Buying my first DSLR Nikon D3000?
Discussion
Been pondering this for a while and wanted a cheap DSLR, anyone i was told to get either a Canon or a Nikon by a proffesional, he also said dont get too concerned about megapixels etc, you can purchase better quality lenses at a later date.
Anyway i have seen this Nikon http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5...
Which seems a good price for a camera with a lens, can anyone comment on these and is this a good price, I cannot find these cheaper anywhere.
I just need a starter camera to take some piccies for when the litttle fella is due and this looks quite good for the money.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers.
Anyway i have seen this Nikon http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5...
Which seems a good price for a camera with a lens, can anyone comment on these and is this a good price, I cannot find these cheaper anywhere.
I just need a starter camera to take some piccies for when the litttle fella is due and this looks quite good for the money.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers.
D3000 is a defunct model I think, replaced by the 3100, which is only £50 more according to www.camerapricebuster.co.uk
Im inclined to say go with Canon, simply because of the motor in body/motor in lens scenario, I also think once you start going up market with lenses Canon are a bit more affordable (might be wrong on that) but each to their own really.
Im inclined to say go with Canon, simply because of the motor in body/motor in lens scenario, I also think once you start going up market with lenses Canon are a bit more affordable (might be wrong on that) but each to their own really.
You are looking to buy an entry level DSLR body, its a good way to start out, pretty much everyone does it..
With Canon it will accept any lens made in the last 20 years or so, their lens fitment is called EF (or EF-S) - both fit the entry level bodies and work 100%. All the lenses have a motor in them to run the auto focus system.
EF lenses will work on any Canon body that you are likely to come across.
EF-S lenses fit work on "crop sensor" bodies - the xxxD, xxD and 7D cameras, because thats what they are designed for.
With Nikon the entry level bodies have the auto focus motor in the lens. As soon as you go up into mid range bodies they have the motor in the body of the camera.
The lenses differ and aren't compatible, so if you buy a few lenses for the entry level body and then decide to upgrade the body you need to dump the lenses and buy new ones with no motor in them.
More information here: http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html
Go to Jessops or wherever and have little play with each of the cameras and decide you you like best - how comfortable the camera is in the hands is quite important.
Personally I'd go Canon, thats what I did
With Canon it will accept any lens made in the last 20 years or so, their lens fitment is called EF (or EF-S) - both fit the entry level bodies and work 100%. All the lenses have a motor in them to run the auto focus system.
EF lenses will work on any Canon body that you are likely to come across.
EF-S lenses fit work on "crop sensor" bodies - the xxxD, xxD and 7D cameras, because thats what they are designed for.
With Nikon the entry level bodies have the auto focus motor in the lens. As soon as you go up into mid range bodies they have the motor in the body of the camera.
The lenses differ and aren't compatible, so if you buy a few lenses for the entry level body and then decide to upgrade the body you need to dump the lenses and buy new ones with no motor in them.
More information here: http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html
Go to Jessops or wherever and have little play with each of the cameras and decide you you like best - how comfortable the camera is in the hands is quite important.
Personally I'd go Canon, thats what I did
Crafty_ said:
With Nikon the entry level bodies have the auto focus motor in the lens. As soon as you go up into mid range bodies they have the motor in the body of the camera.
YesCrafty_ said:
The lenses differ and aren't compatible so if you buy a few lenses for the entry level body and then decide to upgrade the body you need to dump the lenses and buy new ones with no motor in them.
Bullshot. An AF-S lens will work on any Nikon.The Nikonians table you linked to is misleading as it includes kit dating back to 1959.
The D3000 wasn't that bad, it just wasn't as much of a success like the D40 and 60 like it was always compared to, I have the 5000 (soon upgrading to the 7000) and it's performance is worth every single penny over the 3000, low light is just superb, and there's just a few more 'convenience' buttons.
But stick to Nikon, the last generation, the general rule of thumb was Nikon for stills and Canon for video, this time round Nikin has nailed both. Mainly with autofocusing during recording and being able to attach an ext. Mic.
But stick to Nikon, the last generation, the general rule of thumb was Nikon for stills and Canon for video, this time round Nikin has nailed both. Mainly with autofocusing during recording and being able to attach an ext. Mic.
I was toying with the idea of getting a D3000 a while back to replace my D40, last month the D40 died and I was given a D3100 which, having read up on it, is streets ahead of the D3000 while being similar in looks.
I can say that I would have regretted buying a D3000 having seen and used a D3100 as the extra £50 would be well spent on it.
This webiste, while not being the be-all and end-all of reviews, gives a good "high level" view of the differences:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3000-vs-Nikon_D...
So, in short, D3000 - if you HAVE to, then do, if you can stretch to a D3100, do that.
But that's my opinion...
ETA:
The motor in lens issue isn't, in my view, that big a deal, no you can't quickly use any other Nikon lens in auto mode, but you can in manual mode and you can still adjust the aperture automatically.
It's a good, inexpensive, camera - no it's not as cheap as the D40 was (which still surprisingly holds it value really well), but for the money, I think it's worth it.
It's easy to use and easy to learn - I haven't used mine in "anger" yet, but pointy/clicky photos come out very well - my OH can use it and she likes that you can use the screen on the back as she's not such a fan of the viewfinder.
Low light is a huge improvement on the D40, which was, I'll be honest, rubbish - I've played with low light photos and "noise" at high ISOs is not that horrendous.
I have tried out the kit lens (18-55) and it's a good basic lens and gets great reviews by Ken Rockwell, but I find it slow and it "hunts" a bit too much for my liking - I have the older, better and significantly quicker 18-70.
If you get one, get an off camera flash - the on board one is ok, but I will never use it as it's just a bright light that ruins all my photos.
As above, the AF-S lens WILL work on any other Nikon DSLR, so if you ever get a higher model, you can simply port your lenses over - they can be slightly more expensive, but not cripplingly so. I find that it brings the weight of the camera down a LOT:
The D40 was a light camera, the D3100 is also light - put on a prime lens and suddenly the camera weighs nothing. Put on a big lens and the camera is still very easy to carry.
Continuous shooting isn't the fastest, but it's still pretty good - if you're doing that, why not shoot a video?
So, the D3100 is, in my view, a good entry level camera.
I can not, however, comment on how it compares to a Canon or Sony or any other model as I've not used one - What often happens is that you buy a certain model and you decide that that is the best model. Ever. Well, sometimes
I can say that I would have regretted buying a D3000 having seen and used a D3100 as the extra £50 would be well spent on it.
This webiste, while not being the be-all and end-all of reviews, gives a good "high level" view of the differences:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D3000-vs-Nikon_D...
So, in short, D3000 - if you HAVE to, then do, if you can stretch to a D3100, do that.
But that's my opinion...
ETA:
The motor in lens issue isn't, in my view, that big a deal, no you can't quickly use any other Nikon lens in auto mode, but you can in manual mode and you can still adjust the aperture automatically.
It's a good, inexpensive, camera - no it's not as cheap as the D40 was (which still surprisingly holds it value really well), but for the money, I think it's worth it.
It's easy to use and easy to learn - I haven't used mine in "anger" yet, but pointy/clicky photos come out very well - my OH can use it and she likes that you can use the screen on the back as she's not such a fan of the viewfinder.
Low light is a huge improvement on the D40, which was, I'll be honest, rubbish - I've played with low light photos and "noise" at high ISOs is not that horrendous.
I have tried out the kit lens (18-55) and it's a good basic lens and gets great reviews by Ken Rockwell, but I find it slow and it "hunts" a bit too much for my liking - I have the older, better and significantly quicker 18-70.
If you get one, get an off camera flash - the on board one is ok, but I will never use it as it's just a bright light that ruins all my photos.
As above, the AF-S lens WILL work on any other Nikon DSLR, so if you ever get a higher model, you can simply port your lenses over - they can be slightly more expensive, but not cripplingly so. I find that it brings the weight of the camera down a LOT:
The D40 was a light camera, the D3100 is also light - put on a prime lens and suddenly the camera weighs nothing. Put on a big lens and the camera is still very easy to carry.
Continuous shooting isn't the fastest, but it's still pretty good - if you're doing that, why not shoot a video?
So, the D3100 is, in my view, a good entry level camera.
I can not, however, comment on how it compares to a Canon or Sony or any other model as I've not used one - What often happens is that you buy a certain model and you decide that that is the best model. Ever. Well, sometimes
Edited by james_tigerwoods on Wednesday 10th August 08:56
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff