Nikon D3000 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens

Comment

I bought this camera over 8 years ago and I still love it. This is a GREAT beginner DSLR. Its simple to use, affordable, and takes great pictures. All the pictures poster were taken on this camera. PROS - Quality. This thing has lasted years and MANY trips from beaches to mountains. Still works like the first day I used it. - GREAT for beginners. - Great button layout. - Helpful info on display. - View finder is great. - Comes with a solid starter lens. CONS - The screen to preview the pictures is not sharp. It makes sharp pictures look grainy. - No wireless way to get photos off camera. - Only 10mp. This isnt a huge deal, you can blow this up pretty big before you will notice. - No video. Most of the "cons" of this camera come because of its age. This is a budget camera and a good one! There are better and more updated camera bodies out there. But if you are on a tight budget I would recommend buying a cheaper body so that you get a few nice lenses. You can always upgrade your body later and keep your lens (if you stick with Nikon). Its better to have a few high quality lenses than spending all your money on a new body. And dont forget a good editing software! If you are looking into beginner DSLRs I would highly recommend this one! This is a great option for a quality, but affordable, body. It doesnt have all the bells and whistles. But it takes great pictures and has all the important DSLR features you need.

Show more

Comment

This is a great start for those who want to move to DSLR from your regular point-and-shoot cameras, like Coolpix. This doesnt have overwhelming bells and whistles like the other 4-number series or the 2-number series. This gets you used to the basics of DSLRs...like how to change a lens, lens care, body care, focal points, using a top wheel, using a thumb wheel, and answers your basic "What does THAT button do" questions. If youre interested in going DSLR, and want to start slow, I advise the 3000. Graduating from this will make it SO much easier when you get the camera you really want.

Show more

Comment

I am a photography teacher in NYC and online. (See my Amazon profile for my website.) I teach beginner and intermediate photography students every week. Ive also been a professional photographer for the last five years with images published in The New York Times, GQ, New York Magazine, Womens Wear Daily, The New York Observer, The Village Voice and Time Out New York. (This review is for beginner photographers.) If youre a beginner, youre most likely asking yourself: Nikon or Canon? Really, I feel confident in saying that you cant go wrong with either. Ive used both brands cameras extensively and find that they both offer amazing image quality with well-built, solid cameras that, if taken care of, will last decades. There are two differences between the cameras, though, that can be taken into consideration. The user-interface: If cameras were computers, Nikons would be PCs and Canons would be MACs. PCs are built for people not afraid of technology whereas Macs are built for people who want things super-easy. Nikons excel at customization options which means youll see so many more options with the Advanced features of a Nikon than you will with a Canon. Canons, on the other hand, excel at ease-of-use for beginners. Canons offer less advanced options and can be easier to learn on. This can be frustrating down the line, though, once youve learned a lot about photography. At that point you may want all of the options that Nikon offers and be frustrated with your Canon. If youre someone who really likes to delve deep into your hobbies or if youre intent on becoming a professional photographer, Id say a Nikon would be your best bet. If youre someone who wants to learn the basics of photography and only imagine yourself being a hobbyist, Canon would be a better option for you. Where Nikon excels: Flash photography. I often find myself in situations where Im shooting event photography (weddings, movie premiers, benefits and galas) where I need to use a lot of flash. For this kind of photography, Ill always prefer to be shooting with a Nikon. Nikons flash metering (how the camera magically decides how much light to fire out of the flash) is much more consistent than Canons. You can take a Canon and shoot the same scene three times in a row with flash and all three images will be at different brightness levels. You can do the same thing with a Nikon and all three images will be wonderfully the same. If youre somebody who plans on shooting a lot with flash (indoor photography, event photography, etc.) youll want to consider going with Nikon. Where Canon excels: Richness of colors. Ive been in numerous situations where Ive been on the red carpet taking the exact same picture as the photographer next to me. Ill have a Canon and the person next to me will have a Nikon. This has provided quite a few opportunities to compare the images side-by-side. What Ive found is that the colors on the Canons images look richer and make the image pop more. If Im doing fine art photography (anything Id like to someday hang in a gallery), Ill always want to be shooting with a Canon for this reason. If youre set on Nikon, there are three cameras you should be considering and it all comes down to what your budget is: D7000 $1,400 without lens D5100 $750 without lens D3100 $600 only available with lens (current prices as of 2/19/11) Since youre on the D3000 Amazon page, though, Im going to guess that youre considering the D3000 which Amazon is currently selling for $530 (with lens). If youre considering buying the D3000 because you didnt realize that Nikon has replaced it with a new camera model (the D3100), then you may want to go straight for the new model, depending on your budget. If you were already aware that Nikon has a newer model and are still considering the D3000 then heres how the D3000 stacks up to the D3100. (The D3000 is such a great camera that, even though Nikon has a newer, replacement model, they still sell the D3000!) D3000 vs D3100 Where the D3100 excels: -Higher resolution: The D3100 is a 14 MegaPixel camera whereas the D3000 is only a 10 MegaPixel camera. This effects how big you can print your images and have them remain high quality prints. 14 MegaPixels will print as big as 23 inches by 15 inches whereas 10 MegaPixels will print as big as 19 inches by 13 inches. A higher resolution also means you can crop an image and have the remaining image still remain high quality. -Has live view. (This is the screen that pops up on the back of the screen that allows you to see what youre going to shoot before you shoot it. This would be used as an alternative to the viewfinder but, be aware, does eat up battery power quickly and, generally speaking, results in the camera not focusing as fast.) -Higher ISO options. The D3100 offers two more stops of ISO than the D3000 does. If you dont know what ISO means (or what a stop is) just know that this allows you to more easily shoot images in low-light situations. -Shoots movies. (If you want to be able to create video with your camera, you wont be able to do it with the D3000.) Where the D3000 excels: -Its a more affordable camera. By saving money on the D3000, youll have more money in your budget for an awesome lens or two! To sum this all up, if you can only afford the D3000, then youll be really happy with it. The D3000 is a solid camera. If you can afford to spend the extra money for the D3100, though, theres no reason to not go with the D3100. Overall, its a better camera for not that much more money. If I can clarify any of this, please email me! -JP Pullos, photography teacher, NYC and online (see my Amazon profile for my website)

Show more

Comment

Purchased this for my daughter, who actually can use a film 35 mm, knows how to develop the film and has probably taken over 1000 selfies with her cell phone! She loves the camera! Myself, I have a camera that does all the work for my and can still cut off heads, miss the target completely, etc! As she has been known to break cameras, phones, etc, we purchased the warranty for this. She did end up with a problem with her pictures being fuzzy! By the time this happened, I had no idea where the paperwork was. Went on Amazon.com, pulled up purchase history, got the information and contacted the warranty people! They emailed me a copy of my receipt and a mailing label. All I had to do was put it in a box and take it to UPS, they had it back to her literally within about 3 or 4 days tops! It was truly amazing! Back to the camera, if you are buying for someone who truly can take pictures, this is a great buy.

Show more

Comment

Ill compare this to the Canon Rebel XS, since I played with the XS heavily recently and also because they are the same target market (entry level DSLR). Pros: * Less mushy shutter button * Nice roughness on the mode dial * Great rough texture on the whole body for a nice grip * Has more buttons on the left than Canon, the latter is way biased toward right-handed operation * Bigger, 3" LCD screen * More autofocus points * Quieter auto-focus * You can start zooming and playing with the last picture taken right away (Canon would show you the picture, but you had to press a button to start zooming/etc.) * Autoplay "slideshow" of the last burst of pictures you took; I really missed this when I was using the Canon * Viewfinder grid (the Canon didnt have one) * More informative LCD (I like the aperture display) * Clearer written material Cons: * Continuous shooting mode bizarrely slows down after a few shots. I tried turn off the Active D-Lighting, but it didnt help. * Battery doesnt lock into place as well as on the Canon, I can feel it rattling a bit * I noticed a couple of hot pixels on dark backgrounds (but to be fair, its hard to find any sensor with zero dead/hot pixels) * Minor, but annoying: Nikon rounds your pictures left to "1.0K" instead of a true value * Autofocus seems slower * Still some dumb UI decisions, like if I want to constantly do 2-sec self-timer photos, I have to keep reseting it. And the continuous file numbering is off by default, meaning it resets every time you format or do a new memory card. Overall, Nikon is amazing with ergonomics/UI design, but they are not perfect. * It is missing what have come to be standard features in DSLRs these days: the XS came with auto exposure bracketing and auto white balance bracketing; the D3000 has neither. Summary: Anyone on a budget or just getting their feet wet with DSLR technology and stepping up from point-and-shoots will be blown away by the features and image quality. Those people looking for a more refined or feature-filled DSLR experience should look at higher-end (and more expensive) models.

Show more

Comment

My wife and I were sick of missing those precious moments when you are trying to get two young kids to smile nicely and look at the camera at the same time, or catch that fleeting moment of joy. So we gave up on the idea of a "nice point-and-shoot" and bought a real camera. We leave it on full auto 99% of the time and the pictures look amazing compared to your last point-and-shoot. We get instant response from the shutter and the colors look really good even indoors at night with flash (a little dim, tiny yellow, but miles above what we were used to). I do wish it had video capabilities as I would love to see what that looks like. Also, at first I wished you could frame your shot on the LCD screen, but once you get used to a view finder (been a long time since I used one) you tend to prefer it. The kit is nice, you get the two lenses you really need. I might eventually pick up a prim lens, but no real need for anything else. The memory card is high quality (class 10) so photos are not slowed down by slow write speeds (the Walmart version of this kit has a slower card). The bag is just big enough for the body, two lenses, and recharger...so no wasted space, but youll need a bigger bag if you plan to grow your lens collection. This camera exceeded my expectations on image quality given its "entry level" status in the DLSR world. In my opinion, it is the perfect camera for the non-enthusiast who just wants good photos WITHOUT having to spend a fortune on equipment, wheel around a camera suitcase and spend a ton of time learning how to operate a camera. Its the Honda Accord or Toyota Camry of cameras.

Show more

Comment

My hubby is a camera geek. He has a Sony something or other and a Minolta whadya call it. Both are DSLRs and both use the same lenses and batteries (something about Minolta becoming Sony.) I tried to play with his cameras when he let me, but Im not quite ready for those. However, I am more than qualified to get something a little nicer than a point and shoot. I watch Attack of the Show, and they reviewed this on "Gadget Pron" a few months ago and they gave it a 4.5 out of 5. For them, that means they really, really, really like it. Really. OK, I guess I should look into this more. So I read a bunch of reviews and decided to take the plunge. I am glad I did. This is a great camera for someone who has no clue what "aperture" and "F-stop" means but wants to learn. With the auto mode, you can take nice pictures right away, yet you can twist the dial and play with the menus moments later to learn how to make your pictures even better. I also bought a zoom lens, Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Zoom Nikkor Lens , so that I can take close up photos of the lions whiskers. My one minor gripe is that I cant seem to get the software to load properly. I dont NEED this because I can get other programs to read the raw format, but it would have been nice to have. That said, I havent actually shot anything in the raw format yet, and I can download and view my non-raw pictures just fine. This is a great starter DSLR. Its light (for a DSLR) and takes great pictures, and its fairly inexpensive. It comes with a nice lens. Highly recommended.

Show more

Comment

I am a typical parent that takes pictures of school plays, vacations, trips to amusement parks, birthday parties, sleepovers, family reunions, kids playing, etc. and I wanted SLR quality photos. I originally purchased the Canon G10, which was the top-of-the-line point when I bought it. I paid almost as much at the time as I did for my D3000. Back then, I thought at the price I paid, I would get SLR quality with the G10 point and shoot. Although I still love my G10 for a grab-and-go camera, it is still just a point and shoot without the ability to get SLR-quality pictures. This D3000 is my first SLR and I am so glad I have both a point and shoot and an SLR. I purchased my D3000 with the Nikor 70-200 lens (for sporting events - glad I did). My neighbor bought a D90 and we compared picture quality of identical objects we took pictures of. My D3000 measured up to the D90 is almost every picture! I cant take video like the D90, and granted, the D90 is a far more advanced camera meant for more seasoned photographers who can afford it. If you are looking for an amazing camera with spectacular, professional pictures without spending a ton, this camera is perfect. I dont fully understand the manual settings yet (still learning), but the D3000 has several preset settings that I use all of the time and they work very well. Each picture, time after time, ceases to amaze me. This camera proves that a quality SLR outfit is finally priced right for someone looking to graduate from a point and shoot to SLR. There is DEFINITELY a difference.

Show more

Comment

After using the Nikon D3000 for about a month, and over 500 pictures, I can only report that it is worth every nickel of its price ($500 on 12/4/09). 1. Easy to use. 2. controls well laid out 3. Kit lens AF quick and silent. 4. Size reasonable for small hands (mine). 5. Ability to take Nikon F mount lenses (AF or not). While there is the occasional oops moment, errors are easily corrected, and, of course, being digital, errors deleted with no expense incurred. Cant say that about film cameras. In addition to the kit lens, I have bought from a friend his Sigma 70-300 lens. While it is designated as an AF lens, as it does not have its own motor, it isnt on the D3K. Manual focusing is a bit of a pain, as is having to learn how to do it all over again. But when I get it right WOW! Nice crisp image. The only real criticism is not about the camera itself, a star performer. It is that lack of a REAL manual. The 60 page manual merely highlights the cameras many controls and menus and does not go into detail about them. The Main manual is a 216 page PDF file loaded onto a PC and called a Reference manual. I call it the Users Manual, and the little 60 page thing a Quick Reference. The Dummys book I bought on the D3K has a lot of useful information but having a PRINTED manual would have been better than having to buy my own hard copy.

Show more

Comment

This camera is our first dSLR so I think we are Nikons target audience for this product. Friends and family have other (more expensive) Nikon dSLRs and we have always been impressed with everything from image quality and ease of use to physical aspects of body design and construction quality. When we entered the dSLR market, I was open to all high end makes and shopped around to find one that met our minial requirements. The D3000 has met and surpassed our requirements and many we didnt know to look for. I think it serves as a great starting point into the dSLR world and will give a perspective and appreciation for the few features that it may not have, though it may take a few years to discover them. This model has the Guide feature which explains right on the screen what the different settings are used for and how to adjust them so its like having the instruction manual built into the camera, a big feature for dSLR newbies! Ill skip and leave tech specs and arcane details to the photo-philes and stat geeks but suffice it to say that this camera wont disappoint anyone but an advanced user and at the price point, is a rewarding choice.

Show more