Nikon D3300 vs D3200: New Camera is Over-Priced, Over-Hyped Piece of Junk

Nikon just announced its latest dSLR: the entry-level D3300, which comes a replacement to the nearly 2-year old D3200. Unfortunately, the D3300 is merely a renamed D3200 reheated in the technologicalmicrowave and slapped with a higher price tag.

Check it out: D3300 vs D3200. As you can see, there are far more similarities than differences.

As for the differences, they're rather insignificant. First of all: the sensor. In theory, the lack of a low-pass filter should make the D3300 sharper right out of the box. However, by tweaking settings on the D3200, one can sharpen the images, too. Another consideration: the D3300/3200 are aimed at beginning dSLR users, who are likely not to split pixels (or even care) over which camera is fractionally sharper than the other. The same goes for the extra stop of ISO on the D3300. Bottom line: ISO 12,800 sucks on both cameras, which means that ISO 25,600 on the D3300 will suck even more.

As for other differences, they're few and far between, with the only practical one being the newer processor, which gives the D3300 1 extra frame per second. Does this matter? To most people, probably not, unless you're shooting fast action, wherein having that extra 1fps can (emphasis: can) make a difference. 30 vs. 60fps on video? It's highly doubtful that many people in the D3300's target audience would notice the difference.

Bottom line: when the D3300 hits stores next month, it will cost$650 when bundled with a redesigned (its smaller) 18-55 VR kit lens. In contrast, the D3200 can be had for about $525. So, is an extra 1fps worth $125? To me, absolutely not.

Humble Requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.