wire strippers!

This is a beginners camera, for people like me, that takes good quality images, at a reasonable price. Serious photographers, if that is what you are, should refrain from making snide comments.

Only on sluggish Nikon live view mode?

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

Would like to see it compared to the Canon SL1.

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.

@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.

Time to revive the film.

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."

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.

@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.

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

Too bad you're an idiot, BarnET.

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.

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.

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

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

@ 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

So these aren't great cameras?

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

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

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.

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.

@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.)

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

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.

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?

Just paint over D7100 with D400 and move on.

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

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.

Buy a D7100 or a D610.

Case closed.

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

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