# why is people hating on the D3000



## littlemissSissy (Feb 19, 2010)

As I read reviews on the d3000, it seems like alot of people are hating on the nikon d3000, but why?  :meh:


----------



## Santa Gertrudis (Feb 19, 2010)

The people that are hating on them can't take good pictures and they think it's because they are using the more budget minded model. Let them hate. The D3000 is a good little camera!


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 19, 2010)

People who write reviews on the internet, tend to hate on everything 

My guess would be that they are wishing it was more like the higher level models but still with the entry level price.  
The D3000 probably looks pretty bad when compared to the D90, D300, D700, D3 etc.


----------



## littlemissSissy (Feb 19, 2010)

what do yal think i should buy for my 1st camera the d3000 or d40x or d5000 (rather not spend that kind of money thou - D5000)


----------



## MGriff240 (Feb 19, 2010)

The D3000 is a great camera. I've had it for a few months now and am in love with it. It's very capable of shooting anything  you want.


----------



## Sirashley (Feb 19, 2010)

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...


----------



## Sirashley (Feb 19, 2010)

by the way... this is a great buy, because you get the camera body, the two lenses, memory card, case, and what's really cool, you get an instructional DVD on photography and an instructional DVD on the camera...

Costco - $649.99 after $100 Savings Nikon D3000 Up to 3 Frames per Second

by the way,  their return policy is 90 days, so if you bought it and weren't happy, you could return it without and restocking fees or any of that garbage... Lastly, look at the 3 reviews of the people who bought the camera...


----------



## littlemissSissy (Feb 19, 2010)

so do you think i should throw the d40x outta the picture...do you think its too old


----------



## bigtwinky (Feb 19, 2010)

Just go with what you have a budget for. Seriously, in the end, you probably wont notice much of a difference between the D3000 or the D40x

We tend to get used to what we have, specially when we have no prior experience with something. The difference between the D3000 and D40x are negligable at best. They are both CCD, they are both similar pixel count, one has a slightly smaller LCD... so get whichever.

Although I would get the D5000 over either of those.  Actually, I would not even bother with any of those and just get the D90, but thats me.


----------



## Sirashley (Feb 19, 2010)

Personally, I would... unless you can get some kinda killer deal on a D40x. I mean, I would grab the 3000 just for the bigger screen  but I would also be willing to bet that the d3000 will be better in lower light, because it seems like with each generation, the cameras are getting higher and higher iso sensitivity and doing it with less noise... So yeah, I'd go with the 3000


----------



## Sirashley (Feb 19, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> Just go with what you have a budget for.



That's probably the best advice yet :thumbup:


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 19, 2010)

You could always look at a Rebel  :er:


----------



## bigtwinky (Feb 19, 2010)

Oh great Mike, just throw more options in there why dont you


----------



## littlemissSissy (Feb 19, 2010)

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


----------



## littlemissSissy (Feb 19, 2010)

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


----------



## Sirashley (Feb 19, 2010)

littlemissSissy said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2010)

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 (Feb 19, 2010)

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 (Feb 19, 2010)

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 (Feb 19, 2010)

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 (Feb 19, 2010)

littlemissSissy said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2010)

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 (Feb 19, 2010)

bigtwinky said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2010)

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 (Feb 19, 2010)

jeremycnwy said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2010)

Sirashley said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2010)

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 (Feb 19, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Sirashley said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Feb 19, 2010)

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 (Feb 19, 2010)

hightower said:


> 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


----------



## Sirashley (Feb 19, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



What I'm talking about is that when a camera has 3 times the amount of functions, its allot more complicated for someone to learn who knows nothing about DSLR's... I know this from experience, because I learned on a Sony a200, which is a very basic DSLR... After about a year, I bought a Nikon D200, and it has some many features that the camera was really overwhelming to me... The simplicity of the a200 is what made it easier... That was my point. Now that I know what I'm doing, sure the D200 is much easier in terms of functionality...


----------



## PhotoXopher (Feb 19, 2010)

My buddy has an a200, to me it was the most confusing camera to operate 

Take a look at the comparison photos I just posted in my earlier post, I still don't see the problem.


----------



## Sirashley (Feb 19, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> My buddy has an a200, to me it was the most confusing camera to operate
> 
> Take a look at the comparison photos I just posted in my earlier post, I still don't see the problem.



You're not the first person to say that...

Okay, then where is the auto mode on the D3? There isn't one... and for noobs, well, many shoot in auto mode while learning... They really rely on that when they don't know what to do in certain situations. I just still subscribe to the fact that the more features a camera has, the more difficult it is to learn, especially for someone who knows nothing about DSLR's... I guess maybe we can agree to disagree :mrgreen:


----------



## PhotoXopher (Feb 19, 2010)

P mode.


----------



## Sirashley (Feb 19, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> P mode.



No fair, that's more like Semi-auto mode


----------



## PhotoXopher (Feb 19, 2010)




----------



## itznfb (Feb 19, 2010)

Sirashley said:


> PhotoXopher said:
> 
> 
> > My buddy has an a200, to me it was the most confusing camera to operate
> ...



In my opinion a major drawback to the D5000 is that it's extremely complicated and cumbersome to change settings. The D5000 is about 98% menu driven. If you walk around on full auto all day then fine... you should have gone with a point and shoot.

My girlfriend who knows very little about photography and is a DSLR noob finds the D300s much much easier to use than her D5000. She still prefers the D5000 though because of it's weight, size and screen.


----------



## Ziggyt2001 (Feb 19, 2010)

I was hoping to get some info off of this thread to make my decision. I am still leaning toward the D5000, but hope that the menus are horrible. One question I have, is going with the refurbished version over the retail a bad thing? Heard there are warranties added to these refurbs that would curb any messup early on. But spending almost a grand, I want to make sure I'm not shooting myself in the foot...


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 19, 2010)

if you're spending almost a grand, you should be going home with the D90.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 19, 2010)

PhotoXopher said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 

You don't have to dive in the menu to change ISO on the D40 or D3000, just program the function button to ISO. Beside, it's only like  3 step to change ISO in the menu through the info button.  I don't change ISO or that often so it's not really all big of a deal.  I also switch the setting to auto ISO, now so I don't have to change the ISO


----------



## Cass (Feb 19, 2010)

I love my D3000. Especially for my first DSLR. Once I get more used to it and learn more about photography in a year or 2 I might upgrade. But for now with the price it was good for me.


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 19, 2010)

Auto ISO on the D40 huh :salute:


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 19, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> Auto ISO on the D40 huh :salute:


 
Why not? You can choose the shutter and the Aperture in manual and let the camera choose the ISO.  Beside, the Auto ISO function allowed for a lot of various ISO like 640, 720, 900,1100, 1250, 1400, 220, 280, 320, 500 and so on.  I don't have that much control over the ISO in manual mode as I can only adjusted by one full stop. The camera does a pretty good job picking the correct ISO for most situations especially in condition where light changed quickly or when I'm using it with my external flash.   I don' know why you think this is a bad idea.


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 19, 2010)

I think that's a bad idea because you are using a CCD sensor, and you are limited in ISO if you expect your images to come out with as little noise as possible. You're giving the camera the ability to introduce noise instead of setting up the camera to get the best shots possible with the lowest ISO possible.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 19, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> I think that's a bad idea because you are using a CCD sensor, and you are limited in ISO if you expect your images to come out with as little noise as possible. You're giving the camera the ability to introduce noise instead of setting up the camera to get the best shots possible with the lowest ISO possible.


 
I still don't understand.  For a certain situatiion, I know what kind of shutter speed and aperture I want to shoot at, I'll let my camera determine wahat ISO I'll need to expose that picture correctly.  That's all.  For example if I'm shooting at night, I'll put the lowest aperture and and whatever shutterspeed I need to freeze actions or what not and let my camera determine whatever ISO I need to expose my picture at whatever exposure compensation I set at.  Yes, for the auto ISO purpose, you can set the exposure compensation in manual mode.  If I decide that I don't don't need a high shutterspeed, then my camera would know that and not turn the ISO up so high. I think it's a very useful tool.  Putting something on apeture prioirty or shutter priority is in my opinion could lead up too much more volatile result as shutterspeed and aperture have much more of an effect on the photo then ISO would .  

Like I say, the Auto ISO function let you tailor the exposure of different photos while still keep what ever shutter speed  and aperture that you have already set.  Of course you can go around shooting manual but at times that's just not practical.  Beside, auto ISO let give you option to shoot at ISO in between stop that's not otherwise possible on the D40. I have seen prints from 1600 ISO file from the D40 and as long the exposure is correct, the prints are beautiful.  If you pixel peep, well, I still think 1600 ISO is okay, nothing too bad.


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 19, 2010)

I recently shot a friend wedding (it was either me or p&s pictures from friend type of siutaion).  Anyways, shot it on Auto ISO, work pretty well I say. 

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/professional-gallery/192869-winter-wedding.html


----------



## SrBiscuit (Feb 19, 2010)

i didnt read all responses (bad, i know.)

they hate on it for the same reasons people hated on the D40...and look where that still stands on the big old nikon graph.


----------



## Dominantly (Feb 19, 2010)

schumionbike said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> > I think that's a bad idea because you are using a CCD sensor, and you are limited in ISO if you expect your images to come out with as little noise as possible. You're giving the camera the ability to introduce noise instead of setting up the camera to get the best shots possible with the lowest ISO possible.
> ...


It's awesome you're trying to explain the concept of adjusting your settings to me, but I assure you I understand the concept.
If you are happy with the results of shooting your D40 at ISO 1600, or close to it, then so be it. If it was me I would keep that ISO as close to the bottom as possible, but to each their own.

I would recommend investing in some noise reduction software.


----------



## hightower (Feb 19, 2010)

KmH said:


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



Sorry I should have chosen my words more carefully.  Maybe it does not have excellent low light capability and yes the ISO sensitivities of the two cameras are about the same but the d40 has less noise than the d3000 when comparing technical image quality of photographs taken at the higher ISO levels...If you look at the Signal to Noise ratio the d3000 has as much noise at ISO 100 as the d40 does at ISO 200, as much noise at ISO 200 as the d40 does at ISO 400 and so on...click on the SNR 18% tab...the SNR of the d40 is as good as the d5000...

http://dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/%28appareil1%29/229|0/%28appareil2%29/331|0/%28appareil3%29/320|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Nikon

So when it comes down to it you can shoot at higher ISO with the d40 with less noise than you can with the d3000

Nikon D3000 High ISO Comparison


----------



## schumionbike (Feb 19, 2010)

Dominantly said:


> schumionbike said:
> 
> 
> > Dominantly said:
> ...


 
yeah, I look at your works and I was like why is he so suprise.  And you're not the only one that tried to keep the ISO down, the camera does too


----------



## littlemissSissy (Feb 20, 2010)

Thank you all for your advice...lol the thing that made me lean more toward to the d5000 is video mode and shooting pics in the screen.  Maybe one day i'll have kids or want to shoot special events in video mode.  I went to best buy and test both out and i feel for the money i want to get the d5000.  i just do not want to upgrade later lol, but yall i can tell i have alot to learn about it and the one i'm getting comes with a dvd instruction guide lol. and i know i can learn a crazy amount on this forum.  lol yall seem to know what your talking about.  I'm still pretty young and just got out of college so i think i'm capable of learning a this camera.  I'm happy i picked this as my new hobby!!!


----------



## hightower (Feb 20, 2010)

littlemissSissy said:


> I went to best buy and test both out and i feel for the money i want to get the d5000.



If you want a killer deal buy it here...

INKD5000RD Nikon D5000 DX-Format 12.3 Megapixel Digital SLR Camera Kit - Refurbished - by Nikon U.S.A. with Nikon 18mm - 55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX (VR) Vibration Reduction Wide Angle Autofocus Zoom Lens, - Refurbished - by Nikon U.S.A.

Its refurbished (nothing to worry about in and of itself) but just buy a $40 extended warranty and you are covered for two years (longer than Nikon's 1 year warranty on new cameras).


----------



## rlcphotos (Feb 20, 2010)

littlemissSissy said:


> what do yal think i should buy for my 1st camera the d3000 or d40x or d5000 (rather not spend that kind of money thou - D5000)


 



lol,, think Canon, Canon


----------



## KmH (Feb 20, 2010)

Can-none........I....just....can't....get.....past.....that....association....:lmao:

Ni-can   That clicks for me. :thumbup:


----------



## 357mag (Apr 8, 2011)

Why do people hate? Because they're dicks. And misguided. How can a $500.00 camera by one of the worlds best camera manufacturers be crappy? It's got an excellent image sensor the CCD type which is proven when image quality is paramount. There is so much bull**** on internet forums. And then they try to talk you into a more expensive D3100 or something. Why should someone pay $100.00 extra to get a camera that has features like live view or the capability to shoot HD Video when he could care less about those features?

Image quality is the most important thing and the D3000 delivers. More expensive cameras don't give sharper photos. They just have more features so they will cost more.

Some of the posts I've read on this forum slandering the D3000 are ridiculous and unwarranted. Even from a common sense standpoint they sound absurd.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Apr 8, 2011)

Arise my thread......... ARISE!!!!

Wake from the dead, and join the children of the night!


----------



## kundalini (Apr 8, 2011)

Welcome to TPF and thanks for pulling up a thread that has been idle for 14 months old just to rant.   :roll:


----------



## Dominantly (Apr 8, 2011)

Image quality is more important than composition/subject?

I have been reviewing some photos taken during the civil war, and while the quality is not the best, the subjects and composition make them very powerful. Might just be me though


----------



## KmH (Apr 8, 2011)

357mag said:


> Why do people hate? Because they're dicks. And misguided. How can a $500.00 camera by one of the worlds best camera manufacturers be crappy? It's got an excellent image sensor the CCD type which is proven when image quality is paramount. There is so much bull**** on internet forums. And then they try to talk you into a more expensive D3100 or something. Why should someone pay $100.00 extra to get a camera that has features like live view or the capability to shoot HD Video when he could care less about those features?
> 
> Image quality is the most important thing and the D3000 delivers. More expensive cameras don't give sharper photos. They just have more features so they will cost more.
> 
> Some of the posts I've read on this forum slandering the D3000 are ridiculous and unwarranted. Even from a common sense standpoint they sound absurd.


Since you brought up people being dicks!

Why didn't you just start your own thread instead of digging up one over a year old so you could post spew on page 4? :lmao:


----------



## 357mag (Apr 8, 2011)

Didn't make sense to start a new thread just to get some things off my chest concerning a specific camera. The thread I responded to was the subject matter at hand.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Apr 8, 2011)




----------



## RockstarPhotography (Apr 8, 2011)

The d3000 is an ok camera but defiantly has its limitations.  If you plan on shooting in low light forget it.  If you want to use burst mode in raw, forget it.  And the biggest fallback is it's lack of an internal focus motor.  So, if you want different lenses your going to be spending a great deal more for lenses that have focus motors in them compared to just af lenses.  But, if your happy shooting in good light, and happy with mediocre kit lenses (unless you want to fork out some cash or focus manually) then it will work just fine for you.


----------



## 357mag (Apr 8, 2011)

Everything has limitations. Nothing in this world is perfect.


----------



## LittleMike (Apr 8, 2011)

357mag said:


> Why do people hate? Because they're dicks. And misguided. How can a $500.00 camera by one of the worlds best camera manufacturers be crappy? It's got an excellent image sensor the CCD type which is proven when image quality is paramount. There is so much bull**** on internet forums. And then they try to talk you into a more expensive D3100 or something. Why should someone pay $100.00 extra to get a camera that has features like live view or the capability to shoot HD Video when he could care less about those features?
> 
> Image quality is the most important thing and the D3000 delivers. More expensive cameras don't give sharper photos. They just have more features so they will cost more.
> 
> Some of the posts I've read on this forum slandering the D3000 are ridiculous and unwarranted. Even from a common sense standpoint they sound absurd.





357mag said:


> Didn't make sense to start a new thread just to get some things off my chest concerning a specific camera. The thread I responded to was the subject matter at hand.





357mag said:


> Everything has limitations. Nothing in this world is perfect.






...Does someone need a hug?


----------

