Anyone have a D3000 or D3100??

[TNH]

So...

I've had this silly little camera for years, and I'm sick of it! I got it years ago, just to take pictures with for fun.
Now I've found out that pretty much, in the world of photography, it's basically useless. Really.




So, now that I've really gotten interested in photography, I want to buy a nicer camera. I'm saving up for a DSLR. (Which will probably take awhile!)
I've narrowed it down to 2 cameras. The Nikon D3000, and Nikon D3100. They both seem to have most everything that I want in a camera, but I can't decide which one to buy.

No, this isn't one of those threads where I say, "Hey, what's the difference between these cameras? Which one should I buy, and which one is better?"
Because I know what you guys would do. You'd come on here and say, "Just Google it, for Pete's sake!!!!!!!!"

Nah, I know what the differences between the two are, and what they both do. I've compared them both, using a few camera comparison charts like this.
What this thread is about then, is I want to know about your personal experience with either of these cameras. These camera comparison charts are great, but I'd like to know what other people have to say about these cameras.

Do you have either/both of them? Which (if either) would you recommend to someone? What are your pros/cons about either?

Thanks... I really want to be sure I'm getting the right one for me. I'm planning on using it for a good while. And this is a lot of money we're talking about spending, you know! =)

[mbrobich]

Had both. The D3100 for sure over the D3000. Better sensor for low light and less noise and HD video to boot !

[ccting]

My brother has D3000, i find it performs better than my D5100 in some behaviour..

[eileenfred]

I have the d3000 and I love it! Last year I was in the same place as you having to decide which camera to get.

The d3100 does have more features like hd video which the d3000 doesn't.
The d3100 also have a couple more megapexils.
The d3000 is a little bit smaller and lighter.

I will say I am glad I got the d3000 with the savings I got a good lens to go with the lens kit it came with.

Personally I wouldn't use the video since I have a video camera and my previous camera had video and I never used it so why pay extra.

It is a personal thing, I am a beginner and I went lower cost knowing some day I might upgrade BUT I didn't need to learn on an expensive camera what I could learn on a lower end body and its not low end (if you know what I mean).

Honestly it takes awesome pictures and as long as you get good lens it will take awesome pictures.
If video in a camera is important to you then I would go with the d3100, if you are out learning and video isn't important I would go with the d3000.

Eileen

[Scottm]

I have neither owned nor used either models you are mentioning, but all (ok, almost all) reports I have read indicate that the D3100 is a HUGE impovement over the D3000. Based on these reports alone, I would go with the D3100 unless there is a compelling reason not to.

[Tanya Kurnik]

I have the 3100 and I love it. I have taken professional looking photos with it. Its a great starter camera for the price. Soon ill be upgrading to the 300s. The only thing that I didnt like about the 3100 was you cant get a wireless remote. Every now and then I like to do night photography and the camera would shake on the tripod when I would click down. A simple fix was to use the timer. Problem solved! And you have to get the 50mm AF lens. I use mine with everything. They dont call it the nifty fifty for nothing

[BobHunter]

Definitely go for the D3100. You will not regret the decision! A quick Google search turned up a good deal on the 3100. Nikon D3100 14.2MP Digital SLR Camera | Amazon Deals

[Jonbar18]

I have the D3100 and am a big fan of it.

Pros:
great quality
cheap
good low light
small and light
video
easy to shoot with one hand
other stuff

cons (and this is where it really matters, since just about any camera will have more or less the same pros, until you get to the pro level)
-no IR receiver means no wireless shutter release (easy fix with a flash transmitter and the right wire)
-no auto bracketing. No idea why they would not include this, requires no work to get it in the camera, and leaving it out doesn't make it cheaper or smaller or really anything
-no AF meter. big one if you need AF, since you now have a limited choice of more expensive lenses. No big if you mainly use MF, or are willing to learn it
-Small (yes, its also a pro). a problem for many: if you have bigger hands it gets real uncomfortable to hold a DSLR with 2-3 fingers. Easy fix with a cheap grip (or an amputation)
-only one control wheel means you have to hold a button to change aperture in manual

[mbrobich]

taken with my D3100

[TNH]

Originally Posted by mbrobich

Had both. The D3100 for sure over the D3000. Better sensor for low light and less noise and HD video to boot !

Thanks for your reply! I'm glad that someone here has had both of these. So you really know which one you think is best, because you've tried both.
My current camera makes a lot of my pictures really noisy. It drives me crazy. If the 3100 has less noise than the 3000, that sounds great to me.
I like taking pictures in kind of dark places, with a little light coming in. Like silhouettes and stuff. I have big problems with noise with things like that. The one in that link has some noise in it. It drives me crazy how BAD my camera is!

Originally Posted by eileenfred

I have the d3000 and I love it! Last year I was in the same place as you having to decide which camera to get.

The d3100 does have more features like hd video which the d3000 doesn't.
The d3100 also have a couple more megapexils.
The d3000 is a little bit smaller and lighter.

I will say I am glad I got the d3000 with the savings I got a good lens to go with the lens kit it came with.

Personally I wouldn't use the video since I have a video camera and my previous camera had video and I never used it so why pay extra.

It is a personal thing, I am a beginner and I went lower cost knowing some day I might upgrade BUT I didn't need to learn on an expensive camera what I could learn on a lower end body and its not low end (if you know what I mean).

Honestly it takes awesome pictures and as long as you get good lens it will take awesome pictures.
If video in a camera is important to you then I would go with the d3100, if you are out learning and video isn't important I would go with the d3000.

Eileen

Thanks for all the advice Eileen!
I would actually prefer a camera with video, since I don't have a video camera. It doesn't have to have it, but I'd really like it to.
Do you like how the 3000 is smaller and lighter? Some people prefer a larger camera, some like a smaller one. I don't really mind if it's smaller or large, I guess. =)

Originally Posted by Scottm

I have neither owned nor used either models you are mentioning, but all (ok, almost all) reports I have read indicate that the D3100 is a HUGE impovement over the D3000. Based on these reports alone, I would go with the D3100 unless there is a compelling reason not to.

I have heard some people say that the D3100 is the 'newer model' of the D3000. Is that true?

Originally Posted by Tanya Kurnik

I have the 3100 and I love it. I have taken professional looking photos with it. Its a great starter camera for the price. Soon ill be upgrading to the 300s. The only thing that I didnt like about the 3100 was you cant get a wireless remote. Every now and then I like to do night photography and the camera would shake on the tripod when I would click down. A simple fix was to use the timer. Problem solved! And you have to get the 50mm AF lens. I use mine with everything. They dont call it the nifty fifty for nothing

Sounds great... just a curious question, how much does the tripod for the D3100 cost?

Originally Posted by BobHunter

Definitely go for the D3100. You will not regret the decision! A quick Google search turned up a good deal on the 3100. Nikon D3100 14.2MP Digital SLR Camera | Amazon Deals

Thanks for that link!

Originally Posted by Jonbar18

I have the D3100 and am a big fan of it.

Pros:
great quality
cheap
good low light
small and light
video
easy to shoot with one hand
other stuff

cons (and this is where it really matters, since just about any camera will have more or less the same pros, until you get to the pro level)
-no IR receiver means no wireless shutter release (easy fix with a flash transmitter and the right wire)
-no auto bracketing. No idea why they would not include this, requires no work to get it in the camera, and leaving it out doesn't make it cheaper or smaller or really anything
-no AF meter. big one if you need AF, since you now have a limited choice of more expensive lenses. No big if you mainly use MF, or are willing to learn it
-Small (yes, its also a pro). a problem for many: if you have bigger hands it gets real uncomfortable to hold a DSLR with 2-3 fingers. Easy fix with a cheap grip (or an amputation)
-only one control wheel means you have to hold a button to change aperture in manual

Thanks for that list... really helpful!

Originally Posted by mbrobich

taken with my D3100

Wow... that is really good. Beautiful! =)
It's a bit large, though. You may want to resize it smaller!