First, a note: the comments are going out of control again. Unreasonable Nikon bashing will not be tolerated. Comments like "Nikon sucks" or "I am switching to Canon" do not bring any value to the discussion. Please use common sense and show your arguments in a logical way.

The new products from Nikon are now covered all over the Web. Here are some more quick links (some of them from our own readers):

  • Quote: "The D3100 is equipped with a new Nikon DX-format CMOS image sensor and a new image-processing engine, EXPEED 2, both developed by Nikon" (source).
  • Engadgetย has a hands-on with the D3100. Check also Bob Krist's blog - he has posted some samples photos from the new 28-300 lens.

Sample video taken with the D3100 and various Nikon lenses after the break:

This entry was posted in Nikon D3100, Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • F-mount body cap not to be confused with the body cap for the new EVIL mount? Must be.

    • JorPet

      The D700 I ordered in March came with that exact same “F Mount” cap. Same little divot at the top and all. Someone already pointed out that it started with the release of the D3s

      • Same happened for me when I got my D700 in April

  • Amien

    CANON = You CAN’T ! ๐Ÿ™‚

  • ArTourter

    The “new F-mount body cap” is the BF-1B.
    It has already been shipped on other cameras: It was on the new D700 I got 2 months ago.
    However nikon-europe only lists it as included accessories of the D3100.


    • Segura
      • Anonymous

        The new F-mount body cap was also used on the latest shipment of D5000 cameras.

        • Phoenix

          And the D90. The majority of products my shop were selling had the BF-1B and these new covers were showing up, I assumed as signs for the upcoming EVIL camera.

    • +1 pm my D700 also

    • That is one fancy body cap. I’ve been waiting for that lens cap upgrade for years now. lol

  • dd

    Quote: โ€œThe D3100 is equipped with a new Nikon DX-format CMOS image sensor and a new image-processing engine, EXPEED 2, both developed by Nikonโ€

    nikon can develop sensor now?

    • PHB

      They get a copy of Verliog and muck on with the same standard cell library that Sony and Canon draw from.

      Sony only provide the fab. The fab does not do the sensor design. The customers bring their designs to the fab and the fab makes them. All the guff about this being a Sony sensor is b/s.

      The only common factor is that Nikon can’t sell a design that Sony can’t make.

      • King Of Swaziland

        Given that Sony seems to miraculously have available sensors for their upcoming products that happen to have disturbingly similar specs to the new Nikon sensors, I suspect that Nikon and Sony jointly developed these sensors, or that Nikon took a Sony reference design and further developed it.

        • BornOptimist

          But the new Sony sensor in NEX5, that has similar spec, has a different physical size. Eighter is one noted with wrong dimmensions, or they are not the same.
          We will probably get more hints in a few days, when Sony announce their DSLRs.

        • Anonymous

          Specs are ‘similar’ because the production machinery is the same.

          What will be interesting is to compare the noise for the D3100 with the D90 replacement. The D3100 has lower pixel density but is the same generation of sensor technology, so for the D90 replacement to have better noise performance would mean Nikon are ‘holding back’ with the D3100 sensor design.

          • Noise characteristics are also affected by microlens system, which affects sensitivity. For example, even though, as Nikon acknoledges that D3x’s sensor uses same silicon base as teh A900’s, one is rated with base ISO at 200 (A900), while D3x’ is rated at 100ISO. Also, Nikon has gone further with D3s’ as compared to D3. The older tech could be basis for D3100 sensor and the newer for the cameras coming next, like D90+. Older tech is usually cheaper, all R&D have been paid already.

            • Anonymous

              So by that reasoning we can expect the D3100 to outperform the D5000/D90. If so, the D5000 is gonna be cheap as chips by Christmas and gone by Spring.

        • Michael Lee

          You guys cannot fanthom how much work and resources goes into making a sensor. IMHO, Nikon is probably using Sony sensors but overlaying their own set of algorithms to produce the images. Nikon has much more experience in this arena and is better able to optimize picture quality with noise performance and color rendering.

          Sony has the resources and capital to design and fabricate the sensors. And it’s just a better use of Nikon resources to just buy it from them. Making your own sensor, setting up a fab and constantly updating them would run in the hundreds of millions if not more.

      • ha

        d3/d3x/D3s sensors are by all reviews superb. Canon has nothing to match them. and yes they were made by sony. I got no problem with sony made sensors. The results speak for themselves. Why sony makes better sensors for nikon than for their alpha series is a problem with sony, not nikon.

        • Not true. D3x’s sensor is made by Sony, most specialists agree D3/D700/D3s’ sensors are not (they have different ADC structure).

          • BornOptimist

            They don’t have any ADC at the sensor at all. The ADC’s (two of them), are external on the D3/D700/D3S sensor.

    • BornOptimist

      That’s nothing new. They did it on D2H, D3/D700 and D3S

    • Chris

      What they actually say is:

      “A new DX-format CMOS image sensor developed by Nikon and the new image-processing engine, EXPEED 2, have been adopted for the new D3100, enabling capture of images exhibiting excellent image quality and definition. ”

      “Developed” can mean many things in maketing material and press releases – could mean they actually designed the chiip from the ground up or it could mean simply that they added some custom embellishment or enhancement / development such as their own AA filterto an otherwise Sony designed chip.

      Now in the very same sentance they also use the word “adopted” – could this mean they are not actually the original parent of the chip?

      – C

    • Just A Thought”

      “Developed by Nikon”

      I design and take a photo with a film camera and the lab develops it. Does that mean that the lab designed and manufactured the photo?

  • Simon

    Comparing to my D50 bought in 2008, D3100 is definitely better camera, but it not very useful for me, because I have quite a few AF and AI lenses.

  • Mr Kotku

    I always used to tell Jay VanAdder at Nikon sales ” Nikon makes the worlds best 12 mega-pixel cameras” . Now what will I say?

    • LOL!!! As a consolation, you may continue to say that until the other bodies in the line up gets replaced.

    • zzddrr

      Mr Korku, I was wondering the same thing today. Nikon made it! Now what do you think how long will Nikon stuck at 14Mp?

      • Seems like 14 MP is the new 10 MP and 16 MP will be the new 12 MP. How long? I guess for the next six years at least.

        • Anonymous

          Oh noooooooooo. I really hope that sony will improve that 24Mp sensor in the A850. Try to imagine if they fix it and would have the same quality output as the D3x. I would say goodbye to Nikon for that. I think it is possible. Two years passed by and I assume sony worked on it.

  • CK

    Some awful music in that sample video but the quality looks very good, im looking forward to the hands on review with it to see how well the new liveview focus works.

    Kind of surprised they did not use bigger/fancier lenses to show off the ability of the camera but i think it’s hitting it’s market point well.

  • The sample video is nice and deceptively simple. It looks so easy to make good clips.

    • Definitely the videos look good. But they’re so clearly fake modeled shots that it comes across almost cheesy. I know the message is “hey, this is a great family camera”, and the market they’re communicating to need a clear simple message, but why not get something real and natural. I recall them doing something along those lines with the D5000…yup, just found the video here:

      “All these pictures have been taken by children.” Brilliant. So much more organic and real.

      I couldn’t stop thinking during the D3100 video that if you have a camera on a family day out, you aren’t getting shots as if you were models on a video shoot. Dad is shooting, then mom, then maybe the kids for a few clips. Wish they would have done something just as nice but with a little less cheese.

      • zzddrr

        Ron Adair – totally agree with you. The recent ads from Nikon just look surreal. I don’t know but they are somehow out of touch with reality.

        • Hey, look what I just found:

          Very misleading that the shots in this video are shot with a camera capable of 60fps or similar, when the D3100 can only shoot 30fps max. Unless, of course, it was shot with another soon to be announced Nikon VSLR that shoots higher frame rates. ๐Ÿ™‚

          The camera flashes in a few of the shots clearly reveal that the camera used to produce the video has a CMOS shutter (rolling shutter artifacts). Also, the footage is clearly not produced with a camcorder. These are cine lenses or SLR lenses. Considering Nikon isn’t about to have a promo video shot with a competitors VSLR, the camera this video was produced with is either:

          A) RED One
          B) Soon to be announced D90 replacement, D700s/x or other model capable of slo-mo

          I’m betting on the latter. Thoughts?

          • NiknWontRepairMyGray

            C) Canon dslr

            • Anonymous

              Neither. There are plenty of professional cameras out there which can shoot 60fps. Could even be a Sony EX3. although the red seems more likely.

            • @Anonymous: for the record, this is not shot on any old camcorder. There is rolling shutter artifacts in the shots where the “model” camera fires the flash. Definitely a CMOS sensor, most likely a VSLR.

              @NiknWontRepairMyGray Do you really think there’s a chance in hell Nikon would use a Canon DSLR for their promo video?

              Let me answer that question for you: Hell would smell like strawberries before Nikon used a Canon for any promo work.

          • Joe R.

            I don’t think it was shot at 60 fps.

            • Please elaborate? It’s definitely shot at faster frame rate than 30.

          • Rafael

            Im hoping D700s/x

            • Or a D90 replacement? That would be budget friendly for those looking to, say, get rid of a recent Canon purchase acquired only for its 60fps capabilities. ๐Ÿ™‚

              But seriously, if a D700s came out with full HD, 60fps, full manual controls, it would be mine same day.

  • Denko

    “…developed by Nikon…โ€ Great! hopefully optimized for images and not for video like the Sony ones most likely are. The little I have seen of the video capabilities of DSLRs (Canon included) leaves me with bade aftertaste… definitely not a feature I will be using.

  • Anonymous

    I always hope that Nikon can make their camera body cap and lens cap attachable to each other tight, just like canon caps and sigma caps. This design is much more handy for traveling and easier to manage the space in my camera bag.

  • Carlos R B

    If the sensor is developed by Nikon…it would make sense that the nikon evil has its own sensor also…and the 2.5 factor makes more sense also…dont think nikon would release a 1.2 prime for an evil system if it was 1.5 crop…is there any 1.2 lens on the current grade?

  • About the body cap, as mentionned by AsTourter, I just bought a Nikon D3S body lately (July 31st), and it was equipped with the new body cap. It’s now called the “BF-1B”, instead of the old one, that was called “BF-1A”.

  • art

    The video does still look fairly jiggly to me but the good news is, it doesn’t seem to have excessive moire like the Canon’s. BUT then again, it’s been down rezzed from 1080p to 480p, so who knows what’s actually going on here.

    If the d3100 does video well, or at least improve on some of the key issues present on the Canons (namely rolling shutter and moire) then this’ll bode really well for the D90 replacement and D700 replacement.

    *crosses fingers!*

    • lolcatmaster FTW

      One thing to consider is the video purpose is to show you how it will look when a normal person shoots a video with their bare hands holding the camera, if they used steadycams, dollyยดs, etc. To stabilize the shot it would be actually be misleading because they would make people think that you can do clean pannings or stuff like that without additional equipment.

  • Ralph Daily

    The video clip looked very good…

  • InfraRed

    Admin: Is it a fair assessment that Nikon will not sell a Body-only version of the 3100?

    In that case, existing Nikon users who bought a kit in the past have no choice but buy a second kit with a lens most likely identical to the one they already have. That sounds a bit like force feeding…
    My two cents

  • Peter B

    just bought a f100.

    • And I just bought a tank of gas. …your point?

  • Anonymous

    Haha, Canon chooses to announce the S95 on the same day that Nikon unveils a new slr body and 4 lenses!

    • D Datta

      It some how seems that Canon has lost the low end high volume DSLR market. The D3100 just wipes the floor with the Rebel t2i at $200 less. The Canon 60D is no where in sight and the rumor is that it will have a polycarbonate body.

      Anyways, for my part, will wait for a D300S replacement or a D90 replacement, though my fingers are itching to get the D3100 as soon as it is released. The Nikon Shop is exactly 50m from where I live..

    • Joe R.

      I won’t lie I’m not sure the D3100 is worth $300 more than the S95 for most people that would be in the market for the D3100.

  • Mike

    As the D3100 doesn’t have automatic exposure bracketing, i will not be interested.
    Might pick up that new 300mm lens though, very nice.

  • Craig Grunwell <– has more hands-on links from several other sites. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Why can’t these camera review sites figure out the simple following formula for reviewing VSLRs today? All we care about is (in order of importance):

    – Does this camera offer manual control?
    – Does it do faster frame rates (60fps)?
    – How is the rolling shutter (jello) compared to previous and current models?
    – How is the compression and moire artifacting?
    – What resolution is the output video?
    – Is there line skipping?

    It seems like the site that figures out to look specifically at these issues, and satisfactorily test for them, will be the top choice on the web for anyone interested in video capable cameras.

    And yet nobody seems to care what the lurkers are interested in finding out. All I see these reviewers and “hands on preview” folks do is walk through the key points of the press release and say, “Yup, the company says it has feature x, and looky here, it does. Incredible!”

    • Bob

      @Ron–my cynical feeling is that most camera reviewers have become tools for the camera companies to sell stuff–for example, DPReview is owned directly by Amazon, so there is a clear conflict of interest. The goal of these sites then, it seems, is not to review and answer your very valid points, but instead simply hype up the products to generate sales. If a site writes a bad review, it won’t be invited to the next Big Thing, which would result in loss of web traffic, ad money, etc., ultimately going out of business. One reviewer says B&H sends him equipment to review, so what is his incentive to tell you that a camera is a piece of cr*p with more noise than a 1980’s heavy metal concert? If you bite the hand that feeds you….

      When Leica released the very buggy M8, with all sorts of problems (see Michael Kamber’s very honest and negative hands-on review), not one of the web reviewers mentioned the problem–after it became an issue, the reviewers all made up poor excuses as to why the IR issues or dead cameras were never addressed. The only one who was right on all points?–Mr. Kamber (professional photojournalist, not camera reviewer)–and I also tested a M8.2, and walked away from it as well, it’s performance above ISO 640 being simply unacceptably noisy.

      The other thing is that, as professional camera-reviewers, they may not be in tune with the needs of real, working photographers and videographers.

      Rant over.

      • I have to say, DP Review does an ok job of presenting you objective information. I do think their non-quantitative assessments sometimes err on the generous side, but in the end, their tests show what the cameras do and you can ignore their banter. Past the quantitative, it’s up to users to get a camera in their hands before deciding. And as for Amazon…I was concerned at first, but they sell everything, so I don’t see any reason for a bias really. If they sell more of one camera than another, they’re still selling cameras and I imagine they could care less.

        …at least, in theory.

        • Agreed. I can’t help but wonder, though, how long they owned DPReview before the new FTC rules went into effect and forced them to disclose the relationship. It doesn’t seem that long ago that I wasn’t seeing that mentioned on Amazon.

  • matt

    anyone know when the 3100 will ship? Mid-September at the earliest?

  • Adam

    D3100 – 3 fps? Kinda slow… I thought it would be near 5… Oh well… I’m looking forward to the D700 replacement tho… I hope AF is faster with af assist lights that are used on something like the SB600 or SB900, but slap them on to the camera.. , , how about built in rf radio triggers.. That sounds good to me…

    SB-910 would be nice to see. A replacement of the ir type ittl “creative system” to rf.

    • I wonder if they “crippled” the burst rate. I know that probably sounds silly, but you have a camera that — at least on paper — can give the D5000 a run for its money. One of the latter camera’s advantages, though, is a higher FPS rate. Something tells me we won’t see a 5000 refresh ’til this time next year, so they may not want to cut too far into its market share (or piss off the people who’ve bought the 5K recently).

      • ha

        you’re missing the point. this camera is below the D5000. If it was better it would be called D51000. ๐Ÿ™‚

        the competing canon has just 0.7 faster fps…hardly a record breaking and it is 200 bucks more. get the point: this is an entry level camera. I find it silly people would bash it then say they are getting a D700 anyways….if you were seriously considering a D3100 vs a D700 then you probably have no business getting a D700.

      • Joe R.

        I’d bet on it. I’d also bet the D5100 will be a D3100 that’s less locked down with firmware (say 5 fps) and maybe more video options (720p60 bursts of 720p210). It makes sense to design to a higher standard and just turn off some features. It’s cheaper than running 2 separate design teams for two products that are so similar.

        I bet the D90 replacement is a firmware-limited version of the D300 replacement.

        • I think you don’t the fatcs. The D90 is not a crippled D300. The bodies are totally different in structure, which permits the faster fps rate for D300. It also includes 100% VF, weather sealing, etc.

          IQ-wise there’s difference that D300 has an 14bit option, but that’s not a “firmware” option, since it requires the ADC structure to be different.

          Sorry, this talk about “firmware” crippling is just an internet myth.

          • iamlucky13

            Actually, nothing in your post contradicts the speculation.

            Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me. You see it in a lot of industries.

            That the D90 and D300 have different bodies is obvious. What’s inside is less obvious. For all we, or at least I, know, the shutter mechanisms may be physically the same and capable of engaging at the same rate, but the image processor, although of the same family, might be slower on the D90. Or even those might be the same, but the D90 is deliberately slowed down.

            Again, this is just speculation, so you’re free to disagree, and if you have definite information to the contrary, I’d definitely love to hear it.

  • Mathematical Bovine

    It seems the new 28-300 lens is being sold as a kit lens with the D700 in Japan.

  • Luke

    I dont get this cap? why is it so special and different?

    • Bob

      The old body caps don’t say “F Mount”, just simply “Nikon”. I surmise Nikon is coming out with a new lens mount for its mirrorless camera(s), so we can differentiate between the F and soon-to-be-announced (MX?) lens mount. Why else fix something that ain’t broken?

    • Victor Hassleblood

      So far it is simply Nikon’s biggest surprise to the market.

  • Admin, only one question:

    D3100 have full manual controls (iso, aperture, shutter) during movie mode?


  • Admin-

    I like your “note”.


    • Victor Hassleblood

      Canon sucks. I am switching to Nikon.

    • StickingZoom

      Stating that Nikon sucks is pointless, just leave this site.

      But I don’t agree with the ban of “I’m switching to Canon” because, meanwhile, this has become running gag, like “it has beganz”.

      Vocalizing disappointment about a new product (or the lack of it) is also something that I’d expect on a fanboy site.

      • Victor Hassleblood

        “Stating that Nikon sucks is pointless …”

        I didn’t. As a matter of fact I never did.

        “Vocalizing disappointment about a new product (or the lack of it) is also something that Iโ€™d expect on a fanboy site.”

        I did that occasionally. So I have your permission to stay, have I?

        Oh, I am so grateful for that.

        • StickingZoom

          And you did notice that I wasn’t replying to your post, now did you?

          • preston

            That’s hilarious! He got all worked up at a post that wasn’t even about him!

      • Broxibear

        Cameras suck…I’m switching to paint and paper.
        When are Winsor & Newton going to bring out new brushes… the Kolinsky Sable’s need updated.

      • I don’t mind the joking, but there are a few folks here that are continually comparing Nikon to Canon, and trying to point out what they perceive as clear indicators of inferiority on the Nikon side, simply because Nikon isn’t doing everything the folks at Canon are choosing to do. That, or they’re flat out threatening that they’re done with Nikon and are switching to Canon. On every blog post. Multiple times. Sometimes Anonymously. (you know who you are)

        It’s annoying, and I’m glad Admin is putting a stop to it. Jokes are one thing, but this thread is already so much less cluttered with contrived grievances it’s clear something has worked. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • daniel

    I bought a D3000 yesterday and it had the same new cap. (Here in the 3rd world we won’t see the d3100 in like 1 year)

    • D Datta

      I expect the D3100 to be in the shops by December 2010. It was surprising that the Nikon India site was updated the same day. It usually takes Nikon 2 weeks to a month to update the site.

  • Does anybody else think the bokeh on the #1 image is the opposite of impressive? Check the jewelry highlights at the bottom of the frame. Hardly worth dumping my 85/1.4 for.

    • Also: doesn’t focus any closer. So, $1k premium for AF-S really. I’m underwhelmed.

      The 24-120 looks a bit underwhelming with it’s noticeable CA, even at small apertures.

      The 28-300 looks like the big news here–looks DAMN good wide open.

    • StickingZoom

      Regarding 85mm bokeh: I’d wait for more sample images before rushing to a verdict. At least on paper (the MTF charts) the bokeh should be excellent.

      Note further that over the old 85mm AF you not only get AF-S but also weather sealing.

      Why do you need a smaller min. focus distance?

      But yes, 1.5Kโ‚ฌ is … demanding …

      • Typo on my part, I meant than the 85/1.8 I have (which I picked up dirt cheap new!)

        And no, MTF graphs have not whit to do with bokeh. And that example shot is in the distance range this lens is optimal for. A short tele for portraits.

        In all likelihood, it is sharper into the corners and improved overall. However, the bokeh looks just like the 1.4 and 1.8, which are a bit ringed wide open and gorgeous down a stop.

        You can hold your breath if you like, but the proof of the pudding is what we just tasted. Ain’t bad, but not worth the wait or price.

    • iamlucky13

      I did notice the slightly inverted bokeh on the 85mm. Admittedly, that’s about the worst case and it’s still symmetrical, but I was a little surprised by it.

      This seems to be a common characteristic of newer lenses.

      The performance of the 28-300 is what surprised me. From the limited selection of sample shots, it looks very sharp in the center and with almost non-existent CA.

      The 24-120 shots didn’t impress me so far. If it’s consistently sharp across the zoom and aperture ranges and has neutral bokeh, I’d say it’s worth it, but there seems to be a moderate amount of barrel distortion at 24mm and definite green CA on edges of the frame.

  • Pete rodgers

    The only good thing about this new model is the continous AF in video mode.
    I’m really disappointed in the pixel count, i think Nikon are definetely falling further and further back against the competition.
    For me, i’m selling my D90 + lenses, and going to get a Canon 550D, Canon certainly seem to be advancing in the right direction for me.
    I want razor sharp A2 prints, and i think only Canon is going to address this issue.
    Quality at a reasonable price.

    • If you can’t make quality 20×30″ prints with a d90 and good glass, it’s not the gear.

      • +1

      • ha

        +2. ah the megapixel myth. I print 20×30 all the time with 10mp crops as have been photographers for ages. 12-16 MP is the sweet spot before overly noisy pictures and reduced DR and color depth affect the image (ala 7D). I prefer my nigh vision-like capable nikon.

        • Dan

          Ah yes, now instead of 12MP being the “sweet spot,” now it’s “12-16MP” so that all of the new Nikon releases will fall in that range. And once Canon ups the MP count again and Nikon gets to 18MP, that’ll be in the “sweet spot.”

          • Adrian

            Well, yes. sensor design/processor technology is constantly evolving; the next generation of cameras will have smaller pixels but better performance, but trying to cram too many pixels into a given area (imagine the d3x with 55 mp) is still a bad idea regardless of technology.

            • Dan

              Right, and regardless of what the the technology is actually capable of, wherever Nikon happens to be at the moment is the “sweet spot.”

            • Dan-

              You won’t find many here that disagree with the logic you mockingly present. You see, most of us here have chosen Nikon because their design decisions are in line with our priorities. We trust their vision for producing photographic gear based on the needs of real world photographers, and appreciate their efforts to really understand the most important factors when deciding what to focus on and what to compromise, rather than simply playing the “specs on paper” game.

              We are pretty boring hereโ€”we use our gear for our real world needs, and don’t spend all of our time trying to rig tests to show that more megapixels is better than less. We are also educated, and recognize the fair comparisons which logically and systematically show that the supposed benefits you gain from outrageous specs are almost always outweighed by the downsides.

              Hence, we are very happy to support Nikon and their slow and steady approach toward the pinnacle of perfection when it comes to a true photographer’s gear. We are glad there is a company that resists packing pixels (even at the cost of some market share) and instead focuses on image quality, dynamic range, high ISO/low noise response, sharpness, reduced diffractive aberration, fast processing, build quality, and ergonomics.

              But if you like Canon’s approach instead, be our guest.

              Bonus question: can you name the company that can produce 102,000 ISO results which DON’T look like a Monet?

            • Dan


              First, let’s not assume that I’m in favor of Canon’s approach–I most certainly am not. I do not shoot with an 18 megapixel camera and do not intend to purchase one. But, in the context of people that claim to use their cameras for “real world needs,” I just find it comical that, as soon as Nikon ups their spec from the “why would you ever need more” 12 MP to 14 MP, suddenly the optimal sensor density correspondingly goes up.

              In the real world, people can get nice pictures from a D200, D300, D3100, 550D, or 7D. Or, at least, a “true photographer,” whatever that abstraction means. I’m not knocking Nikon, I’m knocking ridiculous fanboism, nothing more–there’s no need to be so defensive. I guess that fanbois tend to get that way.

              Now everyone go take some pictures.

            • Simply put, it’s a matter of accepting some basic truths about the current state of tech, those being that more megapixels come at a price and current technology doesn’t give us the best of both worlds, despite what some companies (successfully) try to get the world to believe.

              The D3x is a well designed, well thought out piece of equipment that is still smoking the most current iterations of high MP cameras. It also just so happens that it’s way out of my budget range. As someone has already said, if I really NEEDED the D3x I would already gladly have found a way to pay for it. That camera is a mean machine that makes EVERY high MP DSLR maker look a bit silly in my opinion.

              I trust that Nikon understands that many photographers, myself included, would welcome higher megapixels. However, they have seen a way to compete on grounds other than just megapixels, and have figured out how to dramatically improve image quality beyond the fairly irrelevant metric of megapixels.

              12mp is enough resolution for most shooters today, and staying put at 12 for a few years has allowed Nikon to make advancements that no other company has even attempted to achieve. Which is more valuable for the majority of photog’s shooting scenarios? MP? High ISO? Color Depth? Dynamic Range? Certainly MP can’t be as disproportionately important as the attention they get. MP only get the attention they get because they are the simplest metric to understand and explain.

              Sure, I’ve had a few moments where I’ve wished for higher resolution. But I’ve had a couple of orders of magnitude higher number of moments when I’ve needed cleaner low-light capabilities, both before FX and after. I read a comment from a poster asking who would need anything over 1,600 ISO. To them, I say I would welcome 1,000,000 ISO. Seriously. And I don’t think it’s anything but a future reality. Just watch: we’ll see ISO in the millions before ten years passes, or I’ll adopt a pet cat.

              When that happens, we’ll have Nikon to thank for the push in a different direction than MP.

        • +3

    • Bob

      Good luck Pete, sell your D90, jump on the Canon train that is advancing in your right direction. Yes, of course pixel count is THE only thing that matters, so Canon wins hands down. –more pixels=better camera=better photos=better photographer. I’m sure that the Canon will give you razor sharp prints, if you can see anything at all past the noise and banding.

      • …but some of us LIKE noise and banding! It’s an effect! …a “look”.

        • ELK

          “…a definitive style, a dinstinct touch” I would add ๐Ÿ™‚

      • On a DX sensor, don’t high-megapixel counts end up being counterproductive at some point anyway? I mean, if you could do a 24MP DX, that’s kinda like stuffing ten pounds of crap in a five pound bag. My understanding of it (and let me be the first to point out that I’m not some kind of engineer) is that the surface area of the pixels (on a per-pixel basis) is compromised the more of them you try to stuff into a given surface area… you may get the number of MP you want, but might also see a corresponding drop in IQ.

        And Pete: I’m not a Nikon fanboy by the longest stretch of anybody’s imagination; Canon does make some good cameras. At their upper end, which the 550 decidedly is not. Why take what’s effectively a step down, if not backward?

        • Well, yes and no. It takes increasingly better glass to properly resolve detail at higher pixel densities. So, it’s a neck at neck race to develop sharper and sharper glass to resolve this detail. The diffraction limits that are commonly sited don’t translate into real world results, but most people don’t talk about real world results.

          If you want examples, look at 12mp point and shoots. There’s a lot further that both lens design and pixel density can go.

          48 mp for FX and 30 mp for DX are not unreasonable in the next few years.

        • ha

          higherMP = smaller photosites = less dynamic range, color depth, worse high ISO performance.

          Look at DXO labs sensor testing. notice a trend on the best ISO performers? look at dynamic range and color depth. In other words, the bigger the photosites the more data you gather to pull highlights back in the scene. Add to that the need to use less NR (which smudges fine details) and you soon realize that unless you have at least 3 times the pixel density, the trade off is just pointless. If you compare a 12-14 mp with a 16-18 mp, the 12-14 sensor will always win hands down since the increase in linear resolution from a few MP provides meaningless benefits but very real drawbacks. You can fight the noise with 20+mp (which no cropped body yet supports) but you’ll ALWAYS lose on DR and color detph. no tool will bring back those lost highlights, period.

          • No if you fix final output size. There’s a physycal limit for pixel pitch size, but we are a long way from that.

            Observe that the 24MP sensor in D3x has much better DR than D3’s 12MP at base ISO. The design of D3s’ sensor is what makes it better at high ISO, not that pixel pitch is larger or smaller (fixing final output size, always).

            The 7D has abou same high ISO performance as D300s’ (within DxO Mark margin of error of 1/3 stop), and it’s the densest APS-C sensor out there.

    • yrsued
  • Anonymous

    A lot of you guys are demanding way too much out of this “entry level” D3100.

  • Anonymous

    since the D3100 has the 14MP, I wonder what is the MP value of the D700 successor is going to have..

    • 24.0

      …the real question is what will ISO and fps be? And video?

      • Joe

        – 24 MP? I hope not, I don’t need that much.
        – ISO? Yes, please, always nice to have, though the current D700 hast enough for most uses.
        – FPS, video? Not doing sports nor video, I really don’t care…

        What is desirable really depends on your use case…

    • Kingyo

      D700 successor ‘should have’ 16mp (not 24) & same video features as the D3100 but slightly improved. ISO performance being similar to the D3s. Just what I think would make sense according to the current Nikon production trend. I seriously doubt Nikon would ever at this point think/say: “Alright guys let’s crush this lame 5D mark II already..let’s put out the “D700xs” with scaled down D3x specs & D3s ISO performance plus 1080p video w/ continuous AF during recording up to 30 minutes, and oh yeah, don’t forget the 60fps know some people want that nice slow-mo effect on those wedding videos. Price it around $3000 too..don’t wanna scare people off with the price tag.” ๐Ÿ˜‰
      ..but wouldn’t that be sweet? ๐Ÿ˜€

    • It’ll have same as D4, likely around 18-20MP, since they are supposed to be “fast” cameras, for PJ and sports shooting. Nikon doesn’t seem to believe the public for more pixels is there. D700 and 5DII seem to sell in about similar numbers, each to a different group of people.

  • chuck

    Nikon +1 finaly fix your entry level camera to do what technology enables!

    Where is a new 80-400. Was the 70-300 VR really in need of an upgrade to a 55-300?

    Good for finally fixing the 24-120. The 28-300 better be really really good, Tamron has a nice one for 600 bucks, you sure that nikon plate is worth 400 smacks more

    Where the F is the D700, D300 improvements?

    • WoutK89

      70-300VR is FX, 55-300VR is DX and replaces the 55-200VR DX

  • Tomm

    That sample video crashed my iPhone – a bad omen?

  • pete

    these are the best announcements nikon has made in a long time. the body looks fabulous, the glass is spot on and the pricing is high-ish but reasonable. great job nikon for finally updating the 85. great job nikon for finally providing an f4 zoom. great job nikon by addressing the AF and 1080p issues with video. great job nikon by not being a victim of the pixel peeping morons who think they need more MP. A2 prints…please man…how many a2 prints do people make ? some people really need to take their hand off it.

    • Pete rodgers

      A2 Prints
      In 2008, i was printing and selling 1854
      In 2009 2660
      In 2010 until this weekend 1988

      Some people want the maximum quality and detail, and i cater for that. A minority?? yes.
      I also use a D3X, but that’s for professional work as above.
      What i want from all camera manufacturers is FULL FRAME 24×36 20 M pixels minimum in ALL DSLR’s at $1250 max, why can’t we all have the same as the Pro’s???


      • pete

        Listen, if you;re going to LIE then at least make it relatively plausible. and as for all cameras havubg 20m pixel minimum on ALL dslr’s…what a load of nonsense ! why should everyone be subjected to that ? and then the $1250 max ? i mean seriously.

        you are clearly a liar but given the rest of your posts its also equally clear you are an idiot aswell.

    • STJ

      I must say that I agree with pete – Nikon has addressed many many issues with these releases – typical Nikon to wait long, but then do it right. It’s about joy of ownership, not the latest features that will “have” to be included in 3months from now. It seems that the d3100 has a soft grip as well – nice. With new 24mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses I hope a new 135mm will come in the next round; time will tell…

    • ha

      A2 prints done with 18 vs 14 MP look identical. Even 10 MP looks just about the same unless you use a magnifying glass.

      The truth about high MP count is that it allows pixel peepers to peek inside their charts better. For the real world, if you really need the most detail possible you’d be shooting medium to large format. not using these canon/nikon toys.

  • sqjam
  • Segura

    I am somewhat shocked no one pointed out the new body caps that have apparently been out for the last few months . . . until I mentioned it yesterday ๐Ÿ˜‰

    But seriously, no reason to put “f-mount” on the body cap, unless we are seeing a new lens mount. Funny that a body cap on the current cameras is the most concrete evidence of a real EVIL camera. Sad it will be a different mount. Maybe Nikon is making a push for DX/FX lenses right now, and next year not much since they will be making EVIL mount lenses.

    • Segura

      Will EVIL be an “EX” sensor? We have DX and FX, just missing the EX

      • Just A Thought”

        I think Sigma might have a trademark on EX as they use it to designate their high end lenses. In my opinion, the MX will get reserved for their medium format Leica S2 competitor. Putting in a DX sensor in their evil camera would allow buyers to use present DX Nikkors, ala a lens adapter, until new lenses can be released. Putting in an FX sensor would raise the price and in so doing would drastically reduce the number of units sold. Pump out the volume, then a few years later add FX sensor to the mix. Canikon are late to the Evil game and will have to quickly establish a large base of customers. You can’t do that selling expensive FX bodies.

        • BornOptimist

          I’m pretty sure there will be no FX evil (or FX rangefinder) from Nikon. I’m also sure there will be no S2-competitor from Nikon. The marked is simply too small, and the development cost is too high.
          What we will see is a new line with a smaller sensor, and a new set of lenses. This will be the MX-mount. It will be compatible with F-mount thru an adapter. On the new mount you will have to twist the lens clockwise (as seen from front) to attach the lens, and counter clockwise to take it of (oposite of F-mount, same as on Canon cameras).

  • BornOptimist

    The NEX5 sensor and D3100 sensor has different physical size, so they are not the same part.

  • nick192

    I just checked last few pictures at
    I found that pictures are taken with Canon EOS 1D, Phase One P25 ! Why not with a Nikon cam??

    • nick192

      + Phase One H20 & most with Nikon D3x

      • HAHAHA! That is hilarious! Good catch! My guess is that all these parts are made by different companies for Nikon and to meet deadlines they get whoever they can to shoot, regardless of the equipment they’re using.

      • Also, some of these peeps are using PS7(?!)

    • ha

      It’s called: hire a marketing agency to take your pics.

  • nick192

    Even Nikon CD picture is taken with Canon EOS 1D Mark III !!! WTF!

    • nick192

      One more FAIL after that fail ad… Why can’t they use there own products for taking pics??? I feel sad for owning a Nikon ..

      • ha

        because they don’t take their own pics. ๐Ÿ™‚ A way to save money is to outsorce the task.

      • Just A Thought”

        If you want the best picture, then you use the best cameras available .

        Why would that make you “feel sad for owning a Nikon”? Your Nikon camera. I’m sure, is capable of taking fantastic photos. Just because another brand was used to take a marketing photo in no way diminishes the ability of your Nikon camera to provide you with fantastic photos.

        Honestly, would the photos in question have turned out any better if Nikon equipment was used?

        • Aaron

          While the photo-taking was probably outsourced, I think the point nick192 is trying to make is that if Nikon can’t even put trust into using their own cameras for promo photos, then why should we?

        • “Honestly, would the photos in question have turned out any better if Nikon equipment was used?”


          Here’s the point though. Let’s imagine, for a minute, that you’re watching a Toyota commercial. The voiceover’s giving you all the specs, telling you how great the Toyota is. Phenomenal MPG. Optional GPS and MP3. Car and Driver 10 Best. Blah, blah, blah.

          Then the camera zooms in, and you notice that the car they’ve been showing is a Honda.

          Both good cars? Yep. Will they both get you from A to B? Sure. But I bet you’d wonder why they weren’t using their own product to promote their product.

  • Adnen

    Samples with the new AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR at Bob Krist’s Blog :

  • Silas

    Sample video from the first full HD Nikon camera – in 480p! yaaay!

    • SA

      I think this is admin’s fault. Wach this clip in Full HD here:

      • Zoetmb

        I don’t trust that clip because even though it’s available in 1080p, it doesn’t seem to be posted by Nikon. Who knows how many levels of compression/decompression it’s gone through as it’s passed from YouTube poster to YouTube poster?

        But if that clip is the true source file, I find it terribly disappointing. I can’t put my finger on what I don’t like about it, but I think it looks terrible. It doesn’t seem sharp and it seems to lack dynamic range. Most of the shots have no blacks, the sky is just one continuous blob of grey and the colors seem washed out.

        • SA

          In all aspects agree.

  • Forgive me if this has been mentioned before, but is that the pro-level grip rubber on the D3100? I’m looking at the D3000 and D5000 and the rubber is clearly different. Looks much more familiar to me than the older hard plastic grips.

    Way to go Nikon!

    I hope the grip rubber STAYS ON though. That’s one of the biggest issues right now, if you ask me…


    • WoutK89

      after 3 years of normal use, my D80 is losing the rubber too ๐Ÿ™

      • rhodium

        My D3s grip rubber is coming off after… 9 months.

        What the hell?

  • Derek

    I have the same F mount body cap in my D700 (from netherland)

  • Finnish real street prices of D3100 kits, pre-orders, delivery 2-4 weeks:

    567 euro, D3100
    660 euro, D3100 + AF-S DX 18-55mm II
    680 euro, D3100 + AF-S DX 18-55mm VR
    776 euro, D3100 + AF-S DX 18-105mm VR
    900 euro, D3100 + AF-S DX 18-55mm VR + 55-300 VR
    918 euro, D3100 + AF-S DX 18-55mm VR + 55-200 VR

  • Jose


    1 – I can understand your request to restrain comments like “Nikon s*cks”, because swearing in a serious web page should not be permitted.

    2 – However, I fail to understand what’s wrong with comments like “I’m switching to Canon”. Allegiance to a system or brand comes from convenience, value and an instinct of protection of a (in many cases) substantial investment. If a brand fails to maintain or improve convenience and value, that investment in compromised, and as investors (shareholders even if we don’t own shares) we are free to share our frustration and warn Nikon that if they will need to put more effort to keep us satisfied and away from switching thoughts. Nothing wrong with that. On the contrary, if Nikon reads this (and I’d suppose they do) they should be grateful for this undiluted dialogue with their users-investors (shareholders even if we don’t own shares).

    I would be different if we wrote “I’m f*ck*ng switching to Canon” for the reasons exposed in point 1.

    • ELK

      Quite agree with your point(s)!
      So I’m gonna switch to Canon if I found out that D3100 grip is made of plastic – not a pro grade rubber.
      Then I promise I’ll switch to Sony if 60D turns out to be made of plastic body.
      Then I’ll switch to Pentax if Sony discontinues full-frame.
      And then I’ll switch back to Nikon just because it’s a Nikon Rumors site and the swearing phrase “I’m switching to anything-else-but-Nikon” is banned!

    • ha

      if you make a reasonable argument you can say whatever you want. he’s only deleting comments from the canon trolls ๐Ÿ™‚

    • WoutK89

      Also its not about saying they switch, but if their comment has nothing else than “I’m switching to C*non” in it, what does it add to the discussion?

    • Zoetmb

      IMO, it’s not so much people stating, “I’m switching to Canon” that’s the problem. It’s stating, “I’m switching to ….” without giving legitimate reasons why that adds to the discussion in an informative way. It’s the difference between, “Nikon sucks, I’m switching to Canon” and “I think I’m switching to Canon because it doesn’t look like Nikon is ever going to come out with f4 versions of the big zooms at reasonable prices and I simply can’t afford to stay with Nikon, as much as I’d like to.”

      Or people who write with idiotic logic, like, “well the D3100 sucks….guess I’ll have to wait for the D800!” What?? You’re comparing a $700 body to a $2500 body?

      They just sound like moronic teens vomiting their own worthless exclamations and it’s a waste of space and time. It’s “you suck!” “No, you suck.” “No, dude, you suck.”

      If you don’t have anything to write that ADDS to the discussion, do us all a favor and don’t write anything. If you write just to see your name on the screen, it’s nothing more than mental masturbation.

  • thefunk

    I didn’t buy a D90 when I should have. I have been waiting. So bring it on !

    I am primarily interested in stills, but video would be fun. Can anyone shed any light on whether putting video functionality in actually reduces stills quality in any way ?

    I have heard of extra filters on sensors etc to make it possible.

  • thefunk

    Oh, and Nikon doesn’t ‘suck’. It is a very profitable optics company that positions it’s product range to maximize return across a vast market.

    • ELK

      Your remark raised a very philosophical concern, which is: “Can a highly profitable company, which positions itself as a brand which maximizes it’s returns by providing happy customers with high quality equipment, suck?” Only just for fun, maybe?

  • RenoRaines

    Nikon’s website describes the new 24-120mm f/4 as an “Upgraded standard zoom lens for FX-format D-SLRs . . . .” It seems that we DX shooters should be happy, too.
    We DX’ers now have available to us the recent 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 and the new 24-120mm. The crop factor gives us 15-180mm, which is virtually the same as that which is covered by the Big 3 FX f/2.8 lenses, the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm. DX’ers now have basically the same coverage as the Big 3 with two smaller and lighter lenses and at considerably less cost, although they are slightly slower, probably not quite as sharp, and presumably are of slightly less robust construction than the Big 3 lenses. For those of us who are not working pros and do not shoot a hundred images every day in all kinds of weather, it seems like an acceptable tradeoff.
    Am I missing something?

    • ha

      f/2.8 aperture is what you pay for really. for indoor shooting, there is nothin like a zoom lens that holds f/2.8 across the range. even that is sometines not enough and you have to fall back to f/1.x primes.

      if the above does not affect you, then you’re ok with the f/4 lens. personaly I find them too slow to be of any use.

    • Anonymous

      Agreed. Good enough for now and near future, but the upgrade path is with FX. As it doesn’t make sense to squeeze more resolution than an 18mp on DX, FX may accomodate up to 30+ mp in a couple of years with cleaner images and more dynamic range.

    • I may get one to complement the 12-24 f/4, a great lens as well. The 24-120 f/4 should be a stellar performer on APS-C.

  • VD
    • Denko

      Thanks. Apart from resolution my 10 year old camcorder has better colors (25 Mbit/s non compressed stream.) The color and rendition of the sky is just not good enough… 3ccd cameras is a must IMHO.

      Doing PP on one picture is simple… doing PP on 24fps 90 minute documentary is tedious and very time consuming.

      But then again this is way better than anything needed on youtube.

      • “my 10 year old camcorder has better colors”

        Really.. Still pictures too?

        • Denko

          Still pictures with my Camcorder? At 720×512 (my camcorders resolution) why bother? Colors are more inline with reality yes. camcorderinfo has some good color metrics graphs regarding the matter and you can see why 3ccd cameras are better and how much (closest is to think “foveon”.) In video I have noticed that SNR @ 24dB is more than enough (unless you pause the stream…) with still pictures its FAR from enough… and it is easier/less prone to errors to color correct than noise reduce in post production (ask anyone that has restored an old film.) And the sample D3100 video is horrid… just look at the sky and some of the artifacts, HD version… sure there wasn’t a professional colorist and neither should there be but for me that feature is just fluff. Again… for youtube it is more than enough.

          Just saying… but I am not an expert by any means just an amateur… ~25 hours of videographing since 1986. Sony exclusively… and yup I hate the “CCD sheen” on single CCD regular camcorders (this sheen can be seen on D70 pictures as well but it isn’t as obvious. Far more obvious on POS cameras though… Casio comes to mind.)

          • Denko

            Note that I am saying D70 and not D700… it seems to be that some are confusing the two… I guess some are confusing D300 with D3000 as well… in any event THE D700 (The FX camera one) is in a league of its own.

  • The invisible man
  • Back to top