How would you change Nikon's D3000?
By Darren Murph 
posted October 16th 2009 11:56PM
posted October 16th 2009 11:56PM
posted October 16th 2009 11:56PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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.
Ive done point and shoot photography for years and just recently decided to move up to a DSLR. I was wanting to keep my initial investment under $1000 and after reading many many reviews I chose the D60. When I started actively shopping I heard the same thing time and again: The D60 was going out of production and the D3000 was taking it's place. I bought the D3000 online for under $500.
I figured that would leave some $$$ left over for a good lens if I was happy with it. And so far I am quite happy with it but as I said this is my first DSLR so I really have nothing to compare it to except the various P + S cameras Ive owned.
One thing I read in the reviews is that it is very noisy at low light levels. But considering my main interest is outdoor landscape photography thats not a huge problem. Plus there are a number of technical and software upgrades that the D60 didn't have.
I learn something new everyday. Today I started playing around with HDR images. I use PS CS4 and Lightroom 2.5 and the 3.0 beta. And as I said so far I am quite happy. Maybe an upgrade to a D300 down the road but I don't know yet. I will definitely invest in some lenses.