Wonder of the NIKON folks will post this

I believe Nikon has a much wider range of lenses to offer, most of which will easily outperform any current MFT lens.

It's not all about the pixel-level detail and JPEG engine, you know ...

swpars said:

The D3000 is one of the worst 10 megapixel Sony sensor Nikons. My old D80 looks to have better quality than it in both JPEG and RAW, to say nothing of my D300S.

The 6 mp D40 was a much better camera from an image quality standpoint.
--
Equipment in plan.

Click to expand...

People keep repeating this statement, but it simply isn't true. I just picked up the D3000. High ISO performance is very good. Yes there is a bit more noise, but also the dynamic range is better than the D80, D40 (and in fact is par with the D300) etc and as such the images retain better color and tonal information. The end result is that images look better than the previous generations of Nikon SLRs. I find images @ ISO 1600 in print look amazing with most of the 'noise' eliminated by the dithering process. Some reviewers have failed to take this into account.

It's a well known issue with the D3000 on the Nikon forums - and some (actually, quite a few) folks believe it's the worse entry-level DSLR that Nikon ever made. I actually picked one up awhile back, assuming it was going to be better than the D60 which preceded it. I soon found that clarity-wise and high ISO image-wise, it was actually a step back from the D60 (a model which I thoroughly enjoyed and still maintain). But despite all of that, I've managed to capture some really nice images with the D3000 and I keep the Tamron 18-270 VC coupled to it. In otherwords, I've made it work for me...and work well, it does!

So every camera manufacturer - regardless of brand - will occasionally release something that may not necessarily rock the boat. But I have to laugh at how some folks totally merge their material possessions (in this case, a specific brand of camera gear) with their personalities (or should I say, "manhood") and every other brand then becomes inferior in their eyes. Funny....

Nikon (along with other brands) has a history of winners, that's for sure, and for those of us who shoot with several DSLR systems (mine happens to be Olympus, Panasonic, and Nikon), the joy of being able to shoot with a wide variety of gear, makes it all the more worthwhile and pleasurable.

Here are some horrible D3000 shots...that I've elected to keep around for awhile so I can periodically make fun of them.





--

so who cares about jpegs?

that only shows oly is bought only by p&s people. that isn't a "real" camera, it's an expensive toy. on the other hand d3000 is one of the cheapes dslrs and does what a dslr should do much better. that's very simple but dpreview, as always, feels the need to kick nikon's cameras without intelligent reasoning.

Phil Flash said:

Nikon folks are out taking pictures and they probably don't care if they are satisfied with their camera.

The Oly's performance really doesn't do anything to lessen the absolute performance of their current gear.

Cameras are not football teams, people. We don't get offended when the other guys score.

Click to expand...

well, i'm a nikon guy, and i'm satisfied with my camera, for the most part.

but i do have my eye on these micro-4/3rds cameras. not as a replacement, but as a supplement. i'd like a pocket camera, something for fun, snapshots, and when i don't want to carry my 6lb SLR. i figure something in that range might be good, especially with a pancake type lens. problem is, when it comes to the price, i look at it and go, "... i'll just keep saving for that lens i need."

but no, we don't mind when the other guys score.

efix said:

I believe Nikon has a much wider range of lenses to offer, most of which will easily outperform any current MFT lens.

It's not all about the pixel-level detail and JPEG engine, you know ...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you felt the need to go there, but you might want to do your research first. The E-PL1 retains full functionality on all 4/3 lenses as well - so it has a complete lens lineup, with lots of options, if not quite as many as Nikon. Olympus and Panasonic (and Leica, who particpated in designing and lent their name to several lenses,) are known for building some of the best glass in the world.

(Canon and Nikon have built a number of amazing lenses, too - and I like what I've seen of the Pentax Limiteds. My point here is just that we have very good glass - our 'bad' lenses, the 14-42 and 17, are merely average, and some of the lenses are world class, for their types.)
Walter

saghost said:

efix said:

I believe Nikon has a much wider range of lenses to offer, most of which will easily outperform any current MFT lens.

It's not all about the pixel-level detail and JPEG engine, you know ...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you felt the need to go there, but you might want to do your research first. The E-PL1 retains full functionality on all 4/3 lenses as well - so it has a complete lens lineup, with lots of options, if not quite as many as Nikon. Olympus and Panasonic (and Leica, who particpated in designing and lent their name to several lenses,) are known for building some of the best glass in the world.

Click to expand...

But the focus on m4/3 is slow.

saghost said:

(Canon and Nikon have built a number of amazing lenses, too - and I like what I've seen of the Pentax Limiteds. My point here is just that we have very good glass - our 'bad' lenses, the 14-42 and 17, are merely average, and some of the lenses are world class, for their types.)
Walter

Click to expand...

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

I care about JPEGs.

RAW images fill the buffer on any camera much faster than JPEGs. I'd rather have good JPEGs than run into buffer stall when shooting RAW.

Most sports photographers shoot in JPEG. Check out sportsshooter.com if you don't believe me.
--
Equipment in plan.