Previous news story    Next news story

Hands-on with the Nikon D3300 and 35mm F1.8G lens

By dpreview staff on Jan 7, 2014 at 06:48 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $646.958 deals
D3300 with 35mm F1.8G lens
1 3 4 5 6 7

D3300 with 35mm F1.8G lens

While the majority of D3300 owners won't be putting this particular lens on their camera (given the fact that a DX version costs quite a bit less), this photo illustrates the relatively small size of the 35mm F1.8G.

10
I own it
31
I want it
21
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 141
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (3 months ago)

Anyone knows the sensor, if Toshiba or Sony? Nikon is using both.

0 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (3 months ago)

Last image very interesting, the 35 f/1.8 is actually close to my older 35 f/2 D in size.

0 upvotes
febphoto
By febphoto (3 months ago)

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?

2 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (3 months ago)

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.

4 upvotes
VENTURE-STAR
By VENTURE-STAR (3 months ago)

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!

3 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (3 months ago)

"Little new to offer"?

What do you want in an entry level camera other than good picture quality, decent video and light weight? Tea making facilities? Ejector seat? A tool for taking stones out of horses hooves?

4 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (3 months ago)

wire strippers!

1 upvote
KZMike
By KZMike (3 months ago)

Is Nikon going the same way with the D3300 as the Df for their lens mount in their effort to restrict 3rd party lens use on their cameras???

0 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (3 months ago)

This is not a pro or semi-pro camera. It's a 1968 Plymouth Road Runner with a 440 cu inch engine. All powerful engine, the sensor and a basic, simple no-frills body at a reasonable price. Appreciate it for what it is.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
12 upvotes
ballwin12
By ballwin12 (3 months ago)

If this has face detection, I think I will get it as a second, compact camera.

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (3 months ago)

All current Nikons have face detection.

1 upvote
beavertown
By beavertown (3 months ago)

Only on sluggish Nikon live view mode?

3 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (3 months ago)

@beavertown:
No, it works in the viewfinder as long as it's set to AF-Auto.

1 upvote
NeilJones
By NeilJones (3 months ago)

Did you just say a "compact camera"? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

1 upvote
57even
By 57even (3 months ago)

My truck is the smallest and lightest truck in the street. Sure it has a lower towing weight than my neighbour's Focus, but hey...

3 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

Did you know that car companies like Ford/GM/Chrysler make most of their profits off trucks. Small cars lose money and are only sold to meet CAFE fleet targets. The only car makers making money on small cars are Japanese.

Similarly, no company has ever broke even or profited from their mirrorless cameras... but hey

1 upvote
Scottelly
By Scottelly (3 months ago)

$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.

9 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (3 months ago)

Add a WU-1a and a GP-1 and the D3300 doesn't looks so good price-wise when compared to the D5300. It ups the price more than $300 and you have bulky add-ons.

4 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (3 months ago)

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.

1 upvote
stroboscopic
By stroboscopic (3 months ago)

A65 was launched at US$900 body only. You really expect a new 2014 model to compete on price with a heavily discounted 2011 model?

8 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (3 months ago)

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?

3 upvotes
Lardinio
By Lardinio (3 months ago)

Sony has always brought out cheaper innovative bodies, so they can snare you with their overpriced, average lenses. It's a cheap trick and Sony is a wizard at it.

0 upvotes
brownie314
By brownie314 (3 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
artlmntl
By artlmntl (3 months ago)

The A65 is now sharply discounted as it appears to be on the way out. When introduced it was considerably more than the D3300. Also, the price of the D3300 is sure to decline after it has been on sale for a while. We can't be sure until it's properly reviewed, but this seems like a very nice little camera with a lot to recommend it.

0 upvotes
revio
By revio (3 months ago)

DPR says: "The D3300 continues to be one of the smallest and lightest digital SLRs on the market"

How can a NEW camera "continue to be one of the smallest..."???

Since it´s not been existing until now, it can´t of course...

The D3300 seems, anyway, to be a nice and capable camera, and notably smaller than its predecessor was.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
ballwin12
By ballwin12 (3 months ago)

Also, are they sure that D3300 is smaller than Canon SL1 ???

3 upvotes
EarthQuake
By EarthQuake (3 months ago)

A. The Nikon D3XXX line has always been on the small side, this is the latest in that series.
B. ballwin12 - What part about "one of the smallest" confused you? It is *one* of the smallest DSLR, I haven't seen anyone claim it is smaller than the SL1.

4 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (3 months ago)

Would like to see it compared to the Canon SL1.

5 upvotes
revio
By revio (3 months ago)

EarthQuake:

Yes, the DXXXX LINE consists of a row of similarly sized cameras, but they did not state that. They said this new camera *continues to be one of the smallest*.

Well, only words...

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (3 months ago)

Wonder how it stacks size/weight wise against Canon SL1?

2 upvotes
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (3 months ago)

D3300 is 430gm (inc. battery), and 124mm X 98mm X 76mm. SL1 is 407gm (inc. battery), and 117mm X 91mm X 69mm. So the SL1 is nearly an ounce lighter and just under 80% of the size (by volume), or just over a quarter of an inch smaller in each dimension. DPR has all this info in their camera hub.

3 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (3 months ago)

The most interesting thing about this announcement is the collapsible kit lens. Nikon is taking a page from the Leica book with this.

I'd like to see this feature on a higher end FX lens like a collapsible 16-35 f/4.

5 upvotes
klopus
By klopus (3 months ago)

More likely Nikon copied from MFT world, collapsible kit zooms are plenty there especially from Olympus.

9 upvotes
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom
By johnparas11zenfoliodotcom (3 months ago)

I am more interested in that 18-55 collapsible lens... I might ditch my nikon 18-70 if the new 18-55 is half the length of the 18-70..

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (3 months ago)

The original Leitz 50mm collapsible lenses actually collapsed, meaning that the collapsed lens was nearly flush with the body, still a great idea if the lens is small and there's no mirror.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (3 months ago)

@klopus: Considering Leica has been making collapsible kit lenses since about 1930 I'd say that MFT copied them as well.

In any case, I was commenting figuratively, not literally.

6 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (3 months ago)

Maybe Leica originated the idea, but Nikon has no need to copy anyone for this lenses. The Nikon 1 zooms are collapsible (not just the standard zoom, but also thw tele and wide angle zooms.) The release button even looks similar.

0 upvotes
JDThomas
By JDThomas (3 months ago)

@MarkInSF

Where exactly did I say Nikon COPIED Leica? It was a FIGURATIVE comment. Not a LITERAL one. I thought I spelled that out clearly enough. I was simply drawing a slight comparison.

Doesn't anybody read before posting?

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Gesture
By Gesture (3 months ago)

Is the modern digital camera reaching its end-point.

9 upvotes
pacnwhobbyist
By pacnwhobbyist (3 months ago)

Plateau: Yes. End-point: Not yet. But it will be interesting to see how everything shakes out over the next 5 years or so.

0 upvotes
new boyz
By new boyz (3 months ago)

Time to revive the film.

2 upvotes
BorisAkunin
By BorisAkunin (3 months ago)

Film is for hipsters, daguerreotype is for real men!

5 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (3 months ago)

End of development is not the same as the obsolescent.

Oh wait, in the internet age, were relevance is measured in number of posts and clicks, it is. AKA "if it doesn't generate news, it is dead."

1 upvote
brownie314
By brownie314 (3 months ago)

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.

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (3 months ago)

OK, so where's 35mm(eqv.) f2.8 for $500? You have to use 24mm 2.8D
I had one during film era but it's almost three decadas ago...Nikon still makes so many old timers I can't believe it!!!

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

Yes that's the main prime Nikon misses.
an 23mm F1.8G DX

5 upvotes
d10694
By d10694 (3 months ago)

They probably don't still make old timers as much as have a warehouse full of ones manufactured years ago that haven't been distributed or sold.

3 upvotes
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (3 months ago)

If you have the EOS M, you can have it for about $100. The 22mm F2 pancake, which is, without a doubt, the best quality-for-money lens on the market today for any camera. Given how good that lens is, you'd think Nikon and Canon would make 22mm or 23mm pancake primes for their DSLRs.

0 upvotes
Joriarty
By Joriarty (3 months ago)

@Alastair Norcross

That's not easily possible to make a 22mm pancake prime for a DSLR. Such a lens requires a retrofocal design, increasing cost and weight while decreasing quality.

DSLRs must usually have around a 44mm gap between the lens and sensor, to allow space for the mirror. Lenses with focal lengths less than that gap are harder to make because you need to tack a telephoto lens onto the end of the design.

Mirrorless cameras usually have a flange focal distance < 20mm. Ergo, much easier to make great wide primes.

1 upvote
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

Too bad that lens is wasted on the pathetic Canon sensor.

3 upvotes
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (3 months ago)

Too bad you're an idiot, BarnET.

1 upvote
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (3 months ago)

Thanks for the explanation Joriarty. I didn't know that. Yet another reason to love the M, with its great sensor.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

alastair what did Canon do for your loyalty.
They did not bring out the dual pixel 70D to the M2
They did not bring out the 11-22mm in your country
They did not bring out the M2 in your country.
They did not announce any new lenses

They abondoned your country and the system your using. And yet you are still loving them for it. Blind fanboyism if you ask me.

Comment edited 22 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Don Karner
By Don Karner (3 months ago)

I don't love Canon but I do enjoy using my Canon M. The files it creates are quite nice. Fine detail and color handling, especially for a small mirrorless camera. It is a nice complement to my newish Pana G6.

0 upvotes
Boissez
By Boissez (3 months ago)

Pentax are the only ones making such a beast. In mirror less land, however, we have boatloads of them. MFT alone has like 5 or so...

0 upvotes
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (3 months ago)

BarnET, did it ever occur to you that some people simply have honest opinions about the cameras they actually own? Probably not, because you seem to be on these forums just to work out some deep-seated insecurities you have. I have the Canon 7D and EOS M. I happen to think that both are very fine cameras indeed. In fact, if you can't get excellent pictures with these cameras, you're a pretty crappy photographer. Why should I care whether Canon has brought out a 7D2 or M2 in the US? I don't need other cameras to make great pictures. You seem to be the type who is constantly wanting new gear to compensate for the fact that you're a terrible photographer. Well, I have news for you. New gear won't cure your lack of talent, or your deep psychological problems. Therapy might help with the latter. Perhaps a photography course for the former? Or perhaps you should take up a different hobby.

1 upvote
fakuryu
By fakuryu (3 months ago)

@Joriarty

Pentax has a 21mm f3.2 pancake prime and is only 140g

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (3 months ago)

This would be a great soccer-mom camera, or a fun disposable camera for a pro with a lot of Nikon lenses.

1 upvote
Sean65
By Sean65 (3 months ago)

Soccer mum camera? What is a soccer mum? lol

1 upvote
expoboy52
By expoboy52 (3 months ago)

Soccer-mom is an American term for 30-something-year-old women who drive their children to soccer games ignoring all posted traffic signs and speed limits and who think their darlings can do no wrong.

14 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (3 months ago)

My wife is a typical NY suburban soccer mom, and having traffic accident every 2 years. LOL.

4 upvotes
sixtiesphotographer
By sixtiesphotographer (3 months ago)

Now she can have a nice camera to photograph the accident.

12 upvotes
Sean65
By Sean65 (3 months ago)

@ expoboy52. lol Thanks for the explanation. We have ignorant mums like that here in the UK but i unaware we have a name for them yet. They let there kids run around starbucks like its some kind of playground and if you say anything to them they bite your head off.

5 upvotes
Eric Hensel
By Eric Hensel (3 months ago)

Sean65...perhaps you should buy a Starbucks with your old buddies, and not let any of the riff-raff in.

1 upvote
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (3 months ago)

A little camera that's actually worth it. Nice!

6 upvotes
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (3 months ago)

This isn't a little camera. The Panasonic GM1 is a little camera.

24 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (3 months ago)

This IS a little camera. Much smaller than the D7100 (which is about 50% heavier), and that's much smaller than the D800 (which is a big camera, but nowhere near as big as the D4). Just because the D3300 isn't as little as some other small cameras doesn't mean it isn't small. There are smaller cameras than that Panasonic GM1 too, so I could call that a camera that isn't small. Just take a look at the Pentax Q10 . . . or the Cobi 1.

0 upvotes
completelyrandomstuff
By completelyrandomstuff (3 months ago)

What I would like to see is a digital version of one of those Pentax Auto 110 cameras. It is 10% smaller in each dimension than Olympus E-PM2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_Auto_110

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

If size really is an priority this isn't the best compromise. The gm-1 and rx100 are the kings there. Nevertheless nikon brings some good value here.

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (3 months ago)

If small size is the main thing you want in a camera why not just get the Minox DCC 14? It weighs 4oz and measures in at just 82mm x 67mm x 46mm.

Maybe that will cure all your tiny camera fantasies.

3 upvotes
Carlos Loff
By Carlos Loff (3 months ago)

A camera that only shoots up to 1/4000 can be a good camera and all one may need but can never be a great camera

2 upvotes
kenmof61
By kenmof61 (3 months ago)

Not so. Other than perhaps fast moving subjects, how many photographs are actually taken at the maximum or should that be minimum shutter speed?

9 upvotes
tt321
By tt321 (3 months ago)

A faster speed extends the exposure range which could have many practical uses. For instance it helps avoid having to use an ND filter when you need to shoot at a wider aperture for DoF purposes, when you are already at the lowest ISO. Whether this has anything to do with 'great' cameras depends on how the word 'great' is defined.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
PBR Streetgang
By PBR Streetgang (3 months ago)

I agree, the Pentax 645D is pure trash! :-)

18 upvotes
Sean65
By Sean65 (3 months ago)

I agree as well. All those Leicas are pure crap with their paltry 1/4000th max shutter. Puhhh!

8 upvotes
imax2k2
By imax2k2 (3 months ago)

That ooh so much, but one stop, someone with a lot of lenses surely has some filters lying around.

0 upvotes
John Motts
By John Motts (3 months ago)

D3, D3S, D700 & others have 1/8000 shutter speed but only have minimum ISO 200.

So these aren't great cameras?

3 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (3 months ago)

I am a pro with years and years of shooting behind, and I doubt I've ever needed or used 1/8000. Even though I've seen that marking on my cameras. So it must really be a dirty shame not to have it in your camera. A sing of being a complete and stupid amateur. Shame on me too, a fool, who knows nothing about photography. Nothing, not even a 1/8000.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
attomole
By attomole (3 months ago)

that right nobody ever took a great picture with a Leica before the M9, or with a Hassleblad or linhoff

1 upvote
JDThomas
By JDThomas (3 months ago)

!/8000 is a MUST these days. Everyone shoots fast primes wide open all the time. Bokeh or die.

3 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (3 months ago)

1/8000 second is like 25,600 ISO; cute, clever, but...why?

0 upvotes
Scottelly
By Scottelly (3 months ago)

Wow . . . what a statement. I suspect that most of the famous photographers have never shot a photo at a shutter speed faster than 1/4000 second. Please tell me how the 1/8000 second shutter speed is SO important. Sure, it's an entry level camera, so it will never be a pro camera. So. What are you really trying to say?

0 upvotes
Alastair Norcross
By Alastair Norcross (3 months ago)

I remember when 1/2000 was considered really fast on an SLR. My first SLR had a top speed of a 1/500, and my next one 1/1000. When I got the A-1, with a top speed of 1/2000, I thought "why on earth would anyone want to shoot that fast?". Now I do use faster speeds sometimes, but I've never gone above 1/4000 on my 7D, except when I forgot to dial down the ISO after going from indoors to outdoors.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

people seem to have never heard of ND filters.........
Cures the 1/4000th shutterspeed problem in an instant.
Well it takes about 10 seconds to get them on your lens so cures it in 10 seconds.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
samfan
By samfan (3 months ago)

Any idea if the camera can turn on and off automatically depending on whether the lens is locked? Does the camera refuse to take pictures when the lens is locked? I don't know, I feel this design is kinda weird for DSLRs.

It works for N1 because the N1 cameras switch on automatically when the lens is extended, but with DSLRs I'm kinda used to just flip a switch and have it immediately be ready to take pics without further fumbling.

Also the lens name is confusing... G II, which reminds of the older pre-VR G II. They could call it G III or add some descriptor.

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Karroly
By Karroly (3 months ago)

I think you are not obliged to lock the lens if you want to get ready to shoot quickly...

3 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (3 months ago)

The lens retraction mechanism doesn't turn the camera on or off, but the camera will give a warning when it's retracted and refuse to take pictures.

The naming scheme is entirely logical (at least as far as lenses ever are): this is Nikon's fourth iteration of the 18-55mm kit zoom, but only the second with VR. The full history goes something like:

AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II (this lens)

AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (D60 kit zoom)

AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II (D40 kit zoom)

AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G (D50 kit zoom)

2 upvotes
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (3 months ago)

In terms of capability in IQ, there is nothing else to ask for since it is already comparable with its brothers, and clearly ahead of its competition.

Yet, the sensor is overkill for almost all lenses except one. My point is, this sensor would be excellent for a fixed, prime lens camera like the Coolpix A.

3 upvotes
Tom Nokin
By Tom Nokin (3 months ago)

Assuming the new sensor is as good or better than 5300, professional image quality in bridge camera size. Not the best for all, but the best for the rest. Great camera!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (3 months ago)

I would imagine that the 3300 and that 35mm 1.8 would produce excellent IQ.

In normal light, it is all the IQ anyone ever needs.

Quite why people buy a D800 for snapping the kids at Disney world and viewing it on ipad baffles me when this camera would do a better job.

We are a weird bunch.

19 upvotes
12345ccr
By 12345ccr (3 months ago)

placebo effect, just like phones (iPhone 5S for example) the more you spend, the "better" the product you'll get!

6 upvotes
konanon
By konanon (3 months ago)

Because they can, that's why. Why get a Nissan GT-R or Porsche 911 when all your doing is going to the mall or grocery store? Because they can.

5 upvotes
Cane
By Cane (3 months ago)

Who are these people that take all pictures in perfect light? It's never dusk, they never go indoors, never winter, never cloudy, never night.

8 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (3 months ago)

" 52.5mm on a DX camera such as the D3300. The lens is surprisingly light and compact."

And surprisingly expensive.

10 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (3 months ago)

Nikon's mission as of the last few years is to systematically raised lens prices by HUGE amounts, because they don't have enough camera customers.

0 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

58mm F1.4G $1599
nuff said. good thing Sigma announced their 50mm Art.
It will probably smoke the 58mm

0 upvotes
JEROME NOLAS
By JEROME NOLAS (3 months ago)

It say z "Hands-on with the Nikon D3300 and 35mm F1.8G lens" but most pics are with 18-55mm lens...

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (3 months ago)

All of the pics are hands-on with the D3300. The last two are with the 35mm f/1.8G.

2 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (3 months ago)

I'm confused. You didn't use the D3300 to take pictures OF the D3300?

I'm concerned with the sharpness and rendering of the 35/1.8 FX. You don't have any feeling for that yet?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (3 months ago)

The lens was only announced today, and we've only had a brief hands-on at Nikon's stand at CES. So we really can't say anything at all about its image quality.

Comment edited 50 seconds after posting
1 upvote
InTheMist
By InTheMist (3 months ago)

@Andy Thanks. Looking forward to some samples of the 35/1.8G FX.

0 upvotes
PBR Streetgang
By PBR Streetgang (3 months ago)

This article is literally "hands on" and the pictures prove it. What? You wanted DPR to actually use the products? C'mon, man!

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (3 months ago)

We can't (and would not) take pictures with newly announced, pre-production cameras or lenses. It's extremely unusual that we get the opportunity to do much more that fake pictures of the products and record handling impressions.

0 upvotes
PBR Streetgang
By PBR Streetgang (3 months ago)

Hey Barney: Just pulling your leg. ;-)

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (3 months ago)

By 'fake' of course I mean 'take' :)

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (3 months ago)

@ Barney
Freudian? :-)

1 upvote
DimensionSeven
By DimensionSeven (3 months ago)

I have 1 questions that neither the press release nor this hands on preview answer regarding the new kit lens:

Does the front element rotate while focusing and zooming?

Thank you, DpReview!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
molnarcs
By molnarcs (3 months ago)

99.99% is that it doesn't. I don't know any modern Nikkor lenses where the front element rotates while focusing or zooming.

1 upvote
Andy Westlake
By Andy Westlake (3 months ago)

@DimensionSeven - All the indications are that the front element doesn't rotate on focusing. Crucially the 18-55mm VR II uses a new HB-69 lens hood, which is petal-type - this will only work if the hood's bayonet mount doesn't rotate.

(@molnarcs - one modern Nikkor lens with a rotating front element is the previous model 18-55mm VR.)

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (3 months ago)

My nikkor 55-300mm rotates.

0 upvotes
DimensionSeven
By DimensionSeven (3 months ago)

Wow thanks! Looks like a worthy entry level kit lens upgrade then. Looks smaller, lighter and takes CPLs at least. Hope it's sharper as well, might get one then.

2 upvotes
Carlos Loff
By Carlos Loff (3 months ago)

Nikon - Sop the trash, launch the best cameras you can produce

2 upvotes
12345ccr
By 12345ccr (3 months ago)

you mean a 7D mark 2?

0 upvotes
Carlos Loff
By Carlos Loff (3 months ago)

I dont see that one neither - Yet the K-3 has it all

Comment edited 21 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

The K3 hasn't got an proper review here:P

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (3 months ago)

Then buy a K-3 so we don't have to listen to any more whining. :-)

The D610 has much better IQ than the K-3 and the D7100 is a better all around camera if you shoot video. No moire/aliasing issues that plague nearly every DSLR except the 5D Mk III and extraordinarily good low-light ability. Lens lineup between Pentax and Nikon? I've used both systems for years. There is no comparison.

11 upvotes
RichRMA
By RichRMA (3 months ago)

Nikon has priced itself into a corner. While it's nice to have a sub-$2000 FF, there is now no room for a pro-bodied DX camera. Instead, you got the D7100, which isn't much better body-wise than a warmed-over D90.

0 upvotes
Danlo
By Danlo (3 months ago)

I dont understand, WHERE is the hands on?? Theres just one image with the 35mm lens.. Dont get it..

9 upvotes
Kodachrome200
By Kodachrome200 (3 months ago)

there hand is clearly on it in the picture :-P

19 upvotes
12345ccr
By 12345ccr (3 months ago)

yep, you got me

0 upvotes
shigzeo ?
By shigzeo ? (3 months ago)

@Kodacrhome200: the hand is clearly _under_ the camera. ;)

1 upvote
jtan163
By jtan163 (3 months ago)

Thats not a D400!

;-)

20 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (3 months ago)

Nikon doesn't care about the D400. Did canon release a 7D mark2 ? The "pro-DX" market might just be a non-existent one. The 70D might be 90% of what a user would need from a pro-DX, similarly, the D7100 to a D400. Nowadays specs sell cameras, not tactile experiences.

9 upvotes
Jake64
By Jake64 (3 months ago)

The difference between the current D7100 and the hypothetical D400 would be too close to warrant Nikon spending money on developing and having few people buy it. If there was a D400 with the DX 16 mp sensor, better ISO performance, same shape, same size and AF, what would you make of the D7100? Sure the D400 would be more expensive but then it would approach the D610 territory and would cannibalize that camera. Same thing if the D610 had a great AF system, who would buy the D800? If the D800 could shoot 8fps, who would buy the D4?

9 upvotes
Studor13
By Studor13 (3 months ago)

Just paint over D7100 with D400 and move on.

Really tired of this "Where's the D400?".

17 upvotes
itsastickup
By itsastickup (3 months ago)

People are getting abit confused here. A D400 would be a semi pro edition of the D7xx, with a robust body and fast AF.

That's sufficiently different that people are still asking for it.

9 upvotes
JakeB
By JakeB (3 months ago)

Buy a D7100 or a D610.

Case closed.

Thing about old folks -- they don't like change. :)

1 upvote
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (3 months ago)

I believe D7100 has a robust body and fast AF. So?

1 upvote
RichRMA
By RichRMA (3 months ago)

Nikon caters to the U.S. market. The U.S. market cannot wrap its head around the idea that a smaller sensor (DX) camera could cost say $1799 at inception and be as good (all aspects of performance taken into account) as getting the D610 FF camera at same price.

0 upvotes
codeNsnap
By codeNsnap (3 months ago)

damn d400..have given up on it now

0 upvotes
Revenant
By Revenant (3 months ago)

The D7100 and D610 are both consumer bodies. The D400 would be a pro-grade body (better build quality, ergonomics, AF, buffer). Many wildlife shooters would prefer a crop sensor body of that calibre, rather than using a FF body.

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (3 months ago)

In the first paragraph you put 1.2 fx prime. I'm assuming it should be 1.8 prime.

0 upvotes
Richard Shih
By Richard Shih (3 months ago)

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed.

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (3 months ago)

Of coarse. Easy mistake given there were 2 F1.2 lenses released. I actually didn't even know if I was correct! Lol

1 upvote
M Jesper
By M Jesper (3 months ago)

Very coarse, very coarse indeed.

1 upvote
Debankur Mukherjee
By Debankur Mukherjee (3 months ago)

Why not have a 18-55 with internal focusing.....dont like the lens getting out so much while zooming...........

0 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (3 months ago)

So they could make it much smaller. Hello, hello is anybody in there?

11 upvotes
BarnET
By BarnET (3 months ago)

it's a bog standard kit lens. Can't expect an IF desgin. I just hope it's sharp stopped down a bit 24mp on Apsc is pretty demanding.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
1 upvote
itsastickup
By itsastickup (3 months ago)

IF often has the disadvantage of reducing the focal length on closer objects, often significantly. At 55mm it may well not really do the equiv of 85mm.

1 upvote
RichRMA
By RichRMA (3 months ago)

Remember when a kit lens that cost 2x what a normal kit lens does had the build quality and (more or less) optical quality to back it up? The 18-70mm Nikon.

0 upvotes
Kim Seng
By Kim Seng (3 months ago)

I have an AFS 10-24 mm lens. Will be very nice to buy this of this camera to use it for taking landscaping photography. 24.2 MP sensor does a lot of Wow factor.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 141