Nikon D3200 Blurry. Not happy
Nikon D3200 Blurry. Not happy
Jun 7, 2012
I tried a D3200 and was very unhappy, all the pictures were blurry. Tried a second D3200 with same results.
My D300 & D40x were much sharper, I tried sever different lens, all with the ISO 100 or 200 (the lowest setting).
Any one else do side by side comparison, with same lenses.
Are you sure the AF is working ok on the D3200? (ie it's accurate not front/back focus etc)
I'd pop it into live view just to check
Nikon have had some AF issues of late across various bodies it's worth looking into it.
All of the images look soft. The D3200 images appear more soft mostly because they are magnified more at 100% view. The softness appears to be camera shake and not a focus miss though. At what shutter speeds were these images shot? Note that if you shot the D3000 at ISO 200 and the D3200 at ISO 100 (the base ISO for each) you used a shutter speed twice as long with the D3200 contributing to even more camera shake.
All images are 100% crop, no editing, these are the results of many tripod and hand held VR shots, both MF & AF, different lenses, not one image from d3200 was sharp. Both the D300 and D40x delivered consistently tack sharp, while I could not get one from both D3200 I tried.
We need the EXIF data from each shot to properly diagnose. How about posting the actual images without processing ( or cropping ) ?
You should not that when you start hitting these extreme resolutions ( and 24Mp is a heck of a lot ) you need exemplary technique and lenses used optimally to get pixel sharp resolution. Even from your screen shots it's obvious you're not doing that.
The 18-200 at 200mm isn't up to your expectations anyway - it's just not designed for such extreme resolutions ( even center frame ).
I'm not sure what the Sigma's performance is at 500mm, but I'd be very surprised if it's designed to cope with that level of resolution.
But sjgcit, if you buy a camera, isn't there an implied warranty that you should get sharp pictures, particularly with a lens from the same manufacturer? I mean, unless it's a Holga, it should be sharp in daylight, out of the box, just by definition as a Nikon?
I think he should go try the Nikon lens on a different 3200, and see what happens...
Image sharpness is a result of a combination of factors and the single most important of these is the technique applied when shooting. Regardless of what lens you put on any body that is true.
And lenses do not produce arbitrary levels of detail. You can't simply squeeze more pixels into the same area on the sensor and get more detail from the lens. So if you zoom in at 100% ( pixel peeping ) then it's incorrect to expect more detail. Some lenses may, in some parts of the frame and in ideal conditions, produce enough detail to allow you to do this, but it's easily lost by even slight errors in technique.
In any case, image quality has nothing to do with pixels. The quality of the image is the viewer's perception of the image as a whole.
IMO, there is a big distinction to draw between whether something is sharp (noun), and whether something has been sharpened (verb). In order for something to appear clear and well-defined pictorially, we need BOTH aspects to have been taken care of suitably.
Sharpness of an image is a quality to do with optical performance, number of pixels, focus and shake. We know that an image is unsharp when no matter what we do to it in our postprocessing, or in our camera settings, we cannot get the expected detail level to show.
Sharpening is an image processing activity - which we do with camera settings, or Raw conversion, and also any later enhancement in an image editor. We know that an image is unsharpened when we CAN improve its apparent definition by means of added sharpening.. which tells us, that the softness was not inherent - that latent detail IS "in there", we are just not presenting it properly.
Here I took the lower example in the OP's screenshot (from the 500mm lens) and extracted the right hand side. For fairer comparison - since more magnified images tend naturally to look softer - I reduced it to the same scale as the image on the left. Then I sharpened the extract on the right in Photoshop - using Smart sharpen (not especially carefully).
I think this demonstrates it to be at least as well focused and steady as the other one is. There is also slightly more real detail and better tonal subtlety - though perhaps the lens has nothing more to give. The exposure and the angle are slightly different but seeing these side-by-side the image on the left has an oversharpened look to me, with the lighter tones a little crude. The image on the right shows slightly lower overall contrast, but that is again a matter of processing or otherwise, of camera settings. I only applied sharpening here.
So perhaps you can either adjust your expectations about what you initially see (making due allowance for the fact that at 1:1 the greater megapixel image will always tend to look less clear) - and then process the image further - or else if it's a question of straight-out-of-camera JPG, perhaps you can have the camera apply more sharpening before you view the image.
However, sharpening can always be added but cannot be so easily taken away once committed into pixels. Going too far gets horrible fast. So erring on the side of less rather than more in-camera, is IMO prudent and this may be what you are seeing here... some cameras are set conservatively in the factory, in the expectation that the user is going to further postprocess the output or turn up the strength to his or her individual taste.
Just like the salt in a restaurant meal - it is better to have the kitchen put slightly less in than most people like, rather than slightly more; and then to supply some at the table for those who want to add it.
Did you get any resolution on it? Did you try another piece or different lens? I just went from a D5100 to D3200 for its wifi capabilities, lighter weight, 24MP resolution, newer technology, EXPEED3 etc. etc. I so wanted to like it and keep the camera. However I am facing the same issues you are.
Almost 75% pictures are blurry. While some are genuinely out of focus, others are clearly in focus but with camera shake. And these are pictures taken in bright sunlight at a kids soccer field at following settings:
A: f4 to f5.6
So all the recommendations for "sharpness" aside, the pictures were still blurry even at the high shutter speed.
My older D5100 took similar pictures at 1/500 with no shake as of date (of course focus in AF-C mode with kids was a hit-and-miss though), but the pictures in focus were SHARP.
Even the D3200 metering seems way off overexposed with the grass very brightly "glowing" (and almost always shaky) while the kids faces are not too sharp (it is correctly focused on their face) and very less contrast. The D5100 metering captured the grass and players accurately.
Wondering whether to go back and exchange for another piece (is this defective), or simply return it back and go for the D5100. They will probably allow one exchange so I don't want to get stuck with another D3200 if it turns out bad.
If this is still unresolved, suggest going to Aperture priority at a midpoint setting... like f/5.6 or f/8... and the auto-focus should work well enough, even at 500mm. Right?
Jonathon Donahue -- Olympus XZ-1 tips at http://jon404.com
"Sharp" is an adjective, by the way, not a noun. I bought a D3200 in August and I have not seen any issues with sharpness (a noun). I previously had a D40 and the images from the 3200 are superior in every way - detail, colour balance, and especially dynamic range. I use the 18-105 lens and the 55-200 VR. At first I couldn't understand why when zooming in at 100% the images didn't look as smooth. Then I realised that on the 3200, because there are 24 million pixels, you are zooming in 6 times as much, so you are looking at a section of the image which is 6 times smaller. I now compare images from the D40 at 100% and from the 3200 at about 40%. This then a truer comparison and the improvement is more obvious. I am very impressed by the video quality. At first I tried continuous focussing, but it kept hunting. I now set the shutter speed at 1/100th and in good light it gives a nice small aperture so that I get a good depth of field. If I want to have a close up with good bokeh I up the shutter speed to 1/400th and a small aperture. Even at this short shutter speed the vifeISPs very smooth. I set the ISO to a max of 400. This is a superb camera. I am now going to buy the Nikon ME-1 microphone.
It is an old thread, but it can be usefull for some one using a searching engine.
Additionally to eventual front/back focus, you would have expect more blurring when see an image at 100% in cameras with different pixel density. The D3200 has the doulble of pictures than the D300 at the same sensor size, so they have quite different pixel density.
The lens limitations will be more evident and perfectly detectable for lower end range - that is one reason most people that go to D800 try to use insanely great quality lenses! Add to that more reflaction and other optical artifacts and you have a big source for headache.
If all above is not sufficient, the camera handling is much more critical as you increase the pixel density (all other variables maintained same). It is easy to check even the slight instability can ruin an image at a higher density image sensor.
My suggestion is to check the camera for front/back focus, get the best lenses you can, to work on appropriate lens aperture and to invest in your technique.
There is no free lunch!
O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer
Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds. B. Franklin
i'm ritesh biswas
i'm facing some problem in my photography
i'm using now nikon d3200 with AF-S Nikkor 18-105mm , 3.5-5.6G ED Lens.
and my pictures are so blured..
i want to take sharp pictures.. but i don't know whats wrong thing going on in my photography
how to take i sharp pictures ..
this is my recent pictures ... pplease friends
tell me what is going wrong thing in my photography .. please help me ..
If you are enlarging views at 100% for comparison side-by-side the higher resolution camera will look less sharp. For a better comparison the higher resolution image should be downsized (preferred) or the lower resolution image should be upsized accordingly (less preferred). The better way to compare is as many reviewers now do: by printing equal sized enlargements of the identical subject at the same size from both cameras, with the same lens under controlled lighting conditions and matched settings, including sharpness, dynamic range, noise control, etc. Chances are your D3200 is fine, especially if you bought it new. Nikon's quality control should be assumed close enough for most eyes.
If you are enlarging views at 100% for comparison side-by-side the higher resolution camera will look less sharp. For a better comparison the higher resolution image should be downsized (preferred)
But if you have to downsize significantly or to the same resolution as the lower MP camera then there has been no real improvement in the higher MP camera, which wouldn't be surprising.
or the lower resolution image should be upsized accordingly (less preferred). The better way to compare is as many reviewers now do: by printing equal sized enlargements of the identical subject at the same size from both cameras, with the same lens under controlled lighting conditions and matched settings, including sharpness, dynamic range, noise control, etc. Chances are your D3200 is fine, especially if you bought it new. Nikon's quality control should be assumed close enough for most eyes.