Nikon D3000 anyone have it?

[The Unknown 1087]

So I know a few people here have decent cameras. I am wondering if anyone has a Nikon D 3000? I am going to order it early next week. Just curious if anyone know about it and whatnot. It fits my budget perfectly as well. Towards the spring I'll get a bigger lens then what it comes with. The stock one is more then enough for right now.

I found some pictures on Flickr, they are pretty good. I want a Cannon XSI or T1i, but they are more then I want to spend for a camera.

[Curmudgeon]

So I know a few people here have decent cameras. I am wondering if anyone has a Nikon D 3000? I am going to order it early next week. Just curious if anyone know about it and whatnot. It fits my budget perfectly as well. Towards the spring I'll get a bigger lens then what it comes with. The stock one is more then enough for right now.

I found some pictures on Flickr, they are pretty good. I want a Cannon XSI or T1i, but they are more then I want to spend for a camera.

I don't have the D3000, I haven't even seen one. I have an old D70. I took a quick look around, courtesy of Google, and here's what I can tell you...

In my experience, there are damn few cameras out there that will take a poor picture. Do not base your purchasing on the images someone else was able to capture. That has 99.999% to do with the photographer and only 0.001 to do with the equipment.

Looking very briefly at the specs and features, I can see nothing that concerns me, and a couple things that are nice. Nikon has had a pretty good run with their entry-level DSLRs in recent years, this looks consistent with their success.

The only thing that really stands out for me is the (apparent) lack of a auto-focus motor in the camera body, limiting you to lenses that have their own AF motors within the lens. This can seriously limit you in your choices of available lenses. Although you can still use a non-motorized lens, you will have to focus it manually. No small feat once you have grown accustomed and spoiled with AF systems. And there are some incredible lenses out there that fall into this category.

I like just about everything else about it. Keep this in mind in the event you find photography to be a growing fascination for you. You are not so much buying a camera as you purchasing a system. Once you buy Nikon (or Canon, Pentax, etc) you are largely stuck with each brand of lens, flash, batteries, etc. Things like lenses and expensive flash guns can be kept through the years even after you decide to upgrade the body later on, making the body "disposable" whereas the lenses and flashes can be retained as investments, especially when you spend good money and acquire really good stuff.

If you wish to switch to Canon say, 5 years from now, you will have to get rid of not only your Nikon body, but all the accessories that go with it and start all over again. My belief is that you are safe with either Nikon or Canon thanks to their size, and commitment to photography.

FWIW, I am shooting most of my images with the 18-105 lens. I have not been able to take it off the camera, it does so much so well. It is every bit as wide as the 18-55, but the added reach of 105mm compared to 55mm is considerable. The 18-105 is not that expensive, and combined with the D3000 makes a great combo-kit. Look into it.

I guess this is a whole lot of blather from someone who has never even seen the cam, so I hope any of this is useful. If not, remember what you paid for it!

The greatest thing in the world about digital photography is the cheap cost of film and processing! For many, this accelerates the learning curve exponentially and makes photography more fun than it has ever been.

[ehidle]

I can say that you will become infuriated with that camera if you use a long lens. They took so much weight out of the body after the D50 that it will be extremely nose-heavy.. even with the typical 70-300 long lens, it'll be difficult to manage.

Other than that, they're great cameras.

[ehidle]

BTW, go find Ken Rockwell's site. He doesn't have much good to say about the D3000. Quoting from his site:

The D3000 is the worst DSLR I've used at high ISOs. The D40 is better, and the Olympus E-P1 is better.

The D3000 is a full stop worse than the D40, meaning that the D3000 is as noisy as the D40 set to an ISO twice as high.

In other words, most DSLRs give results identical to the D3000 set to an ISO one stop faster. This is why the D3000 starts at ISO 100, while the D40 starts at ISO 200 for the same excellent results. At ISO 200 the D40 is deliciously clean, which the D3000 has a little noise.

The D3000 is sharp; it doesn't dull the image with much noise reduction, which is good, except that the D40 and D90 don't use much NR either, and have cleaner results with all their details intact, too.

Not shown here is that both the D40 and D3000 lose some color saturation, especially in the darker areas, at ISO 1,600. Each does it about the same amount in an attempt to hide noise.

All in all, I'd avoid shooting the D3000 at ISO 1,600. I'd consider setting Auto ISO to limiti itself to ISO 800 on the D3000, while the D40 at ISO 1,600 looks as good as the D3000 at only ISO 800.

[Curmudgeon]

I can say that you will become infuriated with that camera if you use a long lens. They took so much weight out of the body after the D50 that it will be extremely nose-heavy.. even with the typical 70-300 long lens, it'll be difficult to manage.

Other than that, they're great cameras.

Shit. After everything else I wrote, I forgot about this completely. My D70 is huge by many standards and it almost seems as though most newer cams are getting increasingly smaller and smaller. Great if you have small hands. If you have larger hands or larger lenses, this will be more of an issue. To the OP, just like with a handgun, make sure you take plenty of time holding the D3000, make sure you are comfortable with it's size.

Props to ehidle for bringing this up!

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I have a D50, and don't know much about the D3000. If I was in the market for a DSLR today, I'd probably get the D40 or D60. Invest in a couple good lenses...stuff is pricey, but as Curmudgeon said, as long as you keep using Nikon bodies, your lenses will be with you forever.

[Curmudgeon]

BTW, go find Ken Rockwell's site. He doesn't have much good to say about the D3000. Quoting from his site:

I have 2 thoughts on this. First, dammit man! Another good point. I read through 3 separate reviews before responding, but saw none of what Ken Rockwell talks about. I hate Ken, but mostly for his hyperbole. He writes like a troll. However, the rest of his review content is usually spot on.

Second, the high-iso performance of a DSLR is one of the big benefits folks expect to see from a larger sensor. It is definitely something to consider. However, to compare it poorly to cams like the d50 and d40 may not be such a bad thing, since those 2 already perform so amazingly well. I'm sure my d70 sucks balls compared to the d50 in Ken's eyes, but it was the bee's knees back in the day, and I can get awesome low light performance from it. Is Ken making too much of this? You can only see and decide for yourself, BUT, this is an important consideration.

Tried to rep you ehidle, but my button's broke

[ehidle]

I have 2 thoughts on this. First, dammit man! Another good point. I read through 3 separate reviews before responding, but saw none of what Ken Rockwell talks about. I hate Ken, but mostly for his hyperbole. He writes like a troll. However, the rest of his review content is usually spot on.

Second, the high-iso performance of a DSLR is one of the big benefits folks expect to see from a larger sensor. It is definitely something to consider. However, to compare it poorly to cams like the d50 and d40 may not be such a bad thing, since those 2 already perform so amazingly well. I'm sure my d70 sucks balls compared to the d50 in Ken's eyes, but it was the bee's knees back in the day, and I can get awesome low light performance from it. Is Ken making too much of this? You can only see and decide for yourself, BUT, this is an important consideration.

Tried to rep you ehidle, but my button's broke

Yeah he is a bit strong in his language, but even if you cut out the hyperbole, his reviews are technically sound. You just have to read carefully...

I went to Costco and checked out the D3000, and sure enough, it's front-heavy as hell. The body is very very light... it's not so much that it's small, but it's plastic instead of metal like the older ones.

I'll take an IOU

[Sandcut]

I realize that it may increase your output a little but, you can pick up a D90 package w/ the 18-105mm lens for under $1K.

Curmudgeon's points about the auto focus motor and the 18-105mm over the 18-55mm lens are worth considering. (Rep button's broken BTW Curmudgeon)

I use the D90 for work and I have to admit, the damn thing is to cameras what a 1911 is to firearms. I have abused this camera so badly it isn't funny. I work on construction sites, in swamps, in rain, etc. It gets wet, dusty, muddy and I've actually dropped it so hard it bounced (I didn't weather the fall as well) and it hasn't let me down. The photos are crisp, too.

Better to hold out for a slightly more expensive camera that will meet or exceed your needs than to buy less because it's "more affordable." Usually, I find that "affordable" is often a false economy in the long run.

Hope that helps some.