This isn't even a decision though, and here's why. You want video - and the D3000 doesn't have video. Spend the extra $150 for what you WANT - you'll be happier in the long run.



It might - but that doesn't make it a better camera. Does that make sense? I haven't shot Olympus since my (very advanced at the time) c4040 zoom - but from what my friend who's been in the camera business for his whole adult life says - Olympus made some bad decisions early on in the DSLR's first push - and they simply haven't caught up to Nikon and Canon yet since those mistakes. And I know 300+ people with cameras, and none have one.. to me that says volumes all by itself, ya know?



yes and no. The more "points" of focus you have, the better chance you'll have a good picture. I think I have 12 points of focus or something, and I don't know if that is WHY I have better photos with this camera than the D40 or not, but I bet it plays a role.



For this you need a macro lens. I have a fixed lens (it doesn't zoom, it is "fixed" at 60 mm) 60mm 2.8 macro. It was about $600 all by itself - maybe don't get it at the same time, but totally worth the wait. This would also be something you could look for used. (In other words, I'd be more apt to buy a used lens than a used camera - if there is something wrong with a lens, it's VERY clear that something is wrong, and you can either not buy it, or send it back right away- if they take returns)



Absolutely. There are people in my class that have a point and shoot, and their photos are just fine. You have more control with a DSLR, and will likely have a better sensor, but an entry level DSLR will be just fine.



Anytime