# Nikon D3000 After D5000 - Anyone Else Confused?



## CWN (Nov 28, 2009)

The D5000 has a nice CMOS sensor, the D3000 shares the old CCD sensor of the camera it replaced, the iconic D40.

Why did Nikon even release the D3000?

Am I the only one a little confused by this? Really, if they wanted a lower priced entry level DSLR, why not just continue the D60 line?

Seems to me Nikon re-invented the wheel 4 times now.

D40
D40x
D60
D3000

I do realize the subtle differences between the releases, but what I don't get is that with an already released entry level CMOS sensor camera body - why release a new CCD body?

Personally, I would have let the D40 continue on as the champion entry level DSLR it has proven to be, none of the others were even necessary in my opinion.

Other than the interface on the D3000 (could have been a firmware upgrade to the D60), can anyone explain to me why Nikon chose this path?

Sidenote:
D3000 owners, don't get me wrong here - I think the D3000 is an excellent camera body, I love the D40 and D60 - I just don't understand why they released yet another rendition of essentially the same thing.


----------



## KmH (Nov 28, 2009)

Don't forget that Nikon sells worldwide. That makes it kind of hard to second decern their overall strategy.


----------



## dhilberg (Nov 28, 2009)

Probably an effort to keep costs as low as possible while introducing a new product. Consumers expect new electronic products to be released on a routine basis. If they would have just went on with the D40, it could be considered the "same old thing." Because the D3000 is newer, people think it's better.

That's my guess. I wouldn't really look into it any deeper than that.


----------



## Dominantly (Nov 28, 2009)

Maybe because that's how business works? Anything that sits too long becomes boring for a brand. The D60 needed to happen, and the D3000 just appears to be a quick refresher to keep newbies attention, while getting them to spend just a tad bit more money, for some features seen on more expensive models.
The D3000 is worthy of replacing the 40/60, and should make people feel like their are buying new technology.


----------



## hossmaster (Dec 1, 2009)

i don't think I would ever get used to a camera without a top lcd screen.


----------



## CWN (Dec 1, 2009)

You're right!

I remember with my D40 how I didn't think it was a big deal since the info was on the back - but now I don't know how I'd get by without it


----------



## FrankLamont (Dec 1, 2009)

They opt to replace the D40. Almost identical, but higher pixel count, which is primarily what buyers looking in that region particularly look at first.


----------



## schumionbike (Dec 1, 2009)

The D3000 does have a better focus system than the D40 which is a worth while improvement.  I have the D40 though and it's a great camera, the D40 is more bargain for your buck probably,


----------



## Dwig (Dec 2, 2009)

CWN said:


> ... the D3000 shares the old CCD sensor of the camera it replaced, the iconic D40....



Quite incorrect!

The D40 is the "odd man out" in the D40, D40x, D60, & D3000 series. The D40 used an antique CCD related to that in the D50 and D70. 

The D40x was a D40 with an upgraded sensor. The D60 was an upgraded D40x, not D40, with dust reduction and a few other improvements. The D3000 (new naming sequence but otherwise just another step on the path) is a D60 with a much improved AF sensor system as its primary enhancement.

The D5000 this a different animal. It is a hybrid between the D90 (same AF system, CMOS sensor, and video functions) in a simplified body similar to the entry level D3000, but with a rather nice positionable LCD panel.


----------



## CWN (Dec 2, 2009)

Good observation, however my point was CCD vs CMOS


----------

