PROOF THAT D3200 DOES NOT SUCK

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
apaflo
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,854
Like?
Re: also
In reply to Mako2011, 4 months ago

Mako2011 wrote:

apaflo wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

apaflo wrote:


The D3200 lists at $700 while the D90 lists at $900, which is clearly signficant if price is a large factor. The D3200 has greater dynamic range and lower noise levels at higher ISO settings. It's ISO to Dynamic Range curve is very linear, while the D90 is not.

Basically for an image where the two cameras can be used in the same way, the D3200 will probably have a slight IQ advantage at low ISO values and that will increase as the ISO goes up and be very significant at ISO 6400 and above.

Otherwise the D90 has more features, will take shots the D3200 cannot take, and will be much more productive for photography it can do.

And the D90 will be a far worse choice for the photographer if he needs to print really big or meet certain client expectations. There are simply shots the D90 can't take and the D3200 can. The coin flips on two sides.

Each side of the coin "sucks" if you need something it does not provide.

Claiming to prove that ANY camera is without fault is an absurd notion.

Of course...also absurd to claim any current generation DSLR actually "sucks" in the broad sense of the word.

Which of course nobody has done.  All such claims have been only in a very specifc sense.

Look, you just cannot get around the fact that the D3200 is the bottom end of Nikon's currently being manufactured DSLR list.

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