I really would hold off on the D5000. You got burned once already, I doubt all the recalled cameras are fixed yet.
Are you really in such a rush to get a camera?
help! does the d3k suck?
(46 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
No, thats what I'm hoping to do. I've read prices are a little funky right now because of the recall as well. I found "cameta camera" and they were selling the d5k kit for 760. They had it listed as out of stock, and I asked them about it. They said they returned all stock to Nikon and won't sell a d5000 until it is not part of the recall. I think I want to do business with them. I'm anxious because I had it in my head I was going to get a new camera, and I've been itching to start shooting again.
PS: I prefered the control "pad" from the d60 to the one on the d5k. now its a cheap looking/feeling circle rather than the larger, thicker, more substancial d-pad on the d60. thats the only thing I noticed when I picked it up. Well, that and the fact that is has a gimmick screen lol.
Maybe now that I'm waiting ill see some tests of the d3k's performance (especially low light!)
Posted 3 years ago # -
update! I ended up finding a good price on electronics expo. They even matched a lower price available from buy.com after I made my purchase. It arrived today, and the serial is clean. So I now have a new d5000! I highly recommend Electronics Expo.. they were polite, prompt, and allow price matching.
it was 700 kitted :D
Posted 3 years ago # -
Good deal Mike. Glad you finally have a camera after so much drama. Enjoy it and give it a good home. Show us some pictures please.
Posted 3 years ago # -
yes, i have all the stuff I need for a while. I want a better strap and also a tripod.. but I am good for a while. finally onto learning more about photography rather than consumer electronics.. lol. I plan to mainly use my 35 1.8.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The camera body is going to be your "cheapest" investment, trust me. Everything else is going to add up quick !
Posted 3 years ago # -
The truth speaks through You almighty Niko!
Posted 3 years ago # -
For 600$ D3000 sucks a bit, for 500$ it would be a great little camera ...
Right now I would go for 450$ D60, exactly the same thing for much smarter price ...Posted 3 years ago # -
I think for a total beginner into photography, the D3000 is worth it. It's the latest, greatest and comes with a very user friendly menu system - the Guide Mode. But a D60 for $450 is going to be hard to find.
Posted 3 years ago # -
D60 vs. D3000 isn't even a contest. Assuming you can find one for $450, the auto-focus of the D3000 is more than worth the price. I struggle with the dated 3 point AF system every time I pick up my D40. That difference might be lost on a new photographer (it was lost on me until I started shooting).
The happiest day of my photographic life was when I figured out how to use the AF-lock button on my D40. Its still a pain though.
Posted 3 years ago # -
11 point AF, 3" LCD, well OK it is probably worth the 100$ price difference, it will not make better shots every time but still worth it, I doubt it will outsell our beloved D40 though.
Posted 3 years ago # -
mb, you may be right- the market is quite saturated with D40s, 40xs and 60s, I'm pretty sure anyone who would have wanted one would have bought one by now.
But hey, lets hope Nikon gets a profit off of it, right? And if I could retrofit my D40 with the 11 point autofocus, I'd do it in a heartbeat. 3 is nowhere near enough. The D50's 5 was nice, but it never got into the D40 for some odd reason.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Cheers to that NSX. I love my tiny D40. Has anyone posted a side by side of the D3000 and the D40? I'm curious to know if that larger LCD made it slightly bigger.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I love my D40 too! You'd probably need to change everything else too- the processor, etc. But that's besides the point!
Or I could buy a D3000 and somehow keep the 1/500th flash sync speed. :D That would be awesome. To be honest though, I haven't done enough flash photography to take advantage of it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I realized this forum is a month old, but this is to the original poster Mike with regards to the D3000. If low light is a primary concern of yours, then I would truly give consideration to the D5000. The D3000 appears to have used the same sensor as the D60, and D80. The D80 is the camera I had, and was horrible as far as low light, and high ISO shooting. Anything above ISO 800 was unusable. Regardless of the tweaks Nikon does to the D3000, short of changing the sensor completely, noise characteristics will largely be the same, and I am afraid to say the D3000 will have the same poor low light performance as the D80 had.
Although Nikon appears to use the same sensor for many different cameras, that is not always the case. The D90 DOES NOT use the same sensor as the D300. On Nikon’s website, if you were to go to their Press Room, there they have pictures of the sensor for the D90, and D300. Although they look similar, they are clearly not the same. The D90 sensor is a scaled down slower, and less costly consumer version of the sensor that went into the D300, however the D5000 does utilize the same sensor as the D90 which should come close to the D90 low light performance.
My best advice for Nikon reviews is try reading Thom Hogan’s, and his website is http://www.bythom.com. He is a real world professional photographer whose reviews are very much real world.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"The D90 DOES NOT use the same sensor as the D300. On Nikon’s website, if you were to go to their Press Room, there they have pictures of the sensor for the D90, and D300. Although they look similar, they are clearly not the same. The D90 sensor is a scaled down slower, and less costly consumer version of the sensor that went into the D300"
Finally, someone who knows this. Scaled down maybe but it's slightly better in low light than the D300's sensor. I can tell you that from personal experience. In fact, I cannot find what they scaled down as it does everything the D300's sensor does but also does video and even handles the picture controls a bit better.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The sensor in the D300 could do video as well since there is no difference from video and live view from the sensors perspective. The big difference between the two sensors is the D300 has more data pipes to off load the information from the sensor to the camera cache therefore making it a bit faster. As far as better in terms of noise, low light, and picture controls I don't really know. All the reviews I've read concerning the D90 & D300 say their image quality is pretty equal.
Looking at the pictures of the two sensors side by side, you'll notice the leads coming off the D300 sensor are shorter, and straighter which impacts the amount of noise. I have a feeling that the D90 sensor is slightly more susceptible to noise, but uses more aggressive noise handling offset it. That could be what you are seeing. The other thing that I noticed with my D80 compared to a D200 was the amount of hot pixels the D80 had. You really can notice them when you take a long exposure high ISO picture with the lens cap on, and all NR turned off. The D80 did not look too good in comparison to the D200.
That brings me to one more point about the D90, since the sensor is basically a still sensor, and does not have the ability to dissipate heat like a video sensor, using it sparingly. You will notice hot pixels over time if you do a lot video or live view.
Posted 3 years ago # -
pabnj:
You've made some very very good points. The D90 and D300 have pretty much the same look to their images. The D90 can be pushed a bit higher in ISO even with NR turned off. With NR turned on it does maintain more detail than the D300 but I believe it guesses at this.
The D90's sensor is prone to hot pixels. Apparently this can happen if you do a lot of long exposure shooting as well. As of yet, I haven't ran into this but a friend of mine has with his D90.
Isn't the D80's sensor from the D200? I've heard it was but don't know for sure as I've never really looked into it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I have heard the same thing too about the D80 sensor, but it is not the same sensor. The D200 did have better low light capability, and better noise characteristics than the D80. Also the D80 had a big problem with amp noise as did the D200, but to a lesser extent. If you look at the chip side by side, they are different.
I ran into hot pixels frequently with my D80. The first time the camera was only a month old. That one I took back. The other time I had to send it into Nikon for a remap. It appears the D200 and D300 sensors were/are held to a higher quality control standards than the D80 & D90 therefore reflected in the price tag. If memory serves me correctly, I only saw the hot pixels when I shot RAW not JPEG which tells me the camera has automatic hot pixel removal when doing its processing. Also, I only saw the hot pixels in Capture One, not Lightroom, or Adobe camera RAW. If you ask me, I like the fact that Capture One does not automatically remove them. I kinda like to know.
Posted 3 years ago # -
pabnj:
Thanks for that info. makes sense that they don't use the same sensor either. Like you, I like knowing what my camera is doing as well. I prefer Capture NX as I think Nikon knows their sensors better than other sofware makers. Just my opinion. Perhaps that's why I don't have any trouble with RAW?
Doesn't look like Nikon passes down sensors as frequently as most people seem to think.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It is amazing that just because a camera has the same number of pixels as another one, people automatically think the sensor must be the same. That’s just is not the case.
I have tried ViewNX, and was not completely pleased with the color I was getting, so I never really gave CaptureNX a chance. I just figured the profiling, and engine is mostly the same. I adopted Capture One because of their great reputation, and when I tried it, I found the color astounding.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
