where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
so D3000 is the latest entry level dslr Nikon has offered. according to reviews that it would be the replacement for the D60 with the key difference on
* Guide mode
* 11 AF points (MultiCAM 1000 autofocus system)
* 3D AF tracking
* 3.0 inch LCD (vs 2.7inch LCD in D60 - both 230,000 dots)
but as i was reading around DPREVIEW i spotted the D80. is it alright to also assume that D3000 is more of the same with D80 but with a different body? and some strip down features?
nah, D3000 is more like a D60 with the D90's AF.
CCD's are typical better with the S/N ratio, but the D90 has an even better CMOS chip. CMOS allows for better live view and video recording because it can handle the data faster/better.
medtech the D80 is an old camera which was replaced by the D90 about a year ago. Yes the D80 had a 10mp sensor but the one in the D3000 comes from the D60 and has been "tweaked" for better performance than the one found in the D80.
Niko - I agree that the d3000 sensor comes from d60, but it's also a good point about the direct comparison between d3000 and d80, as prices should be pretty much the same (even d80 should be cheaper), and yes You loss around 1 stop, but than You get support for non AF-S lenses; as for the AF is it really the same one as in d90? I thought it's a stripped version.
Yes, it's seems like a very good little camera. And with the new guide mode the D3000 will even help to teach you :^)
I have sold lots of D60's and would think that the Extra $ 100 spend on the D3000 is well spend
Pete
Does the D3000 come with an eye sensor,auto-orientation screen and the stop movie mode? Extra AF points and 3D tracking is great. But compared to the Semi-Pro D80 the D3000 surely looses out. Mainly due to the in-body AF motor and the Commander mode for CLS.
As for the D60, the D3000 is certainly better but 100$ might fetch a good hot shoe flash.
No idea about the D3000, honestly, it's not the camera I'd move to anyway. I'd have to go D90 or higher if I were to upgrade next.
And Adamz, you're right- I'd really be looking at the D80 if I were looking for a good deal- the body, viewfinder and controls are way better, and the option of using older lenses is awesome. The only issue is picture quality, which may or may not even be an issue, considering that the sensor is the same anyway.
Out on my own on this as usual but the D3000 is not a replacement for the D60. I remember a lot being said on here that the D5000 was. All this means is that the technology is being passed down from higher end models. Likely, newer tech specs we haven't heard about yet are being developed for the higher end models these days. With the multi-cam1000 making it's way into the entry level, I believe this means that a new AF system will find it's way perhaps into a D4 (and perhaps D400?). While the multi-cam3500 or some variation of it could find it's way into the next mid-range level model. Perhaps the one that replaces the D90 will have it.
This is now the new bar for the entry level. I doubt very seriously that we'll see another camera that's as close to a D40 as we've seen again. For those of you that like the more simple D40 like cameras hang on to them if you have one. I think what really makes a camera an entry level is having more controls in menus and not having an AF motor. The D3000 replaces the D40.
Yeah, I guess you could consider it that way, Gentoo. There wasn't much of a difference between the D60 and the D40 anyway, so you could say the D5000 replaces the 60 and the 3000 the 40. It's just that the 5000 is a good bit better than the D60.
I wouldn't be surprised there's a new autofocus system around Nikon. The 51 point has been around for a couple years now. Off topic slightly, but why is Canon's autofocus for the new 7D just 19 points?
NSXType-R:
Canon just can't seem to keep up with Nikon when it comes to things like AF systems or even their processors. The Digc...whatever it's called is no match for an expeed processor.
The D5000 is a good bit better than the D60 for sure. I think it's because this time, Nikon had some time to develop this particular entry model more. Back in the first gen entry levels, Nikon was struggling to keep up with Canon. The D50 was up against the Rebel XT. Then the Rebel XTi was released and Nikon released the D40 to compete with it (I may have the order of release backwards here). The D40x was up against the XS so Nikon needed something fast. Then The XSi forced a D60 out of Nikon which was almost identical to the D40x.
There was a similar discussion not long ago about this war. Canon's R&D goes into their entry level models more where as Nikon tends to concentrate slightly more on their higher end models. Nikon also tries to make the models more ready for the future so they don't lose value and go obsolete as fast. This is why Nikon does this trickle down effect. This technique raises the bar and forces Nikon's main competitor to hurry through new releases before they can get the upper hand like they used to. The T1i (which is a D5000 competitor) is a good example of this. The video in that camera is horrible.
PSAM - d80 is not a semi-pro body!
as for d80 and it's build in motor... how many new dslr users are going to use it, I think that this feature gonna be used mostly by those ones who are making a switch from analog to digital, as for d80 image quality, it's excellent on low iso (for previous analog users, using maximum iso 400 shouldn't be a problem anyway)
"d80 image quality, it's excellent on low iso"
But that's not how one test a camera. That's like testing a Pinto and a Ferrari while both are stopped. It's when you push a camera that matters.
gnetoo - agree that's not how You test the camera, but let's just see who is going to use d80 nowadays and how often You use camera on iso above 400
Adamz, using a camera above ISO 400 is more common than you think. Come on, as a wildlife shooter yourself you have to know that.
It just irks me when I hear anyone talking about a camera looking the same as another at low ISO's. That's ensuring that two models which are obviously different cannot be told apart. Test and push the models. That's the only way one can see differences.
gentoo - as w wildlife shooter, I shoot mostly up to 400 :) - I'm an analog convert gentoo :) - moreover, most of the times I use higher iso is when I shoot indoors, and for this having high iso capability is grea
as for the testing I fully support Your point of view, but still can't agree with a common opinion in the internet about d80 that it's not a good camera, I've played with it a lot and still think that it's a great, amateur camera - great for all the analog users, who want to go in the digital world and save a lot.
Gentoo, you say that Canon can't really keep up with Nikon, but in the late 80's when autofocus came around, Canon was the first to really embrace autofocus, while Nikon was playing catch up. So I wouldn't say that Canon's horrible, although I do hear that their autofocus is really quick, Nikon is not that much slower and slightly more accurate.
And when it comes to processors, I'm not really sure, but I think you're right, the D3 has a faster frame rate than the Canon top dog, but then again they really cater to different people altogether.
"d80 that it's not a good camera," Not saying that the D80 isn't a good camera, it's just an old camera. It's now largely obsolete. You still shoot with a D200 which is from that same time period and generation, in fact I believe they even share a sensor. Of course you're gonna like it, you're not as into the latest chnology as those who may like it less and that's likely their reasoning. You are to the D80 and D200 what I am to the D90 and D300. Only that I understand that the latter two are not just mere upgrades of the former two but completely different altogether.
"Gentoo, you say that Canon can't really keep up with Nikon, but in the late 80's when autofocus came around, Canon was the first to really embrace autofocus, while Nikon was playing catch up. So I wouldn't say that Canon's horrible, although I do hear that their autofocus is really quick, Nikon is not that much slower and slightly more accurate"
R E A D C A R E F U L L Y
I did not say that Canon was horrible. What I said was 1) Their AF isn't a good as Nikons are at the momenet. I believe I even gave an example by mentioning one or two of Nikon CURRENT AF systems so the 1980's should not have been a source for any confusion. 2) I also gave an example of when Nikon was trying to play catch up and again, I didn't have to go back two decades to do it. 3) I also mentioned the current processor technology that Nikon uses as simply being a bit better.
I am the last person on this forum to say that Canon is horrible. Ergonomically retarded maybe...oh wait...that's Sony nevermind. My point is I have mentioned on here far too often how Canon has always been an option for me. I just prefer what Nikon has to offer.
Sorry, I embellished on your words!
gentoo - "...rgonomically retarded maybe...oh wait...that's Sony nevermind..." - sony is very ergonomic, but You have to use it to find this out - although it lacks the design Nikon and Canon has
You must log in to post.
