Has Nikon Boxed Itself in with the D3200?

Started Apr 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
Contributing MemberPosts: 742
megapixels - it's the other way round here!
In reply to SantaFeBill, Apr 24, 2012

SantaFeBill wrote:

It seems to me that Nikon may have dug a bit of a hole for itself with the D3200.

1. Where does it go with the D400? If it has the same MP count as the D3200, how will they justify charging a MSRP of US$1700-$1900 for a camera that has the same spec as a camera that has a price of US$699 with lens ? OTOH, how much higher can they go in the MP count on a DX sensor and still maintain any kind of decent higher ISO quality? And wouldn't a 36MP D400 cut into D800 sales?

You seem to have a false assumption that 24 MP on D3200 is an advantage whereas it is actually a shortcoming :). For example, D300 has 12 MP and all those 12 MP matter and provide good image detail. Same for D4's 18 MP, same for D800's 36 MP. D3200 gives us 24 MP and almost half of them are nothing but junk wasting your megabytes. You get lots of pixels but their value is very small.

-- hide signature --


Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow