According provided by Nikon D3300 body camera many thanks to the official representative of Nikon in Ukraine.
Nikon D3300 review
The Nikon D3300 camera was announced on January 7, 2014 (2 months after the announcement Nikon D5300), and, at the time of writing this review, was the newest camera in the Nikon DX series.
The camera comes in three different body colors; this review presents an option in a classic black case.
The line of cameras Nikon D40 -> D40X -> D60 -> D3000 -> D3100 -> D3200 -> D3300 -> D3400 considered the easiest in the entire range of Nikon digital SLR cameras... But 'simple' in no way means 'bad', with this little D3300 you can get just fabulous photos, the main thing is a little desire, and the camera will do the rest (there should be an ironic smiley here, but it won't be).
Nikon D3300 is perfect for all those who want to get good results in the photo without delving into the subtleties of settings. There is a 'Guide' mode on the mode dial, where all the tips are present, and you can also select any shooting mode from 'Landscapes' to 'Sleepy Faces' :), the camera will do the rest almost by itself.
Nikon D3300 usually sold with an updated full-time lens Nikon 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6GII VR II AF-S DX Nikkorwhich will be enough for 99% simple shooting. Such a set of a camera and a lens is called a kit (from the English 'kit'), if in some store you find a 'Nikon D3300 BODY', then you should know that only the camera itself is sold without a lens.
Nikon D3300
The D3300 is very, very similar to its predecessor - D3200, which was born on 19.04.2012/19/3300 (XNUMX months before DXNUMX). Both cameras use the same focusing module Nikon Multi-CAM 1000, the same measurement is used 420-pixel RGB sensorThe cameras are very light and have the same 3-inch display at 921.600 dots (720 pixels wide x 480 pixels high x 3 RBG sub-pixels) and also use the same optical viewfinder with a 95% coverage of the zone and a 0.85x magnification based on pentazerkal.
Management for D3300 and D3200 also the same. On the D3300, only slightly changed the location of the button that controls the shooting method (single, continuous, silent shutter, self-timer, delayed release ML-L3fast descent ML-L3), and the joystick is now not four-, but eight-way (left, right, down, up and diagonally). Among amateur cameras, such a joystick was first seen at Nikon D5200.
The D3300 is also Nikon's lightest DSLR camera ever, weighing 430 grams with a battery, just 23 grams more than the lightest DSLR of any model - Canon EOS 100D. Although the camera is really very light, but quite durable, it has a fully rubberized grip and a rubber insert under the thumb. I used the Nikon D3300 with a lens without any problems Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1: 2.8D (MKII), which weighs 1.3 kg (more than 3 times heavier than the camera itself), while nothing happened with the plastic case of the camera.
Nikon D3300, battery compartment, battery and memory card
The most important thing that appeared in the D3300 compared to D3200 Is a new matrix. The camera can capture images with a maximum size of 6000 x 4000 pixels, which equals exactly 24 MegaPixels. I want to note a tiny nuance - probably for the first time among the same line of Nikon cameras there was a decrease in the number of MPs on the camera sensor. So, Nikon D3200 creates pictures of a maximum size of 6016 X 4000 pixels, which in the end is 64.000 pixels larger than the Nikon D3300. But of course not in megapixel happiness.
Also, one of the key features of the camera is the lack of a low-pass filter. Although information about this cannot be found on Nikon official website, or in the instructions for the camera. But on a large number of other resources, it is claimed that the D3300 lacks an OLPF filter (proof 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.). Personally, I couldn’t determine by eye whether this filter is or not, especially since I didn’t have other similar cameras at hand to compare their shots with the same lens.
I can’t say for sure, but most likely the D3300 uses a sensor from D5300, This is indirectly indicated by the similarity of many parameters. And most likely they omit information about the lack of an OLPF filter on official sites, so that the difference between Nikon D5300 and the D3300 was more tangible.
Given that the Nikon D3300 only processes data with 12-bit color depth, Nikon D5300 with 14 bit depth then images with D5300 It should be a little better :).
The D3300 can use ISO from 100 to 12.800 units and expand it to a HI1 value equivalent to ISO 25.600. These are very large figures for an amateur camera. By the way, even Nikon D800 or Nikon D7100, which are much more advanced and expensive cameras, cannot use a base, unexpanded ISO of 12.800 units.
The ISO value changes only in whole steps and manually you can select only the ISO values 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12.800 and HI1.
Personally, I was pleasantly surprised by the performance of the camera at high ISO, the camera copes with noise very well, as for crop. But I didn’t like that you can’t turn it on quickly ISO auto control via the quick setup screen using the 'i' button. To enable and configure auto ISO Be sure to climb into the camera menu. For 55 mm focal length function auto ISO with automatic selection excerpts sets the maximum shutter speed equal to 1/100 of a second.
Nikon D3300, top view
Also, among the new features in the Nikon D3300, you can find burst shooting at 5 frames per second. This is just a great indicator for an amateur camera of the simplest level. Apparently the manufacturer understands that due to the appearance on the market of super-rapid-fire mirrorless and SLT cameras, it is necessary to somehow increase the 'rate of fire' of real 'DSLRs', albeit amateur ones. By the way, 5 frames per second is more than professional Nikon D800,D800E, D1x and as much as professional Nikon D1h, D2xs, D2x, D200, D3x (if we compare their regular modes of operation).
But of course, frame buffer the camera is small. If you disable features such as' Auto. distortion control ',' Active D-Lighting ',' Noise reduction ',' ISO HI1 ', then the buffer is placed
- 7 frames in RAW format
- 6 frames in RAW + JPEG format
- 9 frames in JPEG L, Fine format
If you include everything that is possible, then it is placed in the buffer:
- 3-4 frames in RAW format
- 3-4 frames in RAW + JPEG format
- 4-5 frames in JPEG L, Fine format
After filling the buffer, the camera digests the captured material for a rather long time and writes it to the memory card. It's funny, but despite the fact that the Nikon D3300 uses an Expeed 4 processor, and D3200 - Expeed 3, the older camera does better burst shooting due to the larger frame buffer.
And one more small fly in the ointment. When you turn on Live View and zoom in on the selected area using the '+' button (you need to press this button more than two times), the image on the screen starts to slow down very, very much, showing no more than 2-3 frames per second. No matter how hard I tried, but I could not find some pattern in which modes and with what settings the brakes start. For me personally, this slowdown very much interfered with when working with a lens that supported only manual focus on the camera - Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1: 2.8D (MKII)with which the increase in the selected area could greatly facilitate focusing. And where, I ask, is the praised performance of the Expeed 4 processor?
RAW files average about 19-25 MB each. Camera supports SD, SDHC, SDXC memory cards.
Nikon D3300 with lens Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical
Nikon D3300 uses the EN-EL14a battery, which was enough for me for a huge number of frames. The same battery is used in the camera. Nikon D5300. Also, the EN-EL14a and EN-EL14 batteries are interchangeable, which is why batteries from the Nikon D3300 should be suitable for D5200, D3200, D3100 and Nikon DF.
Nikon D3300 with lens Nikon 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6GII VR II AF-S DX Nikkor
The camera supports video quality of 1920 x 1080 60p, H.264 / MPEG-4 is written in the '.MOV' file format. Attention: to shoot at 60p you need to set NTSC mode in the menu. Nikon D3200 could only shoot with maximum quality of 1920 x 1080 30p.
Who does not need to create a bunch of heavy video files, he can take advantage of other sizes of the original video. You can also select high or normal video quality. The Nikon D3300 has a built-in mono microphone. You can also use a stereo microphone through a regular mini-pin jack, Nikon recommends using the original ME-1 microphone. In AF-F focus mode, continuous tracking is available when shooting video. The AF-F focus mode must be set using the 'I' button while Live View is on.
A common weakness for most Nikon cameras is the inability to change the aperture value when shooting video. Also, the camera focuses very slowly and rather inaccurately when shooting video, since Live View uses the usual focusing in contrast.
Nikon D3300 with lens Nikon 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6GII VR II AF-S DX Nikkor and blend
Near the flash activation button, the camera has a programmable Fn button, it's just a pity that the choice of possible functions for this button consists of only four options:
- Image Quality / Image Size
- ISO sensitivity
- White balance
- Active D-lighting
Personally, I have not changed my habits since Nikon D40where this button was programmed for me to change the ISO.
Nikon D3300 can do simple panoramas. To make a panorama, put the camera in 'Effects' mode and follow the direction of the camera. When shooting a panorama, the camera does not take a series of frames, but stitches them immediately in Live View mode, as in ordinary video shooting.
Nikon D3300 with lens Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical and blend
You can write an overview of any camera endlessly, since modern central controllers are crammed with different settings, options, sub-functions and a submenu from head to toe :). But for some of the features of the Nikon D3300, I would just like to go over the list:
- The camera has a simple menu for processing captured RAW files.
- You can have the camera imprint the date and time on the captured images. However, the function only works when shooting in JPEG format.
- There is a focus function with face priority in Live View, which quickly helps to focus on people's faces.
- There is a function for cleaning the matrix, it helps to keep the matrix of the camera clean for a long time.
- Tips for working with the camera. To see the prompt, you need to click on the button with the image of the question mark.
- Active D-lighting and noise reduction function. It is unfortunate that these functions do not have advanced settings and can be either turned on or off. But to the material you can apply D-lighting with different intensity settings.
- The shutter release can be controlled remotely using a cheap remote control ML-L3... By the way, the camera has two infrared receivers for the remote control signal, one is located behind the camera (on the handle), the other in front (above the 'play' button). This arrangement of receivers is very convenient to use. Also, the camera supports WR-1 and WR-R10 wireless remotes, as well as a regular MC-DC2 cable.
- Nikon D3300 supports the ability to connect an optional wi-fi module WU-1 for instant transfer of photos / videos to a computer or other compatible devices. Not included in the package. Additionally, you can buy a GPS module - GP-1 or GP-1A, to obtain data about the location of the camera. But the Nikon 5300 has GPS and wi-fi modules already built-in.
- The built-in flash can operate at shutter speeds up to 1 \ 200 second. The flash guide number in manual flash control is 13 meters. Nikon D3300 built-in flash does not support FP mode works with the flash and does not support the automatic control of other external flashes using Nikon CLS.
- The camera supports automatic lens distortion control (most likely the camera automatically corrects vignetting, chromatic aberration и distortion).
- Exposure varies from 30s to 1/4000 seconds.
- In RGB view modebar charts You can view the histogram for any selected image fragment.
- You can power the camera from an outlet using the EH-5b AC adapter with an EP-5A connection.
Nikon D3300 with lens Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1: 2.8D (MKII)
A small gallery with sample photos on the Nikon D3300.
Here link to the archive with originals and JPEG files - 934 MB, 49 photos in .NEF format (RAW) and JPEG. All photos in the gallery are untreated, just a smaller on-camera JPEG. For shooting, lenses were used. Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1: 2.8D (MKII), Nikon 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6GII VR II AF-S DX Nikkor и Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical.
A little lyrical digression. I still use the camera Nikon D80which has the same sensor as Nikon D3000. And, after the pictures taken with Nikon D80, Nikon D3300 shots seem to be an order of magnitude better. First of all, new cameras are much better at handling high ISO noise. Nikon D3000 и D80 already shamelessly 'noisy' at ISO 800, but the noise problems of the Nikon D3300 start somewhere after the ISO 3200 mark. Personally, I am glad that Nikon is updating the matrices in its cameras and I am even thinking of changing my Nikon D80 to something else :).
Below shown block with prices on Nikon D3300 in major online stores:
All Nikon D3300 body prices
If don't know which camera and lens to choose, then my article will help with this - Which Nikon amateur DSLR camera and lens to choose?
Prices for modern Nikon cameras in popular stores can look at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Results
Overall, the Nikon D3300 is a great amateur camera. It is cut in functionality, which will never be in demand by those people for whom it was developed, but, in turn, can easily help anyone get a high-quality (at least technically high-quality) picture in almost any situation. On the other hand, amateur Nikon D3100 does almost everything the same as Nikon D3300 and personally I do not see much reason to overpay for those people who want a simple 'DSLR' for home shooting. Of course, amateur photographers who are trying to squeeze every last drop from the camera will be able to feel the innovations in the Nikon D3300. Therefore, I believe that Nikon D3300 is a logical continuation of Nikon's amateur series of cameras, while all the improvements are expected and do not have any major innovations.
17.08.2016/3300/XNUMX a replacement was introduced for the DXNUMX represented by D3400.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
I use D5100 + Tamron 28-75; 55-300 in reporting. ISO 1600-2500 is quite working. ISO 3200 is also, sometimes, satisfactory. I want a second camera with a greater ability to work at high ISO. Question: Will the D3300 be superior to the D5100 in working at high ISO? Maybe it's better to look at the D7100 or D5300? The question is addressed to those who had or are able to compare these models.
A significant increase in workers will be, alas, only when switching to a full-frame camera.
I have been choosing the first DSLR for more than a year (I have a little experience with 7100 and sigma 17-50), I plan to deepen my knowledge of photo skills, and in time I will select prof. lens and so on.
I choose between 5200 and 3300, what do you recommend?
d7100
I replaced my d60 with a d3300 and first of all I appreciated and was pleased with the higher DD and increased sensitivity by 8 times (1600 iso on d60 according to the noise, about 6400 by 3300). I was also pleased with the ability to shoot video and panorama. But I didn’t see much difference between 10 and 24 megapixels, But in my opinion it would be much more useful to make such a matrix with a bold pixel, edicts by 8. For amateurs, but this is an amateur DSLR, and the initial level, 8 megapixels would be enough, but how much more could the DD grow and still reduce noise at high ISO.
The average potential buyer of the D3300 immediately looks at megapixels - he is sure the more the better.
And it’s sad that the manufacturer follows the not very versed lovers. 24 megapixels is excessive for the amateur, and it’s unlikely that they will be in demand, but a couple of stops on the dynamic range will never be superfluous. Of the minuses of the D3300, for me personally, I can only note the lack of exposure bracket (purely marketing, so that older models buy). From the incomprehensibility of this model, I want to note the absolutely insane HDR mode, again, with the older model, it is implemented normally.
But you can crop well. Roughly speaking, make a good macro without any perverts there
Thanks for the great review! The quality of the photo pleased. I want to immediately take an external flash immediately, the Nikon ones are very expensive, because I looked at ExtraDigital DF-800 like this http://extradigital.technoportal.ua/flash/extradigital-df-800.html will it be at 3300? Thanks!
take the better proven China - Jungnao for example. ttl works perfectly (jun-565, 568)
Tell me, please, who knows, maybe who himself tested or read somewhere, the absence of an AA filter on this device makes photos with it fundamentally sharper than with the D3200? Theoretically, they should be sharper. But in practice is it very noticeable? Or is the difference not particularly visible?
Thanks for the answer
The difference is very difficult to notice.
Thank you, Arkady, you reassured me :-) At one time there was an opportunity to buy both D3300 and D3200. Not really delving into the parameter “no AA filter” I bought the D3200. And then, when I found out what it was, I was upset. However, the D3300 surpasses in high ISO as well ... Okay, “I will grow above myself,” and meanwhile Nikon will produce something else from DX. There is not enough money for a full frame and is not expected. Unless you rip off the fourth skin from yourself (I have already ripped off three, having bought the D3200 and 3 lenses for it :-))
Thank you for your site, Arkady!
Happiness and good to you!
Irina, tell me about the three lenses purchased :)
I use Nikon D3300 from 18-55vr2 4 months I moved with canon. I can say a good camera for unhurried shooting (I have been doing amateur photography since the 80s). The lens is sharp in the center and interesting in its own way. But. I want a more interesting picture, what do you recommend from lenses that reveal the potential of a 24 megapixel matrix, preferably AF-S and from Nikon.
1. Supplement 18-55 (telephoto)
2. Replace 18-55 (more interesting staff member and traveluzum)
35 1.8, and 55-300.
does 55-300 reveal the potential of 24mp?
there is a newer 55-200 vr2
But does the new 55-200 reveal the potential of 24mp? And if 50MP comes out tomorrow, what should I do?
hard to say yet. there was no review on Radozhiv yet)))
I can tell you without a review that a zoom on a crop of more than 15 megapixels simply will not pull
As you already noticed, I want to buy 2 lenses.
TV and travel, sharpness is needed very, very
sharp and inexpensive 18-140.
and I have 55-300. don't expect sharpness from him
I use Nikon D3300 from 18-55vr2 4 months I moved with canon. I can say a good camera for unhurried shooting (I have been doing amateur photography since the 80s). The lens is sharp in the center and interesting in its own way. But. I want a more interesting picture, what do you recommend from lenses that reveal the potential of a 24 megapixel matrix, preferably AF-S and from Nikon.
1. Supplement 18-55 (telephoto)
2. Replace 18-55 (more interesting staff member and traveluzum)
Nikon 80-400mm AF-S FX VR G ED N NIKKOR
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f / 2.8-4E ED VR Lens
+1, and replace the D3300 with something more interesting
35 1.8, and 55-300.
To replace 18-55 (from best to worse):
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f / 2.8-4E ED VR Lens (state-of-the-art zoom)
Nikon 17-55mm f / 2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX (solid, sharp, but without a stub)
Nikon 16-85mm f / 3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor (nice sharp dark zoom)
Tamron 17-50 (a cheap option with good sharpness if you're lucky with a copy)
Televik:
Nikon 70-300mm f / 4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor
or
Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f / 4.0-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon F
Both are worthy. More interesting than 55-300.
it makes sense to buy DX lenses that are suitable only for crop for thousands of dollars?
zoom - 18-105 or 18-140.
shirik is something from tokin.
telephoto - you indicated correctly.
if you have money for Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f / 2.8-4E ED VR Lens, Nikon 17-55mm f / 2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX then it is better to switch to FF.
IMHO)))
I would not try to change the excellent 18-55bp2 for something else. Buy, for example, some fix - 35 1.8g or 50 1.8g. Or a TV set - 55-200vr or 70-300vr / tamron 70-300vs. Or shirik type sigma 10-20 4-5.6. All this will give a lot of new angles and shots, increase your photo opportunities, and it will become more interesting to shoot. I do not recommend 55-300vr - I did not like it - it is soapier, heavier and slower to focus than 55-200vr, while it costs almost like 70-300vr, which in turn focuses quickly, has protection from dust and moisture and sharpness with an open ... In general, I would first decide what exactly is needed - replacing the excellent 18-55 bp2 or changing the focal / aperture ratio.
Why change 3300 for example to 7100? With good glasses, they shoot the same way. The difference in focusing points is not critical, the upper screen and the viewfinder are all there, there are fewer buttons, well, okay, Autofocus adjustment is better to choose in the store and often give it for adjustment - not fatal. Shooting speed is not important for an amateur.
Who advises expensive carcasses with a bunch of buttons and screens. Take a look at film shifts, fedas, zeniths (ET), I'm sure that any current camera is a masterpiece. They simplified the human factor by 99%. Just take it and take it off (even if you don’t understand anything in this matter). Do not forget that for many years the masterpieces were filmed by those cameras. As someone said there are no buttons and there was no masterpiece.))))
you also forgot about the dark viewfinder, 12-bit RAW, and most importantly - tenacious and accurate autofocus
following your logic, why buy expensive toilet paper for today?
for so many years, millennia used burdocks and other leaves))))))))
as well as newspapers and other waste paper))))
But no, there are those who do not suit this)))
But in general, Bingo said everything correctly.
in the D3xx series - 12-bit RAVs - halftones are cut immediately so that there is no competition with expensive cameras. OVI in D3xx is a penta mirror, small and dark. AF wants the best.
One memory card. There is no secondary screen and generally ergonomics below average.
Adjustment after the warranty period is paid and often takes a lot of time.
Regarding "Shoot on film shifts, fedos, zeniths (ET) ... for many years, masterpieces were shot with those cameras." - I filmed. it is unrealistic to take a normal picture on the Change. Zeniths for glitchiness and breakdowns were widely known))). 2-5% of good frames were obtained from the film. Then there was a super hemorrhoid with development and printing. To this day, many photos on old glossies are marriage, grease. Previously, 99% of the photos were for printing, which hid many flaws in technology, now - mainly for screen viewing, and even with a super small pixel where all sins come out in close-up)))
in general, D3xx is a type of deu Matiz. cheap and cheerful. you can get from point A to point B.
but to say that this is the same as a Honda or Toyota Camry, just because they used to ride chariots - probably a little strange)))))
I almost completely agree with you. It just so happened that the difference in capabilities of crop sensors is very small. Connoisseurs of 12/14 bit ras in 99% of cases will not understand where with what bit depth was shot, if you do not look at the pictures head-on. A screwdriver is rarely needed, 99% of good screwdriver lenses have already been replaced with better quality motorized ones. The screen from above is not always required, you can almost always look at the big screen. Adjusting autofocus is not always useful. On zooms it is almost always meaningless, and on fixes it does not always work. As for the focus points, I'm not very clear at all. Here I had d3300 and 7d, and I performed autofocusing in 99% of cases at the center point, because the automation does not always choose what I need. As a last resort, I chose the point myself and most often 9 in d3300 was enough for me. Autofocus speed is important in real sports photography (and depends on the lens as well as the body). Personally, I shot reenactment swordfights, football and hockey without any problems on the old D3000, where autofocus is weaker than in the D3300. And nothing - everything was caught normally. The rate of fire of the d3300 is very good. About five years ago, professional models had a similar one. The D200 shot the same 5 frames per second and was filmed by thousands of sports reporters around the world. Canon's 40d and 50d are only 1.5 frames faster (although it is noticeable, but not critical).
Workers ISO at d3300 are very good, direct reference. Comparable to a full-frame old man 5d. By the way, purely in numbers, the same d7100 loses to the d3300 by ISO, although in reality the difference is not visible. In general, I personally think that it makes sense to take d7100 instead of d3300 in the following aspects:
- shooting very fast events - faster shutter speed;
- shooting in the rain - there is protection from dust and moisture;
- frequent reporting - when it is essential to save a third of a second setting up a carcass and have an additional screen and a bunch of buttons.
Well, for professional work such as weddings and shooting birds / animals, d7100 is preferable. A simple amateur will not find any special advantages for himself in the d7100 in comparison with the d3300. And if we compare with cars, then the d3300 is a Chevy Niva, and the d7100 is a Chevy Niva with a kenguryatnik, foglights and on large wheels :) In general, the same eggs, only in profile :) Who needs to buy d7100 and will not think, but who doubts it is better to save money.
Apparently, you do not really understand why what functions are needed. therefore probably in your case you are right, there is probably no sense in an advanced crop for you.
in more detail.
- additional display - the ability to quickly evaluate all settings. saving time and battery
- JVI on pentaprism - the ability to work an order of magnitude better with manual AF
- fine AF adjustment - is needed mainly for working with fast lenses, where the DOF is small. and obviously, it is very necessary for high-aperture zooms (read - well, very expensive)
- focus points - where does the automation? when shooting in the open, you often need to focus not in the center (and you won't be able to use the central point with subsequent reframing!), so the presence of crosses not only in the center is really useful :)
- 12bit vs 14bit - old holivar. A binary number with 12 bit precision can write a number with 4096 different possible values (2 for 12 fold) 14-bit technology offers up to 16 384 different values, which is 4 times the capacity of 12 bits. The increased bit rate does not increase the number of pixels or widen the range of colors, but improves the accuracy of each pixel. or can we listen to the manufacturer, Nikon? here is the link for beginner amateur photographers
https://nikoneurope-ru.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/24176/~/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D1%81%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D1%81-%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9-14-%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4-%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D1%81-%D0%B3%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9-12-%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%3F
or here are some more examples
http://www.nx101.com/12vs14.html
like this, here a little, here a little - and you can see the difference in the class of cameras. however, who needs it)))
I, of course, am not a pro, but you in vain confused me with a newbie :) I owned almost all Nikon and Canon DSLRs, I wrote my post not because there was not enough money for a topcrop (I also had a ff, including ones). I wrote this so that amateurs understand that there will not be much difference for them between the expensive d7100 and the cheap d3300. Why should I describe the advantages of a dopdisplay and a large OVI, did you read my post badly? I even wrote there that I also have 7d. Wouldn't I be able to understand what you wrote about OVI and the additional screen with 7d? :) Well, if you want more details, please:
- dopdisplay - it saves less than a second, it is needed for reporting, the main screen may well be enough for an amateur. Saving a battery in a DSLR is a strange thing for an amateur. That is, 700-1000 frames per day may not be enough for amateur photography, do you need to save? Well, then it's easier to take a battery from Ali for 700 rubles than to overpay 20-40 thousand for an additional display.
- JVI is generally not easy to work with manuals, it is always more reliable to focus on life-view, or to shoot in a series. Mirrorless manuals are better. But the difference between the OVI of the initial DSLR and the top-end, although there is, it is not huge. Always amazed at people writing about the peephole and window when comparing the initial crop and the advanced crop. Like, I bought a new camera and my eyes opened like I used to shoot. Having an average of 10 DSLRs of different levels on my hands, I can say with confidence that with good vision, both OVIs will be enough. Well, don't forget, I'm writing about a newbie camera. A very small part of even advanced amateurs take manual lenses, and even beginners don't even look at them.
- The autofocus adjustment, as I said, works on fixes (and even then not always, under different lighting conditions it can smear in different directions), and it almost never helps on zooms. If the zoom on the carcass does not immediately hit the target at all focal points, then there is no point in buying, or adjustment in the carcass and glass service. You write “fine AF adjustment - it is needed mainly for working with fast lenses, where the DOF is small. and, obviously, it is very necessary for high-aperture zooms (read - very expensive) ”. Firstly, it is strange, why a beginner needs a high-aperture zoom with a thin grip, and secondly, how to adjust the correction on the carcass at once on different focal points (if this is not a top-end 7dm2 type carcass)? Well, if you explained this for me, then I have canon 70-200 2.8lis2, do you know the telezums in these focal points better? So, this “well, very expensive” lens smears by 50d on different focal lengths, and no matter how you adjust it, it makes no sense. And at 40d it hits the target. And at 7d and 5d and 5dm3. At the same time, 50d does not smear with 85 1.8 and did not smear with 70-200 4L, which I had up to 2.8. So adjusting autofocus will only partially help in the presence of fixes, for example, 135 2.0 adjusted at one time and everything was fine, but on d7000 Nikon 50 1.4g it does not adjust normally, then back is the front. So just a service.
- autofocus points. Automatic, despite the fact that a bunch of dots throughout the viewfinder for accurate tracking of moving objects automatically - if you shoot more sports, you will understand. The presence of crosses on the sides is useful when using 50 1.4, 85 1.2 or 135 2.0, but doesn't make much sense for hobbyists 18-55, 18-105, 18-135, etc. The object will still fall into the depth of field, even when re-framing.
- about bitness I didn’t start holivar, I said literally “Connoisseurs of 12/14 bit rabbits in 99% of cases will not understand where with what bitness it was shot, if you do not look at the pictures head-on”. This has already been discussed on the photo club forum and has been confirmed many times by pictures taken with different color bit depths. Few pros guessed where what. If you know exactly where which picture is, then you can come up with a bunch of arguments in 14 bits, and if you don't know, then you may not be able to tell the difference. Well, again, where this bitness is needed - in serious processing, amateurs are not particularly noticed.
And again read “Well, for professional work such as weddings and shooting birds / animals, d7100 is preferable. A simple amateur will not find any special advantages for himself in the d7100 in comparison with the d3300. " Have you read it this time? And especially for you I will repeat "Who needs to buy the d7100 and will not think, and who doubts, it is better to save money."
I see the following picture: a man came with the coolest D3300 camera, who is not ready to pay a lot for marketing (ie professional cameras, which are the same, only in a different package). and asks him to tell him the same cheap and mega-cool lens, which completely tears the top (marketing, we understand ...) lenses.
because cannot believe that this does not exist, asks the question again.
so why argue. only fullframe!
Yeah, Nikon d5 released, you need to take it with a new 24-70 2.8vr and trample the masterpieces :)
Well, after all, he offered at the beginning 35mm 1,8 and 55-300, both of them for the price of one 70-300. But no, the sharpness is not the same. If you shoot from the 80s, you can at least understand something about optics already.
wait, now for the 3rd time they will ask the same question)
And what's wrong with sharpness? 35 f1.8 is quite sharp already from 2.8, on 5.6 it’s generally great, I'm talking about the dx version. Yes, and 55-300 is good and sharp, of course with nuances after 240 mm, but I like the picture from it in places even more than from 70-300, so I store it and occasionally even use it on the d5500. And the frames from 18-55 looked with pleasure, they came out very well))) in general, the talk about sharpness at 18-55 is surprising, my copy after the adjustment is sharp, so much so that not every more expensive zoom is given, for example, 18-55 4 versions on The d5500 turned out to be sharper than the native 17-55, and on the d5000, the situation is strictly opposite.
It is amazing how people are led to a rather obvious divorce about sharpness.
Sharp lenses have already learned to do a hundred years ago, but no, give me a glass with 24MP resolution!
Otherwise, they say my two-by-three meter point-blank banner will not look cool.
Well, the lens soap when viewing pixel by pixel is very annoying to me personally. This is probably why I’m shooting at 12 megapixels so as not to get upset. Now a little photo is printed, and on-screen viewing, a lack of lens resolution will be noticeable. A 24 megapixel print poster is just an A3 somewhere. Not so much, although it is unlikely that anyone present here will print in this format.
I just sometimes print posters 2x3 meters. With my D610, the 24MP FF is enough with my head.
Even if filmed on an old dark telezoom with a screwdriver.
Something like that.
People. I'm not saying that film is better. I just drew attention to the fact that in comparison with them, any modern DSLR is very good both in use and in quality. About the glasses. I perfectly understand the characteristics. These are just dry numbers. The glass needs to be tested, I have no opportunity to try everything, how they behave with this matrix, more than half of them have nowhere to even look, not to try. The numbers are the same - the reality is different. So such questions are asked to those who have these glasses, or have had and can tell about the nature of the lens (specifically about the picture, not the numbers). For example, 16-85, which is recommended by many on this matrix, is not an interesting glass (not sharp) here on the site to confirm this.
I already posted these photos here, but for you, Alexander, I’ll post it again. This is shot on d3300 and 18-55 with a button. Filmed by a professional, so I think the essence is clear.
0.3MP photo - what can you say about it? what is the best way to shoot with a smartphone?
or definitely not worse.
I don’t know what kind of pro I was shooting, but the leg on the right is ugly distorted and stretched out - most likely, the focal points were chosen incorrectly, and it got to the edge of the frame where the distortion is max.
To show the capabilities of the lens, you need to lay out the RAVs.
alas, there is no sense in downsizing with matchboxes.
Who's asking you at all! You've got everyone here already, fucking smart guy. Everything is not like that for him, everything is not like that for him. And give him RAV and his legs are distorted, the focal points are not the same, the grenades are of the wrong system. I myself have not laid out a single example, I have not helped a single person with good advice. These are Zotova's photos, from the video "snapped". Go to him for RAVy ask, and at the same time be smart in front of him about distorted legs and incorrect focal ones.
Sorry, freaked out.
Yes, because I got it already!
bright trollik raged. uploads a photo from a matchbox, rude, pokes.
bright personality! ))) what to take from it except for pictures with crooked legs))) pros! ))))))))))))))))
Do not apologize :)
"Who's asking you at all! You've got everyone here already, fucking smart guy."
===========
a sign of a troll (such as a sign that bedbugs are in the house) - attempts by an inferior personality to replace the lack of knowledge with increased excitability, aggression, rudeness, the inclusion of a shit blower :))))))
Usually a trollik, blundering some nonsense, tries to justify it with a transition to personalities.
so, a question for yarkiy
what place did the photos you laid out (putting aside the increased curvature of the legs due to distortion, because the pros were shot!))))) in the size of 0.3 megapixels can generally show anything? do you understand a little bit about what a raster image is, why does Arkady and other testers upload RAVs? I will tell you a secret! just to show the capabilities of the gland and lens.
Because any downsize (in your case - downsize to 0.3MP - beyond good and evil!)))) Already reduces the resolution of the picture, masks a bunch of problems and does not say exactly anything. Your examples could be shot with absolutely any camera, from a soap dish to a smartphone, from 50MP Kenon to medium format - and having reduced it to your size, you get absolutely nothing as a result.
I hope you understand why if you want to show the capabilities of the lens, it is the RAVs that are laid out, or at least the full-size zpegs and not the icons :))))))
"Sorry, freaked out."
======================
I'm sorry. I think that a good psychiatrist will help with psychosis.
I didn’t apologize to you, do not flatter myself.
..
it will probably be cheaper to switch to full frame than to get a pixel-by-pixel sharp picture on a multi-pixel matrix. since You also need not only a sharp, but also "I want a more interesting picture"
...
....
I see craftsmanship, there is no sharpness anywhere (
may there not be harshness there. you can't blind a bullet from shit.
a $ 40 lens will not take a normal photo. and even more so, the pros will not shoot such a guano, especially shoulder and waist portraits.
Is the photographer's skill measuring the value of his technique?
It completely takes off, if you approach the shooting wisely.
I do not dispute professional skills. I just need a normal staff - travel. I have 18-55vr2 - ok, but a little more focal lengths. I didn't like 18-105 (I tried it). About 18-140, the reviews are contradictory, but I don't need more. The TV set was 70-300. We need a staff - travel, I will clarify for use by my son and wife - this is the only reason for purchasing, and not using fixes.
What is the desired focal range?
And what exactly did not like 18-105?
And all that is longer will be worse in sharpness and aperture. Or, as an option, the sigma 17-50 2.8os will be cut and more beautiful, only focal ones will not be added. Another option is 24-120 4vr, it will be sharp and beautiful, there will be more focal lengths on the long end, then the short one will not be so wide. Well, there is also sigma 24-105 4, but the same trouble as Nikon has in terms of width on the crop.
Well, as the last option - sigma 17-70 2.8-4. Excellent staff, albeit not with a fixed aperture.
The choice of the first DSLR, Nikon D3300 for 1 tr more expensive Nikon D3200, does it make sense to overpay? As I understand it, there isn’t much difference, only a little lighter, the battery charge is larger, the matrix size is 23.5 x 15.6 mm, also larger than the D3200 (is it true that the pictures are better from this?)
If the difference between the cameras is a thousand rubles, you need to take the d3300 without a doubt. The absence of an anti-mujar filter, newer iron, a slightly different matrix, slightly higher working ISOs, but all these little things with such a difference in price become a big plus. And then to sell a newer model, if that, will be easier.
For manual (in the long term - Thamron 90 AF, and that's not a fact, I trust my hands more with macro) macro, better than D7100, or can you get by with 3300? I have 3100, + Vivitar 55 mm 1: 1, Tamron 90 + adapter 1: 1, Wave-9, converted for Nikon (well, Helios, Jupiter37, Arsat 80-200, Sigma Mini-Wide 28mm) ... Basically (in the summer- in spring and autumn) I shoot macro (insects, plants), sometimes - a landscape + a little reportage at work, a couple of portraits and architecture are very rare (for sites, etc.). I was holding 7100, D710, 3200, 3300 - I didn't have to.
It seems that they plan to release the d3400 to the market. And apparently, there are not many changes - bluetooth, a slightly better battery, higher iso (moreover, chamber ones, and for working iso it is not a fact that it will go far, although suddenly there will be a breakthrough like the d500) and the guide mode is improved. As for me, there is not so much difference as between d3200 and d3300. And I was also surprised that they did d3400, and not d3500, as predicted. In the d5 * 00 lineup, the four was missed, but not here ... Strange people :)
Already released.
Good afternoon!
I choose a DSLR.
I want with a margin, not for one year.
Now there is a choice of d5100 or d3300 ..
At a cost difference of 3 thousand rubles (d5100 cheaper).
Does it make sense to save 3k or d3300 much better?
I chose the D40 with a margin. On growth, yes, then at least D7 ***
Of course, 3300, 5100 only if for some reason you need a folding screen. In all other cases, 3300 is preferred. Just enough to play for a couple - three years, and then either the seven-thousandth episode or the full frame will be determined.
Yes, I just wanted three years.
But at 3300 12bit is a little embarrassing, although I like that it is smaller / lighter
Do not think, the 5100 is a great camera, but after it already, it was 3200 and 3300, and there are 3400. The three thousandth series is the simplest, but not the worst. Ideally, it is most logical to advise 5300, even with the seven thousandth series you can not go with it. But if the financial side is critical and the conversation is only about 3300 and 5100, then 3300 is just newer, well, the matrix is 24 megapixels versus 16, not to mention the processor. Read the rest of the differences in the reviews. Most likely you will not distinguish a 12-bit file from a 14-bit file at all, unless you are of course an experienced colorist.
I myself now use 7100 and 5300, before that I took pictures for 5100 for a long time, I had to often hold 5200 and 3200 in my hands.
Purely visually, I like the picture more with the 5300, but the 7100 is much more convenient. So with all due respect to 5100, 3300 is still preferable.
Yes, I’m not ready to pay for 5300, I’m not going to do this very professionally.
3300 confuses that everyone writes a lot of megapixels and the picture is easier to smear, and 5100 16mp, it seems easier. Well, 12/14 bit.
And it seems like 5100 is cheaper, although it is as if nothing worse.
So I'm still trying to understand the newer 3300, but the 3xx series, is it better or not the old 5xx series
In the end, the lens takes pictures, not Samera)))) Here is a photo taken at 10MP Canon 40D, though the lens is 85-1,8
By the way, as for the folding screen, I also thought that it would not be useful to me when I bought the D5200, but in fact I helped out more than once, I’m all afraid to twist its neck. It’s a trifle, but shooting is very easy.
From the presence of 24mp the picture will not be smeared, the sharpness will not be ice with ordinary optics. If there is no experience with mirrors, then the result will please anyone. As for 12/14, do not worry, until you change the raw carcass to raw.
Tell me (advise):
1. I buy D3300 from 18-55 (I came to the conclusion - the best quality-price compromise). Question 18-55 Is it better to take AFS or AFP? - in the first place, of course, for photos, video - secondarily. The price for them is exactly the same.
2. I looked after the MEIKE 950 II flash. The main parameter (unfortunately) was the price - around 50 ye. According to the reviews and the review, everything seems to be fine, the absence (limitation) of some flash functions for working with the D3300 seems to be not scary (due to the limitations of the camera itself). What about my choice of flash?
P.S. The question of the best lens and flash is postponed until a whale camera and a cheap flash ...
I will clarify on point 2: ... or can you offer another flash (inexpensive)?
Thank you, everything is clear and intelligible. You can understand and find answers to questions.
Please tell me, I bought a Nikon D 3300 to shoot a video of a hunt with a dog gundog that raises a bird. I have an old photo gun with a Tair 3s lens. Can I use it for video hunting, (if so, with which adapter) or is it better to buy another Nikkor lens. And how best to configure and record video. Thank you in advance for your reply.
Nikon D3300 is a smart camera of very small sizes, very lightweight, with the highest resolution and excellent rate of fire. With such a camera, you can shoot anything. Not everyone can be comfortable, for example, my little finger slides due to the small size of the camera, but such a device can be put in any bag.
tell the owners, when hovering with Helios, will the green focus point light up
Be.
1. In the setup menu, the Rangefinder function is “ON”.
2. You need to shoot in the “M” mode.
3. If Helios 81N / 81M, then there is no need for adapters, it will focus to infinity and always focus with an open aperture, which facilitates sighting. If Helios 44, etc., then you need an adapter and alteration to infinity.
4. The metering does not work. You must be able to work with a histogram + with experience, understanding of the shooting conditions and the choice of parameters will come.
Hello. I have been shooting with D3300 for two years. Accustomed to 11 focus points evenly covering the screen. I focus on one point, which I can easily select with the joystick. Now I want to switch to either the D7200 or the D600 - it depends on which one I find in the best condition. But two questions torment us:
1. How to focus when there are a lot of focus points in the device? Discard manual selection of points and trust in automation? Group points, if possible (read somewhere), and what do the groups look like? Or also along one point, but is it not long to get to the desired point among a large number of points?
2. On the D600, points are piled up in a heap. How to focus when there are a lot of them and they are all in the center? For example, with a waist-length or full-length portrait, how to get in touch with the eyes, since they are most likely to be outside the zone with dots?
1. Similarly, there doesn’t take so much time to move around the points. You can also group, depending on the tasks.
2. Eyes usually appear in the region of extreme points, since the eyes are rarely on the edge of the frame due to the correct layout.