why is people hating on the D3000

[Sirashley]

costco is a good site, thank you for letting me know about that one... i just wonder how long it takes to ship

I believe it is 5-7 business days, but if you call the building closest to you, they probably have it there and in stock... Most buildings carry that particular kit

 

[Rosshole]

I went through these same thing last fall, and i ended up with the D5000 for the better low light performace, the user interface (my preference), and I got a great deal on it!

Go for the D3000, I have a couple friends with that body and they love it. If you really fall in love with photography, then decide what body best suits you for your next camera.

 

[frommrstomommy]

I seem to have been in the same boat you are now and while I was really stuck on that D5000, I went with the D3000 and only payed $435 with shipping included for the body, the 18-55mm lens, extra batteries, cleaning kit bunch of little extras from eBay.. its a refurbished product with a 90 day Nikon warranty and the seller (who is an actual free standing camera store as well and a HUGE seller on ebay) offered a 1 yr warranty from them on parts and labor. I just got it 2 days ago and it looks brand spankin' new! Not a scratch or ding on it and I'd never know it was a refurb so far. I couldn't be happier! I haven't taken many photos with it yet but the few I have were great quality (for me anyhow) and I'm more than happy with my purchase decision!

This is the exact thing I bought:
Nikon D3000 Digital SLR Camera Body+18-55mm VR Lens USA - eBay (item 200438213206 end time Feb-10-10 16:20:48 PST)

 

[inTempus]

Take the "reviews" with a grain of salt. If you think the D3000 reviews are harsh, try shopping for a Canon product sometime.

The D3000 is a great body as a fair price. I highly doubt you will find many limitations to the body for quite some time as you learn about DSLR photography. By the time you do out grow the D3000, you will have gotten your moneys worth and will be better prepared to pick your next body.

Keep in mind digital cameras aren't like film cameras, they don't last forever. I know people shooting film cameras older than I am and they're still quite capable. But if you find someone shooting a digital camera from 2001, it will be a dog compared to what even the D3000 can do today.

You can probably get 5-8 years out of a good digital body if you push things. If you really get into photography, by about year 3 or 4 you'll find yourself wanting one of the newer bodies I'm sure. Since Nikon seems to update their consumer models about every 12 months, 4 years from now your D3000 will be 4 generations old.

 

[itznfb]

People hate on the D3000 because it was the only current generation Nikon (D3000/5000/90/300s/700/3s/3x) that didn't receive a CMOS sensor. The sensor the D3000 does have is the same sensor found in the D200 though; so the D3000 is kind of like a D200 with some software upgrades, lighter body with no weather sealing and no internal focus motor.

 

[PerfectlyFlawed]

thanks yal for your advice, yeah i just don't know if i wanna spend the extra 200 on the d5000, ya know what i mean? but i want this camera to lasts me forever so i won't have to invest in another or i don't want to need to upgrade. lol d90 is way outta the price range! that would break into my shopping budget for clothes and we cant have that lol

I just bought the refurbed D5000 kit ( from adorama.com) with a 18-55mm, For $524.00. Not to shabby. if thats affordable.
I almost went with the 3000, but i wanted something a little more to keep me busy and so i wouldnt have to upgrade so soon. ( eventually.... long down the road im sure ill end up doing so).. but the d5000 <3<3 Amazing entry DSLR!

I think it was new egg?... or amazon.. I was looking at the D3000's for like 300 something with a lense.. or 400 something kits. Theyre very reasonably priced.

You could always look at the Canon Rebel XSi. Its a little better in some places than the 3000 i think.. but about the same price. depends on what you like more.

I personally would go with the D3000. Nikon is simply amazing with everything they do!

 

[bigtwinky]

Again, if you don't have any prior experience, whatever you get you will be happy with as you have nothing to compare it to.

So if the D3000 fits your budget, you handled the actual camera in store to get a feel for the layout and ergonomics, then buy it. Screw what people say.

 

[PerfectlyFlawed]

Again, if you don't have any prior experience, whatever you get you will be happy with as you have nothing to compare it to.

So if the D3000 fits your budget, you handled the actual camera in store to get a feel for the layout and ergonomics, then buy it. Screw what people say.

:thumbup: --- What he said. :lmao:

Compare cameras <--- Try this site. Itll let you match up and compare the cameras. Pretty nifty

 

[jeremycnwy]

I started with the d3000. its was a great camera i LOVED the way it felt. but i quickly was disapointed in its low light performance. even at its lowest ISO setting it would still have some noise in long exposure shots, i think its actually called color something where the sensor confuses the different shades of the same color so it comes out with blotchy looking spots in it, especially in the blacks. It took some awesome pictures and as far as DSLR's go there is not much it wont do

i now have the d5000 and can not be happier (well maybe). the d5000 has most of the same features as the d90 (same sensor). it does not has as many of the little do-dads with in the menu's as the d90. and the body its self does not feel as good. still feels good its just real thick because of the flip out screen. and its pretty heavy compared to the d3000. the screen is nice (i liked the d3000 screen better for IC). some people think its pointless and to a photographer thats not used to having one it probably is useless, but it just another tool that has proven its self usefull in framing odd angle shots for me.

the diferance in picture quality is VERY noticable. the d3000 look just as noisy at 800 ISO as the D5000 does at 3200 iso. that alone made all the extra money worth it to me.

i do regret not getting the d90 though mainly because of the focusing motor. there are a bunch of nice lenses that simply wont auto focus on the d3000 or d5000. but this was my first dealings with dslr's and i did not know if i wanted to drop that kind of money on one. so oneday i'll step up to one of the big boy bodys but for now the d5000 is great for me.

 

[hightower]

I started with the d3000. its was a great camera i LOVED the way it felt. but i quickly was disapointed in its low light performance.

One other camera to consider would be the d40. It has excellent low light capability (less megapixels crammed into the sensor). I just got mine in the mail yesterday from Adorama. They have the d40 with 18-55mm lens for $375 (refurbished). It is a brand new camera for all intents and purposes. It has a 90 day warranty from Nikon and you can purchase an extended warranty (2 years) for $40 or something like that. I don't know from experience but I hear the d3000 is a slower camera (if in certain modes it can take up to 3 seconds for the pic to appear on the screen) and also the grainier pics at higher ISO. These two factors pushed me a bit more toward the d40. There are definitely some updated features that are really cool on the d3000 (self cleaning sensor, higher pixels, d-lighting, etc etc). Overall you can't go wrong with either but I just wanted to let you know of an additional option. The firmware on the d40 does have some flaws that affect the metering a bit (overexposes) and some other little things like getting into the right place (custom shooting) to set the true auto ISO. Anyway, you won't go wrong with either. If you do get into it more though you may want to upgrade even if now it seems like you never want to. With that said the Costco d3000 package is a killer deal, if you were to purchase those two VR lenses separately they would cost you $400 which brings the price of the body at Costco to only $250!! If you upgrade ever just keep the lenses and sell the body and you won't lose much money at all especially after you get some good use out of the camera over the next few years.

 

[Dominantly]

If this is your first DSLR... buy the D3000... Its that simple and here's why. If you are new to photography, or even just new to DSLR, its going to take some time to get used to the camera and learn the settings. More advanced cameras can be extremely overwhelming to people who are new. If you were thinking about the D5000, I would tell you to save alittle extra cash and buy the D90, which is a far superior camera.

Bottom line, you can get a D3000 for a great price nowadays, and I don't think there is much of a fall off between that and the D5000, the 5000 has live view, and video... (and maybe alittle better burst... I don't remember) Anyway, I personally wouldn't use live view or video... So be that as it may, buy the D3000, and in a couple of years, if you want to upgrade, you can sell the body on ebay and use you existing lenses...

Not to pick on your logic, BUT:

As you spend more money on your camera body, the manufacturers start moving controls to enhance the control (OMI for techs) of the camera. Why you spend a good amount of money a camera, you expect it's operation to be smooth. The D90 for example has two control dials, Focus modes, ISO, WB, file type, etc, out on the body to keep you from having to dig through a menu to change simple settings.
To put it simply, the more money you spend on a camera body, the easier it will be to operate it.

There is a big difference between the D5000 and the D3000, the most obvious being one has a usable ISO range, and one really doesn't. The CCD sensor in the 3000 is much less capable then the D5000.

 

[FORCFED]

I have the D5000. My sister just picked up the D3000. After playing with her camera i see where the extar money comes from. Better ISO capabilities, more control, Swivel screen. Which some people say is ulesless but helps set up those low to ground shoots easy. Its just feels like a more solid camera. Give her a coupel months to get used to the camera and i think she will want to upgrade soon.

I look back now and wish i bought the D90 instead.

If your budget fits it then get the D90. IF not even the D3000 will still capture some great shots.

Good luck!

 

[Sirashley]

If this is your first DSLR... buy the D3000... Its that simple and here's why. If you are new to photography, or even just new to DSLR, its going to take some time to get used to the camera and learn the settings. More advanced cameras can be extremely overwhelming to people who are new. If you were thinking about the D5000, I would tell you to save alittle extra cash and buy the D90, which is a far superior camera.

Bottom line, you can get a D3000 for a great price nowadays, and I don't think there is much of a fall off between that and the D5000, the 5000 has live view, and video... (and maybe alittle better burst... I don't remember) Anyway, I personally wouldn't use live view or video... So be that as it may, buy the D3000, and in a couple of years, if you want to upgrade, you can sell the body on ebay and use you existing lenses...

Not to pick on your logic, BUT:

As you spend more money on your camera body, the manufacturers start moving controls to enhance the control (OMI for techs) of the camera. Why you spend a good amount of money a camera, you expect it's operation to be smooth. The D90 for example has two control dials, Focus modes, ISO, WB, file type, etc, out on the body to keep you from having to dig through a menu to change simple settings.
To put it simply, the more money you spend on a camera body, the easier it will be to operate it.

There is a big difference between the D5000 and the D3000, the most obvious being one has a usable ISO range, and one really doesn't. The CCD sensor in the 3000 is much less capable then the D5000.

I beg to differ with you on the highlighted statement because we are dealing with someone who has never owned a DSLR. The camera will be easier to operate but only if the person operating the camera knows what those features do... Put a D3000 in a noobs hands, and then hand them a D300, and see which one they find easier to use in manual... Certainly not the camera with twice the amount of buttons for features that they have never heard of. The more features a camera has, the more complicated it becomes... Sure for seasoned photographers, the higher end models are easier, but we are talking about someone who has never had a DSLR, so therefore, it won't be easier, and it will be overwhelming

hmmm I did leave out the better iso performance of the D5000, thought I had mentioned that... My bad... but where I was going with that post was that if you are going to shell out the extra $ for the D5000, you might as well bump up to the D90, which is a tremendous jump from the D3000...

 

[PhotoXopher]

So you're saying it's easier to hold down a button and operate the command dial instead of just rotating the command dial in manual mode to change aperture.

Because on a baby Nikon that's exactly what you have to do... hold down the aperture/exposure compensation button and then turn the command dial.

To change ISO you have to dive into the menu system, is that really easier than pushing a button that says ISO?

I don't see your argument based on being new vs knowing what you're doing.

The back of a D3s:

The back of a D5000:

 

[KmH]

One other camera to consider would be the d40. It has excellent low light capability (less megapixels crammed into the sensor).

The D40 is a nice little camera and has some points in it's favor, like the flash sync speed, but to say it has excellent low light capability is just not true.

The D40 (561) and the D3000 (563) have essentially the same low light capability, but the D3000 has 40% more pixels which means bigger print sizes and a larger range of cropping opportunities.

The D3000 has more color depth and a 1.5 frame-per-second higher burst mode rate: 4 fps for the D3000 to only 2.5 fps for the D40.

The D5000 has better low light capability (868) than either the D40 or the D3000

And that's not just me spewing. That's based on testing by an independent lab:

Compare cameras