1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Why wouldn't any us want the D3000?

Discussion in 'Nikon DX DSLR Forum' started by Superbaldguy, Aug 16, 2009.

  1. I just got from shooting a bunch of files at a staff party, used the D40 and SB-600. I did he RAW + JPEG thing, the smaller files are fine for email and 4x6 prints and there will be some NEF's that will become larger prints.

    I had this thought - what if I could have an entry-level type of camera that had the quick AF I am used to on the D80 and with a 10 MP sensor? What about the possibility of a 100K shutter life? The D3000 is the answer.

    Seems like this little Nikon could/should become a big hit.

    Except for the DOF preview and a few other features, I can't see why anyone would not want the D3000.
  2. D90 vs D300

    Besides all the bells and whistles on each of these camera's here is the question -
    Does the D300 over all take a better qualitty photo than the D90? I am looking at upgrading from my D90 but am holding back at this moment.
  3. SP77


    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    A good D40 replacement, but no 1/500s flash sync, and I was hoping they'd shove the 12MP CMOS sensor in there rather than the 10MP CCD. If they'd done that I'd have one on pre-order. Looks like a nice camera otherwise though.
  4. SP77


    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD

    It just has a lot more features which may or may not make your life easier and help you get photos possibly without having to work so hard. The biggest difference is the 51-point AF system with 17 cross sensors as opposed to the 11 point system with only a center cross sensor in the D90. If you have situations that push the AF system to the limit then the D300 might work better for you. Technical image quality is just about the same though. From what I've read the D90 might actually have slightly better image quality.

  5. build Quality would stop me buying and using one.

    I suspect like most cameras it is very capable of taking great photos.
  6. slick2000


    Apr 21, 2009
    Roma, ITALY
    absolutely not,

    I have the D90 and my bro has the D300, the result are absolutely identical,

    buy the D300 only if you need a semi-pro body, with some extra features,
    like a better AF, faster fps, a sealed body and a more "comfortable" AF-ON button, all these features IMHO screams for a "sports use" of the camera,
    oh and don't forget that the D300 will meter with older manual lenses too

    cheers, Nik

    P.S. sorry for the hijacking ...
  7. I am becoming a bigger and bigger proponent of "great glass on a humble camera" philosophy, I'd bet the D3000's image quality at least matches that of my D80 - isn't that what it's all about? The build quality of these Nikon entry-level DSLR's is actually surprisigly good.

    The loss of the hybrid shutter with fast flash sync is a bit disappointing, I suspect that only a small number of photographers needed it, alhough I certainly find it useful.
  8. I have not used a D3000 so I will not make any comments. I can see it could be a limitation to those who use flash often.
    A big difference among these new cameras and the old ones is the software. The new cameras use generation II colors that appear to be more vivid than previous cameras. I like the colors reproduced by the first generation, but that is only my taste.
    I would say it will be very difficult to shoot with a Nikon camera and see a difference in image quality, using the same optics, compared to their other cameras. When it comes to megapixels I do not really know. I do not see a great difference in quality when I compare the files of my 4.2 megapixels D2H with the files of my other cameras with much more megapixels.
    A good scan from a fine grain film negative also reproduces excellent quality and makes it tough to identify the camera that shot it.
    Today, any Nikon entry body with a good lens shoots as beautiful pictures as a professional body when the photographer does his or her part. Although shutters are designed for a certain number of actuations, many photographers have noticed problems long before the supplied specs and others have gone beyond the number without issues. I have known of D70s that lasted over 80 thousand shots without any repairs.
    I would say that entry level Nikon cameras have shown to be good buys offering good service and good image quality.

    William Rodriguez
    Miami, Florida.
  9. NateS


    Oct 11, 2007
    There are a ton of reasons not to get the D3000. However, it may be a good entry level camera. I'd still rather have a D40 with it's better high ISO performance (i.e. less noise), and I can print a 20x30 with excellent quality so don't "need" more than 6mp. Reasons to not get the D3000 (for me) would be

    slower max flash sync speed than D40 for more money
    still no af motor (less of an issue these days though)
    no commander mode for controlling flash
    outdated sensor with subpar high iso performance
    DOF preview (very useful in macro)
    Bracketing (is useful for mixed exposure scenes)

    The above things might not mean anything to a beginner..and someone who just wants a great camera without planning to get "in-depth" with the hobby....it's not a bad camera (though I'd still argue the D40 would work just as well and get as good of images....better in some cases). However, anybody looking to get into the hobby and planning to learn a lot, spend alot of time on forums and increase the quality of their pictures with different photographic methods, I'd probably suggest a minimum of a D80 or D90. That's just my opinion though.
  10. OCIR


    Mar 24, 2009
    Because I think they took a step back with the CCD sensor. I would probably get it as a vacation SLR. Something light.
  11. I don't want one because my D70 and D200 still take great pictures. :) 

  12. sorry guys i disagree here..... the D300 has better resolution


  13. Joves


    Feb 10, 2009
    Upgrading for a D90 to a D300 no. To me that would be like going from the D80 to the D200. Granted the D90/80 are the little brothers of the upper models. Now if the D300x has any good improvements to it maybe but, I would think the D700 would be a better upgrade, unless you are heavily invested in DX lenses.
    I have two DX but the rest of mine are film/FX so going with the D700 is the natural progression. It is what Im saving for myself.
  14. Jaytron


    Mar 22, 2009
    San Jose, CA
    D3000.. no thanks

    No AF Motor
    D60 Sensor
    No commander

    Not replacing my D40 with it at least :p 
  15. SP77


    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    Okay but then go to DxOMark.com and compare the D90 and D300 and the D90 has 2/3rds of a stop better signal-to-noise, a full stop better dynamic range, and better tonal range and color sensitivity too. I've seen other results more or less back that up too.


    I honestly have no idea what to believe.
  16. As I've stated before....
    If I had known the D3000 was coming out, I would NOT have bought my D60 - & instead, I would've waited 2 months for the D3000....:redface:
  17. SP77


    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    I would much rather have a D40 and PRO glass than a higher end body and lesser glass. That's my personal philosophy, and I practice what I preach too. :cool:  If you can only afford one, go for the nice glass every time and then wait for a screaming good deal to come along on whatever body! :smile:
  18. id rather have sharper pics......

    the d90 just had that softness to it...... maybe i'm to picky but i didn't like it
  19. Are you sure the D90 has soft pics? You kept complaining about out-of-focus pics. You sent it to Nikon and it needed a major repair. It seems as soon as you got it back, you fired a few shots with it that looked a lot better, then you put it up for sale. :wink:

    If your D90 is still soft, then the fix was incomplete and no one should buy it. :biggrin:
  20. after repair they looked like they should, but the fine detail looked like the examples above....

    I just didn't like it, the D40 had better fine detail then it did.

    look how much clearer the numbers are on other pages from other cameras....

    and before anyone harps on me that's not the only reason i upgraded cameras
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.