Is it normal for the LCD screen of D3100 to sometimes show moving horizontal lines?

Question

Yesterday I noticed horizontal upwards moving lines on the LCD screen on the D3100 when I was using live view.

It doesn't happen always, is this normal?

Asked by Anisha Kaul

Answer

It's completely normal under artificial lighting, when frame rate of your camera matches closely flickering rate of the light source (usually determined by frequency of electrical network). If the electricity frequency is n times higher, there will be n lines on screen.

When the frequency matches exactly, dark/bright phases of light flickering will always fall during time when camera reads the same row of pixels and those rows will seem darker/brighter. Now, if the frequency match is not close, but only approximate, a cycle may fall on a neighbor row compared to the preceding cycle those darker/brighter lines will appear to be moving. This is not a camera defect, just a result of two engineering solutions (in light source and video capture) using frequencies invisible to human eye becoming visible when used together.

Answered by Imre

Check more discussion of this question.

When should I turn on the rangefinder of the D3100?

Question

There is a "set rangefinder on" kind of option in D3100.

Are there any special cases when I "should" set the rangefinder on?

Asked by Anisha Kaul

Answer

I don't have a D3100, but everything I can find says that the electronic rangefinder is a manual focus aid. When the camera is in manual focus mode and you turn on the rangefinder, the exposure meter will indicate which way to turn the lens to focus. So you could turn it on when you want some help focusing manually.

Answered by Ward

Check more discussion of this question.

Why is the sensor size small in D3100 as compared to D3000?

Question

I thought D3100 must be more advanced than D3000 (because of the numbers, and the price).

D3000's sensor size is: 23.6mm x 15.8mm and D3100's sensor size is: 23.1mm x 15.4mm

Well, D3100 has an extra feature of live view, fine, but can there be any special reason that they decided to reduce the sensor size in a more advanced camera?

Is there anything in D3100 which "makes up" for the reduced sensor size or am I simply missing some point?

Asked by Anisha Kaul

Answer

Just to put this into perspective, this is a 4.8% difference in sensor area. Or, linearly, it's 2.3% difference in crop factor.

This is not very much, and generally other measurement tolerances will be less precise. For example, if you measure the actual focal length of, say, a bunch of different models of 50mm lenses, they probably have a greater variation in field of view.

In general, newer sensor technology moves forward, and in this case there's no exception: the D3100's sensor is significantly better, particularly for controlling noise at high ISOs. From dpreview:

The D3100 offers little to complain about in terms of image quality, and its new 14Mp sensor delivers very good results. High ISO performance is substantially improved over the D3000 [...].

Basically, the small difference in sensor size is insignificant compared to the improvements in terms of image quality, and the small difference in framing is likewise a non-issue.

Answered by mattdm

Check more discussion of this question.

Nikkor f/1.8G 35mm or 50mm?

Question

I'm new to photography. I got Nikon D3100 with 18-55 KIT.

I was looking to buy 1.8f prime lens.

I found two options.

AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G and AF-S DX NIKKOR 55mm f/1.8G

Which one you guys prefer ?

Asked by ChamingaD

Answer

The question here doesn't — or shouldn't — come down to what we prefer, but rather what you want to use it for. These lenses (because of their different focal length) have a significantly different angle of view, which means that they serve different purposes. Eventually, you may find that you want both.

On your APS-C Nikon, the 50mm lens acts as a short portrait lens. It's kind of awkward for most anything else, but is just about perfect for taking head-and-shoulders portraits. I say awkward because it's not enough "reach" to pick out details like a longer telephoto lens, but is narrow enough that it's difficult to frame indoor scenes. That doesn't mean you can't use it more generally, of course.

The wider 35mm acts as a normal lens — it gives a comfortable and versatile field of view that doesn't feel either wide-angle or telephoto. For that reason, if you're just going to pick one of the two, this is probably going to be your best bet. But it depends on what you're looking for — a portrait lens may be just what you need.

Answered by mattdm

Check more discussion of this question.

Is my Nikon D3100 a better camera than my friend's D300?

Question

Within the Nikon D range of cameras, which would you say is a better camera? The Nikon D300 or the Nikon D3100?

I am new to photography, and have the D3100 and a friend of mine has the D300 and she's big into photography. I don't know which is a better camera, mine or hers.

Answer

They're different generations and different 'levels'. Your friend's is a pro level and the D3100 is an entry level. Your's may carry a slight edge in resolution and high ISO, but in every other way thats important, the D300 is almost certainly better.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why am I getting a slow shutter speed with Child mode on Nikon D3100

Question

I am just starting out with my Nikon D3100 and taking pictures of my kids who never seem to sit still. I thought that Child mode would be the most appropriate mode to do this with but I seem to be getting slower shutter speeds than I would have expected and consequently the pictures come out blurry when inside with available light. The settings I have are:

• Child Mode
• Flash disabled - because I only have the built in flash and it seems to really blow out the kids faces when it's on.
• Aperture automatically set to largest value (in this case, f2.8)
• ISO automatically set to 400.
• Shutter speed automatically set to 1/20.

My thought was in Child mode I would have expected there to be a lower bound on shutter speed, say 1/50 or so, and let the camera bump up the auto ISO to 1600. Then, if the camera hit the ISO limit, it could start backing down the shutter speed to get the correct exposure, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening to me.

Answer

The manual describes child mode like this:

Use for snapshots of children. Clothing and background details are vividly rendered, while skin tones remain soft and natural.

So, while it probably affects the exposure program as well, from Nikon's own words the main concern seems to be with color rendering. Whatever effect this might have have on the automatically-selected shutter and aperture speed is "inside the black box". This is one reason I'm not fond of scene modes for learning. They're for people who want to avoid thinking about photography and just take some pictures. This doesn't really help ease you in to advanced knowledge in any way — it just gets annoying.

Since you're clearly thinking about how you want the shutter speed to be, I think it's time to abandon "child mode".

Check more discussion of this question.

When buying entry level cameras, are lenses really more important than the body?

Question

Original Question: Is there a D5100 alternative

I was considering my first DSLR Nikon D3000, then saw D3100 and was fixed on it, then saw D5100 and I though yes,this is the one to go for. While browsing here, I came across comments that "Lenses are your first thing and then body", "Spend money on lenses and spend less on body". While I am new (and could be wrong), I don't quite agree with it. I compared images of D3100 Vs D5100, the picture quality is way better (and I believe with same lenses). I do like D3100 for it is lighter (highly desirable), cheaper and a full DSLR, but I am really impressed with D5100, its flip screen, image quality (80) vs (65).

D5100 is perhaps a little bit heavy for me, and does not feel that great in hands. I like the feel of Canon T3i better (a lot better) but then, I do believe D5100 has a far superior image quality (in my view). HDR is a plus for me as well. My question is, should I consider D3100, or a Canon? My price range is below $1000 but can go up if justified.

I like to photograph plants, sceneries in spring, myself, mountains, hiking, take shots of ppl and perhaps historic places and thunderstorms. Please suggest. I am already getting a good deal on Nikon5100. Is there anything I am missing. It is a first time big investment for me on camera.

Answer

Cameras matter too, and at the bottom end there's a considerable difference between models. That advice largely starts to apply for film or more for cameras above the 1k mark, where the basic features are all included and you're differing on the quality of included systems - not simply if they're present. That said - the kit lens included with most of these cameras is not very good and you should consider getting something better as a top priority. The aperture doesn't go wide enough to give you sufficient creative control over depth of field. Consider picking up a cheap 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 and you'll learn more and get better results.

In regards to the specific camera question, if you can stretch a little above the 1000 dollar mark - go for the D7000. Its in a class clearly above the others. 100% viewfinder, in body motor, high IQ, weatherproofing, dual controls - its a much better camera.

If thats not an option, there are certainly features on the D5100 that are attractive vs the D3100 - which you've already listed and are generally correct. But I think you're overstating the difference in IQ in normal situations - the D3100 is certainly no slouch. The D5100 reportedly feels a bit clumsy from a user experience perspective. Notably, it lacks the drive mode switch of the D3100. The easier your camera is to use to you, the more you'll like it than just higher IQ.

I can't tell you which features you'd use more, but I certainly wouldn't base my sole decision on the IQ between the D5100 and D3100 (even though the D5100 is better). If its between the D5100 and the kit lens or the D3100 and a better lens - I'd get the D3100 and a better lens. If you've got the cash, spring for the D7000 and pick up a 50mm or 35mm f/1.8.

Check out this also:

What should I look for when shopping for my first DSLR?

Are there disadvantages to a prosumer camera for a beginner, aside from cost?

---

Canon, Pentax, and Sony are all viable options too - What are considerations when choosing a DSLR brand? In your price range, they've all got advantages and disadvantages and there's no clear winner - pick one you like and consider the advice in that question.

Check more discussion of this question.

Nikon D3100 vs D300?

Question

Within the Nikon D range of cameras, which would you say is a better camera? The Nikon D300 or the Nikon D3100?

I am new to photography, and have the D3100 and a friend of mine has the D300 and she's big into photography. I don't know which is a better camera, mine or her's.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Answer

They're different generations and different 'levels'. Your friend's is a pro level and the D3100 is an entry level. Your's may carry a slight edge in resolution and high ISO, but in every other way thats important, the D300 is almost certainly better.

Check more discussion of this question.