Compact and economical it may be, but the word "entry-level" hints at it being basic, and I don't think you can say that, this camera brims with cutting edge features. It might be that the only thing that seriously separates it from its bigger brothers is that it "only" takes three pictures per second, so it's not the choice for sports or wildlife photographers. But otherwise it's hard to see what it can't do well. I've used the D40 a lot, and it's a very capable camera, and it's now, what, a whole three generations older than this I think.
I also think personally that the D3100 is the best looking of all the entry level cameras Nikon has had, from D70 through D40 and forwards.
4 comments:
I saw one of these earlier today, and tapping against the lense body sounds like tapping against a Tupperware container. Plastic.
My Nikkor 105mm 2.5 is still working fine, although I bought it back in the early 80's. It's made of stainless and brass.
Doesn't really matter much anyway, people have very little sense of design or composition anyway. So having the latest camera is like re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
I wish they'd use a simpler numbering scheme, with higher numbers for more expensive -- and therefore cooler -- cameras, and lower numbers for the cheap cameras.
How can I impress my friends with my purchasing power when Nikon has this numeric soup?
I mean, if I had any friends.
Michael: you could always try to impress people by discussing at length, non-stop, ad-infinitum, and ad-nauseum about your Apple iPod, Pad, stand, toilet paper holder, or something else not in your expertise range.
Tell people you painted one of the walls in the LHC, and somebody will be impressed.
Pick a subject you know nothing about and talk it to death. You'll get away with it easily.
Danish melon head here does it every day.
Did I say Nikon? I mean Ollumpus, of course.
Post a Comment