How would you change Nikon's D3000?
By Darren Murph 
posted Oct 16th 2009 11:56PM
posted Oct 16th 2009 11:56PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Slow night for comments, I guess.
I don't own this camera, because I can't view it as a compelling "upgrade". I don't think that it is that for anyone, though- it really adds nothing to the existing line. A few more megapixels, a stripped down interface... I'm still baffled as to whether there is any advantage at all over the D60.
As to the kit lens, though? Awesome lens, one of the best zoom lenses you can get without spending over $500.
I agree on the lens, it is a great lens. I don't see a point for this camera. Sure, it does have a bit more MP's compared to the D40 but has worse high ISO performance; Up to a full stop by some accounts. I would have loved to see Nikon follow the same strategy with that they did with the D3S and bring out a 6.1 megapixel D3000 but with a stop better ISO performance than the D40.
It would be nice if it could autofocus with older nikon lenses. Nikon just needs to add the internal focus drive motor thing in there and I can see this would be a perfect dslr.
Enable the same intervalometer (time-lapse) functions as the D300!
There's no excuse for any camera today not to offer this simple feature. Not only has Canon not learned this, but Nikon could move even further ahead in this area by allowing mirror lockup for an entire time-lapse sequence. That way you don't have the mirror assembly slapping up and down hundreds of times unnecessarily.
Well i have bought the D3000 and have had a couple days to play with it. I am very happy with the camera, It's my first Dslr. and the photo quality is very very good.
Use D300's sensor
Get the D5000.
D300 can't take a movie.
D300's sensor is cheaper than D300s' sensor.
The lens is the standard kit lens: pretty great for under 200 bucks.
The D3000, on the other hand, offers no compelling reason for me to upgrade from my D60. However, if I didn't have a DSLR and was choosing one, I'd definetely get the D3000.
guide mode seems kinda lame. i was tempted to buy a nikon before i eventually went canon. reason i was tempted was because a salesperson (he was nikonian) told me about how nikons basically have the user guide built into the camera's software.... long story short, bought a canon and read the user guide in a couple days, never needed it to be bundled with the software.
You should have tried out a higher end Nikon then. The D3000 is for newbies who do find DSLRs confusing. Hence the manual built into the camera.
ADD AN "i" to it........
lasers.
I don't know.
Give me one and I'll let you know.
Let me use it to cook ants.
1080/24/30p without the jello. Mic jack, headphone jack and full manual control.
I have the D60. They could have done without the freakin huge frame. Its ugly, old and overdone. And its uncomfortable compared to the 80/90.
i bought this camera for my photo class in college recently and i love it. the image quality is way better then the d40 and d60 that the other students have in my class.
Hi, since you not only have one of these, but also get to see many other camera's that your students have do you think this is indeed the best camera for a first time DSLR user??
I have 4 o5 5 35 mm minolta bodies and a TON of minolta lenses, but for the last 6 years or so have been using a Kysoera which I choose because of the 2.5" screen and some other features at the time were pretty good in comparison.
I wasnt' sure when I bought that one that I wanted to give up my 35 mm, but have never looked back or used them again. But I miss some of those features, and I REALLY miss using, multiple lenses and would really like to use some of my higher lenses for distance etc.
Do you know if lenses that fit Minolta's would work with the D3000, some of my lenses are other brands, but of course all work with Minolta's some are manual and some AF.
@Sealady
Unfortunately, the only dSLR's that might mount your old Minolta lenses are Sony's. If the Minolta lenses are autofocus, then they should mount fine, but if they are manual focus, the bayonent will actually get in the way of the mirror.
FULL FRAME
At first I was a little turned off by the lack of mini screen, but after a while I really started to enjoy the simplicity of the camera. I'm the editor for my yearbook and we just picked up a few of these for basic shooting as well as a few others. We now have the whole Nikon line-up represented (except the D3s of course). I have to say by having to learn the subtle differences in these cameras for the purpose of training people the D3000 really is a great value for what you get. No, it will not run with the D80 or D90, but it is not meant to. Personally I think it does a fantastic job at what it was intended for.
As for the lens that came in the kit, it serves our purposes just fine. The 18-55mm is all we need for classroom and hallway shots. Would we ever use this body or lens for sports shooting? Obviously not. While it does have a "sports" mode, I have found that may be most used for capturing jumping shots in daylight.
All and all I really rather like the camera. It is a fantastic way to introduce newcomers to the Digital SLR world. The visuals on the screen for adjusting aperture and shutter speed are fantastic training tools as well.
If you are looking to dip your toes in the photography world, give this one a shot, at worst leave you'll it in "auto" and still have a brilliant 10MP Nikon d SLR.
What kind of school do you attend?! My school could barely afford one used D40! And here you guys get the whole damn lineup! Gah!
Schools of the private variety sometimes have access to funding that public ones find difficult to match...
Exactly! The problem is that private schools still have access to public funding which stinks.
I have no problems with the rich having their own schools, but let them fund it entirely themselves. Why force people whom can't afford to send their children to private school into helping pay for those who can.
Sorry for the mini-rant...
Whoa, how times have changed. I started out with a Pentax K-1000.
My film Nikon 8008s still does a great job, 20 yrs old!
Using Nikon glass is definitely a plus. Most Nikkor lenses really are worth it.
If the higher ISO settings don't cut it... this body may be for the *extrememly* casual shooter only.
@calgaryalta
I think what he was saying is private schools usually have more money to spend on expensive cameras than public schools. I know for a fact my private high school got NO public funding whatsoever, so the administration was always focused on fundraising in order to be able to give financial aid, build new classrooms, and pay the teachers (less salary than the local public school, unfortunately). I have heard of private grants and donations being given, but never of public, government funds being given to a private school.
@ rdb
They do in canada, specifically in Alberta....maybe its different in the states? Are you in the U.S.A. ?
I own a D3000 and really enjoy using it. The screen is amazing and probably my favorite feature. I actually picked it over the D5000 for this reason. However, I really would love to see AEB and PC control included in this model. Nikon has included PC control is many lower end cameras for years and left it out of the 3000. Those are my only major issues with it.
I want a speedy ADR.
It's pretty useless on the D3000.
I meant 3 freaking seconds to process an image.
The playback is slower than the D40. WTF.
Other than that. It's a great camera.
What are the differences between D3000 and D60? They have almost equal price. Would someone please clarify?
D60 is the older model with a very basic AF system and a previous gen CCD sensor. The proper replacement for it is the D5000 while the D3000 is more of a D40 replacement.
The D3000 is to replace D60/D40.
D5000 is meant to complete with low end Canons I think the EOS XTI. (Live View and Movie)
I just purchased this camera last weekend and I love it so far. My first D-SLR. Upgraded from an old Sony Cybershot. Even as a relatively novice user, I find the guide mode somewhat useless. I suppose there some who will benefit from it but it is a bit gimmicky for me. I really dig the built in user manual feature though. It's nice to have a quick reference to some of the features that I am unfamiliar with. I was tempted by the D5000 but ultimately I feel like it was worth the couple hundred in savings. I have a dedicated HD camcorder so it wasn't important to me to have movie mode on a still camera. I am happy I got a great D-SLR thats easy to use without breaking the bank. No regrets here.
Built-in autofocus motor. Most people buying these have no idea what an AF-S or AF-I lens is, and they'll rely on the AF system, and, as much as I love my D300s, it's overkill for a lot of things. Even my D90 backup body is way too much for a night out with friends.
I agree. Might be paying a bit more for in-body AF, but you save money on lenses.
Nikon won't put a motor in their lower end bodies. Don't waste your time waiting for it. Their business model is to make people upgrade to higher end bodies and the lack of the in-body motor arises from that.
Most of the target audience of these cameras would never go beyond the kit lens and the matching tele anyway. If that doesn't suffice, Nikon has AF-S variants for pretty much every lens they're likely to use with these bodies (Except for the 50 f1.8, but there is the AF-S 50 f1.4G and the AF-S 35 f1.8G to make up for that somewhat).
I suspect the lack of a motor isn't going an issue for most of those people. If they even buy another lens (that is besides the one they got in a kit), it will most likely be a zoom. And most Nikon zooms have been updated to AF-S.
Ugh... this comment system really gets on my nerves sometimes.
Most people are content with their kit lens so I think you're right... it won't be a problem for most people, however I wish Nikon would update a few of their lenses to AF-S. The 80-400mm is a good example of a lens that would be awesome on a D3000/D40/D60 but simply won't autofocus.
Turn it into a D700
id run over it in my lifted f150 to flatten it out and make it more portable
I got my first dslr D3000 two weeks ago. So far I'm pretty happy with it. It has so advantages over D40(which is hard to find new) and D60. I think it's a natural choice for newbees like me. I think it's a great camera, easy to work with it. The 18-55 kit lens is also great, especially for indoor situations.
Cheers
D3000 : seriously, have Nikon sold more than three of these? Yawn. There's a reason it's derisively known as the D40x Mk III.
Take a D60 and increase the number of AF from 3 to seven = D3000. Not really enough to compete with the Pentax K-x.
Pentax fanboys: Seriously, are there more than three of you?
Apologies to actual Pentax users though. I have a Pentax film SLR and really dig their gear (Even though I'm a Nikonian), but ill-informed statements like this just beg to be thrashed.
I'll informed? Pentax fanboy?
I'm a Nikon user for Pete's sake!
The Pentax K-x kit and Nikon D3000 kit sell for the same price where I live.
D3000:
10MP CCD
slightly better kit lens
AF assist lamp
AF points display in viewfinder
nicer looking LCD graphics and menu system
K-x
12MP CMOS sensor, far superior high ISO performance
live view, 720/24 HD video (D3000 has no liveview or video output of any kind)
4.7 fps (vs. 3.5)
various neat tricks, in camera HDR and face detection being relatively useful given its intended market.
slimmer, better built, better ergonomics (subjective, but I've handled both and I'm a long time D40 user so would be biased to the D3000 in anything)
Tied:
Standard AA batteries (K-x) vs. custom Lithium (nikon) ... personally I prefer the smaller custom battery pack of the Nikon, but AA can be found anywhere so in emergencies its a nice feature.
Nikon has VR in the lens, Pentax has SR in the body. VR works slightly better, but SR works in all your lenses.
Fanboi-ism left at the door, that's as plain and fair as I can make it. It's when I saw the ISO3200 results from the K-x that my jaw hit the floor. Video and live view is all well and nice to have in the bag, but at the end of the day the K-x also has the better sensor and by a wide margin too.
I just bought this camera last week, and I must say...I loved it!
As a first-time D-SLR user, I was pretty intimidated by all the what-zits and whoo-zas I keep hearing from professional photographers. I had a very difficult time convincing myself to pay a few extra hundred dollars just to buy an oversized camera with features I neither understand nor know how to use.
The Canon D3000 made that jump a lot easier. Granted, the tutorial mode got pretty tiring pretty fast, but without it I probably would've just kept using the auto feature. I was able to learn photography basics in just a day.
Only regret was that if I new how easy it was to use a DSLR, I probably would've gotten a D5000. But of course, I wouldn't be in this spot if it weren't for the tutorial mode.
It's a must by for novices going from a point-and-shoot to D-SLRs. But as an upgrade, I suggest you give this a pass.
It's a Nikon my friend. Don't commit blasphemy!:D
I'd suggest that you start investing in good glass and only when you truly feel that you've outgrown the body, jump on to something like the D90.
Always remember that lenses are a long term investment. Bodies lose their sheen and value pretty fast. Lenses don't.
No I suggest you stick with the kit lens and get to know it.
Only invest in new lenses when you are consistently unable to make the shots you want.
Test
I actually picked it over the D5000 for this reason. However, I really would love to see AEB and PC control included in this model. Nikon has included PC control is many lower end cameras for years and left it out of the 3000.
The D3000 doesn't really stand a chance against the Penetax K-x. Come on, no autofocus motor on the body? It's just another bait-and-switch tactic by Nikon to make more money from ignorant customers after they find out that not all Nikon lenses are compatible with their new toy. Either get a Nikon camera with an autofocus motor or another brand (like the K-X).
At this point Nikon has updated almost all of their zooms with AF-S. They've got a long way to go with their fast primes, and there are two or three zooms that still haven't received an update, but I seriously doubt most people that buy these bodies are going to be interested in these lenses anyways.
As much as I agree that the K-x is far superior and only fractionally more expensive, the lack of an AF motor on the D3000 isn't a major downside in my opinion, since it's not that restrictive in practice. A motor-less Pentax body on the other hand would be far more of a problem, just because of the smaller range of self-powered lenses available.
I don't know about the cam but the lens is one of the best DX lense out there. I've not used a better DX lens than the 18-55mm... it's razor sharp at the wide end and remains pretty much sharp throughout the rest of the trip.
now for some shameless self promotion with photos using the 18-55 kit lens(well, mostly)!
:P
I am about to buy this camera .... i prefer nikon as a brand and outfit over canon and all the others.... i was considering either the D3000 or the D5000 and even though the 5000's biggest feature over any other camera is its swivel screen.. i dont like it.. it forced nikon to make it smaller the the D3000's and lower quality.. and i doubt i would ever use it.. if i did need it there would probably be much sun and it would be useless... the 5000 however does have a couple of extra megapixels and a better CMOS sensor instead of a CCD and liveview..... personally i hate liveview it keeps the sensor exposed to dust longer.... i think that the d3000 should have live view because its competing with the rebel XS which does have liveview and for point and shoot upgraders they probably will miss it..
i would change the D3000 by adding a CMOS sensor instead of a CCD and adding liveview and maybe exposure bracketing but no motor.. because u need to remember this is nikons lowest model in the DSLR Range
Since you are the first guy here considering to buy one I will share a story with you... I had a sony H50, in the beggining of the summer I wanted to take the step into dSLR photography but instead I ended up buying an olympus 590uz. It was a horrible decision and last week I bought a nikon d3000. I was pretty excited but you know what? After 15 minutes I was able to tweak all the setting get nice pictures but it didn't have that ''wow'' factor! You know I always though that dslr would be like driving a car for the first time but with the 3000 it felt like I've done it before. After two days then zI returned it at full price and gave another 250euros and bought the D5000 which I have to admit is on another league.So: my comments on the 3000 is that is should have been like the 5000 cutting the fancy turning screen lowering the resolution giving it a slise by 1/5 on the price and it would be great. But if you get it trust me(or don't) that you will end up after a month having spend the extra money on beers and clothes thinking that you could have the 5000 on your hands.
So compering the two and being off subject I say: Live vew sucks it is slooooooow on focusing but it is nice if you add it with the fancy screen and manual focus,more MEGAPIXELS are bad for iso but CMOS makes up for that, it is faster and the lense is great.
Thats most of it...Oh and don't forget if you actually end up buyin the d5000 dont forget to have your mobile phone at hand. locate the site where you address the issue with the power switch, locate the serial at the bottom of the camera that you are actually going to buy and write the serial there to check that it is o.k. The last thing you want to buy is a crumpled dSLR...
That's it I'm tired now :P
I do not understand the silliness behind folks looking for movie (video) capabilities in a still image product. Plent of just-as-lame video capturing devices can be had for much better application. Are you a photographer, or a videographer?
This is an entry-level product and expectations should be according to that concept. If you want more for less, buy something other than a Nikon.
Is it wrong for me to want to carry only one device to my kid's soccer game? I want an affordable, light weight, CCD DSLR that shoots awesome photos and HD video.. what part of that don't you understand? I don't understand the silliness of people like you who want to carry a backpack full of gear and pay for several different devices that all have the same basic sensor in them.
The CCD technology exists in lower end cameras (Canon SX20 is a perfect example), just take that 720p video mode an ENABLE it in the D3000. Nikon doesn't do it because it'll cannibalize the higher end sales.
@csnoke
The response rate of a dSLR sized CCD sensor (as apposed to a CMOS sensor) is much too slow for recording video. (the sensor in the SX20 is a small fraction the size of the one in the D3000)
*opposed
@csnoke:
I've owned or significantly used each category of device you're talking about- still camera that does video too, video camera that does still too, cell phone that does pictures and videos too, etc. What they all have in common is, they are good at one thing, and mediocre or poor at the other thing.
The reason, as noted above, is that the different functions have competing design needs. Still cameras want large sensors that suck in lots of light and detail. Video cameras want sensors that rapidly accept new slices of data, and that pick up that information consistently in a smaller fraction of a second. These are competing goals, and a camera that does one well is invariably making a compromise on the other. That's part of the reason it's very impressive for a DSLR or any image camera to shoot video in 1080 by 1600, even though that is only a fraction of the camera's still resolution: shooting 24 or more frames per second at any given resolution is a considerably more challenging task than shooting 1 or 2. That's also why HD video cameras are more expensive and data intensive than standard video cameras, and why there is such an enormous difference between a high quality video camera and a poor one.
Now, put yourself in Nikon's shoes. The "best" you could hope to accomplish out of a sensor and processor that are designed primarily for 10MP still pictures is possibly 720p video, which would probably be choppy and limited to 5 minute or so clips before the camera's buffer either ran out, or added $100 to the retail cost. Add that now, your customer service and support departments will be overwhelmed by sports parents angrily questioning why their DSLR cut out or had a memory card error just before Jonny scored his big touchdown. Why would a company want to touch that? Instead, they tend toward saying (more in the case of Canon) that "We also offer a lot of good video cameras, we recommend a dedicated camera." And by the way, video has never been within Nikon's field, as for 50 years their work has been on still photos, until they kludged it into their compact cameras a few years ago.
Why do compact cameras have it? Small, cheap sensors are less prone to overheat, and usually get limited to VGA or lower for the task; plus, they don't have to worry about a mirror and mechanical shutter ala DSLR.
I agree... it could be useful for those times when a picture isnt enough but... i ddnt want to add video to the D3000 because as in the D5000 it can only shoot 5 mins at 720p HD and at only 25 fps son the quality is horrible anyway. a pocket camcorder will do much better
I have a D50, 6.3MP which i think still takes the best pictures and body is fairly rugged with alot of features packed in. Lifetime Nikon guy F2, FM, and 8008 film cameras but I find the pace of the dslrs a bit insane -- In the old days if you were going to spend 500 to $1k that camera lasted you 20 years - not it seems like theres a new model every year - i can't afford to keep doing that. Wake me up when there is a worthy F2 DSLR.
@Brett:
The D700 is a worthy F2 successor. So is the D3s.
However, those are $2500 and $5200 respectively. Both are full frame, and both shoot over 6400 ISO at way better quality than the D50. Both are "more rugged" with the D3 being a straight up Abrams tank and a direct descendant of your F2. At 12 megapixels these cameras will be promising you competitive 20 by 30 prints for the whole 150,000+ shot shutter life.
I have a D50 as well, and it lives at 1600 because most of my shooting is indoors at night, parties and plays and such. I would be pretty happy to have four times the low light sensitivity, but I'm not sure I care about it more than $1000 worth until/unless I get some paid shooting work.
Nikon image quality sucks!! Just buy a canon
My wife bought me the D3000 a couple days after it came out. I was upgrading from a $150 5mp point and shoot. I have been quite impressed with this camera, and have had no problems with it. I really don't use the guide mode, though. We got this camera mostly for family pictures, and have already shot about 15 gigs of pictures with it :)
I would definitely recommend this camera to anyone looking to make the jump from point-and-shoot to DSLR. I don't have anything to compare it to, however, so I can't say how it stacks up to others such as the D40/D60, or the Canon/Pentax lineups. All I know is the quality of the pictures we're getting from the D3000 makes the other pictures in our photo library look like camera phone pictures...
I would buy a Canon instead
I recently made a deal with a friend, he bought me a shiny new D90, I gave him my D80 and owe him a few bucks and some carpentry around his house. Nikon cameras are awesome, but just like earlier posts, since I got the D90 (body only) for $999.00 at Wolf. Since then (2 months) you can find it for $799.00. There has to be a better way for Nikon to make profit, than cut-throating every camera body, with a fresh one that does little more. The D90 came out 3 weeks after I purchased my D80 at Best Buy for $1k with a 18-135mm kit, and it dropped the D80 35% in price, in less than a month. Kinda like my Mac Pro Workstation, where does it end.
I bought a D40 instead of the D3000. Luckily cheaply off eBay, but it was also an informed decision. Points to make the D3000 more attractive:
* Drop the pixel-count to ~6MP to allow better low-light performance. I don't regret having only 6MP on my D40 and if you have to crop excessively, there might be something wrong with your picture composing skills.
* Reduce the price. That's a no-brainer. I can either have a brand-new D40 for ~£250, or a D300 for more than £400.
* Bigger/brighter viewfinder. Whenever I dig out my F2, I'm always in awe at how great the viewfinder is by comparison to my D40. Sure that's comparing a full-frame with a crop-camera, but the maginfication could be bigger. 100% coverager would be nice as well.
* Having an auto-focus motor in the body is of course also a trade-off in weight. If the viewfinder was sufficiently big, I could probably focus manually with non AF-S lenses. However, currently having to rely on the electronic focus sensor is not that reliable.
* Sell the camera in a separate bundle with the 35mm f/1.8G DX AF-S Nikkor. Film SLR cameras used to be sold with fast primes for ages. Bring them back.
* Declutter the menus.
* Automatically deactivate AutoISO in manual mode.
* The better auto-focus is a step in the right direction. I'm somewhat limited with my three AF brackets on the D40. Of course it makes handling faster, but re-composing shifts the plane of focus slightly. This is annoying with very shallow depth of fields.
* Some more dedicated buttons would be nice.
Of course, the problem with all these suggestions is that this 'better' D3000 might canibalise sales on the higher bodies. Wouldn't it be nice to have a D300 squeezed into a smaller inexpensive body?
Oh and for all those people wondering why one would want movie function on a dSLR: depth of field is relative to sensor size. Current camcorders have small sensors and therefore very deep DOF. Which means amateur filmers had to resort to adaptors projecting the image onto a matte screen, which would then be filmed by the camcorder in order to achieve DOF effects. Now amateur filmer can finally afford equipment with proper DOF effects.
"Wouldn't it be nice to have a D300 squeezed into a smaller inexpensive body?"
It would, and it's only marketing that prevents it. Two years after the D300 release, the sensor and circuitry of the D300 cannot be so expensive or cumbersome that it couldn't be made into an entry level body with comparable image quality.
It would have fewer direct access buttons, be a lot slower, cheaper build quality, and have far fewer features in line with the current D300-D90-D5000 progression, but it could have the same image quality.
My guess is a D4000 before January...
It should be able to do full 1080p HD video for as long as the batteries and memory lasts.
@ rdb
They do in canada, specifically in Alberta....maybe its different in the states? Are you in the U.S.A. ?
D3000 is perfect for someone whose not used a DSLR before and is used to small point-and-shoots. I had - still have - fully manual metal heavy box of a camera from the 1970's, Minolta SRT201 and spent much time in youth with SLR and yet after 30 years, it's history in my mind. This D3000 is just perfect as a first DSLR. Plenty of opportunity to learn (or relearn) the basics of photography and experience the joy of more manual control. Lots of help with transition to learning. Auto ability lets you be lazy and just have a point and shoot again - yet with SPECTACULAR pictures in the experience of an ordinary consumer user whose only had point and shoots before; family and fun photos and the like. I can't get over the image quality, color depth, focus, resolution - extraordinary compared to the point and shoots. I'd probably have similar wonderful experience with any DSLR comparing to a little toy point and shoot but the point is, this one made it very easy and fun with lots of potential to grow - its perfect for a starter; $529 at Brandsmart no less so truly affordable. Love the camera, enjoying it very much.
The lens is the standard kit lens...
http://www.avrupaestetik.com/yuz_germe.html