The second round of Nikon's three fall announcements produced the expected D3100 (US$699), 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR DX lens, 24-120mm f/4 VR FX lens, 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 VR FX lens, and 85mm f/1.4 lens. All the lenses are G and AF-S, with the 24-120mm and 85mm also having Nano coating. I've updated my Nikon lens database with the details on the new lenses, and I'll have a bit more to say about them at the end of this article.
The camera Nikon announced, the D3100 follow-up to the D3000, is sure to raise a few eyebrows. At 14mp and DX, the D3100 now (temporarily) takes the top of the line in terms of pixel density for Nikon bodies. Put another way, for a short time the D3100 will have the most pixels of any Nikon DX DSLR.
The D3100 is a direct replacement for the D3000, though I understand that D3000's will remain in the line up as the entry body until they sell out. In most respects, the D3100 is simply a continuation of the D40x, D60, D3000 lineage. No screw drive for older AF lenses, a small, light body with a clear subset of Nikon DSLR features, and so on. The 3" display of the D3000 remains, as does the CAM1000 AF module (11 points).
What's new really centers around the sensor. The 14mp CMOS sensor is "Nikon designed," though no details about what that really means have been given. The D3100 gains Live View and video capabilities with the new sensor, and the autofocus system has been updated to provide continuous focus for Live View and video. The video capabilities of the D3100 also temporarily top those of other Nikon DSLRs. We now have 1080P/24 and 720P/24/25/30, in H.264 compressions, with a 16-bit mono 24Khz audio file, all saved in a .MOV file container. It's sort of a weird "we'll do it our way" conglomeration of choices, but usable. One real issue is that 1080P/24 isn't really "broadcast quality" here in the US, so the highest resolution provided is most likely going to be used for Web distribution only (720P/30 would be fine for some broadcast purposes).
The menu system I disliked so much in the D3000 has been updated some, though until I have a chance to use it in the field, I'm not sure how much improvement it'll be. On paper, it looks better and more usable, but I thought that of the D3000 until I started using it. The confusing "GUIDE" mode is back, so it'll take some delving into it to figure out if Nikon discovered all their mistakes and odd wordings. At first glance, the GUIDE system has been improved, though.
Overall, the D3100 seems like what the D3000 should have been. Yes, this camera should have surfaced a year ago, with exactly the same specs (and there's really no reason why it couldn't have). How well the camera will sell is going to be mostly down to image quality and autofocus performance, I think. Based upon what I've seen from other cameras using similar sensors, I'm expecting far better image quality than the D3000 produced. I won't be able to guess about the video because we're entering new territory here with Nikon's first true video codec. Video can be quite variable in quality, mostly dependent upon how much bandwidth you provide and preserve in the codec.
The body does get a few much-needed extras: GP1 GPS support, wired remote support (but wireless remote support is removed), and HDMI output. Automatic chromatic aberration correction was also added.
As for the lenses, the only surprise here is the 55-300mm DX. There was a fairly large leap from the 55-200mm to the 70-300mm, so the lens definitely fills a slight gap in the lineup.
Well, okay, I lied. The other surprise was that the 85mm didn't have VR. I really don't get Nikon's decision making on lenses lately. The 16-35mm gets VR, the 85mm doesn't. The quickly retired 28-200mm regenerates a 28-300mm while the 80-400mm remains a sore weak point in the "consumer" FX lineup.
To put it bluntly, the new 85mm f/1.4 has its work cut out for it, because optically there wasn't a lot wrong with the old one. I doubt anyone is going to upgrade just for AF-S or Nano coating (after getting a few emails on this, it appears I might be wrong; some say they need faster AF than the old lens provides; my own take is that the old lens focuses just fine). This feels worse than the 50mm f/1.4 update on the face of it: a lens redesign that doesn't need it.
Meanwhile, the 24-120mm and 28-300mm are lenses that will appeal to consumers and prosumers with FX bodies. That would be the D700 user base. The old 24-120mm showed its weaknesses on the D700, so a new optical design is good, and the constant f/4 aperture gives us all an extra stop at the long end. Nice. The 28-300mm seems to be trying to resurrect the 18-200mm DX experience for FX users. Let me remind everyone what that experience was: we were all at first impressed with the fact that the elephant could tap dance, but after attended a lot of performances, we decided that the elephant wasn't that great at dancing. As I wrote some time ago, the 18-55mm and 55-200mm DX combo could equal or outperform the 18-200mm DX in all respects but one: avoidance of lens changing.
I suspect we're going to find the same thing happens with the 28-300mm. Initially, there will be those that laud it because it "does everything," but they'll eventually get around to comparing pixels and find that the 24-120mm and 70-300mm combo do a better dance. And actually "go to 300mm." ;~)
That said, Nikon will sell a lot of 28-300mm lenses to the masses and we'll see them hanging off D700's at vacation spots for years to come.