PROOF THAT D3200 DOES NOT SUCK

Ofcourse, what we'd expect? to have distorted colours and be out of focus? It doesn't "suck" (*) to the same degree that D3100 or D5100 don't "suck", or even D40 doesnt "suck". Actually NO Nikon DSLR "suck" , i am particularly not aware of any that "suck" , why D3200 would be any different? ....

The way i see it, just me, subjectively, i only have to make a note on the 24mp being just a waste on this - good for what it is - camera. This sensor would be of so much greater use put in a D300s ("D400") or D7000 ("D7100"?) that i suppose are going to be launched after D5200.

Being a new D300 user i find so many features of the D300 absolutely great and necessary that a camera like D3200 although still having all the necessary basics there (its not by coincidence called "entry-level", its a tool for exact this purpose) when you do specific things in photography and you need complete control of your photography in order to achieve those specific things a D3200 class camera becomes quite restrictive .

For the general / vague / artistic photography and novices for who the "guide" mode will make any sense (thus slowing their learning development though) its great. And for that purpose even a 6mp sensor is great too. The sensor of D3200 is very good. I like it. Has similar high iso noise (perhaps even dynamic range) if not even tad better - performance than D300 while almost double the detail.

(*) "suck" put this way is a term providing zero information as to what is it that D3200 would supposedly suck thus open to infinite interpretations and meaningless time wasting unproductive arguments

--
www.flickr.com/nickdelhanidis/sets
monographix.deviantart.com/gallery