Nikon D3000 - Rate it?

[Mabber]

Hi,

I'm looking to buy my 1st DSLR.

I find forums a bit difficult as there's always someone who will say "don't buy that, buy the more expensive one".

I'm tempted by the Nikon D3000, I've read several good reviews on it (Reghardware was good). I've seen the D3000 on ebay (new) for a good price. So, my question is...

Should I spend on this as my first forray into Digital Photography?

Cheers.....

Mabber.

 

[D.P.]

Bare in mind the D3000 has been replaced with the Nikon 3100

 

[Ksanti]

And there's your "get the more expensive one" already.

It's fine as start, I guess.

I would say go with Canon to start, though, for the simple reason that all of their bodies have built in AF, whereas the cheaper Nikons do not. What that means is that you can use autofocus on lenses like the 50mm f/1.8 "nifty fifty" which is a great start to pushing your photography, whereas with Nikon their 50mm f/1.8 doesn't autofocus on the cheap bodies, so your cheapest prime option is the 35mm f/1.8 which comes in at c. £180 (compared to c. £100 for the 50mm, and c. £70 for Canon's 50mm)

 

[K.C. Leblanc]

I would say go with Canon to start, though, for the simple reason that all of their bodies have built in AF, whereas the cheaper Nikons do not.

Erm, actually no Canons have a focusing motor in the body. They're all in the lens.

Nikon used a focusing motor build into the body but have mostly changed over to one in the lens. The higher end Nikon models still have a motor in the body (for backward compatibility), but their entry level models do not. (Canon invented a new lens mount when they started doing autofocus, Nikon have instead evolved their mount over the years).

Can I ask how cheap is cheap.

One issue with the D3000 is the sensor used was from the previous generation of Nikon DSRLs. It's basically a D60 with better auto focus. This means the performance in low light isn't great and also there's no live view. You might find a used D40, D40X or D60, and have enough money to get some extra bits (the modular nature of dSLRs means there'll always be some sort of attachment you want).

Another important consideration is ergonomics, go and try a D3000 in a shop and see if it works for you. It spent ages reading up on different dSLRs. Was 100 % sure that I wanted a Canon (probably a 1000D or 450D). It took me 4 seconds with the nice man from Jessops to realise I wanted a Nikon.

 

[Ksanti]

Erm, actually no Canons have a focusing motor in the body. They're all in the lens.

Nikon used a focusing motor build into the body but have mostly changed over to one in the lens. The higher end Nikon models still have a motor in the body (for backward compatibility), but their entry level models do not. (Canon invented a new lens mount when they started doing autofocus, Nikon have instead evolved their mount over the years).

Can I ask how cheap is cheap.

One issue with the D3000 is the sensor used was from the previous generation of Nikon DSRLs. It's basically a D60 with better auto focus. This means the performance in low light isn't great and also there's no live view. You might find a used D40, D40X or D60, and have enough money to get some extra bits (the modular nature of dSLRs means there'll always be some sort of attachment you want).

Another important consideration is ergonomics, go and try a D3000 in a shop and see if it works for you. It spent ages reading up on different dSLRs. Was 100 % sure that I wanted a Canon (probably a 1000D or 450D). It took me 4 seconds with the nice man from Jessops to realise I wanted a Nikon.

Ah, I stand corrected. Still, the overall point that Canon>Nikon for bottom end bodies for primes still stands, though with the 35mm f/1.8 and new 50mm f/1.8G I reckon Nikon are trying to sort that out.

 

[explicit4u]

TBH at the lower end of the camera spectrum it's only really about price and ergonomics. You can't really go wrong with any low end Nikon/Canon so find a camera that suits both and buy it!

 

[An Exception]

TBH at the lower end of the camera spectrum it's only really about price and ergonomics. You can't really go wrong with any low end Nikon/Canon so find a camera that suits both and buy it!

Nope, it's also about the higher end cameras as well, if he get's really into photography, and maybe even decides to earn some extra cash, do you think he will stop at entry level? No he'l want to upgrade, but he'l already have a bunch of lenses and maybe a flash(s) gun and perhaps some triggers. It's now a lot of hassle/cost to switch your camera manufacturer, he's literally marrying into a family of camera bodies.

@ Op

I think your making the right choice going to Nikon, I wish I had done so as well, instead of counting mega-pixels...

 

[Ksanti]

Nikon:
Better high-ISO performance in the high end bodies
Better quality mid-range primes
No AF on mid/low range primes and older lenses (very important at low end as the cheapest usable 50mm on a cheap Nikon body is £300, cheapest 85mm is £600 (Sigma f/1.4) wheras on Canon the 50mm f/1.8 is usable at £70, and the 85mm f/1.8 is at £300)

Canon:
Higher MP count throughout the range (not important until you're on REALLY expensive lenses)
Slightly larger user base and second hand market
Wider first party lens selection
AF on every single Canon lens regardless of body (there are some lenses e.g. Samyang, which don't have any AF regardless of body as part of their design)

Other manufacturers:
Sensor Image stabilisation: Image stabilisation on any lens you use, improving the overall low light performance of all non-stablised lenses (looking at primes mainly here, though a couple of mid-range zooms and older high-end zooms are still non-stabilised.)
Much smaller second hand market and harder to source lenses, as a result of low competition prices tend to be higher as well. (The slight exception to the latter being Sony alpha cameras which have a pretty big range of very good glass, esp. the AF Zeiss lenses, and also the a850 which is a great camera for IQ and is the cheapest entry point into Full Frame even now)

My opinion:
Go Canon. Hugely popular at least on the internet (and here) which makes them easier to support with second hand glass. AF in every lens is very important (I'm hating having to buy AF-S lenses only for my D5000, given how much of the AF-D glass is still being sold).
I'd hesitate with Nikon as they have neither the universal AF on every lens on every body, and no sensor stabilisation.
I'd hesitate with any other manufacturer due to lack of glass unless you have a lot of K-mount Pentax lenses, with the exception of the alpha-mount system as there is good glass there, including sensor stabilisation.

 

[bigredshark]

Nope, it's also about the higher end cameras as well, if he get's really into photography, and maybe even decides to earn some extra cash, do you think he will stop at entry level? No he'l want to upgrade, but he'l already have a bunch of lenses and maybe a flash(s) gun and perhaps some triggers. It's now a lot of hassle/cost to switch your camera manufacturer, he's literally marrying into a family of camera bodies.

@ Op

I think your making the right choice going to Nikon, I wish I had done so as well, instead of counting mega-pixels...

Well, if you're buying a high end body you'll likely be replacing all your existing low end glass anyway with L glass or equivalent so it's not so important. Certainly I'm currently upgrading everything to full frame and my existing investment in glass, although very substantial, isn't ruling anything out. Even top end stuff like the 70-200 VR isn't up with the latest VRII version on full frame, and the old glass still has decent resale value. So spending £1.5-3k per body, the additional £1-2k (after second hand sales) to upgrade all my glass to the latest and greatest zooms on either system is negligible to my view, if I'm prepared to spend that to start with I want the best option, not the least hassle.

In any event, it's pretty much impossible to say what the best high end bodies will be in a couple of years (hell, even next year until the next generation are announced), it'll change year to year and right now there is no 'best' at most levels, the D700 is a better stills camera for me but the 5DII likely is more useful for a wedding or landscape photographer, but the D700 doesn't have video - for me it's going in circles trying to decide. Go for what works for you now.

My view is the low end Nikon's don't work for me, despite what I feel is lower quality build I find the Canon's easier to make pictures with, slightly unquantifiable and if both were sitting on the table I'd struggle to choose for most purposes.

 

[Auraomega]

One of the big advantages (in my eyes anyway) with Nikon is the ability to buy almost any Nikon lens and know it will mount without having to buy adaptors and so on, it means you can pick up cheap second hand old lenses at a bargain price, the lack of autofocus really doesn't bother me because it forces me to learn to focus correctly (for one thing I learned my dioptre was totally out for my eyes).

Sometimes I wish I'd gone Canon for this feature or another, but overall I'm quite enjoying my D3100 and can't really fault it.

 

[mcc49]

I am not quite sure how the lack of autofocus lets you learn how to focus properly? Its like saying a car without power steering helps you learn how to steer correctly? I've seen many new photographers trying to manual focus their lens (a friend of mine included) because they think that is what pro's do and the results were less than satisfactory. Yes the image in you tiny viewfinder might be in focus but most of the time you'll be disappointed when viewing them on the PC.

DSLR these days aren't geared for manual focus anymore, pro's will pay the premium for the latest and greatest AF systems in Canon/Nikon's flagship camera because it makes their life much easier. The only time I would consider MF mode is when doing macro shots where I have all the time in the world and even then I will be in live view mode on 10x magnification.

If you really want to use MF properly then consider a split screen/prism focusing screen for your DSLR

 

[Ksanti]

I'd be more willing to manual focus on a 35mm film slr, but on cheap crop bodies, the viewfinder image is just way too small for it to be an enjoyable experience.

I'd seriously contest that being able to buy almost any Nikon lens. Sure, some of the old Canon lenses may not work nowadays, but that's really a negligible part of it. With Nikon, you have to worry about whether it's a crop lens (you have that with Canon as well) but also if it will AF on your body. On Canon you don't have that worry.

Another advantage of Canon is the 5DMkI/older 1 series cameras in that there's a MUCH cheaper entry point into full frame photography whereas Nikon full frame still costs over £1000 for body only, second hand or otherwise.

 

[Beasty]

I like my d3000 a lot but it starts to show how basic it is after a while, for a starter camera it is great though and the guide mode really helps you on your way. Hopefully going to the d7000 in june.

 

[Aero]

I like my d3000 a lot but it starts to show how basic it is after a while, for a starter camera it is great though and the guide mode really helps you on your way. Hopefully going to the d7000 in june.

^^ This. I adore my D3000, I originally wanted a canon but I found after trying it out in a shop the ergonomic's just didn't work for me. Ok so the D3000 hasn't got live view, but I didn't want that anyway as I wanted to learn using the eye piece.

Here is a bit of a list on my experiences with the D3000.

• Fits in my hands great
• The layout of the controls I found suited me
• The menu's I found are very easy and intuitive to use
• There is no feature for time lapsing (if thats your thing)
• No live view
• No fully functioning grips
• No in built AF motor but as already stated it helps you to learn to focus manually
• I found the neck strap a bit sharp - Solved this with a 99p neoprene strap from ebay.

Overall it's an entry level camera, it's not going to do everything, but I can honestly say I'm pleased with it and I would recommend it to anyone.