Ken Rockwell rated the nikon d3000 as the worst dslr ever, and the d40 a much better cam?

For those who have tried to use both, is it true that the older d40 is more superior when it comes to image quality?

O Ken Rockwell you and your magic

They are about equals in terms of image quality. Well, technically the D3000 is rated a bit better by DXOmark, but in practice the D40 does very well.

Keep in mind that both reviews are subjective, and both were written at very different times, as both are different generations of cameras.

Therein lies the problem - the D40 was an excellent camera in 2006, and thus earned lots of praise. But the competition had moved ahead as well by 2009. The standards simply had increased, and unlike the D40 the D3000 is measured against those higher standards of 2009, not against those of 2006. Against these standards it didn't fare well. After all, it has merely the sensor of the deprecated D40X (of 2007).

That being said, the D40 was universally preferred over the D40X, so it really may have something over the D3000. But that seems unlikely to me.

As others have pointed out, good ole Ken should be taken with a grain of salt (he is the Rush Limbaugh of cameras). He is an "un-paid" Nikon employee… Nikon sends him stuff to review (that he gets to keep).

It was even hinted at that Nikon tells him what type of review they "would like to see" so that another of their cameras would sell better amongst his followers.

Rightfully so.i've tried both in practice and even though the d3000 has slightly better quality the d40 is just alot better