backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by bug77.. on Oct 19 at 3:37 AM

New camera launches this month for under $1,400

Nikon has pulled the wraps off a new high-end digital camera today called the D5300. The D-SLR has a resolution of 24.2-megapixels and uses a DX-format CMOS sensor. Nikon also uses the EXPEED 4 image processor inside and includes integrated Wi-Fi.

The camera promises impressive low-light performance with an ISO range of 100 to 12,800 that is expandable to ISO 25,600. The camera also has a built-in scene recognition system able to analyze and recognize the scene and make adjustments in exposure, autofocus, and white balance for the highest quality photos possible.

The D5300 uses a 39-point autofocus system and can shoot bursts at five frames per second using the optical viewfinder or the 3.2” variable angle Live View rear LCD. The camera can record full HD resolution video at 60p with stereo sound. The autofocus system and full ISO range are available during video recording.

The D5300 kit using an AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens will launch this month for $1399.95 and will come in black, red, or gray colors.
The new D5300 comes nearly a year after Nikon unveiled the D5200.

Source: Nikon



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

High end?
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/17/2013 10:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
I would not call a D5xxx Nikon's high-end camera. It is a looong way from that.

Nikon's demographic ranges

D3xxx is entry-level consumer DX
D5xxx mid-level consumer/low-end ent6husiast DX
D7xxx high-end consumer/mid-level enthusiast DX
D300 high-level enthusiast / pro-level DX
D6#0/D800 low-end pro/high-end enthusiast FX
D3a/D4 High-end pro FX

(DX = APS sensor, FX = full frame)




RE: High end?
By bug77 on 10/17/2013 11:07:09 AM , Rating: 2
D300/D300s have actually been replaced by D7000/D7100.

WiFi and GPS are ok, provided they don't drain the battery. And I'm curious about the lens. It's a kit lens so it's probably not stellar. On the other hand it commands a $600 price premium.


RE: High end?
By AmbroseAthan on 10/17/2013 11:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
The D7000/7100 does not replace the 300(s). I know people love to say this, but it's not a true successor. Many of the higher-end features of the D300(s) are still missing in the 7100 and its body is nothing like that of the D300.

The D300 was designed to be a high-end enthusiast DX camera, or pro-level, and it has yet to see a valid replacement. Just take a look at comments on forums at DPReview comparing them, or the demands & rumors for a D400 at NikonRumors. I will be holding onto my D300 till its bitter death or I finally cave and turn in my DX glass and go FX.

~AmbroseAthan


RE: High end?
By bug77 on 10/17/2013 12:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
Technicalities aside, D300 is out, D7000 is in. You do the math.


RE: High end?
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/17/2013 3:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
D300s is the pro Nikon DX and is a more professional-oriented camera than the D7000. D300 is still being offered in Nikon's product lineup.

D300s has a full magnesium body and weather sealing. D7000 only the top and back are magnesium - rest of body is plastic. Sealing is not as good as the D300.

D300 has 51 AF sensors with 15 cross type vs D7000's 39 AF sensors & 9 cross type

D7000 shoots continuous at 6 fps - D300 does 7 fps (8 fps with battery grip)

D7000 does a bunch of things the D300 doesn't do, but then again it is targeted toward enthusiasts - not pros.

D7100 matches the D300's sensors.
D7100 has a higher Megapix count (25 mp vs 12 mp)
D7100 continues with the Magnesium + plastic body, but does add better weather sealing.
D7100 will match the D300 7fps continuous shooting speed but only if you drop down to a lower res 1.3 crop mode.
D7100 has better specs & features than D300s, but build quality is not as good. The D300 is much more rugged.

The D7xxx cameras are for enthusiasts that demand every bell & whistle they can get. BUT they are expected to be babied by their owners. They are not as good at taking the abuse a pro level camera like the D300 will handle. D7100 does go a step farther in this direction, but is not in the same build ballpark as the D300S.

Note: I have owned a D7000 and moved up to the D7100 as soon as it came out. I don't regret that choice in the least as it gives me most of the goods I would have had on the D300 plus enthusiast features like video and dial SD card slots. It just doesn't have a srugged a feel as the pro camera.


RE: High end?
By nikon133 on 10/17/2013 4:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think problem is, at this stage, that Nikon is already considering FX a must for professionals. Thus D300 is on no man's land - pro-featured and built body, but DX sensor.

I will be mildly surprised to see another DX sensor in pro-grade body (and features). I think this is where separation begins - you want that kind of machine, you go FX. You want DX, you go down with features and performance a notch.


RE: High end?
By SPOOFE on 10/17/2013 5:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
Conversely, DX is where most of Nikon's sales happen.

quote:
you want that kind of machine, you go FX.


Except Nikon's ~$2000 FX body is by no means a pro-grade option. Methinks they're aiming for their true D300s replacement to have excellent video features like the ability change aperture in Live-View (a la the D800) and a much deeper buffer than the D7xxx series offers.

The problem is that Nikon's all over the map these days. DX is their bread and butter, but their DX lens selection is horrendously spotty.


RE: High end?
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/17/2013 8:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
Their legacy FX lenses are just fine for DX use, though the DX lenses are a little better optimized on the back-end elements to shine the appropriate-sized image circle on the smaller sensor (no overshine). Most don't really need to be optimized for APS-C sensors so Nikon can get away with giving the DX-optimized lenses a little less attention.


RE: High end?
By SPOOFE on 10/18/2013 3:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their legacy FX lenses are just fine for DX use


And massive overkill in terms of price and size. You're talking about products predominantly purchased by hobbyist consumers. A 24mm f/1.4G is NOT a proper fit for a D5xxx-class camera. It'll provide awesome results, sure, but the lack of DX-specific primes is a black mark on the whole lineup. The 35mm f/1.8 sold like gangbusters; a 18mm at f/2 or even f/2.8 could easily be wildly popular. Moreso if they ever get a pro-grade DX body upgrade.

Canon is still a force with their aging 7D, and the new 70D will also put a crimp in Nikon's style. Look at the m4/3 mount, their prime options are awesome.


RE: High end?
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/18/2013 10:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
The price between FX and DX is almost non-existent. The main difference is in quality - many of the DX line are made out of cheap plastic as opposed to metal and targeted to the budget-minded Digital SLR buyer. Nikon has been in this game long enough to realize that making DX versions of their popular FX lenses would be pointless when there are relatively cheap FX lenses already available if their DX users want them. Most of the DX lines were created to provide ultra-cheap kit or second lens options for their more budget-minded DX camera owners. They also know if a DX user wants more capability & quality glass in their DX cameras, the FX lenses are 100% compatible.

I personally have a single zoom & 2 prime lenses. Only one of my primes is a 'DX' lens. The others are FX lenses - and really didn't break the bank at all.


RE: High end?
By SPOOFE on 10/18/2013 6:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nikon has been in this game long enough to realize that making DX versions of their popular FX lenses would be pointless when there are relatively cheap FX lenses already available if their DX users want them.

Pointless? DX cameras are their top seller. I'm not saying "DX versions of FX lenses", I'm saying "DX lenses". There's, what, three prime lenses for DX? And one of them is a fisheye, the other's a normal lens, and the third's an unimpressive macro. There most certainly is demand for more DX primes, especially in the wider range.

quote:
the FX lenses are 100% compatible.

But they aren't. If you want to go "legacy", you're looking at 20/24/28mm f/2.8's that won't autofocus with Nikon's top-selling DSLR's. And I'm sorry, telling a casual/hobbyist photographer to "just use manual focus" isn't a healthy solution.

There most certainly is demand for a wide-angle, wide-aperture, DX-only prime only a couple bills removed from $500... even three or four if Nikon really wants to capitalize. If their goal is to be the #1 stills camera company in the world, they're NOT going to succeed by ignoring their most important product line.


RE: High end?
By EasyC on 10/17/2013 12:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
What they left out, was that it has the same lack of OLPF that the 7100 has. Theoretically, you should be able to take the same quality of photos with a 5300 as with a 7100. Without the extra knobs and buttons, though.


RE: High end?
By bug77 on 10/17/2013 1:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the D5000 has the same sensor as D300s. The D5200(?) has the same sensor as the D7000. And now this has the same sensor as the D7100. Same sensor/picture quality, but with less controls and other extras has been Nikon's plan for high end mid-range DX cameras for a while now. 24MP is way too much for non-professional lenses though, so I doubt the lack of OLPF will make a difference (other then a slight decrease in price).


RE: High end?
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/17/2013 3:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
When you get over 2p MP, you don't need an OLPF getting in the way between you and your image. You will notice many camera makers are getting the idea that an OLPF is a hindrance rather than a benefit on high MP cameras.

Here is where having 24mp is a bonus:

You shoot a subject that is far away with the longest telephoto you have. When you look at the image you still see it as far away. However if you have the mpixels to work with you can crop right into you tiny subject ans still have a decent image size. When you do this kind of post processing, you want as much information about your subject as possible. I do a lot of this style of photography (shoot subject and crop out the distractions away from that subject) and for that -- bigger IS better :D


RE: High end?
By bug77 on 10/17/2013 4:47:56 PM , Rating: 3
Here is why having 24 MP is NOT a bonus:

You shoot a subject that is far away with the longest telephoto you have. When you look at the image you still see it as far away. However if you have the mpixels to work with you can crop right into you tiny subject ans still have a decent image size. Then you notice you don't actually have the mpixels because your lens can barely resolve 12MP.
It's true, check photozone.de and you'll see that few DX lenses can resolve close to 3000 LWPH. And even then, that's only the center resolution.

And if you're thinking resolution is limited because of the OLPF, you just need to check dpreview's comparison between D800 and D800E (D800E has 50% more pixels than D5300, but over twice the sensor size). The only way they saw an improvement over the D800 was when using a prime lens. Gold ring. In the lab. Only at the lens' optimum aperture.


RE: High end?
By SPOOFE on 10/17/2013 5:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then you notice you don't actually have the mpixels because your lens can barely resolve 12MP.

The alternative is a much, much more expensive lens with more reach and resolving power to match. An inexpensive super-telephoto is going to have a lot of trouble resolving even 12mp at the long end.


RE: High end?
By bug77 on 10/17/2013 6:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, if you take a look at photozone.de, only expensive primes come close to 12MP (which would be 3000LWPH at a 4:3 aspect ratio). And again, only in the center.


RE: High end?
By SPOOFE on 10/17/2013 6:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I hear ya. The truth is that, in order to max out on quality, you're either spending lots of money or your field of view is pretty much stuck in the normal range.


RE: High end?
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/18/2013 9:24:40 AM , Rating: 3
Guys, as an owner of both the Nikon D7000 and D7100 (and previously the D90), I am only going by personal experiences here from all 3 of those cameras. No Lab. No second-hand review. Just personal usage.

I'm not a pro, but I do know what looks good and what doesn't in my own results. And so far my results are better with a D7100 than it was in the D7000 (which was in turn better than the same results from the D90). I wold love to get this

So for me it is go large or go home.

I'm sure the D5300 is a really nice camera. It has a lot of features that would make a consumer looking for a high end consumer-grade camera very happy. For me though, I prefer the solidity & heft of the D7xxx and higher cameras to the light, plastic-y feel and of the consumer-grade cameras.

Cheers!


RE: High end?
By Lord 666 on 10/18/2013 8:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
Do yourself a favor and check out a D600. Noticeable improvement.


RE: High end?
By bug77 on 10/19/2013 3:37:42 AM , Rating: 2
Ar you shooting JPEG only?


Bleh for video
By DrApop on 10/17/2013 1:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
I understand it is a photography cam but a lot of indie film makers and higher consumer level users prefer a DSLR to a camcorder.

But at 60 fps it isn't going to win any awards...where is 30 and certainly cinematic 24 fps?

And they...Nikon/Canon and others spend way too much time putting dohickies on their cams that do little but cost way too much. Wifi is nice but a dual SD slot is better. Same with GPS (although I can see where a serious photographer might find this very useful). I don't care if they have a scene selection mode that lets you take pics that converts faces into monkey faces....never gonna use it! Too many scene additions that aren't used.

What I want is something in addition H.264/mpeg4 encoding. At least give us prores and better yet real HD raw video recording. That is what we really want and it shouldn't cost 3-4 grand to get it




RE: Bleh for video
By foxalopex on 10/17/2013 2:55:43 PM , Rating: 4
Raw uncompressed video is never going to be a possibility for any consumer camcorder because the sheer amount of data involved is mindblowing. I believe most of these DSLRs use Mpeg2 or Mpeg4 for video encoding.


RE: Bleh for video
By futrtrubl on 10/17/2013 3:02:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But at 60 fps it isn't going to win any awards...where is 30 and certainly cinematic 24 fps?

Your complaining that it has a higher frame rate?!
Even if the specifications weren't
quote:
1920 x 1080 (60, 50, 30, 25, 24 fps), 1280 x 720 (60, 50 fps), 640 x 424 (30, 25 fps)
you could still down sample the 60fps video.


RE: Bleh for video
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/17/2013 3:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
Camera enthusiasts & serious amateurs demand as many bells, whistles & doohickeys they can get on their cameras - whether they intend to actually use them or not.

It is just the nature of the beast and Nikon is trying to appease their enthusiast, sophisticated amateur with all the toys they can cram in.


Canon's 70D
By foxalopex on 10/17/2013 2:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
Canon recently released a new DSLR too. Their 70D camera uses a newly developed CCD sensor that is able to phase focus at the same time. This means the camera can auto-focus perfectly even in video mode. Great for someone who wants an SLR that's now a very capable high end camcorder as well.

My understanding is that Nikkons are slightly better as producing low noise pictures than Canon for still shots.

That said, both Canon and Nikkon make great cameras. Usually for most pros, it comes down to what lenses you already own determines which brand of camera you end up with.




RE: Canon's 70D
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/17/2013 3:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
Haven't looked at the 70D yet, I will take a look though I am pretty thoroughly entrenched in the Nikon world (have way too much invested in lenses to move away).

I do agree on that last part. Most pros start off learning/using one brand of camera over another and will build their lens collection from that point on. It is really hard to move to another brand once you have built your equipment base.


RE: Canon's 70D
By Monkey's Uncle on 10/18/2013 10:02:51 AM , Rating: 2
The 70D does indeed look like a very nice camera. The ultra fast phase detection AF in live mode is a real plus. If I didn't already have a major investment in Nikon gear, i would certainly give it a look over.


RE: Canon's 70D
By SPOOFE on 10/17/2013 5:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
Nikon's been focusing on still image cameras, with video added as a bonus. But it's still kinda clunky. Downside is that the market for still cameras has been getting pinched, with demand dropping off and margins shrinking.

Canon's been focusing a little heavier on video than stills, which is why they've been a little slower with sensor updates (sensors that are "good not great" for stills can still be excellent for video). They also tend to have at least slightly better features for video (such as changing aperture in Live View without an extra-fancy mechanism like the D800).

Both make great gear, it's just that their focus is a little different. Nikon wants to be #1 in stills cameras, whereas Canon sees the healthier profit margins in the world of video.


Really 24MP
By Dr of crap on 10/17/2013 12:12:16 PM , Rating: 1
After you get above 10MP does it even matter anymore? Or for that matter above 5MP??

Unless your blowing up all you photos to 20x30 it doesn't give you a better shot.




RE: Really 24MP
By Nortel on 10/17/2013 1:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sensor size and lens quality matter. It's a marketing gimmick to take a small sensor and pack it with pixels instead of increasing the sensor size. Of course making a larger sensor is more expensive and doesn't market well when up against "more megapixels!".


RE: Really 24MP
By bsd228 on 10/17/2013 1:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After you get above 10MP does it even matter anymore? Or for that matter above 5MP??


Once you want to print larger than 8x10, yes, it matters. 10mp gives you just enough resolution to crop down to the 4x5 aspect ratio and print at 300dpi. But if you want to do a 16x20 at that same dpi, you need over 30mp. And of course this presumes no need to crop, either because you didn't have enough zoom reach, or because you want to reframe the image.

Conventional thinking from the film era is that resolution only mattered up to 8x10, as people would increase their viewing distance for larger images. But this was also an artifact of the limitations of film and lenses of time time.

Digital images and better imaging at the 35mm class now allow for pixel peeping and people are accustomed to peering at the fine details, with the gigapan type stuff being the most extreme example.


RE: Really 24MP
By superstition on 10/19/2013 1:04:13 AM , Rating: 2
Try the Sigma DP2 Merrill camera and you'll have an answer to that.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Related Articles
Nikon Unveils New D5200 D-SLR
November 6, 2012, 9:33 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki