Who has the highest level DSLR on the market right now?

Canon or nikon?

also i heard nikon's d3000 is the worst camera they've ever made, is this true?

Added (1). @Pols
i understand your response and appreciate your feedback. However i do not plan on buying a $6, 000 plus camera as i no little to nothing about them thus far.i'm looking into the entry level dslr's and the reason i ask which brand has the highest lvl is that someday i'd like to improve on what i buy today and i'd like to stay within the same brand.

Discounting medium format cameras, that would be the $8, 000 D3x.

The D3000 isn't bad at all, it just isn't as good as it could have been. It's being replaced by the D3100 not without a reason, and that one is going to be an excellent camera.

The quality of CCDs in consumer cameras has vastly exceeded the needs of consumer users by orders of magnitude.

In other words, megapixels mean almost nothing. The only comparison between models of DSLR is in the lens and in the features you expect to use. Unless you plan on printing your photos out larger than six feet, you should pick a camera that you enjoy using.

Nikon gives you access to decades of legendary lens designs, some of which will cost you many times what you spent on the camera (I recently looked at an $11, 000 lens, to give you an example). Canon is no slouch either. It makes a big difference if you have an old 35mm SLR and want to keep your lenses.

There's nothing wrong with the D3000, but I think I remember this camera being right on the cusp between consumer and "power-user." Check into features like HD movie mode (which means nothing to me personally but sells cameras, so it's in demand), the ability to store uncompressed images (a MAJOR plus), sensor dynamic range (which unfortunately will probably never matter as your monitor and most printers are only 8-bit), and a variety of metering options (another feature I seldom use as I almost always shoot in full manual mode.)

Hope this helps.

James has nailed it.

It is NOT that the D3000 is a "worst" camera ever made by Nikon, in fact it has many features that were found only in advanced Nikon cameras like the D300 when it came to white balance, a very good thing.

Its problem was it did not include a video feature so popular with those moving from advanced P&S cameras to dSLR system.

The new D3100 corrected that and in fact became the first entry level dSLR with Full HD video that could use the auto-focus in the video mode. The D3100 costs under $700 with lens.

The "highest" level dSLR at this moment is the Nikon D3X. It is a full frame, high resolution camera the actually surpasses even the medium format camera sensors but one; the Phase One 65 Plus back

Its funny u ask about the d3000 and ask what's the highest dslr in the market. Its gnana be a toss up between the nikon d3x and the canon 1d mark 4 or canon 1ds mark 3, its really depends on what you need. If you want to make a good buy figure out what kind of photography you shoot. If you don't know yet why the hell are you buying a top end dslr, go buy a rebel or d7000 or something and learn photography first.

Nikon's 24mp D3s is the ultimate in DSLR at the moment.

The d3000 was not the worst cam ever, oh no, not by a long shot. I think that title should go to the F601.

The d3000 in itself was and still is not bad. It just disappointed the market that they reused a sensor that was already outclassed (but not bad). The D3100 fixes all that and then some.

You are correct. Buy an entry-level now and look to upgrading to a better camera within the same brand in the future. Perfectly makes sense. The problem is that if you're not taking that much pictures, the camera may outlast you.

Here is the industry standard in photography. These are the highest level dSLRs in the market. If you want the best, this is it. Check out the first 10 or so entries in the first page. See where your familiar brands step in.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/...4288586280

If you thought spending $6, 000 is out-of-this-world well that's nothing compared to the first 10 or so cameras in that page. Some do not even have a lens yet. The lens alone would cost more than an entry-level dSLR with two kit lenses.

That would be too much for our taste, I admit so here's my take.