D40 versus D3000

[joe_a2]

<p>Good morning Collective Wisdom....</p>

<p>I won a D3000 last night on eBay, and my plan is to sell the two lenses that were in that auction, as well as my D40, for a net cost of about $50 to move from the D40 to the D3000. But I've been doing some reading today and it seems the D3000 may not out-perform the D40 above ISO 800. I'm looking for comments from people who have shot the D40 and the D3000.</p>

<p>I read Shun's quick review, as well as a few online comments including Ken Rockwell's write-up. KR, in his usual manner, has lambasted the D3000 as a step backward. His posted picture seems to indicate the D3000 is pretty noisey at ISO 1600, and the D40 at ISO 1600 is better than the D3000 at ISO 800. Can someone who's shot both comment on the ISO 800 and ISO 1600 performance of both cameras, as well as any other D40/D3000 experiences?</p>

<p>I am looking forward to comparing them myself when the D3000 gets here, but in the meantime I'm curious about what to expect. As a point of reference, I have twice compared a D60 to my D40, and both times I decided to keep the D40 because of better high-ISO performance.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>When I tested the D3000, I borrowed a friend's D40 to compare their external differences and I documented some of that in the D3000 review, which BTW has been updated with more details now. But I never really used the D40.</p>

<p>The D200, D80, D40x, D60 and D3000 all use essentially the same sensor (the D200's has faster 4-channel readout version to get you 5 frames/second). My experience is that the D200 and D3000 have similar high-ISO results. If you are not happy with the D60's results, the chance is that you'll find the D3000 similar concerning high ISO. Those two cameras were introduced about 1.5 years apart and the technology used is similar.</p>

<p>However, the D3000 has the 11-AF-poing Multi-CAM 1000 and a larger 3" LCD. Those may be sufficient reasons for you to favor it instead.</p>

[syed]

<p>Shun's right regarding the CCD sensor in the D3000, which is essentially that from the D200. It gives you great, great results from ISO 100 to 400, but at ISO 800 you will have to start worrying about nailing the right exposure to minimize noise. That same CCD was never great at ISO 1600 to begin with, compared to, say the 12 megapixel CMOS used in the D300 or D90. That said the 3" LCD should be a step improvement from the D40.</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>I had good results up to 2500 iso on my D200, the only thing you do is expose very good. The image is mad with 2500 iso, isn't that bad...</p><div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Depends on how big you print, too. If 8 x 10 and the occasional 11 x 14, you probably won't see the difference between those two cameras, properly exposed. As Hans says, proper exposure is WAY MORE vital in high-ISO stuff.</p>

[akira]

<p>My friend pro photog recently switched his camera for his casual use from D40 to D3000. He complains that D3000 operates a tad slower because of increased pixel count and excessive processing.</p>

<p>On the other hand, he pointed out that AF is so improved on D3000 that he could not go back to D40 anymore. He even said that AF of D3000 is faster and more accurate even than D300. The image quality of D3000 is better than D40 but not as good as D300, acording to him.</p>

[anthony_bez]

<blockquote>

<p> He even said that AF of D3000 is faster and more accurate even than D300.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find this statement hard to believe?</p>

[luisarguelles]

<p> I have experience with the D40 and D80. At both 800 and 1600 ISO, the sensor on the D40 provides better results (better noise). As an aproximation, I would say that the D80 working at 800 ASA produces about the same noise as the D40 at 1600 ASA.</p>

<p>I'm now going to buy a D700. The camera that will continue at home will be the D40. I'll sell the D80.</p>

 

[eli_fox]

I think D40 to D3000 is more of a side-step and not worth the effort.

 

D3000 advantages:

-better AF

-newer interface

-more resolution

 

D40 advantages:

-bigger viewfinder

-better screen*

-better high ISO performance

 

*The D3000's screen is bigger, but it has the same resolution as the D40, which is perfect for a 2.5" screen but not nearly

enough for a 3" screen.

 

So, yeah, I'd probably keep the D40.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>He even said that AF of D3000 is faster and more accurate even than D300.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I find this statement hard to believe?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>i dont see how this would even be possible, given that the d300 has essentially the same AF as D3 and D3x, and the d3000 is an entry-level camera where corners were cut.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>You might also want to consider the D5000 (it would've been a good choice), which's not much more expensive than the D3000. The D5000 has a CMOS sensor similar to the units found in the D300/D90, while the D3000 uses a 10 MP CCD unit, which's probably the one utilized in the D40X/D60/D80/D200. </p>

<p>The D3000 might have better image processing capabilities than the D60, but I wouldn't expect too much of a improvement in terms of noise/high ISO performance. So if the D60 wasn't good enough, the D3000 probably won't be much better. </p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Thanks everyone. I should have pointed out my main camera is the D300. The D40 is my "little camera" and my "pre-AI Nikkor camera".</p>

<p>I guess I was hopeful that the D3000 would see a one stop gain over the D60 because it is a couple of years newer. An improvment because the computer/processing is a generation newer. But it sounds like the D3000 has the same high-ISO performance as the D60.</p>