Nikon D3000

Hi Mlungisi,

Believe it or not, thanks for your comments! We always appreciate it when readers take the time to comment.

The page you point to is our QuickFact Sheet and is based on the camera manufacturer’s marketing material and press release. When we publish a QuickFact Sheet, we do not have anything else to go with. So, yes it can sound a bit “salesmanship.”

To read our review of the camera, please go here: https://www.photoxels.com/nikon-d3000-review.html

But if you were referring to the review itself, then we’re just wondering, since you have the camera, did you find anything incorrect, untrue or wrong about what was written in the review?

Many readers believe that reviews, to be useful, must be totally objective. That’s true: all the tests and results must be objectively conducted and recorded. But when it comes time to give the final verdict, you do realize that every recommendation is always colored by the reviewer’s bias. Some reviewers write (and recommend) from a professional photographer’s perspective, others from an enthusiast photographer’s perspective, and still others from a beginner photographer’s perspective. One reviewer might give a high rating based principally on image quality, another will do so based on handling even if image quality is not that great, and far too many include a camera’s current price in their ratings.

Our perspective here at Photoxels is probably unique among reviewers in that we do not espouse just one perspective when we give our final verdict: we recommend a camera based on its “category” — which target audience it’s for, and we never include price in our reviews. The category part is obvious: We believe there is no point in “highly recommending” a Nikon D3s to a beginner as there is no point in “highly recommending” a Nikon D3000 to the sophisticated DSLR user [though Thom Hogan, Nikon expert, differs with me on this: http://www.bythom.com/nikond3000review.htm ].

For the price part, it can be controversial but here’s our reasoning on this: a camera is good or bad irrespective of its price. If it’s the best camera for you, it’s really up to you to decide whether you can afford it, will save up for it, will wait for a sale, will ask for it as a gift, etc. Price does not change the fact that a particular camera is best for you. A high price does not make a good camera bad for you; a low price does not make a bad camera good for you.

When we reviewed the Nikon D3000, we loved it as a Family DSLR targeted to beginners upgrading from a point and shoot compact — and I guess it shows in the review. You’ll notice that we do not post reviews as often as some sites do. We test in the field, write, then read and reread and rewrite… until we feel the review truly represents how we feel about the camera. If other reviewers have already reviewed that camera, we will make sure we read their reviews and test our findings against their conclusions. So, we don’t “crank” out reviews by the dozen and you’ll find that we also don’t always make lists of pros and cons. Well, we do now more often than previously, but we have to be very careful about it. This is because some readers misunderstand the lists and reject a camera because at times the cons list is so long and sounds so bad. The result is they miss out from finding the camera that is best for them.

It bears repeating: The purpose of each of our review is not for readers to find the best camera but the camera that is best for them.

Often, someone will ask for numbers, ratings, and stars for easy comparison. Unfortunately most readers misapply the ratings review sites give out — and end up buying the wrong camera for their needs. Ratings and studio results are great for comparison, if applied properly. I don’t know about you, but I don’t take pictures in a studio, so these results don’t tell me much. The fact that camera A is better than camera B in a studio setting only proves that camera A is better than camera B in a studio setting — and that finding does not necessarily reflect in the field.

Let me give you an example. Most review sites take their ISO tests in the studio, with studio lighting. I personally don’t get the point of that [well, I do]. When I take pictures, I don’t use high ISOs when the lighting is bright, only when there is not enough light. So, you’ll see us taking our ISO tests in “normal” low light situations, not just to test out the high ISO but also to see whether the camera can even lock focus! I mean if it can’t even lock focus in low light, who cares how good the high ISO capability is!!! Likewise, if in Auto mode the camera does not have enough exposure latitude [i.e. range of shutter speeds and apertures] to correctly expose a shot in low light, then for all practical purposes it has failed our test as a low light camera. So, if you only look at “studio” high ISO tests [and to be really objective, they have to be taken in a controlled studio lighting setting], you might think camera X has such great high ISO capability. But can it lock focus in low light and does it have the exposure latitude to give correct exposure in low light? For most advanced DSLRs, the answer is probably always, Yes. But for point-and-shoot compacts and the newer entry-level DSLRs, that is not always the case!

There are lots of review sites out there. If, by objective, you mean a review such as what DPReview puts out, then I submit all other review sites might as well close shop! What is the point of 2 or more “objective” review sites? OK, maybe 2, just to make sure one did not make a mistake. So, we have DPReview and Imaging Resource — and the rest of us might as well fold up. Truth is, no reviewer is 100% objective. That’s why we have many review sites, with each reviewer rating the same camera differently based on personal bias, category, audience, etc. Does not sound too objective suddenly, does it?

A note about reviewer’s personal bias. That’s not all bad. In fact, as you read the reviewer’s reviews and understands “where he’s or she’s coming from” (i.e. his or her personal bias), you can decide if his or her bias matches yours [and yes, you’ve got one, too] and get a greater confidence that that reviewer’s bias is what you prefer reading about. So when that reviewer says he or she likes a certain camera, chances are you might, too.

We appreciate your comments and will certainly print them. We hope you have a better idea of our perspective in reviewing cameras. If we only wanted to follow one of the existing sites, there’s really no point, is there?

Again, thanks for commenting!

Yin