b craw: It is the bread and butter of DPR and its members to compare cameras based upon functionality and IQ hair-splitting; and I enjoy this nearly as much as anyone because I am fascinated by cameras. But any camera in the rough price range of the X-E2 will be a good tool in the right hands. Certainly qualitative differences do exist between cameras, and, quite appropriately, comments are made about those differences here.
My concern, as an photography instructor, is that newer photographers are too influenced by minute differences in quality and performance (this not referring to things tangibly applicable in terms of proper camera types for different situations - sports, inconspicuous street work, etc.). The visceral impact of this camera or that one in an individual's hands - that subject rightness or wrongness - is going to be more important to producing quality images/art than whether in-camera noise reduction is too heavy-handed in a particular camera. Given the advantage of better perceptive skills and concepts, a photographer will generally produce more compelling work with my Samsung NX300 than others using a full frame camera of any sort. This is, of course, is widely understood by most experienced photographers (although sometimes I do wonder if it is), but such an observation should be presented periodically to those new to the media that might otherwise feel priced out of the possibility of producing excellent photography.
I agree - all this hair splitting over IQ is over blown. What really matters about a camera - how quick it is to respond to user inputs - AF speed - are talked about only briefly and not really quantified in testing. For my type of shooting, I need fast AF speeds. After reading this review, I have no idea how the Fuji AF speed compares to say Nikon D7100. There is no quantitative test devised for that purpose.
such a pretty little body, but such ugly lenses! OK, here comes the hoard of people telling me that it doesn't matter what a camera looks like. Please, save your comments for 2008. Today - yes it does matter. I like the pancake prime, and the collapsible zoom - but other than that the other primes look like a can of Vienna Sausage.
Tootsall: I'm in the process of moving up to DSLR from Bridge and what I don't see is folks commenting on the advantages of the swivel/tilt LCD. The availability of that feature on the D5300 is almost enough to make me consider it in lieu of the D7100. Once you've used that feature you'll never want to go back to a fixed LCD for high/low/around-the-corner shots! Really nice when you've got the camera on a low tripod and don't want to lay down in the dirt to line the shot up too! Sure wish it was on the 7100 and that would be a slam-dunk.
IMO, the tilt/swivel thing is nice, but rendered not very effective because of poor live view performance. If live view had better AF performance - it might be worth it. Honestly, I hate to say it, but if you want a body that has tilt/swivel and good all around live view performance - you might have to go with another brand - like a Canon 70D, or something from m4/3.
tbcass: Given the choice of a Canon 60D, a Sony A77, a Nikon D7000 or a D5300 for the same price the older cameras are clear winners IMO. I'd rather buy older higher end technology than brand new lower end. Cameras today aren't any better than those from 2-3 years ago. It's all hype from the manufacturers to get you to waste your money.
Yup, agree. The D7100 is not light years ahead of my D7000. In fact, I see no reason to update my body to a D7100 - I don't think it offers anything that would change the way I photograph things. Nice glass - that would definitely change how I photograph things.
calijente: Like others here, I initially found #3 boring, unimaginative and pointless.
However, the more I look at it, the more I like it. Just cover the upper half of the picture with your hand and look at the lower half until you get the feeling of the place. Then do the opposite, look at the upper half after you cover the lower half. Quite two different pictures, isn’t it? But it is only one.
The new, tall, ugly and lifeless buildings look to me like an approaching tsunami that will soon cover the old world. Quite a story, I would say.
Having said that, my favorites are #7, 8 and 11, in this order.
I agree - the same thing happened to me - at first I said "what the fuzz - why is the image here". But like you I know see the contrast between the huge, high dollar towers and the street scene - really interesting - would love to see it printed wall sized.But I can't understand the inclusion of #5. Even if the composition were better (which it isn't) the colors are pushed too far and the white balance makes this girls hair kinda green. Really not a good image.
Zeisschen: DSLR is just a transition technology from film to digital. Mirrorless (or better CSC) is the only future, even Canon and Nikon have to admit that sooner or later. In 2013 mirrorless already took the crown in picture quality and equaled in sensor size (A7r) and 100% replaced the OVF (A7, E-M1). In 2014 video and AF are the last things that mirrorless will fully catch up and overtake the DSLR (actually I think AF is already better today because accuracy is more important than the last 1\100 of second a DSLR might be quicker). In 2015 CSC will surpass DSLR in market share, in another 3 years the DSLR as it exists today will probably be reduced to one pro FF body and one crop body per brand for some people who still prefer an OVF. The actual only other reason to do that is to serve people bodies for all the the lenses they still have. But most will adapt then to a CSC (without the advantage of having a smaller system).Finally in 2050 Nikon is going to release the DF mkII. It's basically the same thing but it has a video button to record 1080/30p.
Why people get all excited about the flippy mirror thing - I will never understand. It isn't a big deal. I think you are really arguing for your brand vs. Canon or Nikon - it is a thinly veiled argument. Canon and Nikon will gladly dump the mirrors and switch to mirrorless as soon as they see that the advantages of dumping the mirror outweigh keeping it. They are not married to the mirror. They have been making "mirrorless" compact cameras for over 10 years. You may like a brand that is not Canon or Nikon - that is fine. But arguing for/against a mirror is not an argument for/against Canon or Nikon.
noirdude: And Nikon didn't win any..
Nope. Do you really think in a beauty contest anyone would vote for the big bully on the block? Nikon isn't winning any beauty contest, but they might survive this changing imaging market, where Oly/Pany/Fuji - well maybe not.
febphoto: I wonder why a camera from Nikon or Nikon is favoured over a ground breaking camera like the Pentax-Ricoh K-3? Dpreview is not a biased site, is it?
I am not sure what you mean by favored? As as I know DPreview has not recommended anyone buy this camera over the K-3.
VENTURE-STAR: Yet another cheap and cheerful SLR from Nikon that has little new to offer the serious photographer who is more interesting in taking pictures than simply wearing a camera like a piece of jewellery. No doubt Nikon has already planned a future firmware update for the D3300 that will stop affordable batteries being used. Great stuff!
Scottelly: $650. That's $150 less than the D5300, and the D3300 comes with a lens. Nice work Nikon. Still . . . I wish you could make a camera that can compete on price against the Sony A65! The A65 is only $500 without a lens, and only $600 with a lens (cheaper than this slow camera). And the Sony A65 has built-in GPS and a fold-out screen, like the Nikon D5300. One more very important feature most of the Sony cameras have is built-in image stabilization (in the camera body), something that should be a serious consideration for people trying to choose what entry-level camera to buy. Frankly I'd say Sony wins for the entry level photographer who doesn't expect to spend a lot of money on lenses in the future. Sony offers a few good upgrade options too.
But if you want a Nikon, this is a really good starter camera that can be used to capture very sharp, high quality photos, I'm sure.
Sony does not have the lens range of Canon or Nikon, or m4/3. But all of the lenses I would use are available for about the same and sometimes less money. Take as an example the 16-50 f/2.8 sony lens. The equivalent lens in Canon or Nikon form will cost you much more and you won't get weather sealing like the Sony lens.I am not bashing Nikon. Nikon products are, to me, still very good. It's just that there is a legitimate argument to be made for other products too. And for someone not invested in any system who does not plan on becoming a pro who needs every focal length there is, I think the Sony SLT system is a fine system. I am sure if you split evey pixel, the D3300 will be better than the A65. But most amateurs print, in large size, very few images. So most will be viewed at screen resolution. So keeping that in mind, most potential buyers will never see the imaging potential difference between the two systems.
Gesture: Is the modern digital camera reaching its end-point.
Well, I don't see the point in spending vast sums of money on R&D for new sensor development - there is little difference now in IQ between the D7100 and the D4. You have to split pixels to tell the difference. I think the future is more portable bodies and more camera body and software features. I think we will continue to see more pro features trickle down into lower cost bodies.
I expect Nikon to survey the market and make sure they are not releasing an over-priced model that has fewer features than a model released in 2011. For people with Nikon glass, maybe this D3300 makes sense, but for people new to DSLR's - how could I recommend this body over the A65?
Yup, I agree. I think the A65 is a pretty good deal. I haven't spent a lot of time with SLT's but I have handled and briefly shot a friends A77. AF seemed on par with my D7000. I assume the A65 is about the same. In addition, I think all of these SLT's have focus peaking - WHY HASN'T NIKON DONE THIS!!! Nikon has legendary manual focus lenses that you can now pick up for a song. This feature alone (along with ai-s compatibility) would make any Nikon body worth it's weight in gold.
Interesting. I am not really into super zooms, but this one looks pretty nice. If it is cheaper than the Nikon version, I might be tempted.
asibahi: I don't get where Samsung stands in the Camera market. To me, it looks like just a strategic foot in the camera market door. If future growth comes from cameras, they can attack the market more aggressively, if not, then they'll drop it just as quickly.
The lens lineup is supposed to be good, but for some reason I have never seen adapters, or accessories, marketed made for the NX system. So is it also not taken seriously by 3rd party makers?
BTW, m4/3 achieves this miraculous 600m equiv focal length by having a smaller sensor than aps-c. So Samsung NX bodies will always have this "disadvantage" when compared to m4/3.
brownie314: This is a very interesting camera. Lots of features that are not included on other cameras. And if this thing comes in at the right price, this could be the steal of the century. If Samsung can package this body with the new 16-50 'pro' lens for less than $1200 - SOLD! I also like that they have some pancake lenses in useful ranges (they have a 30mm f/2 pancake - very nice).
yeah, I am afraid you are right.
Andy - yes and for the 0.5% of people that need 600mm - well they should look somewhere else. Or get an adapter.
peev - Samsung has a 55-200 zoomSamsung has a 16mm f/2.8 pancake primeSamsung now has an interesting body (NX30), unlike m4/3
Yes, there a still a few lenses they lack, but I like the direction they are headed.Lets see how this new body checks out. It may turn out to have better IQ than any m4/3 body.
Parappaman: "First impressions review"? After DPReview's commitment in reviewing the NX300 and NX20, it's more like a "FINAL impressions review".
I'll happily take back my words if a review of this camera ever gets published, but until then, all I know is DPReview doesn't "like" Samsung.
And what about Fuji? I know their market share is probably about as small as Samsung, maybe smaller. But they get full reviews of everything.
AlpCns2: Interesting camera. The optics are already known to be excellent to extraordinary. The sensors and resulting files are rich and beautiful according to several pros. Quite tempting, actually. And their prices are right, too.
The Samsung camera system is starting to become very attractive to me. Especially now with this body and the new 16-50 f/2 - 2.8 lens. Combine that with the 30/2 pancake and the very excellent 85/1.4 - what else do you need? And combine all of that with what seems like reasonable prices - holy crap - where do I sign up?