dpreview of the new Nikon D3100 vs. D3000 and D5000

[jbitakis]

Here is the DP review of the New Nikon D3100 coming out very soon. It looks impressive. I was considering a D5000 but the D3100 has more pixels 14.2 vs. 12.3., plus a bigger LCD 3.0 inch vs. 2.7 inch, PLUS it records in 1080 HD vs. 720 on the D5000. Here is the link: The only thing the D5000 has which the D3100 doesn't have is Bracketing. I am not sure what Bracketing is or does.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Nikond3100/
What do you guys think?
James

[orsetto]

The new 3100 is the first Nikon DSLR to use the new "Nikon-made" custom sensor chip. Anytime Nikon introduces something "exclusive" like that, it takes months to shake out the bugs, so thats a red flag for me. OTOH this is usually less of a problem with the "lower-end" models, because they sell tons of them and Nikon loses their shirt on each one they have to fix, so odds are the 3100 will be OK from the start. The megapixel bump probably means nothing and either does the video, really, not at this price level. The most important thing they've added is the chromatic aberration (CA) correction software from the more expensive models: that is a great feature. However I think the D5000 also has this, and the D5000 has better handling (even though its butt-ugly and ungainly-looking). I'd say the decision comes down to budget vs just how good you think the 1080 video can be from a Nikon in the 3100's price range. The video in these things is almost always disappointing in practice.

The bracketing feature is a setting that tells the camera to take three photos in rapid succession, at different exposures, to increase your odds of nailing the shot under difficult lighting. Some consider this feature indispensable, others never use it. Hard to say how important it would be to you unless you try it.

[jbitakis]

Both the D5000 and the D3100 have the CA. However, one other thing the D5000 shoots 4 frames per second and the D3100 only shoots 3 frames per second of continuous shooting. Now I am again leaning towards the D5000.

[lordsmurf]

The anti-CA is more gimmick than anything else. It's on the D3, and I'm unimpressed.
Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw do a better job that I've seen.

More often, CA is a result of your aperture settings. Shoot smarter.

[orsetto]

The anti-CA is more gimmick than anything else. It's on the D3, and I'm unimpressed. Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw do a better job that I've seen.

Quite a few people in the market for an entry-level DSLR don't have PhotoShop (which now costs way more than the camera), and they wouldn't know what Adobe Camera Raw was if it knocked on their door with a winning lottery ticket. If you have these apps, and really know how to use them, of course you can tweak and perfect things better than the camera can. But if you mostly take what the camera gives you and just resize/touchup in the included software then it is indeed nice that Nikon now includes automatic corrections for CA and distortion across its entire line of bodies, at least for its own lenses, some of which do behave rather badly. With those consumer-grade "super lenses", the only way to "shoot smarter" is to not use them at all, so half-assed in-camera correction in the 3100 beats no correction at all in the 3000. Nikon has figured out including the corrections on-board means they can sell some crazy lenses that appeal to consumers, without the expense of true optical perfection.

[lordsmurf]

Yeah, but at the same time, consumers that don't any better won't notice CA anyway, given how they use photos for Facebook or print images at 4x6 from a consumer home inkjet. The printer alone is enough to create CA effect where none exists, because ink is rarely overlaid accurately. Heck, magazines and newspapers from a pro press get screwed up, for that matter! Some of my best photos ever have looked like total crap when published, thanks to awful print work on that issue (or even just that page, lucky me).

On a happier note, Amazon has the D3s in stock again. And I just placed my order for one.

Pretty soon I'll get to try out 720p at 12800 ISO with a f/2.8 lens. Now that's going to be something.

I may never need another camera body.

[VegasBud]

A couple of thoughts concerning:

Pixel Count

The number of pixels isn't a reliable indicator of image quality. Many other factors come into play which aren't typically part of the prevailing marketing hype philosophy (like megapixel mania is). Since most modern digital cameras have more than enough pixels for larger prints than the average shooter requires, image quality is relatively more important. Put another way, if two cameras both produce enough pixels for a large print, wouldn't you rather have the one which produces a smaller (in pixels), but higher quality image than the one which produces a larger (in pixels), but lower quality image?

If this concept is unfamiliar to you, it would be a good idea to turn google loose on "Norman Koren" (including the quotes), and see what he has to say about image quality (among other things). The reason for recommending Mr. Koren is that he is part photographer, part scientific geek. The photographer part is what got him interested in image quality, and the scientific geek part is what led him to create Imatest.

A brief glimpse into the subject can be found here. His website, normankoren.com, has more information, and the Imatest website has even more information.

Bracketing

At least on the two cameras I use regularly (at this point), bracketing can apply to white balance or exposure. As orsetto explained, you press the shutter release once, and the camera captures a series of images, each with a different setting. White balance bracketing might be useful in mixed lighting situations, but it's a "feature" I've never used, so I'm just guessing. Exposure bracketing (with fixed aperture, and changing shutter speed) can be quite useful, however, if you intend to later generate hdr images from the series.

Chromatic aberration correction

If an image does have chromatic aberration, I'd rather fix it in post processing than let the camera do it. If you feel the same way, or have no choice in the matter, photoshop is only one way to proceed, and it's a darned expensive way at that. The least expensive way (which I know of) would be PTLens (currently $25). It is fully capable of handling a variety of digital photographic image corrections, including chromatic aberration.

In between the two ends of the economic scale are other options.

...half-assed in-camera correction...beats no correction at all.

Sad...but true.

I may never need another camera body.

I used to be optimistic like that. I'm afraid my reality is more closely tied to the acceptance of advances in technology. As long as the sensors (and their relatives) keep improving, I will periodically be required to chase the (new and improved) technology.

[lordsmurf]

Full-frame, high MP count (but not too high), ISO 12000 clean, 9fps --- I don't see need for more.
I would imagine I can shoot with this for at least 4-5 years, if not more.
The main reason to have it is still photography, not the bonus of having 720p videos.

The new D3s has the anti-CA in camera. I'll turn it on, but it's still pretty weak. I'll do more in Photoshop or ACR.
It primarily only affects the really wide lenses in my bag, not the longer Nikkor glass.

Indeed, it's the size of the sensor that can matter more than pixel density (not pixel "size" as you've put it).
The larger sensor has larger pixels (lower density), and that's better than smaller pixels (high density) from crop bodies.
It's one reason noise is kept down. Mirror in my "high MP count, but not too high" comment on the D3s.

I'd opt for the known-quality Sony sensors right now, and skip over the Nikon in-house sensors.
I like Nikon, but I've never been big on their own sensors. Using Sony was the smartest thing they ever did.