picture quality

[pandarider007]

just wondering if when you take a picture, do you look through the eye hole or on the screen. i dont have a camera but i see that with the d3000 you have to strictly look through the hole. wondering if i should save up and get the d3100 or something along those lines? any help is appreciated.:reading:

 

[Brett9917]

I have the D90 which has both, and I almost strictly use the view finder "eye hole" unless I am shooting at an angle where I can't see. Such as holding the camera above my head or something. Also live view will suck the life out of battery.

 

[Recty]

I use live view only when shooting macro and I cant have the camera up to my eye. Otherwise I always use the viewfinder.

With that said, I wouldnt buy a DSLR that didnt have a LCD screen for shooting for those times when I do want to do macro or be at a very weird angle.

If the price was incredibly different between the viewfinder only model and the one with an LCD, I might skip the LCD but that would only be if I was really trying to save money.

 

[Brett9917]

Agreed, having (or not having) live view is not a deal breaker for me at all. It's a nice accessory though if it is in your budget...

 

[pandarider007]

alright thanks guys. im looking between the d3000 and the d3100, would it be better to get the d3000 without live view and save the extra for a macro lense, or spend the extra 200 for live view, video, etc.. what would you do?

 

[Recty]

Completely depends what type of shooting you plan on doing.

Do you plan on ever using video? I use mine quite a bit for videoing my daughter and my fish. DSLRs can take some amazing video, shallow depth of field makes your videos look professional But if you dont plan on it, then dont factor that in.

Without knowing your financial situation, it's a hard question to answer. If it was me, I'd buy the better camera now and save up the extra $200 then buy the macro lens. But if you're going to purchase now and not buy anything again for a while, I'd go ahead and get the cheaper camera and the better lenses.

 

[RcToners]

With the d3000 the least of your problems are the live view. Here is a quick little review on the d3000 and why its the WORST dslr nikon has made to date.


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000.htm

 

[BlueCorn]

With the d3000 the least of your problems are the live view. Here is a quick little review on the d3000 and why its the WORST dslr nikon has made to date.


http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000.htm

Not that you should pay too much attention to that bozo.

 

[Brett9917]

Oh Doug, can we just set you two up in a room and let you two duke it out?? Either physically or verbally. I really think you will feel better about the whole situation!! haha

 

[RcToners]

Not that you should pay too much attention to that bozo.

Are you calling me a bozo or the person that made the review ??

If you are calling the person that made the review a bozo I think you may want to check the credentials of the author before you make you start with the name calling.

If you are calling me a bozo then so be it although my wife and I make our living through photography so I am pretty confident in my knowledge of cameras.

 

[BlueCorn]

If you are calling the person that made the review a bozo I think you may want to check the credentials of the author before you make you start with the name calling.

This.


I have checked his credentials. He has none.

 

[xtm]

Are you calling me a bozo or the person that made the review ??
If you are calling the person that made the review a bozo I think you may want to check the credentials of the author before you make you start with the name calling.

If you are calling me a bozo then so be it although my wife and I make our living through photography so I am pretty confident in my knowledge of cameras.

Calm down, he was talking about Ken Rockwell. Yes, the GREAT Ken Rockwell :lol:

I've been shooting Nikon for many years, worked with many people in the industry, and almost everyone unequivocably agrees that KR is a disgrace to the whole Nikon community. This is exactly why a lot of people hate him, because people who are not 'in the know' take him way too seriously and unfortunately, treats his words as gospel. Please DO NOT take his words seriously. His whole website is a satire, as he admitted it himself here.

.....I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke.

You need to be able to separate the real info from the BS. His site has 10% useful info and 90% of it is BS and advertising, asking you to click a link to help "support his family".

As for this:

Originally Posted by RcToners
With the d3000 the least of your problems are the live view. Here is a quick little review on the d3000 and why its the WORST dslr nikon has made to date.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3000.htm

That guy probably singlehandedly caused this poor camera's reputation to tank. I've used the D3000, and IMO it's a great camera. You have to remember that it is only a tool, and what really matters is the eye BEHIND the camera. Remember....The poor craftsman always blames his tools.

 

[Misled]

Ok, so I'm kinda one of the nikon guys here, here's my thoughts. My camera doesn't have live view, and almost all I shoot is macros. It's not really necessary. While it may be a nice addition, it's easily done without.

As for the 3000, or the 3100, both "could" take quality pics. It has more to do with the lens and the human behind the camera. While the consumer body would keep my away from either, if it's comfortable to you. Take your pick. If you haven't held either, do that before buying. Get a feel for the ergonomics. Try a Canon. Try that out.

Once you buy into a system, it can be very expensive to change.

And on Rockhead. Yep. He isn't all that. When you have the ability to promote yourself, it's pretty easy to make people think you're more than you are. There's more competent people here.

Or what xtm said!!!! :lol:

 

[tjw00]

alright thanks guys. im looking between the d3000 and the d3100, would it be better to get the d3000 without live view and save the extra for a macro lense, or spend the extra 200 for live view, video, etc.. what would you do?

I would avoid the d3000 at all costs. Horrible horrible camera.

 

[Phishguy]

I have the d3000 and granted I'm not a professional photographer, i think it's a great camera. I have not read and bad reviews and it serves it's purpose better than anything I've had before. Some people are canon people and some people are nikon people.

 

[BlueCorn]

I would avoid the d3000 at all costs. Horrible horrible camera.

And your basis for this opinion is?

 

[Brett9917]

My dad has the D3000, and he loves it. He is a consumer photographer, and sometimes for him, it just functions as a big P&S, but it more than gets the job done. And when he does wish to use it for more artistic shots, it is ready and willing to handle that job as well.

 

[tjw00]

And your basis for this opinion is?

i owned one, or to be more precise, i bought one for my wife. This camera performed worse than her point and shoot, especially in low light, where it is absolutely abysmal. The lack of live view and video was also something that quickly made this camera a waste of $. Her compact olympus point and shoot had both and was water resistant. The menu system on the 3000 is the absolute worst I have seen. If you have to do anything beyond easy mode with it, you have to jump through so many clicks and scrolls on the menu system that it quickly becomes infuriating. I did not expect it to compete with my 7d( which I use for sports shooting) or my 5d( which I use for everything else) , but I did expect it to compete with my wife's low end p&s.

She now uses a canon rebel, and loves it.

I'm sure the 3000 is fine for some people, but even for entry level people there are much better choices for the same $.

I haven't used enough nikon dslrs to definitively say this is nikon's worst , but I wouldn't be surprised.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hookup]

i owned one, or to be more precise, i bought one for my wife. This camera performed worse than her point and shoot, especially in low light, where it is absolutely abysmal. The lack of live view and video was also something that quickly made this camera a waste of $. Her compact olympus point and shoot had both and was water resistant. The menu system on the 3000 is the absolute worst I have seen. If you have to do anything beyond easy mode with it, you have to jump through so many clicks and scrolls on the menu system that it quickly becomes infuriating. I did not expect it to compete with my 7d( which I use for sports shooting) or my 5d( which I use for everything else) , but I did expect it to compete with my wife's low end p&s.

She now uses a canon rebel, and loves it.

I'm sure the 3000 is fine for some people, but even for entry level people there are much better choices for the same $.

I haven't used enough nikon dslrs to definitively say this is nikon's worst , but I wouldn't be surprised.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

going to pick on you for that one... in a friendly internet way mind you... however, i'd bet this was advertised as such so it's hardly the camera's fault for not having what it doesnt claim to have...

clearly however it wasn't a good choice for you/your wife in the end.

 

[Misled]

I'll pick a bit also. My D200 doesn't have live view, it doesn't have video. I really don't care about either. I've said in the past I didn't care for shooting at high ISO, but some think it's fine. Just because a camera doesn't have these features, that doesn't make it a bad camera. I don't really want them.

As for the menus, you shoot with Canon and you're used to them. I shoot with Nikon and bet it would take me a bit to figure out yours. Mine is second nature to me.