Nikon D3000?

[manutdc]

Hey all,

Asking for some expert photographer advice here: is the move from a Canon Powershot G9 to a Nikon D3000 worth it? My parents gave me $500 to spend as a graduation present after I finished undergrad in May, and I'm considering getting the D3000 because of 20% Cashback at both Walmart and eBay. How big a difference am I going to see if I go to the D3000? I'd stick with the kit lens for a while (no extra cash I'm willing to spend for new lenses yet).

If I get the D3000, I'll keep the G9 around for times when I need a point-and-shoot.

Thoughts? Thanks in advance!

 

[jpeyton]

Get a used Nikon D40 kit for ~$300 and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens for ~$200.

The D3000 is a good camera, but it's all about the lenses, and the 35mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens.

 

[shocksyde]

Get a used Nikon D40 kit for ~$300 and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens for ~$200.

The D3000 is a good camera, but it's all about the lenses, and the 35mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens.

troof.

 

[manutdc]

Hm, alright, I'll look for a used D40 if I can. Thanks for the advice!

 

[extra]

the 35mm f/1.8 is a great lens however I'd recommend against getting the D40 as it's an old product that is in many ways highly crippled. It would still serve you well but imho getting the 3000 would be worth it. I'd actually try to save for the 5000 if possible simply because of the far superior sensor, but that's in another price bracket. Here's why: the D40 only has 3 af points, and I'm not sure if any of them are even cross points. The D3000 has a much more modern AF system. The D3000 has a faster continuous shooting speed (though not by much). The D3000 captures quite a bit more detail. The D40 doesn't have auto exposure bracketing which is highly useful (especially if you ever want to try to make HDR photos). Also the D40 doesn't have live view. Live view is extremely useful. Live view is like having a ground glass on an old 4x5 camera. If you ever want to do macro photography you'll be glad you have it.

Now, that said you would likely be happy with the D40, it's a fine camera and is simple to use and has decent IQ. However I'd really recommend getting the more modern body.

Remember to keep an eye out for bing cash back to get yourself a deal.

Edit: one more thing, you may want to check out the pentax K-x. It looks pretty damn appealing for that price bracket. (I think you can get them for around $550).

 

[manutdc]

That's actually why I was leaning towards the D3000 - I think it'd last me longer (I can always save up and buy more lenses later in the future). I'll take a look at the Pentax K-x.

 

[extra]

That's actually why I was leaning towards the D3000 - I think it'd last me longer (I can always save up and buy more lenses later in the future). I'll take a look at the Pentax K-x.

Yeah, although to be fair the opposite is also true in that lenses hold their value, you can always get a new body. In general I would agree with the arguement of spend the money on the lenses however the D40 is lacking many of the really really useful things that D3000 has, which imho makes it definitely worth getting the 3000. Live view especially is *VERY VERY* useful. You may run across people who say live view is useless and it's just for point and shoot newbies (implying that people who use it are somehow inferior) and that when they shot film they never had a need for anything like that, etc. When I meet those people I ask them: "wow, cool, you shot film eh? Did you ever shoot large format film? Tell me, how did you ensure that focus was perfect when you were doing that? Oh, really? That's cool. Hey you know, wouldn't it be great if you could have something like that for digital. Oh wait, it's called live view". Then they shut up. Anyway, I'm getting off on random tangents tonight!

One more thing I would highly recommend: Go here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM and compare image quality samples between the stuff you are interested in. Remember that sometimes image quality is subjective. You may love the Nikon colors and hate Pentax or Canon colors, etc--though that can obviously be tweaked especially if you shoot raw.

 

[manutdc]

I actually don't think the D3000 has live view, at least so say all the reviews I've seen...

 

[twistedlogic]

Get a used Nikon D40 kit for ~$300 and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens for ~$200.

+1

The D3k has the same 10mp sensor as the D80 and the D200, which are known to be noisier than the refined 6mp sensor of the D40.

By the time you learn to use the D40 you'll know exactly what you want if you decide to upgrade.

it's all about the lenses

This. Investing in glass and a nice flash will give you more return than a nicer body.

 

[Munky]

+1

The D3k has the same 10mp sensor as the D80 and the D200, which are known to be noisier than the refined 6mp sensor of the D40.

By the time you learn to use the D40 you'll know exactly what you want if you decide to upgrade.



This. Investing in glass and a nice flash will give you more return than a nicer body.

+2. I use a D40 and I never found myself limited by the lack of bracketing or "only" 3 AF points. It also has the superior 1/500 x-sync speed, I can't imagine how annoyed I'd get being limited to just 1/200.

 

[manutdc]

Well, I actually managed to pick up a D3000 for $332.50 off eBay thanks to Bing and a Paypal coupon...also went on to pick up the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S lens too for a total of approximately $500. Hopefully the sensor won't make that much of a difference.

Thanks for the input all!

 

[Tip3r]

Nice deal! Congratulations!

 

[ElFenix]

Well, I actually managed to pick up a D3000 for $332.50 off eBay thanks to Bing and a Paypal coupon...also went on to pick up the 35mm f/1.8G AF-S lens too for a total of approximately $500. Hopefully the sensor won't make that much of a difference.

Thanks for the input all!

wow, good deal

 

[manutdc]

Yeah, that's why I couldn't pass it up! It'll be here next Tuesday, though I really hope it'll be earlier

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The D3000 is ridiculously noisy though. It's probably one of the worst cameras Nikon has made recently. The D40 is king though. I do agree about the outdated part. 3 point AF and just old all around. I would honestly try to save some more cash up and jump to the D5000.

Live view is nice but to me it's not that necessary unless you're shooting with the camera way over your head into a crowd. And even then you can't get rapidfire or anything so I'd honestly take the D5000 for that. Swivel LCD FTW. I find that I rarely use Live View on my T1i even if I'm shooting something I can't get down to look at with the viewfinder. However, I just spray and pray and the only way I can still shoot at 3.5 fps is to not use Live View. Then I can still go back and check on my images to see if I aimed properly. If not i can always switch to Live View. Anyway, the D5000 Live View makes more sense though. If you can swivel the LCD you can get a picture perfect shot in no time. with that said, Live View focusing sucks balls, so I feel like I'm still more proficient using my Canon G3 w/ its swivel LCD.

 

[ElFenix]

The D3000 is ridiculously noisy though. It's probably one of the worst cameras Nikon has made recently. The D40 is king though. I do agree about the outdated part. 3 point AF and just old all around. I would honestly try to save some more cash up and jump to the D5000.

more crops!

one of the next two is a D40, the other is a D60 (which has the same sensor and electronics as the D3000). both at 1600.

1DsIII for reference:

 

[Munky]

Why are you resizing the crops to make the D40 look all blurry? Also, those are jpeg samples, it could be boiled down to better noise chroma reduction in the D60 output engine, not necessarily cleaner output from the sensor. This is why I pay attention to RAW comparisons as it represents the most detail you could get out of a camera.

 

[ElFenix]

it's dpreview's standard high iso comparison crop.

i resize because not resizing focuses on pixel noise rather than image noise, and the latter is the only one actually worth thinking about.

resizing isn't making it look all blurry. it is all blurry because it's got fewer pixels.

http://cyberphotographer.com/megapixelmyth/

 

[magomago]

well lets be honest and look at the user: probably going to shoot in jpg, and cost is more important. Going more generally and not focusing on him, I've noticed that initially enthusiastic DSLR users turn into two types of users: those who just go Auto and don't care, and those who do eventually develop an interest. There is obviously a middle ground, but I don't see someone who 'kind of knows' their stuff. They either know it, or they are talking out of their ass when they think A mode is the only way to control depth of focus. Then again I might be talking to the wrong people

Anyways, getting back on topic, I feel its fair to compare JPGs in this regard.

He was told that lenses are key (which I agree with, although I disagree on the emphasis that is sometimes put on lenses for the average user...), which is probably why he went with a D3000 since he did get it for a great price. Enjoy the purchase - even such a basic and 'low high-iso preformance camera' will teach you many things.

My only problem with this whole thread is that it reminds me of Pentax's (now gone) really great prices on primes that 185 dollar f/1.4 has turned into a 350 dollar lens. Don't even get my started on pancake primes and the other limiteds (500 dollar DA 35 limited? I should have bought everything I wanted last YEAR lol...or I should have atleast bought that 35mm limited lol)...I feel like I'm paying Canon or Nikon prices now x_x

 

[Munky]

it's dpreview's standard high iso comparison crop.

i resize because not resizing focuses on pixel noise rather than image noise, and the latter is the only one actually worth thinking about.

resizing isn't making it look all blurry. it is all blurry because it's got fewer pixels.

http://cyberphotographer.com/megapixelmyth/

The difference is people who look at the photos on screen don't upscale from 6MP to whatever. For viewing on screen, pixel noise matters to me, as well as per pixel detail. Upscaling would only apply to print, and again, printing a photo and looking at it from print distances isn't the same as resizing on a computer screen.

 

[twistedlogic]

Why are you resizing the crops to make the D40 look all blurry?

I was wondering the same. Are they even considered "crops" anymore?

it's dpreview's standard high iso comparison crop.

i resize because not resizing focuses on pixel noise rather than image noise, and the latter is the only one actually worth thinking about.

resizing isn't making it look all blurry. it is all blurry because it's got fewer pixels.

http://cyberphotographer.com/megapixelmyth/

Lol. There isn't even an author listed on that article, how is it credible?

The problem with dpreview is they test everything with default settings, straight-out-of-box. Well, that and its dpreview,

And how is upressing an image focusing on image noise. Your adding pixels to an image that where never there to begin with.

Here are some crops @ iso 1600, can you guess which one is the D60?

 

[magomago]

I was wondering the same. Are they even considered "crops" anymore?



Lol. There isn't even an author listed on that article, how is it credible?

The problem with dpreview is they test everything with default settings, straight-out-of-box. Well, that and its dpreview,

And how is upressing an image focusing on image noise. Your adding pixels to an image that where never there to begin with.

Here are some crops @ iso 1600, can you guess which one is the D60?

What is wrong with out of the box testing? Do you expect the average user to immediately take it and twist the settings to produce something else? The average user isn't going to sit there and tweak settings - and dpreview does cover some of the tweaking (taking the raw file to see how many stops of DR they can get out of it).
That doesn't mean I think DPR can do no wrong. They definitely have criticisms that can be leveled against them...but tweaking the crap out of a camera and then showing it off isn't representative of whta the camera will do out of the box. If Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Samsung,Sony, Olympus, etc. etc. feel that its worth changing default settings and tweak them...then they'll do it (and many entry level DSLRs are typically set to options like 'bright' which appeal to consumers who like the extra saturation)

 

[ElFenix]

The difference is people who look at the photos on screen don't upscale from 6MP to whatever. For viewing on screen, pixel noise matters to me, as well as per pixel detail. Upscaling would only apply to print, and again, printing a photo and looking at it from print distances isn't the same as resizing on a computer screen.

when i look at images on a screen i typically fit to window, as i want to see an image rather than some small corner of it. maybe i'm in the minority here (i'm rather certain that i'm not).

I was wondering the same. Are they even considered "crops" anymore?



Lol. There isn't even an author listed on that article, how is it credible?

is there anything in particular that the article claims that isn't credible?

The problem with dpreview is they test everything with default settings, straight-out-of-box. Well, that and its dpreview,

it's pixel peeper central and its flawed methods of reviewing image quality by testing with different magnifications is probably the biggest problem with them.

and they don't test olympus cameras at defaults (well, only defaults), iirc.

And how is upressing an image focusing on image noise. Your adding pixels to an image that where never there to begin with.

i want to know whether the images a camera generates are better than others, so i compare them at the same magnification. otherwise you're comparing at the pixel level. and what happens at the pixel level doesn't necessarily translate into the image level. i up res because it doesn't negate the resolution advantage that higher pixel density sensors have. i could down res and it'd still deliver the same relative noise performance, though.

Here are some crops @ iso 1600, can you guess which one is the D60?

hey more comparisons at different magnification. awesome. how about viewing the D60 at 400%, that'll make it look even worse!

did you notice that they have different exposures? the D40 has 2/3 of a stop longer shutter with the same f-stop and ISO speed. they didn't even use the same shooting position as the focal length is different. who knows if they used the same lens or not. sloppy sloppy sloppy.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

more crops!

one of the next two is a D40, the other is a D60 (which has the same sensor and electronics as the D3000). both at 1600.

1DsIII for reference:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000/high-iso-comparison.htm

I know Ken's full of crap when he makes outrageous claims that he prefers this lens over that and the Canon 17-85mm is awesome and stuff like that, but here's just crops and stuff to look at. You don't really need Ken's commentary or anything. The D3000 doesn't fare well at all.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3000/D3000A.HTM Here you can see the high ISO noise too. The D60 outdoes the D3000 too.

 

[ElFenix]

now that's interesting. so nikon took a step back from the D60 with the D3000?


edit: did the SD880 really hit $1000 as rockwell is claiming?