Just read Ken Rockwell's review of the D3000

Boomn4x4 · Nov 5, 2010

I know there are some lovers, and a lot of haters, of Ken Rockwell so I'm curious to hear if anyone else has a good review of the D3000. From what I read from Rockwell, his biggest gripe is that the camera has poor ISO capabilities, its slow to operate because of its ADR, and not so easy to use.

My brother in law recently baught the camera, and from my quick use of it (compared to my D40) I was quite impressed. The things I noticed right away were the 11 point autofocus and the 100 ISO ability. Considering that the D40 only as a 3 point AF and 200 ISO, I thought that was a huge improvement.

I had to do some research to find out what ADR was (Adaptive Dynamic Range) and I was disapointed to learn that it is the same thing as adjusting the curves on a RAW image. The camera does it automatically... I always prefer to do it manually. I would have this turned off anyway.

I guess I'm just surprised to see Rockwell trash the D3000 so hard, and he even makes it a point several times to point out how superior the D40 is, I can't really see how the D40 is better at all.

Am I wrong?

PhotoXopher · Nov 5, 2010

D3100 all the way, D3000 isn't going to be worth anything now that the D3100 is out. Very nice little camera and the high ISO is incredible.

Boomn4x4 · Nov 5, 2010

PhotoXopher said:
D3100 all the way, D3000 isn't going to be worth anything now that the D3100 is out. Very nice little camera and the high ISO is incredible.

Ken Rockwell said that too.... not really concerned about the 3100. I'm concerned if that 3000 is as bad as he said it is.

kundalini · Nov 5, 2010

Boomn4x4 said:
Ken Rockwell said that too.... .

... and unicorns shat rainbows.

PhotoXopher · Nov 5, 2010

Ken Rockwell isn't wrong, he calls it how he sees it and for his style of shooting - which may be completely different for someone else and their style of shooting, in which it's a better body than the D40 for example.

I think that's why some people don't like him or his words, they take his word as gospel. Ken Rockwell is a marketing genius, plain and simple. He's in the top 3 of nearly everything you Google for regarding lens or camera reviews if he has one on his site for that item. Publicity (such as this thread) keep him on top of his game.

reznap · Nov 5, 2010

ADR is similar to Canon's "Auto Lighting Optimizer" which basically, like you said, adjusts curves. It's also pretty useless if you're shooting in RAW.

D3000 isn't bad. It's entry-level.. it's 'low-end' for a DSLR.. I wouldn't say it's bad though. It's worse to spend $3,000 on a digital body that's obsolete in 4 years I think.

Rockwell has a lot to say, most people don't take him seriously. I've enjoyed reading what he has to say about film.. but that's it pretty much.

Boomn4x4 · Nov 5, 2010

kundalini said:
Boomn4x4 said:

Ken Rockwell said that too.... .

Click to expand...

... and unicorns shat rainbows.

You wouldn't have said that if you have ever smelled unicorn shat. That stuff is amazing.

reznap said:
D3000 isn't bad. It's entry-level.. it's 'low-end' for a DSLR.. I wouldn't say it's bad though. It's worse to spend $3,000 on a digital body that's obsolete in 4 years I think.

How would you compare it to a D40. I have a D40, and Rockwell would give that camera a hand job if it had a dick.... but I'm not seeing it. Why is he giving the 3000 such a low rating when he puts the D40 on an ivory tower? They are both entry level cameras, the 3000 more focal points, higher MP's and lower ISO settings.... granted that Rockwell points out that 1600 ISO on the 3000 is the same as 800 on the D40... he fails to mention that the 3000 can go down to 100, the D40 only goes to 200.

PhotoXopher · Nov 5, 2010

True, but the D40 also sports a 1/500th flash sync which may be something of use for him. D3000 is what, 1/200th?

reznap · Nov 5, 2010

One of the reasons some people prefer the 2 digit bodies to the 4 digit bodies of Nikon (so d40 and d3000 respectively) is because of ergonomics. I think certain features are just much easier to access and change on a D40. I think it's also easier to change simple things, like ISO for example.

Boomn4x4 · Nov 5, 2010

reznap said:
One of the reasons some people prefer the 2 digit bodies to the 4 digit bodies of Nikon (so d40 and d3000 respectively) is because of ergonomics. I think certain features are just much easier to access and change on a D40. I think it's also easier to change simple things, like ISO for example.

I can agree with that 100%. The D40 is a piece of cake to to use. I havn't "gotten used to" the D3000, but I certainly found myself fidgeting around to do things I thought should be second nature.

reznap · Nov 5, 2010

I think the D7000 transcends the 2 digit/4 digit style differences, being more like a D90... then again I'm not a Nikon (digital) user.

Blake.Oney · Nov 5, 2010

I love my D3000. I set the function key on the left side beside the flash key to iso and that solves really the only quick adjust problem I had. For anything else all you have to do is hit the zoom out button from the shooting screen and it takes you to all the quick adjust stuff like exposure comp, flash comp, etc. I think his biggest problem with the 3000 was that he didn't like how the controls were. the 1/500 flash sync is because of electronic shutter, which I don't think Nikon does any more (I could totally be mistaken). It's a nice camera for entry level. It's also very cheap now too with the 3100 being out.

bluetibby1 · Nov 6, 2010

I do that same ISO thong you do blake and the quick guide is easy for me. I love my D3000....for now.

blue

KmH · Nov 6, 2010

Being able to sync a speedlight at the 1/4000 shutter speed on the D40 is pretty sweet. The D3000 sure can't do that.

Most D40 owners don't use flashand don't get just how valuable that feature is. Actually, it doesn't even say in the D40 users manual it can do that. They only state 1/500 as the sync speed.