# It's official... new Nikon product



## shaunly (Aug 18, 2010)

Nikon Announces New Lenses and D3100 Camera  The Phoblographer

They finally make a 24-120 f4!!! I've been wondering why it took them so long. Retail for only $1050! Can't wait to try this baby out.


----------



## Francis E. Marchiona (Aug 19, 2010)

That camera ain't too hawt :er:


----------



## shaunly (Aug 19, 2010)

Francis E. Marchiona said:


> That camera ain't too hawt :er:



are you serious? Did you read the specs?
14MP
*100-3200*ISO
*AF *video 1080P
new 11 point AF

on paper, it's seems like it's already better then the D90! I might just buy one for the video option now that it has AF.


----------



## shaunly (Aug 19, 2010)

Here's the press release: http://thephoblographer.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/d3100-press-release-final.pdf


----------



## JamesMason (Aug 19, 2010)

yuck another plastic pocket sized video recorder from nikon.


----------



## shaunly (Aug 19, 2010)

JamesMason said:


> yuck another plastic pocket sized video recorder from nikon.



yes it is plastic, that's because it's their entry line camera. What's your point? :er:


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Aug 19, 2010)

My Thoughts:

D3100-
I'm excited about this! My girlfriend is growing tired of the D70, and this seems like a perfect replacement. She wants video and a big screen, I want cheap. Bingo! I'm a huge fan of the rocker switch below the dial, LOVED that on my GF1. If the sensor is the same as the NEX3/5, than that's great. That sensor kicks butt for noise on DX. Too bad the NEX lenses are total sh*t for what they are. I was never a big fan of the D3000, if this camera operates faster and the video is good, she might have one at Christmas. 


85mm f/1.4- 
24G, 50G, 85G, all at f/1.4. Sweet Baby Jesus that would be beautiful. It'd be like the "new holy trinity"! The 85mm f/1.8D is one of the sharpest lenses i've ever used, if this stacks up and the bokeh is rich like the 24G, it'll be in the bag. I'll have to see what that lens is going to be with my work discount 

28-300VR-
I've never been a huge fan of the 18-200, and if I want an 11x zoom i'd get the Olympus 14-150 (i won an E-PL1 through work, might swap it out for an E-P1 though). Could be a fun one to rent for a weekend just for curiosities sake.

24-120 f/4 VR-
Before I started my addiction to primes, I wanted this so bad. This one falls into the same area as the 28-300. Might be fun to rent for a weekend just to see how it handles.

55-300VR-
If it's as good as the 70-300VR on DX, i'd get it with the D3100 for my girlfriend so she could shoot birds around the farm (she's gotten surprisingly close with her 18-70)


----------



## MrLogic (Aug 19, 2010)

Sw1tchFX said:


> My Thoughts:
> 
> 
> 85mm f/1.4-
> 24G, 50G, 85G, all at f/1.4. Sweet Baby Jesus that would be beautiful. It'd be like the "new holy trinity"!



Except the 50G is horrible at f/1.4. I only use mine at f/2.8 and beyond. It needs a redesign, IMO.


----------



## Overread (Aug 19, 2010)

A 24-120mm sounds very interesting indeed, if its highgrade enough it would be a very sweet walk around lens, esp for those that want just a little more reach. Might be more suited to fullframe over crop sensor (since 24mm is not that wide on crop) though with a 10-20mm or similar it would be an effective 2 lens combo.

The 28-300mm is an interesting choice indeed - canon make one (at a much higher price in their L range) and it is one of the poorer sellers. With a $1000+price point I do wonder which market this lens will settle into. Canon has shown that a lens like that dosn't do that well at the high end of the market and I think nikon are risking it in the midrange market - that said nikon has less long range lenses in their midrange price bracket so it might even out.


----------



## NateS (Aug 19, 2010)

shaunly said:


> Francis E. Marchiona said:
> 
> 
> > That camera ain't too hawt :er:
> ...



Seriously?  I think it looks nice, but better than a D90?? I think the lack of dedicated buttons and an AF motor would make it still inferior.  Usability is a big factor that is often overlooked as a minor convenience.  I know that the D3100 and D90 are in different categories, but that's my point as to why I think the 3100 is still not better than the D90 line.

I think this is a great update to the D3000...which I didn't think was all that impressive or worth a buy.  Plastic body is expected and ISO 100-3200 means nothing until we see how it performs at those isos....who knows...1600-3200 could be unusable (unlikely but still a thought).  

4 megapixel increase is nice....hopefully the D90 update will see the same increase to a 16megapixel sensor.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 19, 2010)

My thoughts are... 

Bah, waiting for Canon to tell me first. 

I'll get back to you


----------



## KmH (Aug 19, 2010)

shaunly said:


> .... new 11 point AF....


Nope - the same several year old Multi-CAM 1000 that's been in the D3000/D5000/D90. The specs don't claim any cross-type sensors though, which would be a step backwards.

For me the big deal is the contrast-detect focusing for the video.



> *Live View Lens servo *
> Autofocus (AF): Single-servo AF (AF-S);
> full-time-servo AF (AF-F)
> Manual focus (MF)
> ...


----------



## boomer (Aug 19, 2010)

This is huge news for people who really like the video capabilities in DSLRs. the new D3100 now uses the H.264 video codec which is great. video quality will be much better and there should be no more JELLO shaking problems as in the d90, D5000 and D300s! This will put Nikon where they need to be when people are considering a video DSLR. ALSO, people now know the H.264 codec will be used in the new D90 replacement and I'm sure the D700 replacement. :thumbup:

I am also excited to see how the new 24-120 f/4 does! I had the old 24-120 VR and really liked it (although its performance of sharpness was nothing to talk about). If it's what it should be i would consider getting rid of my 24-70 f/2.8 for it.


----------



## ann (Aug 19, 2010)

yes , i have already called my dealer to let me know when they get a 24-120f4 in so i can test it out . I have been looking at different options for a "travel lens" and depending on the test results this might be useful. Would i love a 2.8 at these focal lengths; of course, but don't think that will happen.


----------



## benlonghair (Aug 19, 2010)

The 55-300 interests me. The lens that is most frequently on my camera is the 70-300VR and 70 is a little long sometimes. Might be worth trying out.


----------



## Francis E. Marchiona (Aug 19, 2010)

I don't see why they try to sell video capabilities in a DSLR...like it's some great, amazing feature. Wtf do I need that for? I'm not a cinematographer...I'm buying a DSLR, for like...photography -_-


----------



## Markw (Aug 19, 2010)

I agree, and I own a D90.  Does anyone know if they finally got rid of the 5 min time frame?  This would be amazing.  Also, I whole-heartedly believe if theyre going to have a 1080p full-HD video camera, the camera should have two memory cards with the capability of designating videos to a specific one.  Full HD video takes up alot of room on the memory card.  I love the D90's video, in that it has video, but I have only ever used it twice.  I would trade it for more AF points for better tracking, more MPs, faster burst rate, better ISO capabilities, _anything _that makes a *Still-Photography Camera* better.  Sure, full HD video is nifty, but I still see it as something better suited for pocket-size cameras for some reason?  I dont know, but there are better things on my mind that I would _love_ to see in a camera than video...

Mark


----------



## eurostar (Aug 20, 2010)

24-120F4 is good but the price might stopped me from purchasing
Add a few hundred u can get 24-70 F2.8 although the new one have VRII
But need to see more review  in PQ before we can comment


----------



## JamesMason (Aug 20, 2010)

> Live View Lens servo
> Autofocus (AF): Single-servo AF (AF-S);
> full-time-servo AF (AF-F)
> Manual focus (MF)
> ...



and i want any of this crap on my slr why ?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 20, 2010)

Dang, I'm bummed about the price of the new D3100...I was hoping it was going to be three easy payments of just $49.95. Order now!


----------



## shaunly (Aug 20, 2010)

Francis E. Marchiona said:


> I don't see why they try to sell video capabilities in a DSLR...like it's some great, amazing feature. Wtf do I need that for? I'm not a cinematographer...I'm buying a DSLR, for like...photography -_-



I'm not into video myself, but I can see a market for it. Have you even looked into the benefit of DSLR video? Shallow DOF, tons of lenses variation, ultra high ISO capacity. Tell me where you can find a camcorder that can give me the "Hollywood look" that aren't $100K. Like I said, I don't care about video myself, but seriously, DSLR video is pretty amazing. 



Markw said:


> I agree, and I own a D90.  Does anyone know if they finally got rid of the 5 min time frame?  This would be amazing.  Also, I whole-heartedly believe if theyre going to have a 1080p full-HD video camera, the camera should have two memory cards with the capability of designating videos to a specific one.  Full HD video takes up alot of room on the memory card.  I love the D90's video, in that it has video, but I have only ever used it twice.  I would trade it for more AF points for better tracking, more MPs, faster burst rate, better ISO capabilities, _anything _that makes a *Still-Photography Camera* better.  Sure, full HD video is nifty, but I still see it as something better suited for pocket-size cameras for some reason?  I dont know, but there are better things on my mind that I would _love_ to see in a camera than video...
> 
> Mark



If your looking for all those better feature, then why didn't you just by a D300s or a D700 instead of a D90. Or did you want a D90 price but with the performance of a d300? And fyi: DSLR video is NOTHING like a pocket-size camera. 

Personally, I've never like DSLR video, only because I'm not a serious videographer and so I need AF, but now that the D3100 video has AF (assuming that it actually works right), I might just pick one up as my video camcorder that can use all my Nikon lens. That's pretty cool in my book.


----------



## NateS (Aug 20, 2010)

Francis E. Marchiona said:


> I don't see why they try to sell video capabilities in a DSLR...like it's some great, amazing feature. Wtf do I need that for? I'm not a cinematographer...I'm buying a DSLR, for like...photography -_-



So...just because they include video means you have to be a cinematographer to use it?  I highly doubt that Nikon produced video in the D3100 in hopes that people would buy it over a new RED.  

I rarely use my video, but must say thank you to the feature...at my son's 3 year birthday party, I was snapping photos of him opening gifts when he started acting very very funny.  It took me all of 3 seconds to tap LV and the center button and I captured the funny moments that would have been otherwise lost since our Canon FS100 was in the other room.


----------



## wickedking (Aug 20, 2010)

Nice. Thanks for the information
I personally own a Nikon D700. Just Awesome.
I'm just a beginner. This forum rocks. Helping me a lot to learn basics.


----------



## KmH (Aug 20, 2010)

Francis E. Marchiona said:


> I don't see why they try to sell video capabilities in a DSLR...like it's some great, amazing feature. Wtf do I need that for? I'm not a cinematographer...I'm buying a DSLR, for like...photography -_-


Because that is where both consumers and professionals are heading, is why.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 20, 2010)

KmH said:


> Francis E. Marchiona said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see why they try to sell video capabilities in a DSLR...like it's some great, amazing feature. Wtf do I need that for? I'm not a cinematographer...I'm buying a DSLR, for like...photography -_-
> ...



I hate to admit it, but it's true. From all the websites and classes and even top Pros I have talked to say you need some video ability. Sure stills are are main area, but marketing and what not having video is almost a must have. This is the main reason I am planning on buying the 7D over another 50D. When like a year ago I chose the 50D over the 7D because I felt I didn't need the video. Times sure are changing.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 20, 2010)

RE-video capability in d-slrs: "Some people" were equally unreceptive to hydraulic brakes in cars...Ford used mechanical, cable-operated brakes until 1940...Chrysler invented hydraulic brakes in 1926..."some people" were equally opposed to non-coupled, built-in light meters in 35mm cameras...."some people" said, "we do not need coupled, automatic light meters--why would I need my light meter to be linked to my lens's aperture and to my camera's shutter?" "MOST Nikon shooters said, "Why the heck would I want an autofocus F4???"


----------



## JG_Coleman (Aug 20, 2010)

When I got my D5000, I was kind of taken back by the ferocity with which the 720p video capabilities seemd to be center-stage in the advertising. "What am I going to use that for?" was my overall reaction. Low and behold, I actually do use it from time to time to create videos while I'm out on the trails. The instances in which I use it are few and far between in comparison to how often I'm taking stills, but it has certainly come in handy.

I think the reason so many people are against the idea of steadily improving video modes in D-SLRs is because it sort of gives the _impression_ that big name manufacturers aren't working as hard on innovating still-photo technologies. I don't know if that's really the case or not, of course... it's just the perception one gets from the way they advertise these video modes like the center-piece of the camera.

One is left wondering... "If they couldn't put a bullet-point for 1080p video in this camera's specs, how much better would the rest of the still-photo features have been made in order to sell that camera at the same price?"

Again... not saying this is necessarily the case, but I can see how people that are primarily interested in still-photography might see the fanfare over video modes as a convenient way for manufacturers to relax a bit on improvements to the still-photo department of D-SLRs.


----------



## namtot (Aug 20, 2010)

the d3100 and d95 are nikons attempt at catching up to canon in the entry and mid level market. they're trying to stop the bleeding but its to late, the 5d, 7d, and 550d are the best option if your looking to shoot video and take pictures. if your strictly a photographer its another story. there are to many people already shooting video with canons to make the switch to a nikon that isnt going to be any better, and they wont be any better, nikon doesnt have the video experience that canon does, nikon is simply releasing these HDSLRs to put it on the box so people will go "well this one does 1080p too i guess ill buy this $*i*ty d3100 since its $200 cheaper with a lens". i just want to see new full frame pro bodies, not more HDSLRs. and by the way i own a t2i and do shoot video on it (and yes as far as video goes on a dslr, features and performance, nikon cant create this, and with the d3100 they havent even come close), i have too much crap going on at once, im using it to film an action sports movie and im extremely happy with the video performance (and magic lantern will make it that much better). at the same time my passion is photography, i shoot film and digital. if these two would stop fighting over entry and mid level bodies with video capabilities (as some of you know canons about to release a new 1d and 60d, both optimized for video) i think alot of photographers would be happier. personally im waiting for nikon to release a d700x or something with all the bells and whistles of a d700, with a d3x sensor inside, and with a price within $1000 of a 5dmkii, id switch to nikon in a split second if they did this. a 5dmkii is tempting but ill wait a little while to see what nikon does. all i know is im not dropping 9 grand on a d3x anytime soon. sorry for ranting just have a lot on my mind lately, have a good day.


----------



## shaunly (Aug 20, 2010)

^^^ how can you possibly know the performance of the d3100 when the camera was only announced few days ago. I don't know about you but having AF in video is huge to me. Have you ever try MF while recording and zooming? It's sucks! I'm not a videographer so I just do casual filming like probably 80% dslr video owner. If Nikon video AF works well (most likely so since nikon has always been good with their AF system) then that would give them a huge step in DSLR video market.  And you know their d90 replacement is only going to get even better. Right now Canon has the edge in consumer DSLR but with the upcoming nikon models, I think they might just take that crown. We'll just have to wait a couple months when all the test and reviews comes out.


----------



## namtot (Aug 21, 2010)

shaunly said:


> ^^^ how can you possibly know the performance of the d3100 when the camera was only announced few days ago. I don't know about you but having AF in video is huge to me. Have you ever try MF while recording and zooming? It's sucks! I'm not a videographer so I just do casual filming like probably 80% dslr video owner. If Nikon video AF works well (most likely so since nikon has always been good with their AF system) then that would give them a huge step in DSLR video market.  And you know their d90 replacement is only going to get even better. Right now Canon has the edge in consumer DSLR but with the upcoming nikon models, I think they might just take that crown. We'll just have to wait a couple months when all the test and reviews comes out.


read the cameras specs, 1080p in 24fps only, t2i/7d does that in 24 and 30fps and also does 60fps in 720p. that alone puts it below the rest of the field. and to be honest, only casual videographers care about auto focus for video. have you heard the noises an AF lense makes? your gonna hear that in your videos too. people buying HDSLRs to shoot video want that shallow DOF, and alot of them prefer manual focus with follow focuses and external monitors/LCD viewfinders, thats half the fun of shooting video with a dslr, i understand if your a casual videographer and you dont want to put much effort into it, thats fine, then the d3100 is for you. even nikon fans shooting video with canons are looking past this camera, and come on nikon stuff is pricey, $700 for a body and lens... this is them trying to stop the bleeding. im not hating on nikon here im just saying id wait for the d95 and 60d to see what their capable of. and another thing, people should realize that this video dslr war probably isnt going to last very long, interchangeable lens camcorders with aps-c sensors will be the next craze.


----------



## KmH (Aug 21, 2010)

Did you notice?

Yours are the only posts in this thread that *don't* use capital letters and paragraphs, which seriously diminishes the chances other people, myself included, will bother to read what you have written.


----------



## namtot (Aug 21, 2010)

KmH said:


> Did you notice?
> 
> Yours are the only posts in this thread that *don't* use capital letters and paragraphs, which seriously diminishes the chances other people, myself included, will bother to read what you have written.


im sorry ill remember that for the next time, sometimes i write sloppy on internet forums im not the only one guilty of it.


----------



## MrLogic (Aug 25, 2010)

Samples from the 85 AF-S. They have already caused "some" controversy. Especially the ones from Lindsay Silverman (the first set).

Bokeh isn't what most people were expecting, it seems. 



Flickriver: Photoset 'AFS 85mm f/1.4G' by flash-a-holic

Cliff Mautner Photography: The New Nikkor 85mm 1.4G w/nano Crystal Coat- first weddings shot with this lens


----------



## shaunly (Aug 25, 2010)

Anybody know who that guy is? He seems to have all the new Nikon lens already. Bokeh doesn't seems to be as nice as the AFD version, but then again, these images aren't that great of an example. 

Here are all the sets for the other lens as well
flash-a-holic's photosets on Flickr


----------



## emh (Aug 25, 2010)

namtot said:


> read the cameras specs, 1080p in 24fps only, t2i/7d does that in 24 and 30fps and also does 60fps in 720p. that alone puts it below the rest of the field. and to be honest, only casual videographers care about auto focus for video. have you heard the noises an AF lense makes? your gonna hear that in your videos too. people buying HDSLRs to shoot video want that shallow DOF, and alot of them prefer manual focus with follow focuses and external monitors/LCD viewfinders, thats half the fun of shooting video with a dslr, i understand if your a casual videographer and you dont want to put much effort into it, thats fine, then the d3100 is for you. even nikon fans shooting video with canons are looking past this camera, and come on nikon stuff is pricey, $700 for a body and lens... this is them trying to stop the bleeding. im not hating on nikon here im just saying id wait for the d95 and 60d to see what their capable of. and another thing, people should realize that this video dslr war probably isnt going to last very long, interchangeable lens camcorders with aps-c sensors will be the next craze.



I think you are missing the point of video on cameras like the D3100. It's an entry-level DSLR and video is simply for occasional use. Casual videographers are exactly who it's meant for. It's not meant to satisfy the needs of serious videographers. Saying the D3100's video capabilities are inferior to that of a 7D is like saying a Toyota Camry performs worse than a BMW 550i. Of course it does. It's designed to be that way. It's less than half the price. If the D3100 met the needs of everyone, what would be the point of the rest of the lineup? Even a D3100 to a T2i ($900 kit) comparison is off-base. The D3100's real competition are T1i, XSi, K-X etc., against which the D3100 stacks up pretty well on paper (and paper is all we have so far).


----------



## Bram (Aug 25, 2010)

namtot said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Did you notice?
> ...


 

+1

To be honest, I really didn't even bother reading what this guy said. When I first started on the forum I did exactly what he is doing right now. I actually wanted help and I wanted to be critisized and the only to do that is to use punctuation and proper grammar. I did exactly that and now I have advanced my skill from what it was to what it has become today in just a short month. Thank you TPF.


----------



## ann (Aug 25, 2010)

The fellow who has the review about the 85 is testing the lens for Nikon.

It is not uncommon for companies have photographers use lens in the field under normal working conditions. They have to send them every photo taken so they can review the results first hand.


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 25, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> Samples from the 85 AF-S. They have already caused "some" controversy. Especially the ones from Lindsay Silverman (the first set).
> 
> Bokeh isn't what most people were expecting, it seems.
> 
> ...


Bokeh looks really harsh... Especially in this shot.  It looks more harsh than my 70-200 2.8 IS II, which is not exactly known for smooth buttery bokeh itself...  I guess there's just a design trade off between sharpness and creamy bokeh?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 25, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> Samples from the 85 AF-S. They have already caused "some" controversy. Especially the ones from Lindsay Silverman (the first set).
> 
> Bokeh isn't what most people were expecting, it seems.
> 
> ...



Oh my God, it has some of the awful bokeh signature characteristics of Canon's 85/1.2-L...simply put, it has ugly,swirling bokeh on natural-world subjects...it looks like crap in that outdoor sample gallery, and the cat's eye bokeh on the wedding photos looks crappy too...


----------



## MrLogic (Aug 26, 2010)

cfusionpm said:


> MrLogic said:
> 
> 
> > Samples from the 85 AF-S. They have already caused "some" controversy. Especially the ones from Lindsay Silverman (the first set).
> ...



Yes, I'm sure there's a trade off, because the 85mm AF-S is essentially a tweaked 85mm AF-D - a film-era design. They should have left it alone. So, the AF-S doesn't feature an entirely new optical formula like the recent 70-200 f/2.8 offerings from Nikon and Canon. 

My 70-200 VR II is both sharper and has better bokeh than the 85 AF-S, based on those pictures. :thumbup: / :thumbdown:


----------



## MrLogic (Aug 26, 2010)

85 AF-S at f/1.4:








at f/2:







at f/2.8:







source: Google Translate





More sample pictures:


AF-S DX 55-300 VR II:

Flickriver: Photoset 'AFS DX 55-300mm VR II' by flash-a-holic



AF-S 28-300 VR II:

Flickriver: Photoset 'AFS 28-300mm VR II' by flash-a-holic



AF-S 24-120 f/4 VR II:

Flickriver: Photoset 'AFS 24-120mm f/4 VR II' by flash-a-holic


----------

