Nikon D3000 vs Canon 1000D Which One to Buy ????

[JakeMake]

Hi All,

I am new to the DSLR World of cameras and wanted to know which one of the following Cameras is going to be a good buy for both indoor and outdoor photography

Canon 1000D or Nikon D3000

I have used my friends Canon 1000D for a day and must say that I am impressed with picture quality of the out door photos with the kit lense non IS version but the indoor photos continue to disappoint.

I have lost count of how many Canon 1000D vs Nikon D3000 reviews ive read and sample pictures ive looked at .

I am looking to capture sharp, non blurry and punchy indoor and outdoor photos .

I hear that Nikon D3000's pictures are pretty punchy at default settings but anything over ISO 800 tends to be grainy however Canon's pictures at and over ISO 800 is pretty usable

So i cannot make up my mind , which one is better Nikon D3000 or Canon 1000D

I am fairly certain that this question could have probably been asked here many times but I want to make a good buying decision, unfortunately I cannot take the Nikon D3000 for a test ride the dealers here in Pune India wont allow it , so I am stuck , I don't want to buy a camera and regret it for the rest of my life, I know I cannot go wrong with either cameras but everyone's input will be of great help.

Here are some pictures of my garden captured with the Canon 1000D using AF mode .

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/5773/24081746.jpg
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/8494/87075518.jpg
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8991/60116998.jpg
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/3899/37050586.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4724/41796081.jpg
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/3096/62241245.jpg
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/8342/75505528.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3853/91146680.jpg
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3752/68297614.jpg
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/9040/64020429.jpg
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/1747/23322431.jpg
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/9637/85309890.jpg
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7534/14418665.jpg
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6716/88318074.jpg
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/3429/80043038.jpg
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9333/78332249.jpg
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8245/80106524.jpg
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/817/29619098.jpg
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/6754/44424582.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3341/87793757.jpg
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1156/43406113.jpg
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4174/61482854.jpg
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/5577/54040284.jpg
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/5615/50098914.jpg
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/9162/53879229.jpg
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/3166/49931615.jpg
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/25/15703132.jpg
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9608/24878969.jpg
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/589/84285744.jpg
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/587/40864611.jpg

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Jake,

Welcome to the CiC forums.

I am looking to capture sharp, non blurry and punchy indoor and outdoor photos.

I hear that Nikon D3000's pictures are pretty punchy at default settings but anything over ISO 800 tends to be grainy however Canon's pictures at and over ISO 800 is pretty usable.

If you want "sharp ~ and punchy indoor and outdoor photos", I would suggest either camera can, BUT, to get the best, you will have to reconcile yourself to shooting RAW and doing all the Post Processing that entails, which means time in front of a computer and software.

Looking at many of your shots linked above, most seem to have been taken at a fairly wide aperture, which means a narrow Depth of Field (DoF), maybe this was deliberate, or maybe it explains why you're not happy with some. The thing to be aware of is that a DSLR has a lot less DoF than a point and shoot camera.

I would also recommend an IS/VR lenses to ward off camera shake in low light.

Hope that helps,

[JakeMake]

Thanks a lot for your suggestions Dave , I am aware of DOF and how PnS cameras have an infinite DOF due to a small sensor size causing everything to be in focus. I wasn't disappointed with the outdoor pictures or the bokeh in them, but with the lack of sharpness , detail , and over processing in the Indoor photos via the stock lens on the Canon 1000D. On the other hand anything over ISO 800 produces very noisy photos with the Nikon D3000 guess its because of the CCD sensor vs the CMOS on the canon . Should I stick with Canon 1000D with the IS lens or Nikon D3000 that already has VR on the stock lens. This is why I am confused on which one of these cameras to pick up . Sorry I know I am sounding like a complete IDIOT here but I appreciate all the suggestions you can give me .

[Colin Southern]

I am looking to capture sharp, non blurry and punchy indoor and outdoor photos .

Hi Paul,

To be honest, sharpness / "punchiness" etc is approx 99% technique (lighting techniques, post-processing techniques), and about 1% "camera selection" when comparing 2 SLRs.

My suggestion would be to concentrate more on a quality lens selection + external flash + tripod + appropriate post-processing software (or a 7-times tour de france winner Lance Armstrong said, "it's not about the bike").

Hope this helps

PS: I just took a quick look at a few of your images ... lack of sharpening seems to be the biggest issue (which is very common, and easily fixed).

Quick example - I've given this a quick sharpen and increased the contrast slightly (in fact I've deliberately over-sharpened it slightly so you can see the difference more easily).

[JakeMake]

Completely BLOWN AWAY by the pics in your gallery Colin

[Colin Southern]

Completely BLOWN AWAY by the pics in your gallery Colin

Thanks Paul

In all honesty though, they're not necessarily "hard" to do ... they're really just an accumulation of equipment choices, photography techniques, and processing techniques ... all of which we can teach anyone here if they have the patience & committment. Starting with sharpening

[pwnage101]

I'll try to filter out what has already been said by colin or dave.

There are much more important things to consider than a camera's clarity. The ISO performance of the sensor is probably the absolute most important (canon 1000d wins here), but other than that it's hard to find a modern DSLR with an insufficient image sensor. If you're worried about the clarity of the image, you should be concentrating on the autofocus system of the lens (word on the street: older sigma/tamron/other third party have iffy AF accuracy; I have no experience), but even this is insignificant if you find yourself manual focusing.

In my opinion, a good image not only requires a good composition, but good post-processing.

[Dave Humphries]

~ I wasn't disappointed with the outdoor pictures or the bokeh in them, but with the lack of sharpness, detail, and over processing in the Indoor photos via the stock lens on the Canon 1000D. On the other hand anything over ISO 800 produces very noisy photos with the Nikon D3000 guess its because of the CCD sensor vs the CMOS on the canon . Should I stick with Canon 1000D with the IS lens or Nikon D3000 that already has VR on the stock lens. This is why I am confused on which one of these cameras to pick up . Sorry I know I am sounding like a complete IDIOT here but I appreciate all the suggestions you can give me.

Hi Jake,

As Colin has demonstrated and Troy has confirmed, 99% of the difference between the two cameras is outweighed by your PP skills with RAW processing.

I'm not familiar with the D3000's 10MP sensor as I have the 12MP D5000, which I would say is reasonable on noise and not generally something I cannot cope with in PP. Now that PP will change for very high iso shooting. Maybe the Canon wins on noise I don't know, however, from what I recall of reading reviews when it came out, I think a 500D or 550D might give slightly better features than the trimmed down 1000D. I would compare the two and see what you think might be important to you.

and don't worry about feeling like an idiot, we all do when trying to choose a first DSLR, thereafter it becomes easier because you can't afford to swap brands if you have other lenses.

Cheers,

[JakeMake]

Hi Jake,

As Colin has demonstrated and Troy has confirmed, 99% of the difference between the two cameras is outweighed by your PP skills with RAW processing.

I'm not familiar with the D3000's 10MP sensor as I have the 12MP D5000, which I would say is reasonable on noise and not generally something I cannot cope with in PP. Now that PP will change for very high iso shooting. Maybe the Canon wins on noise I don't know, however, from what I recall of reading reviews when it came out, I think a 500D or 550D might give slightly better features than the trimmed down 1000D. I would compare the two and see what you think might be important to you.

and don't worry about feeling like an idiot, we all do when trying to choose a first DSLR, thereafter it becomes easier because you can't afford to swap brands if you have other lenses.

Cheers,

I cannot afford the 500 / 550D

I agree with you that Canon 1000D has lovely control over noise .

Any comments on the default color output of Canon 1000D / Nikon D3000 , ive noticed that Canon 1000D tends to oversaturate the pictures by default and has quite a lot of purple fringing in high contrast areas , Nikon D3000 has more viberant colors and less fringing but the noise is still an issue . Is PP absoultely necessary when you invest in the DSLR system ?

[Sahil]

Jake, I am using Nikon D3000 for two months now. I am very happy with it. You can have a look at pictures clicked by me, BUT I am still very low on learning curve. So drawing conclusion based on my shots may not be justified. Here is the Link to my photo-stream on Flickr.
Alternatively, you can search for the shots taken by the cameras in question, on flickr and help yourself in deciding upon the camera.

[Shadowman]

What is it that really makes us want to upgrade our equipment? Is it because solely because we are unhappy with our current results or is it that we have a desire for the latest and greatest. The reasons are obvious when we upgrade from a point and shoot, we want more control over our settings, we want extra zoom for those far away subjects, and we might only be moving from one technology to another. I can see a photographer being unhappy with their particular brand if it has some type of performance issue, such as the Nikon 5000 had when it was first introduced. What are some of the members issues with thier current equipment? One of my issues with the Nikon P90 is the amount of noise that is audible when the mechanism shifts. Not only does it sound forboding, it also causes a delay between shooting photos.

[JakeMake]

I think it would be best to rent out both cameras , take snap shots side by side and see which output is more appealing , its all a matter of personal taste and which brand runs out cheaper in the long run [including investments in lenses]

A big thankyou to everyone on this thread who shared their knowledge and experience, I learn new things from this forum and its valuable members every single day.

God Bless !

[Colin Southern]

I cannot afford the 500 / 550D

How about something even better like a 2nd hand Canon 20D?

Any comments on the default color output of Canon 1000D

It depends totally on what picture style you have selected.

and has quite a lot of purple fringing in high contrast areas

This is called CA (or "Chromatic Abberation") which is to do with lenses, not the camera.

Is PP absoultely necessary when you invest in the DSLR system ?

If you want to get the most out of your shots, then yes. (and I don't think many DSLR owners would want it any other way!)

Hope this helps

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Paul, (oops, must stop calling you "Jake")

With reference to what Colin was saying...

How about something even better like a 2nd hand Canon 20D?

I just knew he'd say that (sooner or later)

It depends totally on what picture style you have selected.

Colin is right here, especially on these more "hobby market" cameras (I'm not knocking, I have one!!), the scene modes pre-configure a lot of stuff for the production of what it thinks are better jpgs. BUT if we convince you, or you later discover that RAW really is worth the time and effort, all these settings (and the differences between models) are very largely academic.

Think of it as if judging two mp3 players, but with different equalizer settings; one on "Concert Hall" and one on "Disco", you just cannot form a sensible opinion until you set them both neutral - for this (in camera terms), you must compare the RAW, not the default jpg. But even so, as you'll appreciate, the equalizer is usually always on, set to what sounds good to you, and has such an effect that the real differences between them become insignificant for quality*, so decide on other criteria like ergonomics**, lens quality, price, lens range, etc.

* Sensor noise can always be fixed in PP.
** This is where a s/h 20D will win over a new 1000D any day

Is PP necessary/worth it? yes, Yes, Yes

Cheers,

[Colin Southern]

I just knew he'd say that (sooner or later)

In all seriousness - assuming that price was the same - I reckon I could create a better image with a 2nd hand 20D / pro-consumer grade lens than with a new 1000D / kit kens combo.

Think of it as if judging two mp3 players

That's actually a very good analogy Dave - I must remember that one!

[rick55]

Something to point out here is that is that the 20D or similar doesn't force the user to use the capabilities. This came up in an earlier discussion about DSLR vs P&S.

It isn't as if buying a used 20D (or new 50D) means having to set all exposures manually. The 20D has plenty of preset modes, can record JPG, etc. You can use a 20D much like a P&S or bridge camera, but when you're ready to do more with it, the camera can do it.

Cheers,
Rick

[Dave Humphries]

You can use a 20D much like a P&S or bridge camera, but when you're ready to do more with it, the camera can do it.

Quite so, and with much better ergonomics

[Dave Humphries]

In all seriousness - assuming that price was the same - I reckon I could create a better image with a 2nd hand 20D / pro-consumer grade lens than with a new 1000D / kit kens combo.

That's actually a very good analogy Dave - I must remember that one!

1) Yep, but mainly because of the lens I expect

2) Thanks, I was quite pleased with it, it just came to me as something that most younger people could relate to easily. It might be even better put that the same named equaliser; e.g. "Rock" often sounds the completely different even through the same headphones when plugged into two different players.

Cheers,

[belong]

i looked some of your sample images, i noticed that it's a little bit soft. i guess the factor you consider is primarily your lens ability to recognise your focus point. ambient lighting i guess is no problem because it's really bright, as per your sample.
you can correct this by shooting in raw and post processing, canon offers a very excellent software for editing raw files from there camera.
try shooting in tripod and manual focus...
in my own opinion, as a canon eos 50d user, i suggest the 1000d over the nikon d3000. high ISO shooting is really a very good way to boost shutter speed, one way to avoid blurred images.
should you consider to purchase eos 50d, you can visit my flickr account for sample images and also my test shots of my SIGMA 17-70mm os hsm macro lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gravs/

[Colin Southern]

1) Yep, but mainly because of the lens I expect

Absolutely. Unfortunately, the lens is often something that people forget to enter into the budget/equasion