# Nikon D3300



## goodguy (Jan 7, 2014)

And so Nikon continues its trend of no AA filter on its cameras

Nikon's D3300 DSLR captures detailed, filter-free photos for $650


----------



## Braineack (Jan 7, 2014)

Was it worth coming out with an entirely new entry-level model line just for the lack of an AA filter (that these users won't benefit from/notice) and a reinvented 18-55?

The trend really seems to be, every time they have the slightest improvement they could add to a camera, just release it as a new model line.

At least you know the D3200 we be on Black Friday sales in 2014...


----------



## goodguy (Jan 7, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Was it worth coming out with an entirely new entry-level model line just for the lack of an AA filter (that these users won't benefit from/notice) and a reinvented 18-55?
> 
> The trend really seems to be, every time they have the slightest improvement they could add to a camera, just release it as a new model line.
> 
> At least you know the D3200 we be on Black Friday sales in 2014...



We all know to truly get the advantage of a camera with no AA filter you need very good glass, I dont see the average user of a D3300 getting really good glass that will cost many times the value of its camera.
If I was in the market for a good basic DSLR I dont think I would pay the extra cash for the D3300 and go for a discounted D3200 or even D5100


----------



## amolitor (Jan 7, 2014)

Well, what are they supposed to do when they make a modest change to a camera? Just release it as the same thing?

That sounds awesome. A used market full of Nikon 3100s all with various combinations of features. A product line consisting of one thing: A Nikon Whatsit which contains whatever the hell set of features we're in love with today! What fun!

Nikon has well established that when the leave the first digit alone and change some of the later ones, we're looking at modest changes to essentially the same camera. It's like a minor version number, but without the annoying dots.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 7, 2014)

goodguy said:


> We all know to truly get the advantage of a camera with no AA filter you need very good glass



Most common fallacy in cameras, I swear. Anything that increases system sharpness increases system sharpness. You'll get sharper pictures with a lensbaby, a kit lens, or a wildly expensive prime. I think stripping the AA filters is a bit of a gimmick, but it seems to increase sharpness. The gimmick part is that more sharpness isn't as valuable as we think.


----------



## psran (Jan 7, 2014)

goodguy said:


> We all know to truly get the advantage of a camera with no AA filter you need very good glass, I dont see the average user of a D3300 getting really good glass that will cost many times the value of its camera. If I was in the market for a good basic DSLR I dont think I would pay the extra cash for the D3300 and go for a discounted D3200 or even D5100



I think the Strategy  is to Trap less knowledgeable Beginner just wanting to Buy a new DSLR. The Salesman gets to talk about selling points like AA filter, Expeed-4 processor, 24 MP, etc which will not help the Amateur in his pics but he won't know and will end up paying extra money for Useless features


----------



## runnah (Jan 7, 2014)

A bargin for the specs and the price.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 7, 2014)

amolitor said:


> Well, what are they supposed to do when they make a modest change to a camera? Just release it as the same thing?



What's the point of these modest changes and new model lines?  Going from a 14MP to a 24MP sensor was not a modest improvement (3100 to 3200).  That's an understandable change. But there's really no advantage of the D3300 over the D3200 besides being able to shoot panoramas like a cell phone; which is really just a firmware upgrade and then they removed the AA screen and slapped a new number on it.  I just don't quite get it.

So now as of Feb, Nikon will be selling _new_ the D3100, D3200, as well as the D5100, D5200, D90, D7000, D300s and D600--all which have at least one other body that supersedes them. Just seems like an odd move to me.

And this BF we saw a huge surge in people purchasing D7000s, D5100s, and D3100s. Models that are very old, the D7000 and D3100 are a 2010 camera and the D5100 a 2011, and like I said, all being superseded by at least one more model line. It just seems like a way for Nikon to sell the same product at a higher price tag without actually having to put effort into making a new product.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 7, 2014)

Braineack said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Well, what are they supposed to do when they make a modest change to a camera? Just release it as the same thing?
> ...



Personally I'm thrilled, in fact the more cameras they can release with new model numbers the better.  Droves of people will be rushing to upgrade to get the latest and greatest, they'll be putting their old equipment on Ebay, and the prices on all the used stuff goes down just a bit more.

So I'm personally hoping for a D3300R (Red version), A D3300A (put the AA fliter back in so people can keep debating that topic endlessly) and maybe even a D3300x - you wouldn't really have to do anything to the x model, people will buy it just because it's got an x on the end.. lol.

Nope, I'm all for as many Nikon releases this year as I can get, just helps drive down prices in the used market when folks who think you absolutely always have to have the latest model rush out to upgrade.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 7, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Nope, I'm all for as many Nikon releases this year as I can get, just helps drive down prices in the used market when folks who think you absolutely always have to have the latest model rush out to upgrade.



You think I would have been able to get my D600 without the release of the D600, I mean D610?

As a nikon user already, I'd like to see effort put elsewhere, but it's understandable that the focus is on capturing new users, but I dont see where this D3300 will put someone over the edge over the D3200 or another comparably priced competitor's model.


----------



## valvestem (Jan 7, 2014)

Compare Nikon and their rapid introduction of new models to Apple if you will.  Once all the people have one of the latest, wait a while and introduce a "newer/improved" model with a few more bells and whistles.  I could not keep up with MacIntosh years ago, and it looks like I will not be able to keep up with Nikon these days.  But, I have what I want now, and see no need to "upgrade" anyway.


----------



## SnappingShark (Jan 7, 2014)

*hic* a glass is a glass and no AA filter gonna change that.

OK, Alcoholics Anonymous stuff aside, what's an AA filter?


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 7, 2014)

BrightByNature said:


> *hic* a glass is a glass and no AA filter gonna change that.
> 
> OK, Alcoholics Anonymous stuff aside, what's an AA filter?



I'm sure others can better explain it but I believe the AA filter is designed to prevent Moire. I think it's a aging dinosaur with modern DSLRs but not sure. I know my D7100 doesn't come with one and I did fine using my old 18-55mm kit lens on it while I waited for my 28-70mm 2.8.


----------



## Mach0 (Jan 7, 2014)

5fps? Lol whatttttt?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2014)

runnah said:


> A bargin for the specs and the price.



I agree...a LOT of camera for the price. Good video specs, 5 frames per second, the new panoramic mode, new processor, new collapsible barrel 18-55mm VR kit lens, no AA filter...more megapixels than in any Canon camera at any price...fully buzzword compliant for people who buy cameras on-line or by comparing spec sheets...

The low-end d-slrs are the ones that sell in the highest volumes, and the camera makers iterate them VERY rapidly these days.

As I pointed out in the Nikon D4s thread--the MSRP of $249 for the new collapsible barrel kit lens seems like a nod to Nikon's dealer network. I think that price for ANY kind of 18-55 kit lens is a bone for the dealers.


----------



## sifelaver (Jan 7, 2014)

The lack of AA filter and faster fps are great. As is the super travel friendly lens. Would have been nice if they built in wifi and gps.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jan 7, 2014)

Wifi & GPS?  Rut roh...


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 7, 2014)

Derrel said:


> The low-end d-slrs are the ones that sell in the highest volumes, and the camera makers iterate them VERY rapidly these days.



Yes sir, but do you think these Rapid advancements on the lower end market will ultimately cause one model line to cancel out the other? Example, like the D3000's becoming more advance than a D5000/D5100 and even a D5200.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The low-end d-slrs are the ones that sell in the highest volumes, and the camera makers iterate them VERY rapidly these days.
> ...



No. In the good/better/best marketing scheme, the "middle model" has the flip-out LCD screen, which is the feature the buyers can focus in on, and use as a rationalization for buying THAT model. Neither the 3xxx nor the 7xxx models have the flip-screen. The 3xxx, 5xxx, and the 7xxx all currently have the same MP count, 24 million pixels. 

Nikon reserves the FPS Synch flash and remote commander flash capabilities for higher-end bodies, since buyers of the lowest-level cameras are unlikely to want or need those features, and it creates yet another layer of separation. Nikon will always continue the good/better/best differentiation I think.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 7, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Was it worth coming out with an entirely new entry-level model line just for the lack of an AA filter (that these users won't benefit from/notice) and a reinvented 18-55?



Not entirely true, this new 3300 packs a whole lot of new tech inside it. It is well worth every penny. 


If you're a starter photograper and you are looking for the best entry level camera available, then look no further. With the d3300, you've hit scrooge mcduck's vault central.


----------



## sifelaver (Jan 7, 2014)

Even for non starter photographers it looks like a great camera. Since it has no AA filter I think it would make for a great second body to my D7100.


----------



## runnah (Jan 7, 2014)

When did AA filters become a thing?


----------



## Tailgunner (Jan 7, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> Wifi & GPS? Rut roh...




WiFi is going to be on the D3400 and GPS is on the D3500 



Derrel said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



OIC, the Flip LED screen is set for the D4000 which will bridge the D3000's with the D5000's


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2014)

runnah said:


> When did AA filters become a thing?



Well, back when we had LOW megapixel count sensors, pixels were pretty much, well, HUGE, and anti-aliasing filters were VERY needed. I remember the Kodak DCS 760...one of the earliest full-frame 24x36 MP sensor, 6 megapixels...it had a lot of moire issues on lace, veils, nettings, and many woven fabrics. Once we got into sensors with much,much higher MP count, like say 18 MP on the Leica M8's crop-sensor, the camera designers figured out that, hey...anti-aliasing filters are no longer actually "necessary". Nikon later, in the D800e, developed some type of AA-canceling filter system. ANd since then, it's become fashionable to eliminate the anti-aliasing filter.

That one fellow's Epic SHootout video, between the Canon 70D and the Nikon D7100 shows HORRIBLE moire effects on the 70D's video footage, a camera which has an AA filter, and then he shows side by side video from Nikon's D7100,with NO AA-filter, and it has almost no moire. Like sooo many things in the digital imaging realm, what used to be a problem (noise, low resolution, stair-stepping AKA "the jaggies" on diagonal lines, weird color moire, and so on) has now for the most part faded into the past. I'm not sure, but I 'think' the higher MP count sensors and smaller pixels are one of the things that have basically, eliminated the need for an anti-aliasing filter. It's one of the things we USED TO KNOW was "necessary", and before the D800e actually hit the streets, people were warning about potential moire...but it never was an issue...same with the D7100...moire is not a problem.


----------



## amolitor (Jan 8, 2014)

AA filters are absolutely necessary! There is no doubt about it. The math is clear.

An AA filter, though, is just a low pass filter. It does not let extremely high levels of detail -- more detail than the sensor can capture -- through. Now that the sensors are smacking up against overall system limits, it's no longer necessary to insert one, most of the time. The overall system will make sure that not too much detail gets through to the sensor.

Lens resolution and aperture diffraction effects make an adequate AA filter now, for most uses, so we mostly don't need one built-in.


----------



## filo (Feb 12, 2015)

So I just bought my first DSLR. Coming from Canon Powershot G10, this camera feels a lot more robust, heavier... and "professional". I also feel more important when holding it for sure 

Is it normal for every dslr that the sound of shutter shooting is so loud? At first I thought that this was the sound of camera and there is an option to turn it off. Its past midnight now, everyone is asleep and I feel that with every click I do my neighbours are turning in their bed cursing.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 12, 2015)

filo said:


> So I just bought my first DSLR. Coming from Canon Powershot G10, this camera feels a lot more robust, heavier... and "professional". I also feel more important when holding it for sure
> 
> Is it normal for every dslr that the sound of shutter shooting is so loud? At first I thought that this was the sound of camera and there is an option to turn it off. Its past midnight now, everyone is asleep and I feel that with every click I do my neighbours are turning in their bed cursing.


Is this a joke ?
Bringing from the dead an old post of mine about a Nikon D3300 telling us you got an extremely old point and shoot (NOT DSLR) from Canon.
How is one connected to the other ?

I used to own the Canon G10, had it for almost 4 years, good camera as long as there are good lighting condition but its horrible in low light.
Sold it about 2 years ago and got the Canon G15, a HUGE improvement!!!


----------



## filo (Feb 13, 2015)

No, i bought d3300. I was referreing that my previous camera was Canon g10.

So far I am very pleased with it. This image was taken when zooming high above the ground, and it came out really sharp
http://s12.postimg.org/c2b49t9n1/ocenasica.jpg


----------



## goodguy (Feb 13, 2015)

filo said:


> No, i bought d3300. I was referreing that my previous camera was Canon g10.
> 
> So far I am very pleased with it. This image was taken when zooming high above the ground, and it came out really sharp
> http://s12.postimg.org/c2b49t9n1/ocenasica.jpg


Oh, my bad, misunderstood.
The D3300 is a vast improvement over the G10, just a world apart, enjoy your new camera!


----------



## bigal1000 (Feb 13, 2015)

robbins.photo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...


Not me I'm still using a Canon 5d I'm going to upgrade to a 5Ds MKIII in a couple of years.


----------

