Do you think the 3100 will put the D3000
& D5000 to bed?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The 3100 definitely replaces the D3000. It seems inevitable that the whole family will be refreshed over the course of time. But then again, one didn't need the D3100's appearance to predict that!

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Hi Tom,

I wonder! There is a significant difference in price and performance between the D3000 and the D3100. The price is much closer to the D5000 and the feature set exceeds the capability of the D5000. I think the D3000 may be around for a while if for no other reason to be a price leader in the entry level market which is very price sensitive.
Good luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

Pre-orders are being taken for $599 with kit lens so it looks like about the same street price increase the lenses have been factored by recently.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I think the D5000 will be gone by the price and features of the new D3100. If I had just waited a year.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Agree, had I had a crystal ball I would have waited a few months before getting the D5000. Although, if I had waited, I may have just gone ahead and spent the extra and got the D90.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

so, what happens if you did wait for the D3100 and you missed that one perfect shot?

> I think the D5000 will be gone by the price and features of the new D3100. If I had just waited a year.

If you'd have waited a year, that would have been a year of images - and experience - that you wouldn't have gotten.

There will ALWAYS be a new, better machine coming. The D3 is already obsolete, replaced by the D3s and to some degree the D3x. So far that hasn't made any impact on the images I've made in the past year or so, nor do I expect it to.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

I understand that but the D5000 is still a baby on the market and to be made obsolete so soon doesn't sit well with me. What it's done is make me really cautious about buying another camera.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Tom,

The D5000 was introduced on April 14. 2009.
The D60 was introduced on January 28, 2008
The D40X was introduced on March 5, 2007

The D3100 was introduced on August 17, 2010.
The D3000 was introduced on July 30, 2009.
The D40 was introduced on November 16, 2006

If history is any indication of the future and the D3100 is replacing the D3000 that is being phased out? It seems the D3000 has had a very short life compared to the D40.
The D5000 if its replacement is in the wings is running close to schedule based on the past.

Think about buying a computer. You can buy the latest and greatest and it will be obsolete before you get it plugged in for the first time.
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

>Hi Tom,
>
>The D5000 was introduced on April 14. 2009.
>The D60 was introduced on January 28, 2008
>The D40X was introduced on March 5, 2007
>
>The D3100 was introduced on August 17, 2010.
>The D3000 was introduced on July 30, 2009.
>The D40 was introduced on November 16, 2006
>
>If history is any indication of the future and the D3100 is
>replacing the D3000 that is being phased out? It seems the
>D3000 has had a very short life compared to the D40.
>The D5000 if its replacement is in the wings is running close
>to schedule based on the past.
>
>Think about buying a computer. You can buy the latest and
>greatest and it will be obsolete before you get it plugged in
>for the first time.
>Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

You are absolutely right. I need to stop being a baby and go out and take some photos.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I won't be upgrading my new 3000. It's fine for what I do. When and if I upgrade it will be a much higher end model

My Wife uses a D3000 and will do so for many years to come, she loves it.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

My wife takes her 3000 everywhere.

> the D5000 is still a baby on the market and to be made obsolete so soon doesn't sit well with me. What it's done is make me really cautious about buying another camera.

If you're worried about having the latest thing, well, "get over it." We're on a digital technology curve, where we literally start the next one before the "current" one is even shipping. Seriously, in computers, the design cycle is literally longer than the life of the product. I design computers and not digital cameras, but I can't imagine that a computer with a lens and a shutter is any different than a computer in this regard... as a consumer, you simply can't keep up.

If you're worried about the depreciation (ie resale value), that's the same as your car. If you buy a new car and drive it off the lot, you take about a 15% depreciation hit in those first ten miles. If you don't like it, buy lightly used ones. I buy as much photography gear as I can used for this exact reason, and it's mostly successful. I owned a series of DX lenses that ended up costing me about $100 to own for something like ten lens-years, because I bought them used, kept them in pretty good condition and sold them with very little loss in value. And I did use them, too.

But the real value of a camera is in taking pictures. And the fact that the D5000 will soon be replaced by a new model doesn't change that in any way. Every single one of my cameras is now "obsolete" at least in the sense that they're no longer made, and have been superceded by (sometimes much) newer models. Yet I seem to still be able to make images with them - even with the vintage-1977 F2A, or for those in the digital-only world, the vintage-2003 D100.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Good advice from Brian.

To paraphrase an armed services term: shoot with what ya got.

A couple of photography pundits put out a series of independent columns all within the course of several weeks of each other. A common theme: upgraditis or more traditionally, Keeping Up With The Joneses. Short answer - you will spend your money unwisely if you decide you need to upgrade without having thought it through. Most people *think* they will get better using better equipment. I offer you the examples of weekend tennis, bowling and golf players. But the reality is they don't practice enough, haven't mastered the equipment they own and they lack quality supporting equipment, training or knowledge. Sound familiar?

Remember folks, the manufacturers are *counting* on upgradeitis to put them in the black. Don't be one of those statistics unless you can properly justify why. But, hey it's your money.

"Toodle-loo from Covey22!"

-Armando
Nikonians Team
Nikonians News - Fresh Everyday!

The Covey Blog!

My Plan:

Get out of the car.
Get closer to the subject.
Pick the right mid-tone this time.

See My Nikonians Gallery

In that theme, I once asked John McEnroe if he really used the rackets he endorsed, assuming he used customized racket.
He replied "sure I use them, it only really matters to weekend players who think it will improve their game. A full time pro can be competitive with a racket strung with spaghetti". It was interesting, he was hanging around the studio whenever Carlos Santana was recording, Carlos was an avid weekend tennis player and bought every new high tech racket out there but never really got good. John was a frustrated rock guitarist and did the same thing with guitars thinking it would make him better. Carlos endorsed Mesa Boogie amplifiers so always had a bunch of them laying around. But when it came to playing, he could get his unmistakable sound with any amp that was in the room. It only made a difference to the weekend garage guitarist what amp was used.
The first time B.B. King came to record, he walked in with his guitar and I asked if we could help bring in his amps and gear. He said, I don't have an amp, "just find me any spare amplifier to plug into". The second he started there was no mistaking his trademark pure singing tones, and he had plugged into a old hot-rodded Marshall 45 which never sounded with that tone before. A side recording done at that same time was a famous Bud commercial featuring B.B. back in the 80s, he was using another amp entirely for that, solely because it was closer to him and he said he just did not walk so good anymore. Yet the sound he got was the same....perfect.

I am convinced that a master can use anything, gear does not matter, only to hobbyists who conflate results with process.

I've added lenses and spent more than I should have but I find that if I have improved in the 2 years since having the D90 it is because I am slightly getting up to speed. That is, not being trailing behind the camera. When taking driving or flying lessons, there seems to be too many things to think of and be in control of so there are series of over corrections, in that respect the student is "behind" not leading, reacting to, instead of commanding.
When I was 40 hours into flight training, a time when most students are ready to do their final check, I was still behind, correcting instead of being ahead of the aircraft. So every landing was hectic and busy. A friend who was a flight instructor invited me to go flying in my airplane, a Piper Arrow(which IS more complicated since it has retractable gear and constant speed prop besides being heavier) and just play, no lessons. OK, I figured he just want to fly my plane, that was cool. As it turned out he got us into a complex situation, including setting up for a strong cross wind landing and suddenly told me to help, and he left the controls for me. I am not sure why but everything fell into place, suddenly I, being forced to command instead of react, and it seemed like everything was in slow motion, there was plenty of time to do what needed to be done. I finally, in that one situation was ahead of the plane. It was exciting, the rest of the day I practiced maneuverer that I dreaded all along like stalls, laughing all the way. When we got back to my home airport up in the mountains, he said he knew what happened and suggested I schedule the final check. My regular flight instructor was reluctant knowing the day before I was still reacting and behind. He scheduled it anyway and it was fun and easy, how come everything has slowed down, it is a piece of cake. The same night i did my first solo night flights and week later did a 800 mile 6 leg solo cross country.

That is how I see the camera, a device that if behind it, reacting to shots as seen in the display, everything is going to be luck, not sure of what the results would be, up until the point of taking charge, knowing exactly what the shot is intended to be and getting it before the shutter is triggered. Gear is not as important as i thought after all. It is being in command, ahead of, whatever gear I do have is more important.
I am sure that a skilled creative photographer is like BB, John and Carlos, the gear is just a tool and not a terribly important one. Given a point and shoot, a great photographer will come back with images that mean something and which we would be proud to have on our walls.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Cool story, Stan.

> I am convinced that a master can use anything, gear does not matter, only to hobbyists who conflate results with process.

I agree. A few years ago I watched Walter Ray Williams (the bowling equivalent of Tiger Woods) completely destroy a field of touring pros and really good non-touring players - with the bowling equivalent of a D40. Turns out there's a reason he's Walter Ray Williams, I guess But on the other hand, I'll also observe that most of the top pros in any endeavor are rarely seen without top equipment. And while some of that is clearly due to sponsorship or other business arrangements, it's often the case that there's no involvement there. The top equipment is usually "top" for good reason, and skilled users by definition have the skills to exploit those differences.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Thanks Stan and Brian for putting things into perspective.

I tend to pay attention to the new gear, always thinking,...

Will this make the difference? Will I jump to the next level with this piece of equipment? Will my images be better exposed and sharper.

Now I will start asking a question inspired by Brian's response.

Am I skilled enough to exploit the differences of the latest gear?

We all should probably ask this question prior to the next purchase.

JohnE Nikon

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

A thoughtful post.

Let me try to respond to some of this:

> Will I jump to the next level with this piece of equipment? Will my images be better exposed

Almost certainly not better exposed. The meters in all Nikons since, oh, the F4 or so have been deadly accurate for the vast majority of shots - call it in the high 90s for percentile. They've been tweaking the other 2-3%. Unless one specializes in those tough conditions - for example someone who specializes in competition ski photography, or perhaps winter in Yosemite - a D100, D40, D90, D700, D3s, D3x and, I will predict, a D4x - will all yield the same exposure 98% of the time as long as the FOV is held constant (ie the meters are reading the same scene). And if one specializes in those hard cases, you already know what to do!

> sharper

This one depends utterly on your technique. In this case, it's best to think of the gear as a force multiplier. Or as an amplifier. If your technique is excellent, you'll get a correspondingly even better result with gear upgrades. If your technique is poor, your not only won't improve, they may well get worse! A clear example is upgrading from a mediocre 500mm lens to a 600/f4 AFS. I'll pick on the poor old Sigma 600/f8 reflex, which is not especially sharp and a hard-to-use-well mirror lens. Without pristine technique, the Sigma will always yield a fairly soft result, sometimes because it is just soft, and sometimes - probably more often - because it's hard to focus an f/8 MF lens and because 600mm magnifies whatever camera motion problems you may have. On the other hand, the Nikkor will accurately represent whatever you capture, and now you'll actually SEE that unstable tripod, the lack of mirror lockup, the unstable technique. If your technique is excellent, you'll still lose some shots because nobody's perfect, but wowweee, you won't be in the way and the optics really can be seen for what they can do.

Similar things happened when the D2x came out - a number of folks whose technique was good enough at 6mp suddenly found out that their technique/tripod/etc was NOT good enough at 12mp, and had to improve. I rather imagine this happened with the D3x too, but the price level there is so high that it wasn't too common.

> Am I skilled enough to exploit the differences of the latest gear?

An excellent question, and one that many would have a hard time evaluating.

There's another way to ask the question, though. Some upgrades are designed to mitigate user error, and in those cases, the upgrade may be worth its weight in gold, so to speak. The one I'm thinking of is VR. In my opinion, the 70-300 AFS VR isn't all that much better in outright optics than its 70-300 D ED predecessor. It's better, just not by leaps and bounds. But VR mitigates user error - or at least, user margin - especially on a long, relatively slow lens. In the right situations (and the 70-300 and 150-500 focal lengths are clearly smack in that sweet spot), VR/OS/VC/whatever can make a huge difference in the end results. Of course, one still has to use even VR/OS properly...

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Brian,
Thanks. After reading "Is Nikon a drug?" and my own "Stage Photography" question, I have given this some thought.

I have been considering a purchase of a 2.8 70-200mm lens for my D5000. I want sharper images and quicker focusing The low light capabilities and control of field of view is also tempting.

After getting some great advice to borrow or rent this lens, I discovered a friend who had a 2.8 80-200 AF lens, not AF-S. I only had the lens for about 45 minutes during a lunch break at work but decided to test it against my 55-200 kit lens. I shot about 30 pictures with each lens, mainly of a church and geese by a lake.

When I got to review images there was only 1 shot where this 3.5 lb $1000 lens clearly gave me better results. 80-90% were better and significantly so with my kit lens. I attribute this mostly to a lack of being able to manually focus and increased blur due to lack of VR along with not being used to holding such a big heavy lens.

I will still probably rent the new VRII 2.8 70-200 for an upcoming stage shoot but realize that my equipment is not the weak link. I hope my skills will improve so that I will be able to fully utilize any new expensive equipment. I hope I have better luck with an AFS lens as I don't believe I will ever master manual focusing with any subject especially one that moves.

JohnE Nikon

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

This is a good example of how an upgrade (in the form of a non-VR, non-AF lens to AFS, VR) would materially improve your results - even if you're going the "wrong" way. That is, most people would agree with the statement "the 80-200/f2.8 is a better lens than the 55-200."

On the other hand, I suspect you didn't fully test things. If you'd have tried to shoot inside that church, and surely if you'd have tried to shoot a high school football game, you'd get very different "test" results: the 80-200 was designed to do that sort of thing, the 55-200 wasn't.

Still, the entirely valid point is that for some other things - some of which are common subjects - things aren't always the way they seem.

> I don't believe I will ever master manual focusing with any subject especially one that moves.

Few humans are likely to ever approach the accuracy of an AF system that can track a moving subject.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Unknow by many, in 1995 or so I watched the same Walter Ray Williams destroy the Kansas Junior horseshoe throwing champ in an exhibition match. seems he threw a brand of shoes he adveritesed - DeadEye which i couldn't justify spending the $ for thinking I wasn't that good and how would different shoes make me that much better.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I'm sure that that the relative unimportance of gear quality has application for some kinds of photography. I question whether it applies to wildlife photography where you often need a lot of reach and walking toward the subject isn't an option.

I think that the right gear is also important for flower and insect photography. A few days ago I was taking pictures of vinegar weed flowers with a D5000 and a Tamron 90mm macro lens. Those flowers are 1/4" across or even less, so you need something other than a general purpose lens to get much of a picture.

Until June of 2009, I was using a Panasonic FZ50 ultrazoom for such pictures. Not much bokeh. The real problem was that the articulated LCD was completely washed out in direct sunlight and the LCD viewfinder didn't provide enough resolution to allow me to focus accurately. The right gear (DSLR optical viewfinder and a real macro lens) makes it so much easier.

Bill

From an amateur point of view. If you have a D5000, but have the chance to switch to the D3100 without any penalty (such is my case), would you?

I read the reviews, there are a few practical things that I like, like the LV switch in the back, the shutter mode (single, burst, q...) by the shutter, etc.

What to do??

Thanks,

Dentalpiano

>> the D5000 is still a baby on the market and to be made
>obsolete so soon doesn't sit well with me. What it's done is
>make me really cautious about buying another camera.
>
>If you're worried about having the latest thing, well,
>"get over it." We're on a digital technology curve,
>where we literally start the next one before the
>"current" one is even shipping. Seriously, in
>computers, the design cycle is literally longer than the life
>of the product. I design computers and not digital cameras,
>but I can't imagine that a computer with a lens and a shutter
>is any different than a computer in this regard... as a
>consumer, you simply can't keep up.
>
>If you're worried about the depreciation (ie resale value),
>that's the same as your car. If you buy a new car and drive
>it off the lot, you take about a 15% depreciation hit in those
>first ten miles. If you don't like it, buy lightly used ones.
> I buy as much photography gear as I can used for this exact
>reason, and it's mostly successful. I owned a series of DX
>lenses that ended up costing me about $100 to own for
>something like ten lens-years, because I bought them used,
>kept them in pretty good condition and sold them with very
>little loss in value. And I did use them, too.
>
>But the real value of a camera is in taking pictures. And the
>fact that the D5000 will soon be replaced by a new model
>doesn't change that in any way. Every single one of my
>cameras is now "obsolete" at least in the sense that
>they're no longer made, and have been superceded by (sometimes
>much) newer models. Yet I seem to still be able to make
>images with them - even with the vintage-1977 F2A, or for
>those in the digital-only world, the vintage-2003 D100.

Thanks Dad I'm "Over it" as my previous post said. I understand updating equals sales and I'm sure the update for the 3100 is in the wings the second that sales slip and the update to the update is there also.
Resale means nothing to me, my D40 isn't going anywhere and the D5000 is here to stay in my home also.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

> Thanks Dad

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

>> Thanks Dad
>
>


Have a good night. hehe

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Do you think we have seen the last of tilt screens?
Perhaps they were to expensive for Nikon to manufacture and repair?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

When is this 3100 going out for sale? Has Nikon announced a date yet?

Roger;
Maybe so, good.

I would not buy a camera that had a single point attachment because it could not survive rough handling, which is what my camera would get. I am not rough on gear, cars, clothes, etc but the environments are.
But pocket camcorder folks and point and shooters love that feature, possibly because they are used to $200-300 camera with no investment in accessories, which they replace regularly anyway.
Maybe Nikon did a customer survey and concluded the number of people actually using their articulated screens is less than the damaged units returned for repair so felt it was going against their reputation of producing reliable hardy equipment. The 5000 probably has become their #1 service headache due to a single screen mount holding up a screen that is too exposed to any hazard.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I think I would also have trouble keeping the D5000 screen attached plus I do not like the smaller size of it.
The introduction of the D3100 may give Nikon a good excuse to get rid of it.

I remember having a CoolPix 950 and using the articulating body to shoot while holding it over the crowds heads. Very cool but also very awkward. I think I only tried that once, then I moved on to a D1 and never looked back.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

This will date me, but I used to use a TLR turned upside down to shoot over fences and down on crowds. It's a lot more secure feeling than just slamming a fisheye onto a DSLR and praying that you got what you wanted, although I have to admit that doing so usually does get the goods...

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

>This will date me, but I used to use a TLR turned upside down
>to shoot over fences and down on crowds. It's a lot more
>secure feeling than just slamming a fisheye onto a DSLR and
>praying that you got what you wanted, although I have to admit
>that doing so usually does get the goods...

That's one thing I like about the D5k - it reminds me of shooting pictures over the heads of a crowd with my Dad's Rollei TLR.

Clay
Austin, TX USA

I have had my D5000 for a little more than a year. I have taken nearly 9000 pictures.
My comments are that this little camera is great. I rarley use the articulating screen. I usually keep it with the screen side facing out but secured in the back of the camera. It is very stable in this position and does not seem to be at more risk of damage than any other LCD screen. It is at risk of being scratched, but I find it is almost always hanging from my neck, on a tripod or in camera bag. While I could see if someone forces the screen the wrong way or drops it with the screen out, the articulating screen could be damaged. Under normal use and I would argue that I excesasively use it as an amateur, there are no issues. I am cautious when I do.

As an aside I just had a shoot out with a friend who has an older Canon EOS40D which he bought for >$1000 and had a $1200 70-200 fixed F 4.0 lens. My images with the 70-200 kit lens were consistantly sharper and had overall better IQ. Maybe a newer Canon camera will focus better but even it does this camera is clearly a winner. If he didn't just spend the money on the new lens he would convert to Nikon and probably own the D5000.

JohnE Nikon

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

> My images with the 70-200 kit lens

Surely you mean the 55-200 kit lens?

> consistantly sharper and had overall better IQ.

Hmm... I obviously can't argue, as I've never seen either set of files, but...

> Maybe a newer Canon camera will focus better

I've used a fair number of Canon DSLRs although not the 40D; and one of my friends has the 70-200/f4. (Yes, she's still a friend, even though she shoots Canon ) That lens is definitely a top-caliber lens, in the same general category as the Nikkor 70-200/f2.8. If your friend's results are significantly less sharp than yours, I would suggest that it's your friend's technique that's at the root of the lack of sharpness, not the camera and certainly not the lens.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

My kit lens is the 55-200 I have confused this before. I think its because I covet the 70-200 2.8. Thanks for catching it.

Can't argue about the lens. It should be great.
I think the test has given him the push to upgrade his camera.

When I saw his results we switched camera's and the results were the same. That probaly means that either both of our techniques are suboptimal ? related to larger and heavier camera, camera setting error, or a true problem with auto focus. The results were slight but real. The other thing I noticed was he shot in a continuous mode and I shot single servo spot. We were shooting at fixed objects. I'll have to have another shootout and try to keep everything the same to compare apples to apples. Its harder then you think when you are not familiar with a camera brand.

He is under the impression he has a focusing problem with the camera and states this has been written up about the 40D.
BTW indoors with low light his lens did beat mine hands down. He shot at 4.0 and I think I shot at 5.6 F stop. I could post some of the pics but it wouldn't be too exciting.

Anyway I guess my point was, this camera takes very good pictures and the build quality in general seems quite good. I have to say my camera and lens were probably half his in size and weight and felt a little like a fisher price in comparison, but the picture quality is there so I wont complain.

JohnE Nikon

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

I love mt D5000 and can see myself wearing it out. I did see that the D3100 sensor size is smaller than the D5000 but it's packed with more pixels. The 3100 is 23.1 x 15.4 mm and the 5000 is 23.6 x 15.8 mm I know it's not much.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ok so now you can see my view a view of a new-be.
yes I think the D3000 and the D5000 will suffer at the hands of the D3100. will I buy the D3100 " NO"
I just got my D5000 and until I learn all about I'm keeping it.
I'm not a believer in "to get the best shot get the best camera" I have see some cell phone photos better then some of those photos being sold on the internet. I'm learning a lot about my D5000 thanks to the guy who wrote Mastering your Nikon D5000. Digital Darrel. that book is "GREAT" if you got a D5000 get the book.
one more thing I also think the D3000,D5000, and D3100 will suffer when that new D7000 comes out

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

The one and only major camera purchase I ever made was for a Canon T50 and that was probably 20 years ago. I took what I thought were some pretty good shots but I really never knew exactly what I was doing. I've not taken any photos with that camera for several years but now I have a lot of time on my hands and I want to get back into photography. I have sold myself on the D3000 and I am almost certain I will buy one very soon. My question is with the D3100 coming out on September 25, according to Amazon, should I wait for its release to see if the price on the 3000 drops? No one knows what the future holds but do you have any guesses?

More than likely you won't find a D3000 anywhere by the time the D3100 arrives. Nikon normally manage inventory levels down to the minimum - or below - so there is virtually no chance of a price drop on the D3000. In fact, I'd guess that most retail channels are already out of the D3000 by now.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Well I took the plunge and ordered the D3000 with the two kit lenses and the SB-400 flash. I think I made the right choice. Time will tell. My goal is to learn all I can and then perhaps move on up to better equipment but that will certainly take some time. I also ordered the book Mastering The Nikon D3000. From the reviews it should help considerably.

Hi Gene,

Congratulations on your new D3000!
Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Best Regards,
Marty

>Hi Gene,
>
>Congratulations on your new D3000!
>Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!

Thanks Marty. I appreciate it.

I also purchased the D3000 with a couple of lenses, Hope i can handle this monster. My last camera was a CoolPix S570

hi folks
i got my d5000 in april and although i would have loved a d300 or d700. i am new to photography. this is my forst dslr. i got the kit lens plus a tamron 70-300 lens with it too. since then i have got a 18-105 nikor lens wich i must admit is the lens that gets the most use. if i had got a d300/d700 my photo's would be no better than they are with the d5000 in this short time of having it,i have learned to use the manual mode. until i can fully master the d5000 by getting great shots of what i want/see every time. then i can upgrade and by that time who knows what will be out. the d5000 is a great camera. i have used the tilt screen often especially during macro shots as it allows you to get low without the need to laydown.
with the d3100 price being about the same as the d5000 if not even more. i would still have gone for the d5000. i like my nikon d5000 its not dead yet and hopefully will live for a very long time to come.
martin

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

oh yeah man, I was able to shoot a D3000 on manual within 5 minutes of using the camera, handling my friends D60 every now and then probably helped, but I'll tel you this, its one helluva step up from a point and shoot, well, for me I went from having a S3100 to no camera because I broke it, and then going to a little pocket canon, and then a D5000 and then a couple film SLRs, so, that being said, you'll be able to handle that D3000 with no problems

I have to tell you that book is going to help you more then anything else you have.
I bought Mastering the D5000 , and I have to say its great. you will know that D3000 inside out

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Nope. Got a D5000 and not a single regret as yet. Great (and better) video on the D3100 but for the price difference in my country I can buy a fairly decent video camera. I bought my D5000 for taking photos and there it does a much better job than the D31000. In that department the D3100 is just a glorified D3000.

Quote >Nope. Got a D5000 and not a single regret as yet. Great (and
>better) video on the D3100 but for the price difference in my
>country I can buy a fairly decent video camera. I bought my
>D5000 for taking photos and there it does a much better job
>than the D31000. In that department the D3100 is just a
>glorified D3000.< Quote

I am glad you like your flimsy little tilt screen.
The image quality of the D5000 is plenty good enough.

But, I choose to disagree.
The D3100 is not a glorified D3000.
I actually have a D3100 and for me it is superior to the D3000 & D5000 in every way.

One thing I did notice though, the D3100 is less forgiving.
The higher resolution shows user error better.
And the lighter weight of the kit is harder to hold steady.
I also may have to invest in a steady cam, in order to take video without a tripod.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>
>I am glad you like your flimsy little tilt screen.
>The image quality of the D5000 is plenty good enough.
>

Passive aggressive?

The tilt screen is fine if you show a tiny bit of common sense.

The 3100 is superior because that's the camera you own. Really.

There are photos posted here by the D40 that put the full frame huge $$$$ camera shots to shame.
I have a D40, D50 and a D5000 and each have a quality that I like.
Enjoy your superior in every way camera....I'm going to take some photos.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Vindex,
I have owned or shot nearly every digital camera Nikon has made.
None of them are inferior.
The D5000 shares the same sensor as the D90 and D300.
I was very happy with my D90 images.
The D3100 is only "superior in every way" to the D5000 for "my use".
And, I expect the D7000 to be better yet.
You obviously have different needs.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Yes Back to the original Question.
Unless Canon sells a lot of 60D cameras, I expect the D3000 and D5000 to be discontinued as soon as sales drop.
So far 60D sales are dismal, so I do not expect a D5100

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

congratulations on the purchase, and though my opinion of the D3000 is quite low meaning I would almost prefer to shoot an XSi or T1i over the D3000 you made the right choice, buy your camera, don't worry about the camera body, they come and go like fads in fashion. Just get shooting with whats at hand, you can upgrade the camera body and lenses later on if you really want to.

Have fun shooting!
-------------------------------

I am called Grey lens because I don't shoot just one brand of camera or gear, Canon, nikon, olympus, you'll find them in my camera inventory

I agree. Enjoy.

I just showed some of pic's to friend who has a Canon 60D. Not to pat myself on the back, (someone has to do it though) my pictures with the D5000 are in every way better than hers. I am not claiming the camera is better, but if you get your composition , focus and exposure you should be happy, unless you are a pixel peeper (? is this a word)

I think it all depends on your needs. For instance if you are a wildlife photographer and need the extra focus points maybe you need the D7000 or D300 or if you are a landscape photographer and need 40" prints for your gallery you may want an FX camera etc. I think many of us who worry about these things ( I'm mainly thinking of myself) have not completely optimized their technique and probably do not have thd need for an upgrade.

That being said I am hoping to hold off on a camera upgrade for at least a year. I usually get by with about 3 years for my computers and hopefully I will have the restraint to do the same with my cameras.

JohnE Nikon

https://picasaweb.google.com/104310967428146619677


"Cameras and lenses are simply tools to place our unique vision on film. Concentrate on equipment and you'll take technically good photographs. Concentrate on seeing the light's magic colors and your images will stir the soul." Jack Dykinga

I for one have happily used my trusty D40 since I purchased it in 2007. It sits over my left shoulder when I am shooting. I generally keep a wide lens on it while my D300 is occupied with a 70-200 2.8. I generally shoot low light action (Theatre, Football games, etc). Given the time pressure to frame shots I am currently considering retiring it from my main tools. The D3000 didn't come far enough feature wise to make it a consideration. However, adding video mode with AF does tip the balance for me. The small size of the D40 has been a benefit for me and I would like to continue along those lines. The 14mpx file size is not really where I would want to be but the other features outweigh the downside (large file sizes).

Just my two cents . . .

Denny

Visit my Nikonians gallery.