it all you do. Develop a major portfolio or stock of all biology. You will then be known as a "go to" photographer for biology images. It would be better if you were also already known for being a working biologist in your field.
Moose Peterson focused (sorry) on endangered species and became famous for it. He learned all about the biology of what he was going after. This made it easier for him to know "when and where" to find his targets. Finally, he became famous enough to turn pure Pro and then Nikon helps him out. He also now helps other people out by holding classes. You might want to go on one of his outings.
As for equipment: Buy as much "pro" or semi-pro equipment as you can as soon as you can that relates to the kind of biology you want to shoot. If you spend the big bucks, you might find that you will use it more to get back some of that investment. This can be monetary or by gaining skills and experience. If two people go somewhere and want to get behind the scenes for some private shooting and one has pro equipment and one doesn't, who do you think they just might let in? And if you have the right "pro" equipment for the job, you might find you can capture images that non-pro-gear will not get (at least not in the quality that would get you recurring sales). Yes, folks get great shots with their D40's. But there actually IS a reason that the makers of the equipment make "pro" and semi-pro models - the D40 is neither.
Hope this belated entry is useful to you. I kick myself every day for not getting into photography as young as you are having the opportunity!!
Troup Nightingale
This may receive some disagreement here (and it's obvious that I might not be very well informed about professional photographic careers) - but I think that you can still start your photographic career at the age of 30. You can't start a scientific career at that time (or you'll have a really hard time at least) - you'll want to have a PhD at that time, or even be some time into your post doc work. So my impression (correct me if I'm wrong, pro photographers!) is that delaying your photographic career until you're 25 won't harm it all that much. Not getting a scientific degree will most likely kill your career in science very soon, however.
Just some thoughts...
Basil