Talk:Nikon D3000

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nikon D3000 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Photography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article says, "[The Nikon D3000] is supposed to replace the D60 and D40 as Nikon's entry level DSLR". But isn't the Nikon D5000 going to replace the D60? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, I'll modify the article to conform with the hierarchy presented in the Nikon DSLR template. [SCΛRECROW]^{CrossCom 2.0} 07:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of replacement image

I replaced the existing image of a Nikon 3000 with one I felt was of clearly higher quality. (This was a slightly modified and retouched version of another user's image which I felt was already quite good in its original version).

DerkMahen12 (talk · contribs) reverted that to the previous version with the older image, but there's no edit summary, so it's unclear why this was if it wasn't because they thought that was a better image?

Here are the versions for comparison:-

Look forward to some feedback on this, thanks.

Ubcule (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]