# Nikon D40 vs. Nikon D3000



## hopeadelaide (Apr 26, 2010)

is there a general better camera between these two or are they more appropriate for specific uses?

i notice that adorama is offering the D3000 for less than the D40, and the D40 photos that i've seen tend to look more professional than D3000 photos; which obviously leads me to believe that the D40 is the wiser purchase.

but i'd love to get some feedback, still!


----------



## hopeadelaide (Apr 26, 2010)

oh, another thing...my opinion of the D40 is that it's a substantial camera that is somewhat outdated, am i wrong?


----------



## Goontz (Apr 26, 2010)

The D3000 is actually very similar but just newer than the D40. As such,  it has just adds a couple features or updates that the D40 doesn't  have. It would be hard to pick which one is "better" between the two  because they're so similar. 

D3000 has a better/newer Autofocus system, sensor cleaning, .5 fps more,  and a larger LCD on the back (3" instead of 2.5").


----------



## Goontz (Apr 26, 2010)

I'll also add that how "professional" any given shot looks has to do more with the lens and the photographer. Great results could be made with either camera.


----------



## KmH (Apr 26, 2010)

Goontz said:


> The D3000 is actually very similar but just newer than the D40. As such, it has just adds a couple features or updates that the D40 doesn't have. It would be hard to pick which one is "better" between the two because they're so similar.
> 
> D3000 has a better/newer Autofocus system, sensor cleaning, .5 fps more, and a larger LCD on the back (3" instead of 2.5").


The D3000 also has 60% more pixels having a 10 MP image sensor. The D40 is 6 MP.


----------



## Goontz (Apr 26, 2010)

Oh yeah; I forgot to mention probably one of the most obvious things!


----------



## bullie76 (Apr 26, 2010)

hopeadelaide said:


> is there a general better camera between these two or are they more appropriate for specific uses?
> 
> i notice that adorama is offering the D3000 for less than the D40, and the D40 photos that i've seen tend to look more professional than D3000 photos; which obviously leads me to believe that the D40 is the wiser purchase.
> 
> but i'd love to get some feedback, still!



I just ordered a D3000 from adorama. I hope it's a good camera, but most anything would be an upgrade over my old Kodak pocket point an shoot one. Should get it in a few days so pretty excited. I'm a newbie to the dslr world, so lot's to learn.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 26, 2010)

This reviewer pans the D3000:

Nikon D3000

I've shot the D40 fairly extensively. It's probably the best 6 megapixel d-slr ever made in the consumer segment. I have not shot the D3000, so I cannot speak for it. Some people love Rockwell's writing, while others loathe it. Just something to think about.


----------



## bullie76 (Apr 26, 2010)

Derrel said:


> This reviewer pans the D3000:
> 
> Nikon D3000
> 
> I've shot the D40 fairly extensively. It's probably the best 6 megapixel d-slr ever made in the consumer segment. I have not shot the D3000, so I cannot speak for it. Some people love Rockwell's writing, while others loathe it. Just something to think about.



Yes, I saw his review. But I read many reviews saying it's a newer version of the D40 with more pixels. And as you state, the D40 has been one of the best dslr cameras for the consumer segment over the last couple of years. So I hope that is the case. If so, I should be happy.

But who knows? It's all a matter of opinion. I know some posters on different forums that post pics all the time with this camera and they love it. And the pictures look great. I just hope I have the same opinion after I get into it.


----------



## Felix 222 (Apr 26, 2010)

i used my d40 for 3 years and loved it. it never let me down! unfortunately, i have not used the d3000 so i can't compare the two


----------



## hopeadelaide (Apr 27, 2010)

I'm really torn, now. /:


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Apr 27, 2010)

hopeadelaide said:


> I'm really torn, now. /:


 
Why?  The 3000 is the "new" version of the 40.  They are virtually identical in features with the exception of the 10MP for the 3000 vs 6MP for the 40.   

The 40 has aboslutly nothing on the 3000, so if the 3000 is cheaper (which is surprising) then its a no brainer which one to choose.  Unless some major firmware flaw was found in the 3000 (which I'm sure would have been found by now), I see no reason to buy a 40 if the 3000 is cheaper.


----------



## melst (Apr 27, 2010)

In my opinion the d3000 will be the best choice.


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 27, 2010)

d5000!  Or, you could go used.  I wanted to grab a d5000, a 18-55, and a 55-200.  AFter alot of research, i found a d200 for sale, for $600, with only about 21000 actuations.  And that, i think, is much superior to the d5000.  And the d5000 would have cost me about $900. So i cannot complain!


----------



## hopeadelaide (Apr 27, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> hopeadelaide said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really torn, now. /:
> ...



I guess that review of the d300 that was posted earlier was fairly convincing. 

The d3000 is cheaper by about fifteen dollars so it's not like I'm losing much by purchasing the d40, at any rate.

Do you have experience with either camera, out of curiosity?


----------



## hopeadelaide (Apr 27, 2010)

Nikon D3000 10.2 MP DSLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR Lens - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A.

Nikon D40 6.1 Megapixel Digital SLR Camera 3X Zoom Kit Outfit, with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor Lens - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A.

Here are the cameras in the question; the d3000 and the d40, respectively.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Apr 27, 2010)

hopeadelaide said:


> I guess that review of the d300 that was posted earlier was fairly convincing.
> 
> The d3000 is cheaper by about fifteen dollars so it's not like I'm losing much by purchasing the d40, at any rate.
> 
> Do you have experience with either camera, out of curiosity?


 
I have the D40.  I baught it about a year ago when the D3000 was just coming out.  The D40's were considerably less expensive.  I couldn't find a reason to justify the extra expense in buying a D3000.  Had the two been comparitivly priced, I would have gone with the 3000


----------



## hopeadelaide (Apr 27, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> hopeadelaide said:
> 
> 
> > I guess that review of the d300 that was posted earlier was fairly convincing.
> ...



so, perhaps the reason for the drop in price for a d3000 is because it's not as great as people were thinking it would be?


----------

