< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon D3300 article prematurely published online: the camera has no AA filter

Pin It

Nikon-D3300-leak
Nikon D3300 DSLR camera
Nikon D3300 article leaks online
There is always one: Tom's Guide prematurely published their Nikon D3300 article online. The post is now removed, but you can still find it online. There are some new D3300 details and specifications:

"You won't see much difference in the camera body, as it's about the same size and shape, offered in black, red or gray as in the past.  But you will see a big change in the new 3X (18-55mm)zoom kit lens, a collapsible model that retracts, antenna style when not in use. (The lens shortens its barrel, but does not retract into the camera body itself.) This makes the D3300 35 percent smaller and 25 percent lighter, says Nikon."

  • No optical low-pass filter (OLPF)
  • 5 fps (up form 4 fps)
  • Expeed 4 chip
  • ISO sensitivity improved from 12,800 to 25,600
  • Video: 1080p at 60 fps(24 and 30fps also available)
  • New easy panorama mode
  • D3200 is still not discontinued
This entry was posted in Nikon D3300 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Mansgame

    They could have at the very least removed the filter from the D610 to make it a real upgrade to the D600.

    • mds

      That would be a D620 next year…

    • jtra

      http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3602255
      It seems D610 has weaker AA filter than D600.

      • koenshaku

        Good point it is much sharper than the D600

    • MyrddinWilt

      Removing the filter from the D600 is very different as the sensor is not as fine a pitch. Moire patterning is still quite significant at 24MP on FX. But the DX sensor is a finer resolution than the D800.

  • Mr. Mamiya

    No AA filter? They should make a D3300E model that is only sold by ‘professional’ resellers and costs about 750 Euros more than the normal version with AA filter.

  • Tom

    Where is the D7200?

  • broxibear

    Maybe that’s what they’ll do with the rumoured D4s ?

    • lord eels

      I’ve seen many crazy things from you today. I don’t care about your posts any more. troll.

      • broxibear

        Hi lord eels,
        If you have a look back through the last threads you’ll see someone else was posting under my name, Peter (admin) has deleted most of them now…he can tell who I am because of my IP and email.
        Sorry if you’ve been offended but it wasn’t me who was posting those comments.

  • Maji

    Nice specs for an entry level dSLR. The ISO range is great. I hope Nikon slaps this onto the D610 body, and with the Expeed 4, call it the Nikon D300s replacement. I think with a deeper buffer, the wild life and sports photogs will like this hypothetical D400.

    • John Tangney

      A low end FX body is NOT a replacement for a top level DX body. You would be losing the reach and pixel density on a distant target that is so lacking in an FX body.

      • lord eels

        only thing lacking is your investment in glass and/or perhaps your skill as a brushman. those properly endowed worry not of such farces as pixel density.

      • broxibear

        Hi John Tangney,
        I think this person posting as lord eels is the same person who was posting under my name in other threads. For whatever childish reason he’s trying to disrupt the comments section of nikonrumors and annoy people.

      • JorPet

        That is why the D800 is the D400 x 2.

        Shoot distance shots in DX mode and get the reach of a DX camera and FX mode up close to get the resolution of, well, a D800. I don’t shoot “wildlife”, but I do shoot sports where you can’t physically get closer than 50-100 meters. So I am always switching between the two modes, sometimes shot to shot.

        Really, there has been no need for a D400 for two years now.

        • John Tangney

          Had they managed some sort of mode for the viewfinder so that when in DX mode it would magnify the DX area to fill the viewfinder that might have made it more tempting. That and the lower fps and price (both of the body and glass for the wide end) are the main things that keep the D800 from being a true D400 replacement. A real D400 is still needed and I believe would sell extremely well.

        • Vin

          The need is for something more to sell, & something priced at $1500. Said the D800 owner.

      • Maji

        I meant using the DX sensor, so reach is not lost. Yes, one needs the pro body DX, but will the market support a $2000 pro body DX camera when sub $2000 FX bodies are available? I am sure there are a lot of Nikonrumors readers that will buy that pro DX, but does it justify economically for Nikon to do it? Previously when there were no FX in Nikon’s lineup, pro body DX made sense because a lot of pros and serious enthusiasts bought those bodies. Now, many of those pros and enthusiasts will be buying FX or have bought FX bodies. So, the demand for the pro body DX seems to be lower from that reason. So, in my mind, Nikon is better off offering a good DX sensor with a deep buffer in a cheaper body at a lower price.

        • Vin

          The “Pro” DX has never been above $2000, nor, Should it be, more south of $1850,

          • Maji

            You must have never heard of Nikon pro DX bodies like D2X etc. They were introduced at prices around $6,000. A semi-pro like D200 or D300s were introduced around $1,700. So, if we are talking about the D300 successor, then it will fight for space with the D610. However, if Nikon decides to cannibalize the sales of the lower end FX with a higher end DX, then it is their business decision. However, I believe that the higher end DX will not sell in the quantities that D200 or D300 sold, and hence Nikon will have to price it higher.

    • The12351

      Well wouldn’t that just be more of a replacement for the D7100? Since the D610 body is already very similar to the D7100.

  • Nameless

    How much an entry-level photographer can understand this AA filter??

    What a rip off from Nikon!

    • Maji

      Why is it a rip off?

    • http://www.rmjphotography.net/ RMJ

      There is no AA filter which they would need to understand.

  • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

    $599.95 for the new 35 mm FX f1.8G.

    Ouch. Most were hoping $299, and I thought $399!

    • Global

      $600 is fairly steep for a 35/1.8..

      Considering a 50/1.4 is $350 and the 50/1.8D/G could be gotten for $100-200.

      • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

        I prefer 35 mm for my standard lens. I was thinking for $299 I would pick it up just for fun.

        At this price, you’re better off with the Sigma unless this is somehow really exceptional.

        • AM

          Don’t worry. There will be a 35mm f/1.8G with silver ring for $50 more for all those Df pigeons. Pure photography at its best I guess.

      • simba

        A fair estimate is to compare the corresponding Nikon FX f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses at similar price.
        85mm f/1.4g $1,600
        85mm f/1.8g $5,00
        35mm f/1.4g $1,620
        35mm f/1.8g $600 is not a surprised initial price.

        • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

          Nikon 50mm f/1.4G $470
          Nikon 50mm f/1.8G $220

          • simba

            We all know 50mm lens is a lot cheaper.

            • Rock Kenwell

              You obviously didn’t remember paying:
              Nikon 50mm 1.8D @ $105, even $90 at one point.
              BUT Nikon 50mm 1.8G @ $220 and not a lot of complaint at all due to sharpness and contrast improvement!

            • Rock Kenwell

              More of the same pattern:
              Nikon 35mm F2 D @ $329,
              Now Nikon 35mm 1.8G @ $599.
              Double up boys. YEN vs Dollar.

    • lord eels

      no one in their right mind could expect $299. even $399 is stupidly low and such a thought would indicate utter ignorance.

      photography is not for poor/cheap people.

      these days you need a nice body and nice lenses to match, to really tap the advantages of modern photo gear. having FX bodies and crappy 3rd rate glass is pretty stupid.

      • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

        You must be ignorant of the fact that the DX version is less than $199.

        Care to explain that without belittling?

        Congratulations on your great wealth. It must be because of your people skills.

        • lord eels

          only a knucklehead would compare DX lens pricing to FX. see above where I mentioned “utter ignorance”.

          • orpickaname

            You must have a very very fulfilling life behind the keyboard!

            “Oh there you go, ‘someone’ upped my comment again! My life is brilliant!”

        • koenshaku

          That is why it is a DX version…

          • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

            $200 x 1.5 = overpay?

            Thanks, yeah, I got it now.

            • Maji

              The image area is 2.25 times DX, so multiply the DX price by 2.25 :) So, $450 should be a fair price.

      • Clubber Lang.

        No, One does not need the best gear to produce good photos, i.e. Images that matter, Images that have an impact on others, Images that hold a special moment in time from a time in your life that evokes emotion,Images that tell a story and as a result, make the world a better place to live in.
        There is no such thing as “These days you need”. People used what modern gear junkies deemed hunks of poo poo in the past and did just fine and still do.
        Now, if one wants the sharpest of the sharp, excellent bokeh and the leading gear that sits on top of the charts, there is nothing wrong with that as well, but lets put things into perspective.

      • Aldo

        But for 100 dollars more… they should just have put the gold ring… This lands as “overpriced” no matter what you say. 500 bucks would have been fair and 400 would have been “cheap”. 300 was just hope.

  • KT

    Considering that this body will sell for $350-400 on eBay and various online stores, in a few short months, that set of specs are quite respectable for what they are charging. A camera spec-ed at this level would have set you back $1600-1800 just 3 years ago.

  • Mo

    I wonder how long Nikon will wait before releasing the d7200 now that both lower models have expeed 4 & 1080p 60fps

  • Spy Black

    “The number many people look at first, megapixels, remains at a generous 20.4.”
    Does Tom know something we don’t?

    • AM

      Yes, he knows that many people will take that for a fact.

  • stoooopid

    Wow, entry level dslr’s are getting really good. Starting to make my D7000 look dated.

    • Brent

      Tell me about it… I have about 82K shots on mine, which is about 50% of the shutter life, having bought it three days before it actually went on sale (and taking a year off of shooting while deployed) so I have until the D900 comes out til I upgrade, lol.

  • koenshaku

    I look forward to the reviews of the 35mm 1.8

  • matt

    But does the D800, now 2 years old, see any interim updates (Expeed 4, no AA as standard – ie. simplifying to just the E model), or do cameras at this level stick to the 4 year cycle?

  • Michael

    I was thinking of picking up a D3100 since it’s now dirt cheap compared to most DSLRS ($429). Anyone know if the 3300 announcement will make the price drop further? Or just make the 3100s scarcer?

    • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist

      Probably not much more. I’d give it until just after the announcement and pounce on an offer.

      Admin will post links when he finds the almost inevitable deals.

  • http://inthemistphoto.com/ InTheMist
  • Back to top