Nikon D3300 Discussion

Golf007sd

Well if there ever was a question within our great community that Nikon was going to get out of the DX line of bodies, this model, with it's many neat feature (namely ISO 100-12,800) should put that question to a rest.

We welcome your input....

adamz

Expeed 4. My cameras have only Expeed 3, I guess it's time to upgrade. LOL

WestEndBoy

I have always said that in the long run DX is doomed based on the ongoing decline in DX sensor prices. Someday, you will be able to buy FX for D3XXX prices.

I have also said that while DX doomsday is inevitable, it is 10 to 15 years off. "Someday" has not arrived.

This development does not change my view of that. I believe that DX has been a huge success for Nikon and has lots of life left in it.

And kudos to Nikon. This D3300 is spectacular. 24 megapixels is the new entry level!! Phew! Now I don't think there is any DX glass that is sharp enough to exploit a 24 megapixel DX sensor (except maybe the micros), but I am nitpicking. I will save a rant about lens sharpness that will lead me to complaining about Nikon being outclassed by Sigma on 35 mm FX (and now 50mm FX?) for another thread/day.

This is a very interesting development by Nikon. I am glad that they are making a serious commitment to wifi. I love their add even! I will be thrilled if I see it in the movie theatres.

Golf, that is my input.

Post dated correction:
I was overly enthusiastic. Somehow I had it in my mind that the D3200 did not have 24 megapixels. However, if the ISO is better (sure you can shoot at 12,800, but would you want to?) and given the other improvements, it is still a decent upgrade and impressive what you can buy in an entry level camera.

heartyfisher

lol Jshickele .. wonder what the price difference between the sensor of the F4 and the EM was ... :-) lol no i dont want to go off topic so soon :-)

Ironheart

C'mon girls, must... keep... it... on... topic... )
Nikon has a long history of testing new technology on the entry level and then trickling up to the high end. Look for expeed 4 in a D5 in two years
+1 @jshickele Kudos to Nikon, a winner for sure with 24MP entry level and 12.8K ISO

donaldejose

24mp DX, 12,800 ISO, 5 fps, A S and M exposure modes and all for $500 (taking $150 off for the lens)? Actually that is a lot of performance for the buck. It even makes me think about picking up one of those bodies to use on my 300mm f4 giving me the reach of 450mm at 24mp (can even crop from that perhaps making the 300mm into a 500-600mm) for birds. I just might have to try it!

PB_PM

C'mon girls, must... keep... it... on... topic... )
Nikon has a long history of testing new technology on the entry level and then trickling up to the high end. Look for expeed 4 in a D5 in two years

Or The D4s in a few months...

donaldejose

Looks like Expeed 4 will be in all new Nikon bodies now until Expeed 5 is out. Also looks like all new bodies will have the OLP filter removed. Also, ISO 12,800 is the new standard upper limit for acceptable (to Nikon) IQ.

MyFunWithPhotos

Wonder if any of the software enhancements behind the 3300 will be made available for the 3200? Hmmm....some how I doubt it. :-)

KnockKnock

The bodies are crazy capable, if not original. I jumped in on Nikon DX in 2008. Can't believe the lack of lenses. Come on Nikon! Clearly you're not killing DX. Just being brain dead about glass. Take a lesson from Apple. It's better to cannibalize your own product (FX) than let someone else do it.

PB_PM

There are plenty of DX lenses last time I looked. Sure most of them are cheap kit lenses, but that is about all that 85-95% of DX camera buyers ever use.

Believe it or not the D3200 was the best selling Nikon DSLR last year, so of course Nikon will continue to make small updates to the line. Best selling Nikkor of all time? 18-55mm VR. Go figure.

Golf007sd

@PB_PM +1

The individuals that buy this or other DX bodies do have plenty of choices. Nikon currently had 17 DX lenses ranging from 10.5mm (Fish-eye) all the way to 300mm.

spraynpray

Don't confuse the Nikon 18-55VR with Canon's 18-55 P.O.C.. The Nikon is really quite good, in fact for the money, it is outstanding. If you want better, there is the 17-55 but what a price!

sevencrossing

. It even makes me think about picking up one of those bodies

would the AF be fast and accurate enough for you ?

adamz

The AF module is the same as in D200 - quite good.

sevencrossing

the AF in my P7100 is claimed, by some, to be quite good
for me, it is accurate but far too slow

donaldejose

AF ability? Don't really know but a D5300 has the AF module of the D7000 and would be another choice for the use I suggested.

DaveyJ

Thanks to Nikon Rumors I knew the D3300 was coming. I had bought about a year ago a D3200 with the kit lens, a 55-300VR and the 35mm f1.8 lens. I have been VERY impressed how good it was. The D7100 is still my favorite all time Nikon but this D3200 I use the most. The incremental changes on this D3300 are very compelling. I thought the D3200 18-55VR kit lens I bought on the D3200 was not that good an investment. WOW! Was I wrong! It is sharp and convenient and has macro capabilities.

Now how all of the D3300 changes improve this camera I do not know, but I think I will be buying one while I wait FOREVER for a D400 introduction. I would like to buy a D800 or a D610 but lens realities and all that make such an adventure less appealing to me on a pretty tight retirement income. I also have found that the smaller camera D3200 had some advantages over the D7100. I do think the panorama feature, Expeed 4 Processor, video upgrades, etc. justify the competitive position for Nikon and will ultimately HELP all of us who use Nikons. WHen I see Nikon D4s being used in the field I feel NO ENVY whatsoever. I also found the new Nikon 1 AW 1 was VERY impressive. For Nikon being in some real difficulties I think we can thank our lucky stars that we have such big changes that will not bankrupt you.

Actually one of my biggest questions now is the new kit lens?? Good topic!! Good luck to you ALL!

sevencrossing

The D7100 is still my favorite all time Nikon but this D3200 I use the most. !

could you expand on this at bit
what are the advantages of the D3200 over the D7100

Photobug

Agree with sevencrossing....If you could use the D3200 or the D7100 and you pick the D3200....You could elaborate why you would use the smaller body. What features are better or better for your use?

PB_PM

If I recall correctly @DaveyJ has repeatedly mentioned (in the past) that he likes using the smaller body due to the light weight.

When I had a D3100 a few years ago that was the only reason I used it, because when combined with the 18-55mm VR, or a prime like the DX 35mm F1.8G, it was light and easy to carry around everywhere.

michael66

There are plenty of DX lenses last time I looked.

Dumb question and most likely off topic. I now have two DX bodies; D3000 and D7100. Am I getting the wrong impression here? Is there something wrong with buying FX lenses and using them on a DX body? Of the nine ( modern ) lenses I have, only three are DX. While the coverage area of the FX lens is far greater than the DX sensor, you are using the sweet spot of the lens. Shouldn't that improve picture quality? Or do I have that all wrong? Or is it more complicated than that?

spraynpray

The main problem, other than cost and weight, is that the crossover points on FX fall at the wrong place so you are changing lenses more often than you would with DX lenses. 14-24, 27-70 and 70-2/3/400 for example. You would normally have say 11-16, 16-85 and then it's less easy to find a good lens as DX but something like 50-150 or as I use, 70-300. That way, your ultrawide shots are with one lens, wide to normal to short telephoto are another and short telephoto to telephoto are another.

KnockKnock

I can't speak for all DX shooters, but for me, DX is the right size. I want small lenses. I still want the art look of semi-fast glass. 4/3 and 1" isn't good enough in that dept. FX is more than I need and heavy-big.

$300-$750 primes
12mm f/2.8
16mm f/2.8
24mm f/1.8
58mm f/1.4 VR2
70mm f/2.8 Micro VR2
150mm f/2.8 VR2

and zooms $600-1000
16-70mm f/4 VR2
55-150mm f/2.8 VR2
70-200mm f/4 VR2

There's a concept I would like to see disproved. That DX shooters always/only buy 1.5 lenses/user-camera. 1.5 DX lenses per is all that Canon and Nikon have made that are worth carrying. A decent kit lens (take your pick, there are 5+) and the 35mm f/1.8. Or just the kit lens. Or the kit + 55-200mm zoom. I think Fuji, Sony and the M4/3 group are doing a good job of proving many users will buy 2-3 lenses if they make them good.

I'm more fanboy than whiner. I get what they were thinking with the Nikon1 (just need the price to get real). Love to see FX at the Df body size (too bad about some UI issues). The enlarged viewfinders of the lower models is great. The new 18-55 kit shrinkage is a move in the right direction. I'm looking forward to seeing its performance and will likely add it to my bag to go stealth. That would make my 3rd DX lens + one FX. And if they existed, I would quickly add at least two of my wish-list above to my collection.

Signed DX lens fanboi :-)

KnockKnock

While I'm on the soapbox - there's this notion that bigger is better. Look at what happened to the Honda Accord over the decades. Or the BMW 3-series. It's a loop of marketing that works on people. Buy this, it has 1" more legroom, 3 cubic-ft larger trunk. Implying it's better.

In the meantime, it becomes unwieldy and heavy. These auto makers are smart, so they slot a smaller car in below and we get the Civic and 1 or 2-series.

Nikon isn't being smart. The gap between Nikon1 and FX is huge. The finance heads see margin, like their status as high-end gear makers, and try to push users up to FX. I think they're doing a disservice to loyal, connoisseur photographers by asking them to be Nikon1 small with decent lens choice, or FX with excellent lens choice. DX lens choice is just a missed opportunity.

Okay, stepping down. Pardon me - it's late!

Msmoto

Topic: D3300, a DX camera body. IMO, one can use whatever trips their trigger. At age 71, I do not have an issue with the weight of a camera…..yet.

All my lenses are FX with one exception. I shoot on a D90 and D4. My idea of a 'normal DX lens is 24mm, 'normal' FX 35mm. About the only disadvantage of FX lenses might occur in the wide zoom, where the 14-24mm (90° diagonal on DX) will not give a wide enough view, as the 10-24mm DX (109° diagonal on DX). And, the cost issue is of course important.

If one has the idea they might want to move to a larger format in the near future, i.e., full frame, then it is clear, invest in the full frame glass.