• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The D3200 is here

R

radhak

Senior member
I don't know where Nikon is going with this - 24 mp on a start-up camera ?!? They must have some tie-up with hard-disk manufacturers, because with this, a lot of new HDDs will be needed to store all those pictures from little Suki's ballet show.

But really, impressive upgrades -

Nikon D3200: A first look
the D3200 has a 24-megapixel APS-C sensor, 4fps continuous shooting, Wi-Fi support, and expanded video functionality. The new sensor is a big deal — it makes the D3200 Nikon's highest-resolution DSLR after the 36-megapixel D800, but still improves on the D3100 with a native ISO range of up to 6400. Despite the increase in file size, Nikon has also managed to up the shooting speed, with the D3200 able to capture up to 4 continuous frames a second. All these photos will look sharper on the back of your camera as well as your computer thanks to the 921k-dot screen.

and

Nikon is treading new ground with the WU-1a Wireless Mobile Adapter(sold separately). This dongle will connect the D3200 to smartphones and allow for ad hoc file transfer without a Wi-Fi connection, and you can also use your phone's display as a viewfinder and shutter trigger.​
 
That's the same sensor that the Sony A65 has I think. Yes, lenses can resolve that much and it is a worthwhile resolution. If I didn't want an EVF and in-camera stabilization I'd wish I waited for the Nikon instead of getting an A35
 
They definitely upped the bar for entry level. Those specs blow my T3 out of the water. Looks like it will be $200 more though.
 
Not too excited by the pixel count, but some of the newer features sound promising.

I'm more excited about the new Nikon 28mm f/1.8G AF-S for only $700.

Would make a great combo though, D3200 + 28 1.8G.
 
CuriousMike said:
Why is the 28 f1/8 more exciting than the 35 f/1.8 for $199?
Click to expand...
That's a good question - I am very interesting in comparing that new lens against my 35mm 1.8 that I absolutely love. How much better can a prime lens become for a 350% increase?
 
Yeah, I don't see any benefit at all to the 28mm vs. the 35mm -- on a crop body. The 28mm is meant for full-frame. The press release is describing it as a "wide angle" which obviously only applies on a full-frame body.

If I had a Nikon crop body, the 35mm would be one of the first lenses I bought, and it's silly that Canon hasn't released anything equivalent.
 
slashbinslashbash said:
Yeah, I don't see any benefit at all to the 28mm vs. the 35mm -- on a crop body. The 28mm is meant for full-frame. The press release is describing it as a "wide angle" which obviously only applies on a full-frame body.

If I had a Nikon crop body, the 35mm would be one of the first lenses I bought, and it's silly that Canon hasn't released anything equivalent.
Click to expand...

I'll probably bite on the 28mm 1.8 sometime down the line. I have the DX35 and FX50. Rather have the full frame 28 on my DX.
 
I used to be a big fan of my Sigma 20mm f/1.8... until I got my 17-35 f/2.8...

but regardless, for a fast-wide lens, that works on FF sensors, that's a good one. It may not be *quite* as sharp as the 28mm, but I've heard it's better than Nikons old 20mm f/2, which is saying something. Seems adequate to me on my D700.
 
I would imagine a very low percentage of the people who purchase the 3200 would even know what to do with 24mp other than making ape noises like Tim Allen.
 
tenthumbs said:
I would imagine a very low percentage of the people who purchase the 3200 would even know what to do with 24mp other than making ape noises like Tim Allen.
Click to expand...

Unless you are doing serious cropping, or printing large media, I doubt MOST people new or seasoned that would need 24mp. There are still quite a few professionals rolling along with 16mp and less.
 
swanysto said:
Unless you are doing serious cropping, or printing large media, I doubt MOST people new or seasoned that would need 24mp. There are still quite a few professionals rolling along with 16mp and less.
Click to expand...

The D3200 is aimed at people who don't know anything other than higher MP is better. Those who know better usually won't be in the market for the D3200 or equivalent product in the lineup.
 
Syborg1211 said:
The D3200 is aimed at people who don't know anything other than higher MP is better. Those who know better usually won't be in the market for the D3200 or equivalent product in the lineup.
Click to expand...
^This.

The first thing many in my circle - with no clue about photography - want to know about any camera is, 'how many mega-pixels is it?' I remember when I used to have a D40, they'd be mighty disappointed with the '6MP' answer - as if I'd led them on with the sight of a DSLR, only to be shown up as a fraud. That it still takes fantastic pictures, much better than any p&s can even with much higher MP's, is beyond their understanding.
 
24mp is only equivalent to 6 million full RGB pixels. It's not that much data.

Collecting more information is better than collecting less information. Or do you always shoot in JPEG instead of RAW because it's good enough? I mean who needs that extra data in the RAW file??
 
If you can give me a clean 24MP photo... equivalent to a 12/16MP photo at same settings... give me the MP.

I recognize extra MP's on P&S's usually mean squat, but on the 3200 those extra pixels could be useful ( as mentioned, for cropping )
 
We should wait and see how the sensor actually works out. Nikon had a lot of success with the new sensor in D5100/D7000 combined with their image processors. The sensor in the D3200 is physically smaller than the D5100, so i would expect that sort of pixel density would lead to reduced low light performance, but perhaps the new image processor can compensate.
 
slashbinslashbash said:
24mp is insane. I wonder if any of the lenses commonly available can actually resolve that much.
Click to expand...

Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses? by Rubén Osuna and Efraín García

According the the link above, some highly corrected lenses can resolves 24mp at f/5 or larger (resolve power quickly diminished when you stop down to f/8 or smaller, maximum resolve power for red light wave length for APS-C format is 4mp at f/11), however you will lose sharpness, increase flares, and poor colour range when aperture are wide open.

Hence most consumer lenses best sharpness aperture is f/8, indicates that the maximum resolved power for APS-C format is 8mp for red wave length, 13mp for yellow green wave length, and 25mp for blue light wave length.
 
Last edited:
iGas said:
Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses? by Rubén Osuna and Efraín García

According the the link above, some highly corrected lenses can resolves 24mp at f/5 or larger (resolve power quickly diminished when you stop down to f/8 or smaller, maximum resolve power for red light wave length for APS-C format is 4mp at f/11), however you will lose sharpness, increase flares, and poor colour range when aperture are wide open.

Hence most consumer lenses best sharpness aperture is f/8, indicates that the maximum resolved power for APS-C format is 8mp for red wave length, 13mp for yellow green wave length, and 25mp for blue light wave length.
Click to expand...

Are those numbers from a Bayer grid?

At 24mp you only have 6mp red, 6mp blue, 12mp green
 
Throckmorton said:
Are those numbers from a Bayer grid?

At 24mp you only have 6mp red, 6mp blue, 12mp green
Click to expand...

Even if that article is right, common sense dictates that it must be for a Bayer pattern. We can see some resolution gains going to 24MP APS-C cameras (like the Sonys), when coupled with the sharpest lenses. Lesser lenses won't benefit as much if at all, of course.
 
slashbinslashbash said:
Good question about the Bayer grid, and I'm not sure how it alters the numbers, but it's worth noting that the article uses a theoretical, optically perfect lens to derive its numbers.
Click to expand...

Use your common sense. Bayer arrays are OBVIOUSLY not limited under 24MP as Sony's 24MP APS-C cameras have proven.

Further, Fujifilm has proven that you don't need to go Bayer, though the ratio may be the same (PRO1).

Sigma even more so with the Foveon sensor style.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top