Nikon D3000 Digital SLR Review

"Entry level" !!!!! This description sounds so smug and patronising. This and many other "entry level" cameras are highly sophisticated picture taking machines that can last a lifetime's photography! Just because they don't have the added array of complicated and confusing claptrap built in doesn't mean they are "entry level" If anything they are probably closer to the spirit of photography.

Terry, don't be so touchy! At least to me, "entry level" means an affordable price to allow the less well-heeled to enter the DSLR world where the real performance cameras reside. I entered clutching a Pentax K110D and when I could afford to be soled as well as heeled, I upgraded to a Nikon D300. Can't see much difference in the technical quality of the pics they both produce though which neatly supports your last paragraph.:)

Terry, I agree that so-called "entry level" SLRs are excellent devices in their own right. However I disagree on the use of the phrase. For the purposes of clarity and comparison we need to have some kind of description for "the least expensive digital SLRs". This is the level, in terms of price point, at which the majority of consumers can "enter" any given digital SLR system.

For me the question is: how else would you describe this category? "Basic"? "Beginner level"? Such alternatives clearly sound disparaging, while I feel that negative connotations can be read into the phrase "entry level" but are not inherent. Meanwhile words like "affordable" are far too subjective. The only really fair description would be "Those dSLRs which are less expensive and with fewer controls and features than other dSLRs of the same brand, but nevertheless more than adequate for the majority of users". A little unwieldy, no?

I do understand your concern, but at the moment I cannot think of a suitable replacement for this phrase. I'm open to suggestions. Ultimately I suspect that whatever word or phrase you pick, people will read all sorts of connotations into it. Think of "amateur" versus "professional". There is no logical reason why someone should be offended by the suggestion that their equipment is designed for "amateurs", as "professional" simply indicates receiving payment for one's images, and is not necessarily an indicator of quality or talent. Yet still some take offence at being called "amateurs", while others will take disproportionate pride in the fact that they own "professional" equipment. It only becomes a real problem if you actually are a professional and ill-informed potential customers turn you down because your equipment is "amateur". Otherwise it's a purely psychological issue.

Sorry I have gone on quite a bit... I've been passing the time while backing up my own images, many of which were shot with an "entry level" dSLR. Others were taken with a so-called "advanced amateur" camera. They each have their advantages and disadvantages, and I would rather enjoy using either than worry about what someone else thinks.