At first disappointed with the D3300 but now appreciating it

tcole1983

There is no controversy to be had. You are upset that a lesser body in both features and cost isn't up to par with one that costs twice as much. The d3300 isn't the d5300 or d7100 or even the d5200. Despite all having a 24 MP sensor they are different cameras. They all have different features and while picture iq might be similar they aren't exactly the same. Maybe you are stuck in the film era where film was film in no matter what body it got put in. However dslrs can be manipulated and tweaked for better performance. Add better performance and features and cost goes up. Would you pay $800 for a d3300? Nope...would complain it costs too much.

There was also little to no change in iq between the d5200 and d5300...they added WiFi and GPS which I didn't care about. I opted to save $200-300 and get the d5200.

Ironheart

Thanks. I really hope that somebody will joint me on this and make it happen.

i think you do need a joint or two, or perhaps a chill pill :P The IQ of the D3300, D5300, and D7100 is virtually identical. I don't put a ton of stock in DxO, but it's one of the few objective measures we have.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3300-versus-Nikon-D5300-versus-Nikon-D7100___928_919_865

The scores are 82, 83, and 83 respectively. The low-light ISO scores are 1385, 1338, and 1256 respectively. These scores are all likely within the margin of error.

Either you got a really bad copy of the D3300 or you are doing something terribly wrong. The D3300 is the most recent release out of these, and would benefit from the most recent tweaks that Nikon could throw at it. The D3300 and D5300 use the same expeed4 processor, so the video performance should be identical (unless you tweak the settings). The main difference for IQ (and this may be why the DxO rating is 1 point lower) is that the D3300 is a 12-bit camera and the D5300 is a 14-bit, but this should have zero effect on video quality, only stills, and only raw. If you are a jpeg-er then the most important settings will be in picture control.

Golf007sd

@CaMeRaQuEsT: Your understanding that a particular piece of equipment, i.e. the 24MP sensor, should perform and have the same results regardless of what bodies it's place in is flawed. Case in point, would you be willing to have the same perspective that all engines, be it a V6, V8, V10, or V12 perform the same on all cars they are place in regardless of the manufacture or how it is implemented?

You have many, many years of experience in taking pictures. At this stage of the photography world, DSLR's will offer you far more flexibility that you have ever had in the past. Get a body that is acceptable to your needs and start to have fun.

calengor

Did I misunderstand, or is @CaMeRaQuEsT shooting in JPG, which may be part of the problem?

MikeGunter

Hi all,

The cameras' results should 'generally' be similar under 'similar' conditions and setups.

As Ironheart pointed out, one of the cameras outputs in 12-bit, the others in 14-bit (in RAW), and jpg will be affected by Picture Control.

CaMeRaQuEst is also concerned about a consistent white balance, which is often effected by user software - search the forum and you'll notice a few threads that show up relating to off color (pun not intended) shots from cameras that have to do with software.

Things happen.

I have a some of the bodies and they seem to be in harmony with others.

My best,

Mike

CaMeRaQuEsT

Fiddling more with the D3300 last night, I noticed that it too behaves differently to the D5200 in LV: with the D3300 the LV feed started having really bad lag and skipped frames after the 3rd hit of the zoom in button, whereas the D5200 had no lag nor skips all the way to the largest amplification, and the funny thing is that when you half press the shutter, the feed goes live for the duration of focus acquisition, also image brightness gets significantly bumped up while acquiring focus, a behavior not present on the D5200.

The high noise in video at low light/high ISO issue I found on the D3300 is pretty easy to replicate and verify while indoors in a camera store: have a salesman hand you over for comparison both a D3300 and a D5300 with the same lenses attached, take the mode dial to M, select 1/60 secs - f/16 and make sure it pushes ISO up to at least 1600, go to the menus, make sure that both cameras are set to record at 1080p/60, video mode is not set to full manual control, auto ISO is on and spanning the same ranges, that both cameras have the same picture control and WB settings and that noise reduction on the D3300 is on and high ISO NR on the D5300 is set on low, then go to LV: you'll see that noise levels will be vastly different, not to mention WB and even exposure. Then hit the zoom in several times on each camera: you'll see what I'm talking about above. If you can, try shooting the same footage on both cameras, play it and see the difference: it's so obvious that you will be able to discern it on the camera's screen. If your outcome is any different than my findings, then you'll have helped me realize that I got a defective unit.

I am now starting to believe that the D3300's electronics are mostly reheated parts from the D3200, with only the needed changes made (in FW perhaps?) to allow for the elimination of the AA filter, the added 1080p/60 capability, the panorama mode and all the other silly scene and effect modes they added.

Msmoto

I also began to see some troll coming out…. caution given.

tcole1983

Last one for me. The d3300 has a totally different autofocus system. It has the old 11 point system that is in my d5000. There should be a difference...the d5200 has the 39 point.

heartyfisher

Had a look at the DXO data (Thanks @Ironheart) and it does look like it supports @CaMeRaQuEsT's observations to a certain extent. though I would not say "Vastly" different, maybe half a stop. The differences should be clearly observable if compared side by side especially at high iso, 6400 and above. but really no one should be shooting at 6400 ISO and above anyway.. really ask you who does ? even on my D610 which has some of the best high ISO rating I don't shoot past 3200 maybe 4000 in a pinch.

Another thing as mentioned by @Golf007sd, implementation counts for a lot. cutting costs means lower cost materials and components and lower cost components means lower quality feature sets. There is NO CONTROVERSY. the engineers are told to do it at various price points thus that dictates various quality components. A simple illustration with computers with the same cpu but systems with different price points could easily result in 30-70% difference in performance. eg Less memory, lower memory clock rate and less memory bandwidth, cache sizes . lower system bus throughput and bandwidth single or mult parallel system bus, SSD disks vs low spin rate drives, etc etc etc. A camera has many many components not just the sensor. I repeat no controversy ! Just a fact of engineering to various constraints.

In fact I applaud the nikon engineers for getting them so close in capability. That little ol' D3300 IQ blows away almost every other APSC non nikon camera, whatever the price !

Photobug

+1 @Golf007sd said: At this stage of the photography world, DSLR's will offer you far more flexibility that you have ever had in the past. Get a body that is acceptable to your needs and start to have fun.

Just one more time...all the Nikon consumer models are good. Digital DSLR's are different than SLR's. My recommendation to @CaMeRaQuEsT is to masters the D3300. When you out grow it or need more features and/or capabilities then move on to another body. Last one for me.

Parke1953

@heartyfisher good point on components. Look at intel i7 processor. There are 8+ i7 processors all different. Same goes for sensors and other related parts and pieces.

DaveyJ

I think the D3200 AND D3300 are both excellent cameras! I use the D3200 and 18-55 kit lens many days. It is NOT a great low light camera. The D7100 is somewhat easier to use all the way around but many times I do not want the weight and the cost of the D7100. Personally I am going to buy the D7200 when it comes out. Why? There are enough of us in this family to justify getting that camera. I have looked carefully at the D750 SPECS (not the actual camera) and am going to pass on that one. I do think the D750 is an awesome camera and the D810 is wonderful. Our niche here using these cameras for WORK to illustrate what we do, makes the DX cameras far better for us. Now just when is Nikon going to start selling the Expeed 4 processor in a DX camera. Look at how long the D300s thread is!! Good luck to you all! Great comments by Golf007sd!

CaMeRaQuEsT

Ok, first day shooting with the D3300, spending the whole afternoon IN the pool (max water dept: 4 1/2", I'm 6" tall) with the camera: its light weight and compact dimensions with its kit lens along with its minimal price add up to so much freedom, I mean I wouldn't mind that much if I drop it into the pool, much less for the few drops of water splash it got all afternoon. Back when I owned the D7100 I couldn't even fathom giving it same treatment, even if it's weather sealed (that came in handy on a yacht trip on high seas though, the D3300 wouldn't have survived that trip with all the salt water splash the D7100 took with no sweat), for one that body/lens combo (24-85; yes I know it was wasted on a DX, but I was dreaming of moving up to FX back then) was too heavy to keep above the water line for more than a couple minutes at a time without getting crams on my arms, and that combo's cost was 4 times this D3300 kit, huge loss for me if I dropped it into the pool!

Viewfinder shooting in RAW+JPEG feels CRAZY FAST! It reacts to the shutter release almost as fast as my F3, I can't even remember the D7100 being this fast, it's ridiculous! Guess it truly has a real EXPEED 4 processor after all. Of course, continuous release tops out the buffer in no time, but most of my bursts didn't go past 2 seconds, so I guess it's Ok if you keep this in mind while shooting. Video was Ok given the lighting conditions, didn't have a chance to try it in low light conditions, maybe tonight.

So far this camera is giving me more reasons to keep it than to not to: it hasn't disappointed me for the main reasons I bought it in the first place, but I'm keeping myself from making a final decision on its fate with me until tonight when I can see its output back home on my PC. So for now, I'm not that disappointed.

DaveyJ

@CaMeTaQuest: When I put my Nikon DSLR images on a LED Samsung 40 and 55" with say a Nikon D3200 and the images are VERY good. I do feel the D7100 low light results are BETTER than the D3200 and D3300. I have shot a lot with JPEG Fine Large and RAW and abandoned RAW as when I am close enough (by adjusting especially plus/minus for exposure) RAW just was NOT worth the hassle! Considering the cost of these modest cameras they are extremely useful. In terms of fast.....the D7100 is that fast. My biggest concern right now and the reason I return to Nikon Rumors is I have come to believe the DX format is where I want to stay, not FX. Many of the reasons you cite are the exact reasons I feel that way. Still I regret the expenditures I used to make in large format which finally got booted to the curb as the Nikon F5 was producing more useable images than the large format. I published enough of the big images to prove I had expertise in that avenue yet had I saved the money I wasted (harsh word but probably accurate) I could have done much better today. The bigger FX cameras remind me too much of that misguided era by my score.

spraynpray

@DavyJ: That D750 isn't too much larger than my D7100.... :-?

CaMeRaQuEsT

Well, photos and video footage taken under fading, slightly overcast afternoon sunlight look Ok on my big screen PC. WB is definitively hit and miss, will preset WB next time using the ExpoDisc, but still colors look great, well saturated and punchy without any cheesy-ness (Picture Control set at Vivid w/sharpness at 9). Still underexposes a bit but because of the wide dynamic range (Active-D Lighting set to on) photos actually come out Ok with great shadow detail and no crushed blacks. And the 1080p/60 footage, oh boy that footage! It's almost camcorder level sharp and smooth, a huge improvement over the D7100's and D5200's 1080i/60 output which was nowhere near as sharp and worse they both croped the DX form factor which for me is a really bad thing as I usually shoot wide in video. Still haven't have the chance to shoot video in low light conditions, but so far so good: this looks like a keeper for me. Like so many of you guys have said about appreciating this camera for what it is while being aware of its limitations, this is actually a great camera for the price I paid for it, definitively there are ever less reasons to keep the D5200. @Golf007sd: if you can, please change this discussion's title to "At first disappointed with the D3300 but now appreciating it". I'll keep on posting here my further findings on the D3300 as I'm seeing more and more redeeming points that fade away my original disappointment.

CaMeRaQuEsT

After some night time shooting, I find myself back to my initial assessment that the D3300's real weakness is definitively low light/high ISO video shooting, more exactly lighting conditions that need ISO beyond 800: footage comes out really noisy at any ISO above that, same conditions in which the D7100 and D5200 are still keeping noise under tight control. But the weird thing is that it behaves totally differently when taking photos in the dark: the D3300 might actually be better here than the D7100 (haven't had the chance to try shooting photos in the dark with the D5200) as I'm seeing less noise and more detail in the shadows: this might be because of the EXPEED 4 processor manhandling the image sensor. So my final take is that I'll definitively be selling the D5200 immediately so that I can have the wherewithal to buy the D5300 when its price comes down, meanwhile I'll keep the D3300, at least until I have the D5300 to compare them thoroughly, and will be avoiding situations in which I need to shoot video at higher than ISO 800. Hopefully the D5300 will be a better, more complete package compared to the D3300, but the IQ I'm getting from D3300 when the conditions are right will be a tough act for the D5300 to follow, let alone surpass. Let's see if next Black Friday brings us a great deal on the D5300, I'll then have gone full circle with Nikon's current DX lineup.

Ironheart

Did you turn high ISO noise reduction off by mistake? Honestly I can't believe it's that dramatically different. Owning a D3100, a D5100 and a D7000 I can honestly say they aren't that far apart.

PB_PM

IMO too many people discount those entry level bodies too quickly if anything. They may not have the AF system or buttons of the higher end cameras, but today's D3300 is more capable than almost all previous generation high end DX Nikon cameras. I'd take a D3300 with a good lens over a D90, D300 or D7000 for landscape shooting, no questions asked.

NSXTypeR

Yeah, the crappiest entry level DSLR was the D40 for sure, they've gone a long ways since then and even then I got some of my favorite shots with that camera.

The AF was atrocious- 3 points.

CaMeRaQuEsT

Did you turn high ISO noise reduction off by mistake? Honestly I can't believe it's that dramatically different. Owning a D3100, a D5100 and a D7000 I can honestly say they aren't that far apart.

The D3*00 series don't have separate Long Exposure NR/High ISO NR selections nor different levels of adjustment within them, just Noise Reduction ON or OFF and, of course, I always keep this setting on. Also, these settings, on both the D5200 and the D3300, apparently have no effect on how the cameras handle video noise, you're basically stuck with what Nikon decided at factory. In fact, I believe the D3100 handled noise in video at low light/high ISO better than both the D3200 and the D3300 from what I remember how the output of my in-law's D3100 looked like, but then it only went as high up as 1080p/24 (D3200: 1080p/30, D3300: 1080p/60), so it's a step back in VIDEO IQ for both the D3200 and the D3300 against the previous D3100 when subject to this VERY NARROW AND LIMITED CONDITION (video shooting in low light/high ISO conditions).

CaMeRaQuEsT

IMO too many people discount those entry level bodies too quickly if anything. They may not have the AF system or buttons of the higher end cameras, but today's D3300 is more capable than almost all previous generation high end DX Nikon cameras. I'd take a D3300 with a good lens over a D90, D300 or D7000 for landscape shooting, no questions asked.

You're right, for picture taking there is not much difference among all of Nikon's 24MP DX cameras, they also all hands down beat Canon's crop sensor offerings in both photo and video IQ (I also own an EOS M, so I know first hand) and, again, photo wise, are leaps and bounds from even their previous iterations (D3100 and D5100, both of which I have had experience with); in fact to me they are so good that I don't see any reason for me to move up to FX where the lenses are 3+ times more expensive and their upgrade in photo IQ can't be appreciated with the home TVs I use for browsing my pictures, much less on the 8 1/2" maximum wide printouts I can do with my printer. In fact, video on FX bodies other than the D810 and D750 is said to be WORSE than the D5200's. So, again, my rant is not about the D3300's photo quality, the pictures coming out of it look great if you know its limitations in WB and exposure and know how to handle around them (use an ExpoDisc or shoot RAW and Lighroom for proper WB adjustment and use exposure compensation as needed). My beef is ONLY with its ability (or lack of) to shoot video in low light/high ISO situations, where I feel it's a meaningful step back from the D5200 and the only reason why I'm not staying put with my D3300 and will be buying the D5300 later when it too becomes reasonably priced. Maybe this is the main reason why the D3300's price has come down so hard after being only 7-8 months on the market (I got mine for 50% off MSRP), while the D5300 has been in the market for almost a year now and its price remains pretty stable. Still, and I have to add this, the D3300's video output when there is enough light to to keep its ISO at 800 or bellow is SUPERB, especially if you shoot 1080p/60 like I do on my kids, it hands down beat BOTH the D7100's and the D5200's 1080i/60 capabilities. So it's still a meaningful upgrade against the previous iterations, but maybe my nirvana is the D5300 and I'm sure I'll be able to find out after this Black Friday.

CaMeRaQuEsT

I still think the expectations for an amateur camera are far to high.

You're the perfect candidate for trying a D3300 with its kit lens: its light weight is hugely liberating! I mean, the camera feels like it's made of air, it's that light! You'll be carrying it around always!

heartyfisher

Yeah, the crappiest entry level DSLR was the D40 for sure, they've gone a long ways since then and even then I got some of my favorite shots with that camera.

The AF was atrocious- 3 points.

LOL I still mostly use the center one on my D610 and if i get a D810 I would still probably use the center one mostly :-)

spraynpray

LOL I still mostly use the center one on my D610

As the spread of the focus points is so small on the D600/610, you pretty much have to focus and recompose nearly all the time anyway so you may as well just give up and use the centre point!