ChapelThrill23: One of the biggest issues that the Sony systems have right now is how expensive the native lenses tend to be. I don't doubt that they are very high quality but other mounts offer some optional but still quality lenses at more modest prices too.
$1000 is a lot of money for most people. Particularly when you are buying multiple lenses. I like the Nikon approach. They have some very well reviewed primes that deliver 90-95% of what their top level primes do (for instance the 85 1.8G gets fantastic reviews) for much less. Canon does the same thing. I think its important to have that in a system.
One of the biggest issues that the Sony systems have right now is how expensive the native lenses tend to be. I don't doubt that they are very high quality but other mounts offer some optional but still quality lenses at more modest prices too.
GPW: NIKON, ENOUGH with the BULL S#$T entry level cameras, and release a D300/s replacement. If you can release a niche camera like the DF, you surely can release a much wanted camera like a pro DX (D400).
The thing is that camera might not be as wanted as you think in the market place. It seems to occupy a real odd position in today's market between things like the D7000 and 70D and entry level full frame cameras. I'm not sure that there is a great market anymore for a $1700 APS-C camera. Were the demand that high, Nikon would have put one out a long time ago.
DezM: That's pretty pathetic of Nikon. They don't give a sh_t about current customers. They just want to attract new ones.
Innovation and leading is of no concern to Nikon.
How is this a downgrade?
hydrospanner: One too many zeroes in the model number to interest me.
Now a D330...
"Don't hold your breath. I think Nikon has completely forgotten about the "Pro DX" users."
I think that you are probably right. The new affordable FF cameras on the market have probably stolen away a lot of the people who would have once bought a D300 type camera. I think that level of camera is probably at an uncomfortable spot between the high quality D700 or Canon 70d type camera at around $1200 and the 6D and D610 type camera at around $2000. If the demand were what it once was I'd imagine they'd have put one out years ago.
taktak91: Yet another fine product from Nikon that is not the D300 replacement.
I think the problem must be that they've decided that the D300 class market segment isn't what it once was with the rise of cheaper FF bodies. I used to use cameras in the D300 segment but once affordable FF cameras came out I switched in a heart beat. I think a lot of enthusiasts who have the ability to buy a camera in that price range are willing to spend a few hundred dollars to move up to FF. If Nikon thought the market for a D300 type camera was still as substantial as it used to be they'd have put one out a while back.
Gazeomon: Yoaaaaaawwwnn zzzzzzz, another Nikon plastic entry toy! just like the other one we had a little while ago. Chrrrr r r r
"s - The issues here is - Why Nikon keeps feeding amateurs, on and on and on, when there are already 150 entry choices and forgets the top cameras like the long awaited D400?"
My guess is that that is where the market is. There is a huge market for lower end cameras and the class that the D400 would be in is one that isn't as big as it once was with the rise of reasonably priced FF cameras that a lot of people with the cash to spend are now going to.
nicolaiecostel: First of all, this is a great entry level camera. Imagine the IQ you can get with that Sony 24 MP with no low pass. Incredible ..Also, 5 FPS at 24 MP in a 500$ camera ? Jeez ! My D700 does 5.5 at 12 MP and the standard battery. This really puts things into perspective.Stop requesting higher end features like dedicated ISO buttons, focus motors (what screw driven lenses you would need nowadays anyway ?!), there are higher end bodies for that ..This is a camera dedicated to soccer moms everywhere, and newbies, and for that purpose, it will be great value.I have owned the D3100 and while it might not be the greatest camera ever, coupled with the 50 1.4G it gave me some stunning images. Whenever your picture suck, take into consideration the following:1. Personal skill2. Light and lighting3. Lens used4. Digital processingYeah, I also saw that guy dismissing this because the 1Dx, ridiculous stuff people say on the internet !!
It is remarkable how far along lower end cameras (and cameras in general) have come in the last few years. This camera, and others like it, is capable of IQ that either cost a fortune or was unattainable a few years back. Things like this are capable of producing images that no DSLR could have produced eight or ten years ago at any price. People would have spent a fortune for a camera with these specs even three years ago.
raztec: Entry level Nikons DSLRs are absolutely useless for action as their AF is very poor. It really isn't until you get into the pro line and have to pay thousands of $$$ that you have a DSLR that actually focuses accurately and fast.
"Why yould you buy a 500$ camera to shoot action with it ? "
Because not everyone can afford to spend thousands of dollars.
And I disagree about the point of an entry level AF system not being able to keep up with a fast moving toddler and the needs of a family shooter. Without question you'll have a higher miss rate than with more expensive gear but you will still end up with some keepers too.
zoranT: Who keeps buying this bulky, generic, plastic stuff?
A lot of people are interested in buying basic SLR/SLT cameras. I know three people who just bought this level of Nikon camera. All three are people who are interested in getting more into photography and want an affordable way to get a camera that gives them access to more control and better image quality than they've had before. For people like them, who are college and high school aged, something like this is wonderful but it is something they can afford, that can produce high quality images, and that gives them the flexibility to add more lenses and accessories over the years so that it can grow with them as they start to get more into the hobby and as they are able to afford more equipment. I think that something like this is excellent for a beginning photographer. It gives them access to IQ that only the highest end cameras had a few years ago.
Dimit: And the PLACTICITY OSCAR goes to...Nikon D3300Yeah..bravo..horray..congrats!%$*&
You do realize that this is intended to be an entry level camera. Entry level cameras tend to be very plasticky. They make up for that, for many users, by being cheap and light.
Michel F: Wooptidoo Nikon ! Another entry level handicapped camera for the DX beginners. And another entry level DX kit lens ! Thanks for blissfully ignoring the serious DX shooters yet again.
I have a couple points.
One is that some of the people I know who love photography the most are using entry level DSLRs/SLTs because not everyone is able to or wants to spend the money required to get higher end gear. Just because someone buys one of these doesn't mean that they aren't serious about their craft. I also know a lot of gear hounds who spend thousands but who aren't really serious about photography.
My second point is that this camera isn't for the serious shooter. It is a bottom end camera. Nikons 7000 series is a highly regarded series for people who want a camera with better build and performance and who can pay for that. Evaluate this camera for what it is. The camera is intended to be a cheap camera that can still produce quality images.
grafli: Well this lens is obsolet with the existence of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8
Not really. The two are very different lenses. The Sigma is an APS-C lens. It is very good but it is not a full frame lens so it would not work for the target audience of this lens. If a Nikon user has an APS-C camera and wants a fast 35, they should consider the cheaper Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX which is around $200. The Sigma is without doubt better but the 35 1.8DX gets good reviews and is good value for money. Most APS-C users who are considering a 35mm lens in that mount would probably be cross shopping those (as well as things like the Sigma 30 1.4).
KakoW: Sigma 35 f/1.4 was $699 in december. I hope that Nikon is good, because for $100 more you get one of the sharpest FF lens out there.
But it isn't $699 any more. BH has it for $899 now. So does Adorama. The rebates is over.
Jylppy: Ah, Fanboys in the air! Since it is Nikon it _must_ be better than the independently reviewed award-winning Sigma 35mm/1.4, right? 1/1.4 aperture - who cares! Robust metal construction - plastic is lighter! ;-)
The Sigma costs $300 more. You should expect it to be a better lens than the cheaper and lower spec Nikon. The question a Nikon user has to ask is whether or not it is worth the extra $300. For many the Sigma will be a better fit but I suspect that the Nikon 35, based on how good the 50 1.8G and 85 1.8G are and how well they have done with reviewers, will be very good. $300 is not an insignificant amount of money.
I'll be interested to try this. I've been extremely impressed with Nikon's mid-level G series primes.
Mandeep Goma: Dear SirI am little confused regarding which lens to buy with Nikon D7100 body.I want to click some good indoor photographs of family & friends at night in normal room light, some birthday photographs of children, some outdoor portraits with decent shallow depth of field and similar stuff...
Sir.. I have narrowed my choice to the kit lens coming with Nikon D7100 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 VR and Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC MACRO OS HSM.
Do you think Sigma F2.8 will give better indoor pictures than the Nikkon F3.5. Can this be compensated by making camera ISO adjustments?
How shallower is the depth of field in F2.8 vs F3.5?
Please help me to take the right decision.Regards
No question that the extra speed will help you get better pictures. You can raise the ISO but that tends to increase the noise level in your pictures.
A depth of field calculator could help answer your other question. It all depends on what aperture and focal length (in other words wide angle or "zoomed" in). It also depends on how far your subject is from you.
I do not shoot video very often but I appreciate having the ability to do it on my Nikon D610 because every now and then I use it in order to shoot video of my family. Were the DF cheaper than the D610, I'd be happy to forego the feature but I can't imagine wanting to spend $800 more for a body that lacks what is fast becoming a critical feature for a lot of users and that would have taken almost nothing for Nikon to add. It greatly limits the usefulness for a lot of users and shows the DF to be as much about style and making a statement as about substance. I don't think that this camera will ever be much of a player in this market at this price point.
I don't get the attraction to phones with screens that big. It looks nice enough but it is too big. It might be a nice size for a purse but not for a pocket. It isn't that much smaller than a tablet.
The 41 megapixel number is a great one for spec-sheet warriors who judge products based on numbers but in the real world it won't mean that much. You'll never be able to match a decent camera with a fraction of the pixels. This camera will outresolve the lens by a massive amount, you'll never have any control over depth of field, and the files will be large. At this point with most cameras it is the lens that is the limiting factor and the laws of optics all but prevent a tiny cheapo lens like that from being worthy of 41 noisy megapixels. But it is a wonderful thing to brag about to your camera illiterate friends.