Nikon D3300 Discussion

WestEndBoy

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!

Had DX been designed to be its own system finding the perfect balance between weight and image quality, they would have made the flange diameter smaller and flange to focal length shorter (but long enough to accommodate the mirror). It would only be compatible with FX with an adapter. Then the cameras could be smaller.

But that was not the purpose of the design. The purpose of the design was to keep the FX lens line alive while FX sensor prices had a chance to decline.

BabaGanoush

@donaldejose: "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."

Are you sure it increases your "reach" or is that just an illusion? To increase your "reach"--as if you had increased the focal length of your lens--requires an increase in magnification, i.e., measured in pixels, objects in the FOV should be larger, not just seem larger. As long as the sensor pixel pitch isn't too different, cropping changes the angular size of the FOV without changing the magnification of the image. For example, an image of the Moon taken with the D800 in 1.5X crop (DX) mode is exactly (or nearly exactly) the same size in pixels as an image of the Moon taken in FX mode (i.e., without cropping). In other words, if you want more "reach", you will have to buy a longer lens, not a lower grade camera with a smaller sensor.

WestEndBoy

@donaldejose: "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."

Are you sure it increases your "reach" or is that just an illusion? To increase your "reach"--as if you had increased the focal length of your lens--requires an increase in magnification, i.e., measured in pixels, objects in the FOV should be larger, not just seem larger. As long as the sensor pixel pitch isn't too different, cropping changes the angular size of the FOV without changing the magnification of the image. For example, an image of the Moon taken with the D800 in 1.5X crop (DX) mode is exactly (or nearly exactly) the same size in pixels as an image of the Moon taken in FX mode (i.e., without cropping). In other words, if you want more "reach", you will have to buy a longer lens, not a lower grade camera with a smaller sensor.

All you have to do is shoot an FX camera in DX mode and you have your "reach". However, I certainly agree with Donaldejose, the D3300 is a lot of bang for the buck. If I was in the market for an introductory camera, I would have to think seriously about what I was getting before spending more.

BabaGanoush

@jshickele: No, sorry, that is incorrect. The proper definition of "reach" implies that it increases only if you increase the magnification of your image. Shooting an FX camera like the D800 in DX mode reduces the angular size of the image without increasing the magnification, which is why, in the example I cited, the diameter of the Moon IN PIXELS is the same whether you shoot it in FX or DX or 1.2X mode. The same would be true of birds or other animals. If you doubt me, do the measurements yourself, as I have. In fact, try it with an MFT camera. I have compared pictures of the Moon taken with my Panasonic FZ200 superzoom, my Panasonic G6 MFT camera, my D7000 (which I no longer own), and my D800. For the same equivalent FL of the lens, the diameter of the Moon is nearly identical IN PIXELS for each of those cameras...which is why I chose to use my FZ200 to photograph a total solar eclipse in 2012 and left my D800 and its long lenses at home.

heartyfisher

@babaganoush .. I dont really understand your logic. I have a Nikon1 and my 200mm lens definitely provides me with more "reach" when I use the lense on it..

PS : this reminds me .. I was planning to shoot the moon with my nikon 1 tonight if the sky is clear .. ! got to get my big tripod out and stick the 400mm on it ! with my nikon1 I should get 1080mm !

Ironheart

@BabaGanoush, read these two web pages, as they both explain what is meant by reach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_DX_format
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_FX_format
Also, consider this. A 36mp FX sensor when put in crop mode yields 16mp on subject. If a 24mp DX camera were scaled up to FX it would be 54mp. In other words you would need a 54mp FX sensor in order to be able to take a 24mp DX sized crop out of it. In the end what matters is mp on subject or field of view which is increased by 1.5 on a DX sensor. If this doesn't answer your question, we should probably take this off topic to a different thread.

ChasCS

Those were interesting to read, thanks @Ironheart.
Explaines the differences so clearly. Very defined.

WestEndBoy

I have transferred this discussion to a new thread so that we can stay on topic.

Ironheart

Find it here: http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/2242/how-are-reach-and-sensor-size-related-and-what-are-the-merits-of-different-options

DaveyJ

I use the D3200 more than the D7100 (my favorite Camera ever). Why the D3200 so much? Cheaper, lighter, more compact and the results between the two cameras rule for use of the D3200 very often. My son uses my D7100 and really prefers that camera over the D7100. He is pretty big and uses a whole fleet of cameras in the field. For what it is worth he uses his D200 more than the D7100. One camera that I used to use a LOT was the D90 but now my youngest grandson uses it exclusively now. He uses it with the Nikkor DX 35mm f 1.8 I gave him and two batteries.

I do agree with msmoto about buying FX glass if that is where you think you are going. My guess is the D3300 is going to be quite a field camera. I am trying to buy one with the new 18-55 VRII kit lens while Nikon is working on either a D7200 or a D400. Despite my kicking FX tires a lot......I probably do not see me buying one right now. One of the biggest issues for me is the high cost of the 80-400VR which I would love to own but I will not be paying that price.

My average work day consists of work that is quite a bit more demanding than carrying a camera. But I do feel that the people who regard big cameras as acceptable represent a portion of the buying public. Novices I feel generally go for smaller and lighter. CES announcements have straddled the spectrum of Nikon DSLRs from D4s and the D3300. The introduction of D3300 does represent a potential sales volume which Nikon was very smart to invest in. Still my question is HOW DOES the new collapsable kit lens going to stack up against the current D3200 18-55VR which is for its price and size, very Excellent! I also think the D4s introduction was ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL FOR NIKON!

ekopuls

It seems to be an excellent camera, whether it's a big difference between Nikon d3100 vs d3300?

PB_PM

Still my question is HOW DOES the new collapsable kit lens going to stack up against the current D3200 18-55VR which is for its price and size, very Excellent!

If the MTF charts are to be believe the new 18-55mm VRII will be sharper and have less chromatic aberration. Only tests will show if that is true of course, but it does look promising.

I suspect that once the current stock of 18-55mm VRI kits are gone the VRII will ship with more bodies.

Wesley

I would use my D3100 a lot more if it had a bigger viewfinder.

It seems to be an excellent camera, whether it's a big difference between Nikon d3100 vs d3300?

Most noticeable difference would be the LCD screen resolution

KnockKnock

Watching the Denver, San Diego game... browsing my sites... no longer on the soapbox :-)

@jshickele: good point about the F mount. I guess DX can never be the ideal small camera. I think I get it... like Canon can be with their Eos SL1 and the EF-S lenses. I didn't mention, but my FX lens is hardly oversized (50mm f/1.4 AF-S), and it serves for lack of a DX portrait lens. Still my ideal shooting situation is with smaller gear than FX

@msmoto: size is partly weight-related to me, but also the ability to be inconspicuous. So something like the 24-70 F2.8 on a D800 has a different effect on my subjects or surroundings than a D3300 with my mythical 58mm f/1.4 DX. Agree with you on the 24mm focal length on DX. Imagine the D3300 (or D5300) with a 24mm f/1.8 prime as a street shooting combo.

Part of my smallish preference is also that I prefer to walk around with a messenger style bag, and big gear doesn't doesn't go in/out of my bag as easily. If I ever went pro, I'd probably get over the stealth thing. Carry a deeper bag, out myself with my gear. I do lust for FX perspective sometimes.

Photobug

It seems to be an excellent camera, whether it's a big difference between Nikon d3100 vs d3300?

This is an easy question to answer. Go to the Nikon.com web site and compare the D3100 to the D3200 to the D3300. All will be revealed.

DaveyJ

The D3200 and D3300 however are fair weather friend cameras. If you are out in the cold the small Nikon DSLRs go belly up really quickly. They have to be on life support (external heat sources) to even work for awhile under colder conditions. The Nikon AW 1 is a far better camera in the cold (touted as waterproof, shockproof, and freeze proof). So it isn't just size of the camera. A D7100 or a D7000 will work under cold conditions down to about zero degrees F. quite well. This may influence what travel camera you use.

Golf007sd

Looks like Nikon has a winner in this new model.

DaveyJ

We are bringing in a D3300 to test it versus my D3200, The Nikon AW 1 (which we rate VERY highly overall), and the D7100. I understand the 18-55VR NEW kit lens is rated very highly which is really saying something as the D3200 18-55VR kit lens is quite amazing for what it costs and how light it is. The D3200 in cold shooting environments is the most freeze prone of these cameras. The D7000 and D7100 are extremely cold tolerant. I have come to putting a LL Bean Firecell handwarmer in my D3200 Tamrac Velocity camera bag as "life support" while shooting on cold days and nights. I have logged on to Nikon Rumors today to try to find someone who has received and photographed with the new D3300. With Expeed 4 prodcessor on board it should be pretty good. AdamZ points out that replacing a camera just because it ONLY has a Expeed 3 processor is foolish which I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH. But if you have a choice between the D3200 and the D3300 today I for one would take the latest version it is worth an extra $70. I do not expect that the D3300 has addressed ANY of these cold intolerances. All things considered once you are ready to shoot a D7100 is clearly superior to the D3200. I use the D3200 a lot due to low cost and field conditions. Also my D7100 has to go back to Nikon USA for sensor cleaning that makes some videos worthless. No idea what that repair will cost.

DaveyJ

@Golf007sd: Thanks for the post on the Camera Store UTube review of the Nikon D3300. It is very well done and apparently as you say Nikon has another winner here. Personally I think it is VERY important that entry level Nikon are getting this kind of quality sensor and processor. And of course increased ISO sensitivity. This post of Golf007sd shows why I log onto Nikon Rumors FIRST on what I might buy next as there is a minimum of undue comments and a phenomenal amount of helpfulness on this site!

Golf007sd

I would like to introduce myself. I am cheri7.
I bought a Nikon D90 in 2009 and loved it!
I am now consider buying the Nikon D330
at this time.

I would appreciate comments by those that
already have it! cheri7!

cheri7

Thank you ALL for all the good information. I am somewhat concerned
about the camera not being very cold tolerant. I am not out in the cold
a lot however, but when I do go out to shoot winter pictures, I do want
some cold tolerance.

All the comments were very helpful and I will take them to heart. It's
good to be here. All comments are welcome! cheri7!

PB_PM

So I'm curious why you are considering the D3300, when you use a D90. The logical next step would be a D7100, which has a similar control layout.

Photobug

Cheri7, I agree with PB-PM. You really should consider the D5300 or the D7100. I got my wife the D90 many years ago and she enjoys it plus one in a while I grab it at family events.

The D3000, D3100, D3200, and D3300 have been an excellent entry level camera for NIkon. The D5300 has a few pluses over the D3300 and the D7100 is the best DX format camera Nikon makes.

Please share what type of photography you shoot now, what you plan to shoot in the future, and what lens you currently have. Finally as Golf said in the other forum, what is your budget for this upgrade? With all that info we can help better guide you into making a "smart and intelligent" decision.

Golf007sd

Msmoto

Great video, Golf… the D5300 for $150 more, WiFi, GPS, more focus points, easier panorama's, and flip screen. Or, for those with NAS, just $200 more to a D7000, then add another $150 for a D7100…. and so on….. :-j