If this is true, the D3000 looks like the D50.
Ken Rockwell's D40/D3000 ISO comparison(84 posts) (16 voices)
Wow, then the D3000 really isn't an upgrade, huh? :D
11 point autofocus is what really will save it.
That ISO performance is in the 2004/2005 camera era. The D200 has the same AF system with almost the same ISO performance. At least with it you get a better build and better controls and a more solid body and more choices of lenses and today it really isn't that much more.
Those CCD sensors just don't seem to like a lot of MP.
All that I can tell from the comparisons is that the D3000 has a less aggressive noise reduction setting. Run these through Dfine or noise Ninja and you will probably get equivalent results. DX can handle 10 MP's no problem.
I forgot how bad the D40 is at shooting ISO 1600 until I took it to the bar a couple nights ago for the anniversery party (58 years of serving Austin quality booze at a low price!). Things looked OK on my D40's LCD, but I forgot I'd set it to RAW. When I loaded them into light-room and looked at them without the D40 working its magic, they looked positively atrocious.
No big deal, as I'd rather apply noise reduction myself anyway (for this sort of thing, not for a shoot with 100's of pictures). If RAW has a selling point for me, its that it doesn't jack my pictures around. It's also the reason I hate it, so... whatever.
While I'm critical of people clamoring for 18mp instead of 12, the move from 6 to 10 (or even better 12) pays some genuine dividends and shouldn't overwhelm the sensor.
Wow... I just got done reading Ken's review (I don't think its completely finished). And he basically has three gripes:
1. It's to slow... takes three seconds to process a shot with the default settings
2. Poor low light performance
3. Poor Playback controls
I'm going to call BS on items 1 & 2.
1. While three seconds seems like an annoying amount of time to wait, I'd take that deal if it meant I got Adaptive Dynamic Range. I've got it on my D90 and love it.
2. Low ligt - I'd need to shoot one for myself to verify this, but I suspect a RAW file from the D3000 will be identical to a RAW file from the D60\D40x. The JPEG's look noisier, but more detailed, which tells me Nikon tried to use the more conservative NR software of the D90 with a nosier CCD chip. The result wasn't good, but if you do a lot of post production, you might want that detail.
3. Playback - This is a legitimate gripe. I hate it when I have to go through neeless steps to zoom in. That said, my D40 forces me to hit about 5 buttons just to change the ISO... you get used to it after a while. For speed shooting you really need a 2 dial body like the D90 to get the job done.
The takeaway here is that Nikon messed up. They are trying to cater to two different audiences. Beginner photographers don't need their camera to be fast. Shutter lag is unacceptable, but the speed of the camera itself is generally a non issue. Amateurs definitely want ADR (so do pros for the most part). It saves shots. Amateurs are not likely to get annoyed by the fact you have to hit play to zoom in on a shot. They might even appericiate not being able to accidentally zoom in and not be able to figure out how to get out.
Pro's, on the other hand, will appreciate the conservative NR because it leaves them room to use better software to remove the noise. Armatures are not going to be near as appreciative. They just want to get good shots out of camera and then upload them to flickr, or wherever.
So I'm a little confused who Nikon made this camera for. Note: When I say amateure, I really mean noob. When I say pro, I really mean veteran. It just came out that way in this post.
Yeah, I skimmed through his post as well. I mean, how does the D3000 compare to the D60 and the D40x? If the noise is about the same or maybe slightly better, than they really haven't screwed up. He needs to put things into context.
If ADR is too slow for you, turn it off. Honestly, you get what you pay for- the D40 isn't a mini D3, it's the lowest rung on Nikon's lineup. You put good features on a camera with probably a slow processor, issues are going to be had. Simple enough.
And what's wrong with hitting play first? Don't you need to do that anyway to look through images? I'm not getting what he's so upset about. I'm sure you can set image review times in the menu- my D40 has it.
Honestly, Mr. Rockwell can have some interesting insights, but I call BS on this stuff too.
i'd be interested to see how it compares to the D40x as well. . .honestly, my D40x functioned well at 1600 with a little NR. . .
Gentoo why did you have to start ANOTHER Ken thread :^)
I don't understand what everybody seems to have against Ken!
When I first learned about him (from [NR]), I read probably everything he has written about Nikon. And I agreed with you guys. Everything he said was ridiculous, or "BS" as you guys call it.
But I continued reading his website, and reread a lot of material. And you know what? Now I agree with almost everything he says.
He's right. JPEG is a better option than RAW. I agree perfectly with him. But I still shoot RAW, maybe in an act of stubbornness.
Same with almost everything else he writes. What he says is right. I just don't want to do that.
??? How can you say he's right but not believe what he says? I think Ken is personally a good guy, but he's just a BSer to the extreme! How can he review a camera that doesn't even exist? Or how can he compare two lenses that he's never even used? A lot of his "reviews" are based on specs only and "prior experiences" with "similar" products. His website is strictly about making money!(as are most others as well) No he's not selling anything directly but all the clicks you give him every time you visit his website translate to AD $$$.
It just amazes me how this guy gets more web traffic than Nikonrumors and canonrumors COMBINED!!
Everything he says about JPEG is valid. It's faster, smaller, and a better way to archive photos. But I'm staying with RAW, though I rarely need its advantage. I don't know why I do this, but I'm somebody who likes to make things complicated for himself. That's just my personality.
He also says you never need to buy a tripod when you have a lens with VR and high ISO and a $1USD disposable camera will give you better photo's than a D300
Yeah, he's correct.
If all I had was a disposable camera, all I would ever have to worry about for a shot would be composition. With all my focus on that, of course I'd take better photos than with my D300. But I'd rather have my D300 because its complicated, which I like ;-) .
As for the VR and high ISO thing, he's right about that too. Remember, film didn't even go near to the ISO25600 of today! And of course, VR is (supposedly, I've never used it) helpful as well, now that you can use a shutterspeed 4 stops slower. For most scenarios, that's more than enough.
So why do I have a tripod? Because it makes me look impressive!
So you've never used VR, but you say it's better than having a tripod?! Wow...
And if your dad gave you a disposable camera instead of the D70 you'd be happy because you read Ken say the disposable is a much better camera?! Alrighty then... I now know what to get you for your birthday :^)
That's what he gave me as my first camera!
But Ken's right. All that these modern cameras do is get in the way of composition with AF points, grids, metering modes, exposure info, WB, etc.
Skip all of that and you can focus your creative energy on composition. After all, isn't that what truly differentiates the best from the rest?
What we need is a disposable camera with VR!
Actually I think alpha needs a can of campbells soup that has been converted to a pinhole camera! Now that was MY first camera! Seriously it was. None of this $1 disposable camera crap! A real man makes his own camera!
I really ought to make a pinhole camera. I like that!
My only question is what about the film/developing. I'd need to get chemicals and special paper, and on top of it I have no experience whatsoever with developing. *Sigh*
Maybe I can cannibalize my Coolpix's sensor to make a digital pinhole!
The thing about Ken is that most of what he says is factually correct. He often draws the wrong conclusions though (or selectively omits other facts). Let's take his review of the D3000 for instance. He pans it for its high ISO performance (in JPEG)...fact, and shoddy ergonomics...(subjective, but there isn't any debateing that you have to press the play button, so fact. He also says (in exactly one sentence) that the auto focus is fast & accurate and has 11 points... fact. The stats state accurately that it shoots 10mp.
But when you get to his recomnedations he'll say something like "Buy the D40, because it has better high ISO performance, and handles better". Based on his evaluation that's true. The problem is that he doesn't even mention the D40's atrocious auto-focus. He also doesn't explain what value 10 MP's might have over eight. He only links to a page that explains why you might actually want to have that time consuming ADR setting set to on by default. It annoys him, so its not a feature its a bug. That's Ken for you.
Once you learn how to read him, there's lots of valuable advice.
Sure, but aren't the D3000 and the D40 intended for people new to DSLRs? Autofocus points don't mean anything to them.
Megapixels might mean something, but, honestly, most newbies will do fine with 6.
ADR is maybe the most useful feature to a newbie—because it's useful to everyone!
Alpha you can turn your D300 into a pinhole camera very easily but I won't tell you how because your a Ken worshiper ;^)
Willis how can "auto focus is fast & accurate" be a FACT. That is very much subjective to the individual photographer. If you've never shot a D3 at 9fps then yeah the D3000 is the fastest :^)
Actually an iphone camera is all a newbie will ever need, according to me :^)
I'll find out myself then.
I just did.
In your face! :-P
You must log in to post.