If there's one feature a beginners SLR needs to have it is a message to say:

"You are using the kit lens. To achieve good photographs buy a decent lens"

The lenses are what matters, too many beginners buy the best SLR body they can afford and forget about the lens.

Elsewhere the D3000 is bashed because it uses the old D40 sensor. Nice to read a real world review about this cam.

The latest round of kit lenses are actually really good performers. The only reason to upgrade is if you need either a) something tougher and better built; or b) to shoot in lower light, i.e. a faster maximum aperture. There is nothing wrong with the kit lens for the crowd that buys these cameras, supplement it with Nikon's excellent 35mm f/1.8G DX prime and you have a very well-rounded kit.

How about a cable release socket? It was bad enough back in the Jurassic period when the only option on a Nikon was their expensive electronic release rather than a simple screw-in cable release. Now one has to spend a thousand or more to gain an electronic release socket. On cheaper models the designed solution is the infra-red remote. Bah

I disagree.

If you are good enough to be spending many hundreds of pounds extra on better lenses then the D3000 probably isn't the camera for you anyway. By all means, go blow £700 on a top spec Nikon 17-55 but I doubt the enthusiastic amateur will really be able to notice the difference.

If they can tell the difference, then they will probabaly be using something more advanced like a D200/300 anyway.

The review ends with the comment about lack of live view and video recording. For around 100 extra this (and more features) are in the D5000 if they matter so much to you.

For the comment about the sensor, I believe the D5000 is based on the superior D90 sensor.

If these features really matter to you, I'll suggest paying the extra 100 quid for the D5000. Also it is really easy to use for a novice it has a sample guide for taking photo's in different scenarios.

...once again, why are dSLRs getting so small?

I don't have huge hands and I find the D3000 (and the comparably marketed Canons) just too small to hold comfortably; and they're horrible to balance especially when you stick a larger metal-bodied lens on the front.

I just stumped up for a new dSLR and after trying everything up to about £1200 found myself (to my surprise) plumping for the Sony Alpha 700 - it's technically awesome, but it also comes with a chunky, reassuringly-heavy metal body.

I know, I know - a *Sony*; socially it's the scrofula of the camera world. So, to overcome my stigma, if anyone wants me to (ahem) 'review' the Nikon D3x, I'm sure I can find the time. Just don't skimp on the lens eh?

A nice camera but... Wow, quite noisy images there, in the ISO sequence. I'd say fine until ISO 400 (but already easily visible). From 800 and up it's a lot. Anyway, seems like good value for the price indeed. And I for one am glad it does not have movie mode making it more expensive and failure-prone.

@Mike Richards

Yeah, as you sure know people are more interested in brand name than actual specs/quality of the product. So you have people look at you funny unless you are carrying something named either Canon or Nikon. I myself use Pentax, since: 1) I want to keep using my old lenses from K1000 days; 2) P gives better camera for less money. Pentax, in my opinion, gives much more features for the same price point of their competitors (see dpreview.com for real comparisons), AND can use any K-mount lens ever made. Good glass for cheap out there, if you're able to shoot manually.

OK, if you want the top of the top pro cameras, then there's only C and N as choices -- but then you're spending several 1,000s, not 100s. But for middle range or beginner levels, unless they already have a stash of lenses that can still be used with the new C or N camera, people would be silly not to look at Sony, Pentax, Samsung, Olympus, etc. Most people will rarely overgrow these cameras anyway...

Most of these cameras will be bought by people who will leave them on auto, compose terrible shots and couldn't tell the difference between something taken with klt or pro lenses. Can't tell you how many people I've seen with an entry level DSLR and when I ask about it they say "oh the salesman said it takes great pictures and you don't need to know anything about photography".

Still, all these cheap cameras mean more money for R&D for Nikon and that means cheaper and better pro bodies. Yay.

The Sony name may not be synonymous with "quality" SLRs but Minolta was. Oh wait, Sony bought Minolta...

Cool!

OK, I point, zoom and shoot on auto, prefer the viewfinder rather than screen, not as steady as I used to be (prefer available light photography - great stuff recently from a big church wedding where flash was banned), and some of my pics are great. Rarely print them 'cos we all look on the PC these days.This with a Minolta Dimage Z1 bought for £120 (factory refurb), autofocus getting a bit erratic now. Very occasionally on a Pentax P30 with zoom (bought for £30 to replace a top of the range late model zoom Praktica that was nicked), but the cost of running that! A mate and I (he with his £700 camera, which he uses for pics of flowers - I can't match him with that subject) were photographing preserved railways recently, and he was impressed.

Anyone know where I can get a lens cap for the Z1? The grip mechanism on the original broke.

ebay is your pal...

I got a electronic infrared remote shutter release for my D40 on fleabay.... all the way from china for a grand sum of £0.99 (plus £1.99 p&p) it will work fine on the d3000 too

I use it quite a lot when taking photos of objects in a light tent,,, its never failed me.... except when the battery (included) ran out !!!

So, with this IR remote, can you hold the shutter open as long as you want? At the moment I have the Fuji S9500, but it can't do that and I was wondering about getting a DSLR like this. One of the things I would like to be able to do is shoot stars (and space stations) moving across the sky - I've seen the results of other people doing this, and I'd like to do it myself, so the question is, would this camera be able to do that?

Thanks!

Paul

~~~~

Well no, if you think you need a better lens to "achieve good photographs", you aren't in a position to give advice.

To Giles Jones: While more expensive lenses are generally more versatile, it's foolish (and that's being charitable) to claim that you can't take a good photograph with the kit lens.

I wish they come out with a cheaper full frame camera without any bells and whistles.